Re: [At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation
Hi everyone, Just thought I'd jump in on this. While I don't want to deign to speak for .HEALTH (or .PHARMACY), since we'll be involved in the monitoring, thought it might be helpful to explain the envisioned approach, and also how LegitScript's monitoring program works. Basically, the general philosophy is that anything that's currently okay in the offline world is going to be permitted online as well. It's not intended to be more or less restrictive, but just to reflect what's already required as per existing healthcare-related regulations. Obviously, it depends on the product in question: prescription drugs tend to have stricter requirements than supplements, for example, in most countries. What's restricted or permitted also varies by country or local jurisdiction. One important point is that it's not US-centric, as one poster seemed to think could be the case. If the website is offering products to Japan, for example, then they have to adhere to whatever Japanese laws and regulations apply to the sale of those products. If they are selling to resident of India, then they have to follow those laws and regulations. But unless they are shipping drugs or other regulated products to the US, they wouldn't be bound by US laws and regulations. (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) That's no different than what's required in the offline world as well, e.g., for a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. On our end, we already monitor healthcare merchants in multiple jurisdictions around the world (China, Korea, Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada...the list goes on), applying the laws and regulations that are appropriate to each circumstance, so we see it as pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be not only impractical, but also unfair, to require a healthcare merchant in Sweden legally selling to Scandinavian jurisdictions to comply with US laws and regulations (in fact, it would be impossible). Unfortunately, the online healthcare space is one that does benefit from some monitoring -- there have been multiple deaths and adverse events from fake drugs, tainted supplements, that sort of thing. So, both of those TLDs are intended to be a safe space where Internet users can know that the seller is operating in accordance with the laws and regulations that they are supposed to, just by looking at the TLD. That seems to us to be a good thing. But, the Internet is a global space, and it's definitely not US-centric or based on any one countries' laws and regulations -- rather, it's jurisdictionally flexible based on the circumstance in question. Hope that helps to clarify. John Horton President, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts>
Dear John, thank you very much for your explanations. Very helpful indeed. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 31/08/2014 19:45, John Horton wrote:
Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd jump in on this. While I don't want to deign to speak for .HEALTH (or .PHARMACY), since we'll be involved in the monitoring, thought it might be helpful to explain the envisioned approach, and also how LegitScript's monitoring program works.
Basically, the general philosophy is that anything that's currently okay in the offline world is going to be permitted online as well. It's not intended to be more or less restrictive, but just to reflect what's already required as per existing healthcare-related regulations. Obviously, it depends on the product in question: prescription drugs tend to have stricter requirements than supplements, for example, in most countries.
What's restricted or permitted also varies by country or local jurisdiction. One important point is that it's not US-centric, as one poster seemed to think could be the case. If the website is offering products to Japan, for example, then they have to adhere to whatever Japanese laws and regulations apply to the sale of those products. If they are selling to resident of India, then they have to follow those laws and regulations. But unless they are shipping drugs or other regulated products to the US, they wouldn't be bound by US laws and regulations. (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) That's no different than what's required in the offline world as well, e.g., for a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. On our end, we already monitor healthcare merchants in multiple jurisdictions around the world (China, Korea, Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada...the list goes on), applying the laws and regulations that are appropriate to each circumstance, so we see it as pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be not only impractical, but also unfair, to require a healthcare merchant in Sweden legally selling to Scandinavian jurisdictions to comply with US laws and regulations (in fact, it would be impossible).
Unfortunately, the online healthcare space is one that does benefit from some monitoring -- there have been multiple deaths and adverse events from fake drugs, tainted supplements, that sort of thing. So, both of those TLDs are intended to be a safe space where Internet users can know that the seller is operating in accordance with the laws and regulations that they are supposed to, just by looking at the TLD. That seems to us to be a good thing. But, the Internet is a global space, and it's definitely not US-centric or based on any one countries' laws and regulations -- rather, it's jurisdictionally flexible based on the circumstance in question.
Hope that helps to clarify.
John Horton President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Thanks John. The explanation is really helpful. Let's be clear, what you will be doing is without any doubts much better than the situation now, where everything can happen, but I still remain with some doubts about the ability to enforce these rules globally. (I am probably going off topic for this list, but ...) For instance, when you say:
... (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) Maybe I am wrong, but I have doubts that this could be enforced. Are you planning to thoroughly check that no shipping is done to unauthorized jurisdictions? It just seems to me a massive checking effort, that would require also the power of law enforcement agents, not just an administrative check. All this to say that parminder's comment led me to think that the matter was not so straightforward. Anyway, I applaud the effort in moving towards a cleaner and safer solution for online drugs trading. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di John Horton Inviato: domenica 31 agosto 2014 18:45 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation
Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd jump in on this. While I don't want to deign to speak for .HEALTH (or .PHARMACY), since we'll be involved in the monitoring, thought it might be helpful to explain the envisioned approach, and also how LegitScript's monitoring program works.
Basically, the general philosophy is that anything that's currently okay in the offline world is going to be permitted online as well. It's not intended to be more or less restrictive, but just to reflect what's already required as per existing healthcare-related regulations. Obviously, it depends on the product in question: prescription drugs tend to have stricter requirements than supplements, for example, in most countries.
What's restricted or permitted also varies by country or local jurisdiction. One important point is that it's not US-centric, as one poster seemed to think could be the case. If the website is offering products to Japan, for example, then they have to adhere to whatever Japanese laws and regulations apply to the sale of those products. If they are selling to resident of India, then they have to follow those laws and regulations. But unless they are shipping drugs or other regulated products to the US, they wouldn't be bound by US laws and regulations. (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) That's no different than what's required in the offline world as well, e.g., for a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. On our end, we already monitor healthcare merchants in multiple jurisdictions around the world (China, Korea, Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada...the list goes on), applying the laws and regulations that are appropriate to each circumstance, so we see it as pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be not only impractical, but also unfair, to require a healthcare merchant in Sweden legally selling to Scandinavian jurisdictions to comply with US laws and regulations (in fact, it would be impossible).
Unfortunately, the online healthcare space is one that does benefit from some monitoring -- there have been multiple deaths and adverse events from fake drugs, tainted supplements, that sort of thing. So, both of those TLDs are intended to be a safe space where Internet users can know that the seller is operating in accordance with the laws and regulations that they are supposed to, just by looking at the TLD. That seems to us to be a good thing. But, the Internet is a global space, and it's definitely not US-centric or based on any one countries' laws and regulations -- rather, it's jurisdictionally flexible based on the circumstance in question.
Hope that helps to clarify.
John Horton President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Roberto, Thanks, and great questions. I'll try to answer without going on at too much length! I think actually that can be enforced fairly readily. (We currently do it, for example, in our monitoring of ads for Google and Bing in multiple countries, and in what we do with companies like Visa.) A few factors that we think will help: 1. Although somewhat different as between .HEALTH and .PHARMACY, I wouldn't expect either of them to have registrations in the millions. Indeed, I think that they will likely be higher-priced (as compared to .COM), premium domain names and a smaller pool to monitor; .PHARMACY, in particular should be a fairly small pool, probably in the thousands at most. 2. An initial verification will occur up front, at least for .PHARMACY (I think for some .HEALTH as well, although I don't want to get too far ahead of myself). For example, a pharmacy license will be verified in applicable jurisdictions before the domain name can point to content (and the content reviewed on the IP address ahead of time) for .PHARMACY. Obviously, bad actors can "go rogue" so ongoing monitoring is needed, but up front verification should reduce the incidence of that. 3. As to ongoing monitoring, checking where they ship on an ongoing basis actually is pretty straightforward. It requires manual intervention, but that's a normal part of our routine. 4. The enforcement also is actually very straightforward because it occurs at the registry level. If a violation is found, the registry is the one that suspends (or requires suspension) of the domain name in appropriate cases. I don't think law enforcement would need to be involved, actually -- I think it's just a matter of showing that the contract was violated, which it would be if any unlawful activity in violation of applicable healthcare laws occurred. I do think it's going to be really important to make these "trustworthy" TLDs, so that Internet users looking for a safe place to fill a prescription, for example, know that .PHARMACY really is not a free for all and that the websites really are held to the same standards as a brick-and-mortar pharmacy where they are. It will definitely be really helpful to have the input of ALAC and other stakeholders if any abusive activity is found, although we're going to work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen. Thanks for the questions! Hope that helps. John Horton President, LegitScript *Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com
wrote:
Thanks John. The explanation is really helpful. Let's be clear, what you will be doing is without any doubts much better than the situation now, where everything can happen, but I still remain with some doubts about the ability to enforce these rules globally. (I am probably going off topic for this list, but ...) For instance, when you say:
... (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) Maybe I am wrong, but I have doubts that this could be enforced. Are you planning to thoroughly check that no shipping is done to unauthorized jurisdictions? It just seems to me a massive checking effort, that would require also the power of law enforcement agents, not just an administrative check. All this to say that parminder's comment led me to think that the matter was not so straightforward. Anyway, I applaud the effort in moving towards a cleaner and safer solution for online drugs trading. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di John Horton Inviato: domenica 31 agosto 2014 18:45 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation
Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd jump in on this. While I don't want to deign to speak for .HEALTH (or .PHARMACY), since we'll be involved in the monitoring, thought it might be helpful to explain the envisioned approach, and also how LegitScript's monitoring program works.
Basically, the general philosophy is that anything that's currently okay in the offline world is going to be permitted online as well. It's not intended to be more or less restrictive, but just to reflect what's already required as per existing healthcare-related regulations. Obviously, it depends on the product in question: prescription drugs tend to have stricter requirements than supplements, for example, in most countries.
What's restricted or permitted also varies by country or local jurisdiction. One important point is that it's not US-centric, as one poster seemed to think could be the case. If the website is offering products to Japan, for example, then they have to adhere to whatever Japanese laws and regulations apply to the sale of those products. If they are selling to resident of India, then they have to follow those laws and regulations. But unless they are shipping drugs or other regulated products to the US, they wouldn't be bound by US laws and regulations. (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) That's no different than what's required in the offline world as well, e.g., for a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. On our end, we already monitor healthcare merchants in multiple jurisdictions around the world (China, Korea, Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada...the list goes on), applying the laws and regulations that are appropriate to each circumstance, so we see it as pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be not only impractical, but also unfair, to require a healthcare merchant in Sweden legally selling to Scandinavian jurisdictions to comply with US laws and regulations (in fact, it would be impossible).
