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

> 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.

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list


_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg