Changes

The United States representative simply notes that the name is confusingly similar to an official government agency;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-US-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353430678000 Army US, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> The Australian warning notes that this similarity will not only confuse end-users but negatively impact national armed forces services;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-AU-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451368000 Army AU, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> India adds that this will cause irreparable harm to the safety and security of the nation.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-IN-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353468960000 Army IN, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> All three governments recommend that [[Demand Media]] withdraw the application. Similar warnings were made to their other military focused applications, such as [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]].

The United States representative simply notes that the name is confusingly similar to an official government agency;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-US-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353430678000 Army US, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> The Australian warning notes that this similarity will not only confuse end-users but negatively impact national armed forces services;<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-AU-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353451368000 Army AU, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> India adds that this will cause irreparable harm to the safety and security of the nation.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Army-IN-29986.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1353468960000 Army IN, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> All three governments recommend that [[Demand Media]] withdraw the application. Similar warnings were made to their other military focused applications, such as [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]].

===Independent Objector===

==Independent Objector==

The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .army, where he also mentions [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]], where he notes that his initial assessment led him to believe that the TLDs could mislead the end-users that the domain is associated with a national army. He notes that his final assessment changed sides, and he was reassured by the applicant's intent to create a safe TLD, when include provision for "“very broad array of protection mechanisms will insure that these gTLDs are safe for consumers and will not be abused”. These guarantees include, inter alia, “remediation of inaccurate WhoIs data, including suspending a domain name, if warranted”, “rigorous Terms of Use that prohibit illegal or abusive activity”, “limitations on domain name proxy and privacy services”, “published policies and procedures that define abusive activity”, and “a new Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) to insure greater trademark protection for trademark holders”. On this last point, the applicant made a commitment that they “will work with governments around the globe to insure that any government related trademarks blocked from use”."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/army-general-comment/ Independent Objectors Comments on  Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 5 Mar 2013</ref>

The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .army, where he also mentions [[.navy]] and [[.airforce]], where he notes that his initial assessment led him to believe that the TLDs could mislead the end-users that the domain is associated with a national army. He notes that his final assessment changed sides, and he was reassured by the applicant's intent to create a safe TLD, when include provision for "“very broad array of protection mechanisms will insure that these gTLDs are safe for consumers and will not be abused”. These guarantees include, inter alia, “remediation of inaccurate WhoIs data, including suspending a domain name, if warranted”, “rigorous Terms of Use that prohibit illegal or abusive activity”, “limitations on domain name proxy and privacy services”, “published policies and procedures that define abusive activity”, and “a new Domain Protected Marks List (DPML) to insure greater trademark protection for trademark holders”. On this last point, the applicant made a commitment that they “will work with governments around the globe to insure that any government related trademarks blocked from use”."<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/army-general-comment/ Independent Objectors Comments on  Controversial Applications, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 5 Mar 2013</ref>

[[Category:TLD]]

[[Category:TLD]]

[[Category:Government New gTLDs|army]]

[[Category:Government New gTLDs|army]]