As to the APRALO POV, I’ll refer you to the recent comment by Hong Xue: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40930513&focusedCom... From: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:52 PM To: Garth Bruen Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection 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

Eric, 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? 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? -Garth On 3/5/13 10:27 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

On 3/5/13 3:33 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

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.

My recommendation is to answer "YES" to ALL FIVE cases.

I spent some of my Toronto meeting time in consultations with Dr. Joan Dzenowagis, of the World Health Organization, who worked with CORE in submitting an application for a sponsored TLD in 2000, and Ms. Rosa Delgado, whom I've known since the 2000 round, when she represented the interests of the .aero applicant, and who was, and is, consulting for the World Health Organization.

I am convinced that (a) ICANN has not extinguished the WHO's interest in the label ".health", arising from the WHO's submitting a qualified, and deferred, application in the 2000 round. For those who were not a part of Working Group C, in 1998-2000 the majority proposal was to accept 7 to 10 of the applications, split evenly between the sponsored form and the open form. Seven applications were selected, the .health application was one of those deferred until a future date.

I appreciate that staff legal asserts that it has unilaterally extinguished all prior applicants' interests, and that long running claim for .web has finally resulted in a court ruling adverse to the claim of that applicant, but the general claim of unilateral extinguishment of all prior applicant's interests in their qualified, but deferred applications, has not yet been tested in a court of law.

I would not like to see ICANN profit by "efficient breach" of contract with the World Health Organization, return to it $45,000, in cash or in future application fee credit, with interest, and taking the auction price from the highest speculative interest bidder. Not only would this be poor past contract management, there is no reason to believe that ICANN would refrain from similar conduct in the present, or future rounds. When registrars do this to individuals and business that attempt to register a name of value, we call it "front running", and condemn the practice. If ICANN can "front run" the World Health Organization, taking its 2000 round application for the string "health" and award it to the highest bidder in 2013 (or 2014, or ...), it can "front run" other public interest applicants and privatize the assets those public entities have created in common identifiers.

I am also convinced that (b) the underlying purpose of marks protections, articulated in part by national law, and subsequent treaty based international law, concerning trademarks, is the prevention of harmful confusion in the market, and the difference between a registry operated by the World Health Organization and a registry operated by any for-profit operator seems to me to be self-evident. Having worked diligently, first with Jon Postel, then with members of the Intellectual Property Constituency, for two decades, to protect the interest of public bodies -- initially indigenous governments in the Americas and Oceania, now these and municipalities and regional governments and treaty organizations which do not rely upon trademark to protect their name from expropriation by third parties pursuing private profit, I am certain that snipping off the valuable bits of public identifiers and selling them to the highest bidder will only produce harmful confusion in the market. It is not surprising that we see multiple speculative claims for "health" and none for "world" or "organization" or "worldhealth" or "healthorganization". That's where the public reliance is, and therefore that is where there is money to be had by first mover theft.

Having worked with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Information in the past, and having maintained a relationship with senior members of each subsequently, I'm certain that whatever Mike Rodenbach is up to is unlikely to be consistent with the public interest in public health in the Han Script market of ideas and names. Mike has always struck me as one of the least intelligent, and least principled persons to have ever been on the GNSO Council.

I appreciate the concern that Garth expresses, and the invitation to disagree or engage in discussion, however, as we know different things, and I knew the .health applicant team in 2000, worked with the individuals associated with the then proposed technical provider (CORE) while Chief Technical Officer of CORE, 2007-2010, and am well acquainted with Dr. Joan Dzenowagis and Ms. Rosa DelGado, I know that the objection to the string does not "represent a narrow interest in the string itself and not the meaning", but is an objection to both.

