>>> <[log in to unmask]> 6/30/2006 1:04 PM >>> >My biggest fear comes from the loose language in the last >proposed paragraph. After Resolution 5, this unnumbered >paragraph states: > "The GNSO Council notes that the current definition is related > to the service that provides public access to some or all of the > data collected, and is not a definition of the purpose of the data > itself." > >I am very worried. Kathy: I agree with your fears, but I think there is a neater way to handle this. I think you can take that last phrase: >and is not a definition of the purpose of the data itself. and replace the word "purpose" with the word "uses". I think that is the concept Bruce was trying to get across (although I have not discussed this with him directly). Almost everyone in this debate (except us) has tripped over the distinction between purpose and use at some time or another, and I think this is another case. My proposed one-word modification recognizes that the data can be used in ways that are not directly derived from its purpose. Thus, we do NOT want to say that the purpose of the data is to facilitate law enforcement or surveillance, but in some circumstances the data can be used for that. The real issue is the safeguards that are put in place to give access to the data for other purposes.