Re: [icann-eu] [FYI] WHO to sue ICANN over .health?

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, at 11:29 [=GMT+0100], Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

> I think it was the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) which blocked
> indirectly  . health  by stating in their communique "2.2.The GAC notes
> that where registry sponsors are intergovernmental organisations, any
> agreement with such bodies may require approval of their members".
> 
> Does it mean that the ICANN Board has to consult with 180 or so
> governments? How this could function? WHO can join the GAC, like  ITU and
> WIPO, but did not so far. 
> I guess this is first of all a problem of
> coordination among governments and not an ICANN-WHO conflict. The same is
> also for UPU and .post.

And I guess this is first of all a problem of giving one particular
body (an organization in this case, but it might be a company next) a
TLD that suggests, according to their application, better
information. This may be worse than censorship.

It is possible to draw up formal criteria for what constitutes a
museum. It is not possible to define 'quality health information',
unless it means 'buy (also in sense: accept) what I buy'.

-- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202]) 


>  (> >DOT.HEALTH
> >>
> >> >WHO has learned via wire reports that our application for a
> >> >top-level domain of Dot.Health has been rejected. We are still
> >> >trying to get confirmation of this directly from ICANN. We are
> >> >extremely disappointed with this outcome, if this is confirmed, and
> >> >are eagerly awaiting the rationale of this decision, especially in
> >> >light of decisions made to grant other TLDs. We will begin
> >> >immediately to explore ways of recourse. WHO feels that the quality
> >> >and standard of health information on the Internet, and the
> >> >guarantees that this can give to "consumers", can only benefit from
> >> >a Dot.Health TLD.
> >
> >Reading this my dislike of some UN organisations is much reinforced.
> >First WIPO puts itself up as the internet guardian of human speech in
> >the interest of business. Now we see the arrogance with which the WHO
> >presents itself as a sort of health-censor. I find it sickening. Have
> >they never heard of conflicting opinions among medical scientists?
> >What forces are there behind the WHO?
> >
> >Not granting .HEALTH was a most wise decision. Wiser even than I was
> >able to see before I read the above.
> >
> >--
> >Marc Schneiders (rest in header)
> >
> 
>