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

Material for review by the ALAC regarding objection statements to 4 new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, Just a summary of the information available for review by the ALAC regarding the RALO advice on the objection statements on community grounds to 4 new gTLD applications. All of the wiki pages with the objection statements against : - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) have been updated with - links to applicants' Public Interest Commitments (PICs) - correspondence received by the gTLD RG (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/) over the past 48 hours, including * letters from individual applicants, * letters of support for objections from organisations and emails from the WHO clarifying issues raised on the NARALO list With many of the correspondence received (even today), directed at the objection statement against Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" string, the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg was also updated, for reference. Also, there was discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements and can be reviewed on the RALO mailing list archives: NARALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40931651 (wiki page) Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: At-Large Beijing Communications Department Questions
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, The At-Large Beijing Communications Department Questions Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/e4U3Ag> has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's questions for the Communications Department during the Beijing Meeting. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 15 Mar at 23:59 UTC. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: At-Large Beijing Global Stakeholder Engagement Questions
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, The At-Large Beijing Global Stakeholder Engagement Questions Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/eYU3Ag> has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's questions for the Global Partnerships Department during the Beijing Meeting. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 15 Mar at 23:59 UTC. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: At-Large Beijing ICANN Board Questions
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, The At-Large Beijing ICANN Board Questions Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/d4U3Ag> has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's questions for the ICANN Board during the Beijing Meeting. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 15 Mar at 23:59 UTC. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS: At-Large Beijing GAC Questions
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Dear All, The At-Large Beijing GAC Questions Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/doU3Ag> has been created. Please note that this workspace will be used to gather the At-Large's questions for the GAC during the Beijing Meeting. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 15 Mar at 23:59 UTC. 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<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: [New gTLD RG] Community objection - health
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 8, 2013

March 8, 2013

Resending at 17:33, original sent to na-discuss@ at 13:10. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Fwd: [New gTLD RG] Community objection - health Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:10:54 -0800 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> Reply-To: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net Organization: wampumpeag To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org All, I may have missed this, but I didn't observe anyone provide to the NA-Discuss list subscribers a link to the correspondence by Antonine Geissbuhler of the International Medical Informatics Association, on the 20th of last month. In that note [1] Mr or Ms Geissbuhler wrote to inform the New gTLD RT that an Overview [2] and Objections table [3] had been posted to the ICANN site for review. Please see the links in the footnotes for the originals. In the Overview, in the sixth paragraph, its authors write that "The community has argued to ICANN and the GAC that .health should not be attributed until a broad-based consultation of the community has taken place, and the rights, rules and responsibilities for the operation of the domain had been elaborated. It is vital that there is at least one trusted place on the Internet for health. In the same way that the Internet is a global public good, .health can be considered as a global asset for health." Several frequent contributors to the NA-Discuss list have argued to the contrary, in effect that: [a] .health should be irrevocably delegated to a private, for-profit actor before the "rights, rules and responsibilities" have been worked out. [b] No necessity, or even competitive utility exists for the existence of even "one trusted place on the Internet for health." [c] Unlike the Internet, which is a global public good, .health must be a private asset of a for-profit actor. I've reviewed the registration policies of the five applicants for "health" in the Latin and Han scripts and find them more similar to the policies of open registries than those of socially responsible registries I've worked with in the past -- .museum, .coop, and of course, .cat. Unlike those arguing for [a] I see only harm to the public interest in delegation before adequate rule determination. Having worked for the creation of sponsored, and then community-based registry types, within Working Group C (1998-2000), with Louis Touton, ICANN's first Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel of ICANN, and subsequently with the .aero, .coop and .museum projects, and the .cat project for which I was the CTO of application record, and as CTO of CORE, which provides back-end services for .museum and .cat, I see not just a compelling utility, but stark necessity for at least one namespace with policies that transform the public trust in tangibles related to public health to a public trust in the intangibles related to public health. Unlike those arguing for [b] I see only harm to the public interest in the absence of any "place on the Internet" where the intangibles related to public health can be trusted. I came to "the Internet" and via the exercise of writing, inter alia, in 1984, the XPG/1 socket specification. Not long afterwards I'd the honor of managing one of SRI's larger computer facilities, in the same building (in fact directly over), Jake Feinler's shop, which carried out the Network Information Center function. I've contributed to the IETF (as has Avri Doria), the W3C, the 3rd version of the XPG specification (now The Single Unix Specification), and so on. I've no doubt that the Internet is mostly a global public good. I'd like to see more of it in Indian Country, and I liked it better before the Commercial Exchange Agreement and the privatization of the NIC function, but on the whole, it remains "a global public good". Unlike those arguing for [c] I see only harm to the public interest in making the "Internet of Public Health" the monopoly of a for-profit, private actor. There is still time for thoughtful discourse on the objections to the five applications for "health" in the Latin and Han scripts. Obviously, had I been elected to the office I ran for in the last election I would not be abstaining on this question. Eric Brunner-Williams [1] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtldrg/2013-February/000326.html [2] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40930482/Health+Community+… [3] https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40930482/Health+Community+…

