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