[Gnso-epdp-team] redacted data
Mueller, Milton L
milton at gatech.edu
Thu Aug 23 13:19:51 UTC 2018
Thanks, Thomas. So you want possibly more redaction. I will add that to the list.
From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:epdp at gdpr.ninja]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:05 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] redacted data
Let me qualify the ISPCP input: Not redacting the „Organization“ field is problematic.
Am 23.08.2018 um 15:00 schrieb Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>:
I have raised this point several times and I see it being avoided.
The redacted data elements are one of the most important aspects of the temp spec.
It is imperative that this group identify specifically which redactions we agree with and which ones certain stakeholders don’t agree with. This should be very simple to do.
I would propose that we add to the Triage report a simple list of each redacted data element, and then list who agrees and disagrees with its redaction. Those opposing a redaction must explain why they think publishing that data is consistent with GDPR and other privacy laws that may apply.
My understanding is that the NCSG, RySG, RrSG, ALAC and ISPC all are ok with the current set of redactions under the temp spec.
It is therefore incumbent upon the BC, IPC, and GAC to specify which data elements they think should be published and which they are ok with redacting.
Again, this seems like a very simple thing to do and as a form of “triage” would be most helpful for the group’s progress
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team