Jump to content

Generic top-level domain: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
Caterina (talk | contribs)
14,326 edits
Caterina (talk | contribs)
14,326 edits
No edit summary
Line 111: Line 111:


==New gTLD Program==
==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 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 [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> The Board announced the possibility of a 9th version of the Guidebook in January 2012, but the industry speculated that there was little chance that the changes would be more than clarification, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
:: ''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 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 [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref>
===Anti-New gTLD Sentiment===
A number of high profile opponents have come out against ICANN and its new gTLD program, including: [[Association of National Advertisers]] (ANA), the [[Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse]] (CADNA), the [[Coalition for Responsible Internet Domain Oversight]] (CRIDO), the National Retail Federation,<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/icann-facing-growing-pressure-over-new-domain-name-plan-20111025 ICANN Facing Growing Pressure Over New Domain Name Plan, NationalJournal.com]]</ref>, and others. Major corporations involved with these organizations include: Adidas, Dell, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Kraft Foods, and other prominent American and internationally known brands.<ref>[http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/22399 ANA.net]</ref> ICANN's new gTLD program also recieved negative Op-Eds by the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/opinion/expanding-internet-domains.html?_r=3&ref=internetcorpforassignednamesandnumbers Exapnding Internet Domains, NYTimes.com]</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_story.html What's the .rush, WashingtonPost.com]</ref> ICANN was also the subject of the hearings within the [[U.S. Congress]], detailed below, and consequently received letters from Senators and Congressmen asking them to delay or reevaluate the program. Other government criticism included a petition for delay by the [[FTC]].<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/12/icann.shtm ICANN, FTC.gov]</ref> Many of these critics were not explicitly anti-ICANN, but anti-new gTLDs. The most common complaint came from trademark owners and their lobbying groups, who believed that the new program would create significant costs for them via defensive registrations without adding any value to their marketing and commercial outreach programs. However, some saw this as a result of miseducation given that many trademark protections are built into the new gTLD program. Other concerns, such as those from former ICANN Chair [[Esther Dyson]], were focused on potential confusion for the end-user.<ref>[http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=c81ce454-f519-4373-a51d-234c61755e39 Testimony of Esther Dyson, Commerce.Senate.gov]</ref>
 
===New gTLD Senate and House of Representatives Hearings===
On December 8, [[U.S. Congress|the U.S. Senate]] Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing, lobbied for by [[ANA]], regarding to ICANN's new gTLD program. Speakers included Senior Vice President of ICANN, [[Kurt Pritz]]; [[Fiona Alexander]], Associate Administrator of the Office of International Affairs at [[NTIA]]; [[Dan Jaffe]], Executive Vice President of Government Relations for ANA; [[Esther Dyson]], who served as ICANN's Founding Chairman (1998-2000), speaking as an independent investor; and Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the YMCA [[Angela Williams]], speaking on behalf of [[NPOC]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20111208_us_senate_committee_holds_hearing_on_icanns_new_tld_expansion/  US Senate Committee Holds Hearing on ICANN's New TLD Expansion, circleid.com]</ref> Senate officials present included: Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV); Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.),<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref> and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash).
 
Sen. Rockefeller stated his support of the new gTLD program, claiming that he believed it was pro-competition and pro-innovation, but that the roll-out should be slower and more cautious. He cited the potential for fraud, consumer confusion, and cybersquatting as massive, requiring a phased implementation.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/notes-from-the-senate-new-gtlds-hearing/ Notes from the Senate new gTLDs hearing, domainincite.com]</ref>
 
One of biggest the concerns expressed was that companies, including not-for-profits, would have to spend a lot of money to prevent [[cybersquatting]] and typosquatting. Dyson argued that the new TLD program "create[s] opportunities for entrepreneurs but [doesn't] really create any value for the economy." Pritz explained that defensive registration will likely not be as necessary as companies believe, as many of the new TLDs will not be big or open enough for cybersquatters to take advantage. Additionally, several new trademark protections had been built into the expansion strategy, making the new TLDs better protected against cybersquatters than those currently available.
 
Sen. Ayotte expressed concerns that adding significantly more TLDs would create a challenge for law enforcement officials to police websites.
 
