Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

yep, i agree -- but i'd like to continue to encourage people to try to focus 
the discussion and their comments in a way that shapes/refines a proposal.  
it's just part of that "drive toward agreement" thing...

m

On Mar 25, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.)
> 
> 

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