6,681
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + − + − + − + Line 32:
Line 32: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 41:
Line 67: − − [http://domainnamewire.com/2013/12/12/icann-ombudsman-investigating-inconsistent-new-tld-objection-decisions/]
→Determinations
<i>Main article: [[String Confusion Objection]]</i>
<i>Main article: [[String Confusion Objection]]</i>
Objector argues that Internet users will be confused between the applied-for string and an existing TLD, because the strings appear to be similar or share letters or meaning.
Objector argues that Internet users will be confused between the applied-for string and an existing TLD, because the strings appear to be similar or share letters or meaning. Initially there were 67 Objections of this typed that were submitted.
* <b>Legal Right Objections</b>
* <b>Legal Right Objections</b>
The objector argues that an applied-for string violates the legal rights of the objector.
The objector argues that an applied-for string violates the legal rights of the objector. Initially there were 71 Objections of this typed that were submitted.
* <b>Limited Public Interest Objections</b>
* <b>Limited Public Interest Objections</b>
The objector argues that the applied-for string goes against accepted legal or moral norms recognized under international law.
The objector argues that the applied-for string goes against accepted legal or moral norms recognized under international law. Initially there were 23 Objections of this typed that were submitted.
* <b>Community Objections</b>
* <b>Community Objections</b>
<i>Main article: [[Community Objection]]</i>
<i>Main article: [[Community Objection]]</i>
Objector argues that a substantial portion of the community that the applied-for string targets is against the delegation of that string.<ref name="odr">[http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr Objection and Dispute Resolution, ICANN.org] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
Objector argues that a substantial portion of the community that the applied-for string targets is against the delegation of that string. Initially there were 113 Objections of this typed that were submitted.<ref name="odr">[http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr Objection and Dispute Resolution, ICANN.org] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref><ref>[http://domainincite.com/12425-icann-about-274-new-gtld-objections-filed ICANN: about 274 New gTLD Objections Filed, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
==Dispute Resolution Service Providers==
==Dispute Resolution Service Providers==
The [[WIPO]] charges a flat $10,000 fee to each party, some amount of which is then refunded to the prevailing party depending on the arbitration proceedings. A Single-Expert Panel or a Three-Expert Panel may be selected, requiring $10,000 and $23,000 in fees respectively. Discounts are given when one objector submits objections to different strings or when one string has multiple objections decided in one proceeding.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ WIPO Fees] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref> Details of WIPO's fees can be found here:
The [[WIPO]] charges a flat $10,000 fee to each party, some amount of which is then refunded to the prevailing party depending on the arbitration proceedings. A Single-Expert Panel or a Three-Expert Panel may be selected, requiring $10,000 and $23,000 in fees respectively. Discounts are given when one objector submits objections to different strings or when one string has multiple objections decided in one proceeding.<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ WIPO Fees] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref> Details of WIPO's fees can be found here:
* [http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/fees/ Schedule of Legal Rights Objection Fees, WIPO.int]
* [[Media:wipo_fees.pdf|WIPO Fees (PDF)]]
The [[ICC]] charges a non-refundable €5,000 to the applicant and the objector, and the expert's hourly rate is €450. Both parties also pay for administrative expenses, which will not exceed €12,000 for a single expert or €17,000 for a three-expert panel.<ref>[http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Expertise/ICANN-New-gTLD-Dispute-Resolution/Costs-and-Payments/ ICC Fees] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref> Applicants originally reported to ICANN that the ICC quoted some applicants at €50,000 for a single expert and €150,000 for a three-expert panel. ICANN promised to discuss the fees with ICC and they were ultimately reduced.<ref name="netnames"></ref> Details of the ICC's fee can be found here:
The [[ICC]] charges a non-refundable €5,000 to the applicant and the objector, and the expert's hourly rate is €450. Both parties also pay for administrative expenses, which will not exceed €12,000 for a single expert or €17,000 for a three-expert panel.<ref>[http://www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Expertise/ICANN-New-gTLD-Dispute-Resolution/Costs-and-Payments/ ICC Fees] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref> Applicants originally reported to ICANN that the ICC quoted some applicants at €50,000 for a single expert and €150,000 for a three-expert panel. ICANN promised to discuss the fees with ICC and they were ultimately reduced.<ref name="netnames"></ref> Details of the ICC's fee can be found here:
* [[Media:Icc_fees.pdf|ICC Fees (PDF)]]
* [[Media:Icc_fees.pdf|ICC Fees (PDF)]]
===Objection Funding===
Certain governmental entities and individuals in the [[ALAC]] can apply to [[ICANN]] to receive financial assistance with submitting a formal objection. The period for apply for funds ended 11 March 2012.<ref name="odr"></ref>
==Independent Objector==
<i>Main article: [[Independent Objector]]</i>
The Independent Objector (IO) was stipulated in the [[Applicant Guidebook]] as a neutral party who is responsible for determining if a New gTLD application is in the best interests of the Internet community. If they find the application is not in the community's best interests, they can file a formal objection against the application. [[Alain Pellet]] was selected by [[ICANN]] to be the IO, and he ultimately submitted 24 formal Objections to various applications<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12265-amazon-and-google-hit-as-independent-objector-files-24-new-gtld-objections Amazon and Google Hit as IO Files 24 New gTLD Objections] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
==Determinations==
The first determinations were decided in early July 2013 by the [[WIPO]].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/13654-first-three-new-gtld-objections-thrown-out First Three New gTLD Objections Thrown Out, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref> By December 2013 more than 200 Objections had been decided.<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/determination Objection Determinations, ICANN.org] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
===Controversial Decisions===
A number of the determinations by expert panelists have become a top of much debate within the Internet and ICANN community. These include conflicting decisions on plural vs. singular strings, and different decisions on separate applications for the same string.
