Amr & Seun,
For further clarity, while the initial decision was made in
February 2014, followed by a reconsideration request from Brice
Trail, the Brice Trail submission in the ICANN files dated this
March 12, 2015 is in reference to a decision made this February
12th, 2015. The March 2015 Brice Trail submission states (8.1,
page 4):
"The NGPC met on 12 February 2015 to address Applicant’s
“concerns ...about staff’s proposed implementation” of a
year-earlier NGPC resolution by way of “an additional safeguard
for the .DOCTOR TLD.” See Annex A at 3. At that meeting [12
February 2015], the Board committee decided “for staff to
continue to move forward” with requiring the additional
safeguard –i.e., the New PIC– in the “implementation” of the
prior NGPC resolution. Id. at 4."
It is Board committee decisions this month that prompted concern
around these issues to resurface at this time.
Sam L.
For On 30/03/2015 3:36 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
Hi Amr,
Thanks for this share....first i will say its interesting how
long it has taken since board made the decision. That said, i
find the text below quite concerning:
The
GAC advises the ICANN Board to re-categorize the string
.doctor as falling within Category 1 safeguard advice
addressing highly regulated sectors,therefore ascribing these
domains exclusively to legitimate medical practitioners.
With respect to the additional advice in the Buenos Aires
Communiqué on the Category 1 Safeguards, the NGPC accepts the
advice to re-categorize the string .doctor as falling within
Category 1 safeguard advice addressing highly regulated
sectors and ensure that the domains in the .doctor TLD are
ascribed exclusively to legitimate medical practitioners.
Hopefully the chain of decision making would be adequately
addressed within the ccwg
Regards