Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Additional Harms

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry,

Thanks for the reminder.

Waaaaay back in the trajectory of the VI WG I asked the co-chairs to 
ask Staff to dredge up Kurt's letter to CRAI that scoped their work 
which surprisingly resulted in a restricted, exploratory VI proposal, 
one which was pretty shocking at the time.
The co-chairs thought that was uninteresting, so I made the request 
myself, via a document disclosure request.
What I got back (surprisingly quickly) was Kurt's statement of work 
letter to CRAI, which contained an expression of concern.
At Ron Andruff's request I sent this to the VI list on June 2nd, with 
the subject line "Hedging the risk".
Here is the relevant portion:

"The registry contract prohibit cross-ownership (Language is simiar
to: the registry operator cannot secure ownership  directy or
indirecty  in more than 15% of a registrar). In the process to
estabish new TLDs there has been considerabe interest voiced by
registrars in appying for new TLDs. This interest is accompanied by
the beief that registrars will be able to "game" or "get around" the
separation requirement, i.e., the real parties in interest will be abe
to effectivey disguise their investment in various corporate structures."

Obviously this isn't a "list of harms". I've pointed out in several 
notes to the list that the approach taken by both Staff (unilateral 
contract modification power) and the Board (complete vertical 
separation) are not phrased as responses to lists of harms, but the 
elimination of the fundamental mechanisms that allow bad acts.
I can't be responsible for this "... I recall you mentioning that 
ICANN staff developed a list of potential harms ..." because I've 
never represented this as a list of harms. I've also pointed out that 
the absence of any list of harms is insufficient to make the Staff and 
Board choices arbitrary or unreasonable.
Eric

On 9/9/10 12:03 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> Eric,
>
> WRT to corralling harms for our list, do you have any information from
> the posting below?
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Infinity Portals LLC
>
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://infinityportals.com
>
> 720.839.5735
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Berry Cobb
> *Sent:* Monday, August 30, 2010 10:53 AM
> *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] Additional Harms
>
> Eric,
>
> In our early discussion of harms, I recall you mentioning that ICANN
> staff developed a list of potential harms and perhaps presented on the
> topic in some capacity. Can you please advise the group as to the
> details of where and when this occurred? I think it is important that
> we not recreate the wheel is some of this information already exists
> and it will also allow us to ensure the list we develop in the WG is
> more comprehensive.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Infinity Portals LLC
>
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> http://infinityportals.com
>
> 720.839.5735