I must say I agree with Amr....and in the final analysis, the anxiety about all of this stems from a successful marketing campaign to sell more domains. Quite frankly, if I am the best plumbing doctor in the world and have a great website, folks are going to search their way to my door....wherever that door happens to open. Maybe I have just not succumbed to ICANN groupthink yet.... cheers Stephanie Perrin On 2015-03-18 9:14, Amr Elsadr wrote: > Hi, > > 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. > > ICANN isn’t actually regulating Web content when imposing policies > restricting who can register domain names under certain gTLDs. At > best, it’s only restricting access to certain strings to a limited > number of exclusive registrants. This is not justifiable because there > is no empirical data that suggests this is actually necessary. It’s > also not fair for registrants who want to register names under those > TLDs, and not fair to registries who have a commercial interest in > selling them. > > If a PhD (or any other registrant) can’t register a domain name under > .doctor, he/she will still be able to register one under a different > TLD, and can still publish the same content on the Web. Having the > domain name registered under one TLD or another will not influence the > credibility of the registrant. Those who claim it will are only > speculating. > > As an example, webmd.com <http://webmd.com> and mayoclinic.org > <http://mayoclinic.org> will continue to be trusted sources of health > information regardless of whether or not they register domain names > under .health. Other registrants who register domain names under > .health are unlikely to suddenly become more trusted sources of health > information than Mayo Clinic is. Furthermore, I can think of many > reasons why someone who isn’t a doctor at all would want to register a > name under .doctor, or someone who doesn’t have any intention of > publishing health information online may wish to register a name under > .health. > > That is not to say that the manner in which DotHealth LLC are > advertising .health as a trusted source of health information is > false. There is very little to nothing in their policies that ensure > such a claim. But how a registry advertises its gTLD is not ICANN’s > business. > > Still…, although this is true: > >> "If this edict is allowed to stand, 'doctors' of all stripes – except >> for those ICANN finds worthy – would be frozen out of a useful gTLD," > > This certainly isn’t: > >> "Juris doctors, doctors of dental surgery, Ph.D.s of every sort, even >> veterinarians… all could be censored on the Internet because they >> earned the wrong version of the title." > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On Mar 18, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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. 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. >> >