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

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

On 28 Jul 2010, at 17:35, <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:

> ccTLDs vary substantially, even among those that have some level of VI or CO. 
> So any use of them to establish harms will be limited and needs to be 
> appropriately qualified within the context of the gTLD (ICANN) name space.
> 
> And again, I am not arguing against enumerating the harms, only against 
> attempting to quantify the likelihood or probability of them.

Well I still think this entire debate is pointless .. 

But I've been saying that for ages .. 


> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:20:43 
> To: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 

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