<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 14 March 2013 07:45 PM,
Rashmi Rangnath wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH2+7HuZU_Jjc_=6Wvwy7Tfij9R70ajndSW0X2SFLE_oLWV6hw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><span
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">All:</span></div>
<div
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</div>
<div
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">I
thought many of you may be interested in this application that
Public Citizen filed opposing the National Association of
Boards of Pharmacy's (NABP) application for the .pharmacy TLD.
Public Citizen is concerned that the registration would allow
the NABP to exclude licensed pharmacies located in Canada from
acquiring domain names under .pharmacy. This would prevent
access to affordable medicines for many in the US. </div>
<div
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</div>
<span
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">A
link to Public Citizen's comments is here: </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145"
target="_blank"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:rgb(17,85,204)">https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/commentdetails/12145</a>--
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana">I completely </font><font face="Verdana">agree</font><font
face="Verdana">, Rashmi. <br>
<br>
However, you may want to go deeper into the roots of the issue.
We should inquire from the civil society constituency engaged
with the ICANN why did they not only allow but in fact supported
giving all kind of generic names off as TLDs, (including closed
generics) including those with such deep public interest
implications as .pharmacy ....<br>
<br>
In fact, it is the government advisory committee (GAC) that <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2">recently
gave some very important 'advices' </a>to protect public
interest. <br>
<br>
It advised that "</font>strings that are linked to regulated or
professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent
with applicable laws" and that the need to "establish a working
relationship with the relevant regulatory, or industry
self-‐regulatory, bodies, including developing a strategy to
mitigate as much as possible the risks of fraudulent, and
other illegal, activities. <font face="Verdana">"<br>
<br>
This should very much apply to .pharmacy..... and I think the
relevant global regulatory body for this purpose should be the
WHO...<br>
<br>
Public Citizen's referred comments also say that the TLD
applicant plans to "</font><font face="Verdana">maintain
exclusionary plans for the domain"<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Verdana">The GAC advice says that "</font>the
registration restrictions should be appropriate for the types of
risks associated with the TLD. The registry operator should
administer access in these kinds of registries in a transparent
way that does not give an undue preference to any registrars or
registrants, including itself, and shall not subject registrars or
registrants to an undue disadvantage. <font face="Verdana">"<br>
<br>
It is</font><font face="Verdana"> also</font><font
face="Verdana"> categorical that exclusive registry access may
be given only if serves a clear 'public interest goal'. (This
covers, and hopefully puts the brakes on, closed generic TLD
proposals like .book. .cloud, .music and .news).<br>
<br>
It is highly problematic that the so called multi stakeholder
model completely failed to serve the public interest in this
case, even with numerous committees etc having going into the
issue. And this includes the civil society associated with
ICANN.... Finally, governments had to step in to protect the
public interest. What has happened deserves a very deep inquiry
and reflections, especially by progressive civil society groups
. What is touted as a multistakeholder model at the ICANN is
highly ideology infested. It is its complete belief in free
markets as being able to protect most if not all kinds of public
interests, that has resulted in it becoming blind to the various
very problematic aspects of the new TLD program that now the
governments had to step in to point out...<br>
<br>
I think that the civil society individuals and groups that work
closely with the ICANN, including on its various committees
should also be answerable for this.... In some way, they are
there to keep vigil on behalf of all civil society... Why did
they not intervene in these deep transgressions into the public
interest. <br>
<br>
parminder<br>
</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAH2+7HuZU_Jjc_=6Wvwy7Tfij9R70ajndSW0X2SFLE_oLWV6hw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rashmi</div>
<div><br>
Rashmi Rangnath
<div>Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney<br>
Public Knowledge<br>
1818 N Street NW<br>
Suite 410<br>
Washington, D.C. 20036<br>
202 861 0020<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rrangnath@publicknowledge.org"
target="_blank">rrangnath@publicknowledge.org</a><br>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>