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.