.cam: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
TLD Page
Applicants |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TLD| | {{TLD||logo = | ||
|logo = | |status = Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) | ||
|status = | |manager =Nicolas Caumette | ||
|manager = | |||
|country = | |country = | ||
|language = | |language = | ||
|translation = | |translation = | ||
|registryprovider = | |registryprovider =Key-Systems | ||
|registrations = | |registrations = | ||
|date = | |date = | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
|category = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]] | |category = [[:Category:Technology New gTLDs|Technology]] | ||
|community = | |community = | ||
|priority = | |priority = | ||
|keypeople = | |keypeople = | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:41, 11 May 2016
| Status: | Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) |
| Manager: | Nicolas Caumette |
| Registry Provider: | Key-Systems |
| Type: | Generic |
| Category: | Technology |
More information: 
| |
.cam is a new generic top level domain name applied for in ICANN's New gTLD Program.
Current Applicants[edit | edit source]
The three applicants are:[1]
- Demand Media (United TLD|United TLD Holdco Ltd.), The company applied for 26 gTLDs including .cam.[2] This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.
- Famous Four Media (dot Agency Limited), Geir Rasmussen is the contact person for the application. The company submitted applications for 61 new gTLDs. [3]
- 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.[4]
String Confusion Objection[edit | edit source]
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.[5]