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

[Gomes, Chuck]

I know that we have been focusing on the Data Protection issues lately but please be assured that we will deliberate needs that at present may seem to conflict of Data Protection requirements and try to find solutions where both needs can be legally addressed.



Chuck



From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of John Horton
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 12:33 PM
To: nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"



Thanks, Nathalie. I'm sure many share your frustration!



I think that's a constructive question, and I'll jump in. My biggest fear is that in the monitoring that companies like mine do for banks, payment providers, e-commerce companies, etc. that helps determine whether a merchant is who they say they are, and whether they are engaged in other bad activity (i.e., laundering money) will be unable to obtain access to the Whois records we need in order to preserve the integrity of the payments system, protect payment providers from risk, and derivatively protect consumers. In other words, my fear is that we'll lose access to Whois records, which we need for that purpose.



Actually, to be honest, that's not true -- my biggest fear (to answer your question directly) is of clowns, and every time I travel, I ask the hotel to please check for clowns in my closet before I enter the room. But I assume you didn't really want to know my biggest fear -- you just want to know my biggest fear in relation to Whois policy, correct? Two different things, but yeah -- if a clown jumped out of my hotel closet, that would probably be the realization of my biggest fear. That's probably nothing that this working group can do much about, though.




John Horton
President and CEO, LegitScript

 <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B13GfLt8zwZJRXE5UTAtclVxdTg&revid=0B13GfLt8zwZJSG9zOUVwN1lFKzFrRVlnaWU0NGZ4RmdkUjg4PQ>



Follow LegitScript: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>  |  Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  |  Twitter<https://twitter.com/legitscript>  |  Blog<http://blog.legitscript.com>  |  Google+<https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>



 <https://www.legitscript.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/LegitScript-Workplace.png>  <https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B13GfLt8zwZJTmNWbmcwOTVJMXc&revid=0B13GfLt8zwZJQlZWOXVGbG9acC9nRGhzdEkxclFJVytCWVNjPQ>



On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:24 AM, nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:

   +1 I must say I'm a bit disillusioned by the entire process. This PDP should look like a negotiating table, instead it is more like a War of Trenches.
   If stakeholders are not motivated to negotiate, there is no sense of urgency and stakes for change are so low, then I wonder what we are doing here in the first place.
   Could every stakeholder state what their biggest fear is, and we could try to avoid their realization?
   Or maybe, in last resort, we should just vote for the best proposal and go home?

   Nathalie


   Sent from my iPhone


   > On Mar 22, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
   >
   >> 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<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
   > _______________________________________________
   > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
   > gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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/20170322/389fb001/attachment.html>