Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] interesting results from poll re: proposals

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I think an important difference is that RACK doesn't explicitly allow for 
ownership without control (non-beneficial ownership) up to 100%  ---  but the 
DAG4 does

RT


On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 
> If DAGv4 was 15% wouldn't it be RACK ?
> 
> I do think that the other proposals were not strictly about the numbers. They 
> were about competition and distribution and most thought the number and 
> percentages were arbitrary that is why we did not see proposals at 20%, 40% 
> or 70%
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:44 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] interesting results from poll re: proposals
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> ------Original Message------
> From: Milton L Mueller
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] interesting results from poll re: proposals
> Sent: Jul 15, 2010 4:40 PM
> 
> If DAGv4 was 5%, 10%, or 15% it wouldn't be DAGv4.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> 
>> Wonder how that might change if DAGv4 was 5%, 10%, 15% instead of 2%?
>> Maybe we should poll that :)
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
>