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. 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. 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. Thank you. Greg On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@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@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@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@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