I doubt the intention was bad, but it seems to me that they got a bit carried away with the idea without considering: 1. It's quite complex 2. The "ailments" they described have a lot of assumptions built in. Best, -Michael On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 10:03 AM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Sounds like their April fool's joke was released early > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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 FĂ©rdeline" <[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 FĂ©rdeline > > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >