[Ws2-jurisdiction] Farzaneh's Question

[Arasteh]

Greg

1. You sent a quotation letter from Churchill advising brevity   But you wrote a long passage??!??!!!'n
2. I disagree with your interpretation excluding and comments which could relate to substance of question but not directly yo the letter of question.
You thus jumped into unilateral statement.
What are you doing
Neither you nor the vo-chair are judge
Regards
Kavouss




Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Jan 2017, at 19:50, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I've consulted with the Co-Chairs and here are our thoughts in response to Farzaneh's question.  
> 
> Farzaneh has asked what we will do if we receive responses about ICANN jurisdiction that do not directly relate to the questions but state problems that ICANN jurisdiction raises.  Of course, this question is hard to answer in the abstract, without seeing actual responses.
> 
> Postel's Law says "Be liberal in what you accept."  In this case, that means we should not have a rigid "purity test" for submissions.  If a sincere attempt to answer the questions strays beyond a direct response (e.g., suggesting a variation on the actual experience recounted), we shouldn't automatically ignore it.
> 
> However, Postel's Law also says one should be "conservative in what you send." So, those sending submissions should be responding directly to the questions.  We should encourage responsive submissions and discourage non-responsive submissions. The goal of the survey is to receive responses to the questionnaire.  If this becomes an open mailbox, that runs counter to our goal, and cancels out all of the work done to decide the parameters of the questionnaire.  The subgroup had good reason to ask the questions it did rather than more open-ended or speculative questions.   
> 
> A submission that does not even attempt to respond to the questions is a more difficult case than one that merely goes outside the lines.  In a sense, it is an abuse of the process.  However, if the response is one that is relevant to our work and is within the mandate of the group, we should probably consider it, to the extent it is within our mandate. (That might change if we receive a number of "non-responsive" submissions, and it appears that respondents are "gaming the system.") In any event, such a response could be put forth by a member of the subgroup during our discussions, assuming it's relevant to work being done at the time.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Greg 
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to acknowledge receipt of the emails about Farzaneh's question:
>> 
>> "Farzaneh Badii: (07:28) If you get a response about ICANN jurisdiction that does not directly relate to the questions but it is a problem that ICANN jurisdiction raises, is the group going to discard it?or are we gonna discuss it within the mandate of the group…"
>> 
>> It is certainly a question that deserves a response; indeed, it deserves a well-considered response.  It is also a question that raises several other questions, which also deserve responses.
>> 
>> The Co-Chairs have also noted the question, and I expect that a coordinated response will be more useful to the group.  We will get back to the group as soon as possible, though it may not be possible to do so in time for today's CCWG-Plenary call.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All, As you recall, I did ask Greg to provide a formal reply to Farzaneh Question which deserved to be replied.
>>> I hope Grec , in his presentation would refer to the matter an reply, if his response would not be convincing  I will raise  the matter and request the CO-CHAIRS to formally respond in a satisfactory manner. 
>>> Regards
>>> Kavouss
>>> 
>>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170120/f637dab6/attachment.html>