[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting - deep concerns
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Feb 25 23:42:25 UTC 2016
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
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list