-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 7:22 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] a suggestion for "purpose in detail"

Hi,

I left the meeting with data protection experts last week feeling quite strongly the need for a specific and concrete purpose for each datum we recommend to collect and to make available; and the need for a definition of who the maximal (appropriate) audience is (given the purpose).

At the same time, I think that a reasonably short and high-level statement of purpose along the lines that we have been preparing can provide a useful set of principles.

It strikes me that maybe we could take the high-level purpose statement, and go through some potential data elements and link each one concretely to at least one of the principles in our candidate list. In what follows I name these "purpose 1", "purpose 2", &c. The purposes are numbered according to the scheme in RDS PDP Phase 1: Key Concepts Deliberation – Working Draft-7March2017 (on p7). I'm aware that the details in the candidate list are still in flux, but I think the broad strokes are pretty close anyway, so I thought I'd try it with the "thin" data we agreed to start with. This mail is a little long because I'm dealing with all the classes of elements in one message. I suppose we could break this into one-thread-per-element (or class) if we don't converge quickly on each of them. The outline below is just my view, of course, though obviously I think that what I say is true. I use the "maximal audience" because I think that if there is any "whole public" use then there's no point considering more restrictive uses. (For instance, if we need the domain name to be published to everyone on the Internet because it won't work otherwise, then it makes no difference if LEOs want that data under some sort of authorized-access protocol, because they'll just get it under the wide-open rules instead. So we don't need to care about the LEO purpose in that case.) "Maximal audience" might not work for cases where two different classes have different needs both of which require some restrictions, but it's handy here because we're talking about thin data.

I'm sorry this is long, but I hope it is a useful contribution to the discussion.

I believe it is. Thanks for the suggestion. Scott