[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] key concepts: say "contact data" when that is what we mean

[James Galvin]

On 7 Dec 2016, at 9:55, Greg Aaron wrote:

> In the coming discussions, one approach could be: There are good 
> reasons to publish the thin data … is there any compelling 
> reason _not_ to publish it?   If we can take care of this 
> low-hanging fruit, we will solve part of the puzzle and we can 
> concentrate on the issues around contact data.  This is not a 
> proposal to publish thin data only.  It’s an attempt to disentangle 
> concepts and find a way forward.  Not all data is the same, so 
> let’s stop treating all data the same.  We may not have to iterate 
> repeatedly about thin data.

I agree with the principle that we should tease apart “registration 
data” into a few different categories.  The discussion in the rest of 
this thread has been focused on that and I’ll state I support it.  My 
current view is that there are at least three categories of data: PII 
(e.g., contact information), operational and explicitly not-PII (e.g., 
registrar ID and NS records), and other (e.g., registries with specific 
requirements).

I have two concerns with this discussion though.  First, we keep talking 
about “publishing” data.  Greg is careful to point out he’s not 
talking about publishing, per se, but he doesn’t mention what we are 
talking about.

Second, given we understand our data (which is a reason to categorize 
it) there are at least three topics to talk about with respect to that 
data.

1. Why do we care about this data, or perhaps, what is the purpose of 
the data?  The answer to these questions is both critical and essential. 
  They will drive the answer to the next two questions.  In my opinion, 
without an answer to these questions (eventually, if not first or early 
in our process), discussions about the next two topics will never come 
to a conclusion.  By the way, also my opinion, any answer that somehow 
embodies a reference to the existing system and service is irrelevant.

2. What are the data collection requirements?  This includes who, what, 
where, why, and how, including storage.

3. What are the publication requirements?  Might be zero.  Greg suggests 
above that we could approach the problem of publication in some cases by 
answering the following question, “Is there any compelling reason not 
to publish it?”  I will object to this.  This is never the right 
question.  The right question is always, “Why publish it?”  You 
can’t publish it if you don’t collect it and you don’t collect it 
if you don’t have a need for it.

All questions must be answered in the positive.  Otherwise what’s the 
point of our discussion?  The answer will always default to be collect 
everything and publish everything, and then let the lawyers fight about 
what’s public.

Jim