Jump to content

.loans: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
Line 20: Line 20:


There is also an applicant for the singular version, [[.loan]], [[Famous Four Media]] (dot Loan Limited)
There is also an applicant for the singular version, [[.loan]], [[Famous Four Media]] (dot Loan Limited)
===Donuts===
The application was issued a [[GAC]] Early Warning from the representative of Australia and GAC Chair, [[Heather Dryden]]. The warning system is noted as a strong recommendation on behalf of national governments to the [[ICANN Board]] that a given TLD application should be denied as it stands. Applicants are encouraged to work with objecting GAC members.<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-early-warning GAC Early Warning, NewgTLDS.ICANN.org] Retrieved 25 Nov 2012</ref> The warning states that the TLD refers to a regulated market but that the applicant has not provided for adequate measures to protect from consumer harm.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/22938690/Loans-AU-18264.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1353388613000 Loans AU, GACweb.ICANN.org]</ref> Retrieved 25 Nov 2012</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 16:20, 25 November 2012

Status: Proposed
Type: Generic
Category: Commerce

More information:

.loans is a proposed new TLD in ICANN's new gTLD Program.

Current Applicants[edit | edit source]

  1. Radix, .loans is one of 31 applications submitted by the company.[1]
  2. Donuts (June Woods, LLC), the company has applied for 307 TLDs

There is also an applicant for the singular version, .loan, Famous Four Media (dot Loan Limited)

Donuts[edit | edit source]

The application was issued a GAC Early Warning from the representative of Australia and GAC Chair, Heather Dryden. The warning system is noted as a strong recommendation on behalf of national governments to the ICANN Board that a given TLD application should be denied as it stands. Applicants are encouraged to work with objecting GAC members.[2] The warning states that the TLD refers to a regulated market but that the applicant has not provided for adequate measures to protect from consumer harm.[3] Retrieved 25 Nov 2012</ref>

References[edit | edit source]