Hi, Not sure how anyone could have submitted a PIC much earlier, they were just invented. As I said, the main reason for NOT supporting the objections is that there is NO Community here making a claim to protection. This seems to be the result of one bitter past applicant (with every right to be bitter) that did not apply this time and a few small organization that do not claim Community status. I do not see how anyone could decide this merited Community protection. Other sensitivities, perhaps, but Community - way too much of a stretch for this particular word or Objection. avri On 6 Mar 2013, at 13:41, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Submitting PICs at this late date gives us insufficient time to evaluate. And the timing suggests that they were done specifically to placate us, only once a threat of an ALAC objection became real.

If/when these objections get advanced to the ALAC, I may reconsider my support for them when it's time for me to vote. But for now I encourage NARALO to support the advancement of the objections, at least to the next stage.

- Evan (via mobile)

On 2013-03-06 2:01 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,

Indeed since writing my note, I see that 3/4 are listed as submitting PICs. None had been when I checked just before writing.

This does not change my recommendation against the Objection, but it does indicate that they may have a leg to stand on in the discussions with the GAC.

Thanks for pointing out the change

avri

On 6 Mar 2013, at 12:42, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

FYI, DotHealth has submitted a PIC

-----Original Message----- From: newgtldrg-bounces@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg

------ 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 ------

On 3/6/13 10:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

Not sure how anyone could have submitted a PIC much earlier, they were just invented.

While true, this overlooks the opportunity the applicant chose not to act upon -- that of forming even a nominal means to inform, and be advised by, a "community" of interest.

As I said, the main reason for NOT supporting the objections is that there is NO Community here making a claim to protection.

Yet the applicant asserts, through this PIC itself, the existence of a community, to which it now attempts to reconcile its prior unilateral interests, which is likely to include profit, and the multi-lateral insterests of a community in fact, which is likely to include public health. But stepping back, which tools made available through so much diligence, your own included, to At Large, do you now assert are not appropriate for At Large to use? However bad a decision the elected, and NOMCOM appointed, members of the At Large policy making body make, why is their decision made worse if they find a community exists, not necessarily contained in any of the documents submitted by private, for-profit applicants, nor necessarily contained in any documents created by any party other than the At Large policy making body, and exercise this particular form of process, created specifically for the At Large policy making body, and thereby inform the Board, consistent with the purpose of At Large as set forth in the ByLaws? Which fork is the salad fork? Which the desert fork? Eric Brunner-Williams

On 3/6/13 11:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

There is no Community here because no Community has declared itself. There is no Community harm here because no Community is claiming harm.

An IGO does not count as Community.

Avri, Granted we differ, as we frequently do, in conclusion, and I don't seek to alter yours, and I do share your process point that discussion on the na-discuss list should not be abandoned due to the acts, or omissions, of others, or other regional groups, but I'm concerned as to the means by which you arrived at this particular conclusion. Does a community cease to exist when it acquires enduring access to public policy? That is, does "entering government" of a state necessarily extinguish "a community"? More basically, is "community" a designator of a lack of autonomy in a state legal system? Does a "Catalan community" only exist as a minority dominated by the Madrid government, and will the "Catalan community" cease to exist, if and when, regional autonomy is devolved from Madrid to Barcelona? I suggest that if we understand "community" to necessarily exclude any collection of parties holding common interests which have acquired enduring access to public policy we will (a) be assuming a significant burden -- distinguishing states from non-states, and (b) restricting the adoption of registries with registration policies unlike COM to applicants lacking enduring access to public policy anywhere. I suggest that the public health community in Canada did not cease to exist when the antecedent to Health Canada was formed, nor did the public health community in the United States and Puerto Rico cease to exist when An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen was passed by the 5th Congress in 1798. Nor did they cease their continued existence, as communities with enduring access to public policy, when the Pan American Sanitary Bureau was formed in 1902. Nor did they cease their continued existence, as communities with enduring access to public policy,in 1907, with the formation of the Office International d'Hygiene Publique, or with the subsequent formation of the League of Nations Health Organization. I suggest that these same communities continue to exist in the present, and are not harmed, except in the formulation you've proposed, by their continuous re-creation of the means of cooperation, institutionalized in part as the World Health Organization. I accept, as a possibility, that an IGO exists which does not suggest a community in the sense that we've developed since the San Juan meeting, but find the reduction you've offered -- "An IGO does not count as Community" -- amounts to an assertion of the primacy of private speculators over public investors in the growth in use and utility of the DNS by the public, in particular, the use of identifiers related to public health. Again, I share your process view that abandonment of discussion on na-discuss is an abandonment of responsibilities. Eric

