<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I must say I agree with Amr....and in the final analysis, the
anxiety about all of this stems from a successful marketing campaign
to sell more domains. Quite frankly, if I am the best plumbing
doctor in the world and have a great website, folks are going to
search their way to my door....wherever that door happens to open. <br>
Maybe I have just not succumbed to ICANN groupthink yet....<br>
<br>
cheers Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-03-18 9:14, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:73D6575F-D416-40B7-9952-5013EE1EC477@egyptig.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Honestly, I’m not convinced that any of the issues regarding
so-called regulated strings concerning healthcare are issues of
real concern. I’ve been looking into this for quite some time;
trying to take in the arguments on both sides of the fence. My
personal opinion is that there is a great deal of unwarranted
FUD on the matter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ICANN isn’t actually regulating Web content when imposing
policies restricting who can register domain names under certain
gTLDs. At best, it’s only restricting access to certain strings
to a limited number of exclusive registrants. This is not
justifiable because there is no empirical data that suggests
this is actually necessary. It’s also not fair for registrants
who want to register names under those TLDs, and not fair to
registries who have a commercial interest in selling them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a PhD (or any other registrant) can’t register a domain
name under .doctor, he/she will still be able to register one
under a different TLD, and can still publish the same content on
the Web. Having the domain name registered under one TLD or
another will not influence the credibility of the registrant.
Those who claim it will are only speculating.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As an example, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://webmd.com">webmd.com</a> and <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://mayoclinic.org">mayoclinic.org</a>
will continue to be trusted sources of health information
regardless of whether or not they register domain names under
.health. Other registrants who register domain names under
.health are unlikely to suddenly become more trusted sources of
health information than Mayo Clinic is. Furthermore, I can think
of many reasons why someone who isn’t a doctor at all would want
to register a name under .doctor, or someone who doesn’t have
any intention of publishing health information online may wish
to register a name under .health.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is not to say that the manner in which DotHealth LLC are
advertising .health as a trusted source of health information is
false. There is very little to nothing in their policies that
ensure such a claim. But how a registry advertises its gTLD is
not ICANN’s business.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Still…, although this is true:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial,
FreeSans, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"If this edict is
allowed to stand, 'doctors' of all stripes – except for
those ICANN finds worthy – would be frozen out of a useful
gTLD,"</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This certainly isn’t:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Arial,
FreeSans, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Juris doctors,
doctors of dental surgery, Ph.D.s of every sort, even
veterinarians… all could be censored on the Internet because
they earned the wrong version of the title."</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 18, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Sam Lanfranco <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:lanfran@YORKU.CA">lanfran@YORKU.CA</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" style="font-family:
TrebuchetMS; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing:
normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><small>On 18/03/2015 7:56 AM,
Timothe Litt wrote:<br>
</small></div>
<blockquote cite="mid:550967D8.1080002@acm.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><small>Doctor, doctor give me the news:
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/</a>
Sigh.</small>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
line-height: 17px; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;">What I do not understand is why ICANN could
not see these problems coming from the start. There are
problems similar to .doctor for many of the other
regulated profession gTLDs, claims to the contrary. Even
"legitimate medical practitioners." is an ill-defined
category covering a wide range of human skills and
different certification practices around the globe. Here
in Ontario we now have standards for Chinese homeopathic
practitioners. Some practitioners qualify and others do
not, using criteria that include length of practice as
well as formal training. Are they "legitimate medical
practitioners"? Yes! Do they qualify for a .doctor domain
name? ....ICANN....yea or nay?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
line-height: 17px; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;">The regulation of the use of words for
professional designations, and definition of scope of
practice, are problematic enough at the national level.
Trying to impose a global regulatory regime on a gTLD is
in the final analysis like trying to herd cats. My bets
are that in the long run ICANN will be reduced to a binary
decision and simply say no for some problematic gTLDs, and
when it says yes, it leaves the fights over domain name
use to other jurisdictions. This would not be an
abdication of responsibility on the part of ICANN. It
would be a recognition that other than denying a gTLD, the
regulation of domain name use at this level is beyond
ICANN’s own abilities. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;
line-height: 17px; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;">Sam L.<br>
<span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>