Generic top-level domain: Difference between revisions

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]]. There are currently 21 gTLDs in the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the Internet and they are categorized as:

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>

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 on 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 the 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>

On April 2000, the DNSO recommended that the [[ICANN Board]] establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs. In addition, the DNSO also suggested that ICANN invite interested entities to submit their [[EOI|expressions of interest]] to become registry operators for new gTLDs.<ref>[http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs]</ref><ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm#II ICANN Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains]</ref>  

Thousands of comments regarding the introduction of new gTLDs were received by the [[ICANN Board]] through the ICANN Public Comment Forum.<ref>[http://forum.icann.org/newtlds/ Introduction of New Top-Level Domains]</ref> Following the results of the public comment, the ICANN Board decided to establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs. The ICANN Board set up a schedule for the submission, acceptance, and evaluation of proposals to operate or sponsor a new gTLD, with a non-refundable application fee of $50,000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-16jul00.htm#00.47 Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes-New Top Level Domains]</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.<ref>[http://www.iana.org/reports/2002/pro-report-06may02.html IANA Report .pro]</ref>

Subsequently on August 23, 2002, the ICANN Board directed ICANN President Lynn to create an action plan regarding the NTEPPTF report.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/tap/2002-08-23+-+New+TLD+Evaluation+Process+Planning+Task+Force 2002-08-23 - New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force]</ref>  

* Instruct the ICANN Staff to solicit three or more proposals for sponsored TLDs ([[sTLD]]s) as extension of the Proof of Concept, following a similar or streamlined criteria and ground rules, subject to funding a rapid study based on sampling techniques as appropriate. The study will assess if the new sponsored TLDs admitted registrants outside their charter and determine to what extent.

* The issue of name space taxonomy should be addressed as a prerequisite to substantive expansion of the top level domain space, regardless of an interim action on additional sponsored TLDs.

* Cost allocation for the application fee should be assessed to exercise fairness. There should also be a differential fee for those who have already paid the $50,000 application fee in year 2000 and have already been subjected to evaluation.

Based on the Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria released by ICANN on June 23, 2003, external consultants would evaluate the applications for new sTLDs. The ICANN Staff would not participate in the evaluation process, but would assist the consultants in compiling, synthesizing, and tabulating information to be reviewed by the ICANN Board. The criteria for selecting new sTLDs included:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-evaluation-criteria-24jun03.htm Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria]</ref>

* provide a detailed business plan to ensure satisfactory continuation of registry operation

* ensure that the chosen registry operator will conform to high standards in technical operation of the new sTLD registry

* provide precise definition of Sponsored TLD Community (determine the persons and entities within the community)

* demonstrate a large base of support from community

* value of name  

[[Angela Williams]] represented the concerns of the members of [[ICANN]]'s [[NPOC|Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency]] (NPOC) during the Senate hearing. In her testimony, she raised budgetary, public confusion, and [[cybersquatting]] issues. According to her, the increased risk of public confusion compromises Internet security. She also noted that it would be more expensive for not-for-profit organizations to protect their brand names/trademarks against fraud, [[cybersquatting]] and trademark infringement. She also pointed out that not-for-profit-organizations cannot afford the amount of money needed to become a domain name registry to ensure brand protection. Williams encouraged [[ICANN]] to consider the concerns of the members of the NPOC. She also recommended that verified not-for-profit organizations be allowed to exempt their trademarks from any new TLD applicant at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=56a49ede-865f-4bbe-9635-58d0b59add7b Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012]. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.</ref>

During the hearing, [[Dan Jaffe]] testified that the new gTLD program is "bad for consumers, marketers and the entire online marketplace" and enumerated different reasons why it is necessary to the stop its implementation. According to him, there is no substantial evidence that the new gTLD program will promote competition, relieve the scarcity of domain name space and support differentiated services and new products. He also cited that the new gTLD program has a serious economic impact. Brand owners might be compelled to file for [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]] to protect their trademarks or [[Intellectual Property|intellectual property]] rights. There is a possibility of misappropriation of intellectual property rights, domain navigation dilution, increased risk of cybersquatting, reduced investments from intellectual property owners, and losses from failed TLDs. Jaffe supported his claims using the “Economic Considerations in the Expansion of Generic TopLevel Domain Names, Phase II Report: Case Studies,” a study commissioned by ICANN in December, 2010. In addition, he also emphasized that the new gTLD programs lacks consensus and ICANN failed to meet its "bottom-up, consensus-driven approach to policy development." Furthermore, he pointed out that the application fee is too expensive and harmful for brand owners and he also raised the concerns regarding the organization's conflict of interest policies after [[Peter Dengate Thrush]] decided to join [[Minds + Machines]] as Executive Chairman immediately after his term as chairman of ICANN. Thrush strongly advocated approval of the new gTLD program.<ref>

