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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.)