The Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy must apply to ALL gTLDs
The currently proposed Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy is needed for all TLDs. It is evident that it may have to be adapted and tuned based on future experience. Changes should therefore be contemplated through multilateral negotiations between ICANN and operators of TLDs sharing a given determinant property.
There is no reason why a non-community-based TLD applicant should be allowed to make representations it has no intention of honoring. Any TLD may evolve, so the degree to which a given initial promise is binding depends on the context and the evolution of the environment.
The essence for a potential complainant is of course the question of detriment. Any TLD may be subject to objection. A decision not to object to a given gTLD, whether or not it is community-based, rests upon the representations made in the application.
If potential objectors are told that a non-community-based applicant will not be held by its promises, then many objections will be filed that would not have been necessary if the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy applied to all gTLDs.
Furthermore, it is in the interest of the Internet community large that accountability and transparency be enshrined on the level of a TLD operator. A lopsided imposition of the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy would create incentives to avoid accountability. For instance, even a community-based applicants for evidently community-based TLDs might find it preferable to avoid the uncharted waters of the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy and declare the TLD as non-community-based.
Werner Staub CORE Internet Council of Registrars