ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% limitation"
  • From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:11:15 -0400

I am concerned that more time won't help, and that if we ask for more time it 
will delay the process, which is to me the most important thing the group 
should *not* do.

I would propose that you send this if and when you and Roberto determine 
(realistically, not optimistically) that we actually have a chance of coming up 
with consensus.  Sending this without that sense would be a mistake.   

But maybe that's what you were thinking anyway...


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.)
> 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy