[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:17:49PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> Jumping straight into "Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirements
> (without debate)" skips the whole analysis (above) that I understand is
> necessary under EU nations' laws (and the many other countries with data
> protection laws) and jumps straight into -- "who wants this data?! Get your
> data here!"

I missed the call, so when I read this I understood the plan to be
basically brainstorming -- writing down all the possible things one
might want first, and then do the analysis you were suggesting.  Maybe
I misunderstood, though.

> What other term can we use?

My experience is that when people say "requirements" in this
less-formal way (and it's indeed also not what I mean when I say
"requirements"), it usually actually means "desiderata".  So that's
how I've been reading it.

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com