RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Antony,

The reason I wanted to start the separate harms group because I do not think 
there has been adequate documentation or discussion of the actual harms. All 
that I have heard is hushed discussions of "shared registry data" and 
"co-marketing deals" and even "enhanced harms" is something we have heard, but 
there has been limited discussions or exploration of what these actual harms 
are.
What I wanted to do with the harms group is discuss these and separate the fact 
from the fiction on these items and which are a result of integration or 
co-ownership and which are not.

For example - I have heard many times that if there is co-ownership or 
integration then the Registry will hold back premium names for auction and 
consumers will be hurt. Well I am not sure if this is even a harm, but even if 
it is , it has nothing to do with VI/CO.  This will occur with every proposal 
including the Board/Staff/Nairobi restrictions.

As for integrating this with Compliance group,  I believe that would seem like 
a perfect match but would rather focus on exploring the harms themselves which 
may be a large enough task. Once we have the harms and that is complete, then 
maybe the Compliance team can work on remedies. That is not to say that anyone 
in the Compliance group could not participate, but would just like to hold off 
on forming a solution before deciding on the problem.

As for keeping it a sub-group or open to the whole VI group, that question 
remains open. I believe I have received 5 or 6 emails from people interested in 
the Harms group, so there is some interest but not overwhelming.  Does anyone 
else have an opinion on whole group vs. sub-group? So far Jeff Neuman has been 
the only one to respond to that question and his vote is to keep it on the 
whole group list.

Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus




From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:32 PM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Jeff Eckhaus; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"

Shouldn't this be the harms and compliance/enforcement group?  Seems silly to 
consider them separately.

On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:


hi all,

here's my starter-list of harms, collected mostly from the background documents 
on our wiki.  i could have sworn i went back and started documenting where each 
of these were described, but i sure can't find the draft i think i started.  so 
here's the raw list.  i'll keep hunting for the draft i started and i'll push 
it along if i find it.

mikey


<VI - Harms.pdf>

<VI - Harms.doc>


On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:


As discussed on the call, I would like to move ahead with a group, sub-group or 
whatever formation we decide to document and explore the "harms" that have been 
discussed throughout the VI discussions. The harms that will come to consumers 
has been the reason some have opposed any sort of integration, yet we still do 
not have a definitive list of these harms and how they will occur, if they are 
actual harms or if they have anything to do with integration.  I know there 
have been a few links sent around and side discussions, but I think that now 
that the Initial Report has been submitted, we have time to actually work on 
this project and complete a formal list.

I see the discussion moving into two main areas. Harms from having integration 
and harms from not having integration. I think that once we have established 
each , we may be able to apply those to each proposal. Once this is complete it 
can be included in the updated Initial Report and will most likely help the 
Board in their decision making process since they will be deciding on the 
positive and negative of different levels of integration.

Maybe the best way to get this moving is to start a list below and people add 
their name.



Harms Team/Group

Jeffrey Eckhaus

________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.

- - - - - - - - -
phone    651-647-6109
fax                          866-280-2356
web        http://www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>
handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)



________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.