<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Good Price for Friends, I Hope</div><div>;-)<br><br>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<div>+506 8837 7176 (New Number)</div><div>Enviado desde mi iPhone</div></div><div><br>El mar 18, 2015, a las 14:59, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG">aelsadr@EGYPTIG.ORG</a>> escribió:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><div>Yeah. I see sales potential too. As a medical doctor, I could always offer my services as a proxy registrant to anyone who wants to use a domain name under .doctor. :)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Mar 18, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Nicolas Adam <<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
It seems to me that the sales potential under .doctor would perhaps
be *increased* by the move. <br>
<br>
It would add legitimacy which could help sell the idea to MDs and
would presumably help migrate what sites exists under other gTLD
such as .com. It would also justify a price premium. <br>
<br>
I'm not sure I would be opposed to it, if i were the applicant ...
well ... except to negotiate some other things on the side, of
course. It might be counter-intuitive at first, but i think that
moves to restrain and differentiate will succeed in extracting more
value in the end. Much of the commercial success of a new TLD would,
I would think, come from its ability to cater to certain people and
so, that should have been the applicants plan for the get go,
methinks. <br>
<br>
(I *am* opposed to move, don't get me wrong). <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/03/2015 3:47 PM, Sam Lanfranco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5509D65A.2090403@yorku.ca" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
All,<br>
<br>
Here is the “trail” on the reference to the following
statement...which leads back to ICANN.<br>
<br>
“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Domain-name overseer ICANN
has decided that only one kind of doctor may be allowed online –
and that is a medical doctor</i>”. <br>
<br>
It is in the article by Kieren McCarthy at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/15/icann_doctors/</a>
<br>
Kieren cites a blog by Jon Nevett “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">The .DOCTOR Quarantine</i>”
in <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150312_the_doctor_quarantine/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150312_the_doctor_quarantine/</a><o:p></o:p>
<br>
<br>
On March 12th Jon Nevett writes: <i>"In an utterly surprising
move, ICANN staff and the Board's New gTLD Program Committee
("NGPC") recently informed the applicants for .DOCTOR that it
has singled out the gTLD as a test case for controlling content
and limiting speech on the Internet."<br>
<br>
</i>The following jpeg is from the March 12, 2015 pdf at:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration-request-15-3-brice-trail-llc-redacted-12mar15-en.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<span><Mail Attachment.png></span><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></body></html>