Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models

[Sam Lanfranco]

John, et. al.,

I don't see a conflict here. The name, WHOIS, RDS, etc. is not the 
issue, nor are accuracy and public access. The "data base" (let's call 
it RDS for short) needs to indeed be accurate, and we are mainly talking 
about the ungated (public) version. The basic issue is what constitutes 
an adequate accurate publicly accessible "RDS".  The push for a minimal 
set of fields is specifically a strategy to ".../stay as close to that 
as possible in every national jurisdiction where that (that data) is 
legally allowed/". Does this leave issues for registrars to sort out in 
various jurisdictions? Sure, just as that is true for other businesses 
in other fields. A minimal data set reduces the scope for ICANN's 
contracts to get tangled up in regulations, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Another issue, where I am odd person out, is the distinction between 
what are legitimate reasons for collection, and what are legitimate 
reasons for use. I sort of have "form follows function" baked into my 
strategy bones. I would have preferred reversing the process and 
starting with legitimate uses and working back to what to collect, but 
that boat left port a long time ago.

Sam L.

On 1/15/2018 2:03 PM, John Carr wrote:
>
> In the “Affirmation of Commitments”” didn’t ICANN promise to maintain 
> WHOIS as an accurate and public data base? Shouldn’t the objective be 
> to stay as close to that as possible in every national jurisdiction 
> where that is legally allowed?
>
> Or has ICANN decided that the promise it made in the Affirmation 
> should now be formally abandoned or changed?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180115/4bad97d4/attachment.htm>