March 2013 - APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

FYI... from the sister NA discuss list copied here as I suspect not all of you subscribe to all lists... *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Garth Bruen <gbruen(a)knujon.com> Date: 6 March 2013 10:33 Subject: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org 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(a)knujon.com ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

2 1

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [AFRI-Discuss] CALL FOR MEMBERSHIP: At-Large Summit 2 OrganizingCommittee
by Peters Omoragnon March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Please, include the name of Pastor Peters Omoragbon in this committee. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Sent: ‎05/‎03/‎2013 16:40 To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "Olivier Crépin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com)" <ocl(a)gih.com>; "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [AFRI-Discuss] CALL FOR MEMBERSHIP: At-Large Summit 2 OrganizingCommittee Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for Membership in the new ad hoc At-Large Summit 2 (ATLAS 2) Organizing Committee<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=39420675> is being made in anticipation of the second At-Large Summit being held in June 2014. The ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work with the ALAC Finance and Budget Sub-Committee on developing the request for the second At-Large Summit. If the request is approved, the members of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work together with the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) and At-Large Structures (ALSes) to organize the ATLAS 2 meetings, activities, and plan the logistics of the second At-Large Summit. If you are interested in being a member of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee, please send an email indicating your interest to Olivier (ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>) and At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 8 March 2013. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ AFRI-Discuss mailing list AFRI-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to this list are more accurate: http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_emec/presentation.html#…

1 0

CALL FOR MEMBERSHIP: At-Large Summit 2 Organizing Committee
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for Membership in the new ad hoc At-Large Summit 2 (ATLAS 2) Organizing Committee<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=39420675> is being made in anticipation of the second At-Large Summit being held in June 2014. The ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work with the ALAC Finance and Budget Sub-Committee on developing the request for the second At-Large Summit. If the request is approved, the members of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work together with the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) and At-Large Structures (ALSes) to organize the ATLAS 2 meetings, activities, and plan the logistics of the second At-Large Summit. If you are interested in being a member of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee, please send an email indicating your interest to Olivier (ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>) and At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 8 March 2013. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Reminder: Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation
by At-Large Staff March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04mar13-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04mar13-en.htm> Whois Registrant ID Study Webinar Invitation You are invited to a review of the findings of the Registrant ID Study Draft Report, recently published for public comment. The authors of the report (NORC) and ICANN Policy Staff will provide a briefing on Wednesday 6 March at 12.00 UTC and Wednesday 6 March at 19.00 UTC to summarize the findings from the WHOIS Registrant ID Study. The webinar will cover the methodology used to compile the data and provide an analysis of the findings. The two sessions will be identical, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session, scheduled to run 90 minutes, will be conducted in English only. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. Participants also will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. If you are not able to participate in either of the live sessions, a recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. The policy staff always is available to answer questions that you email to policy-staff(a)icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> . In order to participate, please RSVP via email to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> ) to receive the call details. Please indicate which call you would like to join, Wednesday at 12.00 UTC or Wednesday at 19.00 UTC (to convert those times into your local time, see: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedform.html> ). We will send you an email reminder before the event with log-in and dial-in details. Please DO NOT RSVP to any other ICANN staff members e-mail address. --------------------- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org One World, One Internet

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC
by Richard - Netmission Ambassador March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

I am a Chinese literate, my understanding of 健康 carries much broader meaning than "health", which includes not only physical wellness, but also mental and spiritual wellness, etc. Chinese phrases usually lost a lot of meanings during direct simple translation, and this case is one of them. In Chinese communities around the world, 健康 carries much more meaning, such as 健康閱讀, which means reading for positive effects, not just to get healthy, but also be positively minded, and reading for wellness, etc. I believe when considering these new gTLD application, it is important to consider a broader context of the words instead of direct translation. Richard NetMission Ambassador On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Edmon. > > Chinese literate individuals in Asia would read "jiankang" and may > interpret the characters to mean "health" or "healthy". In this sense, the > string has the potential to confuse, irrespective of the applicant's > intention to steer its TLD focus on lifestyle. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > > > Rinalia Abdul Rahim > > sent via galaxy tab > On 1 Mar 2013 10:54, "Edmon" <edmon(a)isoc.hk> wrote: > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > The applicant for ".健康" reached out to us to explain his application and > > the materials At-Large has prepared. > > > > It seems that he is quite right in pointing out that the direction for > > ".健康" which is much more towards "wellness" and marked as "healthy" in > > their application, is quite distinct from WHO (World Health > Organization)'s > > objection against the other ASCII ".health" applications. > > > > For one, WHO itself is translated into "世界卫生组织" ( > > http://www.who.int/zh/index.html -- "world" -> "世界"; "health" -> "卫生"; > > organization "组织" for those who do not read Chinese, you may at least be > > able to appreciate that neither characters used for "health" -> "卫生" is > the > > same as what the applicant string "健康" uses) > > > > Of course some interpretations of "健康" may have meanings related to > > healthiness, however, it is seldom used in the direction for which WHO > > seems to be most concerned about. Which may relate much more to "卫生", > "医疗" > > (medical), etc. > > > > Anyway, I think we should consider, from APRALO, to separate out the > ".健康" > > application from the other objections to ".health" and not recommend the > > objection to be filed for ".健康" from ALAC. > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > APAC-Discuss mailing list > > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

