With respect to the other views stated, my personal take on this issue was not fully stated on the call and now after further thought perhaps differs bit from Thiago’s and Kavouss’s and so I mention it here. In the questionnaire we are engaged in a fact-based exercise but in leading the discussion the leader will probably need to make some judgments in an effort to get the discussion among team members going. We in this team are in a different role than the responders – we are reviewing their submissions and there will be back-and-forth among ourselves on some of the replies. The questionnaire had a limited, fairly-generous response time and that is now closed. I do not think we should invite respondents to come on call to re-state or amend their replies if that is the request. If we as a group think it necessary (and on further reflection I am not convinced), we might consider mentioning to respondents that their reply has been commented upon (surely they expected that) and point them to that e-mail and/or adobe transcript. If they feel the review seriously misstated their position maybe we should allow them a few minutes to state in what respect – on call and not by email to our list. It would be a limited slot of time only to state a correction but not to reopen original statement and not to engender a debate with the responder. In my opinion, we need to protect our time and schedule, especially in light of the timeline discussions on the plenary call yesterday. I strongly urge that if we decide to allow for corrections to our reviews (keeping in mind that we should each read the replies ourselves), we only do so in a very limited manner. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Arasteh Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 1:15 PM To: Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br> Cc: Divisão da Sociedade da Informação - Itamaraty <di@itamaraty.gov.br>; ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Questionnaire analysis Dear All I fully agree with the two points raised by Thiago,in particular, devoting more time to analysis done by Christopher on responses given by net coalition while inviting them to attend the call if they so decide Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 25 May 2017, at 18:21, Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira <thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br<mailto:thiago.jardim@itamaraty.gov.br>> wrote: Dear all, As I understand it, there were no objections in our last call to offering respondents an opportunity to respond to questionnaire/comments' analysis. Can I ask you how we are going to proceed on this? There have already been two calls in which comments were examined and perhaps we should start calling on their authors to participate in our next calls, should they wish. On a related point, our last call lingered on for perhaps too long in a discussion about the subgroup's mandate (mea culpa), and when the time came for an analysis of Just Net Coalition's questionnaire, not only we were left with little time for a more in-depth debate in response to the analysis provided by CW, but also the group was not actually provided with much of the substance of Just Net Coalition's questionnaire. Greg himself noticed that. So what I suggest is for us to come back to that questionnaire as we give Just Net Coalition, and I'm hoping they will accept it, the opportunity to comment on it. Best, Thiago Jardim Thiago Braz Jardim Oliveira Divisão da Sociedade da Informação Ministério das Relações Exteriores +55 61 2030 6389 _______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction