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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You're on to something here, Barry.  I agree that there is something here to
have a look at.  Good effort!

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

-----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