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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

To be clear I advocate such privacy for individuals and not for corporate 
entities.  I think SCOTUS was dead wrong in its ruling that gave freedom of 
speech to corporate entities.  The Idea that privacy be given to corporations 
is frightening.

My reason for Real Zero as opposed to Virtual Zero is to make the playing field 
fair to all.  Also If we are going to pick a number based on esoteric laws onf 
one country we ought to make sure that we cover all countries.  Perhaps in some 
countries owning 100% need not be disclosed.  does that mean that 100% should 
be the base?

Hence my support for REAL ZERO.

a.


On 8 Jul 2010, at 09:49, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> If we are adding percentages to a poll, I would like to see 5% added as that 
> is the minimum required for public companies (NOTE - I DID NOT SAY 
> INCUMBENTS) to be able to apply to be a registry.  Avri, please take my note 
> seriously.  If the percentage is between 0-5%, no public company (or any 
> company wanting to be public) would be eligible to apply because they would 
> not know who owns between 2and 5%.  In fact, some have equated the right to 
> own shares of a company and not disclose ownership their interests as an 
> element of "free speech" (a right I have noticed you champion in a number of 
> different contexts :)).