Thanks Thomas.
A few high level thoughts on this.
First, regarding the challenge of not being overly GDPR specific while still accounting for other privacy regimes my suggestion is that we continue to reference the GDPR to remove ambiguity. These references should be considered an example of an/the important and relevant privacy principle vs. an absolute reference. (Thomas - I think/hope this is in line with your statement at the end of the call earlier)
Second, I'll note that you removed the reference to Article 2 (Material Scope). The reason we believe it is important to include this reference is because it specifies where the GDPR doesn't apply. By default these discussions, and the policy we create, must be based on a concrete understanding of the scope of GDPR. Having said that I understand other parts of the temp spec allow the option to apply application beyond the scope of the GDPR. As you know our position is that this is a bad idea - and we can debate that when we get to it. However I see the expansion of scope in those instances as an exception - not the rule.
Finally, separating the purposes as you outlined (and suggested last week by MarkSV), is a great way to progress this discussion. At the end of the call I believe there was a suggestion from Benedict that perhaps we need three sections (ICANN, R&R's, 3rd parties) which I would support as it will ensure clarify and specificity (as required by GDPR).
Thanks.
Alex