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

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:19:56AM -0500, John Bambenek wrote:
> Yes there is a difference which is why I am using both words. And that's why I am suggesting we talking about optional and maskable fields right up front as part of the requirements discussion not some ancillary discussion that happens later after all the decisions are already made. 
> 

I thought the WG had already decided on a different (multi-pass)
strategy, in which data collection itself was treated first with the
principle that, if there were some (legitmate, hand-wave hand-wave)
purpose then collection would be considered.  Later, the further
question of access to such collected items would be taken up.

I don't really care which way we do this, but it seems to me that we
need to stop arguing about the way by which we'll reach a result and
start actually doing work in the direction of some result.  The
meta-discussions about process are wearing out contributors (well, at
least one contributor!) and creating the condition in which those who
want no changes at all will get their way by exhaustion.  If ICANN is
incapable of coming to terms with the deficiencies of whois (the
protocol) after all this time, it will be revealed to be ridiculous.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com