.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== | ||
Revision as of 14:36, 11 May 2016
| Status: | Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) |
| 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.
Applicant[edit | edit source]
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.[1]. The contact for Registrars is Nicolas Caumette
String Confusion Objection[edit | edit source]
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.[2]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Legal Force TRADEMARKIA- .cam
- ↑ String Confusion in Disarray, Domain Incite Retrieved 25 Sept 2013