Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't agree with the first bullet at all.  Can we discuss this on our call 
today?

Thanks.

Jon


On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> hi all,
> 
> 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?  
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone         651-647-6109  
> fax           866-280-2356  
> web   http://www.haven2.com
> handle        OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
> Google, etc.)
>