Generic Top-level Domain: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Removed Category:New gTLD Program (2012) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A '''Generic top-level domain''' ('''gTLD''') is an | A '''Generic top-level domain''' ('''gTLD''') is an Internet domain name extension with three or more characters. It is one of the categories of the top level domain ([[TLD]]) in the Domain Name System ([[DNS]]) maintained by the [[IANA|Internet Assigned Numbers Authority]]. Before the opening of the 2012 application process for the [[New gTLD Program]], there were 22 gTLDs.<ref>[https://dig.watch/processes/new-gtld-program New gTLD Program, DigWatch]</ref> As of August 2021, 1239 gTLDs have been delegated the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the Internet.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics Statistics, nTLDs, ICANN]</ref> GTLDS can be categorized as: | ||
* '''generic''' ([[.com]], [[.info]], [[.net]], [[.org]]), which can be used for general purposes; | * '''generic''' ([[.com]], [[.info]], [[.net]], [[.org]]), which can be used for general purposes; | ||
* '''sponsored''' ([[.aero]], [[.asia]], [[.cat]], [[.coop]], [[.edu]], [[.gov]], [[.int]], [[.jobs]], [[.mil]], [[.mobi]], [[.tel]], [[.travel]], and [[.xxx]]), which can only be used by entities engaged within the specific industry; | * '''sponsored''' ([[.aero]], [[.asia]], [[.cat]], [[.coop]], [[.edu]], [[.gov]], [[.int]], [[.jobs]], [[.mil]], [[.mobi]], [[.tel]], [[.travel]], and [[.xxx]]), which can only be used by entities engaged within the specific industry; | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
In 1984, [[Jon Postel]] and [[Joyce Reynolds]] published RFC 920, which proposed the introduction of top level domain names (TLDs) in the root zone of the Internet. RFC 920 also described the categories and general purposes of the suggested initial TLDs, which were: .arpa (temporary and intended for the transition from [[ARPANET]] to the Internet), .gov (government), .edu (education), .com (commercial), .mil (military), .org (organization), and the two-letter codes (alpha-2) for countries listed in the [[ISO]]-3166-1.<ref>[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc920.txt RFC 920]</ref> | In 1984, [[Jon Postel]] and [[Joyce Reynolds]] published RFC 920, which proposed the introduction of top level domain names (TLDs) in the root zone of the Internet. RFC 920 also described the categories and general purposes of the suggested initial TLDs, which were: .arpa (temporary and intended for the transition from [[ARPANET]] to the Internet), .gov (government), .edu (education), .com (commercial), .mil (military), .org (organization), and the two-letter codes (alpha-2) for countries listed in the [[ISO]]-3166-1.<ref>[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc920.txt RFC 920]</ref> In January 1985, these initial TLDs, plus .net, were implemented in the root zone. The .gov and .mil gTLDs were restricted for the United States government and military use only, while .edu, .com, .org and .net were open for registration. In 1988, [[.int]] was introduced by IANA for international organizations established by treaties.<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/aero-report-19dec01.html IANA Report]</ref> | ||
The original TLDs were managed and administered by the [[NIC|Network Information Center]], the first assigned registrar responsible for hosting and registering domain names. NIC was operated by [[SRI International]].<ref>[http://www.sri.com/about/timeline/tld-nic.html SRI's Role in Assigning Top-Level Domain Names and Managing the Network Information Center]</ref> | The original TLDs were managed and administered by the [[NIC|Network Information Center]], the first assigned registrar responsible for hosting and registering domain names. NIC was operated by [[SRI International]].<ref>[http://www.sri.com/about/timeline/tld-nic.html SRI's Role in Assigning Top-Level Domain Names and Managing the Network Information Center]</ref> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
In 1994, Postel released RFC 1591, which explained the structure of the DNS, including TLDs, and specified that the original TLDs (.com, .edu, .gov .mil, .net, .org, and .int) were categorized as generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and were a separate category from the two-letter ISO-3166 country codes. It was mentioned in the [[RFC]] that the introduction of new TLDs would be unlikely.<ref>[http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 RFC 1591]</ref> | In 1994, Postel released RFC 1591, which explained the structure of the DNS, including TLDs, and specified that the original TLDs (.com, .edu, .gov .mil, .net, .org, and .int) were categorized as generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and were a separate category from the two-letter ISO-3166 country codes. It was mentioned in the [[RFC]] that the introduction of new TLDs would be unlikely.<ref>[http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1591 RFC 1591]</ref> | ||
