[NA-Discuss] FW: [New gTLD RG] PICs posted by applicants "dot Health Limited" and "DotHealth, LLC"

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Mar 6 19:11:18 UTC 2013

On 3/6/13 10:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Not sure how anyone could have submitted a PIC much earlier, they were just invented.

While true, this overlooks the opportunity the applicant chose not to
act upon -- that of forming even a nominal means to inform, and be
advised by, a "community" of interest.

> As I said, the main reason for NOT supporting the objections is that there is NO Community here making a claim to protection.

Yet the applicant asserts, through this PIC itself, the existence of a
community, to which it now attempts to reconcile its prior unilateral
interests, which is likely to include profit, and the multi-lateral
insterests of a community in fact, which is likely to include public

But stepping back, which tools made available through so much
diligence, your own included, to At Large, do you now assert are not
appropriate for At Large to use?

However bad a decision the elected, and NOMCOM appointed, members of
the At Large policy making body make, why is their decision made worse
if they find a community exists, not necessarily contained in any of
the documents submitted by private, for-profit applicants, nor
necessarily contained in any documents created by any party other than
the At Large policy making body, and exercise this particular form of
process, created specifically for the At Large policy making body, and
thereby inform the Board, consistent with the purpose of At Large as
set forth in the ByLaws?

Which fork is the salad fork? Which the desert fork?

Eric Brunner-Williams

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list