RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL BEFORE VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think it is helpful to include actual legal entities or governments
as use cases.  I would make these all generic.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 10:09 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL BEFORE
VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!

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