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.