6,681
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 53:
Line 67: − − [http://domainnamewire.com/2013/12/12/icann-ombudsman-investigating-inconsistent-new-tld-objection-decisions/]
→Determinations
==Determinations==
==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>
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==