<html><body>A really big plus one for Andrew.<br /><br />I share concerns wth those who question whether the place to start is with uses. It implicitly assumes that all of the current 'uses' of the information should continue. General data protection law strongly suggests otherwise.<br /><br />However, we are starting with uses - and as long as everyone realises that the current uses of the data will not be permitted under data protection law, then let's proceed. And yes, we will come down to Andrew's fundamental question - what personal information that is collection should be accessible to all - OR NOT. And, in the end, I am not sure how much more information we need. From my perspective, I know I will not have time to read all of what is on the list already, let alone new stuff. So maybe let's focus on the information identified in public comment as the critical information for this issue and start talking about uses - what of the uses should be maintained, and what - for strong data protection reasons - should not.<br /><br />Holly<br /><br /><br /><br /><blockquote><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com></div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div><gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 08:10:25 -0400<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The overflowing list (was Re: A new and rather important document with respect to jurisdiction issues)<br /><br /><br />
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 11:32:13PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin wrote:<br />
> May I suggest that we add it to our already overflowing list of important<br />
> documents?<br /><br />
I don't object, but I'm wondering whether there is really anything new<br />
in most of the additional documents people are bringing.<br /><br />
It seems to me that we have a fundamental question we're going to have<br />
to answer. I know that we've decided that now is not the time for<br />
deliberation, so I don't encourage discussion about this question.<br />
But I'm decreasingly convinced that more material is going to help us<br />
come to any decision about balancing the desire of some, on one side,<br />
to have a lot of personally identifying information about domain name<br />
registrants; and the desire of others to ensure that such personally<br />
identifying information is protected on privacy grounds.<br /><br />
We can probably continue to find additional examples of people<br />
insisting they need one or the other of these, but I do not really see<br />
any way that more evidence that someone really really wants one of<br />
them (with all the attendant arguments rehearsed) is going to help us<br />
come to a conclusion.<br /><br />
Best regards,<br /><br />
A<br /><br />
-- <br />
Andrew Sullivan<br />
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br />
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<br />
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg<br /></blockquote></body></html>