Please note that additonal comments have been included on the
assumptions and abservations in the introductory paragraphs of this RFC.
These comments are prefixed by **.
GTLD-MOU POLICY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
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 identifies a key problem, which the gTLD-MoU unfortunately does
not go far enough to resolve.
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.
**This is an assumption which need not be true. The original intention
of gTLDs per RFC1591 was that .com .net .org .mil .edu etc should be
distinctive and thereby effectively perform a crude "directory" function
(separating eg. educational, military and other types of entity). It is
only because the commercial gTLDs .com, .net and .org have become
undifferentiated that they no longer reliably serve their intended
distinctive purpose - there is no reason why new gTLDs with enforceable
entry criteria could not intrinsically enable differentiation to the
same degree as a simple directory and still usefully maintain
"guessability" in relation to a specific type of buusiness.
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.
**That is a shortcoming of the "undifferentiated" present structure and
the crude "first-come, ONLY-served" principle which is effectively a
"winner-take-all" system, favouring the internet-aware and
disadvantaging those who come later who might have equal rights to use a
name in the real world. This simplistic and inequitable DNS system
simply promotes conflicts which would not otherwise arise in the real
world (eg. Pitman and Prince cases).
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.
**Conversely, instead of abdicating responsibility and giving up on the
original (and sensible) idea of separate gTLDs for separate types of
business, it might be preferable to consider alternative means for
effective enforcement (e.g. through third party challenges). After all,
there are still effective restrictions on .edu, .gov, .mil and .gov.
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.
**A marginal increase in registration fees to operate a system which
would be scalable, and which was designed to minimise rather than
provoke conflicts might be preferable! In any event, enforcement need
not require pre-screening, but could operate on the basis of
post-registration challenges - the threat of losing a domain name ought
to discourage a putative registrant from breaking the rules.
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.
**You can get a lot further, more equitably and with less potential for
conflict and confusion by using logical, differentiated gTLDs than with
undifferentiated gTLDs
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).
**This is a commendably clear definition of the "TRADE MARK" function of
those "short and memorable names". However, since trade marks are
associated with specific types of business, and not with
"undifferentiated" trading entities (e.g. "firm" or "store") this need
for short and memorable names would be better met by introducing gTLDs
specific to particular types of business (eg. banks, telcos, airlines
etc). It would also arguably be rather more useful to consumers using
the system since it would provide for logical differentiation
(apple.records and apple.computers being clearly distinguishable -
whereas apple.firm and apple.store are not - whilst still remaining
short and memorable.)
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).
**Trade mark law has developed over 150 years or more. If it was being
started today no-one would limit themselves to the 42 Nice classes.
Rather than dismiss the relevance of the trade mark experience, the
internet adminiistration would do better to learn from it. More radical
options need to be considered. As a relatively simplistic alternative,
a greater range of business classes, such as are familiar in Yellow
Pages directories worldwide could be directly adopted as gTLDs. Such a
solution could also be adapted to reflect cultural differences -
something the gTLD-MoU and existing gTLDs are not readily able to do.
However, for scaleability and to provide greater potential for
differentiation in future, a more sophisticated approach may well be
preferable.
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.
**Why not make it simpler still with delta.air and delta.whatever-else,
subject to logical entry criteria that delta.air be an airline etc.?
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.
**This balance could be more readiliy achieved by reducing this
potential for conflict which is exacerbated if gTLDs are
"undifferentiated". Apple Computers would be unlikely to worry about
apple.edu, apple.mil or apple.shoes if they existed, because the
potential for confusion would be minimal. However, there would
obviously more grounds for concern over undifferentiated domain names
like apple.firm.
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.
**Correct. Such conflicts will also be intensified by addition of
undifferentiated gTLDs. More distinctive gTLDs with selection criteria
which can be enforced (if say, prince.sports were to be registered by a
software company!), would help reduce the potential for conflict and
assist consumers in identifying the business they are seeking.
B. GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Number of gTLDs
Generally, how many new gTLDs do you think should be created?
