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

Mon Jan 23 17:40:07 EET 2017

This is by no means a strong objection — but in the pursuit of more diplomatic language, the current version of this document has, in my view, lost the forcefulness of the original version in rejecting the ridiculous Identifier Technology Health Indicators. And I think the original, wittier response read better.

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Local Time: 23 January 2017 2:59 PM
UTC Time: 23 January 2017 14:59
From: mshears at cdt.org
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org

Works for me.

On 23/01/2017 14:54, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed. Ready for
> launch?
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>> Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
>> Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears
>> (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
>>
>>> Agree with Rafik's comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/01/2017 00:54, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I read other submitted comments and there is a clear opposition to the
>>>> proposal.
>>>> I am fine with supporting the statement submission, but I made a small
>>>> comment there. I think we are clear in expressing our objection but
>>>> maybe avoiding any unnecessary perceived aggressivity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2017-01-23 5:03 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2017 2:40 PM, matthew shears wrote:
>>>>> Hi Kathy - is it possible to have editing/suggesting rights.
>>>>> Thanks. Matthew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 22/01/2017 17:38, Kathy Kleiman 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 at
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg7epvPQnkUi7XdE/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>> <https://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
>>>>>> <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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>> -- ------------
>>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> + 44 771 2472987
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987

_______________________________________________
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/20170123/1e0570f1/attachment.htm>