Amr,

To keep it simple, both .doctor and .sucks are situations where ICANN 
has remained completely mute. That is both a corporate risk to ICANN and 
does nothing to bolster the role of the multistakeholder process in 
addressing (here) DNS issues. Please note that there is a difference 
between being engaged in the dialogue around issues and taking policy 
positions.

For example, had ICANN, as ICANN, entered into the discussions around 
.health with the global health community, the global community would 
have been more aware and better informed about the issues and where they 
should be dealt with (for the most part outside ICANN).  I suspect that 
had there been that dialogue the global health community would have said 
"Go ahead with .health and we will deal with the issues, as they arise, 
elsewhere". By not engaging that discussion, the learning process 
suffers, ICANN runs the real risk as being seen as part of the problem, 
and in the process the multistakeholder model can suffer collateral damage.

Sam L.


On 30/03/2015 10:59 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I’m confused about how you’re conflating and comparing the two issues 
> of .doctor and .sucks.
>
> More inline:
>
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: