On 29 January 2013 15:26, RJ Glass <jipshida2@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 objection<https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG>. 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. - Evan