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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1
Carlton

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


On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Volker Greimann
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>  In a way, the likelyhood of a harms is irrelevant. Effectively, all harms,
> no matter how likely must be taken seriously. What is relevant is how a
> solution to mitigate or prevent the harm can be structured.
>
> Also, I would like to point out that many of the proposed harms are not
> really harms in themselves. Take the much feared data sharing as an eample.
> In itself, data sharing between registrars and registries is not a harm at
> all. However, the abusive use of shared data can and should be considered a
> harm.
>
> Volker
>
>  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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
> us.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
> updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it
> is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify
> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>