Eric Brunner-Williams ------ 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 ------

On 3/5/13 9:56 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

While I agree there is a lot not to like about ICANN's handling of the prior round applications, I don't see why it is our responsibility to represent the interests of the WHO. They are an international treaty organization with a billion dollar budget.*

The purpose of the At Large entity created in the Corporation ByLaws is to advise the Board, nominally, on issues that touch on the public interest. This purpose is assumed in each of its regional elements, e.g., NARALO. The issue isn't one of advocacy for an applicant, but to advise, the only party ALAC exists to advise, through the available process, which in the present instant includes the objection process, that a public interest issue exists.

If they have issues with

...

ICANN, they could take them up directly as the ICRC and IOC did.

These actually are more centralized organizations than the WHO is currently -- a decade ago the WHO Secretariat had sufficient discretionary capacity to apply for a gTLD, though few outside of the medical data futures may have seen the utility, or necessity, of a namespace as a tool relevant to the institutional mission. Under what theory should the World Health Organization be denied access to the objection process? Under what theory should At Large be prevented from considering objection to applications by private parties for some or all of the name of the the World Health Organization?

And if we care about .HEALTH, why don't we care about Spamhaus' application for .MAIL? It's an equally generic term, and ICANN equally blew them off in the last round.

As you point out, that was in the 2004 round. The 2002 Bylaws establishing the ALAC did not provide ALAC with standing to object, only to advise. The 2012 DAG process has provided the ALAC with specific standing to object. Eric

The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before. It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons for its rejection at that time are even less known. In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less self-serving than the for-profits. (*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose advancing any objections on the Chinese variant. - Evan On 5 March 2013 22:27, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:

On 3/5/13 3:33 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

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.

My recommendation is to answer "YES" to ALL FIVE cases.

I spent some of my Toronto meeting time in consultations with Dr. Joan Dzenowagis, of the World Health Organization, who worked with CORE in submitting an application for a sponsored TLD in 2000, and Ms. Rosa Delgado, whom I've known since the 2000 round, when she represented the interests of the .aero applicant, and who was, and is, consulting for the World Health Organization.

I am convinced that (a) ICANN has not extinguished the WHO's interest in the label ".health", arising from the WHO's submitting a qualified, and deferred, application in the 2000 round. For those who were not a part of Working Group C, in 1998-2000 the majority proposal was to accept 7 to 10 of the applications, split evenly between the sponsored form and the open form. Seven applications were selected, the .health application was one of those deferred until a future date.

I appreciate that staff legal asserts that it has unilaterally extinguished all prior applicants' interests, and that long running claim for .web has finally resulted in a court ruling adverse to the claim of that applicant, but the general claim of unilateral extinguishment of all prior applicant's interests in their qualified, but deferred applications, has not yet been tested in a court of law.

I would not like to see ICANN profit by "efficient breach" of contract with the World Health Organization, return to it $45,000, in cash or in future application fee credit, with interest, and taking the auction price from the highest speculative interest bidder. Not only would this be poor past contract management, there is no reason to believe that ICANN would refrain from similar conduct in the present, or future rounds. When registrars do this to individuals and business that attempt to register a name of value, we call it "front running", and condemn the practice. If ICANN can "front run" the World Health Organization, taking its 2000 round application for the string "health" and award it to the highest bidder in 2013 (or 2014, or ...), it can "front run" other public interest applicants and privatize the assets those public entities have created in common identifiers.

I am also convinced that (b) the underlying purpose of marks protections, articulated in part by national law, and subsequent treaty based international law, concerning trademarks, is the prevention of harmful confusion in the market, and the difference between a registry operated by the World Health Organization and a registry operated by any for-profit operator seems to me to be self-evident. Having worked diligently, first with Jon Postel, then with members of the Intellectual Property Constituency, for two decades, to protect the interest of public bodies -- initially indigenous governments in the Americas and Oceania, now these and municipalities and regional governments and treaty organizations which do not rely upon trademark to protect their name from expropriation by third parties pursuing private profit, I am certain that snipping off the valuable bits of public identifiers and selling them to the highest bidder will only produce harmful confusion in the market. It is not surprising that we see multiple speculative claims for "health" and none for "world" or "organization" or "worldhealth" or "healthorganization". That's where the public reliance is, and therefore that is where there is money to be had by first mover theft.

