Amr & Seun,

For further clarity, while the initial decision was made in February 
2014, followed by a reconsideration request from Brice Trail, the Brice 
Trail submission in the ICANN files dated this March 12, 2015 is in 
reference to a decision made this February 12th, 2015. The March 2015 
Brice Trail submission states (8.1, page 4):

/"The NGPC met on 12 February 2015 to address Applicant’s “concerns 
...about staff’s proposed implementation” of a year-earlier NGPC 
resolution by way of “an additional safeguard for the .DOCTOR TLD.” See 
Annex A at 3. At that meeting [12 February 2015], the Board committee 
decided “for staff to continue to move forward” with requiring the 
additional safeguard –i.e., the New PIC– in the “implementation” of the 
prior NGPC resolution. Id. at 4./"

It is Board committee decisions this month that prompted concern around 
these issues to resurface at this time.

Sam L.

For On 30/03/2015 3:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Hi Amr,
>
> Thanks for this share....first i will say its interesting how long it 
> has taken since board made the decision. That said, i find the text 
> below quite concerning:
>
>      The GAC advises the ICANN Board to re-categorize the string
>     .doctor as falling within Category 1 safeguard advice addressing
>     highly regulated sectors,therefore ascribing these domains
>     exclusively to legitimate medical practitioners.
>
>     With respect to the additional advice in the Buenos Aires
>     Communiqué on the Category 1 Safeguards, the NGPC accepts the
>     advice to re-categorize the string .doctor as falling within
>     Category 1 safeguard advice addressing highly regulated sectors
>     and ensure that the domains in the *.doctor TLD are ascribed
>     exclusively to legitimate medical practitioners*. 
>
>
> Hopefully the chain of decision making would be adequately addressed 
> within the ccwg
>
> Regards
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Revisiting this thread again one more time.
>
>     The NGPC resolution referred to in the reconsideration request was
>     dated February 2014, not February 2015. I misread that in the
>     reconsideration request submitted by Brice Trail, LLC. So the
>     actual resolution by the ICANN board (or actually, the NGPC on
>     behalf of the board) on .doctor can be found here:
>
>     https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-02-05-en
>
>     …, as well as an annex to the resolution with more details found here:
>
>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-05feb14-en.pdf
>
>     I hope this helps clear up the confusion I had a hand in creating.
>     ICANN policy staff was very helpful in correcting me on this.
>     Thanks Mary.
>
>     Thanks, and my apologies.
>
>     Amr
>
>     On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>>     For those who missed it, there is the letter to the Board from
>>     Brice Trail, LLC, the applicant for the .DOCTOR gTLD.
>>     Here (again) is the reference (March 12, 2015) on the ICANN
>>     webserver, plus the first paragraph of the letter:
>>
>>     https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf
>>
>>     <Mail Attachment.png>
>>
>>     Sam L.
>>
>>
>>     On 25/03/2015 8:25 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Coming back to this thread, there was an expression to see
>>>     references to the ICANN Board’s decisions on this topic. From
>>>     what I can tell there was a discussion on the topic of “Category
>>>     1 Safeguards for Highly Regulated Strings” on the February 5th
>>>     meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) of the ICANN
>>>     Board. It looks like there was no resolution taken during that
>>>     meeting
>>>     (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-02-05-en).
>>>
>>>     However, there was a reference to that meeting in another
>>>     meeting that took place on February 12th, in which the NGPC
>>>     seemed to agree on /*“*//*staff to continue to move forward with
>>>     implementation of its 5 February 2014 resolution on the
>>>     matter*//*”*/.
>>>     (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-new-gtld-2015-02-12-en)
>>>
>>>     I’m not sure what resolution was being referred to, as the
>>>     report of the February 5th meeting indicated that there were no
>>>     resolutions taken.
>>>
>>>     I’ll provide any updated info I come across.
>>>
>>>     Thanks.
>>>
>>>     Amr
>>>