[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] separating topics (was Re: ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners)

[Sam Lanfranco]

I happily accept Andrew's comments on how our mission is understood. Our 
need is clarity around which issues need to be address at this point, 
which issues can be set aside, and which nominally are dealt with later 
in the process. Any way we get there is good.

In that vein can someone remind me, in a sentence, why ICANN should 
insist that any data be collected beyond the minimum public data set.
There is the technical data associated with each domain name, and there 
is the business/service data the registrars need to provide there services.
Again, why should ICANN insist on more?

Sam L.


On 9/28/2017 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:56:48AM -0400, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>> We are trying to identify that core of public personal data that should be
>> in the open-access (no gated restrictions) record of information about the
>> registrant of the URL.
> Is that correct?  I didn't understand that at all.  I thought that we
> were still only talking about collection, and what data should be
> collected beyond the already-determined minumum public data set.
> Whether that should be published and how was, I thought, a later
> question.
>
> (Also, because I can't help myself in my nerdy quest about terminology
> here, registrants do not register URLs.  They register domain names.
> Domain names are only a part of URLs, and only sometimes at that, and
> I think we need to be clear what the limit of the domain of policy
> discussion is.)
>
>> or ICANN to try to make it a policy, that privacy/proxy services be provided
>> by all registrars It is up to registrars and registrants to sort out
> I think the reason that keeps coming up is because people are
> attempting to apply the whois-model of the world to this discussion,
> and are coming up with answers that correspond exactly to how whois
> has evolved given the pressures on it.  I think that is a mistake, but
> it is nevertheless understandable.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>