[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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 and 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]> wrote:
On 18/03/2015 7:56 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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.