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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Then, our estimation of the efficacy of any policy to address any such harms 
(if any) would also be pure speculation.  Therefore, in your and some other's 
view, we should just stop talking about this and live with the status quo (as 
that is fine with GoDaddy and some others).  But in my view which I am sure is 
shared by others, this means there is no reason to impose policy restrictions 
to address any conceivable harms, until they occur or appear imminently likely 
to occur.

If substantial consumer harms can be identified to have already occurred in 
vertically integrated domain name markets, we should address those via policy 
restrictions.  If no such harms can be identified, then there should be no 
policy restrictions on new market entrants, as there is no reason for them and 
indeed they will be harmful to many of those new market entrants.  So, a 
particular focus of this 'harms group' work needs to be upon existing, 
vertically integrated domain name markets. 

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 Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 8:37 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"


The only "sort" of probability we or anyone else could attach would be
of the guessing and speculation sort.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 10:13 am
To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


To create a laundry list of 'possible harms', and not attach any sort of
probability and severity assessment to those harms, would be ridiculous.
For example, it's possible that a vertically integrated registry could
capture 80% of the domain name market in its first year.

If members of this WG are unqualified, then who is more qualified?
Perhaps we can consult them...

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 7:56 AM
To: 'avri@xxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"


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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>