Hi Amr,
I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language
concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton,
he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do
a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
Happy to support regardless.
Ed
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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
>
|
