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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Lots of thanks to Greg for his thorough review and constructive edits and also to Ayden for his timely responses.  Because of the number of changes, I want to ask a favor of Greg:  Would you please accept the redlined edits in the version distributed from this week’s meeting and then create a new redlined version (v2) with your suggested changes taking into consideration Ayden’s comments and the ones I make below.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:00 AM
To: Greg Aaron
Cc: RDS PDP WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

Hi Greg,

Thank you for taking the time to suggest these revisions. I would like to respectfully submit that we maintain, in the first paragraph, the reference to the "ever-evolving global Internet."

With regards to the second paragraph, you suggested: “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…”
[Chuck Gomes] We discuss this in our meeting; there were those on both sides of this.  Greg – in your new redline version I suggest you put “ever-evolving global Internet” in brackets and let’s see what others in the WG think.

A fairer framing would be: “Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, registrants, end-users, and a variety of other stakeholders claim to have a vested interest in an RDS system…”
[Chuck Gomes] I will let Greg decide how he wants to deal with these suggestions.  They seem okay to me although I am not sure what the difference is between an end-user and a user.

Text is underlined and in bold solely for legibility purposes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this alteration.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Local Time: August 17, 2016 3:45 PM
UTC Time: August 17, 2016 2:45 PM
From: gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>
To: lisa at corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:lisa at corecom.com,gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>


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> [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<mailto: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/20160817/65ac78a4/attachment.html>