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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So Jeff, are you saying that only incumbent registries/registrars are 
'qualified' enough to evaluate the likelihood of harms caused by new and 
different registration business models, some of which cannot be known?

That sounds self-serving, to say the least.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 6:32 AM
To: 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"


Avri,

I would not be in favor of this group assessing how likely the harms would be 
as I do not believe opinions coming from those that never operated a registry 
and a registrar together have any true basis by which to make a judgment.  I 
think our job would be to figure out what harms there are out there and how to 
address them.  But I fail to see how qualified we are as a group to assess how 
likely it will be for a registry that operates a registrar to engage in bad 
behavior.

An extreme analogy.  You take a loaded pistol and put it in front of 100 
people.  Can our group assess the percentage of those people that will actually 
use it on someone?  The answer is probably, no, we have no ability to do that.  
However, we can address the what if scenario by saying, we can mitigate the 
potential harm by (1) making sure there is bullet proof glass in front of the 
100 people, (2) making sure that the pistol is loaded with blanks....etc.

Maybe not the greatest analogy, but the point is that I do not believe this 
group is qualified to opine via a poll as to the likelihood of certain harms, 
but it can figure out ways to address them.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 28 01:48:29 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"



On 28 Jul 2010, at 03:06, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> Let's prioritize for harms that are dangerous AND most likely to occur.  

I think after the Harms Sub Team lists all of the possible harms, setting these 
two values may be a good use for another of Mikey's polls were we each rate the 
degree of harm (H)  and the likelihood of  the harm occurring (L) on a 5 point 
scale.

then to arrive at the ranking factor =  H * L

and then averaging and showing range for each defined harm.

cheers,

a.