[PC-NCSG] Health Identifiers Concerns/Comments - deadline tomorrow!
Kathy Kleiman
kathy
Mon Jan 23 16:54:02 EET 2017
Tx for all the reviews. Sentence of concern now removed. Ready for launch?
Best, Kathy
On 1/23/2017 3:15 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list