<html>
<body>
Dear all,<br><br>
To elaborate a bit more on this poll's goal - <br><br>
Yesterday's WG call suggested a need to tease apart an extremely complex
set of possibilities and permutations into smaller simpler
pieces.<br><br>
To do so, we tried to create a poll question that asked as narrowly as
possible whether purpose should play a role in access to "thin
data" while giving you an opportunity to elaborate on why or why
not. If results suggest that purpose should apply <u>in some way</u> then
the WG can further deliberate on how.<br><br>
This is why the options listed for Q1 do not state (and were not intended
to imply) anything about whether or not users would be required to
declare a purpose or identify or authenticate themselves or whether or
not policy might apply additional criteria to determine or control
access. See also Q1 instructions given in the yellow box beneath the list
of options.<br><br>
In addition, the Q2 comment box can be used to identify any important
assumptions that influenced your Q1 response, to propose alternatives or
refinements for consideration during the WG's next call, and so on. Such
comments may help us spot differences in interpretation that are
important to make explicit in next-step deliberation.<br><br>
If this approach of trying to answer one very narrow question first
doesn't help deliberation move forward, we can try another
approach.<br><br>
Best, Lisa<br>
</body>
</html>