Registrants clearly have interests in the first set and should not be removed from that set. Greg S. On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:
Yes, this is a good addition, Rob. I support your suggested edit.
- Ayden
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] For WG Review - Redlined Problem Statement Local Time: August 23, 2016 4:10 PM UTC Time: August 23, 2016 3:10 PM From: rob.golding@astutium.com To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Consumers, the domain name industry, governments, intellectual property owners, and registrants all have a vested interest in an RDS system which contains accurate and complete registration data, and which is secure, resilient, accessible, auditable, and performs well. Additionally, some registrants desire anonymity and their requirements regarding data collection and data access may be at odds with others
I think we need to expand the "2nd set" (and remove registrants from the 1st set) Something more like : Additionally, Registrants have a right to privacy and a right (locale dependant) to control over access to their data, so their requirements may be at odds with others.
Rob
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg