<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 09:07:40 -0400
Hi,
In this case I agree with Jon.
If we aren't willing to reach compromise now, why would an extra week or so
change that?
a.
On 8 Jul 2010, at 08:59, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> sure -- or we can just drop it.
>
>
> On Jul 8, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>>>
>>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109
> fax 866-280-2356
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
> Google, etc.)
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|