5 5

Re: [APAC-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 2013
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 4, 2013

March 4, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the objection statement against the applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".health" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) and the objection statement against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" ("jiankang") string (https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg) was updated on March 1 2013 to remove incorrect references to other applicants in these statements. The updated objection statements can be found on the respective wiki pages. On the gTLD RG call with the RALO officers on February 28 2013, an abstain option was added, instead of just a "Yes" or "No" answer for RALO. The RALO advice to the ALAC requires answers to the 5 questions listed at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg Finally, given clarification by ICANN's new gTLD staff as to the process by which funding from ICANN is made available to the ALAC, the RALO's answers to the 5 questions at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg can be sent to the ALAC by March 6 2013, 23:59 UTC. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: > > ** > Dear All, > > As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. > > The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) > > All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable 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. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. > > The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. > > All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. > > The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: > 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application OR > 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. > > This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. > > A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new > gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. > > Kind regards, > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > ** > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen > ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Closed generic statement
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Dear All, I have been in meetings whole day and it's been a really hectic week. I am attaching my thoughts on the matter which I have pasted on the wiki. They are also on the wiki. My comments on the Statement to point to the relevant portions of the Affirmation of Commitment in relation to ICANN's obligations and what it should consider. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > Evan has kindly pointed out that in my last sentence before my > signature, it should have been "... ADDED in the last sentence." > > Alan (trying to extract his foot from his mouth, and hoping to teach > his fingers how to select the correct keys) > > At 28/02/2013 01:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >Evan and I have agreed on three small changes that have been > >suggested. They are shown on the wiki at > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. The resultant version is: > >==== > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that unlimited closed > >generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- > >especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated > >in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some > >members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics > >are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not > >necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be > >allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for > >lower-level domains. > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC > >found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions > >would suggest. There may be innovative business models that might > >allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be > >a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, > >but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model > >used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be > >made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution > >that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for > >other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not > >change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not > >be excluded as long as it can be established that they serve the > >public interest. > >==== > >The changes were: > >- "unlimited" added in the first sentence. > >- "We can foresee" changed to "There may be" in the 2nd sentence of > >paragraph 2. > >- "as long as it can be established that they serve the public > >interest" assed in the last sentence. > > > >Alan > > > >At 28/02/2013 01:00 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > >At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed > > >generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had > > >been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that > > >the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say > > >with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some > > >discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and > > >moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of > > >both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to > > >create a new version. > > > > > >I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing > > >it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan > > >suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could > > >be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support. > > > > > >What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to > > >Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with > > earlier versions. > > > > > >The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be > > >completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a > > >vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you > > >see here, please speak up quickly. > > > > > >This new statement is also posted on the wiki - > > >https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg. > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >================================= > > > > > >On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide > > >public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings > > >representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would > > >lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large > > >believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the > > >public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being > > >beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply > > >being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains. > > > > > >However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the > > >ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard > > >positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models > > >that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An > > >example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at > > >no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is > > >similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. > > >Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread > > >sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a > > >source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation. > > > > > >Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in > > >some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous > > >computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" > > >might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a > > >California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to > > >orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American > > >countries) might well be considered unacceptable. > > > > > >Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case > > >review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be > > >allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to > > >not change that model once the TLD is delegated. > > > > > >In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of > > >generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be > > >supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be > > >both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that > > >ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should > > >not be excluded. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC
by Edmon March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

Hi Everyone, The applicant for ".健康" reached out to us to explain his application and the materials At-Large has prepared. It seems that he is quite right in pointing out that the direction for ".健康" which is much more towards "wellness" and marked as "healthy" in their application, is quite distinct from WHO (World Health Organization)'s objection against the other ASCII ".health" applications. For one, WHO itself is translated into "世界卫生组织" (http://www.who.int/zh/index.html -- "world" -> "世界"; "health" -> "卫生"; organization "组织" for those who do not read Chinese, you may at least be able to appreciate that neither characters used for "health" -> "卫生" is the same as what the applicant string "健康" uses) Of course some interpretations of "健康" may have meanings related to healthiness, however, it is seldom used in the direction for which WHO seems to be most concerned about. Which may relate much more to "卫生", "医疗" (medical), etc. Anyway, I think we should consider, from APRALO, to separate out the ".健康" application from the other objections to ".health" and not recommend the objection to be filed for ".健康" from ALAC. Edmon

3 2