[CPWG] Considerations about the latest polls

[gopal at annauniv.edu]

Dear All,

In my humble opinion, a simple way to rationalize:

The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999 and it withstood the
test of time in a domain that was seldom assured of "Crystal Ball
Gazing" even one year ahead.

Why think of changing without any very major significant gains ?

Your call please.

Sincerely,




Gopal T V
0 9840121302
https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. T V Gopal
Professor
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
College of Engineering
Anna University
Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
       (Res) 24454753
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 2021-11-21 02:04, Chokri Ben Romdhane wrote:
> dear Roberto,
> from what I understand , the 60 days lock did not guarantee the safety
> of the TRANSFER.
> 
> Chokri
> 
> Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 16:58, gopal--- via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org> a
> écrit :
> 
>> +1 Roberto Gaetano
>> 
>> "Safety First"
>> 
>> How safe is safe ? is another small big question in Systems.
>> 
>> In the answer we can bring the vital human.
>> 
>> Gopal T V
>> 0 9840121302
>> https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545
>> https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Dr. T V Gopal
>> Professor
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> College of Engineering
>> Anna University
>> Chennai - 600 025, INDIA
>> Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340
>> (Res) 24454753
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 
>> On 2021-11-20 21:05, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> 
>>> I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for
>> voting
>>> Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My
>>> observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are
>>> mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance
>> “unnecessary”
>>> delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who
>> want the
>>> grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal
>> actions
>>> that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer.
>>> 
>>> I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between
>> efficiency
>>> and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s
>> have the
>>> 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe,
>> let’s
>>> eliminate the 60d.
>>> 
>>> Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs
>> “compulsory”
>>> grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d
>> want
>>> at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while
>> those who
>>> are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied
>>> without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out
>> in
>>> the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out).
>>> 
>>> In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of
>> the
>>> length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a
>> bit
>>> to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both
>> parties
>>> unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor
>>> sufficiently secure.
>>> 
>>> I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger
>> people
>>> might have a different approach… :-)
>>> 
>>> Have a nice weekend,
>>> Roberto
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing
>> list
>>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>> Mailman
>>> link above to change your membership status or configuration,
>>> including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
>> disabling
>>> delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>> your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>> accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
>> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>> Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>> Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>> delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation),
>> and so on.