[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

[Gomes, Chuck]

To avoid causing more confusion and distributing more versions, in our meeting tomorrow we will use the version of the problem statement that has Ayden’s responses to my questions and comments and then will use that version to discuss edits that have been proposed since then.  Please be prepared to discuss additional edits in our meeting including those included in the messages below.

Chuck

From: Mark Svancarek [mailto:marksv at microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 6:57 PM
To: Sam Lanfranco; Greg Aaron; Gomes, Chuck; Ayden Férdeline
Cc: RDS PDP WG
Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement

Actually, I am now liking Sara Bockey’s edits, which dispense with some of this language.

Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed.  Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others. Members of the global population of end-users, whether they are individuals, organizations, companies, or other groups, may fall into either camp depending on circumstances.


From: Sam Lanfranco [mailto:sam at lanfranco.net]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:55 PM
To: Mark Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com<mailto:marksv at microsoft.com>>; Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com<mailto:gca at icginc.com>>; Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>; Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement


Mark, Greg, et. al.,
In an effort to keep things both simple and clear, might not "Camp #2" below simply be a specific example of those in Camp #1 who want data to be "provided/available" under restricted conditions.

Maybe the Camp #1 wording could be further tuned to say "... Various stakeholders may have different and distinct requirements..."
This replaces "..have similar yet distinct requirements..." and inserts a conditional "may" in front of "have".

Sam L.
On 8/22/2016 6:43 PM, Mark Svancarek wrote:
Resending – I see that the current draft has some changes which obscure the original 2-camps distinction.

Camp #1:
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, and intellectual property owners, and individual registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data…. These stakeholders have similar yet distinct requirements regarding the particular data which should be collected and the conditions under which it can be viewed.

Camp #2:
Additionally, there are some entities which desire anonymity for free speech and personal safety reasons, and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with the aforementioned stakeholders.

/msv


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160822/7c4772f1/attachment.html>