Jump to content

.discount: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:
==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


[[Category:Commerce New gTLDs|discount]]
[[Category:Commerce New gTLDs|discount]]
[[Category:TLD]]
[[Category:TLD]]
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 17:26, 24 October 2013

Status: Proposed
Type: Generic
Category: Commerce

More information:

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

Current Applicants[edit | edit source]

  1. Donuts (Holly Hill, LLC) - The company has applied for 307 new gTLDs. Each application was filed under a different company name. Daniel Schindler, co-founder and EVP for Marketing and Sales of Donuts, is the main contact person in the application. [1] This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.

Private Auction[edit | edit source]

Donuts won in a private auction the right to .discount, beating out fellow applicant Dot Discount, LLC. The auction was managed by Innovative Auctions and the winning bid was not disclosed.[2]

Previous Applicants[edit | edit source]

  1. Dot Discount, LLC - The contact person listed in the application is Mr. Erik Ludwick. [3]

European Commission Communiqué[edit | edit source]

The European Commission flagged both applications for .discount outside of ICANN's defined remediation processes.

Just after ICANN's GAC issued its Early Warnings, which are advice given from one GAC member country to an applicant warning it of potential issues within its application, the European Commission issued a letter to all applicants within the new gTLD program. The letter highlights 58 applications that "could raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation .. and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union." It notes a desire to open a dialogue with each offending applicant.

The Commission specifically notes that this objection is not a part of the GAC Early Warning process, and goes on to note that "the Commission does not consider itself legally bound to [ICANN] processes," given that there is not legal agreement between the two bodies.[4][5]

References[edit | edit source]