It seems to me that the sales potential under .doctor would perhaps be 
*increased* by the move.

It would add legitimacy which could help sell the idea to MDs and would 
presumably help migrate what sites exists under other gTLD such as .com. 
It would also justify a price premium.

I'm not sure I would be opposed to it, if i were the applicant ... well 
... except to negotiate some other things on the side, of course. It 
might be counter-intuitive at first, but i think that moves to restrain 
and differentiate will succeed in extracting more value in the end. Much 
of the commercial success of a new TLD would, I would think, come from 
its ability to cater to certain people and so, that should have been the 
applicants plan for the get go, methinks.

(I *am* opposed to move, don't get me wrong).

Nicolas

On 18/03/2015 3:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> All,
>
> Here is the “trail” on the reference to the following 
> statement...which leads back to ICANN.
>
>  “/Domain-name overseer ICANN has decided that only one kind of doctor 
> may be allowed online – and that is a medical doctor/”.
>
> It is in the article by Kieren McCarthy at 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/
> Kieren cites a blog by Jon Nevett “/The .DOCTOR Quarantine/” in 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150312_the_doctor_quarantine/
>
> On March 12th Jon Nevett writes: /"In an utterly surprising move, 
> ICANN staff and the Board's New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC") 
> recently informed the applicants for .DOCTOR that it has singled out 
> the gTLD as a test case for controlling content and limiting speech on 
> the Internet."
>
> /The following jpeg is from the March 12, 2015 pdf at:
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf
>
>
>
>