[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Mar 6 16:07:03 UTC 2013

On 3/6/13 7:33 AM, Garth Bruen 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.

You could ask why this public entity was unable, in the time frame
available, unable to make an off-budget quarter-million dollar
expenditure and commit to several multiples of additional costs over a
several year period, and commit to a incompletely defined contracting
process, or you could just make stuff up.

Having committed to just making stuff up, why continue the charade?

This is not the only public body which was unable to respond to
ICANN's abruptly fixed, after floating for years, one fiscal quarter
wide filing window.

> 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. 

The concern that "these objections [] may reflect badly on ALAC later"
is the last thing that should be on anyone's mind, rather, whether the
objections themselves are meritorious, or not.

> 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.

I differ.

> -Garth


More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list