[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The overflowing list (was Re: A new and rather important document with respect to jurisdiction issues)

[h.raiche at internode.on.net]

A really big plus one for Andrew.

I share concerns wth those who question whether the place to start is
with uses.  It implicitly assumes that all of the current 'uses' of
the information should continue.  General data protection law
strongly suggests otherwise.

However, we are starting with uses - and as long as everyone realises
that the current uses of the data will not be permitted under data
protection law, then let's proceed.  And yes, we will come down to
Andrew's fundamental question - what personal information that is
collection should be accessible to all - OR NOT.  And, in the end, I
am not sure how much more information we need.  From my perspective,
I know I will not have time to read all of what is on the list
already, let alone new stuff.  So  maybe let's focus on the
information identified in public comment as the critical information
for this issue and start talking about uses - what of the uses should
be maintained, and what - for strong data protection reasons - should
not.

Holly

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Sullivan" 
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:10:25 -0400
Subject:[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The overflowing list (was Re: A new and
rather important document with respect to jurisdiction issues)

 On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:32:13PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
 > May I suggest that we add it to our already overflowing list of
important
 > documents?

 I don't object, but I'm wondering whether there is really anything
new
 in most of the additional documents people are bringing.

 It seems to me that we have a fundamental question we're going to
have
 to answer. I know that we've decided that now is not the time for
 deliberation, so I don't encourage discussion about this question.
 But I'm decreasingly convinced that more material is going to help us
 come to any decision about balancing the desire of some, on one side,
 to have a lot of personally identifying information about domain name
 registrants; and the desire of others to ensure that such personally
 identifying information is protected on privacy grounds.

 We can probably continue to find additional examples of people
 insisting they need one or the other of these, but I do not really
see
 any way that more evidence that someone really really wants one of
 them (with all the attendant arguments rehearsed) is going to help us
 come to a conclusion.

 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160715/a4cf4af3/attachment.html>