Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I think these conversations are good, but the proposal I made yesterday was to 
allow a period of time (2 weeks) for people to submit proposals and at that 
point in time an analysis can be done.  Someone should keep track of all of the 
proposals and comments to those, but at this point until all proposals are in, 
we should hold off on moving on any one of them.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Mar 25 07:33:11 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal


great conversation.  seems like forward progress is happening...

i'm kindof hunting for a way to put a stake in the ground on a lot of these 
conversations so that we can capture where we've gotten so far, and points the 
way for things that remain to be figured out.

would somebody be interested in leading the way by taking a crack at crafting a 
1st-draft paragraph that summarizes those two things for this thread?  maybe we 
can use this method on several of these threads as building blocks to feed 
discussion on the list and the phone, and get us to the report.

mikey


On Mar 25, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Jon,
> 
> The numbers in the set of agreements, from 11.2% to 15%, are fine as
> initial placeholders. Anywhere in this range allows applicants within
> a cohort to form cooperative registrars, something not possible prior
> to the (eventual) present round.
> 
> In the "help the small registries" toolkit, the alternative frequently
> offered is some registrar requirement exception for some number of
> domains. Figures for the exception range from the few thousands (from
> existing sTLD registries) to the fifty thousands to one hundred
> thousands, as you know.
> 
> This has a cognate, the exception has also been expressed as time
> rather than as a number.
> 
> So, as an initial proposal, some number is a good starting point.
> 
> More problematic is the exception mechanism, as with the .mobi
> example, the exception addresses what I think of as exit or failure
> recapitalization.
> 
> We have to decide if an exception from some number is qualified by
> some form of failure, giving rise to some necessity claim.
> 
> We have the registry, which holds some some number of equity in a
> registrar, and at some point in time, the registry seeks to exercise
> the hypothetical exception, and acquire another number, larger than
> some number, of equity in the registrar. At some subsequent point in
> time, the necessity claim for the hypothetical exception is no longer
> true and a transition back to the initial equity participation is
> initiated.
> 
> At this point in our process, it seems reasonable to separate the
> concept of some number -- in the existing 11.2% to 15% range, plus or
> minus, from exceptions, and their predicate conditions for initiating,
> and for return from the exception to the some number range.
> 
> Do you mind if we start with "some number" and if it meets initial
> community review, then explore the rationals for, and the kinds of
> exceptions likely to meet the rationals?
> 
> Eric

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)