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.
>>
>