The puzzle for me is the source of the great conundrum and hand wringing-on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand of the name and numbers community on what is necessary to know and why it is so. This missive from the EDPB seems to me more than useful guidance about what is putatively a declarative, broadly commonsensical public interest concern. As in, for example and in context, DNS abuse! Which by virtue of examples, is a vital interest of the whole community with more than sufficient reasons for the community to endeavour to protect the public interest! So, by extension, a reasonable mind could conclude that the seemingly intractable issue we face could be of our own making and fevered imagination. Emphases are solely mine... https://edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2020/statement-edpb-chair-processing-person... The GDPR is a broad legislation and also provides for the rules to apply to the processing of personal data in a context such as the one relating to COVID-19.......... Indeed, the GDPR provides for the legal grounds to enable the employers and .........the competent public health authorities to process personal data in the context of epidemics, without the need to obtain the consent of the data subject. This applies for instance when the processing of personal data is necessary for the employers for reasons of public interest in the area of public health or to protect vital interests (Art. 6 and 9 of the GDPR) or to comply with another legal obligation. Why would [GDPR] Art 6 and 9 not broadly apply to DNS ordinarily and always? And why, when the DNS is an instrument for crooks and garden-variety criminals to fleece the public, would it not be in the public interest - and a vital interest of the community! - to have an unerring ability to finger who is behind a domain name utilised for this effort in general, not just for COVID-19 matters? Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================