Difference between revisions of ".cam"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Provider name)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{TLD||logo  =
 
{{TLD||logo  =
|status = Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT)
+
|status = Pending Approval
 
|manager  =  
 
|manager  =  
 
|country  =  
 
|country  =  
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
==Applicant==
 
==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.acwebconnecting.com AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.] - The contact person in the application is [[Mike Rodenbaugh]]. The contact for Registrars is [[Nicolas Caumette]]
 
 
==String Confusion Objection==
 
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==
 
{{reflist}}
 
 
 
  
 +
== History ==
 +
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. [[Demand Media]] appealed the decision and finally won. After an auction process, [http://www.acwebconnecting.com AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.]remained the sole applicant for the new gTLD.
  
 
[[Category:TLD]]
 
[[Category:TLD]]
 
[[Category:Technology New gTLDs|cam]]
 
[[Category:Technology New gTLDs|cam]]

Revision as of 17:37, 11 May 2016

Status: Pending Approval
Registry Provider: KSregistry GmbH
Registry: AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.
Registry Backend: CentralNic
Type: Generic
Category: Technology
Priority #: 429 - AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.
nTLDStats
Registrations: 7,592
Parked Domains: 3,139
Parked Domain %: 41.35 %
Important Dates
Delegation: 16 June 2016
General Availability: 14 December 2016

More Information: NTLDStatsLogo.png

.cam is a new 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 contact for Registrars is Nicolas Caumette

History

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. Demand Media appealed the decision and finally won. After an auction process, AC Webconnecting Holding B.V.remained the sole applicant for the new gTLD.