====Plural vs Singular Strings====
The [[String Similarity Panel]] decided in February 2013 that the strings [[.hotel]] and [[.hotels]] would not be confusing to Internet users. Furthermore, an Objection case submitted by the applicant of [[.car]] against [[.cars]] was decided in favor of [[.cars]], as the panelist decided the strings were not confusingly similar. These two cases were initially thought to set the precedent for further decisions that plural versions of strings are not confusingly similar to their singular counterparts. However, an [[ICDR]] panelist decided that [[.pets]] and [[.pet]] are confusingly similar, and he determined the case in favor of [[Google]], the [[.pet]] applicant. [[ICANN]] has yet to respond to or reconcile these conflicting decisions.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14224-google-beats-donuts-in-objection-pet-and-pets-are-confusingly-similar Google beats Donuts in Objection - .pet and .pets are confusingly similar, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
====Conflicting decisions on a single string====
Another situation that created controversy was also a situated that had not seem to be taken into account ahead of time by [[ICANN]]. In one case, [[Verisign]] submitted separate objections to all three applicants for the [[.cam]] string, saying it was confusingly similar to their [[.com]]. The company lost two of its objections but won a third against [[Demand Media]]. In a similar case, Google objected to all three applicants for [[.cars]], but only prevailed against one applicant.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14239-string-confusion-in-disarray-as-demands-cam-loses-against-verisigns-com String Confusion in Disarray as Demand's .cam loses against Verisign's .com, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
The conflicting decisions prompted many applicants to call for an appeals process that could sort out these situations. On 13 December 2013 the [[ICANN Ombudsman]] published a blog post calling for the community's feedback on the issue.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/15304-should-new-gtlds-objections-have-an-appeals-process Should New gTLDs Objections have an Appeals Process, DomainIncite] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
===Possible Appeals Process===
In response to some of the more controversial or troublesome decisions, many applicants called on [[ICANN]] to create some sort of appeals process for disputing Objection Determinations. In February 2014 ICANN released a statement by the [[NGPC]] that announced the committee is considering a "path forward" to address inconsistent determinations which will include some sort of "review mechanism". However, this review will only consider determinations on [[.car]]/[[.cars]] and [[.cam]]/[[.com]], leaving other conflicting determinations without an appeals process.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/15782-conflicting-gtld-objection-decisions-to-get-appeals-process Conflicting gTLD Objection Decisions to Get Appeals Process, DomainIncite] Retrieved 10 Feb 2014</ref>
==Public Comments vs. Formal Objections==
==Public Comments vs. Formal Objections==
Some news organizations reported that Saudi Arabia was "Objecting" to a number of New gTLD applications, including [[.gay]] and [[.bible]]. However, these objections were filed in the Applicant Comments Forum and were not formal objections, thus they did not require a response from the applicants nor did they require an expert determination.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/08/16/icann_top_level_domain_applications_saudi_arabia_apparently_objects_to_catholic_gay_bible_.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest Saudi Arabia Objections to .catholic and .gay, Slate.com] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
Some news organizations reported that Saudi Arabia was "Objecting" to a number of New gTLD applications, including [[.gay]] and [[.bible]]. However, these objections were filed in the Applicant Comments Forum and were not formal objections, thus they did not require a response from the applicants nor did they require an expert determination.<ref>[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/08/16/icann_top_level_domain_applications_saudi_arabia_apparently_objects_to_catholic_gay_bible_.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest Saudi Arabia Objections to .catholic and .gay, Slate.com] Retrieved 13 Dec 2013</ref>
==References==
==References==