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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

If  (underlined) the only choices were DAG 4 language with 2%  versus DAG 4 
language with 15% 
I would vote for 15%

RT


On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.)
>