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 .webfor entities emphasizing activities related to the World
Wide Web .arts for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment
activities.recfor entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment
activities .infofor entities providing information services.nomfor 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 __]
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 __] [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__].
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 __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of .store in
this category? ______
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__]
[no__]
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide
Web), check one of the below:
[strongly approve __] [approve __] [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 __] [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 __] [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 __] [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 __] [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__]
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:
TLDReason 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 __] [approve __] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the gTLD
.xxx? [yes__] [no__].
If you have replied "no", what gTLD would you suggest in place of .xxx
in this category? __.xyz____
3. Other Suggestions
Please make any other suggestion concerning the names of the new gTLDs
not covered above.
The reason for using something like .xyz instead of .xxx is because I
think that adults would have no trouble adapting to .xyz if they were
looking for adult material. I know a lot of young people would have no
trouble looking up the stuff, but young people associate xxx for
pornography and .xyz would not be so automatic for the casual browser.
Another suggestion to replace .xxx would be .por or .adu By the way,
this idea of the gTLD’s is a stroke of genius. Hats off to all those
responsible for it.
_________________________________
[END]