[CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
Kavouss Arasteh
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 28 21:14:23 UTC 2016
Dear All,
Please look at ICANN Mission and Commitment, you will find many areas in
which taking actions are absolute necessity or absolute obligations.
However, some of you insisted that we could not use the term “ shall “ .I
did not push for that because they did not want to agree with things which
were crystal clear. But now the same person who is one of the signatories
of the proposed amendment just simply forgot his insistence that shall was
incorrect in those example of ICANN Mission or Commitment.
By the same argument I cannot agree with the use of “shall “.
In addition to that in a conditional structure we have never used the term
“ shall “ However, either of “ should “ or” would “ or” may “ could be used
Best Regards
Kavouss
2016-02-28 21:58 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>:
> 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/20160228/5cf8ccf3/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list