[NCSG-Discuss] Independent Objector Weighs In on "closed/private" tlds

[Milton L Mueller]

I just read the IO's comments and it appeared to me that he will NOT object to any closed generics simply because they are closed. He also refuted rather decisively the notion that a term such as .BOOK could be objected to on community grounds, because there is not really a book community but a variety of interests. 

As for your last question (Which applications has he objected to?  anyone know?) It is indeed somewhat confusing. The IO site does not have a clear, simple list of which specific strings/applications have been objected to, afaict

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
> McTim
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:23 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Independent Objector Weighs In on
> "closed/private" tlds
> 
> HI Robin,
> 
> It is not surprising to me that the IO will object to any "closed"
> gTLD  just becasue they are "closed".
> 
> However, the last line contains a bit of a shocker:
> 
> "The objections I have just filed are based on such assessments."
> 
> Which applications has he objected to?  anyone know?
> 
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> wrote:
> > http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue
> > -of-closed-generic-gtlds/
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel