[PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Tapani Tarvainen
ncsg
Mon Jan 23 10:15:10 EET 2017
Yes. I would be OK with the statement with or without the statement
Rafik marked as aggressive, but it's probably better without it.
Tapani
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 07:38:21AM +0000, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote:
> 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
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list