Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

gTLD Objector says .sex, .gay, .wtf are all okay

Kevin Murphy, December 26, 2012, 07:52:10 (UTC), Domain Policy

The Independent Objector for ICANN’s new gTLD program has given a preliminary nod to applications for .sex, .gay, .wtf and six other potentially “controversial” applied-for strings.
Alain Pellet this week told applicants for these gTLDs that he does not expect to file objections against their bids, despite an outpouring of public comments against them.
The strings given the okay are .adult, .gay, .hot, .lgbt, persiangulf, .porn .sex .sexy, and .wtf.
A total of 15 applications have been submitted for these strings. Some, such as .gay with four applicants, are contested. Others, such as .wtf and .porn, are not.
The IO is limited to filing objections on two rather tightly controlled grounds: Limited Public Interest (where the bid would violate international law) and Community (where a community would be disenfranchised).
For each of the nine strings, Pellet has decided that neither type of objection is warranted.
In his preliminary finding on .gay and .lgbt, he also noted that to file an objection “could be held incompatible with the obligation of States not to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity which is emerging as a norm”.
As part of a lengthy analysis of the international legal position on homosexuality, De Pellet wrote:

even though the IO acknowledges that homosexuality can be perceived as immoral in some States, there is no legal norm that would transcribe such a value judgment at the international level. Thus, the position of certain communities on the issue is not relevant in respect to the IO’s possibility to object to an application on the limited public interest ground.

For the porn-related applications, Pellet noted that any bid for a gTLD promoting child abuse material would certainly be objected to, but that ICANN has received no such application.
On .wtf, which received many public comments because it’s an acronym including profanity, Pellet observed that freedom of expression is sacred under international law.
He regarded the problem of excessive defensive registrations — as raised by the Australian government in the recent wave of Governmental Advisory Committee early warnings — is outside his remit.
Pellet’s findings, which I think will be welcomed by most parts of the ICANN community, are not unexpected.
Limited Public Interest Objection, originally known as the Morality and Public Order Objection, had been put forward in the wake of the approval of .xxx in 2010 as a way for governments to bring their national laws to bear on the DNS.
But it was painstakingly defanged by the Generic Names Supporting Organization in order to make it almost impossible for it to be used as a way to curb civil rights.
The GAC instead shifted its efforts to the GAC Advice on New gTLDs objection, which enables individual governments to submit objections vicariously based on their own national interest.
Pellet’s findings — which are preliminary but seem very unlikely to be reversed — can be read in full on his web site.

Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

  1. Peter Green says:
    December 26, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Wish Merry Chirstmas，Kevin.
    A little unexpected about IO’s not objecting .sex etc.
    What about others potentially controvertial strings? Which are possible for IO to lodge objections?

    Reply
    • Kevin Murphy says:
      December 26, 2012 at 8:45 am

      The Limited Public Interest Objection is so narrowly defined, I don’t think we’ll see any of those. It’s only apps that would break norms of international law, and I don’t think there are any of those.
      The Community Objection will only come into play if there’s no formal objection from an affected community, so I doubt we’ll see many of those either.
      The IO may turn out to be more of a deterrent to silliness than anything else.

      Reply
      • Peter Green says:
        December 27, 2012 at 1:14 am

        Indeed, of the IO’s comments on controvertial strings, we can see lines of similar expressions like “Because the definition of what is …….greatly differs over time and societies, it is unlikely that a global consensus would be ever reached on ….. Thus, it falls within each State, society, religious or cultural group to define……. ”
        If so, the IO is saying nothing?

        Reply
  2. Foobar says:
    January 4, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Can’t wait for ICANN’s freedom of expression in Beijing. Forget the #icann46 hashtag.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Kevin Murphy

Click here to cancel reply.