Jump to content

.web

From ICANNWiki
Revision as of 10:08, 1 July 2016 by Dsouthwell15 (talk | contribs) (Removed 3 companies no longer owned by the group.)
Status: Proposed
country: International
Type: Generic TLD
Category: Technology

More information:

.web is a proposed new generic top level domain name (gTLD) to ICANN's new gTLD expansion program.

Applicants[edit | edit source]

  1. Web.com is the parent company of two ICANN accredited registrars- Network Solutions and Register.com is applying for the TLD. The company owns the Web.com trademark issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [1]
  2. Radix is a subsidiary of Dubai-based company Directi, owner of various registrar and web hosting businesses such as Media.net,Skenzo and WebHosting.info. The company is applying for 31 domain name strings including .web. [2] The company partnered with ARI Registry Services to provide back-end registry solutions. [3]
  3. STRAAT Investments is a holding company founded by Juan Diego Calle and parent company of .co Internet also submitted an application for the TLD. The company partnered with Neustar to serve as its back-end registry service provider. [4]
  4. Schlund Technologies GmbH
  5. Afilias
  6. Google (Charleston Road Registry Inc.)
  7. Donuts (Ruby Glen, LLC), one of 307 applications submitted by the company. This applicant submitted a Public Interest Commitment, which can be downloaded here.

Current Applications[edit | edit source]

Web.com[edit | edit source]

Some have said that Web.com has a strong case through the Legal Rights Objection because it owns the Web.com trademark. In a statement, Web.com CEO David Brown said, "We believe we possess the natural platform from which to successfully market the new .WEB top level domain since we are the sole owner of the Web.com trademark as issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office." [5] Brown also conveyed that he is open to a cooperative arrangement between more than one applicant, and that Web.com would be satisfied regardless of who wins the application.[6]

Radix's Early Warning[edit | edit source]

Radix received a GAC Early Warning as an entire applicant, where each one of the applicants was flagged by the U.S. Government. This seems to be the only time a portfolio applicant had all of their applications warned. The issue does not deal with the technical capabilities or thematic content of their applications, but rather the inclusion of an email address associated with the US' Federal Bureau of Investigation. It seems that Radix included correspondence with this address as a recommendation with each of their applications.[7]

Previous .web Applications & Current Contention[edit | edit source]

Image Online Design[edit | edit source]

.web was applied for in the 2000 first round of TLD expansion by Image Online Design. ICANN did not approve the application at that time, but IOD argues that it never officially rejected its application. Thus, in October 2012, IOD sued ICANN for breach of contract and trademark infringement. It is seeking an injunction to prevent ICANN from awarding the TLD to any of the current 2012 applicants, which does not include IOD, and also for profits from the alleged trademark infringement. The original application for .web was denied in part because IOD was already operating an alternative root using that TLD. They claim to still have 20,000 domains registered in their alternate root.[8]

On February 7th 2013, The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved a motion to dismiss the complaint from ICANN.[9]

Name Collision Issues[edit | edit source]

In October 2013 ICANN released their final assessment and mitigation plan for the Name Collision issue that was facing the New gTLD program. On 18 November 2013, ICANN announced the applied-for strings that were eligible for an alternative path towards delegation that would allow applicants to proceed without waiting for further mitigation research and plans to be published. 25 strings, including .web, were not eligible for the alternative path, and will have to wait for more plans to be published before continuing towards delegation.[10]

References[edit | edit source]