Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I stil thank that getting a survey of how likely people think these harms are  
(on a scale of 1 - 5)  and how dangerous they think they are  (on a scale of 1 
- 5)  is a good idea.  I would then like to see the quotient of those two 
factors and the range and stddev.  

We may each have our opinion on a particular harm and how it relates in some 
particular jurisdiction and at some point in time.  I would like to see some 
methods used to get at least the WG's statistical view on the idea.  

Getting a wider view might be interesting as well.  I am not terribly worried 
about a deficiency in views of those who might not have followed everything 
(and how many people in the group have really followed _everything_?).  A 
bigger pool of respondents would be interesting, though then I would suggest 
adding a question on whether one considered themselves an informed member of 
the group or not.

a.


On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:36, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> 
> I haven't seen any comments on this, neither pros nor cons.
> It could be a good idea, although I have mixed feelings about going to the
> general public for some input, as the positions of people who have not
> followed completely the debate might be misleading.
> Opinions?
> R.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>> Sent: Wednesday, 04 August 2010 23:59
>> To: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>> 
>> 
>> Having spent some time quietly reading through the list of 
>> harms noted on Jeff E's initial list (thanks also from my 
>> side for kicking this off, Jeff!) I wonder if we should 
>> consider putting up a Wiki and inviting the entire community 
>> to weigh-in on harms they are aware of/perceive.  That would 
>> give the WG the benefit of a more fully fleshed out list, 
>> while allowing a broader range of contributors to bring their 
>> concerns forward in a transparent manner.  We also need to 
>> consider that many currently listed 'other' harms are denoted 
>> in 2 or 3 word phrases (e.g., 'front running',
>> 'warehousing') and these all need to be defined accurately as well.
>> 
>> Is this a more comprehensive way to approach this?  Do we 
>> have time for such a thing? 
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 7:03 PM
>> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane Van Gelder; 
>> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>> 
>> 
>> For those who missed the call today, Tim is correct. We are 
>> currently accumulating the list of harms, that is all
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 3:46 PM
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Jeff Eckhaus
>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>> 
>> Who is we? There is more than one proposal on the table and 
>> *we* the WG have made no recommendations. In any event, I 
>> didn't think this was agreeing or disagreeing with anything 
>> yet. Just accumulating the harms we all see.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:22:38
>> To: Jeff Eckhaus<eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Tim Ruiz<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Kathy 
>> Kleiman<kKleiman@xxxxxxx>; 
>> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>> 
>> 
>> Just a comment on Tim's first point. I don't agree if, as we 
>> have proposed, the vertically integrated registry/registrar 
>> is not allowed to sell in its own TLD. In that case, the 
>> competitive environment remains.
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone4
>> 
>> Le 2 août 2010 à 22:22, Jeff Eckhaus 
>> <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks. Will add to the list and please keep sending to me
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:19 PM
>>> To: Jeff Eckhaus
>>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>>> 
>>> Jeff,
>>> 
>>> These are the harms that I believe are likely:
>>> 
>>> Higher prices - Each gTLD is a monopoly of that name space, 
>>> competition
>> within that name space has been provided by registrars. 
>> Allowing a gTLD to vertically integrate, operate both the TLD 
>> and the channel, relieves pressure on the gTLD operator to 
>> keep prices low that typically come from competing registrars.
>>> 
>>> Lower level of stability, security, and service for the 
>> same reasons 
>>> noted
>> above.
>>> 
>>> Creation of complex structures and relationships will be 
>> difficult or
>> impossible to enforce. ICANN will have several new compliance 
>> issues to deal with regarding dozens and likely hundreds of 
>> new gTLDs - IPv6, DNSSEC, new IP protection mechanisms/tools, 
>> and possibly other new rules regarding malicious conduct. 
>> Compliance is not merely a matter of money, there is a 
>> practical limit to what ICANN the organization or community 
>> can optimally keep up with.
>>> 
>>> 100% vertical integration - or anything goes - negates the 
>>> justification
>> for registrar accreditation and for consensus policy. Only 
>> minimal technical requirements on DNS provisioning and 
>> resolution services would be needed.
>>> 
>>> Lack of innovation - vertical integration or high levels of 
>>> co-ownership
>> only further entrench the incumbent registries and 
>> registrars, leaving little incentive for new service 
>> providers (back end, registrars, etc.) to be created.
>>> 
>>> Note that this is not a comprehensive list of the harms I 
>> believe are
>> likely.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>>> From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Mon, August 02, 2010 1:56 pm
>>> To: Kathy Kleiman <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
