[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: Now open: 18 January Poll on Purpose

[Greg Shatan]

Shane,

First, I would say that all legitimate purposes need to be catered for, so
I don't think we can agree there. :-(

Second, I think the garbage can top analogy illustrates the difference
between purpose and use.  It is not a legitimate purpose of a garbage can
top to be used as a sled, even if it is a potential use.  (I don't think we
can say that it is a legitimate use either, but hopefully we don't have to
parse that issue, at least not yet.  In college, we used to sled down the
hill in the middle of campus on cafeteria trays (from the cafeteria
conveniently located near the top of the hill.  This was definitely not a
legitimate purpose of those sleds.  We students may have thought this was a
legitimate use of the trays, but I doubt this view was shared by cafeteria
staff or university administration.  Or maybe we thought it was an
illegitimate use, which made it more exciting (it's been a while...).)

I share your view that the need for the information is indisputable -- so
we can agree there.  :-)

Nonetheless, I think there are good reasons that it is important to
identify the legitimate purposes of the data is collected, and to
accommodate those purposes.  Indeed, this is one of the essential purposes
of this Working Group.

Greg


On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
> If we can say that not all legitimate purposes have to be catered for,
> then I agree with you. :)
>
> If we say that tracking down the registrar of a domain as part of
> trademark research is a legitimate purpose, that does not mean that we
> have to design the system for this purpose, right?
>
> To try an analogy: We can recognize that using the plastic top of a
> garbage can as a sled is legitimate, but we don't insist on designing
> lids with sledding in mind.
>
> Full disclosure: My own take on the "legitimate purpose" discussion
> with regards to "thin data" is that we need *some* purpose for both
> gathering and publishing the information, because otherwise privacy
> laws may prohibit companies from gathering or publishing it. Luckily I
> think that there are so many such purposes that the need for the
> information is indisputable.
>
> Jumping ahead... as I said in a prior call (sorry for missing ones since
> then), I would prefer that the information is then allowed for any
> purpose, without restriction, because otherwise you have to have not
> only tiresome rules about what is allowed but also the Internet Police
> to enforce those rules, which seems like a step towards Armageddon.
>
> Given that we're still talking about "thin data", which is basically
> just a pointer to a registrar who has *actual* data, my own
> recommendation is not to stress too much. This stuff is only very, very
> vaguely personally identifiable.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>
> At 2017-01-21 14:51:29 -0500
> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have to disagree.  These are legitimate purposes for collection, as
> well
> > as for disclosure.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > I filled it out, but I am afraid for most of the purposes I could not
> > > agree.  We do not *collect *data for many of those purposes.  We
> disclose
> > > it to people for those purposes, but the purpose of collecting those
> data
> > > elements is not for tax collection, trademark enforcement actions, etc.
> > > This is the conflation issue I have raised repeatedly.
> > >
> > > Apologies if I did not make that point clear enough on the call.
> > >
> > > Stephanie Perrin
> > >
> > > On 2017-01-20 17:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > Please note that our current poll ends in about 24 hours.  So far only
> 16
> > > people have responded.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> > > bounces at icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of
> *Lisa
> > > Phifer
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:50 PM
> > > *To:* RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> > > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Now open: 18 January Poll on
> > > Purpose
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > As directed in the 18 January WG call, this week's new Poll on Purpose
> is
> > > now open for WG member participation:
> > >
> > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SZX9QJZ
> > >
> > > A PDF of this poll's questions and notes/recordings of the meeting are
> > > posted on the 18 January meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/
> > > EbTDAw
> > >
> > > This poll will close at *COB Saturday 21 January 2017*.
> > >
> > > All WG members are encouraged to participate in this poll to help
> advance
> > > deliberation and prepare for next week's meeting.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://
> mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/20170122/9f29bf68/attachment.html>