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

[John Bambenek]

And what legal requirements are those?  You're presenting little here.

On 03/23/2017 04:07 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
> We cannot negotiate on legal requirements. We will not leave the
> trenches if doing so will expose us to legal risks. You cannot vote an
> illegal practice into legality.
>
> Everything else is on the table.
>
>
> Am 22.03.2017 um 17:24 schrieb nathalie coupet via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
>> +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> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>