[NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

Wed Mar 6 00:17:28 UTC 2013

As to the APRALO POV, I’ll refer you to the recent comment by Hong Xue:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40930513&focusedCommentId=40931795#comment-40931795

From: evanleibovitch at gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:52 PM
To: Garth Bruen
Cc: NARALO Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

My initial reaction is to trust our own Chinese-speaking associates on the IDN health/healthy issue. My smattering of working with other languages is enough to know that we can't pre-suppose to know whether the applied-for IDN is *intended* as a category/noun or an adjective. I personally would consult with APRALO and support their direction over and above the stated aims of the applicant. If APRALO supports the objection to the IDN, that's good enough for me.

As for the other objections -- I disagree that there is no defined community. Without one the objections would have gone no further in the process than those against .patagonia. What matters, from our PoV, is whether objection put forward by this particular community -- health practitioner professionals -- is sufficient enough to sustain objection as a matter of public interest.

I personally don' t have a strong opinion on this and could easily be persuaded either way.

- Evan

On 5 March 2013 18:33, Garth Bruen <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:

Dear NARALO'ers (-ites?),

The region must answer a series of questions (one for each applicant) in
response to the .HEALTH objection:
https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Advice+from+the+RALOs+to+the+A
LAC+regarding+the+objection+statements

My recommendation is to answer "NO" or to abstain in ALL FIVE cases and I
will explain why.

Some members of the region believed the system had been "gamed" in the
denial of the .AMAZON, .PATAGOINA, etc. objections. Well, I am concerned
also about gaming but from a different direction. My first and foremost
concern is the integrity of At-Large, and I believe that answering "Yes" to
these objection questions may result in a misuse of our authority in this
portion of the objection process. I have two concerns: one specific and one
general.

First, one of the objections is to a Chinese IDN string application. This
IDN was bundled in the objection with the four Latin-script/English Language
"HEALTH" strings. However, the IDN is variously translated as "HEALTHY" as
well as "HEALTH." In our Review Group discussions I made the point that
"HEALTH" is an industry and "HEALTHY" is a general state. In further review
of the application for the IDN string the applicant marked the translation
as "HEALTHY" and even more broadly described it as "WELLNESS." The objection
to the .HEALTH applications firmly frames its concerns as the
medical-industry use of the word "HEALTH." The application for the Chinese
IDN concerns a much more general category and as such is not factually
covered by the objection. I lobbied unsuccessfully within the Review Group
to drop this objection from the list as it does not fit the situation and
the passing of this objection may appear to be a mistake by members of the
community who actually speak Chinese.

Second, I am opposed to the other four objections regardless of the specific
problems with the Chinese IDN objection. My opposition stems from the fact
that this does not appear to be a true community objection. While the
objector has healthcare related credentials I have significant doubts about
the sincerity objection. The objection makes the case that .HEALTH needs
special protections to keep consumers from being abused in terms of
potentially fraudulent medical websites. While I would agree, the objector
did not file similar objections to .MEDICAL, .HEALTHCARE, .DENTIST, .DENTAL,
.DOCTOR, .HOSPITAL, .SURGERY or .MED. When the objector was asked why,  his
answer only confirmed my suspicion of his specific objection to the "HEALTH"
string and not new gTLDs potentially impacting the medical or health
communities. Further, this objection appears in large part to be backed and
supported by the World Health Organization. While the WHO represents global
health interests it is my personal belief the objection to this string
represents a narrow interest in the string itself and not the meaning. It is
my opinion that this objection, if supported by At-Large, in fact represents
a more serious threat to the public interest than deployment of the string
itself.

Anyone should feel free to disagree or engage in discussion.

Thank you, Garth

-------------------------------------

Garth Bruen
gbruen at knujon.com

------
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
------

-- 

Evan Leibovitch

Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org

Sk: evanleibovitch

Tw: el56