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

Wed Aug 17 17:34:40 UTC 2016

I think it is important to define these terms even for the purposes of 
this document.  Firstly, many people think of consumers as users of the 
Internet, not necessarily consumers of the RDS product we come up with, 
or registrants (eg law enforcement argument for consumer protection, not 
necessarily getting consumers motivated to check the RDS themselves).  
We need to clarify our use of this word, in my view.  Secondly, 
end-users in the context of the RDS in my view means those who use the 
product we come up with....includes bulk purchasers, private sector 
security folks, domain speculators, etc.

I am responsible for complaining about the words "ever evolving global 
internet" as I believe we open too wide a door here.  Some parties want 
ICANN to be one-stop-shopping for Internet issues, I do not. I believe I 
represent the majority view of the NCSG stakeholder group in that 
regard. Therefore I want to constrain that language.  I also want to set 
realistic expectations, we are not going to solve all the problems, nor 
should we try.  I agree having the notion (caution) that we are working 
on an aspect (DNS) of an infrastructure that is dynamic and evolving is 
a good idea.  It is hard to word in a way that does not fling open the 
door to all issues, though.  If you want it back in, Ayden, can you come 
up with something limited?

I agree with Ayden's use of claim.  I am not sure that everyone who 
wants more information in the RDS has a valid "claim" to be a 
stakeholder.  Opportunistic promotion of free personal data happens all 
the time, I would call that a claim, not a stakeholder right.  If we 
start getting into what rights end users of the INternet have we had 
better buckle up for a long ride.  We will have enough trouble pushing 
back existing practices that violate law and fail to recognize 
registrant risk.  We have to examine all such use cases as "claims".  I 
am also aware that as one who claims to be representing end users 
generally at ICANN (ie the civil society role) I will have to justify my 
claims as well.  WHile I take Sam's point that the quibble could be "do 
I represent end users, am I therefore a stakeholder" but I am convinced 
that is not where the discussion needs to be.  Stakeholders make claims, 
we need to examine those claims.

As for the vesting issue.... since we at ICANN represent a tiny 
proportion of those in the ecosystem, I think vesting could be dropped. 
Folks have an interest.  Those who are not paying attention arguably 
don't have a vested interest.  It's a quibble but it just might be one 
word too many there.

cheers Stephanie Perrin

On 2016-08-17 11:58, Sam Lanfranco 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] *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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> 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    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/e46d4855/attachment.html>