[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Question on April/May update doc, 'initial points of rough consensus' #14

[Chen, Tim]

Hi Chuck,

Not meaning to start a long thread here, but copying the RDS WG in case
anyone else has a comment.

I reviewed the recently routed April/May update newsletter
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/59644409/Next%20Generation%20RDS%20PDP%20-%20Newsletter%20-%20April-May%202017.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1496694757381&api=v2>.
Thank you to the person or people who worked to put that together, it was a
useful summary.

My question regards item #14 in the initial points of rough consensus,
found on Page 3 of that document.  For reference here is what it says:

"For thin data only, do existing gTLD registration directory services
policies sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection,
privacy and free speech laws about purpose?
#14.  *Existing gTLD RDS policies do NOT sufficiently address compliance
with applicable data protection, privacy, and free speech laws about
purpose.*"

First I want to note that I engaged in this WG around the time of
Copenhagen so I'm very open to you pointing me to something that I may have
missed prior, or some poll that I missed along the way.

But I have no recall of when we agreed that this was a 'rough consensus'.
It strikes me that a lot of the dialogue on this WG recently has been about
how thin data is not where we need to be fighting the privacy battle, and
more specifically there are foundational reasons today's thin data is
necessary in an open and ungated protocol.

I went to the linked "31 May, 2017 Working Draft on Key Concepts,
Deliberation document" (see Page 2) and navigated to Section 4.1 on page
15.  A lot of that referred text from the EWG is talking about "contact
information" and such things only found in thick whois.  I'm challenged in
understanding how the EWG concluded that, pertaining to only thin whois,
this statement #14 is relevant or even accurate.  Maybe there is something
specific to the words 'about purpose' at the end of the statement that I am
not comprehending well.

Thank you in advance for any context you (or anyone else) can provide.

-Tim Chen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170607/ab751bfc/attachment-0001.html>