All,

I too would like to know the source of this. I did not reference it in my comments. But true or not the overall problem exists.
I am focused on the overall problem, which should have been clear at the start of the new-gTLD program.
I had already written about the overall problem in my blog on .health several months ago.

Sam

On 18/03/2015 2:37 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hi,

On Mar 18, 2015, at 3:11 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?

I did a quick search on recent board resolutions, and actually couldn’t find anything. In fact, according to the published activity of the ICANN board, this was discussed during a meeting on February 12th, but no resolution seems to have been taken.

https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-02-12-en

I would also like to see a resolution and rationale on this.

Thanks.

Amr