[Gnso-epdp-team] Slicing and dicing

[Mueller, Milton L]

Alan,
Your comment completely misses the point Thomas is making, which is a valid one. Let me make the logic clearer to you:

1. If the purpose of Whois is what 4.4.8 says it is, it would justify collecting payment data, because that would "support" investigators
2. Whois does not and has never included payment data
3. Ergo, 4.4.8 is not an accurate statement of Whois purpose.

Do you get it now? 

Let me say in general terms that you do _not_ justify an overly broad statement of purpose by saying, "oh we've never collected that data before." If the overly broad statement of purpose is incorporated into an ICANN policy, we might very well be collecting that data next year, or the year after that. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 6:11 PM
> To: Thomas Rickert <epdp at gdpr.ninja>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Slicing and dicing
> 
> Thomas, if we are going to have a productive discussion, let's keep this realistic.
> Payment data has never been a part of WHOIS and is a complete red herring
> here.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 29/08/2018 05:20 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 
> >If the purpose included the publication of all data of potential
> >cybersquatters, including their payment data to allow for investigators
> >to do their work efficiently, I think we would all agree that that
> >would go too far. Yet, one could think that such action was covered by
> >the purpose of 4.4.8..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team