[Ws2-jurisdiction] Farzaneh's Question

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Greg,

When you said you consulted with the Co-Chairs I assume you are referring
to the jurisdiction Co-Chairs.

>From the response the Co-Chairs provided, the summary is that all the
responses submitted will be logged, presented the sub-group with an attempt
to address them but any participant could raise a point about it being out
of scope of the sub-group. It will then be for the sub-group to validate
that view or not.

Please clarify if that summary isn't accurate.

Regards
PS: For some reason staff is not able to reach me on dialout. However I do
hope this point can be noted at the call.
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 20 Jan 2017 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/f4297f17/attachment.html>