[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] A few comments on the 28 February meeting

[Greg Shatan]

Following on Chuck's last point, I think there is a lot we need to clarify
when a "purpose" designation matters -- what does it apply to,  where is it
applied (and not applied), what is the effect of the designation (and ways
to avoid or overcome those effects), what are the criteria we will use to
determine purpose, what are the criteria that will be used by outside
bodies, what are the levels of purpose and how does that affect all of the
above, are there "bad" purpose designations, etc.

My overarching concern is that we will consider "purpose" designation for
various items and the discussion is more or less abstract.  Only much later
does it become apparent what the practical and legal consequences of that
designation are.  At that point, it becomes much harder to say "If I knew X
was the consequence of designating Alpha as a "tertiary purpose" of the
RDS, I never would have let that happen."

The purpose designations are fundamentally meaningless without clearly
understanding their consequences.  Otherwise, this becomes a game show,
where someone chooses "Door Number 3, Chuck" without knowing whether what
lies behind it is a new Mercedes, a year's supply of Spam, or a Bengal
TIger that hasn't eaten in three days.

Greg Shatan

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:52 AM Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> I listened to the MP3 recording of the 28 February WG meeting and want to
> share a few comments.
>
>
>
> First of all I want to thank Michele for chairing the meeting and
> compliment him for doing an excellent job.
>
>
>
> Second, I want to acknowledge Marc Anderson’s comment regarding the goal
> that the RDS Purpose Statement should be consistent with existing consensus
> policies.  It is important that everyone understand that our work should
> not be constrained by other consensus policies.  It is possible that we
> will make some recommendations that will require some adjustments to other
> consensus policies. It is okay if that happens as long as we also make
> implementation recommendations noting any adjustments that will need to be
> considered to maintain consistency of all consensus policies.  To reinforce
> this point, in my personal comments I plan to suggest that a qualifying
> clause to this goal in this regard.
>
>
>
> Third, Stephanie asked whether the leadership team found the polls to be
> useful.  I want to add my response to the good responses that Michele and
> Susan gave. I definitely believe they are useful because:
>
> 1.      They provide an opportunity to confirm with members who attend a
> given meeting that at least rough consensus was reached on any tentative
> conclusions reached.
>
> 2.      They provide an opportunity for members who were not in the
> meeting to provide their input.
>
> 3.      It facilitates capturing a list of interim conclusions that will
> be very helpful when we start deliberating on specific requirements of a
> RDS.
>
> It is important though for everyone to realize that participation in the
> WG meetings and polls is critical because lack of participation will be
> assumed to mean support for or at least non-objection to the conclusions
> reached for the time being.
>
>
>
> Fourth, Alex Deacon asked if we are assuming that the purposes we have
> been discussion are primary purposes.  I admit that I am still not clear in
> my head what the difference is between a primary purpose and a secondary
> purpose.  For now though, I suggest this:  if we eventually decide that it
> is necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary purposes, we can
> categorize the purposes at that time.
>
>
>
> Hope this is helpful.  Feel free to let me know if it is not and to ask
> any questions you have.
>
>
>
> Chuck
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-- 


*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170302/d7bab398/attachment-0001.html>