Having worked with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Information in the past, and having maintained a relationship with senior members of each subsequently, I'm certain that whatever Mike Rodenbach is up to is unlikely to be consistent with the public interest in public health in the Han Script market of ideas and names. Mike has always struck me as one of the least intelligent, and least principled persons to have ever been on the GNSO Council.

I appreciate the concern that Garth expresses, and the invitation to disagree or engage in discussion, however, as we know different things, and I knew the .health applicant team in 2000, worked with the individuals associated with the then proposed technical provider (CORE) while Chief Technical Officer of CORE, 2007-2010, and am well acquainted with Dr. Joan Dzenowagis and Ms. Rosa DelGado, I know that the objection to the string does not "represent a narrow interest in the string itself and not the meaning", but is an objection to both.

Eric Brunner-Williams ------ 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

Garth: I disagree. As far as I know, the only objection that was in question was the IDN health/healthy issue. For this case, I will follow the APRALO advice which is as follows: *"5) After your review of the new gTLD application for the “.健康” string by the applicant “Stable Tone Limited”, the objection statement on community grounds and related comments by the At-Large community and the applicant at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg , the APRALO YES, supports the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" string - but only if the company voluntarily submits Public Interest Commitment (PIC) specifications to ICANN for inclusion in its new gTLD registry agreement that display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer protection (i.e., clear guidelines for assessing potential harm to consumers and consumer health and the appropriate measures for addressing that harm including consultations with relevant experts/authorities). In the event that such PIC is not forthcoming from Stable Tone, APRALO will overturn its support for “.健康” at the ALAC level when it is time for the ALAC to make a decision."* My vote is to move forward with all the objections and indicate the same caveat as suggested by APRALO for the IDN health/healthy string. -ed On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:

Folks,

The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.

It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they have specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time is beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an appropriate use of the community objection.

It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the time, the objection may not have passed.

We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these objections.

-Garth

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:42 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before.

It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons for its rejection at that time are even less known.

In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less self-serving than the for-profits.

(*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose advancing any objections on the Chinese variant.

- Evan

-- 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 ------

-- *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.

Gordon, I think that is the point, and the point I'm trying to make. I don't think it is in the public interest to move forward with an objection that is not truly community based. -Garth -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Chillcott [mailto:gordontc@look.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:03 AM To: Eduardo Diaz Cc: Garth Bruen; NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection Garth: The history with WHO, while interesting, is not at issue here, in my view. The objection under discussion did not make any reference to it. What is at issue here is the public interest. For that reason, I must agree with Edwardo. Gordon On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 11:46 -0400, Eduardo Diaz wrote:

Garth:

I disagree. As far as I know, the only objection that was in question was the IDN health/healthy issue. For this case, I will follow the APRALO advice which is as follows:

*"5) After your review of the new gTLD application for the “.健康” string by the applicant “Stable Tone Limited”, the objection statement on community grounds and related comments by the At-Large community and the applicant at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg , the APRALO

YES, supports the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" string - but only if

the company voluntarily submits Public Interest Commitment (PIC) specifications to ICANN for inclusion in its new gTLD registry agreement that display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer protection (i.e., clear guidelines for assessing potential harm to consumers and consumer health and the appropriate measures for addressing that harm including consultations with relevant experts/authorities).

In the event that such PIC is not forthcoming from Stable Tone, APRALO will overturn its support for “.健康” at the ALAC level when it is time for the ALAC to make a decision."*

My vote is to move forward with all the objections and indicate the same caveat as suggested by APRALO for the IDN health/healthy string.

-ed

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:

...

Folks,

The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.

It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they have specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time is beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an appropriate use of the community objection.

It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the time, the objection may not have passed.

We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these objections.

-Garth

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:42 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before.

It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons for its rejection at that time are even less known.

In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less self-serving than the for-profits.

(*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose advancing any objections on the Chinese variant.

