Amr,

I engaged in the same due diligence with regard to (at that time) the 
.health gTLD and I agree completely with your comment:

/On 18/03/2015 9:14 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote://
/
> /Honestly, I’m not convinced that any of the issues regarding 
> so-called regulated strings concerning healthcare are issues of real 
> concern. I’ve been looking into this for quite some time; trying to 
> take in the arguments on both sides of the fence. My personal opinion 
> is that there is a great deal of unwarranted FUD on the matter./

The question some of us are raising is why ICANN does not simple 
recognize the complexities around these so called regulated strings and 
take a position that is both viable and does not involve "scope creep". 
The simplest position would be to say some strings will not be granted 
(sure there will be fights but they will be fights string by string and 
build an equivalent of "case law" around the issue).

For strings granted leave it to other jurisdictions (the market, public 
opinion, judicial) to sort out trust, integrity, fraud and abuse issues. 
ICANN would only be drawn in should a registry (or maybe a registrar) 
got into legal hot water, and where ICANN receives a legal request to do 
something within its remit.

Where there are "issues of real concern" with regard to healthcare, or 
whatever, let them be addressed in appropriate venues, 99% of which are 
outside ICANN's remit. To the rest of the world ICANN's current stance 
harms its trust status, causes interest groups to ask it to do what it 
actually cannot do, and slows popular understanding that whatever are 
the issues of substance, they have to be addressed elsewhere.

Sam L.