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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Milton,

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree Jeff E. that much of the discussion of harms has been vague and
> hypothetical. The problem with separating out “harms” discussion from the
> other discussions is that different proposals will have different “harm”
> trajectories, and different compliance measures might react to different
> proposals differently.
>
>
>
> E.g., if we allow vertical integration but “not in your own TLD” will that
> have exactly the same harm signature as VI in your own TLD?

This assumes that the degree of harm is inversely proportional to the
complexity of the framework of rules and restrictions. Such a mistaken
notion is challenged in the argument against vertical integration. So,
harm signature may not vary with "any TLD, but not yours" kind of
clauses and sub clauses.

 What would be
> the “harm” of VI and CO under a “market power” test as proposed by CAM? If
> we allow limited cross-ownership (say, 15%) will it have _exactly_ the same
> harm signature as 0% or 2%? I don’t see how the harms discussion can be
> detached from the analysis of specific proposals.

The same argument as above. The degree of harm is unrelated to the
percentage of ownership and control.
>
>
>
> And, as someone else pointed out, this discussion would have to be joined to
> compliance discussions as well.
>
>
>
> So it sounds to me like we are outsourcing the entire discussion. Lets
> abandon the idea of a special subgroup and just have that discussion here.

No, we are paying due attention to what ought to be attended to. I
feel that a sub group on harms is a very good idea. (And the idea is
to sub-task this topic within, not source out to a Consultancy !! )

Sivasubramanian M

>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:47 PM
> To: Antony Van Couvering; Mike O'Connor; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
>
>
>
> 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.