I tend to disagree with part of this sentiment.

I agree that using the IO for the purposes of the IOC or the IFRC would be a 'yuk'.  Both have amble resources beyond what they use for their core missions to take care of this themselves.

I do, however, see positive value in an IO that is willing to take up the issues of small communities, especially indigenous and poor communities, who find an application does harm to their community, complain about it during the comments, but who cannot afford either the rigor or the cost of a full objection.  The key to not including lists of the protected is the availability of an objection process that serves all.  An objection process that is only available to wealthy organizations does not satisfy the needs of all those who may be injured by a particular application.

As for this making thing unpredictable:  As the application warns, if you think the application may be problematic for some group consider the issue and perhaps take some action to fix the situation.  So at the very least, if they have done an adequate analysis, they should not be surprised by such an IO objection.

avri


On 5 Feb 2012, at 12:12, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> 
>> It might even be the job of the Independent Objector under "Community
>> Objections" to object to something like .redcross or even .itu.
>> 
> [Milton L Mueller] 
> Yuk. The whole idea of an independent objector is a travesty and will politicize and make arbitrary the whole process. 
>