[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Registrar Data vs RDS Data

[Chuck]

I should avoid using the term 'collection' and simply say we are not talking
about 'access' yet.  In cases where an element is already publicly displayed
elsewhere, it should be a no-brainer for us when discussing access if we
decide the element should be in the RDS.

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: Friday, August 25, 2017 7:30 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Registrar Data vs RDS Data

Hi Chuck,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:31:04PM -0700, Chuck wrote:
> Sorry for any confusion Andrew.  We are still only dealing with 
> collection, not display.

That's helpful, in the sense that I know the scope, but it leaves me
confused about some of the agreements we're talking about.  The most obvious
example is this: "The URL of the Internic Complaint Site must be supported
for inclusion in the RDS."

That URL is published all over the Internet, and it is not tailored to the
domain name or contact ID or registrar ID or whatever that one might be
complaining about.  There is no collection of data to do in this case: it's
already collected.  So, the agreement of the WG appears to be that it's
possible for an RDS to know about that URL.
Surely that is not a controversial enough question even to bother answering.

That's what makes me think that people are actually thinking about whether
that URL is to be _displayed_ sometimes.  Again, I think the answer is
trivially yes, but I'm more worried about what I think is an underlying
conceptual confusion than I am worried about the details in this case.

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