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

[Sam Lanfranco]

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>