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

Mon Jan 23 02:54:43 EET 2017

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>:

> 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/1S2s5pTiD1aXrB3V2QZSRyqfJ720rg
> 7epvPQnkUi7XdE/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 listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170123/6262b62f/attachment-0001.html>