Hi Maureen and Dev and everyone First, I want to thank everyone on the list for their comments. People took a lot of time and trouble, and argued well. So the final vote was not easy. The first four applications caused little dissent - noone suggested that we not support Dev's recommendations, so the vote yes was easy. The fifth was harder. I have to say there was a good deal of discussion on the issue - which I found really helpful and healthy. As you would have read, the comments went from flat no - not supporting an objection, to yes - what is the problem. Edmon was very helpful in his comments, as was Rinalia. And given that they had gone into the language and characters in a way that others couldn't, I took their lead. Edmon's response was a plea for, at the least, abstain. Others wanted the confusion addressed. In the end, it had to be a statement of concern that reflected what I was reading, and if that isn't possible, an abstention. So my final vote (which I got wrong when I voted last night - too late to think straight but concerned to meet the deadline) was for a plea first for clarification. If there can't be clarification, then abstain. That won't make everyone happy, but I think that comes down on the side of where most people were thinking. Again, thank you everyone for your participation in what was not an easy decision to come to. Holly On 07/03/2013, at 3:33 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

Holly

I don't think I made the deadline even if I had a vote. But it is interesting what people create out of a word.. its like being on Keith's Freedom of Interpretation Working Group.. a word can mean so many different things to different people. I wanted to look at it from the proposer's intent.. although this was a little confusing as well.

I was thinking to abstain... because there was still too much to know, directly from those who actually put forward the proposal.. to explain it themselves.. It was confusing getting everyone's interpretation of what the applicants were trying to say.. although it was an interesting conversation.

If I HAD to vote YES or NO.. I think I would have moved more towards voting YES to the objection- if there is going to be any doubt or misinterpretation by any users, then I'm not sure it should be out there. Mind you, others like .doctor are a concern too.

M

-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013 3:02 p.m. To: apralo Discuss Subject: [APAC-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection - APRALO vote proposed

Hi Everyone

Today is the deadline for APRALO votes on this issue.

...

From what has been said on the list, there is no issue with supporting objections for the first 4 application for health.

Also, form what has been an extensive discussion, we can separate out the fifth application - and at the least, abstain.

Please let me know if you you are not happy for me to cast the APRALO vote in this way.

Holly

_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org