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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>