.church: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==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, noting that the articles and objections to the applications are largely supportive of a .church TLD but call in to question either applicant's ability to administer the TLD fairly. He sought assurances from both applicants to ensure that they would keep the TLD open and inclusive to all those that identify with the term "church" and use it to describe their religious habits, both were forthcoming and he concluded that no objection was warranted.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/church-general-comment/ The Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Church General Comment, 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 .church, noting that the articles and objections to the applications are largely supportive of a .church TLD but call in to question either applicant's ability to administer the TLD fairly. He sought assurances from both applicants to ensure that they would keep the TLD open and inclusive to all those that identify with the term "church" and use it to describe their religious habits, both were forthcoming and he concluded that no objection was warranted.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/church-general-comment/ The Independent Objectors Comments on Controversial Applications, Church General Comment, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 5 Mar 2013</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 5 March 2013
| Status: | Proposed |
| Type: | Generic |
| Category: | Culture |
More information: 
| |
.church is a proposed TLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program.
Applicants[edit | edit source]
Two entities submitted applications to serve as registry operator for the .church TLD:[1]
- Life Covenant Church, Inc., an inter-denominational church
- Donuts (Holly Fileds, LLC), this is one of 307 new gTLD by Donuts. Each application via a different LLC.[2]
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 .church, noting that the articles and objections to the applications are largely supportive of a .church TLD but call in to question either applicant's ability to administer the TLD fairly. He sought assurances from both applicants to ensure that they would keep the TLD open and inclusive to all those that identify with the term "church" and use it to describe their religious habits, both were forthcoming and he concluded that no objection was warranted.[3]