<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Amr & All,<br>
<br>
Let me try to put closure to this discussion episode. There are
two issues that will reverberate outside the ICANN internal orbit
here. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Sam <br>
<br>
<br>
<small>On 31/03/2015 6:32 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</small></div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:006260D9-4312-4BCC-9901-7F19BEB127D5@egyptig.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div><small>Hi Sam,</small></div>
<div><small><br>
</small></div>
<div><small>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:</small></div>
<div><small><i><b><br>
</b></i></small></div>
<div><small><i><b>“<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);"><font color="#333333"><span style="line-height:
22.399999618530273px;">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.</span><span
style="line-height: 22px;">”</span></font></span></b></i></small></div>
<div><small><br>
</small></div>
<div><small>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.</small></div>
<div><small><br>
</small></div>
<div><small>Thanks.</small></div>
<div><small><br>
</small></div>
<div><small>Amr</small></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>