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

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just when you think you know your ICANN industry colleagues, Avri
reveals that she can field strip an M16.  I, for one, am very impressed
(and a little scared) that a member of our WG has this tactical skill.
:-) 

Statton 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:42 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"


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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>