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

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Submitted. It should appear here in a few minutes:

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ithi-definition-29nov16/

Tapani

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:01:50PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> It seems to me there's enough of a consensus to submit this.
> 
> Counting PC members, I see Ayden, Ed, Rafik, Stephanie, Matthew
> and myself in favour and nobody against.
> 
> As the Google Docs text has lived a little, I'll copy the current
> version below. If nobody objects in an hour, I'll submit it on behalf
> of NCSG.
> 
> 
> Comments to Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition
> 
> Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> Unfortunately this initiative is fundamentally flawed and distracting
> from actual and substantive work at ICANN. This comment period ranks
> as a complete abuse of the time of volunteers in the ICANN Community
> who have to stop their lives, and take time away from more substantive
> issues and PDPs to respond to them. 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. This
> said, let us share that:
> 
> * SSAC wants metrics 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. 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 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."
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> NonCommercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen