<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- To: "<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
- From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:34:08 +0000
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|