On 1/28/13 2:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

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, I believe you are correct. The final DAG, the work product of Staff lead by Rod Beckstrom and a Board lead by Peter dengate-Thrush, did not, despite years of community policy development effort, task the applicants to same level of implementation of commitments that the 2000 round gTLD applicants were tasked with, let alone those of the 2004 and 2000 round sTLD applicants, nor those required of "community-based" applications in the current round. Past GAC communiques have addressed this, and the Corporation has transitioned from the Beckstrom-Dengate-Thrush leadership, and appears to be addressing the gap between a policy of "do not make material misrepresentations" and an implementation which is willfully blind to material misrepresentations. As I provided in my note to Dev, I am not convinced that the "principal of subsidiarity", which I regard as a polite fiction to cover the obvious problem of many ccTLDs having been captured before governments appreciated their value as a public good, or are being leased out by corrupt governments, applies to a gTLD application exploiting the string protection afforded iso3166-1 capitals and political subdivision and extended to municipal governments. Modernly, government may, without review, alter the identity of its iso3166-1 delegee, and/or the associated NS records in the IANA root zone for a ccTLD. This is not the case for {g,s,cb}TLDs. This is, in my view, the crux of the .nyc problem. A government lacking a right to a delegation it can alter arbitrarily, is attempting to create such a right where it does not exist. Sewer districts are not Sovereigns. Port authorities are not Sovereigns. Cities are not Sovereigns (with the exception of Singapore). The Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications of the City of New York must substantively implement its offers to obtain financial, operational and policy development capabilities, and it must do so before the objection period associated ends. The abandonment of a public good, specifically the community advisory body and the associated public policy development of a municipal namespace to which over nine million people have a direct use interest, is contrary to the public interest. Eric