[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Mar 6 00:22:40 UTC 2013
Well, there is a lively discussion going on within APRALO on how to
handle this, with some Chinese speakers (or at least Rinalia) having
significant problems with not objecting to the Chinese string.
And Cheryl just cross-posted Garth's statement to their list!
My personal position is that we should support the objection to 4
.health strings but not to the Chinese string. My rationale is that
there clearly IS controversy over what is meant by the string and it
is not sufficiently clear-cut for me to support an objection. On the
other 4, I believe that we followed our carefully planned processes
and I feel that support is reasonable.
At 05/03/2013 06:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>My initial reaction is to trust our own Chinese-speaking associates on the
>IDN health/healthy issue. My smattering of working with other languages is
>enough to know that we can't pre-suppose to know whether the applied-for
>IDN is *intended* as a category/noun or an adjective. I personally would
>consult with APRALO and support their direction over and above the stated
>aims of the applicant. If APRALO supports the objection to the IDN, that's
>good enough for me.
>As for the other objections -- I disagree that there is no defined
>community. Without one the objections would have gone no further in the
>process than those against .patagonia. What matters, from our PoV, is
>whether objection put forward by this particular community -- health
>practitioner professionals -- is sufficient enough to sustain objection as
>a matter of public interest.
>I personally don' t have a strong opinion on this and could easily be
>persuaded either way.
>On 5 March 2013 18:33, Garth Bruen <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:
> > Dear NARALO'ers (-ites?),
> > The region must answer a series of questions (one for each applicant) in
> > response to the .HEALTH objection:
> > LAC+regarding+the+objection+statements
> > My recommendation is to answer "NO" or to abstain in ALL FIVE cases and I
> > will explain why.
> > Some members of the region believed the system had been "gamed" in the
> > denial of the .AMAZON, .PATAGOINA, etc. objections. Well, I am concerned
> > also about gaming but from a different direction. My first and foremost
> > concern is the integrity of At-Large, and I believe that answering "Yes" to
> > these objection questions may result in a misuse of our authority in this
> > portion of the objection process. I have two concerns: one specific and one
> > general.
> > First, one of the objections is to a Chinese IDN string application. This
> > IDN was bundled in the objection with the four Latin-script/English
> > Language
> > "HEALTH" strings. However, the IDN is variously translated as "HEALTHY" as
> > well as "HEALTH." In our Review Group discussions I made the point that
> > "HEALTH" is an industry and "HEALTHY" is a general state. In further review
> > of the application for the IDN string the applicant marked the translation
> > as "HEALTHY" and even more broadly described it as "WELLNESS." The
> > objection
> > to the .HEALTH applications firmly frames its concerns as the
> > medical-industry use of the word "HEALTH." The application for the Chinese
> > IDN concerns a much more general category and as such is not factually
> > covered by the objection. I lobbied unsuccessfully within the Review Group
> > to drop this objection from the list as it does not fit the situation and
> > the passing of this objection may appear to be a mistake by members of the
> > community who actually speak Chinese.
> > Second, I am opposed to the other four objections regardless of the
> > specific
> > problems with the Chinese IDN objection. My opposition stems from the fact
> > that this does not appear to be a true community objection. While the
> > objector has healthcare related credentials I have significant doubts about
> > the sincerity objection. The objection makes the case that .HEALTH needs
> > special protections to keep consumers from being abused in terms of
> > potentially fraudulent medical websites. While I would agree, the objector
> > did not file similar objections to .MEDICAL, .HEALTHCARE, .DENTIST,
> > .DENTAL,
> > .DOCTOR, .HOSPITAL, .SURGERY or .MED. When the objector was asked why, his
> > answer only confirmed my suspicion of his specific objection to the
> > "HEALTH"
> > string and not new gTLDs potentially impacting the medical or health
> > communities. Further, this objection appears in large part to be backed and
> > supported by the World Health Organization. While the WHO represents global
> > health interests it is my personal belief the objection to this string
> > represents a narrow interest in the string itself and not the meaning. It
> > is
> > my opinion that this objection, if supported by At-Large, in fact
> > represents
> > a more serious threat to the public interest than deployment of the string
> > itself.
> > Anyone should feel free to disagree or engage in discussion.
> > Thank you, Garth
> > -------------------------------------
> > Garth Bruen
> > gbruen at knujon.com
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss