[NA-Discuss] [GTLD-WG] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
evan at telly.org
Tue Feb 26 21:14:51 UTC 2013
On 26 February 2013 15:56, CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
> Good evening:
> Noted. But Dear Anand Teelucksingh, I have serious reservations about the
> method that you propose:
> 1. The discussion in At Large is about whether or not to oppose IN
> PRINCIPLE the delegation of closed generic TLDs IN GENERAL.
> I am opposed to the creation of closed/generic TLDs. The arguments
> to this effect have already been set out on the ALAC e-mail list and
The discussion in At-Large is about "closed generics" in general, and is
in response to a Board inquiry on the issue from its communities.
The NEW discussion Dev is calling for is whether these specific five
objections -- all against applications for .health or an IDN variation of
.health -- should be filed by ALAC as part of its authority mandated in the
gTLD application process. They're of course related but on two very
The email to date has been about generalities and principle. The five
objections at hand are very specific. If you believe that all closed
generics are bad, then your own PoV -- as a participant in your RALO --
seems pretty clear, and you would advocate that your RALO is one of the
three that must escalate the objections for consideration by ALAC. Without
the support of three RALOs, the objections die without consideration by
ALAC. Dev's email is to indicate that these discussions at the RALO level
now need to take place.
This is not a method that Dev has proposed casually. It is a long, detailed
system that was designed long ago by the community. Regardless of whether
the Board acts globally on the issue of closed generics (in which we are
but one voice of many), the five specific objections to .health
applications are very much within our ability to influence.
More information about the NA-Discuss