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

[Kathy Kleiman]

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

/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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/bd1b96f7/attachment.html>