On the same subject, i share same sentiments with Seun Ojedeji. I will also love to see the decision statement before adding my +1 Regards, WISDOM DONKOR Sosftware / Network Engineer Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 ! > > >