27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − − ==IO on Controversial Strings== − In December 2012, Mr. Pellet released his first correspondence on actual TLDs, commenting on so-called "Controversial Applications". Those strings include: [[.adult]], [[.sex]], [[.porn]], [[.sexy]], [[.hot]], [[.gay]], [[.lgbt]], [[.persiangulf]], [[.vodka]], and [[.wtf]]. A string seemed to have been deemed "controversial" by Mr. Pellet if it received a substantial amount of objections during the public comment period. He addresses each TLD separately and at length, noting the objection, and turning to International law and precedent to determine whether an objection from his point of view, of defending the public interest, is warranted. In each case he concludes that the objections are not supported by international law and that regional, cultural, and personal issues influence the objections rather than broadly accepted treaties, laws, or international cultural trends. He has reserved the right to later object to the strings, but at that time it was deemed that the "controversial strings" are in fact not offensive to the greater public interest and Internet users.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/ The Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org]Retrieved 8 Jan 2013</ref> Line 50:
Line 47: + + + + + Line 58:
Line 60: − − __Notoc__
no edit summary
In October 2012, Independent Objector launched its own website independently from ICANN. French international law expert [[Alain Pellet]] will be the IO, with assistance from Julien Boissise. If necessary, their jobs will be to file Community Objections and Limited Public Interest Objections against new gTLD applications.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10883-independent-objector-launches-web-site Independent Objector launches web site]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 October 26. Retrieved 2012 November 15.</ref>
In October 2012, Independent Objector launched its own website independently from ICANN. French international law expert [[Alain Pellet]] will be the IO, with assistance from Julien Boissise. If necessary, their jobs will be to file Community Objections and Limited Public Interest Objections against new gTLD applications.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10883-independent-objector-launches-web-site Independent Objector launches web site]. Domain Incite. Published 2012 October 26. Retrieved 2012 November 15.</ref>
==IO Objections==
==IO Objections==
For the IO to object to on '''Community''' grounds the TLD must face opposition or be contrary to a significant portion of a community which it purportedly aims to serve. The IO must determine: That the community is a clearly delineated community; that there is a strong association between the community and the string applied for; there is a strong association between the segment of the community on whose half we objects and the string itself; and he must determine that the TLD would produce a significant material detriment to this sizable portion of the community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/community-objections/ Community Objections, Independent Objector New gTlds.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
For the IO to object to on '''Community''' grounds the TLD must face opposition or be contrary to a significant portion of a community which it purportedly aims to serve. The IO must determine: That the community is a clearly delineated community; that there is a strong association between the community and the string applied for; there is a strong association between the segment of the community on whose half we objects and the string itself; and he must determine that the TLD would produce a significant material detriment to this sizable portion of the community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/community-objections/ Community Objections, Independent Objector New gTlds.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
==IO on Controversial Strings==
In December 2012, Mr. Pellet released his first correspondence on actual TLDs, commenting on so-called "Controversial Applications". Those strings include: [[.adult]], [[.sex]], [[.porn]], [[.sexy]], [[.hot]], [[.gay]], [[.lgbt]], [[.persiangulf]], [[.vodka]], and [[.wtf]]. A string seemed to have been deemed "controversial" by Mr. Pellet if it received a substantial amount of objections during the public comment period. He addresses each TLD separately and at length, noting the objection, and turning to International law and precedent to determine whether an objection from his point of view, of defending the public interest, is warranted. In each case he concludes that the objections are not supported by international law and that regional, cultural, and personal issues influence the objections rather than broadly accepted treaties, laws, or international cultural trends. He has reserved the right to later object to the strings, but at that time it was deemed that the "controversial strings" are in fact not offensive to the greater public interest and Internet users.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/ The Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org]Retrieved 8 Jan 2013</ref>
==IO on Closed Generics==
The IO weighed in on the issue of [[gTLD#Closed Strings|closed generic applications]], which became a much discussed topic in the ICANN community in late 2013 and early 2013. Prominent members of the community fought for and against the notion that major corporations could acquire TLDs that feature generic terms, such as [[.book]], [[.cloud]], [[.jewelry]], [[.beauty]], and use them for solely their own interests, thereby cutting off registration to the general public and their competitors. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>
==Criticism==
==Criticism==
A blog criticized the role and office of the IO and a lack of transparency regarding ICANN's contract with him. [[Doug Isenberg]] noted that perhaps the IO was not acting in the Public's best interest, as less than three weeks prior to the close of the objection period it was unclear if the IO had plans to object to any TLDs, and the IO noted that he was not disclosing any of the strings he may object to ahead of time. This created ambiguities for any other group that was weighing an objection given that the office of the IO could not be relied on to disclose its intentions or objections sufficiently ahead of the objection deadline. Mr. Isenberg also takes issue with the fact that ICANN has not published its contract with him and thus his explicit obligations are not known beyond the definition of his role in the applicant guidebook.<ref>[http://isenbergondomains.com/2013/02/20/what-is-the-independent-objector-doing/ What is the Independent Objector Doing, IsenbergDomains.com] Retrieved 21 Feb 2013</ref>
A blog criticized the role and office of the IO and a lack of transparency regarding ICANN's contract with him. [[Doug Isenberg]] noted that perhaps the IO was not acting in the Public's best interest, as less than three weeks prior to the close of the objection period it was unclear if the IO had plans to object to any TLDs, and the IO noted that he was not disclosing any of the strings he may object to ahead of time. This created ambiguities for any other group that was weighing an objection given that the office of the IO could not be relied on to disclose its intentions or objections sufficiently ahead of the objection deadline. Mr. Isenberg also takes issue with the fact that ICANN has not published its contract with him and thus his explicit obligations are not known beyond the definition of his role in the applicant guidebook.<ref>[http://isenbergondomains.com/2013/02/20/what-is-the-independent-objector-doing/ What is the Independent Objector Doing, IsenbergDomains.com] Retrieved 21 Feb 2013</ref>
[[Category: Glossary]]
[[Category: Glossary]]