Changes

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

==Criticism==

==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>

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>