Independent Objector: Difference between revisions

Line 52:

==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==

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>

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ==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==
 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>