(Sorry to have forwarded an unfinished e-mail, This is the final response)

@Shane, and all

The RDS PDP WG has the job to gather all “possible” requirements for the next-gen RDS to replace the WHOIS protocol. So many documents has been found useful / relevant to provide insightful issues to serve as inputs for the characteristics of the next-Gen RDS. However, WG found it impossible to read all documents together as a team and agree on what can be a “possible” requirement and what can/should not be a requirement (one by one, document per document). Then it was proposed and adopted that group members volunteer to read the docs and extract as many as inputs as possible. Then the ICANN staff worked hard and concatenated all these requirements by naming them appropriately without no change to the requirements themselves

Therefore the word “possible” means that the stated requirement may be removed at the end of the current phase if it is judged so. However, it is not yet time to make this decision.

Consequently, if you find any bogus or meaningless  information (according to you), please just make a comment to me offline and I will forward to the staff as necessary. At this stage, we just need to propose new “possible” requirements, so if you think you have a new requirement for the next-gen RDS that is not already in the RDS PDP list I previously sent (or by discarding all inputs you classify as bogus or legalese), please send it/them through.

Finally for other members I would to clarify that each requirement has been given a specific annotation in the form of [QQ-R#-D#], for instance in [UP-D26-R06] : the first two letters identify the associated charter question (Users Purposes, in this case), the D26 identifies the input document (Annex A) from which the requirement has been extracted, and R06 means is the 6th "possible" requirement).

I suggest to anyone in this group to read (in priority, iteratively) a sub-list of  all these "possible" requirements depending or based on his/her expertise or background. For instance, If you  have experience in data privacy, you can quickly check all "possible" requirements starting by [PR-Dxx-Ryy] and a new one if any.  For any new “possible” requirement, don’t forget to add the source document.

--ff--
Best regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farell FOLLY
Africa 2.0 Foundation
Chapter Head - Technology Champion

t: +22997 248100
s : Skype: farellf
m: [log in to unmask]
w :www.africa2point0.org  
l : www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
tt : www.twitter.com/__f_f__



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Shane Kerr [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Envoyé : lundi 13 juin 2016 15:37
À : Farell FOLLY
Cc : [log in to unmask]
Objet : Re: Request for additional "possible" requirements for Next Generation RDS

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