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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"In theory, practice and theory are the same.  In practice, they're not."

First, let's remember that we are prioritizing by consumer harms.   

Second, we know that some harms exist, because they have already occurred.  The 
likelihood of them happening (if they have not already been prevented) is 100%

Third, we may infer harms from harms that have taken place in ccTLDs.  We may 
also look at what solutions they have put in place. 

Fourth, we may deduce harms by showing how they may reasonably occur, given a 
profit motive.   We may also say that harms are unlikely if there is no 
reasonable way for them to occur, or no reasonable motive for them happening.  
I would suggest that in our case money is the only reasonable motive.  We can 
discount motives such as jealousy, revenge, psychopathy, forget to take his 
meds, etc. etc. 

Fifth, even if we show a reasonable method for inflicting a harm, but we cannot 
show it can be done on any scale, we should not look at it.  (For instance, 
forging signatures on faxes.)

So we are able to exclude from consideration all those harms that have (1) 
never occurred in either ccTLDs or gTLDs, and (2) we cannot demonstrate how 
they can reasonable occur, in scale, and (3) do not enrich the perpetrator, and 
(4) do not affect the consumer.

There are ways to determine likelihood and severity that have nothing to do 
with opinion.   If we could agree on a set of groundrules such as I've laid 
out, I think we could come up with a set of harms that are sufficiently likely 
and pernicious that we should deal with them. 

Antony


On Jul 28, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> LOL. Some I know as well.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 10:43 am
> To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> some folks I know would say it's MdR 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Group on documenting "harms"
> 
> 
> 
> On 28 Jul 2010, at 17:15, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> I do not understand this.
> 
> people disagree with you, ergo, we are in never never land?
> 
> What is never never land anyway? a place in Australia?
> 
> a.
> 
>