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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 on this issue. The 15% was nowhere near consensus and should not be put 
forward as such



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:03 AM
To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% 
limitation"

Mikey,
How on earth can you say there is a consensus around a 15% threshold??

That number has been attacked repeatedly, rejected by the majority of the WG in 
an exiting poll, and exposed repeatedly as an arbitrary, plucked- 
out-of-the-air dividing line lacking in any economic, regulatory of theoretical 
justification.

--MM


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:47 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another drafting effort -- "Response to DAGv4 2% 
limitation"

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.)


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.