Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [whois-sc] DRAFT 4 of Task force 2
- From: Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:59:49 +0200
- Cc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, whois-sc@xxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-whois-sc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
to make it short I agree with your argumentation. Minimizing
does not necessarily mean that now existing data has to be
taken out nor does it mean that there can't be additional data.
It just identifies the work that has to be done. Maybe we should
clarify this a bid by saying:
"is the minimum required information today"
This indicates that we should have a look at the data elements
from a present perspective which includes uses for law enforcement etc.
and does not only consider past uses, which were merely of technical
Am 17.10.2003 schrieb Milton Mueller:
> >>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/17/03 12:27PM >>>
> >Minimizing data elements under the constraint that contactability be
> >maintained is a clear task that can be addressed in a rational
> >policy discussion; the balance that you allude to in the second part
> >of your message is captured quite well by that language.
> Yes, I agree.
> Let me reiterate that this is just a terms of reference,
> not a policy.
> The issue of what constitutes acceptable levels
> of contactibility is to be determined by the Task Force. I
> don't see how that determination is prejudiced by words
> asking what data elements are absolutely required
> for contactibility. I do believe that it is prejudiced by shifting
> the standard to "optimizing contactibility." If we wanted to
> optimize contactibility we needn't worry about privacy
> at all.
(oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of
| |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger!
w w w w