I am sympathetic, Shane. It is not clear to me either how we can expect any meaningful contributions to this document. It is not only extraordinarily long, it lacks context and hyperlinks to supporting material. It has not even been reviewed yet by the Working Group – so it seems a little premature to me to be requesting thoughtful input from the constituencies. What I can offer is a little context around why this document exists and what it is setting out to achieve. The leadership team for the Next Generation Registration Directory Service Policy Development Process working group has begun by extracting all the possible requirements for this service from the EWG Final Report, along with all the possible requirements obtained from other key inputs, rather than beginning by looking at, say, the privacy laws that might limit it's scope. So we're diving into the secondary and tertiary purposes of the RDS at the same time as we look at the most basic data elements. I consider it unfortunate, but please know that we (by which I mean, the NCUC members who are on the RDS PDP WG calls) did push back against this. Our preference had and has always been to begin from the premise of data minimisation, so I would say that we are not ideally placed to participate in this outreach activity, unless we find some very strong privacy or data protection points have been overlooked. I hope this is helpful, Ayden
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 3:36 PM, Shane Kerr [log in to unmask]
wrote:
Ayden Férdeline |