[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

[RJ Glass]

2nd that
 
"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."




>________________________________
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:07 AM
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
>
>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
>
>Eric
>------
>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
>------
>
>
>