[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] [renamed] Key early questions

Sam Lanfranco sam at lanfranco.net
Wed May 11 16:27:37 UTC 2016


More than happy to grant you your point.

My only additional observation is that there is the  "we" - the 
multistakeholder community we know and love.
But there is also a "they", the national and regional policy making 
bodies that will think, and act, as though they,
within their own jurisdictions, are responsible for dealing with many of 
these data issues.

The stakeholder constituencies have to be even more active at those 
levels than they are within ICANN,
if the "we" wishes to protect what it feels should be protected 
(access/privacy) in this data space.

Those national/regional authorities have more binding policy powers than 
are found within ICANN.
They can overrule ICANN, within their jurisdictions, but ICANN cannot 
overrule them from within its remit.


On 5/11/2016 12:04 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> This focus is much too narrow, to the extent that it is limited to the 
> business/institutional needs of ICANN and its contracted parties for data.
> There is a big world out there of people and institutions, who are 
> neither ICANN nor its contracted parties, who have relied for decades 
> upon access to registration data for a myriad of lawful and productive 
> purposes.  They also have an interest in how we answer the question 
> “why we need an RDS.”
> To answer that question we first need to decide who is “we”.
> Steve Metalitz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160511/8439e32b/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list