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

[Greg Aaron]

Dear Ayden:

Your phrase “stakeholders claim to have a vested interest” has problems associated with it.  That language implies that a group of stakeholders on the list might not have a valid interest, and therefore may not be legitimate.

Maybe you put the word “claim” in the wrong place, or meant to use the word differently.  All stakeholders will make many assertions or arguments or claims over the course of time, and the WP will make some judgments about those and their use cases.  In this WG, I assume that all participants are stakeholders with an interest.  I may not agree with someone’s position (i.e. claims) on an issue, but I will not question someone’s right to participate.

We know that “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.”  They are all stakeholders, and don’t just claim to be.  I think that has been uncontroversial, acknowledged wisdom in this WG, also documented in past ICANN efforts on this subject.

Sure, insert “end-users” if you like.  We could also insert “security practitioners” and other groups.  By inserting “a variety of other stakeholders” I was hoping to be inclusive without trying to create an exhaustive list.

All best,
--Greg



From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>; Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

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<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





_______________________________________________

gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list

gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://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<mailto:Lanfran at Yorku.ca>   Skype: slanfranco

blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com

Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160817/c01825f3/attachment.html>