Danny: The GAC thinks that they can veto so many things about ICANN and this is unacceptable to At Large.
At present, all new registries are blocked, in fact. The hypothetical of a loss of access through the specific intervention of ICANN actors directed at a specific application is difficult to compare with the actual loss of access through the general intervention of ICANN actors directed at all applications. Just here in North America, where Indians have tried to get access, either to a unallocated 3166 code point, or to an allocated but unused 3166 code point, or to a gtld string, since the mid-1980s, and significant regions and demographics are unserved or underserved by network access at speeds greater than 56k, and are only served by for-profit name space operators, there are unmet, non-hypothetical needs. I never hope to be more than a minority of one, but the absence of any vehicle for Indians, and others, to replicate what the Catalans have managed, and for less than $50,000, troubles me a lot more than the GAC or the USG potentially "vetoing" an application for an Indian or other registry. Obviously, I don't share the sentiment to which this comment is a comment upon. Eric