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

Wed May 10 16:44:13 UTC 2017

Just to add a further observation on using "Should" and picking up on
Andrew's observation that "should" is an awkward word to use:

At the very end of Chuck's email he says:

In the future we *should probably* make sure that there is always a comment
box. (Emphasis added)
If "should" clearly meant "strongly preferred", why would Chuck (or
anybody) say "should probably"? I think this is because "should" in
everyday speech is *not* really understood to indicate a strong preference,
and is really closer to "may" in actual usage.  So Chuck, to emphasize that
this is a strong preference, added "probably."  Without the "probably," the
should is just a weak preference, closer to an option.  If Chuck were
following RFC 2119, he would never have said "probably" -- "should" would
have been enough to indicate a strong preference.

It's precisely for these reasons that avoiding "should" would be strongly
preferred.

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> Yes you did make it clear Chuck, I am just including it as part of my
> footnote or derogation recommendation.  Feel free to gloss over it, this
> may get repetitive:-)
>
> Stephanie
>
> On 2017-05-10 10:07, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Thanks for the useful feedback Stephanie.  I trust that you will find my
> response to Greg helpful.  I hope I made clear in yesterday’s call what you
> say below, i.e., “It is recognized that some data elements currently
> forming part of the thin data set may be removed upon further deliberations
> on data elements.”
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie
> Perrin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 09, 2017 11:45 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for
> Poll from 9 May Meeting
>
>
>
> I think I agree with Greg here on a couple of points.
>
> I checked out the pdf version (thanks for making this version available,
> it is helpful) and I agree with the should/shall/must clarifications.
> Further, I would propose the following option:
>
> Requestors * must* have access to thin data elements without either
> identifying or authenticating themselves.  It is recognized that some data
> elements currently forming part of the thin data set may be removed upon
> further deliberations on data elements.
>
> [I recognize that anonymity is hard to find, but this makes explicit that
> if a requester makes an effort to obscure his/her/their identity, nothing
> can or should be done about it.  It also makes explicit that there is no
> need for authentication.  The second caveat is my usual one.....]
>
> With respect to the next question, I really feel like we are parachuting
> into operational concerns, without necessarily dealing with the issues
> involved, at least for those of us to whom "rate limiting" is not an
> everyday activity or term we use.  It is not the case that there are no
> policy issues wrapped up in this, in my view.....once we establish that
> "anonymous" unauthenticated access is fine, is there a risk that there will
> be/is already wholesale vacuuming of data?  What is the downside of this?
> Would that be a violation of current RAA requirements, or rather would the
> lack of it indicate a violation?  are there anti-competitive actions at
> play in rate limiting? why was it (or more precisely, bulk access control)
> introduced into the RAA in the first place, and do those issues pertain
> today? these are questions that those of us not in the business might ask
> (at least I am asking, and I was one of very few non-commercial parties on
> the call today...I counted 2 but I may have missed somebody)
>
> On a second unrelated note, I did the doodle polls for newcomer needs,
> hoping you might be offering a basic skills on managing WHOIS.  No luck
> there, but I commend that to you as a potential webinar....some of us (as
> may be clear by the questions above) would like to understand better
> exactly who looks for what data when and why, how that impacts the
> registrar/registry burden and the systems they run, volume and metrics and
> $$$.....
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2017-05-09 22:28, Greg Aaron wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************
>
> Greg Aaron
>
> Vice-President, Product Management
>
> iThreat Cyber Group / Cybertoolbelt.com
>
> mobile: +1.215.858.2257 <(215)%20858-2257>
>
> **********************************
>
> 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 <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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170510/b56f9b40/attachment-0001.html>