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

Wed Aug 17 19:50:42 UTC 2016

Please note – an earlier draft was

“Brand holders, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners all have a vested interest in an RDS system which is accurate, complete, performant, resilient, and auditable. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed. Another extremely important stakeholder group is the global population of end-users. End-users may be individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups.”

…seems like we may want to revert back some of that verbiage?

More comments inline

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 10:35 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

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.

[Mark Svancarek] I agree that ICANN has a well-defined scope and it should stick to that scope.  I do think that “ever-evolving” is fair considering IPv6, DNSSEC, new gTLDs, EAI and IDN are impacting us simultaneously.  I understand your point that if we don’t design our policy for the Internet-that-is, and target the Internet-that-may-become, we’ll never be able to finish...

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?

[Mark Svancarek] “…meet the needs of the existing global Internet and accommodate changes already anticipated (e.g. DNSSEC)” ?

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.

[Mark Svancarek] makes sense

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.

[Mark Svancarek] okay

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<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

_______________________________________________

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160817/f2c5d031/attachment.html>