Hi all, hi Paul:

On 2 September 2015 at 16:31, Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler@auda.org.au> wrote:

<snip>

In short, the (intentionally provocative) question I have is: during this time of review and future-gazing, is it appropriate to religiously advocate dated policy / contract frameworks that already contradict national privacy legislation in many jurisdictions and numerous bi-lateral and (potentially) multi-lateral agreements that the USG is itself a party to?

If I read you right, the question could be said also as: "Why put old language across instead of something contemporary?"

Taking that as right, the only imperative I can identify that was in our mind was the need to minimise the scope of work in Work Stream 1. Since the work of the reviews can be amended and updated by processes that we propose to be in place, there is no need to repair it pre-transition.

I don't have a religious view about that: if smart, simple fixes can be added, that seems fine. The problems will emerge with the incremental complexity that comes from taking on "just one more simple fix", if you see what I mean...

best

Jordan