[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 20:52:42 UTC 2016


Dear Colleagues
The only consistent struture is
If .....

2016-02-28 21:42 GMT+01:00 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>:

> RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:
> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160228/5b281d5d/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list