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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Andrew,

I think you understood correctly what was intended.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 6:12 PM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns

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
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg