Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] A case for minority caps
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] A case for minority caps
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 14:47:57 -0400
On 8 Apr 2010, at 14:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> Sorry to be annoying, and I know there's now a list of acronyms that we can
> refer to, but I'm finding your emails difficult to read because they're so
> heavily laden with abbreviations and I find it inconvenient to refer to the
> acronyms list every time.
> Just a little personal feedback. Please feel free to disregard. May not be an
> issue for others.
Certainly, here is my message with the necessary translations - I will try to
spell everything out in the future. it is one way to get me to write less.
you explain why having some Rr ownership of Ry and Ry ownership of Rr can be
helpful especially in CCLs.
(Translation: you explain why having some Registrar ownership of Registry and
Registry ownership of Registrar can be helpful especially in community
why a cap?
why nominally 15%?
(Translation: why nominally fifteen percent)
why restrict to minority?
is there gradient in the benefit?
is there a point where the %age is too high and the benefit stops in your
(Translation: is there a point where the percentage is too high and the benefit
stops in your calculation?)