[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Off the Simplicity Wall or Simply Off the Wall

[Farell Folly]

Good analysis...It confirms that we need to divide the question raised
earlier in the meeting in two parts.

Best Regards
@__f_f__
about.me/farell
________________________________.
Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 25 avr. 2017 22:49, "Sam Lanfranco" <sam at lanfranco.net> a écrit :

> At the risk of an unbroken line of stupid comments I offer the following. (*With
> the caveat that here you can hit the <**DELETE**> button **:-(**  and get
> on with things*) On Adobe Connect such offerings as this cost us real
> time.
> I come to this as an economist who thinks of data as “inventory” and
> realize that economists are often accused of opinions that lead anywhere,
> or nowhere.
>
> Might there be some merit to ICANN simply having a minimalist approach,
> deciding on and defining open access data as “thin data”. “Thick data”
> would simply be all authoritative data that is not “thin data”. “Gated
> data” would be Thick data with defined terms of access. There is little
> logic in having gated thin data and gated thick data. There is just gated
> data, possibly with differential terms of access for different users.
>
> Might there be some merit in defining “authoritative data” simply as:
> verified (as best the registrar can); at a designated repository; and with
> defined terms of access (Open, Gated, Closed).
>
> The authoritative data set fields can be defined in terms of what
> Registrars, Registries, and ICANN need to run their respective businesses.
> The partitions between open, gated and closed data will vary by
> jurisdiction as individual registrars and registries conformed to binding
> national data protection and access regimes. This is not a “carve it in
> stone” exercise, it is more like a building a lego set of authoritative
> pieces that have limits to assembly, and will be subject to differential
> access depending on jurisdiction.
>
> There will always be pressures with regard to what data and what access,
> but that is nothing new. If ICANN wants to own the kitchen, it has to put
> up with the heat. In the face of evolving national data security and access
> policies ICANN’s role could be as a stakeholder and friend of the process,
> striving for common and sane legislation across jurisdictions. Should
> we/could we wish for anything more?
>
>
>
> Sam Lanfranco
> (*under comment protection :-\  *)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170426/223f6d7f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pkelnpieajdlhpgh.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15514 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170426/223f6d7f/pkelnpieajdlhpgh-0001.png>