<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- To: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:01:33 -0500
ah. THIS is the VI of old. our emails are crossing. :-)
yep, i think time is the key issue here -- i'm pretty much of the opinion that
we should start thinking like a "real" working group (instead of a group of
crazed negotiators working under an impossible timeline) and work through the
puzzle in a methodical way. one of the big advantages we've got is all that
work we've done -- but one of things we've all been missing is the time to fill
in the gaps in our knowledge and analysis.
i think we should take advantage of this "breather" to fill in some of the gaps
-- who knows, we may have time to get through the whole analysis before we get
hit with another crazy deadline.
Roberto and i will keep an eye out, and will let you know as soon as possible
when/if we're back in crazy mode. :-)
mikey
On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 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.
>
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|