[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Mar 6 06:47:47 UTC 2013
On 3/5/13 9:56 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> While I agree there is a lot not to like about ICANN's handling of the
> prior round applications, I don't see why it is our responsibility to
> represent the interests of the WHO. They are an international treaty
> organization with a billion dollar budget.*
The purpose of the At Large entity created in the Corporation ByLaws
is to advise the Board, nominally, on issues that touch on the public
This purpose is assumed in each of its regional elements, e.g., NARALO.
The issue isn't one of advocacy for an applicant, but to advise, the
only party ALAC exists to advise, through the available process, which
in the present instant includes the objection process, that a public
interest issue exists.
> If they have issues with
>> ICANN, they could take them up directly as the ICRC and IOC did.
These actually are more centralized organizations than the WHO is
currently -- a decade ago the WHO Secretariat had sufficient
discretionary capacity to apply for a gTLD, though few outside of the
medical data futures may have seen the utility, or necessity, of a
namespace as a tool relevant to the institutional mission.
Under what theory should the World Health Organization be denied
access to the objection process?
Under what theory should At Large be prevented from considering
objection to applications by private parties for some or all of the
name of the the World Health Organization?
> And if we care about .HEALTH, why don't we care about Spamhaus' application
> for .MAIL? It's an equally generic term, and ICANN equally blew
> in the last round.
As you point out, that was in the 2004 round. The 2002 Bylaws
establishing the ALAC did not provide ALAC with standing to object,
only to advise. The 2012 DAG process has provided the ALAC with
specific standing to object.
More information about the NA-Discuss