There is probably no worldwide community without at least one member located in the US. But does this qualify the closing of a community to only US based members and, by extension, to exclude all other eligible entities from around the world solely because of arbitrary geographical circumstances based upon company whims?

As affected by the article in the WIPR (PDF), published on 31st October 2013, InterNetX, the parent company of the mentioned myLLP applicant for .LLP, would like to clarify some issues on its own behalf.

The mission of myLLP’s new gTLD application for the .LLP Top Level Domain is to provide a namespace on the internet where businesses may establish meaningful and trusted identities to promote their companies. As the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) has outlined in its Beijing Communiqué, within the corporate identifier namespace this cannot be accomplished in an unregulated TLD.

As requested by the GAC earlier in the application process, we have submitted Public Interest Commitments (PIC) for several of our Corporate Identifier applications in order to mitigate these concerns. Furthermore, the remedies suggested by ICANN and recently published by the NGPC to comply with the GAC advice of the Beijing Communiqué, point out that our PICs are consistent with their advice. We are more than willing to apply our detailed PICs to each of our submitted applications.

Any TLD application for a corporate identifier that does not allow all eligible companies within countries where the respective legal forms exist to register domains in these TLDs, are likely to discriminate some users.

The issue raised in the WIPR article, that an applicant could breach the rules by restricting the TLD only to customers from the US, does not occur solely in the case of .LLP, but also for .LLC and additional corporate identifier applications (.INC, etc).
Restricting eligible registrants in these TLDs to certain countries is contrary to the general rules of openness and non-discrimination requested by the GAC, ICANN and the Applicant Guidebook and therefore it can certainly not be the basis for a successful community status validation.