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

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

Fwd: Name.com hijacking subdomains
by Joly MacFie March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

>From the NYC Tech Meetup ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony Zeoli <az(a)digitalstrategyworks.com> Date: Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:53 PM Subject: [newtech-1] Name.com hijacking subdomains To: newtech-1(a)meetup.com Hi everyone, One of our old NYTM members, Jonathan Vanasco (who doesn't post much anymore, if at all) asked me to report this out to the group. If you're using Name.com, you should be aware that if you have not actively set your subdomains to return null or redirect to your main domain, it seems that Name.com is redirecting all subdomains to their servers. I believe if someone types in a subdomain on your domain and spells it wrong, they're going to get taken to a Name.com page. Jonathan asked me to raise this on the list so everyone is aware. See more on this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5299534 I'm not 100% clear on this - there's so much in the thread to read, but from my understanding of it, if you have a domain registered at Name.com, they're privately making sure that if anyone types in a subdomain incorrectly, it will revert to them and not you, making people think your site might be down, when it's not. The link may or may not have solutions to this issue. I'm kinda busy tonight, so I haven't vetted this thoroughly enough - but wanted to put it out there so if you're a Name.com customer, you can check into this yourself and see how their redirects on your domain affect you. Digital Strategy Works WordPress | Digital Strategy | IA & UxD ✉ az(a)digitalstrategyworks.com | Visit Our Site<http://www.digitalstrategyworks.com> ☎ 917.705.4700 Twitter: @dswks | Facebook: digitalstrategyworks -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

3 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT! RE: .HEALTH Objections
by Alan Greenberg March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

My OPINION is that same as Eduardo's. If this is a formal action of the NARALO, I will abstain, since I have not had an opportunity to poll all of the unaffiliated members (I believe that there are 6 of us, only two of which have voice an opinion). I note that Eric Brunner-Williams is an unaffiliated member and not eligible to vote in his own right. Alan At 06/03/2013 06:12 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >My advice as follows (in red): > > > > DotHealth, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Goose Fest, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > dot Health Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Afilias Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): YES/NO/ABSTAIN - Follow APRALO advice, so > > NO with the same caveat as they published > > > > >-ed > >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >------ >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

IMPORTANT! RE: .HEALTH Objections
by Garth Bruen March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

All, As Evan has pointed out three regions have already voted to move 4 of the objections forward. "The deed is done" as they say, but this is a bottom-up community process and our input should matter. Please consider carefully the remaining objection for the IDN Chinese string and send to the list by 6:45PM/2345 UTC your advice on the five applications in the following format: DotHealth, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Goose Fest, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN dot Health Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Afilias Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): YES/NO/ABSTAIN Indicate YES NO or ABSTAIN. A "YES" moves the objection forward to ALAC for review, "NO" does not, "ABSTAIN" is an effective "NO" but with reservations. All advice will be considered up to quarter of the hour of the deadline, but only if it is sent to the list with full transparency. -Garth My advice is as follows: DotHealth, LLC: NO Goose Fest, LLC: NO dot Health Limited: NO Afilias Limited: NO Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): NO ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com

6 7

Fwd: Re: DotHealth Objections
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Forwarded to the NA-Discuss list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: DotHealth Objections Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:48:00 -0400 From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com> To: DZENOWAGIS, Joan Helen <dzenowagisj(a)who.int> CC: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net>, newgtldrg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear Joan Dzenowagis, Thanks for your email. By reply I am posting this to other members of the gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) in charge of coordinating the process by which the ALAC can object to new gTLD applications (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD for a summary of this process) Currently, 5 objection statements are undergoing Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and all can be viewed at this page : https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg Discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements can be viewed 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 (web page) Any comments you wish to send re: objections statements will be uploaded to the appropriate webpages for the objection statements for viewing by the At-Large community as well as the ALAC which will be considering the RALO advice on Friday March 8 2013. Any such comments should be sent before the ALAC call on Friday March 8 2013. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM, DZENOWAGIS, Joan Helen <dzenowagisj(a)who.int> wrote: > Dear Dev, I'm aware that there are questions about the above objections, some of which relate to WHO. We would appreciate the opportunity to address them directly, as some of the assertions by an applicant are inaccurate and/or misleading and this must be corrected. As you know, we have previously written to ICANN about our concerns and we are working within the ICANN process as we understand it. A number of global NGOs also share our concerns and have asked how they can support the objection. I would appreciate your guidance on how they can do this. > I hope you can accommodate the time difference in your deliberations, as it is 24.00hrs in Geneva, to give us the chance to respond. Thank you for your consideration. > Joan Dzenowagis, WHO Geneva