Oh well, nothing to be seen or said here. Where is the rubber stamp? avri On 6 Mar 2013, at 16:45, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

The PICs are new, but they constitute a last-minute attempt to address a failure to include appropriate commitments or objectives in the original application. It appears that only the threat of an ALAC objection (and probably from the GAC too) has led to these last-minute interventions.

In any case, it's a moot point -- for now. APRALO, AFRALO and LACRALO have approved advancement of the objections against the Latin string applications. We'll have to deal with this again when the ALAC vote comes, but for the moment there's no point arguing whether these should or should not be escalated for ALAC consideration.

- Evan

On 6 March 2013 13:52, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,

Not sure how anyone could have submitted a PIC much earlier, they were just invented.

As I said, the main reason for NOT supporting the objections is that there is NO Community here making a claim to protection.

This seems to be the result of one bitter past applicant (with every right to be bitter) that did not apply this time and a few small organization that do not claim Community status. I do not see how anyone could decide this merited Community protection. Other sensitivities, perhaps, but Community - way too much of a stretch for this particular word or Objection.

avri

On 6 Mar 2013, at 13:41, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Submitting PICs at this late date gives us insufficient time to evaluate. And the timing suggests that they were done specifically to placate us, only once a threat of an ALAC objection became real.

If/when these objections get advanced to the ALAC, I may reconsider my support for them when it's time for me to vote. But for now I encourage NARALO to support the advancement of the objections, at least to the next stage.

- Evan (via mobile)

On 2013-03-06 2:01 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> wrote: Hi,

Indeed since writing my note, I see that 3/4 are listed as submitting PICs. None had been when I checked just before writing.

This does not change my recommendation against the Objection, but it does indicate that they may have a leg to stand on in the discussions with the GAC.

Thanks for pointing out the change

avri

On 6 Mar 2013, at 12:42, Garth Bruen wrote:

...

FYI, DotHealth has submitted a PIC

-----Original Message----- From: newgtldrg-bounces@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg

------ 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 ------

------ 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

Hi, As all PICs are just first drafts for discussion, I find this PIC quite promising and expect that it can be negotiated with the GAC and other interested parties. In terms of .health and WHO, I do not see in what way WHO represents a community. And what we are discussing here in a Community Objection. Sure they are an IGO that would like to have a word they want to be protected, but that is not what a Community Objection is about. That is more a matter for the IGO/INGO Working Group. avri On 6 Mar 2013, at 13:20, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

My careful reading shows no indication that the text of the PIC has been communicated to any endorsing third party. This seems at odds with the claim that the policy is the product of three and a half years of extensive efforts and great care, but perhaps outreach to third party agencies is not the ordinary business practice of Mr. Weissberg's entity. I've no way of knowing, but I was looking for the endorsements of the text by parties other than the beneficiary applicant.

The following, which appears as "Other Specific Public Interest Committments (Spwcification 11, Paragraph 3), I find interesting.

...

Commitment to the Protection of the World Health Organization Names and/or Acronyms

DotHealth, LLC shall commit to consult with the World Health Organization on the protection of appropriate second level domain names within the .health TLD in order to withhold their use by any third party where such protection is deemed to be in the public interest.

Mr. Weissberg does not inform the reader if the World Health Organization is even cognizant of this commitment.

Nor is the reader informed specifically as to the modality of this consultation with the World Health Organization.

Nor is the reader informed specifically how, and by whom, the public interest evaluation of third party registrations is to be effected.

In my opinion this PIC does not rise to the level of prudence and care likely to (a) permit effective community policy formation or (b) prevent the most likely forms of abuse.

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 ------