Farell,

At 2016-06-13 11:30:10 +0100
Farell FOLLY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Few months ago I decided to join the NCSG in order to serve and defend the
> interest of the community regarding Internet resources use. Before that, I
> started working with the GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP
> WG) to contribute in the development process of the Next Generation
> Registration Directory Services (Next-Gen RDS). Time comes now that I engage
> more and participate within this stakeholder Group. Therefore, I volunteer
> to serve as a liaison/point of contact between NCSG and GNSO PDP WG as far
> as the attached documents are concerned.

Cool, thanks for this!

> 1.       Read the outreach message 2 in attach
> 
> 2.       Read and check the RDS PDP list of possible requirements, also in
> attach
> 
> 3.       Reply to this mail by asking any questions to me or adding
> additional requirement
> 
> Please before replying to this e-mail to add a "new" requirement, make sure
> you read the entire document and check whether this requirement was not
> duplicated already. Also, ensure that you send your contact details (name,
> first name, e-mail) if not explicitly included in your mail signature.

[ Apologies if the following reads as a rant. It kind of is. Probably
  my own fault for looking at policy stuff. ]

Is there a summary of the PDF, or any kind of specific issues that seem
contentious that one would look at?

I ask because the PDF alone is over 100 pages. Is this a typical ICANN
document? I was going to have a look since I'm somewhat technical and
was involved with WHOIS in the distant past, but honestly I don't really
have the many days time that would be necessary to make any sense out
of this. :(

------

I did skim a bit, and while parts of it are pretty clear:

    [UP-D01-R17] – Since it is likely that further [permissible
    purposes] will be identified over time, any [gTLD registration
    directory service] must be designed with extensibility in mind.

(This is a bogus requirement, BTW. Without specific descriptions of the
expected changes then it is impossible to implement. It's like someone
saying "prepare for the weather tomorrow" without telling you what the
weather will be. Better to leave this out and let people make their own
design decisions.)

Other parts are complete legalese:

    [UP-D26-R06] – According to the Directive (30), whereas, in order
    to be lawful, the processing of personal data must in addition be
    carried out with the consent of the data subject or be necessary
    for the conclusion or performance of a contract binding on the data
    subject, or as a legal requirement, or for the performance of a
    task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of
    official authority, or in the legitimate interests of a natural or
    legal person, provided that the interests or the rights and
    freedoms of the data subject are not overriding....subject to the
    provisions allowing a data subject to object to the processing of
    data regarding him, at no cost and without having to state his
    reasons;

I mean, really, the last person to use "whereas" in English outside of
legal documents died before the invention of the telephone. ;) (The
Wikipedia article on plain English suggests "because" or "since", as
does the "www.plainlanguage.gov" site, although in this particular case
I'd say just leave it out.)

I don't even know what the requirement is here. I read it 4 times and
can't figure it out. I feel sorry for the poor software engineer that
has to try to convert this to running code. :P

Given the many hundreds of possible requirements, many of which are
written like this, I don't see any way that anyone who has anything
else to do for before the deadline can possibly hope to help
properly review this work, at least without some coordinated plan such
as "please review the following 10 requirements" for 50 volunteers.

Sorry for ranting. :(

Cheers,

--
Shane