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

[nathalie coupet]

Regarding the analogy with health data, the list of exceptions is long, when it comes to the application of data protection laws. For example, they do not apply in cases where public health and safety require it;
For government research and statistics needs;
In case of a law enforcement investigation;
When the security of the President or other high ranking officials is at stake;
When the data can be collected from other sources (such as the phone book);
When needed for legislative purposes;
In case of a court order or other legal mandate;
If the person giving the data does so willingly;
And data protection doesn't apply to second or all subsequent sharings. 

The truth is data protection is very loosely applied and is not meant to prevent law enforcement, legal processes from going their course. 
By gating all data, or reducing RDS to just a technician's tool, this would also break the economy of the Internet. 
WHOIS/RDS is also a phone book and as such, it protects the end-user by affording her and additional and important level of security. 
Nowhere is it said that RDS is purely technical.
This is reductive view. 

Nathalie

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Sorry, this discussion is important.  Your example proves my point.  What you show below is a disclosure.  It is a disclosure of a limited set of data.  we are not supposed to be talking about disclosure at this point in our proceedings.  I leave it to the experts on whether this is "thin" in the sense of the thick transition discussion, I really don't know because we are focused on gTLD policy here.  My point is this is a disclosure.  We do not "collect" thin data per se, we collect a whole mess of mandatory data elements, as per the RAA.  Then we generate a whole mess as part of activating and making real the domain's existence.  Then we share (release) a small subset. 
> 
> So talking about collecting thin data is misleading in my view.  Purpose of disclosing it is what we are in fact talking about. Calling it a purpose for           collection opens the barn door.
> 
> Stephanie
> 
>> On 2017-01-25 06:46, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> Thank you Michele, ( ignoring the spell check driven typo of "think" for "thick" (-: ). We should be able to put this "thin" discussion behind us.
>> The "thin" discussion should have taken about 2 email exchanges. Here is CIRA's (thin) search for .ca domain names [disclosure: it is my domain name]
>>  
>> Domain name: artisanalpot.ca
>> Domain status: registered
>> Creation date: 2016/12/14
>> Expiry date: 2017/12/14
>> Updated date: 2016/12/19
>> DNSSEC: Unsigned
>> Registrar:
>> Name: Web Hosting Canada (7081936 Canada Inc.)
>> Number: 5000080
>> Name servers:
>> ns1.whc.ca 173.209.49.178
>> ns2.whc.ca 198.245.53.176
>> ns3.whc.ca 198.245.61.86
>> % WHOIS look-up made at 2017-01-25 11:32:24 (GMT)
>> % Use of CIRA's WHOIS service is governed by the Terms of Use in its Legal
>> % Notice, available at http://www.cira.ca/legal-notice/?lang=en 
>> % (c) 2017 Canadian Internet Registration Authority, (http://www.cira.ca/)
>> 
>> Nothing private is disclosed and LEA would have to resort to legal means to get to what is in the "thick" data set. 
>> There are no ICANN policy  issues here.
>> 
>> Sam L <artisanalpot.ca> (-: 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170125/ca421e57/attachment.html>