First, the precedent creates the possibility of .justice, .education, .environment
etc with the benefit of assuring reliability of other critical areas of public information.
I am not sure that it is desirable to "reserve" major portions of the web for perticular
areas of "truth" "rectitude" and professional vetting. It is a terrible image
in a world where many nations worry about controlling their version of the truth.
In the worst of hypothetical cases certain nations, institutions or whatever will
block all sites unless they are among the exalted few in the TLD's for health, justice,
air quality, parenting, education, etc. It is a terrible idea, in my judgment,
to give any organization cntent control over areas of cyberspace.Second, it there
were to be ceded this control, why should it not be to the governments. Is
WHO more competent vetting for France than the French Government; for America than
the U. S. Surgeon General; for China than the Chinese Ministry of Health?
Third,
if WHO feels they have a useful role to play by vetting health sites, then they should
do so. Put on their web site a list of endorsed or approved sites with links.
Those people who want to filter through WHO can do so. They can even have a
"WHO Seal of Approval" which can be displayed only by approved sites. The public
can use the vetting skill of WHO if they want to.
Fourth, if there is to be a single
vetting organization for each (or any) areas for the entire world, why should it
be WHO? There are other organizations which have similar or arguably better
skills. Why should there not be a competitive process?
Fifth, WHO has a serious
defect as a vetter of health information itself. Realistically WHO is the operator
of many of the world's critical public health programs. In order to do their
work they need the good graces of the Governments of the world. As such, they
have to walk a very tight line in disclosing all information and supressing information
that individual governments consider detrimental, insulting, culturally insensitive
etc. A system which is dependent on them to vet sites has the potential of
"conflict of interest" and/or the appearance thereof. Already WHO has been
accused of supressing much information for various reasons. Why make the web
structure a battleground for these issues? Why put WHO in the position where
national governments will hold them resonsible for the content on vetted sites?
It potentially impairs the WHO main mission.
Sixth. There is no guarantee
that WHO will perform properly. Although intentions are good, the ability to
properly vet sites requires a good bit of work. Where will the funds come from?
No serious vetting can take place for $10. So WHO will have to subsidize the
process or have an exclusive area to run the registration price up.
Seven.
Fairness and redress. What criteria will be used? Supporting commentators
welcome the fact that there will be assurance of "truth" and accuracy of health information.
In the US, CDC, FDA, AMA and the Surgeon General are sometimes in disagreement.
Whose truth does WHO use? What happens if a .health domain is "sold" or tansferred
to one of the exploiters? What happens if a vetted site starts to include "improper
material." First we censor organizing sponsors; then we have to check on ownership
and control transfers; finally, on the content of the material itself. Is there
any other noun but censorship to describe this. And what are the redresses
that the world has if they disagree. Who sees to it that WHO has acted properly.
Because of it's unique role, iit is immune from various kinds of legal action and
should be. But sould that immunity extend to this censorship role. The
onlything worse than having a public censor is to have one which is not accountable
and controlled by the legal system and courts of the various countries. Who
does an aggrieved party sue? In what jurisdiction? And what property
is surity for the judgment? If we must have a censor, please make sure that
it is one that is very vulnerable other authority for redress.
Eight. WHO
is itself a major player in the health world. Arguably one of the most important
organizations in the world. As such they themselves have been and will be the
target of much criticism and attack, much undeserved by some perhaps appropriate.
Whould a leading player in a field be selected as the vettor and censor of a major
information channel in the field. Consider the absurdity of having a TLD .routers
and giving the control to CISCO or .software and ceding it to Microsoft or .bloodsupply
and choosing the Red Cross.
Nine. Unfortunatly, there are many people in
the world who do not like the United Nations or related organizations like WHO.
In America, there are many for whom the name and concept is anathema. For the
most part, the Internet and the World Wide Web has steered clear of politics except
for the political issues about its own governance such as American dominated or third
world lack of access. Why add a political dimension to the Web governance that
has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WEB. There are those who will now see ICANN as part
of an International Conspiracy to control the world, by starting with giving the
WHO and the "internationalists" control of a part of the web. What part goes
to the UN itself? What part to the Trilateral Commission? While these
issues seem paranoid to many of us, they represent real belief structures.
Consenting to the WHO proposal will only reinforce those irrational structures, bring
more distrust upon the UN and other international organizations and involve ICANN
in teh middle of a very complex, emotional debate that it has nothing to do with
and should not have anything to do with.
The proposal for a vetted .health domain
is a poor one, which becomes tragically flawed if WHO becomes the selected organization.
Dr. Lewis Eigen
President, Social and Health Services Ltd.
leigen@shs.net