On 3/5/13 8:20 PM, gbruen@knujon.com wrote:
This is very interesting, I am not sure the Review Group was aware of all these historical details. Are your saying that the WHO previously applied for an paid an underfunded application fee for the .HEALTH string?
The WHO applied for .health in the 2000 round. The fee they paid was what ICANN required at the time. Dr. Dr. Joan Dzenowagis was proposed as a member of the initial management team.
I found this document in the ICANN archives: http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/report/health1.html and this one:http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/health1/WHO-C-SO-Proposal.htm
Please, clarify. Did ICANN solicit these applications and did they request an application fee which was not returned when they were not approved? And now ICANN is accepting application fees for the same string?
There was an RFP, so yes, there was a solicitation, and a competent response, consisting of both a complete and sufficient application and the application fee. The fees paid by 2000 round applicants were not returned to the applicants. As you observe, "[a]nd now ICANN is accepting application fees for the same string" -- from third parties, and the contention rule in place is allocation by auction. So here's the really big issue -- what will be the jurisdictional contours of transnational epidemiological data in the near future? What does "medical data" look like, what are the accesses and uses of medical data arising from 200 distinct territorial jurisdictions? What resource(s) will public and private medical researchers most need to provide for the public health that originates from medical data? Eric