Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
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@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@knujon.com
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
FYI yes I have cross posted as it IS an important discussion and I have also made clear my personal view is in line with APRALO voting No or abstaining from this matter (also stated on the relevant briefing teleconference recently held) BUT it is our APRALO Chair who will cast the votes ( or not) today and informed, I trust, from these discussions, and the APRALO member contributions on the wiki page <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40930513&focusedCom...> *Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... **(CLO)* http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr On 6 March 2013 11:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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@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@knujon.com
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr