<<<
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
>>>
|