[gnso-policyimpl-dt] A Quick Look Down a Rat Hole.

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

Reading the Draft Framework I found some language I think can be
improved, and may have some bearing on what we may not mean when we
use a term that passes without comment. In presentation order:

There is the use "ICANN", e.g., "ICANN has developed a draft framework
...", which refers to an work-product of Staff.

There is the use "ICANN world", which may mean everything with a
mission critical dependency upon unique endpoint identifiers,
addresses and autonomous system numbers, domain registries and names,
and protocol parameters, or something less. Probably both less and
more as we don't generally ignore the users of NAT'd address space, or
names resolved by the CNNIC nameserver constellation, yet for the most
part we do ignore addressing and routing and country code name spaces.

There is the use "ICANN community", which could just mean the group of
participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than
Internet users generally, or something more.

There is the use "ICANN", e.g., the activities of a 501(c)(3), on
which some AC provides advice.

There is the use "ICANN {Board, Supporting Organizations,
stakeholders, ...}, which is reasonably specific.

There is the use "ICANN", e.g., "ICANN may continue to refine ...",
which experience suggests is Staff iterating along some axis of policy
with some notice and comment.

There is the use "ICANN Staff", again, reasonably specific, except
ICANN has considerably more members of staff then it had in 2007 so
some additional qualifiers may be helpful.

There is the use "Staff", and "staff", see above.

There is the use "ICANN", e.g., "ICANN also manages the contractual
complance function ...", which refers to the Compliance function and
associated staff, acting on standing policy, only towards Contracted
Parties, not the Board providing momentary directives.

There is the use "ICANN", e.g., "Through its contracts ICANN has ...",
which refers to the Counsel function and associated staff, acting on
standing policy, not the Board providing momentary directives.

There is the use "ICANN can clearly determine whether the policy is
being followed", which refers to a Board determination that a prior
Board determination is being executed by Staff and/or Contracted Parties.

There is the use "clearly separate policies that apply to ICANN (e.g.,
as relates to the evaluation of new gTLD applicants)", which refers to
Staff responsibilities or those of third-party contracted service
providers.

My point, oh patient readers, is that when we use a phrase causally,
it may be without consequence that that use is ambiguous. However, for
our purposes, or at least mine, some care in stating exactly who is
responsible for what, and to whom, could improve the clarity of
meaning of our writings. I write this so that we spend less time in,
rather than more, one avoidable rat hole.

Eric