[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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.