[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The burden of proof (was Re: Principle on Proportionality for "Thin Data"access)

[Paul Keating]

+1000

Sent from my iPad

> On 1 Jun 2017, at 07:33, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +++++1.  I am gobsmacked wondering why we're back at litigating what is 'thin data'? For the wackiest of hard-line European privacy maven has conceded the sense of it!!
> 
> Christ on a bike. Talk about comfort to the afflicted!!
> 
> -Carlton
> 
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:25:55AM +0200, Volker Greimann wrote:
>> > Even if there if no PII in thin data (and I am leaning to that direction
>> > myself), if there really a need for all these fields to be public for the
>> > purpose of the operationality of the internet? I am thinking of the created,
>> > updated and expiration dates in particular since those are the ones leading
>> > to the most abusive use.
>> 
>> I think I have argued, previously at some length and more briefly in
>> this thread, how those fields are useful and important for the
>> operational model of the Internet that prevails because of the
>> fundamentally distributed naturue of the Internet.  You have offered
>> not one shred of evidence that those fields in particular are "abused"
>> (the abuse, if it happens, comes from email, and we're talking about
>> thin data so no email addresses are involved).  And you have not
>> addressed the argument about how the Internet works.
>> 
>> I therefore believe that, if you want anyone to take seriously the
>> idea that we need to discuss any of the thin data any more, the burden
>> of proof lies on you.  Please either make such an argument, or let us
>> finally move on to discussing data where everyone acknowledges there
>> is a more serious issue.
>> 
>> In my opinion, we have spent long enough discussing the "simple" case
>> and artificially making it complicated.  It's time to move on to a
>> real problem.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> A
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170601/ed8017ac/attachment.html>