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

Thu Aug 18 22:18:15 UTC 2016

Good points Andrew.  It seems to me that some fairly simple edits could be made to the clean version to address your concerns.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 6:02 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

Hi,

I really dislike the "claim to have interests" here.  I think it's false.

First, the point of this (or any) PDP is not to gather up all the people in the world who noticed that we're here, and to deal with their claims.  There are interests, and to the extent we can represent them (even if we haven't heard directly from them) we ought to do so.
If we think we can't do that, then this PDP has no legitimacy at all to make policy about this sort of thing, and the usual claims of those who think that this should all be run by governments under international treaties are much more legitimate.  I happen to think we _can_ represent those various interests, however, with a little care and thought.  (I have the same kind of objection to "resolving the tension among the varied and competing views of stakeholders on key issues", now that I think harder about it, because we're not actually only responsive to views people participating here hold.)

Second, it's needlessly tendentious, because it appears to suggest that some of the claims are phony or false or something.  We can just say there are interests.  We could say in addition that we need to weigh the satisfaction of the various interests against each other -- something I think is partly intended by the "core problem" statement in ¶1.

On the whole, I suppose, I don't especially care: the sentence at the end makes it clear that the constraint is the charter and not this statement.

Best regards,

A

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:06:30PM -0400, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Greetings all,
> 
> Please find attached a revised redlined problem statement. I have taken care to incorporate comments which were made on the list over the past 24 hours, while preserving more of the work of the problem statement team. Thanks!
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Ayden
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem 
> Statement Local Time: August 18, 2016 9:02 PM UTC Time: August 18, 
> 2016 8:02 PM
> From: ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am comfortable, I think, with this version.
> 
> I wonder a little about "[various stakeholders] have vested interests 
> in an RDS system that contains accurate and complete registration data 
> …." Quote apart from the "vested" quibble we had the other day, the 
> rest of the ¶ goes on to talk about how some want the RDS to be less 
> complete than others. So I worry that this part of the problem 
> statement might be attempting to assert a conclusion that we're 
> actually debating.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
> 
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 06:58:43PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
> > Attached is a revised draft, as requested. Red-line and comments are turned on.
> >
> > The first paragraph now quotes from the WG’s charter. The last draft 
> > paraphrased, which left out relevant sections of the WG’s mission. 
> > (Quoting from source docs can help us avoid omissions, scope creep, 
> > etc.)
> >
> > A question: the last draft said “Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.”
> > What are the two camps being referred to, and what are we trying to say with this sentence? It does not seem to be about anonymous registrants in the preceding sentence, otherwise we’d say “registrants” rather than “end-users.” Are we trying to say that there is a wide range of end-users and they may have various views on the issues depending on their use cases and circumstances?
> >
> > All best,
> > --Greg
> >
> >
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 12:25 PM
> > To: Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net>; 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
> >
> > Hopefully, Greg will consider Sam’s comments in creating a new redline version along with any other comments that might be submitted before he creates it.
> >
> > Greg – If you are unable to create a new redline, please let me know and I will ensure that it gets done. The advantage of you doing it is that you get to make the calls regarding how your comments are applied as well as how to apply comments from others.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > From: 
> > gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at ica
> > nn.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sam 
> > Lanfranco
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 11:59 AM
> > To: Ayden Férdeline; Greg Aaron
> > Cc: RDS PDP WG
> > 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,g
> > nso-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 ica
> > nn.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
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> 
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg