Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:39:20 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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. There are problems similar to .doctor for many of
the other regulated profession gTLDs, claims to the contrary. Even
"legitimate medical practitioners." is an ill-defined category covering
a wide range of human skills and different certification practices
around the globe. Here in Ontario we now have standards for Chinese
homeopathic practitioners. Some practitioners qualify and others do not,
using criteria that include length of practice as well as formal
training. Are they "legitimate medical practitioners"? Yes! Do they
qualify for a .doctor domain name? ....ICANN....yea or nay?
The regulation of the use of words for professional designations, and
definition of scope of practice, are problematic enough at the national
level. Trying to impose a global regulatory regime on a gTLD is in the
final analysis like trying to herd cats. My bets are that in the long
run ICANN will be reduced to a binary decision and simply say no for
some problematic gTLDs, and when it says yes, it leaves the fights over
domain name use to other jurisdictions. This would not be an abdication
of responsibility on the part of ICANN. It would be a recognition that
other than denying a gTLD, the regulation of domain name use at this
level is beyond ICANN’s own abilities.
Sam L.
|
|
|