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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

"(Except I think women are WONDERFUL drivers :))"

Jeff, why do you say "Except"? I think you are making assumptions on what
the other Jeff was saying.
I did not see anywhere in his message the statement that womene were
anything less than wonderful drivers.

Anyway, to the point, maybe we can proceed in listing the harms, discussing
them, and then have a straw poll on likelyhood and severity, making clear in
the report we will produce that the result of the poll are just indicative
guesstimates by the members of the group, and unlikely to be representative
of the reality.
The question is whether, with this caveat, it would still be useful to give
a rough indication of the opinion of the group.
The reason why I think it could be useful (but let's be clear, I am not
pushing for this, so if the group decides otherwise, fine with me) is that
our opinion on the likelyhood and severity could be indicative of our choice
of harms. In simple words, if we rate a specific harm very low, it is
indicative that it is likely that we have put less attention to it, and
maybe we have failed to dig on harms that belong to the same "category".
I am simply trying to figure out whether the result of the poll can be a
data point that can be used, stating clearly that it is an opinion not a
statement of fat.

Thoughts?
Roberto


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2010 05:57
> To: Jeff Eckhaus; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> 
> You said it better than I did, but I agree....(Except I think 
> women are WONDERFUL drivers :))
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended 
> only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may 
> contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you 
> are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail 
> message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, 
> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
> have received this communication in error, please notify us 
> immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:14 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> The issue I have with predicting the likelihood of a harm is 
> that we do not really have the background or the history to 
> base an opinion on it. That is not to say that the members of 
> this group are not well informed of the issues but that we do 
> not know who the participants in the new round will be.
> I like to use the example of car ownership, driving and 
> accidents. If for example women were never allowed to drive 
> (I may regret this example)  and then a group was deciding 
> whether or not to allow it and the harms from women driving 
> were speeding accidents and drunk driving accidents. Then we 
> were asked to predict the likelihood of women getting into 
> these types of accidents if allowed to drive. While there are 
> drivers in the group and women in the group, it would just be 
> a wild guess as to the probability of these accidents. It 
> completely depends on the individual women behind the road.
> The group could propose increased enforcement on the roads 
> for added safety and study the effects of women driving down 
> the road, but is there any chance we could predict the number 
> of harms or the severity of these harms?  Would it even be 
> fair or right to attempt to predict them?
> 
> I hope this example makes sense and that nobody is offended, 
> but my point is that we should define the harms, see if they 
> can occur and if yes, how they can occur. Then we should work 
> on steps to prevent the ones that can occur. To predict how 
> likely they are to occur depends on the people involved and 
> individual circumstances, anything else is an absolute guess.
> 
> Jeff Eckhaus
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff 
> [Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 7:38 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> I was 100% opposed to this notion when it was first raised 
> and remain 100% opposed to this notion now.  It is irrelevant 
> in my mind how likely people in this group believe a harm is 
> to occur.  As the people in this group are generally not the 
> ones likely to commit one of these harms (At least I 
> believe), how are we to "guess" as to how likely something 
> will occur.  The more appropriate conversations we should be 
> having is recognizing the harms and figuring out ways (if at 
> all) to prevent the harms.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended 
> only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may 
> contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you 
> are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail 
> message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, 
> or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
> have received this communication in error, please notify us 
> immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 6:25 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms
> 
> 
> 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_strategi
> >> e
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.