[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement
Sam Lanfranco
sam at lanfranco.net
Mon Aug 22 22:54:31 UTC 2016
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/20160822/5706645d/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list