Unfortunately, the online healthcare space is one that does benefit from some monitoring -- there have been multiple deaths and adverse events from fake drugs, tainted supplements, that sort of thing. So, both of those TLDs are intended to be a safe space where Internet users can know that the seller is operating in accordance with the laws and regulations that they are supposed to, just by looking at the TLD. That seems to us to be a good thing. But, the Internet is a global space, and it's definitely not US-centric or based on any one countries' laws and regulations -- rather, it's jurisdictionally flexible based on the circumstance in question.
Hope that helps to clarify.
John Horton President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I think that the .HEALTH registry will have an uphill battle to gain, let alone maintain, public trust. There are so many fuzzy obstacles. Consider: - There is a wide and deep marketplace of materials that are marketed as "health" related that may be not approved by national regulatory bodies, yet perfectly legal to sell. Or they may be legal in some countries, illegal in others, and regulated in others. Into this category I would put herbal remedies (consider Chinese medicine, which has very little reliance on western pharma), experimental drugs, dietary supplements, and non-medicinal health aids such as copper bracelets. In some cases, the sale of the materials may be legal everywhere but the marketing claims (and attached disclaimers) must vary from country to country. Is all THAT going to be policed? - Then we have the well-known-to-ICANN issues of intellectual property. While in most ICANN realms the main issue is trademark, in .HEALTH there will also be issues of patents to deal with. While many people lump them together, the legal regimes for patents are completely different from those of copyrights and trademarks. - The Internet has enabled intercontinental trade in a manner that laws and regulations strain to match. Assurances of checking for companies that "operate in" various countries only goes so far. DHL and UPS (not to mention Hongkong Post etc) don't act as customs regulators and will convey anything not dangerous to carry or globally illegal. A vendor of health remedies who will ship goods anywhere -- what body is going to police which countries are OK to ship to and which are not? Will the police of .HEALTH be able to track every link from its domains which go outside the HEALTH registry (ie, to eBay, Alibaba, etc) to actually complete sale at an e-commerce site? Is such policing within scope? - We have a very innovative marketplace when it comes to evading the letter of regulation. I potentially foresee an industry that will quickly find out how monitoring like LegitScript works, then invent ways to work around it. Then the monitors will no doubt come up with remedies, just as reliably new subversion methods emerge, and the cycle starts anew. (Think of how online casinos "discovered" how to use .net...) - If (as I suspect) .HEALTH becomes dominated by (a) legal-but-untested/unregulated products/services and (b) companies that find ways around the registry rules, big pharma will be in no rush to abandon its existing (and trusted) space in .com (or ccTLDs) to be there too. Would a company that has invested huge R&D and testing budgets want to have its products share the same namespace as "alternative medicine"? Maybe there are ways around all this. But it won't be easy. While, as in other new gTLDs, there will be speculators and defensive registries and maybe an interesting use or two, I don't really see much public-interest benefit of .HEALTH (or, for that matter, most of the new TLDs either). The rejection (so far) of Policy Advisory Councils by ICANN -- as ALAC has proposed -- has not helped matters from a public-interest PoV. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: <snip> Happy Belated Birthday! The
rejection (so far) of Policy Advisory Councils by ICANN -- as ALAC has proposed -- has not helped matters from a public-interest PoV.
The ALAC proposal (as I understood it) didn't guarantee the public interest either. For example, in the case of .pharmacy, it would have allowed any dodgy cross-border outfit selling drugs without a license to get a seat on the TLDs PAC. In fact, there could be many such rogue pharmacies "stacking" such an Advisory Council. BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
I think this article from the Washington Post gives a needed perspective on this debate. It's about abortion advice given by a woman from the Netherlands (where abortion is legal) to women in places where it's not. The parallels are striking. If something must be legal in every jurisdiction that the Internet, then very few things would be legal. Is this about protecting pharma profits or people's lives? How many drugs would not be available to people who need them because of restrictions on commerce? Is this a greater or lesser evil than the possibility of getting harmful drugs? All valid questions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/01/abortion-... Antony On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:05 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
<snip> Happy Belated Birthday!
The
rejection (so far) of Policy Advisory Councils by ICANN -- as ALAC has proposed -- has not helped matters from a public-interest PoV.
The ALAC proposal (as I understood it) didn't guarantee the public interest either.
For example, in the case of .pharmacy, it would have allowed any dodgy cross-border outfit selling drugs without a license to get a seat on the TLDs PAC. In fact, there could be many such rogue pharmacies "stacking" such an Advisory Council.
BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Actually, anyone following the thread would have noticed that the topic at hand, in this At-Large discussion, is about earning public trust in one specific, publicly sensitive TLD. I saw the "abortion and ICANN" column yesterday and shared it elsewhere as a source of ridicule; I did not think it relevant here at all. It falls into the same bin as suing ICANN to seize Iranian domain names as part of lawsuit settlements; that is, trying to get ICANN to be an enforcement arm of the US legal system to the exclusion of all others. Early on in this thread the issue arose, and was answered by John Horton who said pains would be taken to ensure this TLD is *not* going to be US-centric. And outside the US, governments have little authority over ICANN; they can block domains at the border, they can object to new TLDs forming (not always successfully), but they can't stop "bad" domains from being made once ICANN policy allows for them. The opinion mentioned asserts, as its core premise, that *"ICANN, through its control over the global Internet domain name system, is in a unique position with respect to enforcement of local law against website operators."* The argument can be made strongly and easily that this is wishful thinking at best, especially outside the US. - Evan On 2 September 2014 13:05, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
I think this article from the Washington Post gives a needed perspective on this debate. It's about abortion advice given by a woman from the Netherlands (where abortion is legal) to women in places where it's not. The parallels are striking.
If something must be legal in every jurisdiction that the Internet, then very few things would be legal. Is this about protecting pharma profits or people's lives? How many drugs would not be available to people who need them because of restrictions on commerce? Is this a greater or lesser evil than the possibility of getting harmful drugs? All valid questions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/01/abortion-...
Antony
On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:05 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
<snip> Happy Belated Birthday!
The
rejection (so far) of Policy Advisory Councils by ICANN -- as ALAC has proposed -- has not helped matters from a public-interest PoV.
The ALAC proposal (as I understood it) didn't guarantee the public interest either.
For example, in the case of .pharmacy, it would have allowed any dodgy cross-border outfit selling drugs without a license to get a seat on the TLDs PAC. In fact, there could be many such rogue pharmacies "stacking" such an Advisory Council.
BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, anyone following the thread would have noticed that the topic at hand, in this At-Large discussion, is about earning public trust in one specific, publicly sensitive TLD.
I saw the "abortion and ICANN" column yesterday and shared it elsewhere as a source of ridicule; I did not think it relevant here at all. It falls into the same bin as suing ICANN to seize Iranian domain names as part of lawsuit settlements; that is, trying to get ICANN to be an enforcement arm of the US legal system to the exclusion of all others.
Agreed, or to be the enforcement arm of any Government. I agree that this article isn't that helpful, especially since his central understanding is incorrect: "To put it bluntly, ICANN is in a position to make the Women on Web website entirely inoperable – by ordering it removed from the .org database. " That is completely untrue. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
Just a note about this ongoing conversation: We ought to remember that names in the Domain Name System are used for purposes beyond just mapping names of World Wide Web websites. The internet is a lot more than the web, and names in a TLD can be used for lots of things beyond mapping websites. One might wonder whether TLD operators will be careful to observe or police these other uses. My own guess is that many TLD operators will not. --karl--
On 2 September 2014 14:19, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
The internet is a lot more than the web, and names in a TLD can be used for lots of things beyond mapping websites.
One might wonder whether TLD operators will be careful to observe or police these other uses. My own guess is that many TLD operators will not.
Agreed ... though, to be fair, the overwhelming use of *intentionally memorable* domain names is for websites, email and not much else. Names that don't need to be memorable -- used in links not meant to be readable and machine to machine communications -- can be done at third and lower levels, and/or use long domain names in legacy TLDs. Bringing the specific issue of .health back, an other thing also worth remembering here is that this is ".health" ... not ".med" or ".pharmacy". While certain elements of "health" include government-regulated or restricted products and services, the field is massively broader then that. It extends to diet advice, exercise/relaxation, and beyond that into mental health and the massive self-help industry. Very little of this (which is not explicitly toxic) is restricted in most of the world. Other sub-genres of the term cast the net even more broadly, such as "spiritual health <http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-10-ways-to-boost-spiritual-health-5132...>" delving into religion, "financial health <http://business.time.com/2012/05/24/10-ways-to-improve-your-financial-health...>" into investment advice, and the many non-human <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/pethealth.html> forms <http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=PLANT_HEALTH> of <http://foresthealthindex.org/> biological <http://lazoo.org/animals/animalhealth/animal-health-education/> health <http://birds.about.com/od/birdhealth/tp/Top-5-Bird-Health-Problems.htm>. And that's already assuming the regulations are blocking most anthropomorphic <http://scorecard.carmd.com/> uses <http://pchealthkit.com/> of the <http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/07/bca_airplane_health_mgmt_07_30...> term <http://www.dnsqueries.com/en/domain_check.php>. In other words... I don't envy those trying to keep .health from becoming a mess, for a bunch of reasons. Legitiscript may offer some help in trademark and patent enforcement against sites that sell medicine, and that might be closer to sufficient for a more-narrow TLD. But this is way bigger ... both in the size of the potential, and the difficulty of maintaining any semblance of elevated user trust. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
...this very issue created my Damascene moment....and precipitated my withdrawal from the role as member of the At-Large's Objection Evaluation Team. In the first place, I was unconvinced that the [AGB] rules as existed even provided standing to the At-Large for objection. Then when the attempts to attach robust PICs ended in failure and the specs that emerged were such that I referred them as not worth a warm bucket of spit, I knew the jig was up. Here's the thing. While I might detest faith healers for example, I am hardpressed to see where I have business - certainly in this dispensation - aiding, abetting or to cause discomfit to them and other regular charlatans. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Just a note about this ongoing conversation: We ought to remember that names in the Domain Name System are used for purposes beyond just mapping names of World Wide Web websites.
The internet is a lot more than the web, and names in a TLD can be used for lots of things beyond mapping websites.
One might wonder whether TLD operators will be careful to observe or police these other uses. My own guess is that many TLD operators will not.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Grist for the mill.... from the Guardian newspaper.. "The World Association for Sexual Health and the World Health Organisation’sdefinition of sexual health <http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/sexual_health/defining_se...> is: “Sexual health is a state of physical, emotional, mental and social wellbeing in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled.” Clearly, sexual health is about much more than HIV, sexually transmitted infections, maternal mortality and other health problems that can count on broad public support. For that matter, these uncontested issues can only be solved by addressing some of the thorny and controversial aspects of sexual health. Take sex education for teenagers. Unmarried teenagers are often excluded from receiving information and sexual health services because, according to unrealistic and prudish social norms, they are not supposed to be sexually active. " http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/sep/04/se... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Just a note about this ongoing conversation: We ought to remember that names in the Domain Name System are used for purposes beyond just mapping names of World Wide Web websites.
The internet is a lot more than the web, and names in a TLD can be used for lots of things beyond mapping websites.
One might wonder whether TLD operators will be careful to observe or police these other uses. My own guess is that many TLD operators will not.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The author also says, and it's relevant here: "But there is a vacuum in international law, and ICANN is in a position to fill that vacuum, and it just might be interested in doing so. It will surely be under increasing pressure to do so from the many governments out there, and the many private interests out there, that are frustrated with the inability to deal with law-breakers on the Net. " I believe that this is exactly what's happening in this discussion. The conversation is about .health, but there's a larger conversation of which .health is just a part. Antony On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Actually, anyone following the thread would have noticed that the topic at hand, in this At-Large discussion, is about earning public trust in one specific, publicly sensitive TLD.
I saw the "abortion and ICANN" column yesterday and shared it elsewhere as a source of ridicule; I did not think it relevant here at all. It falls into the same bin as suing ICANN to seize Iranian domain names as part of lawsuit settlements; that is, trying to get ICANN to be an enforcement arm of the US legal system to the exclusion of all others. Early on in this thread the issue arose, and was answered by John Horton who said pains would be taken to ensure this TLD is *not* going to be US-centric.
And outside the US, governments have little authority over ICANN; they can block domains at the border, they can object to new TLDs forming (not always successfully), but they can't stop "bad" domains from being made once ICANN policy allows for them.
The opinion mentioned asserts, as its core premise, that
*"ICANN, through its control over the global Internet domain name system, is in a unique position with respect to enforcement of local law against website operators."*
The argument can be made strongly and easily that this is wishful thinking at best, especially outside the US.
- Evan
On 2 September 2014 13:05, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
I think this article from the Washington Post gives a needed perspective on this debate. It's about abortion advice given by a woman from the Netherlands (where abortion is legal) to women in places where it's not. The parallels are striking.
If something must be legal in every jurisdiction that the Internet, then very few things would be legal. Is this about protecting pharma profits or people's lives? How many drugs would not be available to people who need them because of restrictions on commerce? Is this a greater or lesser evil than the possibility of getting harmful drugs? All valid questions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/01/abortion-...
Antony
On Sep 2, 2014, at 9:05 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
<snip> Happy Belated Birthday!
The
rejection (so far) of Policy Advisory Councils by ICANN -- as ALAC has proposed -- has not helped matters from a public-interest PoV.
The ALAC proposal (as I understood it) didn't guarantee the public interest either.
For example, in the case of .pharmacy, it would have allowed any dodgy cross-border outfit selling drugs without a license to get a seat on the TLDs PAC. In fact, there could be many such rogue pharmacies "stacking" such an Advisory Council.
BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 2 September 2014 16:52, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:
The author also says, and it's relevant here:
"But there is a vacuum in international law, and ICANN is in a position to fill that vacuum, "
That is fantasy, and fantasy is not relevant here. - Evan
On 2 September 2014 12:05, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
The ALAC proposal (as I understood it) didn't guarantee the public interest either.
Nothing "guarantees" the public interest. The PAB proposal we advanced at least inserted into the mix input from the regulatory and end-user communities (as well as other stakeholders): That would have enabled a "we'll know it when we see it" kind of nimble reaction process far better than anything in the current PIC specifications. Note that to some in the At-Large community, there will be harm regardless; while the use of PABs mitigates that damage it cannot eliminate it. The proposal, while far from perfect, vastly improves on the current mechanism of (generally unenforceable) Public Interest Commitments. For example, in the case of .pharmacy, it would have allowed any dodgy
cross-border outfit selling drugs without a license to get a seat on the TLDs PAC. In fact, there could be many such rogue pharmacies "stacking" such an Advisory Council.
The explicit design of this PAB could be weighted more heavily in favour of consumers, health professionals and regulators rather than suppliers. The main improvements of PABs over PICs are permanence, enforceability and more widespread stakeholder participation.
BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place.
Is there anything contractual to ensure the registry can't disband it if convenient? The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause. - Evan
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote: <snip>
BTW, .pharmacy already has an Advisory Group in place.
Is there anything contractual to ensure the registry can't disband it if convenient?
It is part of the governance doc, so part of the DNA of the TLD, but not "contractual" I guess.
The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause.
Steve Crocker was pretty emphatic in Singapore when addressing ALAC that this is just not the case. Do you have examples? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On 2 September 2014 13:45, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle
the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause.
Steve Crocker was pretty emphatic in Singapore when addressing ALAC that this is just not the case.
I know. I was there, and it was I who raised the issue. Steve's answer was ill-informed.
Do you have examples?
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47254471/1-1489-82287_Donut... Last paragraph in the document. - Evan
Evan, Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't mean it was. It is widely acknowledged amongst gTLD applicants that the RA is "take it or leave it", with the caveat that you can try to redline bits of it, but that will mean significant delays. Like a year or more. I doubt that Donuts would want to face that. If you have actual contracts that show that the PICs have been eliminated, I would like to see that, and I am sure many new gTLD applicants who have not yet signed their RAs would like to see it as well. If Donuts got this in their contracts, there would be hell to pay with the GAC. I can guarantee that ICANN lawyers understand the implication of caving on this point. As someone who went through the contract negotiation process, I seriously doubt this would happen. rgds, McTim On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 2 September 2014 13:45, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
The PIC provisions in at least some TLD applications explicitly entitle
the registry to rescind any or all PIC provisions without notice or cause.
Steve Crocker was pretty emphatic in Singapore when addressing ALAC that this is just not the case.
I know. I was there, and it was I who raised the issue. Steve's answer was ill-informed.
Do you have examples?
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/47254471/1-1489-82287_Donut...
Last paragraph in the document.
- Evan
-- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On 3 September 2014 07:24, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't mean it was.
I can't parse what you said because there was no request for anything in what I sent. What I linked to was *the* PIC statement for a number of applications, which includes the clause: *These PICs shall be subject to review by Registry Operator starting in January 2016, and Registry Operator, in its sole discretion, may elect at that time to modify or discontinue any of the PICs herein in the case of a substantial and compelling business need.* To my awareness, that clause -- specifically, the right to "discontinue any of the PICs" at the registry's sole discretion about a year from delegation -- has been disputed by neither the GAC nor ICANN legal. - Evan
PICs were "voluntary." Minds + Machines' PICs don't have that out clause, but Donuts' do. There is no standardization. The PICs were not required, although it was strongly suggested that those who did not volunteer might be drafted, so to speak. Moving goal posts, as always with ICANN. Antony On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 3 September 2014 07:24, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't mean it was.
I can't parse what you said because there was no request for anything in what I sent.
What I linked to was *the* PIC statement for a number of applications, which includes the clause:
*These PICs shall be subject to review by Registry Operator starting in January 2016, and Registry Operator, in its sole discretion, may elect at that time to modify or discontinue any of the PICs herein in the case of a substantial and compelling business need.*
To my awareness, that clause -- specifically, the right to "discontinue any of the PICs" at the registry's sole discretion about a year from delegation -- has been disputed by neither the GAC nor ICANN legal.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 3 September 2014 17:25, Antony Van Couvering <avc@namesatwork.com> wrote:
PICs were "voluntary."
Voluntary and unenforceable -- essentially useless. The PIC concept was a hasty and supremely stupid act of GAC appeasement, destined to please nobody and failing even as the PR stunt it was intended to be. Minds + Machines' PICs don't have that out clause, but Donuts' do. There is
no standardization. The PICs were not required, although it was strongly suggested that those who did not volunteer might be drafted, so to speak. Moving goal posts, as always with ICANN.
That's what happens when the public interest is bolted-on as an afterthought, not baked-in. This wound was self-inflicted. - Evan
They form part of the contract and are enforceable, in my understanding, unless the registry gives itself an "out" as Donuts did. For instance, M+M agreed to have a 60-day Sunrise, and we have to stick to that, even though now in retrospect (given the very low participation by brands in Sunrise programs) it seems quite silly. Antony On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 3 September 2014 17:25, Antony Van Couvering <avc@namesatwork.com> wrote:
PICs were "voluntary."
Voluntary and unenforceable -- essentially useless. The PIC concept was a hasty and supremely stupid act of GAC appeasement, destined to please nobody and failing even as the PR stunt it was intended to be.
Minds + Machines' PICs don't have that out clause, but Donuts' do. There is
no standardization. The PICs were not required, although it was strongly suggested that those who did not volunteer might be drafted, so to speak. Moving goal posts, as always with ICANN.
That's what happens when the public interest is bolted-on as an afterthought, not baked-in. This wound was self-inflicted.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 09/03/2014 03:36 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
They form part of the contract and are enforceable...
