Amr,

I engaged in the same due diligence with regard to (at that time) the .health gTLD and I agree completely with your comment:

On 18/03/2015 9:14 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Honestly, I’m not convinced that any of the issues regarding so-called regulated strings concerning healthcare are issues of real concern. I’ve been looking into this for quite some time; trying to take in the arguments on both sides of the fence. My personal opinion is that there is a great deal of unwarranted FUD on the matter.

The question some of us are raising is why ICANN does not simple recognize the complexities around these so called regulated strings  and take a position that is both viable and does not involve "scope creep". The simplest position would be to say some strings will not be granted (sure there will be fights but they will be fights string by string and build an equivalent of "case law" around the issue).

For strings granted leave it to other jurisdictions (the market, public opinion, judicial) to sort out trust, integrity, fraud and abuse issues. ICANN would only be drawn in should a registry (or maybe a registrar) got into legal hot water, and where ICANN receives a legal request to do something within its remit.

Where there are "issues of real concern" with regard to healthcare, or whatever, let them be addressed in appropriate venues, 99% of which are outside ICANN's remit. To the rest of the world ICANN's current stance harms its trust status, causes interest groups to ask it to do what it actually cannot do, and slows popular understanding that whatever are the issues of substance, they have to be addressed elsewhere.

Sam L.