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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harm is harm. If you prioritize as you are suggesting and compliance
plans accordingly, all you've done is make the previously thought lower
priority harms more likely. It's sort of a reverse self-fulfilling
prophecy.

But more to my previous point, the fact that this thread even exists
makes my point. If we go there, it is never never land yet once again.

Tim 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 10:03 am
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

The problem with your approach is without this prioritization, when it
come to the various compliance methods to redress them, we will not have
any idea which harms are critical and which harms have a lower danger
threshold. And I just don't believe that all harms are as likely as all
other harms. Yet your requirement that we not do this analysis is
equivalent to saying the likelihood of all things is the same. It is
like saying either it will happen or it won't 50/50, flip a coin,
whatever.

The world world of risk rarely falls into 50/50 piles. 

a.

On 28 Jul 2010, at 16:56, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Again to restate....I don't even believe any of the existing registries or 
> registrars are qualified to assess the likelihood of these harms.
> 
> And opinions of unqualified persons are not relevant. Let's figure out the 
> harms and how to address them and not worry about our opinions as to how 
> likely they will be to occur.
> 
> 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 10:42:09 2010
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>