<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">My understanding is the same as Andrew (and consistent with the discussion on the call, which I did attend). To some extent, this is a "chicken and egg" question -- deciding what should be done first. I don't think anyone was suggesting skipping any analysis, nor was anyone framing this as "who wants this data?! Get your data here!"</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The approach suggested by Kathy and seconded by Sam ("<span style="font-size:12.8px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">only adding fields when there is a convincing reason. If this starts by casting a wide net much time and effort will go in culling out undesirable fields</span>") will not save any time or effort, and it will make the discussions much more difficult to organize. If we get the "desiderata" on a list, we can then move to the discussion of that list, in a single phase. Switching to a "fight to get on the list" approach will put us into a "stop-and-start" mode, where we will stop each time a field is suggested and enter into a debate over that single field's worthiness for inclusion, without the perspective of knowing which other fields may next come up for consideration.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I endorse the current work plan approach of getting it all on the list, seeing the list holistically and then considering the propositions which will all clearly be before us. This should result in less time and effort, not more. This is also more forward-looking, rather than starting with creating a list of the data currently being collected, which is inherently backwards-looking.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:17:49PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
<br>
> Jumping straight into "Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirements<br>
> (without debate)" skips the whole analysis (above) that I understand is<br>
> necessary under EU nations' laws (and the many other countries with data<br>
> protection laws) and jumps straight into -- "who wants this data?! Get your<br>
> data here!"<br>
<br>
</span>I missed the call, so when I read this I understood the plan to be<br>
basically brainstorming -- writing down all the possible things one<br>
might want first, and then do the analysis you were suggesting. Maybe<br>
I misunderstood, though.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> What other term can we use?<br>
<br>
</span>My experience is that when people say "requirements" in this<br>
less-formal way (and it's indeed also not what I mean when I say<br>
"requirements"), it usually actually means "desiderata". So that's<br>
how I've been reading it.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>