.ping
| Status: | Proposed |
| Type: | Generic & Brand gTLD |
| Category: | Technology |
More information: 
| |
.ping is a proposed TLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program.
Current Applicants edit
- Karsten Manufacturing Corporation (Ping Registry Provider, Inc.), a brand applicant.
- Radix (DotPing Inc.), .ping is one of 31 applications submitted by the company.[1]
Radix edit
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.[2]
Contention edit
Paul McGrady from law group Winston & Strawn, representing Karsten Manufacturing Corporation, has filed over 200 comments and a 500-page letter against Radix's new gTLD applications. The comments argue that none of Radix's applications should be approved, as its parent company, Directi, is affiliated with the privacy service PrivacyProtect.org, which has lost dozens of UDRP cases.
Directi alleges that these comments, which were filed against many of its TLDs, are related to Karsten's claims over the .ping TLD. The company received a letter on August 8, stating:
Karsten is preparing to post this letter and the attached public comments for each of your applications, not just .ping, prior to the end of the public comment period. Once filed, this letter and the public comments will also be sent to the ICANN Board and Senior Staff. Further, as you know, Karsten may seek relief from the courts, through ICANN’s various processes, and through raising awareness of your activities within the ICANN community generally. Karsten will pursue all appropriate means to ensure that all of your applications are rejected.
Furthermore, Directi CEO Bhavin Turakhia stated that PrivacyProtect.org was not the owner in the UDRP cases referenced by McGrady's comments. The company merely acted as a privacy service, which removed its privacy services whenever a UDRP case was filed against a domain.[3]