<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"The battle against closed-registry generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) is just getting started, and Google and Amazon are right in the middle of it.\r\n\r\nAmazon is under fire for trying to secure the rights to the .book and .read domains, while Google has received flack for trying to secure the likes of .search, .app, .earth, .car, .fly, .map and .cloud, among others.\r\n\r\nThis is regardless of what Google plans to do with them, or doesn't plan to do with them.\r\n\r\nEnter FairSearch, an anti-Google lobbying group of businesses and organizations, which counts Microsoft, Nokia, Oracle, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Hotwire and Kayak among its members.\r\nObjection, your honor\r\nToday, the organization published an article saying that it has 'filed objections' against what it dubs Google's &amp;quot;top-domain land grab&amp;quot;.\r\n\r\nIn the statement, FairSearch says it has told the governing body Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that it isn't happy with Google's requests, claiming that accepting them will enable the Mountain View-based Internet service giant to \u201Cgain an unfair competitive advantage against other members of this community through the improper grant of a perpetual monopoly of generic industry terms to a single company&amp;quot;. Tell us what you really think, FairSearch.\r\n\r\nFairSearch also repeated once more its complains against Google's dominant position when it comes to the search markets in the United States and Europe, but now also laments the position the company will be in if it secures the rights to certain top-level domains.\r\n\r\nFrom the statement:\r\nSo, if Google really believes that competition is always one click away, why did it apply to operate a new \u201C.search\u201D gTLD as a closed registry?\r\n\r\nThis means that only those web properties owned by Google could have a .search web address.\r\n\u201CThe .search application demonstrates that Google intends to exclude all others in the industry from using common generic industry terms for its business,\u201D FairSearch further argues in its objection.\r\nCalling ICANN\r\nThe organization goes on, effectively asking ICANN to step up:\r\nICANN should reject Google\u2019s attempt to control an even greater share of the Internet through acquiring the new generic top-level domains for \u201C.search,\u201D \u201C.fly,\u201D and \u201C.map.\u201D\r\n\r\nThe dominant search provider already exerts too much power to steer consumers to Google sites that strengthen its control over Internet traffic, rather than to websites with the information most relevant to consumers\u2019 interests.\r\nWhat remains unclear is whether FairSearch has simply voiced its concerns with ICANN or actually filed formal objections with the nonprofit.\r\n\r\nWe've reached out to the organization to obtain more information, but it seems likely that FairSearch has simply made use of ICANN's 'public comment period' (which ended on March 7) to share their opinions.\r\n\r\nWe've also asked Google for comment (but don't hold your breath).\r\n\r\nICANN recently announced that it will start recommending the first new top-level domains for delegation around April 23, but at this point it's really still unclear how the organization is going to handle these closed-registry, generic TLDs.\r\n\r\nTo be .continued, no .doubt.\r\n\r\nUPDATE:\u00A0FairSearch has confirmed with us that it has filed formal objections with ICANN\u00A0over Google\u2019s applications for \u201C.search,\u201D \u201C.map\u201D and \u201C.fly\u201D. The lobby group says that\u00A0the absolute earliest it expects to see a decision is approximately five months from now. \u00A0&amp;quot;That said,&amp;quot; the FairSearch spokesperson adds, &amp;quot;many of the applicable rules permit extensions of time.&amp;quot;\r\n\r\nAlso read:\r\n\r\nMeet Fadi Chehad\u00E9, the next president of ICANN\r\n\r\nImage credit: John Marino / Flickr"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/03/19/nokia-microsoft-and-others-file-objections-to-googles-top-level-domain-requests/>