Well maybe yes and maybe no. Did ICANN ever put third party beneficiary rights into its contracts with registries and registrars? If not then only the actual parties to the contract will have the power to march into court and demand enforcement of the contractual terms. Everyone else will lack "standing" and will only be able to watch from the sidelines and gnash teeth. --karl--
The third parties just sit on ICANN until it launches a compliance action. This is just another "placate the GAC" measure and if GAC speaks, ICANN listens. And the PICs are mostly around sacred cows to the IP community, so they will sit on the GAC *and* ICANN. Antony On Sep 3, 2014, at 5:51 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2014 03:36 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
They form part of the contract and are enforceable...
Well maybe yes and maybe no.
Did ICANN ever put third party beneficiary rights into its contracts with registries and registrars?
If not then only the actual parties to the contract will have the power to march into court and demand enforcement of the contractual terms. Everyone else will lack "standing" and will only be able to watch from the sidelines and gnash teeth.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
That would have been the sensible thing to do; third party beneficiary rights. But for those that would matter, an aggrieved party needed first to convince ICANN that the commitment was breached. And then it is solely ICANN that had standing to determine what remedy to seek, if any. All this after you're invited to navigate all the squirelly 'opt outs' in some of them! On the balance of those facts, I determined they wouldn't be worth warm spit. Reminded me of what my grandmother told me about the perils of buying a sewing machine from England back in the 50's. You could get one without the belt or the gear, even the needle. Then when you inquired - via snail mail! - you get the response 'so very sorry, that <piece> was not a part of the bundle. You have to buy that separately'. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2014 03:36 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
They form part of the contract and are enforceable...
Well maybe yes and maybe no.
Did ICANN ever put third party beneficiary rights into its contracts with registries and registrars?
If not then only the actual parties to the contract will have the power to march into court and demand enforcement of the contractual terms. Everyone else will lack "standing" and will only be able to watch from the sidelines and gnash teeth.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 2014-09-04 10:31 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
That would have been the sensible thing to do; third party beneficiary rights. But for those that would matter, an aggrieved party needed first to convince ICANN that the commitment was breached. And then it is solely ICANN that had standing to determine what remedy to seek, if any. All this after you're invited to navigate all the squirelly 'opt outs' in some of them!
Very true, much like #3.7.7.3 of the RAA: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1548571.html
On the balance of those facts, I determined they wouldn't be worth warm spit.
Reminded me of what my grandmother told me about the perils of buying a sewing machine from England back in the 50's. You could get one without the belt or the gear, even the needle. Then when you inquired - via snail mail! - you get the response 'so very sorry, that <piece> was not a part of the bundle. You have to buy that separately'.
Off topic, but very true. Also when it comes to warranties. 5 years warranty, but you have to ship it off to distant location at you own cost and special packaging to claim. Cost of shipping and packaging is 50% more than a new one. There are some analogies here as well where the costs of relief sought, costs more than the harm done. Derek
...and don't forget the context is one of an ICANN truculently reminding all it is not a regulator. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/03/2014 03:36 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
They form part of the contract and are enforceable...
Well maybe yes and maybe no.
Did ICANN ever put third party beneficiary rights into its contracts with registries and registrars?
If not then only the actual parties to the contract will have the power to march into court and demand enforcement of the contractual terms. Everyone else will lack "standing" and will only be able to watch from the sidelines and gnash teeth.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
That's correct. In enquiring with Board members in the know, the PICS we see are apparently voluntary but there is a part of the contract itself that has another set of PICS (yes, surprising) and those are mandatory. They are admittedly a subset of the "voluntary" PICS. I think I have already mentioned that during an ALAC meeting in London or Singapore (or elsewhere). Kind regards, Olivier On 04/09/2014 00:25, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
PICs were "voluntary."
Minds + Machines' PICs don't have that out clause, but Donuts' do. There is no standardization. The PICs were not required, although it was strongly suggested that those who did not volunteer might be drafted, so to speak. Moving goal posts, as always with ICANN.
Antony
On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 3 September 2014 07:24, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
Just because Donuts requested something be removed from the RA, doesn't mean it was.
I can't parse what you said because there was no request for anything in what I sent.
