[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Review Tool for Responses from ccTLD Registry Operators' to Questions on Privacy, Data Protection and the GDPR

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:41:27PM +0000, Greg Aaron wrote:
> There are some lessons to be gained.  For example RIPE has determined that it can and will publish contact information in its WHOIS under European data privacy regulations.  And RIPE defines what each contact type is to be used for.
> 

If people want to read other communities' policies for a different
kind of registry with completely different community policy mechanisms
-- for information, for analogies, or even for their soporific effects
-- I certainly have no objection them to doing that.  In my own
commercial dealings, however, the fact that someone else is prepared
to undertake a risk does not entail that I will or should.

During the IANA stewardship transition, a bunch of us worked really
hard to make it clear that the names community that convenes within
ICANN is not the Internet Policies Committee, and that other
communities make policies unrelated to the policies that are this
community's remit.  That equally means that, while one might find
those other communities' views informative, ultimately this community
will need to make decisions for itself.

This clarity of roles is the same reason I went on at length about the
distinction between syntax and semantics on Tuesday's call: only when
there is semantic entanglement is it appropriate for the ICANN
community to be defining syntax.  Otherwise, it should let protocol
engineers do that, because this community does not usually have the
relevant expertise.  The way this WG keeps stumbling over confusion of
syntax and semantics in whois is, frankly, an excellent example of
that problem, and I don't think we want to make it worse by also
entangling this community's policy area with that of other
communities.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com