<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Andrew,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I think we might be stumbling over the use of words here, and also some implementation design. Let me try to stumble through what I see happening here.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I believe the idea underpinning the language you comment on is that anything that would be "stored" and then "displayed/accessed" has to be "collected" first (i.e., it needs to be entered into the database) for it to be in the RDS database, even if it is a single data point applicable to all records. (In other words, there cannot be an output without a corresponding input.) So, if we are glimpsing into the future of data storage/access/display, we have to specify the collection of each item we expect to see when we look at what can be accessed/displayed. This is a broader sense of "collected" than I think you are thinking of. Perhaps also a broader sense of the RDS database (if not the RDS) than you are thinking of.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we want to think about the database being only a collection of data fields associated with a particular domain name registration, then the Internic URL doesn't need to be entered into the database, and we could separately state that it should be displayed whenever an RDS record is displayed/accessed. In that sense, it wold be part of the RDS, but not part of the collection of "records."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Chuck,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 02:31:04PM -0700, Chuck wrote:<br>
> Sorry for any confusion Andrew. We are still only dealing with collection,<br>
> not display.<br>
<br>
</span>That's helpful, in the sense that I know the scope, but it leaves me<br>
confused about some of the agreements we're talking about. The most<br>
obvious example is this: "The URL of the Internic Complaint Site must<br>
be supported for inclusion in the RDS."<br>
<br>
That URL is published all over the Internet, and it is not tailored to<br>
the domain name or contact ID or registrar ID or whatever that one<br>
might be complaining about. There is no collection of data to do in<br>
this case: it's already collected. So, the agreement of the WG<br>
appears to be that it's possible for an RDS to know about that URL.<br>
Surely that is not a controversial enough question even to bother<br>
answering.<br>
<br>
That's what makes me think that people are actually thinking about<br>
whether that URL is to be _displayed_ sometimes. Again, I think the<br>
answer is trivially yes, but I'm more worried about what I think is an<br>
underlying conceptual confusion than I am worried about the details in<br>
this case.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>