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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I do not agree that the 2% limitation is unworkably low..   It may limit some 
incumbents, but that does not make it unworkable.  I think it is the only 
reasonable course if we can't agree to a real solution now.

Though i admit,  still prefer real 0% as opposed to virtual 0% (i.e. 2%)

While I would not be terribly surprised to find myself in a minority of 1 (or 
virtual 1) who prefers to see it lowered back to 0% unless a specific review 
and exception is approved by an external review process  (CAM's 
Competition/Consumer Evaluation Standing Panel (CESP) or something similar), 
please include the option of real zero until such time as there is a fully 
developed  policy for greater CO in any poll.

On the issues  in general:

I have accepted that selling one's own TLD requires an exception though I am 
not happy about that.

I would like to suggest that anything greater than 2% CO also requires an 
exception to prove the absence of competitive or consumer harm.  In most cases  
there will be no danger of harm because most Rrs and Rys are good and 
responsible entities who who want nothing more than to do the right thing to 
protect the public interest, so  there will be no issue and they will be 
approved.  But if there is a possible harm that shows up in the material 
control circumstances, the market definition, the neocolonial threats or issues 
of market power then it should be preventable.

I am comfortable with a solution that leave  the DAGv4 solution for the start 
of the round and a longer PDP that develops rules by which someone can apply 
for greater VI/CO after delegation.  I would prefer we put in the solution 
first and I still believe there is time if we allow ourselves to compromise, 
but I am also resigned to being wrong about that.

a.


On 8 Jul 2010, at 08:47, 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.)
>