<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi Chuck,</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature">My position was and is to secure unauthenticated access to thin data for all. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I envisioned access to RDS through 3 chock points to weed out bad actors as much as possible: </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">An end-user would need to check the first box for authenticated/unauthenticated access, then another box for consumer and a third would be to select the purpose or a default purpose would be selected for him (maybe no purpose could also be possible). </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">Consumers don't need all the thin data to be published for their simple queries, since - in my mind - they want to make sure the website is legitimate or they want to identify the author in case of abuse (such as defamation, abuse or threats). </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">If the principle of proportionality doesn't apply to most other cases, that's fine. But I think it does apply for simple consumer queries. </div><div id="AppleMailSignature">This is an interesting debate, but I never thought it would lead to people actually proposing to drop vital data for the functioning of the Internet.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature">I had in mind the other principle that you do not volunteer data when it is not required. It should be useful. Not because it is PPI, but out of caution.</div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br></div><div id="AppleMailSignature"><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On May 31, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:#0563C1;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:#954F72;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Nathalie,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your suggestion that the principle of proportionality be added. That has generated a very lively discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I am sure you have seen, a lot of WG members have stated that they do not believe that the principle of proportionality applies to thin data and have provided what I think is pretty good rationale in support of their position. As the
originator of the suggestion, do you still maintain that the principle applies to thin data? If so, how would you counter the arguments that have been made to the contrary?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All – If anyone else thinks that the principle of proportionality applies to think data, please speak up and provide your counters to the arguments that have been made to the contrary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>