On July 1, 1997, President [[Bill Clinton]] instructed the [[Department of Commerce]] to improve the operations of the Internet by transferring the technical management of the DNS to a private organization that would be responsible for increasing competition and encouraging international participation in the domain name industry. The directive was part of the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. The following day, a Request For Comment ([[RFC]]) was released by the National Telecommunication Information Administration ([[NTIA]]) for the public to submit their comments and recommendations regarding the government plan. The NTIA received 430 comments from the Internet community. On January 30, 1998, the [[Green Paper]] was released, stating that a majority of the | On July 1, 1997, President [[Bill Clinton]] instructed the [[Department of Commerce]] to improve the operations of the Internet by transferring the technical management of the DNS to a private organization that would be responsible for increasing competition and encouraging international participation in the domain name industry. The directive was part of the Clinton Administration's Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. The following day, a Request For Comment ([[RFC]]) was released by the National Telecommunication Information Administration ([[NTIA]]) for the public to submit their comments and recommendations regarding the government plan. The NTIA received 430 comments from the Internet community. On January 30, 1998, the [[Green Paper]] was released, stating that a majority of the Internet community had expressed their dissatisfaction in the management of the DNS and preferred a new private organization to handle the technical management of the DNS. Additionally, the Internet community also recommended the creation of new gTLDs. Based on the Green Paper, the new corporation would maintain DNS stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation as its guiding principles.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/improvement-technical-management-internet-names-and-addresses-proposed- Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule]</ref> | ||
By April 1998, the [[White Paper]] was released by the Department of Commerce, calling for the creation of a new, independent, private, non-profit corporation to take over the technical management of the DNS from the U.S. government.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm Management of Internet Names and Addresses]</ref> Subsequently, the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Named and Numbers]] was created in October 1998.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html Proposal for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)]</ref> Since ICANN's establishment, one of its main activities has been to focus on the introduction of new generic top-level domains. In 1999, the ICANN Board delegated the Domain Name Supporting Organization ([[DNSO]]) to gather a public consensus regarding the issue. In response, the DNSO created [[Working Group C]] to prepare proposals for the introduction of new gTLDs. By October | By April 1998, the [[White Paper]] was released by the Department of Commerce, calling for the creation of a new, independent, private, non-profit corporation to take over the technical management of the DNS from the U.S. government.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm Management of Internet Names and Addresses]</ref> Subsequently, the [[ICANN|Internet Corporation for Assigned Named and Numbers]] was created in October 1998.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html Proposal for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)]</ref> Since ICANN's establishment, one of its main activities has been to focus on the introduction of new generic top-level domains. In 1999, the ICANN Board delegated the Domain Name Supporting Organization ([[DNSO]]) to gather a public consensus regarding the issue. In response, the DNSO created [[Working Group C]] to prepare proposals for the introduction of new gTLDs. By October 1999, Working Group C presented 7 position papers.<ref> | ||
[http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.htmlWorking Group C-new gTLDs Interim Report, October 23th, 1999]</ref> | [http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.htmlWorking Group C-new gTLDs Interim Report, October 23th, 1999]</ref> | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
On May 11, 2001, ICANN signed the .biz and .info Registry Agreements.<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/biz-info-report-25jun01.html IANA Report on .biz and .info]</ref> The .name Registry agreement was approved on August 1, 2001;<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/name-report-16aug01.html IANA Report .name]</ref> .museum was signed on October 17, 2001;<ref> | On May 11, 2001, ICANN signed the .biz and .info Registry Agreements.<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/biz-info-report-25jun01.html IANA Report on .biz and .info]</ref> The .name Registry agreement was approved on August 1, 2001;<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/name-report-16aug01.html IANA Report .name]</ref> .museum was signed on October 17, 2001;<ref> | ||
[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/museum-report-30oct01.html IANA Report.museum]</ref> .coop was signed November 21, 2001;<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/coop-report-13dec01.html IANA Report .coop]</ref> .aero was signed on December 17, 2001;<ref> | [http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/museum-report-30oct01.html IANA Report.museum]</ref> .coop was signed November 21, 2001;<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/coop-report-13dec01.html IANA Report .coop]</ref> .aero was signed on December 17, 2001;<ref> | ||
[http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/aero-report-19dec01.html IANA Report .aero]</ref> and the .pro registry agreement was approved on March 14, 2002 | [http://www.iana.org/reports/2001/aero-report-19dec01.html IANA Report .aero]</ref> and the .pro registry agreement was approved on March 14, 2002<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/pro-report-06may02.html IANA Report .pro]</ref> and it can also be used for offering legal services.<ref>[https://www.nominus.com/en/dm/blog/generic-domains/march-2022/what-is-a-generic-top-level-domain-should-we-use-it Consider the Purpose]</ref> | ||
==Second Round: New gTLD Expansion== | ==Second Round: New gTLD Expansion== | ||
