This is the wiki page for At-Large comments on "Limited Public Interest" and "Community Objection" Grounds for the applied for string ".健康".

The ALAC has standing to object to a gTLD application on Limited Public Interest Objection Grounds and community objection grounds

The following are the applicants for the ".健康" applied for string.



Primary Contact
Application ID
健康Stable Tone LimitedHK  Mike Rodenbaughstabletonetld@rodenbaugh.com1-1708-88054 Yes

(Note: on the gTLD RG call on the 25 February 2013, concerns by several RG members regarding the suitability of inclusion of the objection of the application for the "健康" string being grouped with the four applications for the "health" string on the .health_OG wiki page.
The objection comments and draft statement of the application for the "健康" string was moved to this page.)

NOTE: You must be logged in to post comments. If you do not have a wiki account, please email your comment to the gTLD RG group at

The gTLD RG reserves the right to remove comments that do not adhere to ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior and Open Comment Forum Process and Standards.


Decision by the gTLD RG (8 February 2013)

Members of the gTLD RG considered the comments from the At-Large community as of February 8 2013 and ranked each factor of the four tests for community objection grounds based on these comments and discussions. 

Objection statements on community grounds will be drafted for the applications for .health (and the IDN "jianking") given that the four tests for community objection grounds were passed.
The gTLD RG will attempt to put together the 
objection statements to the applications for .health in time for RALO review around 22 February 2013.



  • No labels


  1. Community Objection Grounds

    Please reply under this comment thread if your comment is on Community Objection Grounds

  2. Comment received from International Medical Informatics Association 

    Request to consider an Objection for the “.health” new gTLDs

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    This note is to request the ALAC to consider filing an objection for the applications for the “.health” new gTLD, on Community objection grounds. Currently there are five applications for “.health”, four of which are in English and one in Chinese script. These five proposals are seen as problematic by the global health community for the following reasons:

    1. None of the applicants demonstrates that the name will be operated in the public interest.
    2. None of the applicants demonstrates adequate consumer protection mechanisms.
    3. All of the applicants are commercial in nature and none represent the health community.


    Basis for Community Opposition to the ‘.health’ TLD applications

    In 2012, a number of stakeholders expressed concerns about the creation of the new “.health” gTLD by current applicants and requested that its allocation, in all UN languages, be postponed to allow for the consultation of global health stakeholders. Examples include:

    • The governments of France and Mali have issued ‘Early Warnings’ for the five “.health” applications

    • A number of NGOs in official relations with the World Health Organization (WHO) have posted Comments on the ICANN Public Forum and written to ICANN and the Government Advisory Committee (GAC)

    • WHO has written to ICANN and the GAC 

     • The European Commission has issued a letter to ICANN, noting ‘.health’ among others, as a sensitive string 

    The concern of the Community is along the following lines:

    • The “.health” TLD should be a trusted resource for health, in particular to counter current international challenges such as fraud, identity theft, illicit sale of pharmaceuticals, security, protection of minors and so on. 
    • There is no guarantee that the new “.health” TLD will be operated in the interest of global public health and consumer protection.
    • The “.health” TLD without the adequate quality assurance and consumer protection mechanisms in place will undermine credibility and harm the growth of the health online market place. An open and unrestricted TLD will help to bypass regulatory controls creating new risks for the whole industry sector. 
    • Developing countries will suffer the most in this scenario, due to their difficulties in enforcing national policies to regulate, monitor, and stop fraud and misuse. 

    We have read the conditions for Community Objection grounds, and believe there are sufficient grounds on which to make an objection. We would be pleased to provide further detailed information, based on an analysis of the applications and with the health community, to support the Objection, should you decide to proceed.


    Best regards,


    Antoine Geissbuhler
    President of the International Medical Informatics Association

  3. Email received from Antonine Geissbuhler, International Medical Informatics Association:

    Dear Dev,
    Please find attached an Overview file and the Health Community Objection Table, as requested.


    Health Community Objection 20 Feb2013.docx

    Health Community Objection-table.docx


  4. Question from Garth Bruen. gTLD RG member


    In reviewing the details of this objection in preparation for the RG statement I have come to some curious questions. The IMIA did not file an objection to .MEDICAL which is a word that actually appears in title of the International Medical Informatics Association. The .MEDICAL application is also by Donuts, so all of the IMIA's objections to the Donuts .HEALTH application would not only apply to .MEDICAL and in a more targeted sense. .MEDICAL is also uncontested which would make the objection less complicated. A similar question could be asked about the .HEALTHCARE application, also an uncontested Donuts application. I am interested in knowing why "health" is more important or potentially harmful than these other strings (also .DENTIST, .DENTAL, .DOCTOR, .HOSPITAL, .SURGERY).



    1. Reply from Antoine Geissbuhler :

      Dear Dev,
      Apologies for the late answer, but I was travelling in poorly connected areas. We had discussions about the issue of the many names that are related to health and healthcare,
      not even considering their possible translations. IMIA's priority is to make sure that one TLD can be protected and identified as a
      safer place for health information. The name is well within the scope of IMIA's mission, and meets the need to preserve
      the name for the global health community. Regarding the other names mentioned,
      some are also facing the issue that they may be regulated in some
      countries, e.g., .doctor, .dentist, but these names are all too limited and specialized
      to be a good fit for IMIA to object to (even medical). I hope that this clarification helps,
      With kind regards, Antoine Geissbuhler