[NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.

[Alan Greenberg]

Of perhaps some relevance is the statement in the recent Board report 
saying that they are looking at the issue raised by the GAC on how to 
ensure that non-community applicants fulfill their intentions 
outlined in their applications. Despite many such demands in the 
past, the final AG did not hold applicants to their intent 
implementations (as it does for community applications). The GAC does 
seem to have been able to catch the Board's attention on this.

Alan

At 28/01/2013 04:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has
>made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley
>symathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in
>the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could
>avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics.
>Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very
>difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of
>the two approaches.