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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed.  It will be next to impossible to predict all of the potential  
harms, let alone the likelihood of them. If folks could have predicted  
the tasting issue, for example, the AGP would have been structured  
very differently.
Thanks.

Jon


On Jul 28, 2010, at 7:26 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> For me the point is, that regardless of experience, background, etc.  
> of
> any of us, there is no objective way to determine which harms are more
> likely to occur than others. So much of it relies on business models,
> interests of the players, etc., and new ones crop up all the time. I
> think trying to determine likelihood of a harm will get us skewed off
> into never never land again.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 8:58 am
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'avri@xxxxxxx'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'"
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> On 7/28/10 9:31 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>
> > ... those that never operated a registry and a registrar together ...
>
> I agree that assertions offered without operational experience have
> limited value. However, the scope of relevant operational experience
> goes to more than registry and registrar operations. The secondary
> market, in which some (few) registrars function as registries, and
> some (many) domainers, including some (few) registrars, function as
> registrars, offers insight into the design of systems in which the
> operational experience has value.
>
> Eric
>
>
> > ----- 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.