[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting

[Greg Aaron]

Thanks, Chuck.  Let's define terms earlier in discussions rather than later.  That usually helps everyone and ultimately saves time.
All best,
--Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:52 AM
To: Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com>; lisa at corecom.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting

Thanks for your feedback Greg.  I personally find it very constructive and, in hindsight, I think that the poll items could have been worded better.  But from a logistics point of view I don't think it would be a good idea to change the poll.  There are two parts to my thinking: 1) the time to respond to the poll is very short and making a change now would shorten it even further, risking the possibility that some people who already responded might not see the change and interpreting results would be complicated; 2) this particular poll is intended to mostly facilitate our continuing discussion in next week's WG meeting rather than helping as to develop a tentative conclusion like we normally do so we will have opportunity to fix things next week.

 

Note that I inserted some personal responses in your message below.

 

Chuck

 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:29 PM
To: lisa at corecom.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting

 

Dear Lisa and Chuck and everyone:

 

I am wondering if this poll may be of limited utility because we may be using the wrong words here, and the group may not share a crucial common vocabulary.  

[Gomes, Chuck] I am optimistic that the results of the poll will still make our deliberation next week more effective.  In fact, with your input and Stephanie's, I believe it already has.  With different wording, we may have been able to make more progress, but that is a moot point for now.  We try to get these polls out as soon as possible after our meetings because of the short time window for responding; we debate the wording on our leadership list before finalizing the poll but we will not always do an adequate job.

 

All four options ask about "authentication" but we have not defined what that means.  Authentication is different from "anonymous" access, and anonymous access is what we may actually be trying to discuss. Note that the EWG recommended "anonymous" access for thin data.   The distinctions are crucial.  Authenticated access is not really anonymous, and the two terms tend to be mutually exclusive. 

So, can we please define those terms?

[Gomes, Chuck] If we continue to use them, we will have to define them.  As you possibly observed by some of my comments in the meeting, I have some empathy to the term 'anonymous'.

 

Also, please note that the poll options use the term "should" -- but I think the  word "must" was meant instead.   "Must" indicates something mandatory, a requirement.   "Should" does not mean a thing is required or mandatory - it is a recommendation or opinion that can be ignored.

[Gomes, Chuck] Point taken.

  

 

There is a standard reference we can use.  The terms MAY, MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL,  SHOULD and SHOULD NOT are defined in RFC 2119.  ( https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt )   RFC 2119 defined those terms for use in all subsequent RFCs.  The EWG was careful to use the above terms according to RFC 2119 (see Final Report, page 18). ICANN registry contracts, the TMCH RPM Requirements, and other ICANN efforts have also used RFC 2119 as a definitional document. 

 

Clear definitions and choices of words really matter in policy-making, and can help us all understand each other.  I'm also noting this stuff in email because the poll doesn't have a notes or comments field.

[Gomes, Chuck] I used the 'Other' box to share my comments and encourage those who have not yet completed the poll to do the same.  In the future we should probably make sure that there is always a comment box.

 

 

All best,

--Greg

 

 

**********************************

Greg Aaron

Vice-President, Product Management

iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com

mobile: +1.215.858.2257

**********************************

The information contained in this message is privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

 

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 8:08 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 9 May Meeting
Importance: High

 

Dear all,

 

In follow-up to today's meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BNKJ55R

 

Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:

 

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64078610/Poll-from-9MayCall.pdf

 

This poll will close at COB Saturday 13 May.

 

Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org to upgrade to WG Member.

 

Regards,

Lisa