Tuesday, March 5, 2013

My last email to the IO (the Independent Objector)

I just read most of the comments by the Independent Objector on controversial applications. My first thought is that the IO procedure is useless: "all this for that ?".

It is obvious we want more pornography for our children on Internet...

Now the guy seems to have done his job: he did complex analyses for some of the most commented applications and he wrote a lot. ICANN likes it when its service providers write a lot :-)

As for now there won't be any objection but this could change. In some of its comments he wrote: "this comment is still preliminary and does not prejudge the IO’s final decision to file an objection against the applications or not."

So I sent him this email:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dear Sir,

Since your web site is available in English only, I guess I should be writing in English too.

I just read your comments on Controversial Applications and wonder if more are coming: I found the same sentence in some comments: "It is important to note that this comment is still preliminary and does not prejudge the IO’s final decision to file an objection against the application or not."

I have 2 questions:
  1. Can you confirm you may still Object to some of the already listed new gTLD applications?
  2. Could there be more comments coming on new applications on your web site?
Thank you.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I hope he answers.


Jean Guillon said...

Alain PELLET, ICANN - Independent Objector, sent me a kind answer me today. I am expecting his approval for publication.

Anonymous said...

Dear M. Guillon,

Thank you for your email and interest in the IO’s functions.

You may have noticed that some of the new gTLD applications have given rise to numerous comments on the public comments webpage of ICANN and on the Internet. It does not necessarily imply that I will file an objection against those applications, since I am an independent decision maker in determining which applications merit objection and only act in the best interests of the public who uses the Internet.

However, since I am committed to transparency, I deemed it appropriate to issue a public general comment on those controversial applications. The general comments posted on my website give a strong indication that, in principle, I do not intend to lodge an objection against the concerned application but I reserve the right to object to these applications in case new issues arise.

Also, as announced on my website, I already engaged a team of lawyers to represent me before the ICC expert Panels which will be set up to examine my objections. However, please note that I do not wish to disclose the list of my objections. According to Section 3.2.5 of the Applicant Guidebook, “absent extraordinary circumstances, the IO is not permitted to file an objection to an application where an objection has already been filed on the same ground”. It implies that I am acting as a “safety net” and I do not wish to discourage any party, which would have direct interests or which would be better placed, to file an objection.

As for your second question, I will soon post a new general comment on the largely commented issue of the “generic closed” gTLDs.

I remain at your disposal if you have any further questions.


ICANN - Independent Objector.

.BRAND new gTLD Reports are updated once a month: CLICK HERE !