Difference between revisions of ".health"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 38: Line 38:
  
 
The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>
 
The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/docs/20121127093808906.pdf DomainIncite.com/Docs] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/11130-europe-rejects-icanns-authority-as-it-warns-of-problems-with-58-new-gtlds Europe Rejects ICANNs Authority As it Warns of Problems with 58 New gTLDs, DomainIncite.com] Published 27 Nov 2012, Retrieved 11 Dec 2012</ref>
 +
 +
===ALAC Objection===
 +
In mid-February 2013, it was noted that the [[ALAC]] had intentions to file a formal objection against [[.health]] by the end of the month, stating that "Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the applications for .health given that the four tests for community objection grounds were passed." Their constituents argue that the string is a sensitive topic that should be managed carefully with input and management from international health organizations. They note that none of the applicants are [[Community TLD|community based]], and that all of them represent for-profit ventures.<ref>[http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/16/alac-to-submit-objection-against-health/ ALAC to submit Objection against Health, InternetNews.me] Published and Retrieved 17 Feb 2013</ref>
  
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 21:23, 17 February 2013

}}
Status: Proposed
Category: Health
Priority #: 396 - DotHealth, LLC
430 - Afilias
795 - Donuts (Goose Fest, LLC)
1548 - Famous Four Media (dot Health Limited)

.health is a proposed generic top level domain name (gTLD) in ICANN's New gTLD Program.

Applicants

  1. DotHealth, LLC
  2. Afilias, is a registry operator which also applied for TLDs on its own behalf.[1][2]
  3. Famous Four Media (dot Health Limited), Geir Rasmussen is the contact person for the company, which has applied for 61 TLDs.[3][4]
  4. Donuts (Goose Fest LLC), one of 307 applications submitted by the company. [5]

GAC Early Warnings

Applicants for .health, were subject to a number of GAC Early Warnings.The warning system is noted as a strong recommendation on behalf of national governments to the ICANN Board that a given TLD application should be denied as it stands. Applicants are encouraged to work with objecting GAC members.[6]

France and Mali both objected to all four applications; France claims that the demands for legitimacy with regards to health services around the world prevents .health from being an easily deployable TLD, and that all applicants need greater security measures, they further note that: " We also refer to the requests from the World Health Organization NGOs, and others, who wrote to ICANN and the GAC to delay the attribution of the string to allow for consultation with the global health community on operating the TLD in the Public Interest."[7] Mali makes similar claims, and Cameroon also submitted an Early Warning to Afilias .health application, copying the French warning verbatim.[8]

Donuts replied to France´s warning to .health, and its similar objections for .architect, .sarl, .hotel and .vin, with an impassioned defense of the validity of open registration for New gTLDs.It notes that restricting registration unfairly assumes malfeasance on the part of the registrant, that no such restrictions exist for related domains in any exisiting gTLDs or ccTLDs, and that verification and restriction would inevitably raise the price of registration significantly. They go on to quote the GAC's own advice with regards to its contract with .xxx registry provider, ICM Registry, which notes that at that time the GAC was against any monitoring of TLD content given that it seems to overstep ICANN's technical mandate.[9]

European Commission Communiqué

The European Commission flagged all applicants for .health outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes.

Just after ICANN's GAC issued its Early Warnings, which are advice given from one GAC member country to an applicant warning it of potential issues within its application, the European Commission issued a letter to all applicants within the new gTLD program. The letter highlights 58 applications that "could raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation .. and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union." It notes a desire to open a dialogue with each offending applicant.

The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.[10][11]

ALAC Objection

In mid-February 2013, it was noted that the ALAC had intentions to file a formal objection against .health by the end of the month, stating that "Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the applications for .health given that the four tests for community objection grounds were passed." Their constituents argue that the string is a sensitive topic that should be managed carefully with input and management from international health organizations. They note that none of the applicants are community based, and that all of them represent for-profit ventures.[12]


References