The Official Objection Procedure

Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars ICANN possesses in funds from its jurisdiction over the internet naming system and rollout of new gTLDs, lodging an Official Objection is prohibitively expensive for just about anyone. There can be little doubt that the exorbitant cost has discouraged official objections when in comparison you consider that a large volume of negative comments have been made when that option is free.

The parameters that narrowly define anyone's eligibility to make objections are highly controversial. The definition of "objection" should be limitless, not narrow. ICANN has apparently not foreseen the possibility of the rise of powerful economic domain monopolies, but in any case the problem should have been easy to object to and the procedure should have had open parameters.

To a domain and brand expert, the problem is very real and self-evident.

Justice is justice. Justice knows no boundaries.

An injustice served on just one individual is still an injustice. In which country does the law require substantial "community opposition" to an act before justice is carried out?

More follows.

ICANN Procedure

The objection period for the new gTLDs began in 2012 and closed in 2013. More details are published on the ICANN Objection and Dispute Resolution page.

There are four categories of objections:

1. String confusion
2. Legal rights
3. Limited public interest
4. Community

SPECIAL NOTE: Objections are not filed directly with ICANN but with authorized Dispute Resolution Service Providers as follows:

1. String confusion —
The International Centre for Dispute Resolution

2. Legal rights —
World Intellectual Property Organization

3. Limited public interest —
The International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce

4. Community —
The International Center of Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce

"Community" seems to be the applicable category where you can lodge a formal objection to an exclusively owned dictionary word domain string application like .game. In other words, "Community" seems to be where you must lodge an objection if you care about the anti competitive intentions of some of the domain string proposals as described on this website. The fees are high — expect to pay in the range of $40-50,000 or more.

"The non-refundable amount for the administration of proceedings pursuant to the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure is €5,000.

"The administrative expenses shall, normally, not exceed €12,000 for one expert panel proceedings and €17,000 for three expert panel proceedings...

"The fees of each expert shall be calculated on the basis of the time reasonably spent by the expert on the proceedings... The hourly rate shall be €450 unless decided otherwise by the Centre after consultation with the expert and the parties."

International Centre for ADR

For further details, visit ICANN's Objection and Dispute Resolution page, scroll down to the Community section, and click on ICC Fees to download a PDF file.

SPECIAL NOTE: ICANN received about $350m in application fees for the new gTLDs. A percentage of this should have been spent on a global awareness campaign.

Eligibility to lodge an objection is unnecessarily restrictive — the process excludes many possible legitimate points of view:

"• For an objection to be successful, the objector must prove that: the community invoked by the objector is a clearly delineated community; and

• Community opposition to the application is substantial; and

• There is a strong association between the community invoked and the applied-for gTLD string; and

• The application creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted."

You don't appear to be permitted to lodge an objection based on your individual opinion, you don't appear to have individual rights on this issue. You have to define the community you represent and demonstrate widespread opposition within it:

"The objector must prove substantial opposition within the community it has identified itself as representing."

ICANN's requirements are not restricted to points like the following, but these are examples of the types of evidence that you must provide for your objection to succeed:

"• Evidence that the applicant is not acting or does not intend to act in accordance with the interests of the community or of users more widely, including evidence that the applicant has not proposed or does not intend to institute effective security protection for user interests...

"• Nature and extent of concrete or economic damage to the community represented by the objector that would result from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for gTLD string..."

ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook, Module 3, (P 22-24)

So, for example, let's suppose you are operating a little shop selling golf clubs, and you wish to register the domain GolfClubs.shop. There is currently no guarantee that the .shop string will even be an open registry. So to be certain of eligibility, you will have to demonstrate to ICANN that there is significant community objection to Amazon owning every .shop domain in existence, including GolfClubs.shop. (Since Amazon has applied to own the .shop domain extension as a privately owned, closed registry). If you are not able to demonstrate a high level of community objection, and if you can't afford around €15,000 in fees, then you may not even be able to apply for a .shop domain.

Could it be that the surprisingly large number of applications to operate closed, monopolistic registries observed the serious flaws in ICANN's procedural methodology described above, realized that objecting was almost impossible both rationally and financially, and decided to exploit it for their own unfair gain?

TERMS, CONDITIONS, DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE. No part of this website may be reproduced or transmitted in any form whatsoever without the express written permission of the copyright holder. The right of David Tyrer to be identified as the author of this work is asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Super Monopolies site (www.supermonopolies.com) site shall not be re-transmitted, repurposed, printed, lent or otherwise circulated in any printed or electronic form without the written permission of the copyright holder, and shall not under any circumstances have these conditions waived for any recipient. The artistic integrity of the work contained herein may not be altered or repurposed in any way, shape or form without the express written permission of the copyright holder. This site contains links to other sites outside our control or ownership. No responsibility is taken for any action or advice you may take from these sites or from any of the information presented by these pages. Super Monopolies bears no relationship with some third party advertisers displayed on this site. Display of those advertisements does not constitute endorsement, recommendation or association with them. Any references to any trademarks or service marks are not our responsibility and not under our control. Information on this site is presented on an "as is" basis in good faith only and as such Click as a Flash makes no warranties regarding the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of any of the material provided. We cannot be held liable for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions in the material presented on this site or its links, nor for the consequences of acting on any information that may be presented, which may have changed or be out of date. We cannot be held liable for any financial or any other damages that may occur from accessing, relying upon or using any hypotheses, opinions, investment advice, commercial advice, ideas or concepts presented here. No information presented here should be construed as legal advice. Content of this site is well-intended opinion and hypothetical speculation only and should not be construed as legal or expert advice. No warranty is given regarding the accuracy of this site and any information used is at your sole risk. No liability whatsoever is accepted with the exception of any that may be required under Australian law. Any brand names mentioned on this site are trademarks or registered marks of their respective owners. Any use of these marks on these pages is purely speculative and hypothetical and does not represent actual use of those marks by those trademark owners. No claim is intended that any of the companies mentioned on this site are intending to create monopolies, this site is merely presenting speculative information to show that competition to such companies may be challenged in the light of the power of the internet. Terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. Copyright in some images resides with istockphoto® and these photos are used under licence. All data, images, text, videos and audio are presented for viewing purposes only. No part of the data, images, text, photos, art, audio, logos, movies or trademarks or any other content may be repurposed, copied, saved, resold or reproduced in any way without written permission. Click as a Flash's registered Australian Business Number is ABN 62 188 088 529. © David Tyrer 2012-13 All Rights Reserved.