===The New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) Report=== | ===The New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) Report=== | ||
During the [[ICANN Stockholm]] Meeting in 2001, the Board directed ICANN President [[Stuart Lynn]] to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force ([[NTEPPTF]]) to monitor and evaluate the performance and impact on new gTLDs on the DNS, focusing on technical and legal perspectives. By June | During the [[ICANN Stockholm]] Meeting in 2001, the Board directed ICANN President [[Stuart Lynn]] to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force ([[NTEPPTF]]) to monitor and evaluate the performance and impact on new gTLDs on the DNS, focusing on technical and legal perspectives. By June 2002, the NTEPPTF submitted its report and made the following recommendations to the ICANN Board: | ||
* Establish a continuous monitoring program for the new gTLDs, focusing the evaluation on the effects of the TLDs on the performance of the root zone, the identification of operational performance problems affecting the stability of the DNS, the accuracy and completion of [[Whois]] data, and the start-up issues during sunrise and landrush periods. | * Establish a continuous monitoring program for the new gTLDs, focusing the evaluation on the effects of the TLDs on the performance of the root zone, the identification of operational performance problems affecting the stability of the DNS, the accuracy and completion of [[Whois]] data, and the start-up issues during sunrise and landrush periods. | ||
* The ICANN Board should adopt the evaluation schedule arranged by the Task Force. | * The ICANN Board should adopt the evaluation schedule arranged by the Task Force. | ||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
* early warning mechanism for applicants to identify if a proposed string would raise controversies or sensitivities | * early warning mechanism for applicants to identify if a proposed string would raise controversies or sensitivities | ||
Ms. Alexander strongly emphasized NTIA's support of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] of | Ms. Alexander strongly emphasized NTIA's support of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] of Internet governance and dedication to maintaining the open Internet to promote economic growth, innovation and the free flow of information, products and services online.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=98c38242-c53f-438a-bb53-2d986e4bf168 Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref> | ||
[[Kurt Pritz]] testified to the Senate committee that the introduction of new gTLDs has been one of the mandates of the Internet governing body since its establishment. Pritz pointed out that the new gTLD program was developed through the multistakeholder process; global | [[Kurt Pritz]] testified to the Senate committee that the introduction of new gTLDs has been one of the mandates of the Internet governing body since its establishment. Pritz pointed out that the new gTLD program was developed through the multistakeholder process; global Internet stakeholders including brand and trademark owners, domain name registries, registrars, registrants, governments, law enforcement agencies, governments, not-for-profit organizations, etc. participated in the policy development and implementation program for new gTLDs. He also emphasized the provisions in the Applicant Guidebook regarding new trademark protections such as the [[URS|Uniform Rapid Suspension]] (URS) and the [[Trademark Clearing House]], measures to mitigate malicious conduct, create objection processes, maintain [[DNSSEC|DNS Security]] (DNSSEC) and other relevant issues. He concluded his testimony by reiterating that the "ICANN community worked tirelessly to create the new gTLD program to promote competition and innovation..."<ref> | ||
[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=456113a0-c084-43d7-a1b8-979524fd74cf Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Hearing on Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2012]</ref> <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-boxer-cantwell-et-al-25jan12-en.pdf Sen. Barbara Boxer to Kurt Pritz, Questions for the Record,ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref> | [http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=456113a0-c084-43d7-a1b8-979524fd74cf Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Hearing on Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2012]</ref> <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-boxer-cantwell-et-al-25jan12-en.pdf Sen. Barbara Boxer to Kurt Pritz, Questions for the Record,ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2011]. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.</ref> | ||
====ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee==== | ====ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee==== | ||
On | On January 25, 2012, Pritz answered the questions sent by members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation regarding the new gTLD expansion program. The questions were asked by Senators Barbara Boxer, Maria Cantwell, Claire McCaskill, Olympia Snowe and Mark Warner on January 8. The questions of the legislators were centered on the following issues:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-boxer-cantwell-et-al-25jan12-en.pdf Pritz to Boxer]. Published 2012 January 25.</ref> | ||
