.cam: Difference between revisions
TLD Page
Applicants |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TLD||logo = | {{TLD||logo = | ||
|status = Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) | |status = Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) | ||
|manager = | |manager = | ||
|country = | |country = | ||
|language = | |language = | ||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
'''.cam''' is a new [[gTLD|generic top level domain name]] applied for in [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]]. | '''.cam''' is a new [[gTLD|generic top level domain name]] applied for in [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]]. | ||
== | ==Applicant== | ||
[[AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.]]- The contact person in the application is [[Mike Rodenbaugh]]. The company filed for a European trademark for .cam on December 12, 2012.<ref>[http://www.trademarkia.com/ctm/cam-893706.htm Legal Force TRADEMARKIA- .cam]</ref>. The contact for Registrars is [[Nicolas Caumette]] | |||
[http://www.trademarkia.com/ctm/cam-893706.htm Legal Force TRADEMARKIA- .cam]</ref> | |||
==String Confusion Objection== | ==String Confusion Objection== | ||
[[Verisign]] submitted a separate [[String Confusion Objection]] to the [[ICDR]] against each of the applicants for .cam, on the basis that Internet users would confuse the string with the popular [[.com]] string. In two of the three objections submitted, the panelist assigned to the case ruled in favor of the applicant, meaning the objection was dismissed. However, [[Verisign]] prevailed in the objection against [[Demand Media]]'s application. This created a controversial scenario, one that [[ICANN]] did not appear to have a premeditated solution for. [[Demand Media]] called for [[ICANN]] to review its objections policy in order to resolve the issue.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14239-string-confusion-in-disarray-as-demands-cam-loses-against-verisigns-com String Confusion in Disarray, Domain Incite] Retrieved 25 Sept 2013</ref> | Initially, they were 3 applicants : [[Demand Media]] (United TLD|United TLD Holdco Ltd.), [[Famous Four Media]] (dot Agency Limited) and [[AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.]].[[Verisign]] submitted a separate [[String Confusion Objection]] to the [[ICDR]] against each of the applicants for .cam, on the basis that Internet users would confuse the string with the popular [[.com]] string. In two of the three objections submitted, the panelist assigned to the case ruled in favor of the applicant, meaning the objection was dismissed. However, [[Verisign]] prevailed in the objection against [[Demand Media]]'s application. This created a controversial scenario, one that [[ICANN]] did not appear to have a premeditated solution for. [[Demand Media]] called for [[ICANN]] to review its objections policy in order to resolve the issue.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/14239-string-confusion-in-disarray-as-demands-cam-loses-against-verisigns-com String Confusion in Disarray, Domain Incite] Retrieved 25 Sept 2013</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== |