[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] RDS-PDP-WG Looking for blue sky

[allison nixon]

Sam, in relation to the "at risk" groups that you work with. Would you
agree that the groups themselves with their special use-cases need to take
some responsibility for their own privacy? Don't those groups still need to
file taxes and file some paperwork for public corporate directories and
property ownership directories in their areas? If those public disclosure
rules can be dealt with, then is the current WHOIS an issue that is any
more difficult to navigate than the others I mentioned?

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Chen, Tim <tim at domaintools.com> wrote:

> Thank you Sam for being a rational voice.
>
> as a 'stupid consumer' who actually prefers to have my whois data public
> (there are many many reasons people will choose this, and it is not because
> they lack intelligence or some enlightened privacy perspective), I can only
> observe that this RDS group is quickly devolving into single-issue voters
> yelling at each other and accomplishing nothing, which is why I quickly
> retreated after trying to contribute early on.
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam at lanfranco.net> wrote:
>
>> As a domain owner and one who works with at risk groups in less than open
>> societies I don't have one "dog in this race". I work with groups, and
>> myself, where lots, or little, information is available through WHOIS, and
>> in some cases (e.g. for ccTLD .ca) the minimum is set by Registry/Registrar
>> policy. For groups that risk physical harm privacy/proxy is essential (and
>> that includes not just repressive regimes, it includes some half-way houses
>> for abused women in North America). We are dealing with multiple
>> stakeholders here.
>>
>> We need to remind ourselves that we are looking for the viable
>> intersection of the needs of four groups: the registrant, the
>> registrars/registries, the various data protection regimes, and those who
>> (for whatever reasons) make legal use of what is deemed to be properly
>> available.
>>
>> The postings that verge on character attacks, even against "stupid
>> consumers" don't contribute to our work. We are looking for the acceptable
>> intersection of four sets of needs, wants, and (in the case of governments)
>> policies, and we are not looking for, nor would we reach a consensus on, a
>> null set.
>>
>> By any assessment of the pace of progress we have been painfully slow.
>> For those of you who are face-to-face in Abu Dhabi, for the sake of the
>> work, and the efforts of those of us who cannot attend, focus on the what
>> and why of what constitutes the viable set that will move us toward
>> consensus.
>>
>> Sam Lanfranco (ncsg/npoc)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
_________________________________
Note to self: Pillage BEFORE burning.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20171024/d1ebeb34/attachment-0001.html>