Generic Top-level Domain: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

==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> On 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>

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>

Line 16:

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 of 1999, Working Group C presented 7 position papers.<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 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>

Line 49:

===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 of 2002, the NTEPPTF submitted its report and made the following recommendations to the ICANN Board:

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.

* The ICANN Board should adopt the evaluation schedule arranged by the Task Force.

Line 147:

====ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee====

On ~~Janury~~ 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>

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:

# '''String Confusion Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied-for gTLD string.

Line 159:

* '''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 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 ~~Assitant~~ Secretary [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]]'s statement that ''"it is critical to respect the process and the outcome reached"''.

* '''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 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.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==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> On 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>
+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>
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 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 of 1999, Working Group C presented 7 position papers.<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 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>
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ===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 of 2002, the NTEPPTF submitted its report and made the following recommendations to the ICANN Board:
+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.
 * The ICANN Board should adopt the evaluation schedule arranged by the Task Force.
@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 ====ICANN's Answers to the Senate Committee====
-On Janury 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>
+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:
 # '''String Confusion Objection'''- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied-for gTLD string.
@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 * '''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 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 Assitant Secretary [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]]'s statement that ''"it is critical to respect the process and the outcome reached"''.
+* '''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 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.