2 1

Summary of RALO advice to the ALAC regarding the 5 objection statements to new gTLD applications
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

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 ), RALOs have submitted advice to the ALAC on the objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications. These objection statements were prepared by the gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) 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) 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. The RALO's advice to the ALAC were in the form of answers to the 5 questions listed at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg with the possible answers of either * Yes, support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant, * No, NOT support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant OR * Abstain Objection statements NOT supported by at least three RALOs will not be considered by the ALAC. For those objection statements that are supported by three or more RALOs, the ALAC will decide whether to file such objection statements to the Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP) before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. Summary of RALO advice: 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "“Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) 3 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string ( https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg ) 1 out of 5 RALOs supported the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC support the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" (jiankang) string Therefore, the ALAC will have to consider the filing of the objection statement against: - applicant "DotHealth, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg) - applicant "“Goose Fest, LLC" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/v4xwAg) - applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) - applicant "Afilias Limited" for the ".HEALTH" string ( https://community.icann.org/x/y4xwAg) As the objection statement against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the for the ".健康" (jiankang) string failed to get RALO support, this statement will not be considered by the ALAC. An ALAC meeting to consider the advice by the RALOs is scheduled for Friday March 8 2013 https://community.icann.org/x/8JNwAg Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

FW: [New gTLD RG] PICs posted by applicants "dot Health Limited" and "DotHealth, LLC"
by Garth Bruen March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

FYI, DotHealth has submitted a PIC -----Original Message----- From: newgtldrg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:38 PM To: New gTLD Review Group Cc: ICANN GTLD WG list Subject: [New gTLD RG] PICs posted by applicants "dot Health Limited" and "DotHealth, LLC" Updated the wiki pages with links to PIC from "dot Health Limited" applicant as posted on ICANN's website https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg and link to PIC from applicant "DotHealth, LLC" as sent to the gTLD RG. https://community.icann.org/x/t4xwAg Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ Newgtldrg mailing list Newgtldrg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg

4 11

Fwd: In response to Eric Brunner Williams' Comments (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/002351.html)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

FYI, as received - Dev Anand ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Weissberg <andyw(a)dothealthgtld.com> Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM Subject: In response to Eric Brunner Williams' Comments (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/002351.html) To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com> Cc: Richard Butcher <richardobutcher2(a)gmail.com>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us>, Neil Posner <neil.posner(a)digitalpublishingpartners.com> Hello Dev, I am responding to the comments assertions which were made by Eric Brunner-Williams at Wed Mar 6 18:20:02 UTC 2013, which are duly noted and accessible at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/002351.html. For the record, and for the ALAC's full clarification and understanding: We indeed promptly shared the DotHealth, LLC PIC Specification with the ADG of the World Health Organization (WHO) via e-mail (9:34PM Eastern Time on 3/5/13), as well as with the leadership and primary contact points at the NABP and our other supporting organizations on 3/5/13 - roughly hours after it had been submitted to ICANN. We also provided background information surrounding the ICANN request/recommendation for PIC specifications. If necessary, such individuals can be directly contacted regarding these matters, and for which I'd be happy to attempt to facilitate if needed. Today, we posted the DotHealth, LLC PIC specification on our web site (http://dothealthgtld.com/news.html) and which was uploaded to the ICANN New gTLD web site less than 3 hours ago. The "modality" of such commitments (as Eric suggests in his comments) are in direct response to WHO Executive Board Resolution 10.5, the follow on directives from the WHO's Director General for this tabled resolution, as well as in consideration of DotHealth's previous, current and continued dialogue with the Assistant Director General of the WHO regarding the .health TLD and the DotHealth, LLC application (https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicati…) As it has been advised that only members of the ALAC should be posting comments on its community forums, and having respect for these established processes and rules, I will leave it to you to decide on how this information is further communicated to your colleagues and peers in the ALAC. Sincerely yours, Andy Weissberg Andy Weissberg, Co-founder & CEO DotHealth, LLC

2 4

Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
by Garth Bruen March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

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

9 22