[gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL BEFORE VIEWING ATTACHMENT!!!!!
VI WG,With the latest breaking news, Objective 5 has been defined for us by the GNSO council. It states, ?Determine as best as possible, to the extent reasonable in the time given, the potential impacts of any recommendations on any affected parties.? I have maintained that the WG would be able to conduct some sort of analysis with all the bright minds we have at our disposal without relying on extensive, time consuming, economic studies. This email is an attempt to do just that. Attached is the use case template I referenced in the Adobe chat during our last conference call. Please keep in mind this is only the first draft??.. I had the idea of use cases starting in Nairobi, but MMA (Milton, Michael, & Avri not be confused with Mixed Martial Arts) beat me to the starting line with their Hypothetical Survey proposal. As to not recreate the wheel, I leveraged their initial template and carried over the hypothetical cases they created. What you will find is a spreadsheet that moves from left to right with divisions between ?baseline use cases? and ?proposed use case.? The current state of the fields completed is VERY CRUDE and UNDER-DEVELOPED. None of it is written in stone, and it mostly is an exercise to start to corral some of the varying use cases. So please keep this in mind when viewing the contents. To complete the matrix properly, I require stakeholder expertise to define each use case (baseline & proposed). As each use case is created, we then ?fill in the blanks? to determine the benefits and harms to each stakeholder defined. As the benefits and harms are defined, we assign a rating. Where the ?ORANGE or RED? status appear, this signals areas where policy should be considered. This should allow the WG to view these use cases primarily from a consumer advocate lens, while we analyze the fairness among contracted or to-be contracted parties. If the VI WG feels this is a constructive path forward, then I welcome all feedback to improve the matrix in addition to filling in the blanks and defining additional use cases. To do so, the following are my suggestions before we start this exercise: 1. Add an agenda item at the next call to establish formal TLD type "private TLD, Single Registrant TLD, dob_Brand.? I do not belive we want to invoke the discussion of categories in gTLDs, but I feel it is important that we all agree what this should be called. 2. Complete definitions of Vertical Integration, Cross-Ownership, Minority Interest, strict separation, registry services, registrar services, co-ownership, Equivalent Access, Non-discriminatory access 3. Define a sub-team to complete this exercise using something similar to Jeff Neuman's stakeholder categorization proposal + more (gTLD Applicants, gTLD Applicant Consultant, Ry Front-End, Ry Back-End, Registrar, DNS Provider, Registrant/Consumer, Economist, others??) That?s all for now. By review of the email strings, this is tough crowd. Fire away with questions, concerns, likes, dis-likes. My desire is that we can complete this analysis so that we can all walk away with a comfortable feeling that we made the best policy decisions with the most informed data possible and within the time constraints. Thank you. Cheers, B Berry Cobb Infinity Portals LLC 866.921.8891 Attachment:
VI_Use_Case_Matrix_04012010.xlsx
|