[NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
evan at telly.org
Tue Jan 29 23:30:35 UTC 2013
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
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.
More information about the NA-Discuss