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 >