Hi Christopher. On 30 January 2014 15:39, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: Well, apart from ALAC getting it wrong in that case,
I'm happy to have that debate, but would simply note at this point that it (the debate) has already been going on for years. You might not agree with the resolution but can at least be aware that this was something that did not slip through the cracks or avoid careful consideration. The recentl rulings simply fall consistent with ICANN's long-standing treatment of generic words as commodities -- a core principle that certainly pre-dates my arrival in At-Large and is essentially beyond challenge.
whether one reads .amazon or .health, the arguments of the so-called ICC 'experts' lack conviction.
Indeed. In fact the whole episode with .health -- the failure of the objections that we DID launch -- shows clearly that the ALAC objection process was "created in order to fail". That the Board would enable us to launch objections, but then allow the adjudicator to dismiss our right to have standing in the proceedings, is just insane and indicates our chances were doomed from the start.
Such stuff does ICANN no credit.
Absolutely agreed. PS: The privatisation, through the DNS, of generic and geographical
terms is wrong in principle.
As far as ICANN is concerned, that particular debate was crushed many years ago. This tenet can't be challenged without shaking the whole organization to the ground, and there are too many vested interests embedded into the culture to allow that to happen. ICANN has now become financially dependent upon the industry it was formed to oversee, and the consequences of that dependency are all around us. - Evan