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 !
>
>
>