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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I propose that in listing out harms we separate:

1. Known harms (i.e., those that can be shown to have occurred) 
2. Theoretical harms (those that are feared but have never actually happened).  

Both may be valid, but things that do happen have a greater reality quotient 
than things that might happen, and should be weighted accordingly.

Antony


On Jul 27, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Mikey and Roberto,
> 
> In the development of a catalog of harms I have a few suggestions.
> 
> 1. For each posited harm, ask what the necessary information or opportunities 
> are, and if the harm is over-specified, that is, a facet of a "gem" of 
> exploits of information, opportunity and absence of enforcement, and provide 
> pointers to the appropriate literature.
> 
> E.g., for (land rush) auction systems, what benefits accrue to (registry 
> operator) sellers who control some (registrar) bidders?
> 
> I know there are papers on some of the subjects, for instance quite a few in 
> the auction literature.
> 
> I don't know if there is any utility in asking Staff if any of the Registrar 
> compliance experience is available, and the last time I suggested using Staff 
> resources (the CRAI SOW and its statement of harms) it was not a suggestion 
> that anyone thought useful, but it is possible that Staff has some specific 
> experience in economic acts that some Staff think worth review for 
> suitability, either as acts to be avoided by policy, or illustrative of kinds 
> of acts to be avoided by policy.
> 
> 2. Use a spreadsheet or a wiki. A bullet list is just a temporary aid de 
> memoire.
> 
> 3. Dump the "potential harms from continued separation" as that is just 
> advocacy. Our problem is to find what there are harms in change, not to find 
> sufficient harms to motivate change.
> 
> We have to accept that some will see no "harm", or no compelling harm, in 
> separation. Calling it a "harm" means we have treat the "no harms" claims 
> from the Free Trade and allied integration advocates as equally meaningless. 
> Neither seems particularly useful.
> 
> There is implied advocacy. It should be avoided.
> 
> 3. Market power is absent from the bullet list. Some harms are predicated 
> upon market power.
> 
> Eric
>