.army: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
The United States representative simply notes that the name is confusingly similar to an official government agency;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-US-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353430678000 Army US, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> The Australian warning notes that this similarity will not only confuse end-users but negatively impact national armed forces services;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-AU-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451368000 Army AU, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> India adds that this will cause irreparable harm to the safety and security of the nation.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-IN-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353468960000 Army IN, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> All three governments recommend that [[Demand Media]] withdraw the application. Similar warnings were made to their other military focused applications, such as [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]]. | The United States representative simply notes that the name is confusingly similar to an official government agency;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-US-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353430678000 Army US, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> The Australian warning notes that this similarity will not only confuse end-users but negatively impact national armed forces services;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-AU-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451368000 Army AU, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> India adds that this will cause irreparable harm to the safety and security of the nation.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-IN-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353468960000 Army IN, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> All three governments recommend that [[Demand Media]] withdraw the application. Similar warnings were made to their other military focused applications, such as [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]]. | ||
==Independent Objector== | ===Independent Objector=== | ||
The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .army, where he also mentions [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]], where he notes that his initial assessment led him to believe that the TLDs could mislead the end-users that the domain is associated with a national army. He notes that his final assessment changed sides, and he was reassured by the applicant's intent to create a safe TLD, when include provision for "“very broad array of protection mechanisms will insure that these gTLDs are safe for consumers and will not be abused”. These guarantees include, inter alia, “remediation of inaccurate WhoIs data, including suspending a domain name, if warranted”, “rigorous Terms of Use that prohibit illegal or abusive activity”, “limitations on domain name proxy and privacy services”, “published policies and procedures that define abusive activity”, and “a new Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) to insure greater trademark protection for trademark holders”. On this last point, the applicant made a commitment that they “will work with governments around the globe to insure that any government related trademarks blocked from use”."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/army-general-comment/ Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 5 Mar 2013</ref> | The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .army, where he also mentions [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]], where he notes that his initial assessment led him to believe that the TLDs could mislead the end-users that the domain is associated with a national army. He notes that his final assessment changed sides, and he was reassured by the applicant's intent to create a safe TLD, when include provision for "“very broad array of protection mechanisms will insure that these gTLDs are safe for consumers and will not be abused”. These guarantees include, inter alia, “remediation of inaccurate WhoIs data, including suspending a domain name, if warranted”, “rigorous Terms of Use that prohibit illegal or abusive activity”, “limitations on domain name proxy and privacy services”, “published policies and procedures that define abusive activity”, and “a new Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) to insure greater trademark protection for trademark holders”. On this last point, the applicant made a commitment that they “will work with governments around the globe to insure that any government related trademarks blocked from use”."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/army-general-comment/ Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 5 Mar 2013</ref> | ||
==Registration Policies== | |||
'''Excerpted from response to Question 18:'''<br> | '''Excerpted from response to Question 18:'''<br> | ||
United TLD will be inclusive in its registration policies for this broad and generic TLD. We will not limit registrant eligibility for second-level registrations and will provide registration services to all legitimate registrants. However, we may elect to reserve and hold back certain strings from second-level registration at the time we launch the TLD. | United TLD will be inclusive in its registration policies for this broad and generic TLD. We will not limit registrant eligibility for second-level registrations and will provide registration services to all legitimate registrants. However, we may elect to reserve and hold back certain strings from second-level registration at the time we launch the TLD. |
Revision as of 22:00, 5 March 2013
Status: | Proposed |
Manager: | Demand Media |
Registry Provider: | Demand Media |
Type: | Generic |
Category: | Government |
Priority #: | 665 - Demand Media (United TLD Holdco Ltd.) |
More information: |
.army is a proposed TLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program. The applicant is Demand Media (United TLD Holdco Ltd.).[1]
GAC Early Warnings[edit | edit source]
The application was issued three GAC Early Warnings, from The United States, Australia, and India. The warning system is noted as a strong recommendation on behalf of national governments to the ICANN Board that a given TLD application should be denied as it stands. Applicants are encouraged to work with objecting GAC members.[2]
The United States representative simply notes that the name is confusingly similar to an official government agency;[3] The Australian warning notes that this similarity will not only confuse end-users but negatively impact national armed forces services;[4] India adds that this will cause irreparable harm to the safety and security of the nation.[5] All three governments recommend that Demand Media withdraw the application. Similar warnings were made to their other military focused applications, such as .navy and .airforce.
Independent Objector[edit | edit source]
The Independent Objector (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for ICANN's New gTLD Program, and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .army, where he also mentions .navy and .airforce, where he notes that his initial assessment led him to believe that the TLDs could mislead the end-users that the domain is associated with a national army. He notes that his final assessment changed sides, and he was reassured by the applicant's intent to create a safe TLD, when include provision for "“very broad array of protection mechanisms will insure that these gTLDs are safe for consumers and will not be abused”. These guarantees include, inter alia, “remediation of inaccurate WhoIs data, including suspending a domain name, if warranted”, “rigorous Terms of Use that prohibit illegal or abusive activity”, “limitations on domain name proxy and privacy services”, “published policies and procedures that define abusive activity”, and “a new Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) to insure greater trademark protection for trademark holders”. On this last point, the applicant made a commitment that they “will work with governments around the globe to insure that any government related trademarks blocked from use”."[6]
Registration Policies[edit | edit source]
Excerpted from response to Question 18:
United TLD will be inclusive in its registration policies for this broad and generic TLD. We will not limit registrant eligibility for second-level registrations and will provide registration services to all legitimate registrants. However, we may elect to reserve and hold back certain strings from second-level registration at the time we launch the TLD.
We will not tolerate illegal activity in this TLD and will have strict policies and enforcement that provide for takedown or other appropriate forms of remedy. United TLD will adhere to and uphold all ICANN-required registration policies and comply with the requirements of the registration policy portion of the Registry Agreement."[7]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Reveal Day 13 June 2012 – New gTLD Applied-For Strings
- ↑ GAC Early Warning, NewgTLDS.ICANN.org Retrieved 25 Nov 2012
- ↑ Army US, GACweb.ICANN.org
- ↑ Army AU, GACweb.ICANN.org
- ↑ Army IN, GACweb.ICANN.org
- ↑ Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org Retrieved 5 Mar 2013
- ↑ ApplicationDetails, gTLDresult.ICANN.orgRetrieved 12 Dec 2012