Difference between revisions of ".pay"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{TLD| |logo = |status = Proposed |manager = |country = International |language = |translation = |stringcontention = |registryprovider = |registrations = |date = |type...")
 
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|registrations  =
 
|registrations  =
 
|date  =
 
|date  =
|type  =Commerce
+
|type  = [[gTLD|Generic]]
|category = IT
+
|category = [[:Category:Commerce New gTLDs|Commerce]]
 
|community  =
 
|community  =
 +
|priority = 541 - [[DOTPAY SA]]<br>1255 - [[Amazon]]
 
|keypeople  =
 
|keypeople  =
 
}}
 
}}
Line 20: Line 21:
 
==Applicants==
 
==Applicants==
 
# [[Amazon]]
 
# [[Amazon]]
# [[DOTPAY SA]]<ref>[http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus Pay Status, ICANN.org]</ref>
+
# [[DOTPAY SA]]<ref>[http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus Pay Status, ICANN.org]</ref> - In May 2013, it was revealed that DOTPAY SA's application for .pay failed [[initial evaluation]] due to the fact that it scored only 7 out of a necessary 8 on the financial questions. The applicant requested and passed in extended evaluation.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/13217-icann-reveals-81-passes-and-one-failure-in-latest-new-gtld-results-batch ICANN Reveals 81 Passes and One Failure in Latest New gTLD Results Batch, DomainIncite.com] Published and Retrieved May 31, 2013</ref>
 
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 20:17, 7 November 2013

Status: Proposed
country: International
Type: Generic
Category: Commerce
Priority #: 541 - DOTPAY SA
1255 - Amazon

More information: NTLDStatsLogo.png

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

Applicants

  1. Amazon
  2. DOTPAY SA[1] - In May 2013, it was revealed that DOTPAY SA's application for .pay failed initial evaluation due to the fact that it scored only 7 out of a necessary 8 on the financial questions. The applicant requested and passed in extended evaluation.[2]

References