[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
Rubens Kuhl
rubensk at nic.br
Sun Feb 28 20:42:30 UTC 2016
RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.
Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997
5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)
6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For
example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
on implementors where the method is not required for
interoperability.
> On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
> "'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
> imply mandatoriness."
>
> Agreed.
>
> In four decades of U.S. legislative experience I have always seen "shall" used to denote a mandatory outcome. "May", on the other hand, allows for discretionary judgment -- and is usually accompanied by a listing of considerations that should be considered in exercising that discretion. I would note further that the current language we are seeking to have clarified neither provides any such list of considerations, nor does it designate who the decisional entity would be.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>
> I don't agree with your example. however valid the rest of your comment.
>
> Traditionally, the auxilary "shall" is used for the future tense with
> the first-person pronouns I and We. "Will" is used with the
> first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) to express determination not merely futurity.
>
> The opposite is true for second- and third-person pronouns: with these "will" is used in the future tense, and "shall" is used only when we wish to express determination or to emphasize certainty.
>
> So both of your examples are right, not just one; and they bear subtly different meanings . . . .
>
>
> "If you come late I WILL NOT wait for you"
>
> means :-
>
> "I have no desire to wait for you if you are late. I am determined in
> that view" (the conclusion that "you should not expect to see me there"
> is merely implicit)
>
>
> However . . .
>
> "If you come late I SHALL NOT wait for you" means literally and
> EXPLICITLY simply that :-
>
> "Do not expect to see me there if you arrive late".
>
> This form says nothing about my feelings or desires explicitly (though
> you might imply this, it is not certain at all; and my reasons for not
> being there if your are late may be external unrelated to my desires,
> wishes or intentions.).
>
> 'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
> imply mandatoriness.
>
>
> Nigel
>
> (PS: WILL NOT and SHALL NOT may be replaced with WON'T and SHAN'T)
>
>
>
>
>> Example
>>
>> If you come late I *will*not wait for you
>>
>> It is never said
>>
>> If you come late I *shal*l not wait for you
>>
>> This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/3d3ff2cb/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list