Hi Avri,
From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I’m guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
Thanks.
Amr
On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put this forward.
>
> I think we might, but I am not sure?
>
> avri
>
> On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
>> Hey Amr,
>>
>> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>>
>> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>>
>> All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> To be honest, I’m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn’t meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>>
>> Regarding the harsh criticism…, to be honest I like the report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was relatively easy to spot flaws. I don’t know Clayton personally and don’t doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don’t see the sentence highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally…, but rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>>
>> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don’t think it gives the same message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>>
>> Still…, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don’t mind taking it out.
>>
>> Thanks Maria.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>>>
>>>
>>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.
>>>
>>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being conducted.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>>>
>>> The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>>
>>> and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>>
>>> Thanks all.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn’t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I’d really appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Amr:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve replaced “more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted” with “more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted” in the last paragraph. I hope that’s what you were referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
|
