[At-Large] News on the .health TLD allocation

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 2 September 2014 12:05, McTim <dogwallah at 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​