[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

[Garth Bruen]

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
------