<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Amr,<br>
<br>
Thanks for this. It offers a chance for some clarity to an issue
that is frequently foggy. When I wrote "<i>had ICANN, as ICANN,
entered into the discussions around .health with the global
health community" </i>that was not with regard specific generic
words, it was not with regard to the formal procedures around
assessing the .health applications within the context of the gTLD
application process, and it was not with regard to the applicant
guidebook requirements and processes. <br>
<br>
What was meant was that, as part of ICANN outreach, ICANN could
contribute to an awareness and understanding of the issues that
surrounded not the granting of gTLDs, but the implementation of
gTLDs, and -without prejudicing individual applicants or the
selection process- here help the global health community
understand where they should focus their concerns. By not doing
that ICANN acted as a lightening rod, to the benefit of neither
ICANN, the global health community, nor the applicants for
.health. <br>
<br>
The suggestion is simple. An ICANN engagement in wider dialogue
(which could be just issue papers) as ICANN and based on its
internal multistakeholder processes, could turn what ends up being
a confrontational process that does not enhance ICANN's image and
angers a global constituency into a learning process that enhances
ICANN's image and informs a global constituency concerned with DNS
issuse that actually fall outside ICANN's remit. <br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i> </i>On 30/03/2015 11:57 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1AA9D618-73FC-4D3C-B1B8-ACBE5C9E0C48@egyptig.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Sam,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When the new gTLD applicant guidebook was being developed, I
don’t think the intent was to develop a unique policy for every
generic word out there. The multiple applications for .health
were only submitted after this was done, and the application
round was opened. So it would have been difficult for ICANN to
invite the global healthcare community to have a discussion on
.health (or every other community out there with an interest in
a specific generic word) before the applications were submitted.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There were, however, measures based on specific criteria in
the applicant guidebook that could be taken to object to certain
applications. One of them was the limited public interest
objection that could be submitted. Objections were filed by
members in the healthcare community to the .health applications,
but they didn’t meet the requirements set for the applications
to fail.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again…, not the decision of ICANN corp, but based on
consensus policies developed by the community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 30, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Sam Lanfranco <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:lanfran@yorku.ca">lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Amr,<br>
<br>
To keep it simple, both .doctor and .sucks are situations
where ICANN has remained completely mute. That is both a
corporate risk to ICANN and does nothing to bolster the
role of the multistakeholder process in addressing (here)
DNS issues. Please note that there is a difference between
being engaged in the dialogue around issues and taking
policy positions. <br>
<br>
For example, had ICANN, as ICANN, entered into the
discussions around .health with the global health
community, the global community would have been more aware
and better informed about the issues and where they should
be dealt with (for the most part outside ICANN). I
suspect that had there been that dialogue the global
health community would have said "Go ahead with .health
and we will deal with the issues, as they arise,
elsewhere". By not engaging that discussion, the learning
process suffers, ICANN runs the real risk as being seen as
part of the problem, and in the process the
multistakeholder model can suffer collateral damage. <br>
<br>
Sam L.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 30/03/2015 10:59 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:9C7B1DA0-014B-4CEE-A70A-8B8130DAD031@egyptig.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hi Sam,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I’m confused about how you’re conflating and
comparing the two issues of .doctor and .sucks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More inline:</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Sam Lanfranco <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Lanfran@yorku.ca">Lanfran@yorku.ca</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Lanfran@Yorku.ca">Lanfran@Yorku.ca</a> Skype: slanfranco
blog: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com">http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com</a>
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852</pre>
</body>
</html>