Amr, Thanks for this. It offers a chance for some clarity to an issue that is frequently foggy. When I wrote "/had ICANN, as ICANN, entered into the discussions around .health with the global health community" /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. 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. 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. Sam L. //On 30/03/2015 11:57 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Sam, > > 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. > > 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. > > Again…, not the decision of ICANN corp, but based on consensus > policies developed by the community. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 5:29 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > >> Amr, >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Sam L. >> >> >> On 30/03/2015 10:59 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>> I’m confused about how you’re conflating and comparing the two >>> issues of .doctor and .sucks. >>> >>> More inline: >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> > -- ------------------------------------------------ "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: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852