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

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Antony.  Any list of harms developed and formalized by the WG 
should be comprehensive and consider harms in both directions...potential harms 
from allowing VI/CO and potential harms from not allowing VI/CO. Only with both 
lists can we identify (1) a compromise recommendation, or (2) a recommended set 
of exceptions where the benefits of VI/CO outweigh the harms. Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Aug 12 19:46:33 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Harms Project Draft - Registrant Harms


I am working on a document that lists the harms that may occur if CO/VI 
restrictions are put in place.   I don't see why the perspective should be that 
harms will only occur if CO/VI restrictions are lifted.  Personally, I find the 
opposite case far more persuasive.

I will follow Jeff's format and turn it over to him as Part B.  If anyone has 
thoughts on what should go on the list, send to me today and tomorrow, and then 
to Jeff after he adds it to the full "harms" document.  I checked with Jeff and 
he's amenable.

Antony



On Aug 12, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> Right now I believe the focus should be on the harms document and updating 
> it. As of today I have received no updates since the last call and since the 
> document was first distributed I have received 1 or 2 updates.
> 
> I am not sure the reason for this, I know some are concerned about how the 
> document will be used, so maybe they are holding back. Maybe the harms have 
> been overblown and there really less than we thought. Maybe I just did a 
> great job and covered every possible harm.
> 
> So, if I could make a request that before we decide whether or not we 
> guess/estimate/predict the probability of the harms , could we complete the 
> document or at least state these are all the contributions we have for now. I 
> would rather move on from this, then just wait and wait for submissions. I am 
> not closing the door on additional submissions and do not think we should do 
> so, but would like to start moving on.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 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.
>