- Evan

-- 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 ------

-- *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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Garth, if that is the case, they should clarify it. The way I read it is as follows: they are recommending to go forward with the objection and will overturn their *"YES"* only if the applicant submits a PIC specification and *"*display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to* address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer protection". *This tells me that is not only the submission of the PIC alone that will trigger this caveat but the reaching of consensus in that the PIC specification satisfied these later statements. I am not sure as to the time frames for the PICs vs. the ALAC voting but I have the impression that the ALAC vote will happen before the applicant submits a PIC specification and the analysis is done. -ed On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:

Eduardo, in terms of the IDN advice, I think there is a mistake in the APRALO statement. I think they meant to say “NO”****

** **

*From:* Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:47 AM *To:* Garth Bruen

*Cc:* NARALO Discussion List *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection****

** **

Garth:****

** **

I disagree. As far as I know, the only objection that was in question was the IDN health/healthy issue. For this case, I will follow the APRALO advice which is as follows:****

** **

*"5) After your review of the new gTLD application for the “.**健康**” string by the applicant “Stable Tone Limited”, the objection statement on community grounds and related comments by the At-Large community and the applicant at https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg** , the APRALO**

YES, supports the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".**健康**" string - but only if* *

the company voluntarily submits Public Interest Commitment (PIC) specifications to ICANN for inclusion in its new gTLD registry agreement that display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer protection (i.e., clear guidelines for assessing potential harm to consumers and consumer health and the appropriate measures for addressing that harm including consultations with relevant experts/authorities).

In the event that such PIC is not forthcoming from Stable Tone, APRALO will overturn its support for “.**健康**” at the ALAC level when it is time for the ALAC to make a decision."*****

** **

My vote is to move forward with all the objections and indicate the same caveat as suggested by APRALO for the IDN health/healthy string.****

** **

-ed****

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:*** *

Folks,

The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.

It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they have specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time is beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an appropriate use of the community objection.

It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the time, the objection may not have passed.

We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these objections.

-Garth****

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch****

Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:42 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection****

The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before.

It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons for its rejection at that time are even less known.

In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less self-serving than the for-profits.

(*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose advancing any objections on the Chinese variant.

- Evan

****

-- 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 ------****

****

** **

-- *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. *** *

-- *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.

Greetings from Halifax. I am still unsure, but the deadline is today. For that reason I will support NARALO advancing the objections for consideration by ALAC, and will take the time (if the objections are indeed advanced) to learn more and make a better informed choice (in consultation with NARALO) when the ALAC is called upon to vote. - Evan (via mobile) On 2013-03-06 1:13 PM, "Garth Bruen" <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:

Eduardo, in terms of the IDN advice, I think there is a mistake in the APRALO statement. I think they meant to say “NO”

From: Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 10:47 AM To: Garth Bruen Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

Garth:

I disagree. As far as I know, the only objection that was in question was the IDN health/healthy issue. For this case, I will follow the APRALO advice which is as follows:

"5) After your review of the new gTLD application for the “.健康” string by the applicant “Stable Tone Limited”, the objection statement on community grounds and related comments by the At-Large community and the applicant at <https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg> https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg , the APRALO

YES, supports the filing of the objection statement by the ALAC against applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the ".健康" string - but only if

the company voluntarily submits Public Interest Commitment (PIC) specifications to ICANN for inclusion in its new gTLD registry agreement that display an intent to be socially responsible and carry them out to address the weaknesses in its application with regard to consumer protection (i.e., clear guidelines for assessing potential harm to consumers and consumer health and the appropriate measures for addressing that harm including consultations with relevant experts/authorities).

In the event that such PIC is not forthcoming from Stable Tone, APRALO will overturn its support for “.健康” at the ALAC level when it is time for the ALAC to make a decision."

My vote is to move forward with all the objections and indicate the same caveat as suggested by APRALO for the IDN health/healthy string.

-ed

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Garth Bruen <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:

Folks,

The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.

