<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Interesting read:<div><a href="http://www.knujon.com/ddb_master_draft.pdf">http://www.knujon.com/ddb_master_draft.pdf</a><br><div><br><div>It appears to be a privately commissioned report using inflammatory rhetoric and extreme examples to frighten the public into requiring every possible privacy invasion that the IP Constituency has been lobbying for over the last decade. Domain name registrars are the "choke-point".</div><div><br></div><div>The authors ultimately want to pressure domain name registrars to police and control their systems in order to protect the interests of certain branded companies (using "sick, dying, elderly people that are being prayed upon" as the example. Seriously, it does. I suspect the next report will be on the connection of "funding terrorism through trafficking in unlicensed perfume" ). </div><div><br></div><div>If domain name registrars can be punished for what 3rd-parties do, registrars will be pressured to police and control their systems to prevent the sale of unlicensed, but lawful, generic medicines (as if registrars are in any position to know what is licensed, what is dangerous, what is lawful generic, etc). It sets a very dangerous precedent that courts (and even legislatures) have been unwilling to give the IP Constituency and Big Pharma. It also uses examples of medicines for powers that will more often to be used to "protect" $5k handbags and shoes. It is the legal responsibility of the branded companies to protect their own private brands. It is neither ICANN's responsible (as PDT said clearly at the Nairobi ICANN meeting), nor is it registrars responsibility to ensure that private brands are "protected" on the Internet. Of course big branded companies want to shift this burden of policing to protect their private rights over to others to do for them.</div><div><br></div><div>On a positive note, over-the-top reports like this could inspire the interest of the formidable Access to Medicines movement and generic medicines distributors to become involved in ICANN policy making. (That would be great for NCSG, but not so great for the IP Constituency).</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Robin<br> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></div></div></div></body></html>