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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I have no problem using made up names.

Are there any that have not been marked yet?  
Or wouldn't be marked as soon as we use them in an example?

a.

On 2 Apr 2010, at 13:09, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:

> 
> 
> I do not believe we should be using any actual legal entities or government
> entities without their express permission, legal disclaimer notwithstanding.
> 
> If we think actual examples are necessary in order to educate consumers
> regarding the possibilties for new TLDs, then lets ask for volunteers from
> brand owners, governments and others planning to apply for new TLDs to be
> used in the matrix.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:38 AM
> To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL BEFORE
> VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!
> 
> 
> Tom,
> 
> The problem with trying to make everything generic use cases is that
> people/consumers may not be able to fully related to the potential
> applications/innovation.
> 
> You could say a large multination company plans to use a .foo to incorporate
> their clients experience with other cloud computer services, blah blah,
> blah. When you use Google in the context of a .BUZZ people get it. People
> that see the potential good and the potential bad. That should be the focus
> of this group to open up people's eye to new innovative uses of the DNS.
> 
> Now being respectful of some companies not wanting to be associated with new
> gTLDs that is why I proposed the rather prominent legal disclaimer in the
> original survey.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 11:12 AM
> To: berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, PLEASE READ EMAIL BEFORE
> VIEWINGATTACHMENT!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>