[Ws2-jurisdiction] Farzaneh's Question

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Greg,

Kindly find inline:
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos


On 20 Jan 2017 22:42, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

Seun,

I was referring to the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs.  The Subgroups do not
have Chairs or Co-Chairs; they have Rapporteurs or Co-Rapporteurs.


Thanks for clarifying that it is from the CCWG Co-Chairs (at times we use
the words loosely so I wanted to make sure).


The response I circulated was coordinated with and reviewed by the
Co-Chairs: Mathieu, Thomas and Leon.  That is the consultation I was
referring to.


Noted


What "response the Co-Chairs provided" are you referring to?  That does not
sound familiar to me.  I've checked the transcripts of both the Plenary and
the Jurisdiction subgroup, and reviewed my emails, and I don't see anything
like this.  But perhaps I'm missing something.


It's the response you just shared in this thread I was referring to and I
was trying to interpret it to be sure I understood it correctly.

Regards


Thank you.

Greg

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20170120/91dd6b82/attachment-0001.html>