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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like the reasoning here.

First, do no harm.  Second, if you do harm, then here are the sanctions; a
priori notification is perfectly ok.

The first rule then for a positive regulatory framework is to exercise
reason; money is the motivator for harmful practices. The second is to say
what we know of harms; enumerate or create categories linked to the proceeds
of the actions and sanction to make uneconomical. The third is a capstone
that will deal with harms unknown; investigate, confirm, sanction to deter.


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Antony Van Couvering <
avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> "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.
> >
> >
>
>
>