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

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

All,

Please read the words I have written.  I did not say that we cannot come up 
with a list of harms and how to address.  What I said was that we are not 
qualified to assign a probability of those harms occurring as suggested by Avri.

No one is stifling speech here.  If you want to be heard, then speak up.  Give 
us your opinion.  But that does not mean we should do a poll of the group on 
probabilities.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 28 10:55:11 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"

Jeff-

I respect you deeply but in my personal opinion I do not believe
you've made any compelling argument to not assess the harms.

I appreciate (if I understand you correctly) that you are saying very
few, if any, of us have experience with a vertically integrated
registry/registrar.

Many of us individually have experience with either a gTLD registry or
registrar, some both (though not simultaneously), and in my case I have
experience with both AND experience at more than one ccTLDs that were
vertically integrated.

That said I don't agree that such experience or lack thereof would
preclude a discussion (or even - lord help us - a poll) over the harms
and an assessment of which were the gnarliest or even real or not.

I believe everyone's opinion should be heard regardless of their
experience in operation of any of these entities, or even depth of
knowledge or education on the provisioning system.

Sure, we may hear things like 'my domain was taken' or 'too many ads'
or things that are potentially obtuse to our debate, but that helps us
set those aside or identify if they are worth addressing.

-Jothan


Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>