I doubt the intention was bad, but it seems to me that they got a bit
carried away with the idea without considering:
1. It's quite complex
2. The "ailments" they described have a lot of assumptions built in.
Best,
-Michael
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:03 AM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sounds like their April fool's joke was released early
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Ayden,
> >
> > Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
> >
> > This is a dangerous document. Yes, it is infantile, insulting to the
> > community and framed in an incredibly condescending manner. That's not
> the
> > big problem.
> >
> > These so called "disease"s are a mixture of technical measures that call
> for
> > technical solutions and policy problems that implicitly call for
> compliance
> > action. That is a big problem. I'm tempted to say the solution these
> policy
> > oriented "diseases" lead us to are worse than the "disease" itself, but
> that
> > would be playing into the rather ridiculous formulation.
> >
> > We have 39 days to respond and other matters which currently require our
> > attention. I would suggest that this should be a major point of emphasis
> for
> > the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC at the start of the New Year. We need multiple
> > comments attacking the premise and content from different angels. It is
> > important we don't neglect this and do formulate appropriate and
> effective
> > responses. Any "disease" that has as it's solution increased compliance
> and
> > regulation is a potential threat to our core values of privacy and free
> > expression. It is analogous to societies that lock up dissidents because
> > they cause "disharmony", which is considered a societal ill.
> >
> > Here is a direct link to the slides:
> > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ithi-dns-
> health-free-frrom-diseases-29nov16-en.pdf
> > .
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "Ayden Férdeline" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 1:05 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Public Comment on Identifier Technology Health Indicators
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > ICANN is soliciting feedback from the community on "the description of
> five
> > diseases that could affect the health of the name part of the system of
> > unique Internet identifiers." These five diseases include: Datamalgia,
> > Abusitis, Magnitudalgia, Perfluoism, and Datafallaxopathy. You will have
> to
> > download this document for definitions of these terms, all of which, in
> my
> > view, have been invented unnecessarily.
> >
> > I would like to propose that we submit a response to this consultation
> > requesting that ICANN use simpler, more accessible language in its
> documents
> > moving forward, and make it clear what the consultation is actually
> > consulting us on, because I'm not actually sure as to what feedback
> they're
> > looking to receive. For this document in particular, it would be helpful
> if
> > there was a list of questions to guide us to those areas where community
> > input is being sought. And, for good measure, maybe then they could
> re-open
> > this consultation...
> >
> > The consultation is here:
> > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Ayden Férdeline
> > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>
|
