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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Very good analysis, AVC.

> -----Original Message-----
> 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
>