Re: [gnso-sti] Review of draft recommendations - v2

["Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@xxxxxxx>]

Alan wrote:

[...]
> Regarding minority opinions, I think that we should either delete them 
> from the last column of the document and have them in separate minority 
> statements, or leave them there but with the caveat at the top that "Those 
> minority opinions that were know at the time the report was written were 
> included. Others may be appended by Stakeholder Groups."
May I also add: having minority opinion in the third column introduces a 
space constraint which sometimes kills the clarity of the minority opinion. 
Can I suggest that the third column contains the words "Minority opinion 
from...", only listing the constituencies, each with a document endnote 
number, and that the opinion is displayed in the endnote?
The endnotes could be located in a specific Annex, ordered by constituency, 
or ordered by section, whichever we judge being clearer.
> Clearinghouse
>
> We talk about provider(s) for the Clearinghouse, but do we need to 
> explicitly say that this should be an outsourced service and not operated 
> by ICANN?
...as a way to remove ambiguity or any cognitive bias about ICANN's 
involvement, that any reader would have prior to reading the document?
> 4.1 This is a comment that will be repeated in a number of places. We have 
> the habit of assuming that a domain name is just used for the web and we 
> should ensure that our language does not do this. In this section, we 
> suggest replacing "but the domain name still resolves and other features 
> would function (e.g. e-mail). " by "but the domain name still resolves to 
> the original IP address and all features would function (e.g. web, 
> e-mail)."
In Alan's text, please consider: "...to the original Registrant's 
addresses..."
Strictly speaking, a domain name does not resolve to a single IP address.

> 7.1 The again uses "website" and does not include the concept of the 
> domain name pointing to a URS provider splash page saying that the domain 
> was suspended (and perhaps saying how to remedy this if the registrant 
> never answered). I suggest replacing "If the complainant prevails, the 
> domain name should be suspended for the balance of the registration period 
> and would not resolve to the original website." with "If the complainant 
> prevails, the domain name should be suspended for the balance of the 
> registration period and would not resolve to the original IP address. 
> Instead, it would point to the URS provider which will provide an 
> informative web page and no other services."
As earlier, in Alan's text, I suggest: "...to the original Registrant's 
addresses..."
> 8.3 The parenthetical is incorrect and should be deleted (it applied to 
> the late answer and not the appeal). In the middle sentence, "down" should 
> be replaced by "suspended" (both occurrences). The last sentence should be 
> changed from "If the domain name resolves because of a decision in favor 
> of the Registrant, it continues to resolve." to "If the domain name 
> resolves to the registrant's IP address because of a decision in favor of 
> the Registrant, it continues to resolve."
"...original Registrant's addresses..." and "..., it continues to resolve to 
the original Registrant's addresses." - because even when suspended, the 
domain will resolve, but point to elsewhere than the original Registrant's 
addresses.
> Annex X - Evaluation
>
> The term "respondent" is used here and was never used in the original 
> document (we always used "registrant".
Respondent / Registrant = defined terms, thus uppercase initial, sometimes 
missing in places in the document.
If I may add one more suggestion: in most recommendations, we use "should". 
I recall telecon discussion to use "shall" - but would suggest "will" - 
clear, unambiguous. Should is, IMHO, not assertive enough.
Warmest regards,

Olivier

--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html