[gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:47:14 -0500
during the last call i abruptly changed my mind about the need to launch a
"reaction to current DAGv4" paragraph -- going with Amadeu's suggestion that we
just do a poll instead. now i've changed my mind back -- i think we still need
a paragraph or two to describe the question and frame it for us to vote on. so
i've appointed myself the convener of a little sub-group to write this section
and invite anybody who's interested to join me (just chime in on the list if
you see something that needs to be fixed).
here's a sketch of the language i'm thinking we need to write -- i don't think
this needs to be real long.
- the group needs more time to arrive at a consensus view of the larger issue
of VI and cross-ownership,
- but there is [some kind of consensus, to be determined with a poll] that the
current 2% limitation in DAGv4 is unworkably low and needs, at a minimum, to be
increased in order to align with the ownership-disclosure requirements for
public companies around the world (Jeff Neuman's point -- jazzed up with the
need to accommodate more than just US securities law).
- there was also [some kind of consensus, to be determined with a poll] that
setting the threshold at 15% was desirable in that it would be similar to
current practice in most existing TLDs
anybody want to help me tune this up?
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)