All,
I too would like to know the source of this. I did not reference it in
my comments. But true or not the overall problem exists.
I am focused on the overall problem, which should have been clear at the
start of the new-gTLD program.
I had already written about the overall problem in my blog on .health
several months ago.
Sam
On 18/03/2015 2:37 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 18, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Sam Lanfranco<[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>wrote:
>>
>> On 18/03/2015 7:56 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
>>> Doctor, doctor give me the news:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/
>>> Sigh.
>>
>> What I do not understand is why ICANN could not see these
>> problems coming from the start.
>>
>>
>> Before i add a strong +1 to this, i quote the intro of the article below:
>>
>> Domain-name overseer ICANN has decided that only one kind of
>> doctor may be allowed online – and that is a medical doctor. In
>> a*decision*made late last month.
>>
>>
>> Could someone kindly refer me to where i can find that decision
>> statement?
>
> I did a quick search on recent board resolutions, and actually
> couldn’t find anything. In fact, according to the published activity
> of the ICANN board, this was discussed during a meeting on February
> 12th, but no resolution seems to have been taken.
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-02-12-en
>
> I would also like to see a resolution and rationale on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
|