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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As all PICs are just first drafts for discussion, I find this PIC quite promising and expect that it can be negotiated with the GAC and other interested parties.

In terms of .health and WHO, I do not see in what way WHO represents a community.  And what we are discussing here in a Community Objection.  Sure they are an IGO that would like to have a word they want to be protected, but that is not what a Community Objection is about.  That is more a matter for the IGO/INGO Working Group.

avri

On 6 Mar 2013, at 13:20, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> My careful reading shows no indication that the text of the PIC has
> been communicated to any endorsing third party. This seems at odds
> with the claim that the policy is the product of three and a half
> years of extensive efforts and great care, but perhaps outreach to
> third party agencies is not the ordinary business practice of Mr.
> Weissberg's entity. I've no way of knowing, but I was looking for the
> endorsements of the text by parties other than the beneficiary applicant.
> 
> The following, which appears as "Other Specific Public Interest
> Committments (Spwcification 11, Paragraph 3), I find interesting.
> 
>> 	
>> Commitment to the Protection of the World Health Organization Names and/or Acronyms
>> 
>> DotHealth, LLC shall commit to consult with the World Health Organization on the protection of
>> appropriate second level domain names within the .health TLD in order to withhold their use by
>> any third party where such protection is deemed to be in the public interest. 
> 
> Mr. Weissberg does not inform the reader if the World Health
> Organization is even cognizant of this commitment.
> 
> Nor is the reader informed specifically as to the modality of this
> consultation with the World Health Organization.
> 
> Nor is the reader informed specifically how, and by whom, the public
> interest evaluation of third party registrations is to be effected.
> 
> In my opinion this PIC does not rise to the level of prudence and care
> likely to (a) permit effective community policy formation or (b)
> prevent the most likely forms of abuse.
> 
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> ------
> 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
> ------
>