<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I have raised this point several times and I see it being avoided.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The redacted data elements are one of the most important aspects of the temp spec.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is imperative that this group identify specifically which redactions we agree with and which ones certain stakeholders don’t agree with. This should be very simple to do.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would propose that we add to the Triage report a simple list of each redacted data element, and then list who agrees and disagrees with its redaction. Those opposing a redaction must explain why they think publishing that data is consistent
with GDPR and other privacy laws that may apply.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My understanding is that the NCSG, RySG, RrSG, ALAC and ISPC all are ok with the current set of redactions under the temp spec.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is therefore incumbent upon the BC, IPC, and GAC to specify which data elements they think should be published and which they are ok with redacting.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again, this seems like a very simple thing to do and as a form of “triage” would be most helpful for the group’s progress
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Milton L. Mueller<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>