* '''Intellectual Property Rights'''- In order to avoid consumer confusion and or violations of intellectual property rights, Pritz explained that the new gTLD program has mandatory intellectual property rights protection mechanisms for both first and second level domain names. He also added that strict reviews will be implemented and it will reject the applications of entities with a history of cybersquatting. In addition, the public and the various constituencies of ICANN will have the opportunity to review and raise their concerns regarding the proposed new gTLD strings. Pritz also enumerated the four available objection processes, which include: | * '''Intellectual Property Rights'''- In order to avoid consumer confusion and or violations of intellectual property rights, Pritz explained that the new gTLD program has mandatory intellectual property rights protection mechanisms for both first and second level domain names. He also added that strict reviews will be implemented and it will reject the applications of entities with a history of cybersquatting. In addition, the public and the various constituencies of ICANN will have the opportunity to review and raise their concerns regarding the proposed new gTLD strings. Pritz also enumerated the four available objection processes, which include: | ||
# '''String Confusion Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied-for gTLD string. | # '''String Confusion Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied-for gTLD string. | ||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
* '''Crackdown on Rogue Websites'''- The new gTLD program is designed to prevent illegal activities and to easily remove malicious conduct through increased accessibility of information by law enforcement agencies. A [[Whois#Thick_Whois|Thick Whois]] data system will be implemented to allow faster search capabilities and to efficiently combat rogue websites. ICANN will also implement background checks on applicants and will review their history of bad faith or reckless disregard of anti-cyber squatting law. | * '''Crackdown on Rogue Websites'''- The new gTLD program is designed to prevent illegal activities and to easily remove malicious conduct through increased accessibility of information by law enforcement agencies. A [[Whois#Thick_Whois|Thick Whois]] data system will be implemented to allow faster search capabilities and to efficiently combat rogue websites. ICANN will also implement background checks on applicants and will review their history of bad faith or reckless disregard of anti-cyber squatting law. | ||
* '''Estimated Number of New gTLDs to be Created'''- Pritz explained that based on the Root Server Stability experts' advice, ICANN is committed and limited to add 1,000 new gTLD to the root zone in one year. | * '''Estimated Number of New gTLDs to be Created'''- Pritz explained that based on the Root Server Stability experts' advice, ICANN is committed and limited to add 1,000 new gTLD to the root zone in one year. | ||
* '''Plans on Excess Revenue from new gTLDs'''- ICANN is committed to using any excess funds to promote its non-profit missions for the benefit of the Internet community, such as the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants, or establishment of a security fund to expand the use of secure protocols, support standards development organizations and other projects in accordance with the | * '''Plans on Excess Revenue from new gTLDs'''- ICANN is committed to using any excess funds to promote its non-profit missions for the benefit of the Internet community, such as the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants, or establishment of a security fund to expand the use of secure protocols, support standards development organizations and other projects in accordance with the Internet governing body's security and stability mission. Pritz also emphasized that ICANN's budget is utilized in a transparent manner. The use of excess funds is subject to community discussions and consultations. | ||
* '''Concerns Raised by [[ANA]] and other parties'''- Pritz explained that the new gTLD program was developed for more than six years with input from 10 or more experts and community working groups under the multistakeholder process. He pointed out that significant protection mechanisms were created to ensure protections for intellectual property rights, registry failures, etc. He also pointed out that all concerns raised by ANA and other parties were accepted, considered and responded to. He also reiterated that in the multistakeholder process not everyone will be satisfied with the result. He quoted NTIA | * '''Concerns Raised by [[ANA]] and other parties'''- Pritz explained that the new gTLD program was developed for more than six years with input from 10 or more experts and community working groups under the multistakeholder process. He pointed out that significant protection mechanisms were created to ensure protections for intellectual property rights, registry failures, etc. He also pointed out that all concerns raised by ANA and other parties were accepted, considered and responded to. He also reiterated that in the multistakeholder process not everyone will be satisfied with the result. He quoted NTIA Assistant Secretary [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]]'s statement that ''"it is critical to respect the process and the outcome reached"''. | ||
* '''Harm of Delaying the new gTLD program Implementation'''- According to Pritz, if the new gTLD program implementation were to be delayed it will upset the multistakeholder process, which was designed by the United States government to ensure the openness of the | * '''Harm of Delaying the new gTLD program Implementation'''- According to Pritz, if the new gTLD program implementation were to be delayed it will upset the multistakeholder process, which was designed by the United States government to ensure the openness of the Internet. | ||
