Comments (7)

1. Constantine Roussos (.MUSIC) says:

   August 21, 2013 at 5:59 pm

   The biggest issue now affecting Community Objections is the one surrounding GAC Advice on Safeguards and Objections concerning lack of safeguards. The music-themed Objections filed in March were all about lack of safeguards. As you may know the GAC Communique came out in April and the ICANN NGPC voted to accept Safeguards Category 2 (since without them the likelihood of material harm is guaranteed for sensitive strings) which were all absent from all open music-themed gTLDs which were part of the GAC Sensitive string list.
   If indeed the issue of material change is followed (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/customer-service/change-requests) then the Objections to these “open” music-themed applicants should be upheld since their current applications do not have these safeguards.
   GAC Safeguard advice which was accepted AFTER Community Objections were submitted are obviously applicable and relevant since they serve to enhance protections and reduce concerns for harm to the music community. It is my hunch the open portfolio applicants objected-to will attempt to discredit the GAC Communique as irrelevant in their arguments which will open a new can of worms.
   Regardless of the fact, if the Community Objection panelists allow these types of material changes to occur and allow another “loophole” to “open” portfolio applicants to squeeze in safeguards which they did not have in their “open” application (which was the basis of the objections) and have Objections rejected then the Objector will be harmed financially since loser pays. Objectors had no knowledge of the GAC Communique or ICANN NGPC accepting safeguards since these followed AFTER objections were submitted.
   ICANN’s responded to concerns we had: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-roussos-14aug13-en
   The unintended consequences ruling against Objector and rejecting the Community Objections will be severe especially since it was ICANN and GAC that determined that pre-dominantly “open” sensitive strings did lack safeguards (i.e they agreed with Objector) and accepted Category 2 safeguards. As many know the costs of these ICC proceedings are material and such a decision would be construed as unfair and create precedent (according to ICANN’s AGB rules on Material Changes).
   For us this is a clear indication that Community Objections relating to lack of safeguards should be upheld but since the entire Objection process has been so inconsistent you never know. A lot of money is on the line though which certainly harm Objectors more than the deep pocketed portfolio applicants. This is the primary reason many communities are withdrawing their Objections: the costs of losing are too severe. Advantage: Deep pocketed portfolio applicants which you see advertising on this blog or owning the DomainNameWire blog.

   Reply
   • John Berryhill says:

     August 21, 2013 at 8:15 pm

     Why would a community TLD string, being managed by the community signified by the string, need any safeguards at all?
     Does anyone think the Vatican is going to let Baptist churches register domains in .catholic?
     That’s the thing about a community. Nobody needs an externally imposed rule to tell the Vatican what they can do with the word “Catholic”. Because of the nature of that community, it is silly for anyone outside of it to suggest “safeguards” to protect the community – they ARE the guardian of the affected community.
     That’s what a community IS.
     (note: yes, I realize that the word “catholic” has a generic meaning in Christianity generally, but it is also true that the unqualified term is most often casually associated with the RCC. Hence, most Protestants stop for a little language lesson when learning the Nicene Creed)

     Reply
2. Zack says:

   August 21, 2013 at 6:43 pm

   I assume you submitted several baseless .music objections? So…what community are you representing? Musicians? Music labels? Street artists? Music lovers? Companies that make musical instruments? Radio stations?

   Reply
   • Constantine Roussos (.MUSIC) says:

     August 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm

     Zack,
     Unfortunately the open portfolio applicants for open music-themed strings objected-to have been spreading their “story” 9which fits their agenda) within ICANN for years to claim there is no music community (which obviously is not a disingenuous claim) and that it is ok to have open music-themed strings to be run like the wild-wild-west without safeguards despite knowledge of the rampant piracy and abuse that are quite known in the music community an are different from any other string: think impact of Napster/Internet on entire space. Safeguards are important and irresponsible policies are not acceptable for such semantic popular strings. Not always about maximizing registrations and profits. What is in the global public interest?
     If you want the delineation and the common interest of the music community it is those involved in the “legal promotion and distribution of music.” Very clearly defined and a common interest shared by all.
     Seems you do not understand what is going on here with open, sensitive music themed strings. Please read: http://music.us/dotmusic-open-music-themed-sensitive-gtld-harm-without-safeguards.pdf
     Obviously these concerns – such as lack of appropriate enhanced safeguards and multi-stakeholder governance structure – are not baseless and it is what we are fighting for. AGB also refers to “a significant portion of the community” not the entire music community. A significant portion: http://music.us/supporters.htm
     My 2 cents on the matter

     Reply
3. Dr Markus says:

   August 21, 2013 at 9:37 pm

   It is interesting to note that famous four media ain’t got no objection on .health anymore. Not the kind of applicant working for the internet user best interests.

   Reply
   • Kevin Murphy says:

     August 21, 2013 at 9:47 pm

     FFM withdrew its application for .health over a month ago.

     Reply
     • Dr Markus says:

       August 22, 2013 at 12:58 am

       Good to know. Thank you.

       Reply