[PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
matthew shears
mshears
Mon Jan 23 09:38:21 EET 2017
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20170123/24c9a4b0/attachment.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list