[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"

[Hollenbeck, Scott]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 7:22 PM
> To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"
>
> Hi,
>
> I left the meeting with data protection experts last week feeling quite
> strongly the need for a specific and concrete purpose for each datum we
> recommend to collect and to make available; and the need for a definition
> of who the maximal (appropriate) audience is (given the purpose).
>
> At the same time, I think that a reasonably short and high-level statement
> of purpose along the lines that we have been preparing can provide a
> useful set of principles.
>
> It strikes me that maybe we could take the high-level purpose statement,
> and go through some potential data elements and link each one concretely
> to at least one of the principles in our candidate list.  In what follows
> I name these "purpose 1", "purpose 2", &c.  The purposes are numbered
> according to the scheme in RDS PDP Phase 1: Key Concepts Deliberation –
> Working Draft-7March2017 (on p7).  I'm aware that the details in the
> candidate list are still in flux, but I think the broad strokes are pretty
> close anyway, so I thought I'd try it with the "thin" data we agreed to
> start with.  This mail is a little long because I'm dealing with all the
> classes of elements in one message.  I suppose we could break this into
> one-thread-per-element (or class) if we don't converge quickly on each of
> them.  The outline below is just my view, of course, though obviously I
> think that what I say is true.  I use the "maximal audience" because I
> think that if there is any "whole public" use then there's no point
> considering more restrictive uses.  (For instance, if we need the domain
> name to be published to everyone on the Internet because it won't work
> otherwise, then it makes no difference if LEOs want that data under some
> sort of authorized-access protocol, because they'll just get it under the
> wide-open rules instead.  So we don't need to care about the LEO purpose
> in that case.)  "Maximal audience" might not work for cases where two
> different classes have different needs both of which require some
> restrictions, but it's handy here because we're talking about thin data.
>
> I'm sorry this is long, but I hope it is a useful contribution to the
> discussion.

I believe it is. Thanks for the suggestion.

Scott