[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 20:58:11 UTC 2016


Dear Colleagues
The only consistent struture is to replace the word " shall " ibn the
proposed text by either " should " or "would" BUT NOT SHALL
Sorry I do not agree with your argument either.
It haS nothing to do with natiove language and non native language
It is a matter of principle.
I WILL TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE USE OF SHALL
BesrRegardsK
KAVOUsS

2016-02-28 21:52 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:

> Dear Colleagues
> The only consistent struture is
> If .....
>
> 2016-02-28 21:42 GMT+01:00 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>:
>
>> RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>>
>> 1. MUST   This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
>>    definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
>>
>> 2. MUST NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
>>    definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
>>
>> 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
>>    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>>    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>>    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
>>
>> 4. SHOULD NOT   This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
>>    there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
>>    particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
>>    implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
>>    before implementing any behavior described with this label.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bradner                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 1]
>> 
>> RFC 2119                     RFC Key Words                    March 1997
>>
>>
>> 5. MAY   This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
>>    truly optional.  One vendor may choose to include the item because a
>>    particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
>>    it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
>>    An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
>>    prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
>>    include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
>>    same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
>>    MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
>>    does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
>>    option provides.)
>>
>> 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives
>>
>>    Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
>>    and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
>>    actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
>>    potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
>>    example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
>>    on implementors where the method is not required for
>>    interoperability.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>
>> "'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
>> imply mandatoriness."
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> In four decades of U.S.  legislative experience I have always seen
>> "shall" used to denote a mandatory outcome. "May", on the other hand,
>> allows for discretionary judgment -- and is usually accompanied by a
>> listing of considerations that should be considered in exercising that
>> discretion. I would note further that the current language we are seeking
>> to have clarified neither provides any such list of considerations, nor
>> does it designate who the decisional entity would be.
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>> Virtualaw LLC
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>> Suite 1050
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
>> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Nigel
>> Roberts
>> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:01 PM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
>>
>> I don't agree with your example. however valid the rest of your comment.
>>
>> Traditionally, the auxilary "shall" is used for the future tense with
>> the first-person pronouns I and We.   "Will" is used with the
>> first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) to express
>> determination not merely futurity.
>>
>> The opposite is true for second- and third-person pronouns: with these
>> "will" is used in the future tense, and "shall" is used only when we wish
>> to express determination or to emphasize certainty.
>>
>> So both of your examples are right, not just one; and they bear subtly
>> different meanings . . . .
>>
>>
>> "If you come late I WILL NOT wait for you"
>>
>> means :-
>>
>> "I have no desire to wait for you if you are late. I am determined in
>> that view"  (the conclusion that "you should not expect to see me there"
>> is merely implicit)
>>
>>
>> However  . . .
>>
>> "If you come late I SHALL NOT wait for you" means literally and
>> EXPLICITLY simply that :-
>>
>> "Do not expect to see me there if you arrive late".
>>
>> This form says nothing about my feelings or desires explicitly (though
>> you might imply this, it is not certain at all;  and my reasons for not
>> being there if your are late may be external unrelated to my desires,
>> wishes or intentions.).
>>
>> 'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
>> imply mandatoriness.
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>>
>> (PS: WILL NOT and SHALL NOT may be replaced with WON'T and SHAN'T)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Example
>>
>> If you come late I *will*not wait for you
>>
>> It is never said
>>
>> If you come late I *shal*l not wait for you
>>
>> This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160228/4d18350a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list