[NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is March 5 2013
evan at telly.org
Wed Feb 27 05:52:48 UTC 2013
On 26 February 2013 21:25, RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> To say that there have been no community objections for ANY of the 4
> listed TLD applications below, having not met some criteria for 'Community
> Objection Grounds' is not responsible of the At-Large community to allow.
Actually, it's the only response possible UNDER THE CURRENT OBJECTION
Dev is not saying that there are no community objections -- but rather,
that the only ones that met the specific criteria as described in the
application process and previously designed and approved by At-Large, were
the five objections against applications related to dot-health (and an IDN
variant of health).
This has been almost a year in-process, Randy, it hasn't just been sprung.
In the case of .nyc, we have as an applicant the City of New York. It is
very hard to override that with an objection, especially when the ICANN
process mandates that local governmental approval is needed for any
city-name TLD. So exactly on what grounds would the objection have been?
As for Amazon and Patagonia, those objections did not meet the criteria of
demonstrable harm to identifiable communities as defined in the application
process. Now... there is a defined sub-process that evaluates geographic
names as applied-for strings, but that on its own is out of At-Large's
The review group -- a good cross section of At-Large members (who are not
"the usual suspects") evaluated the objections against specific criteria.
ALAC has only limited and specific ways to launch an objection -- anything
else needs to be done in the usual ALAC process, which ends in advice to
the Board. NARALO is well within its rights to advance that, and I am happy
to facilitate such action, should the region be so inclined.
More information about the NA-Discuss