Displaying posts tagged under "google"
Two objections against .search domain name fail.
Google’s bid to run the .search top level domain name has survived community objections brought by competition groups.
The objections were brought by FairSearch and Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace, both organizations made up of Google competitors.
This is FairSearch’s third failed objection against Google. It also objected to .fly and .map.
The panelist in both .search objections granted that both objectors had standing, and even agreed that “search” is a community.
The community discussion was rather interesting. Panelist Erik Schafer said he was basing his decision on what a community is based primarily on “Implementation Guideline P, Annex C to ICANN GNSO Final Report, Introduction of new Generic Top-Level Domains, 8 August 2007.” That’s five years before applications were due and well before the Applicant Guidebook was created!
The objections failed because the objectors were not able to show a likelihood of material detriment to the community from Google being delegated the domain names.
FairSearch certainly made some stretched arguments in its case. This one is my favorite:
Objector also contends that ceding the TLD ‘.search’ to Applicant alone would create confusion, leading consumers to believe Applicant has been endorsed as the chief, or even worse, the sold provider of Internet search services.
Endorsed by whom? The Internet gods?
Google still faces competition, including by Amazon.com, for getting the .search domain.
Panel determines .med would create likelihood of detriment to medical community.
Internet powerhouse Google and one of the world’s most respected health institutions, The Cleveland Clinic, have both seen their hopes for operating a .med top level domain name dashed by an arbitration panel.
Both parties were on the losing end of community objections filed by Independent Objector Alain Pellet as part of the new top level domain name objection process.
International Chamber of Commerce arbitration panelist Fabian von Schlabrendorff ruled that “med,” short for “medical,” represents a clearly delineated community that would face a likelihood of material detriment should either Google or Cleveland Clinic be delegated the .med top level domain name.
This decision is consistent with another arbitration panel’s ruling against Donuts’ bid for .medical.
The Independent Objector also filed Limited Public Interest objections against Google, Cleveland Clinic, HEXAP. He lost all of those objections.
Because HEXAP filed its application as a community application, Pellet did not file a community objection against it. Therefore, assuming ICANN does not create a way to reverse panel decisions, only HEXAP’s .med application continues.
The decision against Cleveland Clinic is embedded below.
Panelist unmoved by FairSearch.org’s arguments against Google’s bid to run a .map top level domain name.
FairSearch.org, a consortium representing companies that compete against Google, is now 0-for-2 in community objections it filed against Google’s top level domain name applications.
Khvalei found that FairSearch.org failed on a number of fronts and didn’t have standing to bring the case. He found it difficult to determine how this one organization somehow represents the “map” community, if that even exists, while simultaneously claiming to represent the “search” and “fly” communities.
He also bought into Google’s argument that FairSearch.org is more of an anti-Google community than a pro-map community (whatever that is), as it did not bother to file an objection against Amazon.com’s closed .map application.
The panelist in the .fly dispute gave FairSearch.org a bit more slack, only after the panelist re-defined the community FairSearch sought to represent. (You read that correctly: the panelist in the .fly decision re-defined the community at issue to help FairSearch’s argument.)
Still, in both disputes FairSearch failed to prove the required elements of prevail in a community objection.
FairSearch.org was tardy in making its EUR 58,600 payment to the arbitration center, which sparked a bit on controversy. The group claimed it had to scrap together the money, but the International Chamber of Commerce let the slight delay slide.
System allows people to alert Google that a page has been deleted, blocked, or changed.
Google has improved its tools for removing a page from its search results or cache on a website you don’t own.
The tool is designed for people to alert Google that a page has been deleted, had robots.txt added, or the content has been changed.
I think you can call this the mugshot removal tool, since one of its purposes is to remove mugshot pages from Google once the mugshot site owner deletes it. It can also be used when a revenge porn site operator capitulates or shuts down his site due to a criminal indictment.
In order to submit a request, the owner of the site must have deleted the page, blocked it from search, or changed the content. If the contents has been changed, you must submit at least one word on the page that has been removed (e.g., your name).
The cache removal feature ensures that a Google searcher can’t see the previous version of the site with the embarrassing information on it.
Google’s own help pages on the topic don’t discuss mugshot and revenge porn sites, instead providing a less threatening example:
Say you’ve discovered a page stating that “Susan’s cats are ugly”. The webmaster has updated the site so that it now indicates that “Susan’s cats are beautiful.” The problem is that the text “Susan’s cats are ugly” still appears in the cached page, and is turning up in search results snippets.
Group’s definition of “cloud community” is too broad.
Cloud Industry Forum Limited has lost its community objections against three applications for the .cloud top level domain name.
The objections were filed against the three applicants who planned to keep their .cloud registries closed to registrations: Google, Amazon.com, and Symantec.
Panelist Stephen L. Drymer ruled that the community Cloud Industry Forum claimed in the objection is not “clearly delineated.”
The trade group refereed to the community in question as the “cloud computing industry,” and then listed 13 examples of participants. They range from hosting providers to lawyers specializing in the field to entities that represent end-users.
Drymer determined that’s not a clearly delineated community:
“With respect, what Objector is proposing here is effectively a community of virtually anyone and everyone – individuals; businesses; private and public groups; professional, academic and government entities – having anything to do with or any interest in cloud computing.”
Drymer later clarified that it’s not just the generic nature of “cloud” alone that formed his opinion, but the broad and ever-changing community Cloud Industry Forum Limited sought to represent.
I wonder what would have happened had the objector simply said it represented cloud service providers and not everyone who touches cloud services? After all, “sport” can apparently be a community.