NOTICE-97-02
ACTION: REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
ANNOUNCEMENT DATE: September 13, 1997
CLOSING DATE: October 13, 1997
SUBJECT: Review of new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)
ADDRESSES: Electronic comments should be sent to notice-97-02@gtld-mou.org.
Comments submitted can be in ASCII, Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or HTML.
Comments related to this request for comments can be found at
http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-02/
Written comments or comments submitted on diskette can be sent to:
gTLD-MoU/Notice-97-02
ITU
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
If further information is required on this notice, please contact
poc-submit@gtld-mou.org.
A. BACKGROUND
The International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) in its final report, available
on the Internet at http://www.gtld-mou.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html,
recommended an initial set of 7 new generic top level domains (gTLDs).
These proposed gTLDs are:
.firm for businesses, or firms
.store for businesses offering goods to purchase
.web for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide Web
.arts for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities
.rec for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities
.info for entities providing information services
.nom for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature, i.e.,
a personal nom de plume
The generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) names selected by the IAHC were chosen
to intentionally represent broad categories and were a synthesis of public
comments, previous proposals, contributions and discussions during the
International Ad Hoc Committee's activities (e.g.,
see http://www.iahc.org/contrib/informal.html). The gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight
Committee would like to provide these further background clarifications and
dimensions to the issues of expansion of the Internet generic Top Level
Domain name space.
1. There has been criticism that by selecting top level domains that overlap
with other existing gTLD categories, the effect will be confusion for users.
However, second level domain names registered under gTLDs, because they must
be unique, represent a name space much flatter than real-world identifiers.
This is especially clear with the mapping of company names, trade names or
trademarks to domain names. Identical company names, trade names or
trademarks
can typically co-exist with little conflict over usage (e.g., United,
Genesis,
Acme). Identical second level domain names in a specific gTLD (e.g., .com)
cannot co-exist since domain names must be unique.
2. As the Internet grows and more entities register domain names, it is
impossible that domain names can remain "guessable"; there will need to be
an increased reliance on directory services.
3. The current congestion and lack of availability of certain names in the
current gTLDs (.com, .net, .org) has demonstrated that when entities wish
to register a natural and mnemonic domain name (e.g., typically corresponding
with an organization or company acronym), if that name or acronym as a second
level domain name is unavailable in one of the current gTLDs, there is often
a preference to register in another gTLD (if an appropriate one can be
found),
rather than select a less "natural" second level domain name in the
originally
desired gTLD. For example, when a desired name is already taken in the .com
gTLD, entities often will register the same name in the .net gTLD, previously
reserved for networking providers. The reasons are clear - there is typically
more "attachment" by the registrant to a second level domain name than to the
gTLD.
4. It is often suggested that strict gTLD categories should be created and
registrants forced to comply with those rules. However, note that attempts to
pre-screen registrations for suitability in registering in specific gTLDs
have
so far not been successful. For example, the gTLD .net used to have a
requirement
that the registrant be a networking service provider. This was eventually
found
impossible to enforce since entities who desired a specific name under .net
would find a way to circumvent this qualification.
5. Since the vast majority of domain names registered under the current gTLDs
(.com, .net, .org) are automated, any attempts to do pre-screening of
registrations in any form, will result in delays in registration, increased
personnel requirements (to evaluate applications), and consequently increased
costs in domain name registration fees for those gTLDs.
6. All two letter gTLD names are permanently reserved for current and future
ISO 3166 country code delegations (e.g., .us, .fr, .au).
7. Considering Internet growth rates, a "flat" name space at the top level of
the world (as is the case with gTLDs) is ultimately unscaleable without the
introduction of additional hierarchy entry points (either subdomains or
additional top level domains) or additional qualifiers (e.g., numerical or
sector categories) in second level domains.
8. The DNS was designed as a hierarchical name registration system. However,
market forces (especially in the United States) have demonstrated a current
unwillingness to be placed under deeper hierarchies (e.g. as exists for the
.us country code which has subdomains based on geographical subdivisions).
One reason is that market forces recognize the importance of mnemonic-recall
of domain names by users (desirable attributes include short and memorable
names).
9. The gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee believes that since market forces
place considerable importance of the mnemonic-recall value of domain names
by users, the often-suggested idea to solve trademark/domain name conflicts
by mapping trademark classification taxonomies into a sub-domain naming
convention underneath gTLDs would be even more confusing to users and would
be rejected by domain name registrants (see "Nice Agreement Concerning the
International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the
Registration of Marks" at http://www.wipo.int/eng/iplex/wo_nic0_.htm with
specific classes at http://www.naming.com/icclasses.html).
10. The Policy Oversight Committee believes that there is little willingness
in the marketplace to accept numerical identifiers added to names in order
to provide unique differentiation between identical second level names
(e.g., united1.com, united2.com, united3.com, etc.). Market forces have
instead demonstrated there is a greater willingness to add further textual
qualifiers (e.g., http://www.delta-air.com), if necessary.
11. The Policy Oversight Committee recognizes that entities who intentionally
register well-known trademarks for speculative or other reasons is an issue
for trademark holders. However, the Policy Oversight Committee also believes
that there are abuses by trademark owners who attempt to claim "valuable"
domain names that have been used in good faith (especially in the
highly-sought-after .com gTLD). Methods include using Network Solution's
dispute resolution policy or litigation (e.g., see http://www.clue.com or
http://www.prince.com). The Policy Oversight Committee believes that a
balance
must be sought between the rights of trademark holders and domain name
holders.
12. The Policy Oversight Committee believes that, considering Paragraphs 7,
8,
9, 10, & 11 above, without a considerable expansion of the gTLD name space
permitting more self-selecting categorization (for example, in the two
examples
mentioned above, offering the possibility for trademark holders to register
in
gTLDs such as "clue.games" or "prince.sports"), conflicts will only intensify
as more entities wish to register domain names and trademark holders,
recognizing the Internet as an important commercial medium, attempt to assert
rights in a limited pool of gTLDs.
B. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Number of gTLDs
Generally, how many new gTLDs do you think should be created?
[0 __] [1-10 __] [10-50 __] [50-150 __] [150 or more XX]
C. CHOICE OF gTLDS
1. Review of IAHC-Suggested gTLDs
How would you rate each of the following gTLD names selected by the IAHC?
a) .firm (intended for businesses, or firms), check one of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of .firm in this category? ______
Special note: A common suggestion is that business term-related gTLDs like
.inc, .corp, .ltd, .plc, .gmbh, .sarl should be selected instead of general
terms
like ".firm". However, these terms have legal significance and it is
typically
illegal to use them unless the registering entity actually is "incorporated",
a "limited liability company", a "public listed company", etc. Verifying
this would
most likely require pre-screening activities by domain name registrars (as is
the case in the UK with plc.uk and ltd.uk) and probably result in increased
registration costs and submission of proof of related legal status. Also
note that
since all 2 letter TLDs are reserved for ISO 3166 country code delegations
(e.g.,
.us, .fr, .au), equivalent business legal abbreviations commonly used in
other
languages (e.g., "sa", "sc", "oy", "ab", and "sl") could not be allocated.
Considering above, would you still prefer to have legal term gTLDs? [yes
__] [no XX].
If so, which ones (in order of preference)? _____________________
b) .store (for businesses offering goods to purchase), check one of the
below:
[strongly approve __] [approve __] [no opinion __] [disapprove XX]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.store in this category? .shop
Special note: There have been many suggestions that .store be replaced by
.shop
which has significance in multiple languages and, unlike .store, has related
verb and noun meanings. Do you think .store should be replaced by .shop?
[yes XX] [no__]
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide Web),
check one of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.web in this category? ______
d) .arts (for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment activities),
check
one of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.arts in this category? ______
e) .rec (for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities),
check one
of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.rec in this category? ______
f) .info (for entities providing information services), check one of the
below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.info in this category? ______
g) .nom (for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature, i.e., a
personal
nom de plume), check one of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve XX] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.nom in this category? ______
Special note 1: Since this gTLD is for individuals and registrations could
number
in the millions, if not hundreds of millions, there is naturally concern
about the
scaleability of a personal name space gTLD. There have been suggestions
that in order
to improve the scaleability of the .nom name space, a numerical identifier
should be
added to the .nom gTLD from the outset (e.g, .nom1, .nom2, .nom3, etc.) Do
you agree?
[yes__] [no XX]
Special note 2: There are often suggestions that names like .id, .me, ind,
or .per
should be used as a "personal" gTLD. Please note the following reasons for
rejecting
these names:
TLD Reason for Rejection
.id .id is already allocated as the ISO 3166 two-letter country code for
Indonesia
all two-letter top level domain are reserved for future ISO 3166
country-code
allocations
.me all two-letter top level domain codes are reserved for future ISO 3166
country-code allocations
.ind .ind is the three-letter ISO 3166 country code for India, we
considered it
prudent to hold this code in reserve
.per .per is the three-letter ISO 3166 country code for Peru, we
considered it
prudent to hold this code in reserve
2. Creation of gTLD Indicating Adult-Oriented Content
There is often the suggestion made that a dedicated gTLD indicating the
equivalent
to a "red-light-zone" would be useful in isolating and filtering
adult-oriented
content from minors on the Internet. There are differing opinions on how
effective
this would be. The most common suggestion is the request to create a gTLD
.xxx. Do
you think that a sort of "red-light-zone" gTLD should be created?
[strongly approve XX] [approve __] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the gTLD
.xxx?
[yes XX] [no__].
If you have replied "no", what gTLD would you suggest in place of .xxx in
this
category? ______
3. Other Suggestions
Please make any other suggestion concerning the names of the new gTLDs not
covered
above.
_________________________________
I am of the opinion that there should be 100+ new gTLD's created because
of some of the problems I think that would fix. First of all, it would
might help to prevent "cross-registrations" by companies trying to protect
a trademark. I mean if you had to cross-register under 150 different
gTLD's, I think most people would decide that it's not worth it. The
other thing it help fix is the problem with the "warehousing" of domains.
There would just be too many options to make "warehousing" economically
sound.
[END]
-- Jason Wingard - Domain Services Manager - Flashnet Communications Fort Worth, Texas - jwingard@flash.net - http://www.flash.net