[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

[Greg Aaron]

Thanks to the drafting team.  My comments are as follows.

First paragraph: the addition of "(domain name)" does not help, and makes the sentence more confusing.

First paragraph: as per the meeting notes, "ever-evolving global Internet" is probably not necessary. (And divining the future is difficult.)

Top of second paragraph: Add the words "a variety of other stakeholders'" so as to read: "Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, and a variety of  other stakeholders all have a vested interest in an RDS system..."  The current list in the draft is not comprehensive, and other stakeholders have been identified by our WG, the EWG, etc.  We cannot imply that the current list is authoritative or complete.

Second paragraph: "performant" is not a defined word in the English language; it's more software developer slang.  In a document like this, I suggest we use  words that are well-defined and our global audience can rely upon.  I think we are trying to say: "performs well".

Third paragraph: rather than "constituency" I think we mean and should use "set of stakeholders."  "Stakeholders" ties back to the text above.  And at ICANN, "constituency" has a specific meaning and we want to avoid confusion with that.

Third paragraph: Regarding this section: "This understanding will enable the Working Group to ensure the policies which enable an effective RDS also define a secure and safe environment for commerce and communication."  This formulation seems overly broad.  While security, abuse, and privacy are considerations, a "safe environment for commerce and communication" on the Internet is much broader than those, and involves far more than registration data.
So, what are drafters aiming at here, and can a reasonable scope and intent be expressed?  I wonder if that sentence is needed at all.

Third paragraph: "within the RDS".  Do you mean "that uses the RDS"?  "Within the RDS" implies being embedded somehow.  As always, use of the term "system" can be confusing if not defined on context, since sometimes in this WG "system" refers to a technical system (like an ARDS) and sometimes "system" refers to the wider ecosystem of interlocking policies and technical implementations.

With best wishes,
--Greg




From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:35 AM
To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

Dear all,

Attached please find a redlined version of the problem statement produced by the drafting team for WG review. This redline includes edits discussed during today's WG call.

Action item: WG to review redline version of the problem statement and share any further comments/edits with the mailing list ahead of next week's meeting.

Thank you to the drafting team for their work, and to all WG members for reviewing the attached redline with the goal of finalizing this statement on the next WG call.

Best,
Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160817/b45a8eff/attachment.html>