[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] List topics for this week

[John Bambenek]

One, it is not enforced taxation, it is a requirement that was present in the contract and a requirement BEFORE you got into the business. It isn't something imposed out of the blue one day. It has literally been there for decades. 

Two, is it really necessary to make your point with crude sexual analogies (or am I mistaken as to what you meant by BDSM)?

--
John Bambenek

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 04:01, Rob Golding <rob.golding at astutium.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-06-15 17:43, Chen, Tim wrote:
>> Using the arguments you have made about individual control over PII,
>> what right does my chosen registrar or registry have to get
>> compensated for my whois data?   Put another way, I get your point
>> about 'recompense to registrants' but I don't understand how you can
>> add in '& registrars & registries' unless an individual has explicitly
>> given permission to those companies to monetize their whois data?
> 
> It was bereft of significant design consideration/comment over the "systems and processing", but to me, I would expect that someone has to collect/protect the data, run the system(s), distribute the (probably micro-)payments, provide audit/reports and so on - those things cost money, so was anticipating a sort-of revenue share model, rather than direct monetisation as such
> 
> If we're going to have a "next-gen" RDS, why not make it a benefit to the registrants, rather than compounding the current system of enforced taxation for mandatory port-43 based BDSM we have now.
> 
> Rob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg