[Comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20] ICANN Public Comment Technical Issues

[Keven Dabney]

(Text Version Below)  Please see the attached PDF for a better graphical
example of what is broken.
---------------------------------



Keven Dabney
Internet Professional

February 14, 2020




Subject:  ICANN - MAJOR ISSUE with this public comment process - there
is a MAJOR TECHNICAL FLAW that is rendering all external links to the
wrong postings!



Desired Resolution: ICANN should immediately stop removing public
comments and extend the public comment period to allow for the problem
to be addressed.



Description of Issue: We would like to bring ICANN’s attention a
significant bug with the ICANN public comment process.  This is making
the system impossible to use and it is not allowing stakeholders to read
and digest information that is being submitted with other stakeholders
on the Internet, in blog postings, and via email.  It is making last
minute submissions to the process nearly impossible as the IDs are
constantly changing!

When comments are removed (or deleted) from the system by ICANN, all
comments shift down by an ID.  Say for example you have seven postings
(this example is used for illustration purposes with fictitious ids and
fictitious names):

---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew
---------000101.html---------Betty Becky
---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles
---------000103.html---------Dennis Dean
---------000104.html---------Ernie Emmerson
---------000105.html---------Fannie Famous
---------000106.html---------Greg Garrett

When ICANN (for some unknown reason) deletes a posting, it “shifts”
all of the other postings numbers up by one.

Thereby citing a previous posting and linking to it is impossible,
making the public comment period buggy, problematic and extremely
difficult to use.  When the third post above is removed (or deleted),
all comments beneath it “shift down” therefore completely hiding the
post by “Cathy Charles” and thus every ID beyond it is no longer
linkable or citable.  In the above example we get this result:

---------000100.html---------Amy Agnew
---------000101.html---------Betty Becky
---------000102.html---------Cathy Charles---------(Deleted By ICANN)
---------000102.html---------Dennis Dean-----------*Id changed by
Cathy’s deletion
---------000103.html---------Ernie Emmerson--------*Id changed by
Cathy’s deletion
---------000104.html---------Fannie Famous---------*Id changed by
Cathy’s deletion
---------000105.html---------Greg Garrett----------*Id changed by
Cathy’s deletion

First off: Who is removing these postings?  By which criteria are they
being removed?  Is there a public log or record of the removed postings?

More importantly, we immediately request that ICANN stop removing
postings.  It is breaking the entire public comment system and does not
allow anybody else to see what someone has said with a direct link to
the particular posting.

ICANN also has a duty to extend this public comment process - as it is
clearly broken and it is making all external links reference an entirely
different public comment.  This would give respondents, including
myself, the time to properly cite prior postings which have now all been
messed up and don’t allow links I have been reading to work or point
at the right locations anymore!  It is unfair and unjust, it is broken,
and it is a mess!  Preventing many last minute submissions.

The URL’s and the ID numbers should not be changing!  Please fix
postings from disappearing and being replaced by others, while other
legitimate comments now don’t have a permanent URL that is easily
referenceable and/or addressable.

More importantly, I need additional time due to ICANN’s blunder here
in order to submit my final submissions.



Thank you.

- Keven




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN-Public-Comment-Technical-Issues.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57699 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-com-amendment-3-03jan20/attachments/20200214/4bf62069/ICANN-Public-Comment-Technical-Issues.pdf>