Hi Sam,

I agree with you on both counts. Its sure unfortunate and its something
that ICANN may not be able to cope with in near future; ICANN getting into
sanitation of SLDs is something that would end up being very
controversial....as like you've said, requirements for being a doctor
differs by country/region....also it only would enrich some set of people
who will turn their profession into royalties (imagine 1 doctor being used
for many domain sign-ups).

More importantly, its interesting that GAC has such direct powers to
recommend to board and board unilaterally consider and approves same
without consulting other communities. Thats so weird! It is my expectation
that some of these process issues are getting looked into as we speak. I
hope the issue with .doctor (and other similar scenarios) will not be
similar to watching the existing ice to continue to de-froze under sunlight
while the community is busy preparing a cold-room to house next batch of
ice.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 31 Mar 2015 14:02, "Sam Lanfranco" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  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
>
>
>