NONE at this time. We believe it would be preferable to take the time
now to develop a longer term scaleable solution with the participation
of all interest groups, before any new gTLDs are added. This would not
prevent the introduction of competition by phasing in the shared
registry model for registration in the existing gTLDs.
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 disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of .firm in this category?
**See comments above - more specific gTLDs are preferable to general
ones.
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?
**NO, definitely not.
**Legal terms are dependent on specific national laws and are entirely
inappropriate for gTLDs. If they are to be used at all, then they
should only be used under the applicable national ISO3166 nTLD (cf.
.plc.uk and .ltd.uk). However, as the UK examples have shown, these
are not likely to be of great use so long as the more general .co.uk is
available.
b) .store (for businesses offering goods to purchase), check one of the
below:
[strongly disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.store in this category?
**Answer as for .firm. Subdivision of .store to identify the type of
store (eg. .clothes-store; .shoe-store etc) it might be some use, but
otherwise not.
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?
**NO. This and other cultural and linguistic differences in general
would far better be dealt with in a more sophisticated manner - e.g. by
making raw gTLDs simply numeric, say, .1000 .2000 etc and having
intelligent browser software perform the cultural translation so that
(say) ford.2000 could appear as ford.voitures in France and ford.cars in
the UK etc.
c) .web (for entities emphasizing activities related to the World Wide
Web),
check one of the below:
[disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.web in this category?
**Answer as above - this is too general if adopted alone - practically
every internet user could be on the "web". However, it might be usable
if introduced with other business specific gTLDs subject to
qualification criteria (eg. web services) although this is probably a
good example of a category that would need subdivision in view of the
burgeoning range of web-related services (e.g. .webdesign .webhosting
etc)
d) .arts (for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment
activities), check
one of the below:
[strongly disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.arts in this category?
**Answer as above - too general for undifferentiated use (performing
arts, graphic arts, art galleries etc.)
e) .rec (for entities emphasizing recreation/entertainment activities),
check one
of the below:
[strongly disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.rec in this category?
**Answer as above - better create gTLDs which are specific to the types
of entertainment.
f) .info (for entities providing information services), check one of the
below:
[disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.info in this category?
**Again, this could be useful if part of specific business
categorisations subject to qualification criteria - in this case
provsion of searchable database services, for example.
g) .nom (for those wishing individual or personal nomenclature, i.e., a
personal
nom de plume), check one of the below:
[disapprove]
If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
place of
.nom in this category?
**A category for personal users is probably desirable, if only to
separate them from commerical entities, but .nom alone is obviously
unworkable in the absence of sensible structure to cope equitably with
many people with the same name. This suggests that personal domains
might be better under nTLDs, where cultural differences may be more
readily accommodated. Even then, it is unrealistic to imagine that any
equitable system could be applied without a further identifier for each
person (eg zip code or ID number).
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?
NO. Such identifiers would be preferable at second or third level.
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?
[approve]
**This is a potential business-specific classification, which
differentiates "adult-oriented sites". It would allow more effective
individual filtering without the need to censor content and would be
adaptable (under nTLDs) to suit national sensitivities (e.g. what is OK
in France would go under .xxx.fr and could be distinguished from what
might only be acceptable in the uk under .xxx.uk).
If you strongly approve or approve, do you think this should be the gTLD
.xxx?
A qualified "yes" - again, in the area of adult-oriented material there
may be a case for finer categorisation (examples will be left to your
imagination in this case!)
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.
The ways of the internet "frontiersmen" who have pioneered the
development to date may have been appropriate to get the medium started,
but if the internet is to fulfil its potential as a serious vehicle for
international commerce (and not degenerate into another source of
international conflict), then rules to facilitate that objective and
promote a civilised commercial environment will be needed. These should
include logical structure and entry criteria for commercial gTLDs.
>From a business viewpoint, there are two criteria to be looked for from
domain name administration:
1) a logical structure to the system to reduce the potential for
conflict, such that in general those with rights to use a name in the
real world without conflict can also use the same name on the internet
without conflict; and
2) an equitable dispute resolution process to resolve any conflicts
which do still arise.
_________________________________
[END]