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 _X_] [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 _X_] [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_X_].
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 _X_]
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_X_] [no__]
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide
Web), check one of the below:
[strongly approve _X_] [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 _X_] [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 _X_] [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 _X_] [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 _X_] [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_X_] [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 _X_] [approve __] [no opinion __] [disapprove __]
[strongly disapprove __]
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the gTLD
xxx? [yes_X_] [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.
_________________________________
[END]