* '''[[FCC]] Concern on Rapid Exponential Expansion of new gTLDs'''- According to Pritz, the approved new gTLDs will be introduced in a measured and limited manner. No new gTLD will be operational before 2013 and the introduction will be distributed over time. | * '''[[FCC]] Concern on Rapid Exponential Expansion of new gTLDs'''- According to Pritz, the approved new gTLDs will be introduced in a measured and limited manner. No new gTLD will be operational before 2013 and the introduction will be distributed over time. | ||
* '''Recommendations of Law Enforcement Agencies'''- Pritz emphasized that ICANN is actively working to address the 12 recommendations of law enforcement agencies. ICANN is negotiating with registrars to amend and strengthen the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA) to meet the recommendations before 2013. | * '''Recommendations of Law Enforcement Agencies'''- Pritz emphasized that ICANN is actively working to address the 12 recommendations of law enforcement agencies. ICANN is negotiating with registrars to amend and strengthen the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA) to meet the recommendations before 2013. | ||
* '''Registry Failure'''- One of the safeguards implemented by ICANN for the new gTLD program is the availability of an Emergency Back End Registry Provider in case of registry failure. | * '''Registry Failure'''- One of the safeguards implemented by ICANN for the new gTLD program is the availability of an Emergency Back End Registry Provider in case of registry failure. | ||
* '''United Nations Model on Internet Governance and its Impact'''- Pritz emphasized that the ICANN multistakeholder model is not perfect but ''"it has shown to be a powerful, dynamic model that is capable of reaching consensus positions on extremely difficult issues. A UN model will push the stakeholders outside the government to an inconsequential role." He also reiterated the statements of Sec. Strickling and Ambassador David Gross that abandoning the multistakeholder model will cause negative impact to the Internet and its governance, and he said that an ''" | * '''United Nations Model on Internet Governance and its Impact'''- Pritz emphasized that the ICANN multistakeholder model is not perfect but ''"it has shown to be a powerful, dynamic model that is capable of reaching consensus positions on extremely difficult issues. A UN model will push the stakeholders outside the government to an inconsequential role." He also reiterated the statements of Sec. Strickling and Ambassador David Gross that abandoning the multistakeholder model will cause negative impact to the Internet and its governance, and he said that an ''"Internet constrained by an international treaty will stifle the innovators and entrepreneurs who are responsible for its awesome growth."'' | ||
* '''Internet Growth and DNS Expansion'''- Pritz affirmed that the | * '''Internet Growth and DNS Expansion'''- Pritz affirmed that the Internet and the DNS will continue to grow. ICANN is committed to carrying out its mandates- to promote competition in the DNS while protecting vital information as well as business and consumer interests. | ||
* '''Status of [[IPv6]] Migration'''- Pritz explained that the [[IPv4]] and IPv6 protocols will be running side by side for years to come. Over 7,500 IPv6 had been allocated to network operators around the globe by the end of September 2011. | * '''Status of [[IPv6]] Migration'''- Pritz explained that the [[IPv4]] and IPv6 protocols will be running side by side for years to come. Over 7,500 IPv6 had been allocated to network operators around the globe by the end of September 2011. | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
==Third Round: New gTLD Program== | ==Third Round: New gTLD Program== | ||
: ''Main Article: [[New gTLD Program]]'' | : ''Main Article: [[New gTLD Program]]'' | ||
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During this Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all constituencies within the ICANN global | After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During this Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all constituencies within the ICANN global Internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global Internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched the New gTLD Program, at the same time approving the [[Applicant Guidebook|New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> | ||
==Closed Generic Strings== | ==Closed Generic Strings== | ||
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
ICANN's [[Independent Objector]], responsible for impartially determining danger done to the large community of Internet end users via particular applications, weighed in on the issue of closed generic applications. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref> | ICANN's [[Independent Objector]], responsible for impartially determining danger done to the large community of Internet end users via particular applications, weighed in on the issue of closed generic applications. The IO notes that he was petitioned directly by a number of parties to file objections to these strings, but that he decided not to do so. Reasons for this include; the fact that sometimes generic terms are created from brand or trademarked names, and vice versa; that his powers and scope are intentionally limited and restricted to community objections and those related to limited public interest, and there is little ground for either as closed generics are not strictly a discussion of freedom of expression and generic terms are by definition broad and do not apply to a singular community.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-issue-of-closed-generic-gtlds/ The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Independent-Objector-NewgTLDs.org] Retrieved 14 Mar 2013</ref> | ||
==References== | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | |||
{{reflist}} | [[Category:Glossary]] | ||
[[Category: | |||