SHould we avoid the term "DPP"?

Created by: onthebreeze

Impacted sections

https://spec-untp-fbb45f.opensource.unicc.org/docs/specification/DigitalProductPassport

Issue Description

One lesson from our re-drafting of UNECE Recommendation 49 (the policy advice to nations for which UNTP is a "supporting instrument") - is that different people have a very different understanding of the term DPP.

• If you are in Europe, DPP is a regulated instrument. There are laws about due-diligence and accuracy of facts presented in a DPP. So EU doesnt need a DCC to back up claims because they have the law - backed by judiciary and police !
• If you are in the rest of the world (where UNTP is mostly focused), a DPP is just a carrier of claims about a product without any regulatory enforcement. So there's no jail time for telling lies. So we recommend independent attestations in the form of DCCs to add trust to the claims - precisely because theres no law to enforce it.

When some people deep into the EU DPP hear that we are proposing the use of "DPP" at every step in the upstream supply chain, they often assume they mean a regulated instrument like the EU DPP -which has huge implications for cost and regulatory change all over the world. But we aren't saying that - we are just using the term "DPP" to mean "a bundle of claims by a manufacturer about a product"

So - should we find a different term for this thing we currently call a DPP?