Of perhaps some relevance is the statement in the recent Board report saying that they are looking at the issue raised by the GAC on how to ensure that non-community applicants fulfill their intentions outlined in their applications. Despite many such demands in the past, the final AG did not hold applicants to their intent implementations (as it does for community applications). The GAC does seem to have been able to catch the Board's attention on this. Alan At 28/01/2013 04:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the case of .nyc we have a situation in which the city government has made a clear choice according to ICANN guidelines. While I am extreley symathetic to Tom' s original vision for .nyc and far prefer it to that in the existing application, it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to get involved in New York's municipal politics. Objectively, a democratically-elected NY city council would be very difficult to second-guess as to determining relative community support of the two approaches.