It seems to me that the sales potential under .doctor would perhaps
be *increased* by the move.
It would add legitimacy which could help sell the idea to MDs and
would presumably help migrate what sites exists under other gTLD
such as .com. It would also justify a price premium.
I'm not sure I would be opposed to it, if i were the applicant ...
well ... except to negotiate some other things on the side, of
course. It might be counter-intuitive at first, but i think that
moves to restrain and differentiate will succeed in extracting more
value in the end. Much of the commercial success of a new TLD would,
I would think, come from its ability to cater to certain people and
so, that should have been the applicants plan for the get go,
methinks.
(I *am* opposed to move, don't get me wrong).
Nicolas
On 18/03/2015 3:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
All,
Here is the “trail” on the reference to the following
statement...which leads back to ICANN.
“Domain-name overseer ICANN
has decided that only one kind of doctor may be allowed online –
and that is a medical doctor”.
It is in the article by Kieren McCarthy at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/
Kieren cites a blog by Jon Nevett “The .DOCTOR Quarantine”
in http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150312_the_doctor_quarantine/
On March 12th Jon Nevett writes: "In an utterly surprising
move, ICANN staff and the Board's New gTLD Program Committee
("NGPC") recently informed the applicants for .DOCTOR that it
has singled out the gTLD as a test case for controlling content
and limiting speech on the Internet."
The following jpeg is from the March 12, 2015 pdf at:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf
<Mail Attachment.png>