[NCSG-PC] [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!

Sun Jan 22 20:43:31 EET 2017

I fully support these comments as well. Publicly recording my personal thanks to you, Kathy, for taking the time and making the effort to write this response to that infantile document that ICANN staff for some reason had the resources to produce. Thanks again.

Ayden Férdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 22 January 2017 5:43 PM
UTC Time: 22 January 2017 17:43
From: egmorris1 at toast.net
To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Hi Kathy,

I'm happy to endorse these as NCSG comments.

Best,

Ed Morris

Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

Hi All,

On Thursday's PC call, I promised Tapani and you that I would draft a short set of comments on the Open Public Comment: Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition. Staff's idea here is to assign made up "disease names" to policy issues and concerns. On the PC call, Matthew Shears and I shared the view that this is an utterly ridiculous proposal. Frankly, this proposal is straight out of Monty Python and the Ministry of Silly Walks!

I've drafted a one page set of comments that set forth the view that the proposals is unfair and even dangerous for the types of issues we work on. In this comment, we are supporting the prior comments of James Gannon (individual comment), John Berryhill and IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan in sharing that this is a really bad idea.

The draft comments are below and posted on Google Doc athttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing

Might we have your fast review and signoff so that we can submit these comments by the deadline tomorrow?

Tapani, could you kindly add the appropriate sign off to these comments once we have approval?
Best, Kathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en

Comment periods like this one rank as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community who have to stop their lives to respond to them. I think we should create a name for it: AbuseOfVolunteersitis.

The comments below strongly support the cries of John Berryhill, IAB Chair Andrew Sullivan and James Gannon in setting forth that sometimes a comment topic does not deserve consideration and should be eliminated at the start. How this slide presentation made it to the level of a poorly-presented public comment is beyond the understanding of those reviewing it – we have serious issues and PDPs before us.

In all seriousness, let us share that:

-
SSAC wants metric of the DNS and that is certainly supportable;

-
BUT assigning silly, strange and distorted names to issues that need careful and balanced review, consideration and evaluation is, as you have been told in other comments, DANGEROUS:

1. It's prejudicial – assigning a disease name to a certain situation implies it is a problem. For example, DATAMALGIA (Pain from Bad Data) delves into difficulties we have been exploring for over 15 years: of privacy and data protection protections and laws not currently allowed to be implemented by Registrars, of legitimate exercises of Free Expression by individuals and organizations operating in opposition to oppressive regimes and governments who would jail them for their views (or worse); of students who have no phones, but do have computers, Internet connections and ideas that to share via domain names. This data is not a disease, but a complex policy discussion and concern.

2. It's unfair – superimposing a disease name atop an area of serious research, study and evaluation minimizes the problems, discourages the robustness of the debate, and makes it more difficult to fully evaluate and resolve the issues.

3. It's unwise – labeling a serious research area with a silly name. It diminishes the work of many years and the good faith efforts of numerous task forces, working groups and committees.

The answer here is simple. Whoever introduced this idea either was either a) new to ICANN or b) does not appreciate the attention and intensity of the debate. We are technologists, lawyers, registration industry members and other Community members who have become policy makers. We look at facts, situations, data and evidence. It destroy and diminishes our efforts, time and discussions to label them with silly names.

Overall, this is a a poorly presented comment – you have asked us (Commenters) to delve into a slide presentation for the materials that are the basis of your question. The 5 disease names that have been created impose prejudicial interpretations on debates within the scope of ICANN, and ask us to go far beyond the boundaries of ICANN. The answer is “no.”

Best,

NonCommercial Stakeholders & The Undersigned

_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170122/2e12d54e/attachment.htm>