Following on Chuck's last point, I think there is a lot we need to clarify when a "purpose" designation matters -- what does it apply to, Â where is it applied (and not applied), what is the effect of the designation (and ways to avoid or overcome those effects), what are the criteria we will use to determine purpose, what are the criteria that will be used by outside bodies, what are the levels of purpose and how does that affect all of the above, are there "bad" purpose designations, etc.

My overarching concern is that we will consider "purpose" designation for various items and the discussion is more or less abstract.  Only much later does it become apparent what the practical and legal consequences of that designation are.  At that point, it becomes much harder to say "If I knew X was the consequence of designating Alpha as a "tertiary purpose" of the RDS, I never would have let that happen."

The purpose designations are fundamentally meaningless without clearly understanding their consequences.  Otherwise, this becomes a game show, where someone chooses "Door Number 3, Chuck" without knowing whether what lies behind it is a new Mercedes, a year's supply of Spam, or a Bengal TIger that hasn't eaten in three days.

Greg Shatan

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:52 AM Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

I listened to the MP3 recording of the 28 February WG meeting and want to share a few comments.

<snip>

Fourth, Alex Deacon asked if we are assuming that the purposes we have been discussion are primary purposes.  I admit that I am still not clear in my head what the difference is between a primary purpose and a secondary purpose.  For now though, I suggest this:  if we eventually decide that it is necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary purposes, we can categorize the purposes at that time.