[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Invitation for Poll from 29 August Meeting

[Greg Shatan]

If this definition of optional made it all the way through to consensus
policy, I don't think we can simply reject it even if it seems "unnatural."
 Policy should be conceptually consistent with past policy wherever
possible.

I don't think "optional to collect" is quite the right characterization.
It's more "mandatory to collect if present, but not a field that must be
filled out in order to complete the process [because the field will be
empty if there is no answer (or the answer will be "none")].

I also don't agree with the statement that "the collection side of the rds
is whatever the registry does," for two reasons.  First, registries collect
information for their business purposes that are not part of the RDS.
Second, the RDS is being collected for directory purposes -- ultimately for
the registrants and other users of the RDS, so the RDS is not an outgrowth
of registry collection purposes; it's an effort that the registries
undertake because the policy requires it (which in turn is because it is
highly useful for a variety of reasons).

Greg

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:59 PM, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> I understand that but what information a registrar collects and what
> information is required or may be asked for is the same list. So I'm
> unclear as to the confusion.
>
> --
> John Bambenek
>
> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 12:08, "benny at nordreg.se" <benny at nordreg.se> wrote:
> >
> > Well for your 2. Phrase we are still talking collection, not displaying
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On 2 Sep 2017, at 18:10, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the point is optional to collect, mandatory to display if
> present.
> >>
> >> So there are two sets of requirements.
> >>
> >> 1- what information domain registrants give
> >> 2- what information RDS displays
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Bambenek
> >>
> >>> On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:11, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:50:41PM -0700, jonathan matkowsky wrote:
> >>>> It may be important to note from the April 27 advisory
> >>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registry-
> agreement-raa-rdds-2015-04-27-en>
> >>>> on that Consensus Policy that if data exists for a given optional
> field,
> >>>> the data MUST be shown. So I would suggest we define optional in that
> way.
> >>>
> >>> That is a pretty unnatural definition of "optional", and certainly not
> >>> one that I expect will be understood by any implementer.  Such a
> >>> redefinition away from the plain English meaning of the word is just
> >>> asking for bugs.  "Optional" means "you don't have to fill it in", not
> >>> "someone might not have collected this".
> >>>
> >>> A
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20170903/917eea71/attachment.html>