Re: [EURO-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Hi, We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided. I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections. I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD. In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us. I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections. cheers, avri On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Avri, thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one. But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated! Thanks and regards, Wolf Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear EURALO members, comments are particularly important in this since it is part of the ALAC's first ever mission that involves direct operational issues. With issues of health being very high on the agenda in Europe, it would be sad if there was no advice from the region. Kind regards, Olivier On 07/03/2013 01:58, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi, Another question I have is, given the it wasn't an ALS that said, "we are part of this community and it is being harmed" where the ALAC even gets a right to make an Objection. avri On 7 Mar 2013, at 02:03, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear EURALO members,
comments are particularly important in this since it is part of the ALAC's first ever mission that involves direct operational issues. With issues of health being very high on the agenda in Europe, it would be sad if there was no advice from the region. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/03/2013 01:58, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear all, from the few responses I received over the last 24 hours (Avri, Adela, Bill, Adam), the situation is not much clearer on such a complex issue and we are far from having a "community based position". Under the given circumstances and as indicated before, EURALO *abstains* on the support of the five objections. Thanks for your consideration and best regards, Wolf Ludwig EURALO Chair Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:03:
Dear EURALO members,
comments are particularly important in this since it is part of the ALAC's first ever mission that involves direct operational issues. With issues of health being very high on the agenda in Europe, it would be sad if there was no advice from the region. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 07/03/2013 01:58, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Hi Wolf Stephan VG asked me about about EURALO's view on this at the WSIS + 10 in Paris as he's working with Stable Tone. I told him I'd feel a little awkward passing on a lobbying pitch out of the blue since that'd be rather unusual here and suggested he get in touch with you to prompt discussion. I'm guessing from your reply he did not. But we could do anyway....I guess a question is whether the absence of a community that is aware of the process and objecting, per Avri, is sufficient grounds for a no? If people think it is then you've got a baseline to work from going forward... Bill On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:58, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
FWIW: a couple of helpful threads on the APRALO list <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/date.html> discussing .jiankang (.健康) thread subjects "about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC" and "Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection - APRALO vote proposed" Rinalia's comments very sensible. Best, Adam On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi Wolf
Stephan VG asked me about about EURALO's view on this at the WSIS + 10 in Paris as he's working with Stable Tone. I told him I'd feel a little awkward passing on a lobbying pitch out of the blue since that'd be rather unusual here and suggested he get in touch with you to prompt discussion. I'm guessing from your reply he did not. But we could do anyway....I guess a question is whether the absence of a community that is aware of the process and objecting, per Avri, is sufficient grounds for a no? If people think it is then you've got a baseline to work from going forward...
Bill
On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:58, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Thanks, Adam, it has been a good opportunity to read about APRALO's discussion. As a matter of fact, that reading made me change my point of view on .健康(while, on the other hand, I confirm my opposition to the ASCII .health strings). Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Adam Peake Inviato: giovedì 7 marzo 2013 10:39 A: Discussion for At-Large Europe Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 2013
FWIW: a couple of helpful threads on the APRALO list <http://atlarge- lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/date.html> discussing .jiankang (.健康)
thread subjects "about .jiankang (.健康) and the proposed objection from ALAC" and "Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection - APRALO vote proposed"
Rinalia's comments very sensible.
Best,
Adam
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi Wolf
Stephan VG asked me about about EURALO's view on this at the WSIS + 10 in Paris as he's working with Stable Tone. I told him I'd feel a little awkward passing on a lobbying pitch out of the blue since that'd be rather unusual here and suggested he get in touch with you to prompt discussion. I'm guessing from your reply he did not. But we could do anyway....I guess a question is whether the absence of a community that is aware of the process and objecting, per Avri, is sufficient grounds for a no? If people think it is then you've got a baseline to work from going forward...
Bill
On Mar 7, 2013, at 1:58, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> wrote:
Hi Avri,
thanks for raising the issue here and your advice what is much appreciated. There have been prior announcements on this list regarding RALO positions and potential objection statements against the new gTLD .health applicants -- but no response, recommendation or the like from our members so far, as usual. And there was no decision taken by the leadership because I am hesitating to forward my personal POV what does not necessarily represent the POV of our members or a portion of them at least. For these reasons, I tend to go for an abstention on all five applicants -- what is politically not a good solution but better than a *non community based* one.
But I am also open for a NO vote on all of the five objections, as you suggested, if there is any further support in this direction. Any further advice will be much appreciated!
Thanks and regards, Wolf
Avri Doria wrote Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:14:
Hi,
We do not seem to have a discussion going on on these. Perhaps the leadership has already decided.
I would like to repeat arguments I have made elsewhere _against_ support of these Objections.
I think the most important issue for a Community Objection of Harm, is for there to be a Community that is claiming its identity and claiming that it would be harmed by the existence of such a gTLD.
In this case, I do not see any Community standing up and declaring we are the Health Community and we think .health will harm us.
I therefore suggest that EURALO vote NO on all of five objections.
cheers,
avri
On 4 Mar 2013, at 01:44, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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@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.ht ml)
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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Avri Doria -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
William Drake -
Wolf Ludwig