[At-Large] R: Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.

Roberto Gaetano roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 28 22:30:28 UTC 2013

Thanks for the reminder.
I have reduced the addressees to the mailing lists to which I am subscribed.
Feel free to forward.
I have not filed comments, but I might do in one case: the .health. But I
would like to start a discussion rather than just post a comment in the
workspace, because I believe we should think about the question, as it might
apply to more TLDs.
The issue has been raised implicitly by GAC's Early warnings, with the
concern about generic names used for private business.
While I believe that in many cases this is just business that uses the
opportunity, and this might end up in being a chance to innovate, there are
cases in which this potential innovation might be dangerous.
In my opinion, .health is one of these cases.
We talk a lot about consumer protection, internet scams, illegal activities
based on consumer confusion. We accept that names "confusingly similar" to
brands are prohibited because they may induce the consumer in error. If a
consumer can be induced in error by similarity, he/she might even more be
induced to think that the domain space under .health will be the
authoritative source of information on a matter that is so sensible like
What I would like to say is that the case of "health" is qualitatively
different from, say, "furniture" or "real-estate". We are talking about a
primary need of humanity, and I wonder whether we are taking too much risk
in allowing a private organization to present itself as the authoritative
source of information on health.
I am sincerely curious to hear from other ALACers whether I am completely
off target, or whether there is a genuine concern, that we might bring
forward for the benefit of the user community.
Incidentally, I am not talking about names that have a geopolitical
connotation because I believe that if there will be opposition it has to
come from the geopolitical communities involved. In practical terms, I would
expect .nyc to be managed by the city of NY, but also believe that it is the
New Yorkers who have to decide on filing an opposition, not to an European.
Being an European, I will be silent on this. I might react, though, if
.vienna will be applied for by a city in Virginia... ;>)

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
> bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> Inviato: sabato 26 gennaio 2013 15:15
> A: afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org;
apac-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org;
> euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org; LACRALO discussion list; na-
> discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide
> Oggetto: [At-Large] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on
> objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
> As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application
> (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the New
> gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) kindly requests the opinions from the At-Large
> community on the comments received on the following new gTLD
> applications:
> .amazon ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.amazon_OG )
> .patagonia (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.patagonia_OG
> ) .nyc ( https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.nyc_OG ) .health (
> https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.health_OG )
> To date, there are not enough comments by the At-Large community on
> these applications to determine whether there is substantial opposition as
> described in Section 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook.
> This section describes 4 tests for the Dispute Resolution Service Provider
> hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition
> from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be
> targeted. For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that:
> * The community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community;
> and
> * Community opposition to the application is substantial; and
> * There is a strong association between the community invoked and the
> applied-for gTLD string; and
> * The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights
> legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which
> string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.
> See https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg for more details about the
> criteria for objection grounds.
> You can post your opinions on the wiki pages linked to earlier or by
> the new gTLD Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld before the next gTLD RG
> conference call on February 1 2013
> Kind Regards,
> Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> gTLD RG chair
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list