<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana"><br>
<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
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>
</body>
</html>