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

[Greg Shatan]

I agree with Sam's comments here wholeheartedly.

Greg Shatan

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:

> I want to quibble a bit about wording here.
>
> First, we normally think of "Consumers" as "end-users" so adding end-users
> may be redundant.
>
> Second, vested interest is normally taken to mean "a personal stake or
> involvement" in something like an undertaking (e.g. policy making) or state
> of affairs (e.g. policy implementation), or something with an expectation
> of financial gain. Those who are stakeholders have, by definition, a vested
> interest. I don't like the proposed wording around "claim to". If there is
> a claim issue here, it is whether or not one qualifies as a stakeholder,.
> It is not whether or not stakeholders have a vested interest.
>
> Sam L., NPOC/CSIH
>
>
>
> *On 8/17/2016 11:00 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:*
>
> *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…” *
>
> *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…”*
>
> *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
> To: 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 <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> <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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
>  邦有道，贫且贱焉，耻也。邦无道，富且贵焉，耻也
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160817/acfa2b43/attachment.html>