Changes

==Independent Objector==

==Independent Objector==

The [[Independent Objector]]  is responsible for determining if a new gTLD application is in the best interest of the Internet community. If not, he or she will file formal objections against a new gTLD application. [[Alain Pellet]], a law professor from the University of Paris and a former member of the United Nations International Law Commission and International Court of Justice, was chosen by ICANN to serve as the sole independent objector for the [[New gTLD Program]] in May, 2012. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14may12-en.htm Independent Objector for New gTLD Program Selected]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 14.</ref> The position was created by ICANN in accordance with the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program]]. As defined, the IO may be an individual or organization and must not be affiliated with any applicant and must carry out their responsibility without bias.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/wanted-somebody-to-object-to-new-gtlds/ Wanted: somebody to object to new gTLDs]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 23. Retrieved 2012 November 15.</ref>  

The [[Independent Objector]]  is responsible for determining if a new gTLD application is in the best interest of the Internet community. If not, they will file formal objections against a new gTLD application. [[Alain Pellet]], a law professor from the University of Paris and a former member of the United Nations International Law Commission and International Court of Justice, was chosen by ICANN to serve as the sole independent objector for the [[New gTLD Program]] in May, 2012. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14may12-en.htm Independent Objector for New gTLD Program Selected]. ICANN. Published 2012 May 14.</ref> The position was created by ICANN in accordance with the implementation of the [[New gTLD Program]]. As defined, the IO may be an individual or organization and must not be affiliated with any applicant and must carry out their responsibility without bias.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/wanted-somebody-to-object-to-new-gtlds/ Wanted: somebody to object to new gTLDs]. Domain Incite. Published 2011 November 23. Retrieved 2012 November 15.</ref>  

In December 2012 Mr. Pellet released his first correspondence on actual TLDs, commenting on so-called "Controversial strings". 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>

In December 2012 Mr. Pellet released his first correspondence on actual TLDs, commenting on so-called "Controversial strings". 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>