[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

Eduardo Diaz eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Wed Mar 6 15:46:37 UTC 2013


I disagree. As far as I know, the only objection that was in question was
the IDN health/healthy issue. For this case, I will follow the APRALO
advice which is as follows:

*"5) After your review of the new gTLD application for the “.健康” string by
the applicant “Stable Tone Limited”, the objection statement on community
grounds and related comments by the At-Large community and the applicant at
https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg , the APRALO

YES, supports the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against
applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" string   - but  only if

 the company voluntarily  submits Public Interest Commitment (PIC)
specifications to ICANN for inclusion in its new gTLD registry agreement
that display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to
address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer
protection (i.e., clear guidelines for assessing potential harm to
consumers and consumer health and the appropriate measures for addressing
that harm including consultations with relevant experts/authorities).

In the event that such PIC is not forthcoming from Stable Tone, APRALO will
overturn its support for “.健康” at the ALAC level when it is time for the
ALAC to make a decision."*

My vote is to move forward with all the objections and indicate the same
caveat as suggested by APRALO for the IDN health/healthy string.


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Garth Bruen <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further
> confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.
> It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they
> have
> specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time
> is
> beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had
> applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this
> point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an
> appropriate use of the community objection.
> It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on
> ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along
> with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full
> research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the
> time, the objection may not have passed.
> We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my
> advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these
> objections.
> -Garth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan
> Leibovitch
> Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:42 PM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> Cc: NARALO Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
> The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before.
> It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an
> immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and
> not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the
> string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not
> the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains
> that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons
> for
> its rejection at that time are even less known.
> In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for
> .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some
> or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting
> the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a
> later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible
> exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to
> any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current
> GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have
> little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less
> self-serving than the for-profits.
> (*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose
> advancing any objections on the Chinese variant.
> - Evan
> --
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> ------
> 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
> ------
> ------
> 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
> ------

*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or
subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list