Public comments on new TLD applications range from boring to misinformed.
Anyone with an email address (and I do mean anyone) can comment on any one of the nearly 2,000 top level domain applications.
As of right now there are 161 submitted comments, mostly covering just a handful of proposed top level domains.
Many of the comments are predictable. As we saw with .xxx, religious folk do a good job with email blast campaigns. So there’s plenty of “support” for Life Covenant Church’s .church application (and someone telling a detractor he will burn in hell).
Eflux.art has put together some campaigning as well, getting a number of artists to write in to support its application for .art.
.Patagonia is attracting a lot of comments because it is geographical, although the applicant is a company of the same name (Patagonia, Inc.). One commenter says they’d be “offended” if the domain were awarded to an enterprise. I hate when people use the word “offended” too loosely. It evokes emotion, so people throw it out there. But c’mon, I wouldn’t be offended if someone create a domain with Texas in it.
Unless it was some New Yorker or something. Then I’d be offended.
There’s also someone who missed the point of Verisign’s transliterations of .com domains. There are at least two complaints from someone who points out that if you heard one of the transliterations on the radio, you wouldn’t know if you should type in .com or the transliteration:
Hearing a website address (through for example a phone, radio, etc) that ends with the phonetic sound (ˈkɑːm) by an Arabic-speaking user will cause him/her to bewilder about the correct website whether it’s under the Latin TLD (.com) or the Arabic IDN TLD (.كوم). Thus, it may direct the user to the wrong website.
The commenter objects due to string similarity.
I think he missed the memo that VeriSign is going to attach these domains to the existing IDN.com (ASCII TLD) domain. So you wouldn’t land on the “wrong” web site.
That said, if you have an IDN.com and you don’t pay to “unlock” the IDN.IDN, then I suppose the person wouldn’t be able to find your web site. I hadn’t thought about that before now. (And I still think ICANN’s contract for these domains should stipulate that they are attached to the .com contract.)
Then there’s the person who says that the domains .oldnavy (applied for by The GAP) and .navy (applied for by Demand Media) violate Australian Law. Ian Campbell of the Royal Australian Navy – Department of Defence writes:
Within Australia the Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) Regulations 1957 prohibits the use of the word ‘Navy’ by persons or organisations outside of the Royal Australian Navy unless the Minister for Defence or his delegate gives their consent for the use.
Oh yeah, well I’ll sick my country’s navy on your country’s navy and see what happens.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the GAC objects to .navy (but they wouldn’t overreach and go after the brand TLD .oldnavy). This comment just goes to show how difficult it will be dealing with GAC objections. The term “navy” doesn’t belong to Australia or any other country. But they all will feel that their individual rules should apply to the world.
Ms Domainer says
*
I believe that all generic strings ought to be denied, even TM’d generics, such as .apple.
Period.
I suspect that the lawsuits will come fast and furious and hold up the process for years to come.
*
John Berryhill says
Little known fact: The Village People were banned in Australia for singing “In The Navy.”
Tell It Like It Iz says
Now that Rodney King is in cyberspace, can’t we all just get along and agree that the gtld concept is foolish and a total waste of everyone’s time?
JP says
The .navy thing interesting. So I guess .navy domains can’t be reg’d by Aussies. Bet there is no OldNavy store there either. But yes I’m sure that even if .navy is not allowed in the root, .oldnavy will be because when it comes to the domain space there is absolutely nothing more important that corporate trademarks. They supersede all governments and laws and are essentially a protected class.
FarmerJohn says
.Pantagonia = typo?
Not trying to skirt the subject, but maybe add to the fabric of this discussion.
You have it right the second time, so surely I will cut you some slacks.
Andrew Allemann says
That’s a typo, fixed. Thanks
Karen Bernstein says
John, tell me where can I find that factoid about the Village People? I’m going to solicit them and their record label to file an objection:)
Pierre G says
In a free world everybody is not PARKED depending of its taste, sexual orientations, religious orientations, center of interests…
Pierre G says
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)
Pierre G says
PATRIOT ACT
SIPA
SOPA
FBI ON FACEBOOK…
Pierre G says
Is it better than Politics in certain countries that forbid words, ideas, opinions…?
Pierre G says
Is new GTLDS a censorship or a real freedom ?? THIS IS THE QUESTION
noah says
Wow. After reading through some of the comments it seems clear that many …if not all… of the GTLDs will never ever see the light of day.
Andrew Allemann says
@ noah – an individual’s comments only go so far, and that’s not too far. You can file a formal objection if you pay a fee. There’s also an independent objector who can object on behalf of society. He’s got a $25M budget, so he’ll certainly object to something.
domains says
GTLDs are doomed to .fail
You read it here first.