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.

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.

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.

Sam L.

/Milton writes: A MS process //_creates_//"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/