On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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. > Before i add a strong +1 to this, i quote the intro of the article below: Domain-name overseer ICANN has decided that only one kind of doctor may be > allowed online – and that is a medical doctor. In a *decision* made late > last month. > Could someone kindly refer me to where i can find that decision statement? 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. > I agree with this general view; the Internet as we know is beyond such level of regulation. In the gTLD world, the best ICANN can/should do is have a general rule and perhaps have TLDs that could be termed "premium" (to make more money on them). If applicants meets the general requirements (mostly technical) then they should get their string, there is no reason why ICANN should regulate beyond top level which is free of content; we talk content at second level and beyond. Regards > Sam L. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !