NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study - any objections?
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
Wed Nov 13 13:09:31 EET 2013
Hi All,
Edits are in, questions have been answered, changes have been made.
Great thanks to Amr for drafting these comments, closely following and
working with the edits, and now circulating for sign on. Much
appreciated, Amr!
Given the deadline today, it would, of course, be best to submit as a
Stakeholder Group. Also for this type of proceeding, a fairly formal
ICANN comment and reply process, it is possible the links for submission
may go down on time.
So let me ask, does anyone have any objections?
/*Avri, what would like as the process to finalize? */Are we OK to
submit since these have been in circulation awhile and up for discussion
and review?
Best,
Kathy
:
> Sounds good to me. I took the name out.
>
> Thanks Robin.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG
> <mailto:robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>> wrote:
>
>> How about just deleting naming him personally? So it keeps the
>> point, but doesn't single out one individual. So it would be:
>>
>>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team on the work
>>> done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but
>>> strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the
>>> necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and
>>> require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being
>>> conducted.
>>
>> Thanks to Amr and everyone else who contributed to this group
>> statement - great team effort!
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the
>>> methodology used here means that these research findings are
>>> fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis
>>> for policy development. "
>>>
>>>
>>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support
>>> this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed
>>> for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to
>>> study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good
>>> privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise
>>> him as harshly.
>>>
>>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr.
>>> Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final
>>> report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this
>>> study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy
>>> decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy
>>> service abuse research being conducted.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours
>>> with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different
>>> NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left
>>> before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a
>>> look at the statement if you can.
>>>
>>> The statement can be found here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>>
>>> and more on the study can be found here:
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>>
>>> Thanks all.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn’t open
>>> editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that
>>> so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to
>>> your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and
>>> give more feedback, I’d really appreciate it.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks again.
>>> >
>>> > Amr
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller
>>> <mueller at SYR.EDU <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Amr:
>>> >>
>>> >> I have looked over the comments and would make some
>>> suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on
>>> this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>> >>
>>> >> ________________________________________
>>> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] on behalf of Amr Elsadr
>>> [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>]
>>> >> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois
>>> Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks McTim,
>>> >>
>>> >> I’ve replaced “more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse
>>> should be conducted” with “more Whois privacy and proxy abuse
>>> research should be conducted” in the last paragraph. I hope
>>> that’s what you were referring to.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks again.
>>> >>
>>> >> Amr
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM
>>> <mailto:dogwallah at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I’ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois
>>> Privacy & Proxy
>>> >>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have
>>> until November
>>> >>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this
>>> point, I would
>>> >>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy
>>> committee are
>>> >>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there
>>> are any
>>> >>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I’ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can
>>> find here:
>>> >>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be
>>> conducted"
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be
>>> conducted"
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Then it is fine by me.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Cheers,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> McTim
>>> >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where
>>> it is. A
>>> >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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-discuss/attachments/20131113/dcdc7381/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list