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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Correct Tim.  I don't even believe we (Neustar, afilias, etc.) are able to 
assess the likelihood of these harms occurring.


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: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 28 10:22:35 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"


Mike, you did actually read what he wrote, right? I didn't get that at
all. He said "operate" a registry AND registrar "together." So I think
that would exclude everyone except Hostway. There are other situations
where there has been cross investment, but not full operations.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 8:53 am
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


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.