Hi all,

I commend ICANN for this very creative approach to addressing the health of
the DNS ecosystem. Given the global nature of ICANN, however, I also think
it is way too complex to implement effectively. It reminds me of listening
to my dad's (who is a doctor) medical presentations when I was growing up
and would accompany him. It's full of unnecessary jargon, even if it's
explained well. We don't need to personify the DNS.

I also don't think we need to further complexify a, frankly, already very
complex system. And I am also thinking in terms of global engagement.
Having to explain all of this along with the context might really undermine
the goal of getting people involved and communicating effective messages.

So, again, kudos for the creativity, but it doesn't seem very practical in
terms of being able to educate, inform, or provide an effective framework
to address the health of the DNS ecosystem, much less one that is easy to
communicate and understand.

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia
iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager
2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador
Independent #netgov consultant & editor

Belgrade, Serbia
Skype: mikeoghia
Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia>

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ithi-dns-health-free-frrom-diseases-29nov16-en.pdf>
> 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/pu
> blic-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>
>
>