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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No disagreement, however some harms can't have happened due to the 
absence of predicate conditions, and things which could, in theory (by 
a very elastic definition of "theory") happen, such as a new registry 
displacing .com in the first small-integer number of years, are less 
likely than a registry-registrar combine extracting more value out of 
the first several tens of thousands of domains than out of all 
subsequent names combined.
Weighting is useful.

Eric

On 7/27/10 7:52 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> 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