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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28 Jul 2010, at 17:01, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> 
> 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. 

So basically ccTLDs ?


> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://blacknight.mobi/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon

PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845