[PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Sun Jan 22 22:03:09 EET 2017
Sure Matthew, Google link now set to editing --
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
>>
>> /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/e04027c4/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list