On 26 February 2013 15:56, CW Mail <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Good evening:

Noted. But Dear Anand Teelucksingh, I have serious reservations about the method that you propose:

1. The discussion in At Large is about whether or not to oppose IN PRINCIPLE the delegation of closed generic TLDs IN GENERAL. I am opposed to the creation of closed/generic TLDs. The arguments to this effect have already been set out on the ALAC e-mail list and webpages.

Hi Christopher, The discussion in At-Large is about "closed generics" in general, and is in response to a Board inquiry on the issue from its communities. The NEW discussion Dev is calling for is whether these specific five objections -- all against applications for .health or an IDN variation of .health -- should be filed by ALAC as part of its authority mandated in the gTLD application process. They're of course related but on two very specific tracks. The email to date has been about generalities and principle. The five objections at hand are very specific. If you believe that all closed generics are bad, then your own PoV -- as a participant in your RALO -- seems pretty clear, and you would advocate that your RALO is one of the three that must escalate the objections for consideration by ALAC. Without the support of three RALOs, the objections die without consideration by ALAC. Dev's email is to indicate that these discussions at the RALO level now need to take place. This is not a method that Dev has proposed casually. It is a long, detailed system that was designed long ago by the community. Regardless of whether the Board acts globally on the issue of closed generics (in which we are but one voice of many), the five specific objections to .health applications are very much within our ability to influence. - Evan