[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study

Wed Nov 13 22:18:40 EET 2013

How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?

On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There?s less
> than four hours left before the deadline.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ed. I?ve taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the document. On
> language, I don?t feel the language used is inappropriately strong on one
> hand or restrained on the other. It?s pretty straight forward critical
> appraisal of a study?s methods and conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is
> used to this, as I suspect any researcher is.
>
> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts inappropriate,
> please correct me. It was not my intent to be aggressive in my comments in
> any way. I tried to be as objective as possible on the content of the study
> report.
>
> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>
> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language
> concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton,
> he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do
> a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
>
> Happy to support regardless.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required
>> for this to be an NCSG statement. I?m guessing the prudent course of action
>> at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by
>> members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and
>> Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support
>> of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following
>> this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put
>> this forward.
>> >
>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Amr,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's)
>> superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>> >>
>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>> >>
>> >> All the best, Maria
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Maria,
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t
>> meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>> >>
>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one
>> regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to
>> conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is
>> because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was
>> relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t
>> doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does
>> good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence
>> highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but
>> rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the
>> conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of
>> the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>> >>
>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that
>> specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a
>> more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same
>> message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>> >>
>> >> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly
>> about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Maria.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
>> 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> 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> 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>
>> 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] on behalf of
>> Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> >>>>> To: 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> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <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
>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/cdeb90ef/attachment-0001.html>