<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Not sure how Milton got things mixed up with respect to the issues
around the .health GTLD and the issues around the second level
MentalHealth.nyc but here is a short clarification. <br>
<br>
For the .health gTLD there was broad consensus across the global
health constituency expressed opposition to .health. They are
particularly upset that the objections process ruled out even
serious consideration of the issues around .health. They were not
some misc. advocacy group, and if examined in detail they have a
breadth and depth of engagement that ICANN constituencies could only
dream about. The concerns, which were never addressed, were on
substantive issues and not an attempt to capture the gTLD. <br>
<br>
The MentalHealth.nyc issue was mainly about the lack of transparency
in terms of contenders for MentalHealth,nyc, and to some extent the
way in which the private auction will be held. The contenders have
come out of the initial "landrush" and at least one would like the
ICANN gTLD auction rules to apply to the landrush situation. They
would like to know who the contenders are and be allowed to
collaborate. For gTLD auctions that process is allowed, and the
contenders are mainly business interests. They would like to see the
same rules apply, especially since they are frequently community
groups where collaboration is a good idea. It appears that the .nyc
auction process is designed to mainly benefit NeuStar and less so
the New York City government. It certainly doesn't benefit any of
the applicants.<br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
<i>Milton writes: A MS process </i><i><span
class="moz-txt-underscore"><span class="moz-txt-tag">_</span>creates<span
class="moz-txt-tag">_</span></span></i><i> "fighting parties"
by telling anyone and everyone that they can have legally
enforceable rights over common property (words, names) simply by
asserting them in a policy process. Sam provides a perfect example
of this. A health advocacy group thinks it should be able to
control how we use the word "health" or "mentalhealth" in the
domain name space, specifically in order to preclude someone from
using it in a way they don't like. The conflicts of interest
created by such a policy are endless, literally endless. Everyone
in the world would be encouraged to think that they have a
property right or some other kind of special claim on words that
are important or meaningful to them. Add different languages to
this and the possibilities for conflict are mind-boggling. --MM</i>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>