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