What I linked to was *the* PIC statement for a number of applications, which includes the clause:
*These PICs shall be subject to review by Registry Operator starting in January 2016, and Registry Operator, in its sole discretion, may elect at that time to modify or discontinue any of the PICs herein in the case of a substantial and compelling business need.*
To my awareness, that clause -- specifically, the right to "discontinue any of the PICs" at the registry's sole discretion about a year from delegation -- has been disputed by neither the GAC nor ICANN legal.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Thanks, John. I am still thinking that reality will be more complicated than theory, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Just one comment – when I was mentioning law enforcement, I was thinking at the difficulty in establishing whether a shipment was legal or not, not about the “power” to terminate the contract or suspend the name. Best wishes, R. Da: John Horton [mailto:john.horton@legitscript.com] Inviato: martedì 2 settembre 2014 04:16 A: Roberto Gaetano Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation Hi Roberto, Thanks, and great questions. I'll try to answer without going on at too much length! I think actually that can be enforced fairly readily. (We currently do it, for example, in our monitoring of ads for Google and Bing in multiple countries, and in what we do with companies like Visa.) A few factors that we think will help: 1. Although somewhat different as between .HEALTH and .PHARMACY, I wouldn't expect either of them to have registrations in the millions. Indeed, I think that they will likely be higher-priced (as compared to .COM), premium domain names and a smaller pool to monitor; .PHARMACY, in particular should be a fairly small pool, probably in the thousands at most. 2. An initial verification will occur up front, at least for .PHARMACY (I think for some .HEALTH as well, although I don't want to get too far ahead of myself). For example, a pharmacy license will be verified in applicable jurisdictions before the domain name can point to content (and the content reviewed on the IP address ahead of time) for .PHARMACY. Obviously, bad actors can "go rogue" so ongoing monitoring is needed, but up front verification should reduce the incidence of that. 3. As to ongoing monitoring, checking where they ship on an ongoing basis actually is pretty straightforward. It requires manual intervention, but that's a normal part of our routine. 4. The enforcement also is actually very straightforward because it occurs at the registry level. If a violation is found, the registry is the one that suspends (or requires suspension) of the domain name in appropriate cases. I don't think law enforcement would need to be involved, actually -- I think it's just a matter of showing that the contract was violated, which it would be if any unlawful activity in violation of applicable healthcare laws occurred. I do think it's going to be really important to make these "trustworthy" TLDs, so that Internet users looking for a safe place to fill a prescription, for example, know that .PHARMACY really is not a free for all and that the websites really are held to the same standards as a brick-and-mortar pharmacy where they are. It will definitely be really helpful to have the input of ALAC and other stakeholders if any abusive activity is found, although we're going to work very hard to make sure that doesn't happen. Thanks for the questions! Hope that helps. John Horton President, LegitScript <https://static.legitscript.com/assets/logo-smaller-cdb8a6f307ce2c6172e72257d...> Follow LegitScript: <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> LinkedIn | <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> Facebook | <https://twitter.com/legitscript> Twitter | <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> YouTube | Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com> | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote: Thanks John. The explanation is really helpful. Let's be clear, what you will be doing is without any doubts much better than the situation now, where everything can happen, but I still remain with some doubts about the ability to enforce these rules globally. (I am probably going off topic for this list, but ...) For instance, when you say:
... (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three
jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.)
Maybe I am wrong, but I have doubts that this could be enforced. Are you planning to thoroughly check that no shipping is done to unauthorized jurisdictions? It just seems to me a massive checking effort, that would require also the power of law enforcement agents, not just an administrative check. All this to say that parminder's comment led me to think that the matter was not so straightforward. Anyway, I applaud the effort in moving towards a cleaner and safer solution for online drugs trading. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-
bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di John Horton Inviato: domenica 31 agosto 2014 18:45
A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation
Hi everyone,
Just thought I'd jump in on this. While I don't want to deign to speak for .HEALTH (or .PHARMACY), since we'll be involved in the monitoring, thought it might be helpful to explain the envisioned approach, and also how LegitScript's monitoring program works.
Basically, the general philosophy is that anything that's currently okay in the offline world is going to be permitted online as well. It's not intended to be more or less restrictive, but just to reflect what's already required as per existing healthcare-related regulations. Obviously, it depends on the product in question: prescription drugs tend to have stricter requirements than supplements, for example, in most countries.
What's restricted or permitted also varies by country or local jurisdiction. One important point is that it's not US-centric, as one poster seemed to think could be the case. If the website is offering products to Japan, for example, then they have to adhere to whatever Japanese laws and regulations apply to the sale of those products. If they are selling to resident of India, then they have to follow those laws and regulations. But unless they are shipping drugs or other regulated products to the US, they wouldn't be bound by US laws and regulations. (If a healthcare product merchant is legal in three jurisdictions but shipping to five jurisdictions, then there is a really easy answer: stop shipping to the two jurisdictions where you aren't operating legally.) That's no different than what's required in the offline world as well, e.g., for a brick-and-mortar pharmacy. On our end, we already monitor healthcare merchants in multiple jurisdictions around the world (China, Korea, Japan, Ireland, France, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada...the list goes on), applying the laws and regulations that are appropriate to each circumstance, so we see it as pretty straightforward. Obviously, it would be not only impractical, but also unfair, to require a healthcare merchant in Sweden legally selling to Scandinavian jurisdictions to comply with US laws and regulations (in fact, it would be impossible).
Unfortunately, the online healthcare space is one that does benefit from some monitoring -- there have been multiple deaths and adverse events from fake drugs, tainted supplements, that sort of thing. So, both of those TLDs are intended to be a safe space where Internet users can know that the seller is operating in accordance with the laws and regulations that they are supposed to, just by looking at the TLD. That seems to us to be a good thing. But, the Internet is a global space, and it's definitely not US-centric or based on any one countries' laws and regulations -- rather, it's jurisdictionally flexible based on the circumstance in question.
Hope that helps to clarify.
John Horton President, LegitScript
*Follow LegitScript*: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com> | Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/legitscript> | YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/user/LegitScript> | *Blog <http://blog.legitscript.com>* | Google+ <https://plus.google.com/112436813474708014933/posts> _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (10)
-
Antony Van Couvering -
Antony Van Couvering -
Carlton Samuels -
Derek Smythe -
Evan Leibovitch -
John Horton -
Karl Auerbach -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano