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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sort of makes sense, but perhaps assumes more time that we have.  

I think I'm agreeing with you when I posit that we should understand/identify 
the harms first.  Then, the compliance and enforcement recommendations should 
be drafted with reference to the harms.   By suggesting that we fold in 
compliance and enforcement, I was just trying to get it done quicker. 

What does NOT make sense is to consider compliance/enforcement separately from 
the harms they are supposed to prevent. 

Antony


On Jul 27, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 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
> 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.