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