Dear ColleaguesThe only consistent struture isIf .....2016-02-28 21:42 GMT+01:00 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>:RFC-2119/BCP-14 might also be a reference here:https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification. 2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification. 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. Bradner Best Current Practice [Page 1] RFC 2119 RFC Key Words March 1997 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the same vein an implementation which does include a particular option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the option provides.) 6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability.On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:14 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:"'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
imply mandatoriness."
Agreed.
In four decades of U.S. legislative experience I have always seen "shall" used to denote a mandatory outcome. "May", on the other hand, allows for discretionary judgment -- and is usually accompanied by a listing of considerations that should be considered in exercising that discretion. I would note further that the current language we are seeking to have clarified neither provides any such list of considerations, nor does it designate who the decisional entity would be.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2016 3:01 PM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Request for Clarification on Threshold Issue
I don't agree with your example. however valid the rest of your comment.
Traditionally, the auxilary "shall" is used for the future tense with
the first-person pronouns I and We. "Will" is used with the
first-person (again, I refer to traditional usage) to express determination not merely futurity.
The opposite is true for second- and third-person pronouns: with these "will" is used in the future tense, and "shall" is used only when we wish to express determination or to emphasize certainty.
So both of your examples are right, not just one; and they bear subtly different meanings . . . .
"If you come late I WILL NOT wait for you"
means :-
"I have no desire to wait for you if you are late. I am determined in
that view" (the conclusion that "you should not expect to see me there"
is merely implicit)
However . . .
"If you come late I SHALL NOT wait for you" means literally and
EXPLICITLY simply that :-
"Do not expect to see me there if you arrive late".
This form says nothing about my feelings or desires explicitly (though
you might imply this, it is not certain at all; and my reasons for not
being there if your are late may be external unrelated to my desires,
wishes or intentions.).
'Shall' is very commonly used in legislation in the third person to
imply mandatoriness.
Nigel
(PS: WILL NOT and SHALL NOT may be replaced with WON'T and SHAN'T)Example_______________________________________________
If you come late I *will*not wait for you
It is never said
If you come late I *shal*l not wait for you
This is an important basic and fundamental issue to be respected.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4537/11693 - Release Date: 02/25/16
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community