[governance] [govenance] The domain name racket goes on

[McTim]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:00 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 18 September 2014 07:47 PM, McTim wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:03 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Without the need to develop policy using many thousands of people around the world as the policy making community,
>>
>>
>> Yes, after such intense consultations, they decide that the global public is ok with giving .health to a US organisation that promotes the interests of big pharma against cheap generic drugs, which is a matter of life and death to so many poor people
>
>
>
> If only facts didn't get in the way of your arguments!
>
> the fact is that neither ICANN as an entity nor as a policy community "decided" to give .health to these folks:
>
> http://www.dothealthgtld.com/aboutus.html
>
> they applied for it, and received it according to the Applicant Guidebook (which was developed by the policy community, which you refuse to be a part of).
>
> Another fact is there is ZERO big pharma support to .health, but really, carry on with your counter-factual-ism, you will always find takers here it seems!
>
>
>
> See http://infojustice.org/archives/31846  about the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies- a major backer of .health and its relationship with big pharma.



This was written by PharmacyChecker whose main goal seems to be to
promote "Canadian" pharmacies as safe (despite the fact that it is
against the law for them to ship across international boundaries).

If CSIP was a backer of .health, don't you think they would list them here?

http://www.dothealthgtld.com/industry_support.html


>
>
> And you of course know that GAC as well as WHO opposed delegation of dot health. In this case even the independent Expert opposed it. Also ALAC opposed it.


Well in the link you sent it says:

"However, in a subsequent decision, the International Chamber of
Commerce (ICC), an entity reviewing disputes filed by the IO, denied
all limited public interest objections filed against current active
.health applicants (ie, Donuts Inc, Affilias, DotHealth LLC) "

The GAC didn't object to .health, but included a number of Public
Interest commitments that highly regulated industry strings must abide
by.

>
> As to what relationship The Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies has with the Intellectual Property establishment of the US, and how safe drug trade is very often just a code word for US Intellectual Property law complaint global drug trade


It is often a code word for patient safety which CS must be concerned
about as well.


>
> There are endless such reports and analyses on the Internet. Dot health is going to be policed as per US drugs law and this clearly means that generic drug traders should avoid this gltd, which such a outrage,



Why is it an outrage?

First of all, since you are so misinformed on the issue, the fact is
that generic drugs avalaible in the US are far cheaper than the one
available from illegal overseas paharmacies (illegal in the sense that
it is against the law for them to ship across int'l boundaries).

Here is a case in point.  Today I bought 90 days supply of Rx
medication for Spouse.  Cost 10 USD, I didn't even bother to submit to
insurance provider at that cost.  Cost from so-called Canadian
pharmacies (looking at
http://www.pharmacychecker.com/drug-price-comparisons.asp ) 36-51 USD.

Obviously you 've been sold a line that bigpharma keeps drug prices
high in the US artificially by keeping out cheap generic sellers.
This is patently false as my purchase today shows.

> clearly US calls the shots with eh global DNS system and this is not at all acceptable.


Again untrue.  Anyone wanting to sell generic medications can do so in
a dotcom or .net or .guru for that matter.



>
> , is likely to auction .book to Amazon as a closed generic, so that Amazon holds the rights to what can be called as a digital book, and so many other monstrosities...



Again, incorrect.  if amazon wins .book, it only means they get to set
the policies about registration under .book, it doesn't have anything
to do with the larger issue of what is an e-book.


>
>
> they could do their job using far fewer resources.
>
> This spending is a feature, not a bug.  It is a very useful feature for CS folks who rely on the no-strings attached travel funding to participate in person.
>
>
>
> No-strings!! Thats the joke here..


I went to Durban on ICANN's nickel, there were no strings attached.
Of course if you have first hand experience that is different, do
share.

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel





-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t