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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I disagree. Obviously.

I think everyone in this group is qualified to have an opinion.  Many of us 
have watched Rys and Rrs for years.  And we have a pretty good view of how they 
will behave. Using your analogy, I don't need to be trained in the field 
stripping of M16 (which I am) in order to be to tell how much danger it might 
hold in different peoples hands.  Now if the concern is the likehood that a 
particular piece of equipment might fail then yes you may have a better idea, 
just like knowing how to field strip and clean a rifle might give you a better 
idea of when it might jam.  but I don't think the risk of equipment failure is 
what we are worrying about.

And if there any possible harms to consumers, which i what I thought we really 
cared about, I doubt that Rrs and Rys have a better view of the than the non 
contracted types among the group members.

a. 


On 28 Jul 2010, at 15:31, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>