Changes

Objections to closed generics have come from [[Microsoft]], who notes the danger they pose to competition on the Internet, and an online petition started by [[Tom Gilles]] of NewgTLDsite.com.<ref name="WTR"></ref><ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-is-latest-to-come-out-against-closed-generic-new-gtlds-in-letter-to-icann/ Microsoft is Latest to Come Out Against Closed Generic New gTLDs in Letter to ICANN, TheDomains.com] Published and Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>

Objections to closed generics have come from [[Microsoft]], who notes the danger they pose to competition on the Internet, and an online petition started by [[Tom Gilles]] of NewgTLDsite.com.<ref name="WTR"></ref><ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/06/microsoft-is-latest-to-come-out-against-closed-generic-new-gtlds-in-letter-to-icann/ Microsoft is Latest to Come Out Against Closed Generic New gTLDs in Letter to ICANN, TheDomains.com] Published and Retrieved 6 Feb 2013</ref>

==Google==

===Google===

In mid-February 2013, it was announced that an applicant represented by industry lawyer [[Philip Corwin]] would be contacting and lobbying lawmakers in Washington and Brussels, or raising litigation, against Google. The applicant in question remains unknown though it is in contention with [[Google]] for at least one TLD. It is not in contention with Amazon, which has in fact applied for many more closed TLDs than Google. The issue at hand is the competition advantage that Google has given its search dominance and its ownership of sites such as youtube. Therefore, its applications for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube could all be used to create further market dominance within the online video and content streaming markets.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11861-mystery-gtld-applicant-to-take-google-fight-to-lawmakers Mystery gTLD Applicant to Take Googe Fight to Lawmakers, DomainIncite.com] Published 13 Feb 2013, Retrieved 14 Feb 2013</ref>

In mid-February 2013, it was announced that an applicant represented by industry lawyer [[Philip Corwin]] would be contacting and lobbying lawmakers in Washington and Brussels, or raising litigation, against Google. The applicant in question remains unknown though it is in contention with [[Google]] for at least one TLD. It is not in contention with Amazon, which has in fact applied for many more closed TLDs than Google. The issue at hand is the competition advantage that Google has given its search dominance and its ownership of sites such as youtube. Therefore, its applications for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube could all be used to create further market dominance within the online video and content streaming markets.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11861-mystery-gtld-applicant-to-take-google-fight-to-lawmakers Mystery gTLD Applicant to Take Googe Fight to Lawmakers, DomainIncite.com] Published 13 Feb 2013, Retrieved 14 Feb 2013</ref>

In early March, 2013, Google announced via public comments ICANN held on the Closed Generic issue that it would no longer be seeking to close off any of its generic applications, and specifically noted the offending applications, [[.app]], [[.blog]], [[.cloud]] and [[.search]]. It noted that it planned to affect these changes through amendments to its applications.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130308_google_bows_to_pressure_on_closed_generics/ Google Bows to Pressure on Closed Generics, CircleID.com] Retrieved March 8th 2013</ref>

In early March, 2013, Google announced via public comments ICANN held on the Closed Generic issue that it would no longer be seeking to close off any of its generic applications, and specifically noted the offending applications, [[.app]], [[.blog]], [[.cloud]] and [[.search]]. It noted that it planned to affect these changes through amendments to its applications.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130308_google_bows_to_pressure_on_closed_generics/ Google Bows to Pressure on Closed Generics, CircleID.com] Retrieved March 8th 2013</ref>

==IO on Closed Generics==

===IO on Closed Generics===

ICANN's [[Independent Objector]], responsible for impartially determining danger done to the large community of Internet end users via particular applications, weighed in on the issue of closed generic applications. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>

ICANN's [[Independent Objector]], responsible for impartially determining danger done to the large community of Internet end users via particular applications, weighed in on the issue of closed generic applications. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref>