Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 57: Line 57:  
====Conflicting decisions on a single string====
 
====Conflicting decisions on a single string====
 
Another situation that created controversy was also a situated that had not seem to be taken into account ahead of time by [[ICANN]]. In one case, [[Verisign]] submitted separate objections to all three applicants for the [[.cam]] string, saying it was confusingly similar to their [[.com]]. The company lost two of its objections but won a third against [[Demand Media]]. In a similar case, Google objected to all three applicants for [[.cars]], but only prevailed against one applicant.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14239-string-confusion-in-disarray-as-demands-cam-loses-against-verisigns-com String Confusion in Disarray as Demand's .cam loses against Verisign's .com, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
 
Another situation that created controversy was also a situated that had not seem to be taken into account ahead of time by [[ICANN]]. In one case, [[Verisign]] submitted separate objections to all three applicants for the [[.cam]] string, saying it was confusingly similar to their [[.com]]. The company lost two of its objections but won a third against [[Demand Media]]. In a similar case, Google objected to all three applicants for [[.cars]], but only prevailed against one applicant.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14239-string-confusion-in-disarray-as-demands-cam-loses-against-verisigns-com String Confusion in Disarray as Demand's .cam loses against Verisign's .com, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
 +
 +
The conflicting decisions prompted many applicants to call for an appeals process that could sort out these situations. On 13 December 2013 the [[ICANN Ombudsman]] published a blog post calling for the community's feedback on the issue.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/15304-should-new-gtlds-objections-have-an-appeals-process Should New gTLDs Objections have an Appeals Process, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
    
==Public Comments vs. Formal Objections==
 
==Public Comments vs. Formal Objections==
Line 62: Line 64:     
Some news organizations reported that Saudi Arabia was "Objecting" to a number of New gTLD applications, including [[.gay]] and [[.bible]]. However, these objections were filed in the Applicant Comments Forum and were not formal objections, thus they did not require a response from the applicants nor did they require an expert determination.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/08/16/icann_top_level_domain_applications_saudi_arabia_apparently_objects_to_catholic_gay_bible_.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest Saudi Arabia Objections to .catholic and .gay, Slate.com] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
 
Some news organizations reported that Saudi Arabia was "Objecting" to a number of New gTLD applications, including [[.gay]] and [[.bible]]. However, these objections were filed in the Applicant Comments Forum and were not formal objections, thus they did not require a response from the applicants nor did they require an expert determination.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/08/16/icann_top_level_domain_applications_saudi_arabia_apparently_objects_to_catholic_gay_bible_.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest Saudi Arabia Objections to .catholic and .gay, Slate.com] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
  −
[http://domainnamewire.com/2013/12/12/icann-ombudsman-investigating-inconsistent-new-tld-objection-decisions/]
      
==References==
 
==References==

Navigation menu