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

matthew shears mshears
Mon Jan 23 16:59:59 EET 2017


Works for me.


On 23/01/2017 14:54, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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





More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list