<html>
<body>
Two comments:<br><br>
1. This is a PDP. We do not based our actions by what is in an ICANN
policy, but it is our job to decide what is in the policies (in relation
to our topic).<br><br>
2. ICANN is here for far more than to enforce its own policies. We must
ensure that the policies and all they imply address the public interest.
If we judge that something related to the RDS (or whatever) is in the
public interest, our job is to see that it happens or can happen. That is
complex, because there are clearly multiple conflicting desires/needs,
but we ARE supposed to be factoring them all in.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 09/09/2016 02:26 PM, Mark Svancarek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Greg, I disagree with your
conclusion here:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><i>I do know that published
registration data has uses and justifications for its existence and use
other than managing the domain's lifecycle. For example there is
the need to identify a registrant for various legal purposes, some of
which (like UDRP) are enshrined in current ICANN policy. So
"supporting the lifecycle" may be a mechanical and possibly
exclusionary or reductive lens through which to view the issues.
</i></blockquote> <br>
If something is enshrined in ICANN policy, and one is obligated to do it,
then it is very much part of “supporting the lifecycle” in my
opinion. It’s a task within the Registered portion chart to which
you’ve linked.<br>
<br>
Ironically, I think you may be the one applying an exclusionary or
reductive lens.<br>
<br>
/marksv</blockquote></body>
</html>