Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 September 2010 09:55, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

>  Evan wrote:
> "re DRSP - "Chuck, I really would suggest changing the name"
> ----------------------
> I disagree for the reasons stated in an earlier post
>

Repeating an error does not make it correct.

 - the intention is indeed to outsource this advice, and that constitutes a
> service being provided hence SP
>


Not necessarily. The experts could come from various sources, and it is
presumptuous that a single entity would be supply of all the advice. Why
does our recommendation even need to tell the Board how to choose its own
advisors?

ICANN has many structures and methods by which to fill committees and panels
-- our for example. The expert panel is just one committee. This need not be
like hiring a consultancy; making such a demand puts unfair and unnecessary
constraints on how the Board finds its experts.



> - there is a dispute between the applicant and the objector that this
> service is helping to resolve hence DR
>


Ah, the shoehorn. Trying to squeeze a name into a totally inappropriate
description.

The panel would be asked "is this string OK based on [specific criteria]".
There is no dispute to be resolves, no judgement to be made between parties,
no advocates for and against, no subjective decision of morality. The
experts themselves could be split on the issue -- resolving nothing -- and
their input would still be valid and useful.

If it needs to be made any clearer, Philip, there is no dispute resolution
here because* there is no resolution*. The expert panel is to offer advice
which is to be considered -- along with other factors -- as the
*Board*makes the final decision. The panel resolves nothing, it gives
a non-binding
opinion.

To suggest by name that the panel engages in resolution of anything is
misleading; indeed, it has been misleading this discussion.



> - it is consistent with other objection terminology in the DAG.
>


Ah, the volume discount. It's used elsewhere (in very different context) so
let's use it here. This is totally useless rationale.



> Lets not try to redefine useful common terminology based on linguistic
> subtleties that (in English only) may advocate one position or another.
>

That's exactly the point, It's NOT useful because it does not match the
function to which it is being assigned. It is not a lingustic subtlety to
assign the name "Resolution" to a body that is not, indeed, called upon to
"resolve" anything. It is being asked to provide a very specific data point
for consideration in a later resolution to be made higher up the chain.

Why be so hung up on a term that is *not* being used in the same contexts as
elsewhere in the DAG simply because it's simpler to recycle an existing name
than to come up with something appropriate. Between clarity and perceived
efficiency, clarity should win every time.

- Evan