As representative of the U.S. [[NTIA]], [[Fiona Alexander]] informed the members of the Senate Committee that the agency is part of the [[Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC), which is actively involved in the policy development process within ICANN. She testified that the NTIA and its counterparts within the GAC provided consensus advice to ICANN during the policy development process for the new gTLD program for six years. She emphasized that the GAC developed a "scorecard" to address the different issues raised by governments, which include:

[[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 trade mark 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>

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

* '''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-cybersquatting law.

* '''Estimated Number of New gTLDs to be Created'''- Pritz explained that based on the Root Server Stability experts advise, 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. Prits also emphasized that ICANN's budget is utilized in a transparent manner. The use of excess funds are subject to community discussions and consultations.

* '''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 an strengthen the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] (RAA) to meet the recommendations before 2013.

# Agreeing to hybrid system of decentralized and centralized system for Trademark Claims

# Offering trademark claims service for at least first 60 days of general registration and all new gTLD registries must offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period

In September, 2012, an influential consumer advocacy group, Consumer Watchdog, sent a letter to U.S. Sen. Rockefeller, who is the chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Sen. Rockefeller's senate subcommittee is the same that had held hearings regarding ICANN and its [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]] just before its launch. Consumer Watchdog is upset over both [[Google]] and Amazon's plans to acquire generic TLDs and then to restrict them only for their own use. The letter states: "If these applications are granted, large parts of the Internet would be privatized. It is one thing to own a domain associated with your brand, but it is a huge problem to take control of generic strings. Both Google and Amazon are already dominant players on the Internet. Allowing them further control by buying generic domain strings would threaten the free and open Internet that consumers rely upon. Consumer Watchdog urges you to do all that you can to thwart these outrageous efforts and ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth while serving the interests of all of its users." The whole letter can be seen [http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/ltrrockefeller091912.pdf here].<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10535-consumer-watchdog-slams-outrageous-google-and-amazon-keyword-gtld-bids Consumer Watchdog Slams Outrageous Google and Amazon Keyword gTLD bids, DomainIncite.com]</ref>

This letter came just a day after a similar appeal by a group of domain industry regulars was announced. [[Michele Neylon]], CEO of [[Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd]] and a highly active member of the ICANN community, led the signatories of a letter adressing the same issue, though it does not name [[Google]] nor Amazon by name. Instead it focuses on any and all use of generic terms that are being sought after only to become closed TLDs: "generic words used in a generic way belong to all people. It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., .BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to register and use second level domain names of these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do. In contrast, to allow individual Registry Operators to segregate and close-off common words for which they do not possess intellectual property rights in effect allows them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched legal processes for obtaining legitimate and recognized trademark protections." Other signatories include: [[Scott Pinzon]], former Director of ICANN; [[Kelly Hardy]], domain industry consultant; [[Frédéric Guillemaut]], MailClub.fr; [[Robert Birkner]], 1API GmbH; the whole letter can be seen [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit here]. [[Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd|Blacknight]] continued to lead public awareness campaigns against closed generics into 2013, when the [[ICANN Board]] requested a public comment period on the issue.<ref>[http://blog.blacknight.com/blacknight-urges-icann-to-reconsider-closed-generic-tlds.html Blacknight Urges ICANN to reconsider, Blog.Blacknight.com] Retrieved 18 Feb 2013</ref>

In early March, 2013, Google announced via public comments ICANN held on the Closed Generic issue that it would no longer be seeking to close off any of its generic applications, and specifically noted the offending applications, [[.app]], [[.blog]], [[.cloud]] and [[.search]]. It noted that it planned to affect these changes through amendments to its applications.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130308_google_bows_to_pressure_on_closed_generics/ Google Bows to Pressure on Closed Generics, CircleID.com] Retrieved March 8th 2013</ref>