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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

> ... 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.

Yes and no.

Each of us will make a informed guess based on our information about the world 
and our knowledge of the various actors.  In the combination of those informed 
guess we start to have a statistical view of what may be the case.  That is 
what risk analysis is about and we are doing risk analysis.

What we have now are guesses from one or two people's perspectives, 
undifferentiated for likelihood or degree of harm.  That is what I believe is 
relatively useless.  They are all of the same quality, 'yeah it might, but then 
again it might not.'

To create enforcements for all of them is overkill.  And even if you do create 
such enforcement you have no idea where to prioritize.  Essentially what 
happens in this case, is we leave it up to implementation staff to figure out 
which is the greater and most likely risk and tto do the prioritization.

a.



On 11 Aug 2010, at 23:13, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 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_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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.