1 0

Idn advice from apralo
by gbruen＠knujon.com March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Apralo has clarified its statement in the objected IDN, the intended vote was "NO" on forwarding the IDN objection. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

2 1

gTLD objections -- the story so far
by Evan Leibovitch March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

According to the defined process, if THREE of the five regions support an objection put forward by Dev's Review Group, that objection gets elevated to ALAC for a vote. Right now, five objections are being considered -- four for the Latin string ".health" and a fifth based on a Chinese-script IDN variant of ".health" (that could also be read as ".healthy") Some other RALOs have already given their direction. - LACRALO has formally advanced all five. - APRALO and AFRALO have advanced the four Latin ones but not the IDN one - EURALO and NARALO have not povided direction. What this means is that: - The objections against the four Latin strings will be advanced to ALAC regardless of what NARALO and EURALO do - The IDN string can only be advanced if *both* EURALO and NARALO choose to do so. Now the debate constinues, as the ALAC must now (at least) consider the four remaining objections. I have been following the discussion here to date and will continue to use the discussion to help determine how to vote, At the beginning of this debate I was truly undecided, so I am prepared to vote in accordance with my reading of the region's preference. - Evan - Evan -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 2

Conduct on this list
by Garth Bruen March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Folks, This is a reminder that it is neither permitted nor necessary to engage personal comments on this list. This should be a discussion of policy. Thank you

1 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Well, there is a lively discussion going on within APRALO on how to handle this, with some Chinese speakers (or at least Rinalia) having significant problems with not objecting to the Chinese string. And Cheryl just cross-posted Garth's statement to their list! My personal position is that we should support the objection to 4 .health strings but not to the Chinese string. My rationale is that there clearly IS controversy over what is meant by the string and it is not sufficiently clear-cut for me to support an objection. On the other 4, I believe that we followed our carefully planned processes and I feel that support is reasonable. Alan At 05/03/2013 06:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >My initial reaction is to trust our own Chinese-speaking associates on the >IDN health/healthy issue. My smattering of working with other languages is >enough to know that we can't pre-suppose to know whether the applied-for >IDN is *intended* as a category/noun or an adjective. I personally would >consult with APRALO and support their direction over and above the stated >aims of the applicant. If APRALO supports the objection to the IDN, that's >good enough for me. > >As for the other objections -- I disagree that there is no defined >community. Without one the objections would have gone no further in the >process than those against .patagonia. What matters, from our PoV, is >whether objection put forward by this particular community -- health >practitioner professionals -- is sufficient enough to sustain objection as >a matter of public interest. > >I personally don' t have a strong opinion on this and could easily be >persuaded either way. > >- Evan > > >On 5 March 2013 18:33, Garth Bruen <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > ------ > > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >------ >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

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

New gTLD Objection to .HEALTH
by Garth Bruen March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Dear NARALO, I will be accepting comments on the objections to .HEALTH, please review the information below and related links. For those on this list who are not NARALO At-Large members, please refrain from making comments about this process on the NARALO list. You are free to make comments anywhere else, this process and discussion is for NARALO At-Large ONLY. If any non-At-Large persons comment on this objection process in the NARALO discussion I will request that staff remove you from the list. Also, I will be sending out my own thoughts on the issue, please note this is my OPINION and not instructions. I encourage everyone to make up their own mind on this. -Garth -----Original Message----- From: newgtldrg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:45 AM To: afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; newgtldrg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [New gTLD RG] 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(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> _______________________________________________ Newgtldrg mailing list Newgtldrg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg

2 2

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: [NA-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: [NA-Discuss] Travel Updates
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2013

March 1, 2013

At 22/02/2013 02:17 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >There's no consistency. > >I also have a trip from a previous passport (Canadian passports are only >good for 5 years but the visa application asks for trips up to 10 years >back). Based on Avri's advice I had my old passport ready with me(*), but >they never asked to see it, I had written the Visa number on the >application, which may have been good enough). And I told them about a previous visa but didn't think to put the number on the form and no problem. >(*) - I don't know about US practice, but when renewing a passport in >Canada they usually ask for -- and destroy -- your old one. You have to >explicitly ask for the old one back, at which time they give you dirty >looks, then stamp things on it and cut its corners. At one time I thought >that asking for old passports back was just for nostaliga, but as Avri >found out there occasionally CAN be a practical need. So when your passport >expires, do what you can to hang onto it. I've had them cut a small corner off or pierce it with some holes or stamp cancelled on the ID pages, but that's it. Last time I had to renew early because the PP was already full, and I was explicitly told that they were just cutting off a discreet corner of the cover and ID page so that I could keep the rest as a souvenir. Alan >I have my visa. Now I just need to work out flights.

5 4