Considerations about the latest polls
Dear all, I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer. I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d. Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out). In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure. I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-) Have a nice weekend, Roberto
+1 Roberto Gaetano "Safety First" How safe is safe ? is another small big question in Systems. In the answer we can bring the vital human. Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 2021-11-20 21:05, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
Dear all,
I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer.
I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d.
Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out).
In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure.
I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-)
Have a nice weekend, Roberto
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
dear Roberto, from what I understand , the 60 days lock did not guarantee the safety of the *transfer*. Chokri Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 16:58, gopal--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
+1 Roberto Gaetano
"Safety First"
How safe is safe ? is another small big question in Systems.
In the answer we can bring the vital human.
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2021-11-20 21:05, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
Dear all,
I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer.
I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d.
Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out).
In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure.
I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-)
Have a nice weekend, Roberto
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear All, In my humble opinion, a simple way to rationalize: The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999 and it withstood the test of time in a domain that was seldom assured of "Crystal Ball Gazing" even one year ahead. Why think of changing without any very major significant gains ? Your call please. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 2021-11-21 02:04, Chokri Ben Romdhane wrote:
dear Roberto, from what I understand , the 60 days lock did not guarantee the safety of the TRANSFER.
Chokri
Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 16:58, gopal--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
+1 Roberto Gaetano
"Safety First"
How safe is safe ? is another small big question in Systems.
In the answer we can bring the vital human.
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2021-11-20 21:05, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
Dear all,
I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer.
I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d.
Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out).
In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure.
I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-)
Have a nice weekend, Roberto
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear all, I think Dr Gopal makes an excellent point. Whatever the original reasons for introducing the lock, if someone now wants to change the length the burden should be on them to show significant benefits from doing so. In other words, "If it ain't** broke, don't fi it." Bill Jouris For those not fluent in American English slang, that translates roughly into "is not" On Saturday, November 20, 2021, 03:28:40 PM PST, gopal--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Dear All, In my humble opinion, a simple way to rationalize: The 60-days lock was introduced in 1998/1999 and it withstood the test of time in a domain that was seldom assured of "Crystal Ball Gazing" even one year ahead. Why think of changing without any very major significant gains ? Your call please. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 2021-11-21 02:04, Chokri Ben Romdhane wrote:
dear Roberto, from what I understand , the 60 days lock did not guarantee the safety of the TRANSFER.
Chokri
Le sam. 20 nov. 2021 16:58, gopal--- via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
+1 Roberto Gaetano
"Safety First"
How safe is safe ? is another small big question in Systems.
In the answer we can bring the vital human.
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 2021-11-20 21:05, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG wrote:
Dear all,
I have been thinking about the motivations given by some for voting Y/N on the 60d period and on the enforcement of the policy. My observation is that those who do not want the 60d grace period are mostly worried about the inefficiencies, for instance “unnecessary” delays in transferring between “good” actors. OTOH, those who want the grace period are mostly concerned with the risk of criminal actions that could benefit from a quick finalisation of the transfer.
I wonder therefore if the issue here is the balance between efficiency and risk: if we want a system that is safer but slower, let’s have the 60d period, if we want a system that is fast but less safe, let’s eliminate the 60d.
Similar considerations apply in the case of “optional” vs “compulsory” grace period. It seems obvious that those who are against the 60d want at least to be able to have the “opt out” possibility, while those who are convinced about the need for it want also to have it applied without exceptions (the reasoning behind this, as also pointed out in the call, is that the wrongdoers will be obviously opting out).
In this situation the question is also whether the reduction of the length off the period could be a sort of a compromise that gives a bit to both parties - or whether the effect would be to make both parties unhappy because the result could be neither sufficiently fast nor sufficiently secure.
I am for “slow and safe”, probably also due to age - younger people might have a different approach… :-)
Have a nice weekend, Roberto
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Bill Jouris -
Chokri Ben Romdhane -
gopal＠annauniv.edu -
Roberto Gaetano