It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they have specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time is beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an appropriate use of the community objection.

It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the time, the objection may not have passed.

We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these objections.

-Garth

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch

Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 11:42 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

The WHO is obviously aware of the process, having applied before.

It could have applied in this round as a community application, and had an immediate leg up on others, but chose not to. Why it would apply then and not now is puzzling, but it has made the decision to not contend for the string and other entries should not be enjoined simply because they are not the WHO. And as interesting as the 2000 application was, the fact remains that it was not granted. If its existence is not well known, the reasons for its rejection at that time are even less known.

In any case, that was then and this is now. There is no WHO application for .health at this time. There may indeed be sensible reasons to advance some or all of objections against the Latin-string applications(*), but putting the string on hold while waiting for the WHO to (maybe) apply for it at a later round is not one of those reasons. Nobody -- with the possible exception for dot-brands based on invented words -- is merely entitled to any string. And given the conduct of the WHO and other IGOs in the current GNSO working group regarding non-profit name blocking, I actually have little reason to believe that their interests in gTLDs are any less self-serving than the for-profits.

(*) Based on recent feedback from Hong, Rinalia and Cheryl, I oppose advancing any objections on the Chinese variant.

- Evan

-- 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 ------

-- 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

2nd that   "The concern that "these objections [] may reflect badly on ALAC later" is the last thing that should be on anyone's mind, rather, whether the objections themselves are meritorious, or not."

________________________________ From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection

On 3/6/13 7:33 AM, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

Folks,

The discussions on this topic and additional documents offered further confirm the role and interest of WHO in this objection.

It is clear from the previously submitted applications by WHO that they have specific interest in the .HEALTH string. Why they did not apply this time is beyond me (per John L. they would have received a discount). If they had applied they would likely be the most obvious candidate. However, at this point to take a "if I can't have it, no one can" approach is not an appropriate use of the community objection.

You could ask why this public entity was unable, in the time frame available, unable to make an off-budget quarter-million dollar expenditure and commit to several multiples of additional costs over a several year period, and commit to a incompletely defined contracting process, or you could just make stuff up.

Having committed to just making stuff up, why continue the charade?

This is not the only public body which was unable to respond to ICANN's abruptly fixed, after floating for years, one fiscal quarter wide filing window.

...

It would be a mistake to support these objections and may reflect badly on ALAC later if they go forward. This objection came in very late and along with four other objections which made it impossible to conduct full research. If the RG had access and knowledge of all this information at the time, the objection may not have passed.

The concern that "these objections [] may reflect badly on ALAC later" is the last thing that should be on anyone's mind, rather, whether the objections themselves are meritorious, or not.

...

We have until midnight UTC (7PM EST) today to submit advice to ALAC, my advice is that it is not in our interest to move forward on these objections.

I differ.

...

-Garth

Eric ------ 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 ------

On 3/6/13 8:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

You could ask why this public entity was unable, in the time frame available, unable to make an off-budget quarter-million dollar expenditure and commit to several multiples of additional costs over a several year period, and commit to a incompletely defined contracting process, or you could just make stuff up.

I think it is reasonable to believe that if they were still interested in proceeding with their 2000 application, they could free up enough staff and budget time to write a letter to ICANN saying so.

There is an alternative to making policy recommendations based upon what you think is "reasonable". The WHO expended two staff weeks plus travel, lodging and living expsenes on the Toronto ICANN general meeting where its staff attempted to present its case to the GAC. I attended each of the open GAC sessions and observed this personally. I know that WHO staff also communicated their concerns to ICANN staff, and to each of the USG team present. Is "a letter" the only thing that can persuade you? If so, why have you not written Dr. Dzenowagis. I'm looking forward to Garth producing a letter from Dr. Dzenowagis supporting the truth of his observation that the policy of the World Health Organization with respect to the 2012 round is in fact "if I can't have it, no one can". In case I'm not being blunt enough, making stuff up is not how policy making has to be done, no matter how frequently it is observed. Eric Brunner-Williams