>>> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kathy ,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for adding to the list, would be great if you could add some
>> explanation on how these harms are a result of allowing VI or CO.
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@xxxxxxx]
>>> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:49 AM
>>> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> I appreciate Jeff E. taking the first crack at this 
>> difficult issue. I 
>>> am
>> still reviewing his Summary of Harms, but wanted to note that 
>> one category seems to be missing - and "Registrant 
>> Harms/Consumer Protections." I realize that these issue may 
>> be implicit in other points, but I think we should definitely 
>> make them explicit.
>>> 
>>> As a first stab under "Registrant Harms/Consumer 
>> Protections" I would
>>> include:
>>> - Reduced choice, access and availability of domain names
>>> - Higher prices for domain names
>>> - Reduced access to registrars (who might operate in registrants'
>>> language, currency and customs)
>>> - No clear avenue for compliance enforcement by those who are 
>>> concerned
>> about violations
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Kathy Kleiman
>>> Director of Policy
>>> .ORG The Public Interest Registry
>>> Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
>>> 
>>> Visit us online!
>>> Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
>>> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
>>> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on
>> YouTube
>>> 
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
>>> Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest 
>> Registry. If
>> received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
>>> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:02 PM
>>> To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I have made my first pass at drafting the harms that have been 
>>> mentioned,
>> discussed, presented, whispered since the beginning of the VI 
>> discussions a few years ago. I believe I have captured most 
>> of the harms but this list is not final or complete, just a 
>> draft and a start. I have used ICANN presentations, DAG 
>> comments, and other GNSO lists as well as one on one 
>> discussion. I have copied some of the main sources of the 
>> harms list in the document itself and have the links if 
>> anybody cares to read the complete source documents.
>>> 
>>> I specifically did not mention market power or list harms that are
>> exclusive to market power, but that was just a choice I made, 
>> if others want to add on to the list, please feel free, 
>> remember this is brainstorming mode.
>>> 
>>> The one harm I did specifically leave out is the strategy 
>> of auctions 
>>> of
>> premium names or the initial holding back of reserved names. 
>> The decision to hold back premium names and auctions is an 
>> action by the Registry will occur regardless of VI/CO and is 
>> not a consequence or result of VI/CO. You can read the recent 
>> TLD strategy put out by Afilias (RACK supporter) here where 
>> they say this is an important strategy in launching your TLD.
>>> 
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_tld_application_tip_launch_strategie
>>> s/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If someone feels there is some way an auction can be influenced or 
>>> altered
>> due to VI then please add that to the list, since that could 
>> be a potential harm.
>>> 
>>> That being said, I would like to reiterate that this is 
>> brainstorming 
>>> on
>> the harms and would like you to add to this list, if 
>> necessary, but please no deletions. Once complete we can work 
>> on editing, ranking, sorting, predicting and deciding if 
>> these are harms at all, harms related to Vertical 
>> Integration, only in your own TLD and whatever other 
>> mechanisms we choose.
>>> 
>>> Have great weekend everyone
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeff Eckhaus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
>> include privileged, confidential and/or inside information 
>> owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this 
>> communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) 
>> is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
>> sender by replying to this message and then delete it from 
>> your system. Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
>> include privileged, confidential and/or inside information 
>> owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this 
>> communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) 
>> is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
>> sender by replying to this message and then delete it from 
>> your system. Thank you.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
>> include privileged, confidential and/or inside information 
>> owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this 
>> communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) 
>> is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
>> sender by replying to this message and then delete it from 
>> your system. Thank you.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any 
>> attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or 
>> inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any 
>> distribution or use of this communication by anyone other 
>> than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
>> be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please 
>> notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete 
>> it from your system. Thank you.
>> 
> 
>