Amr & All,

Let me try to put closure to this discussion episode. There are two 
issues that will reverberate outside the ICANN internal orbit here.

First, the recent decision was "to move forward with implementation" 
while it is clear that implementation is fraught with issues for the 
Registry, for professional groups, and for national jurisdictions. These 
problems with the implementation process are unlikely to leave ICANN 
unscathed.

There are two testable hypotheses here: (1) The implementation process 
as set down by ICANN for .doctor is fraught with issues; (2) There will 
be some blow back that impacts ICANN. What is testable here is whether 
this .doctor decision triggers moves by other stakeholders, in 
particular groups of health practitioners in various jurisdictions where 
the legal and registered use of the designation "Doctor" varies, and 
where national and local governments have differing relevant 
regulations. Now, we can go quiet, wait, watch, and see what happens.

Second, the gTLD applicant community was not pleased by what Brice Trail 
LLC considers a change to the guidelines after the fact. We may agree or 
not agree with that assessment, and what we think does not matter. What 
does matter is whether or not this impacts on the way applicants for 
gTLDs view and deal with ICANN in any subsequent new-gTLD round. Again, 
we can go quiet, wait, watch and see what happens.

This is out of our hands, several of us have presented analysis, and 
there are testable hypotheses and predictions on the table. I propose we 
go quiet, wait, watch and see what happens. In the longer run evidence 
rules.

Sam


On 31/03/2015 6:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Yes…, that is correct. However, there was no resolution taken on the 
> matter during the meeting on February 12th, 2015. The decision was 
> taken over a year ago. This last February, the NGPC discussed the 
> complaint by the new gTLD applicant and reached the conclusion that:
> /*
> */
> /*“After discussion, the sense of the Committee was for staff to 
> continue to move forward with implementation of its 5 February 2014 
> resolution on the matter.”*/
>
> This decision to not change the resolution from a year ago prompted 
> the filing of the request for reconsideration. There was some question 
> regarding a reference of the original resolution and rationale for 
> taking it, so I was just trying to help clear this up.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr