.ping: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|registrations = | |registrations = | ||
|date = | |date = | ||
|type =[[gTLD|Generic]] | |type =[[gTLD|Generic]] & [[Brand gTLD]] | ||
|category = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]] | |category = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]] | ||
|community = | |community = | ||
Revision as of 09:55, 10 October 2012
| Status: | Proposed |
| Type: | Generic & Brand gTLD |
| Category: | Technology |
More information: 
| |
.ping is a proposed TLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program.
Current Applicants[edit | edit source]
- Karsten Manufacturing Corporation (Ping Registry Provider, Inc.)
- Radix (DotPing Inc.), .ping is one of 31 applications submitted by the company.[1]
Contention[edit | edit source]
Paul McGrady from law group Winston & Strawn, representing Karsten Manufacturing Corporation, has filed over 200 comments and a 500-page letter against Radix's new gTLD applications. The comments argue that none of Radix's applications should be approved, as its parent company, Directi, is affiliated with the privacy service PrivacyProtect.org, which has lost dozens of UDRP cases.
Directi alleges that these comments, which were filed against many of its TLDs, are related to Karsten's claims over the .ping TLD. The company received a letter on August 8, stating:
Karsten is preparing to post this letter and the attached public comments for each of your applications, not just .ping, prior to the end of the public comment period. Once filed, this letter and the public comments will also be sent to the ICANN Board and Senior Staff. Further, as you know, Karsten may seek relief from the courts, through ICANN’s various processes, and through raising awareness of your activities within the ICANN community generally. Karsten will pursue all appropriate means to ensure that all of your applications are rejected.
Furthermore, Directi CEO Bhavin Turakhia stated that PrivacyProtect.org was not the owner in the UDRP cases referenced by McGrady's comments. The company merely acted as a privacy service, which removed its privacy services whenever a UDRP case was filed against a domain.[2]