Sounds good to me. I took the name out.
Thanks Robin.
Amr
On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:52 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> How about just deleting naming him personally? So it keeps the point, but doesn't single out one individual. So it would be:
>
>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team 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.
>
>
> Thanks to Amr and everyone else who contributed to this group statement - great team effort!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Maria Farrell 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
>>
>
|
