[At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation

[Derek Smythe]

On 2014-09-04 10:31 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> That would have been the sensible thing to do; third party beneficiary
> rights. But for those that would matter, an aggrieved party needed first to
> convince ICANN that the commitment was breached. And then it is solely
> ICANN that had standing to determine what remedy to seek, if any.  All this
> after you're invited to navigate all the  squirelly 'opt outs' in some of
> them!

Very true, much like #3.7.7.3 of the RAA:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1548571.html

> On the balance of those facts, I determined they wouldn't be worth warm
> spit.
> 
> Reminded me of what my grandmother told me about the perils of buying a
> sewing machine from England back in the 50's. You could get one without the
> belt or the gear, even the needle.  Then when you inquired - via snail
> mail! - you get the response 'so very sorry, that <piece> was not a part of
> the bundle. You have to buy that separately'.

Off topic, but very true. Also when it comes to warranties.  5 years
warranty, but you have to ship it off to distant location at you own
cost and special packaging to claim. Cost of shipping and packaging is
50% more than a new one. There are some analogies here as well where
the costs of relief sought, costs more than the harm done.

Derek