[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments by IT for Change, India
evan at telly.org
Thu Sep 27 18:54:46 UTC 2012
On 27 September 2012 13:52, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> the token holder was used to designate the person who thought the issue
> was important enough to be brought up and included on the list.
OK, thanks for the clarification.
> if the term is so odious or confusing please suggest another.
Nope, it's neither. Asked and answered. I'm fine token-holding, now that
I've been reminded.
Right now, in role of token-holder, I'm of the opinion that:
- There is notable (but not what I'd consider substantial) concern on
the issue (of "private ownership of commonly-used strings")
- The objections received on these grounds do not fall into the
community or objectionable-string criteria and thus do not call for their
advancement by ALAC as formal objections according to its mandate
- The merits of the issue are valid for At-Large consideration and have
a significant public interest component; However, given the stage of the
current application process it is unlikely that any formal consideration of
the issue in this round will achieve useful results
- The new gTLD working group (and ultimately ALAC) may wish to consider
the policy implications of this issue for future rounds, mindful of the
existing precedents. Indeed, we will have the ability to observe the public
interest consequences of the current policy as we move forward with
recommendations for future rounds.
More information about the At-Large