27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: − + + +
→Independent Objectior
==Independent Objectior==
==Independent Objectior==
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, 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>
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>
With regards to .adult, the [[Independent Objector]] notes that most all objections raise concerns about greater space created for pornographic material, and cite moral, religious, or cultural issues with this fact. Mr. Pellet notes that there is no singular international consensus on the morality of pornographic material and it is one decided by local governments with regards to domestic perceptions and cultural and moral norms. He goes on to note that the creation of a .adult TLD could have the effect of clearly labeling pornographic material, thereby making it easier for offended people to avoid or block such content. He notes that the only widely accepted international norm and treaties on the matter that overlap specifically address the harm or exploitation of children, including with regards to sexual or pornographic scenarios. However, he notes that there is no reason to believe that the creation of a .adult TLD will make it easier to disseminate material that offends in this regard, and it could even prove to more closely regulate pornography and potentially offensive material.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/adult-general-comment/ Adult General Comment, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org]</ref>
==References==
==References==