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

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi,

Revisiting this thread again one more time.

The NGPC resolution referred to in the reconsideration request was dated February 2014, not February 2015. I misread that in the reconsideration request submitted by Brice Trail, LLC. So the actual resolution by the ICANN board (or actually, the NGPC on behalf of the board) on .doctor can be found here:

https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-02-05-en

…, as well as an annex to the resolution with more details found here:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-05feb14-en.pdf

I hope this helps clear up the confusion I had a hand in creating. ICANN policy staff was very helpful in correcting me on this. Thanks Mary.

Thanks, and my apologies.

Amr

On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

For those who missed it, there is the letter to the Board from Brice Trail, LLC, the applicant for the .DOCTOR gTLD.
Here (again) is the reference (March 12, 2015) on the ICANN webserver, plus the first paragraph of the letter:

       https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf

<Mail Attachment.png>

Sam L.


On 25/03/2015 8:25 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

Hi,

Coming back to this thread, there was an expression to see references to the ICANN Board’s decisions on this topic. From what I can tell there was a discussion on the topic of “Category 1 Safeguards for Highly Regulated Strings” on the February 5th meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) of the ICANN Board. It looks like there was no resolution taken during that meeting (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-02-05-en).

However, there was a reference to that meeting in another meeting that took place on February 12th, in which the NGPC seemed to agree on “staff to continue to move forward with implementation of its 5 February 2014 resolution on the matter”. (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-new-gtld-2015-02-12-en)

I’m not sure what resolution was being referred to, as the report of the February 5th meeting indicated that there were no resolutions taken.

I’ll provide any updated info I come across.

Thanks.

Amr

-- 
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email: [log in to unmask]

The key to understanding is humility - my view !