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

[Hansen, Kenneth]

Evan,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional detail.   I greatly appreciate the effort to conduct thorough due diligence, "hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate."  

There are inaccuracies, as well as facts and important background information missing from the posting.  Since the Application is the City of New York itself, I have reached out to them to discuss a response. Is there a deadline we should keep in mind?

Sincerely,
Ken

______________________________________________________________________________

Ken Hansen 
Neustar Registry Services / Sr. Director Business Development, GM .nyc
Office: +1.571.434.5361  Mobile: +1.703.625.6312 Twitter: @gTLDNews Skype: kendotus
www.neustarregistry.biz

Reduce your environmental footprint.  Print only if necessary. 


-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:31 PM
To: RJ Glass
Cc: NARALO Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.

On 29 January 2013 15:26, RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> As always, well stated Evan.
>

Thanks for the kind words.



>  I think the only thing we CAN do to minimize harm is conduct the 
> utmost of due dilligence, which I'm certain will be done.
>


I agree, except for the certainty. We're as good as our volunteers. There is much real work to be done.

Take the ,nyc application, for instance, and the proposed objection<https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG>.
The proposal needs to be studied, verified and evaluated before it can be elevated. We know that Tom is here to defend it. We also know that Ken Hansen of Neustar has subscribed to this mailing list, likely for the sole purpose of tracking our discussion and rebutting Tom.

Since you're here, Ken, and you're aware of the objection proposal, let's hear the rebuttal sooner rather than later. If there are factual errors in Tom's comment you want to assert, let's know them. There' s nothing wrong in hearing objectively from all sides in a good-faith intent to investigate. But after that, the decision on whether to escalate is something that At-Large needs to make.

Just I would be hesitant to act alone on .patagonia before hearing a consensus opinion from the At-Large region from which most objections to it are based, IMO NARALO owes the rest of At-Large some reasoned guidance on whether sufficient public-interest grounds exist (*under the allowed
criteria*) to object to the current .nyc application.

That means that -- at very least -- NARALO members ought to take a hard look at the .nyc application as well as any contrary information on offer.

- Evan
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------