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

[matthew shears]

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
>
> /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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170122/5f850c59/attachment-0001.html>