Re: [gnso-sti] Review of draft recommendations - v2
- To: "GNSO STI" <gnso-sti@xxxxxxxxx>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-sti] Review of draft recommendations - v2
- From: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:21:41 +0100
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.
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
...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,
In Alan's text, please consider: "...to the original Registrant's
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
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
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.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD