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

[Greg Shatan]

Mark,

I agree that Sara's edits make this point more clear and succinct.  The
prior version, while accurate, may have been hard to track.

Greg S.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> 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>; Greg Aaron <gca at icginc.com>;
> Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> *Cc:* RDS PDP WG <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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160822/81be1c77/attachment.html>