<html>
<body>
Dear all,<br><br>
Let's take advantage of next week's sessions with data commissioners to
clarify the concept of purpose as it applies to any directory service.
<br><br>
I suggest that the 4th question raised by Chuck below and the follow-on
examples given in Greg's first paragraph below be incorporated into this
WG's list of questions for data commissioners.<br><br>
While it falls to this WG to recommend purpose(s) of the RDS, these
concrete examples could be included in a merged version of [SP-1] and
[TB-1] to help the data commissioners better understand what exactly this
WG is trying to understand about the impact of purpose on directory
service policies.<br><br>
Best, Lisa<br><br>
<br>
At 09:18 AM 3/2/2017, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Following on Chuck's last point,
I think there is a lot we need to clarify when a "purpose"
designation matters -- what does it apply to, Â where is it applied (and
not applied), what is the effect of the designation (and ways to avoid or
overcome those effects), what are the criteria we will use to determine
purpose, what are the criteria that will be used by outside bodies, what
are the levels of purpose and how does that affect all of the above, are
there "bad" purpose designations, etc.<br><br>
My overarching concern is that we will consider "purpose"
designation for various items and the discussion is more or less
abstract. Only much later does it become apparent what the
practical and legal consequences of that designation are. At that
point, it becomes much harder to say "If I knew X was the
consequence of designating Alpha as a "tertiary purpose" of the
RDS, I never would have let that happen."<br><br>
The purpose designations are fundamentally meaningless without clearly
understanding their consequences. Otherwise, this becomes a game
show, where someone chooses "Door Number 3, Chuck" without
knowing whether what lies behind it is a new Mercedes, a year's supply of
Spam, or a Bengal TIger that hasn't eaten in three days.<br><br>
Greg Shatan<br><br>
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:52 AM Gomes, Chuck
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>I listened to the MP3 recording of the 28 February WG meeting and
want to share a few comments.<br><br>
<dd><snip><br>
<dd>Fourth, Alex Deacon asked if we are assuming that the purposes we
have been discussion are primary purposes. I admit that I am still
not clear in my head what the difference is between a primary purpose and
a secondary purpose. For now though, I suggest this: if we
eventually decide that it is necessary to distinguish between primary and
secondary purposes, we can categorize the purposes at that time.
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>