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

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@imv.au.dk>]

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.

Hi

wolfgang

 (> >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)
>