<div dir="auto"><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">@Andrew</div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">What if we use the second possible way of understanding *optional* : </div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><<This won't be provided unless you know it >> instead of :</div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(239,154,154)"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">I am suggesting that </span><br style="font-family:sans-serif"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">if the policy is that "optional" means "this will be provided unless</span><br style="font-family:sans-serif"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">you don't know it",</span></span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">Le 3 sept. 2017 07:48, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<div class="quoted-text"><br>
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 12:18:43AM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
> If this definition of optional made it all the way through to consensus<br>
> policy, I don't think we can simply reject it even if it seems "unnatural."<br>
<br>
</div>I am not even a little bit convinced that ICANN consensus is a good<br>
way to remake the nature of human expression in English, never mind<br>
the way to determine what is natural. Nevertheless,<br>
<div class="quoted-text"><br>
> Policy should be conceptually consistent with past policy wherever<br>
> possible.<br>
<br>
</div>I am not suggesting that we change the policy. I am suggesting that<br>
if the policy is that "optional" means "this will be provided unless<br>
you don't know it", then we are not being conceptually consistent with<br>
the English language, and that therefore the policy will find itself<br>
running up against the practical problems presented by humanity.<br>
<div class="quoted-text"><br>
> I don't think "optional to collect" is quite the right characterization.<br>
> It's more "mandatory to collect if present<br>
<br>
</div>Present _where_? In some obvious sense, _every_ optional element we<br>
might think of is somehow available, even if the answer is "none".<br>
There is a fact of the matter out there in the world, and what we're<br>
trying to do is put some such facts in a database. I am trying to<br>
argue that we must require (1) facts that we need (2) for some<br>
legitimate purpose and (3) that we can reasonably expect will be<br>
correct. If data is only "optional" when it doesn't exist, then it's<br>
not optional: it's required, but it might have a NULL value because it<br>
might not apply to the data in question.<br>
<div class="quoted-text"><br>
> I also don't agree with the statement that "the collection side of the rds<br>
> is whatever the registry does," for two reasons. First, registries collect<br>
> information for their business purposes that are not part of the RDS.<br>
<br>
</div>I've been asking about this now for something around a month, and I<br>
still don't seem to have a crisp answer. It is entirely clear that<br>
registrars collect, as part of every registration action, data that<br>
ought not to be part of any RDS. What data do _registries_ collect as<br>
part of a registration action (and not incidental to it such as<br>
billing events) that is not effectively the data set on which the RDS<br>
ought to be operating? For these purposes, assume all registries are<br>
thick. (To get the outcome one might want, the RDS data could be much<br>
more widely distributed, but let's just assume it's one thick registry<br>
for every TLD.)<br>
<div class="quoted-text"><br>
> Second, the RDS is being collected for directory purposes -- ultimately for<br>
> the registrants and other users of the RDS, so the RDS is not an outgrowth<br>
> of registry collection purposes; it's an effort that the registries<br>
> undertake because the policy requires it (which in turn is because it is<br>
> highly useful for a variety of reasons).<br>
<br>
</div>This appears to be a suggestion that there is an RDS that, quite<br>
independent of the registration system, has an independent demand with<br>
a need to be satisfied. I'm quite uncomfortable with that assertion.<br>
Most especially, the idea that anything happens on the Internet<br>
exclusively (or even mostly) because "policy requires it" suggests to<br>
me that I must be misreading, since I know you (Greg) know that to be<br>
crazy. What did I miss?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<div class="elided-text"><br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>