Another major concern, voiced by ANA, was that there was no consensus on the program, and that the date for the application period to open was arbitrary.<ref>[http://adage.com/article/digital/senate-implores-icann-slow-roll/231478/ Senate Implores ICANN to Slow Its Roll but Admits It Can't Do Anything to Stop It, adage.com]</ref>
 
In a letter dated December 8th, the same day as the Senate hearing, twenty-eight domain name industry participants wrote to Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to support the new gTLD program. They supported ICANN's argument that the program would be innovative and economically beneficial, and that the program had taken lots of people a long time to develop, hence it had not been rushed.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/new-gtld-industry-pleads-with-senators/ New gTLD industry pleads with senators]</ref>
 
On December 14, a second hearing was held, hosted by the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee. Those speaking at this hearing were Fiona Alexander from NTIA, Dan Jaffe from ANA, Kurt Pritz from ICANN, [[Employ Media]] CEO [[Thomas Embrescia]], and [[Joshua Bourne]] representing [[CADNA]].<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/13/house-hearing-testimonies What the House testimonies tell us, dot-nxt.com]</ref>
 
The result of the House hearing was the suggestion that the program be delayed until there is a consensus between all relevant stakeholders, made by Rep. Eshoo. Pritz and Alexander came to the defense of ICANN's [[Multistakeholder Model]], arguing that the process had not been rushed. It had taken ICANN seven years to get to the point where all the issues had been discussed and no new issues were being raised, during which time they had consulted all the relevant stakeholders. Alexander made the point that "consensus" does not always mean "unanimity."
 
[[CADNA]], a long-time opposer to ICANN and the new gTLD program, also came to the support of ICANN. CADNA's change of heart came about as their sister group, [[FairWinds Partners]], decided to provide new gTLD consultancy services. Bourne praised [[.xxx]]'s novel trademark protection mechanisms, saying they should be mandatory for all new gTLDs, and claimed that Congress could help in fighting cybersquatters by revising the old US [[Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act]]. He did, however, request that ICANN announce dates for subsequent application rounds, in order to relieve the "condition of scarcity" that this uncertainty created.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-for-new-gtlds-delay/ Congressmen ask for new gTLDs delay, domainincite.com]</ref>
 
The following week, the US Congress sent a letter addressed to ICANN President and CEO [[Rod Beckstrom]] and [[ICANN Board|Board]] Chairman [[Steve Crocker]], asking ICANN to delay the new gTLD program. The letter was signed by seventeen Congressmen, lead by Rep. Fred Upton. The letter cited their concern about the significant uncertainty about the process for businesses, non-profit organizations, and consumers. The suggested delay would serve to allow time for these groups to have their concerns alleviated.
<ref>[http://domainincite.com/congressmen-ask-icann-to-delay-new-gtlds/ Congressmen ask ICANN to delay new gTLDs]</ref>
 
There was also a letter sent by two Congressman, Bob Goodlatte and Howard Berman, to the [[Department of Commerce]], in which they asked for a delay to the new gTLD program, and asked a number of questions on the Department's own preparedness and handling of the affair. They ask if ICANN is actually following its [[Affirmation of Commitments]] with the Department, and what the Department is doing to ensure that ICANN is following these commitments and protecting American businesses.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/12/20/two-congressmen-ask-commerce-department-for-delay-to-new-tlds/ Two Congressmen Ask Commerce Department For Delay to New TLDs, DomainNameWire.com]</ref>
 
In response to all of this, [[Lawrence Strickling]], of the [[Department of Commerce]]'s [[National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], sent a letter to ICANN chastising it for its poor outreach program and the miseducation going on about its new gTLD program. In his letter, addressed to [[ICANN Chairman|Chairman]] [[Steve Crocker]], Mr. Strickling urged ICANN to more successfully showcase their new gTLD expansion program, and especially emphasize the number of built-in protections for trademark owners.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref>
 
Mr. Strickling notes that NTIA has no plan or desire to actually interfere in the process after the 6 years of work and the imminent launch, but he does lament the number of problems that have been created largely by [[ICANN]]'s poor outreach and education. NTIA identified 3 specific things to address: to educate trademark owners about measures in place allowing them to forego [[Defensive Registration|defensive registrations]]; to immediately implement consumer protections it has already devised; and to generally better educate all stakeholders. However, NTIA did suggest and open up the possibility of adding further protections once the application pool is closed and NTIA, alongside [[ICANN]]'s [[GAC]], had a chance to review the pool of applicants and reflect on what further steps could  be taken in the [[SLD|second level]].<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, ntia.doc.gov]</ref> The full letter can be seen [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf here].
 
===New gTLD Roadshow===
In order to draw awareness to the new gTLD program, [[ICANN CEO]] [[Rod Beckstrom]] embarked on a world tour beginning in September, 2011 and concluding in December.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2011/12/new-gtld-roadshows/ New gTLD Roadshows, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> The tour saw him personally visit 16 countries, while other staff and board members visited an additional 22 countries.<ref>[https://twitter.com/#!/RodBeckstrom/status/150262824977969152 Twitter Post Dec 23 2011, Twitter.com]</ref> The publicity was also picked up by major news outlets such as CNN, Al-Jazeera, the BBC, The New York Times, and others; however, some of this coverage was actually showing the program in a negative light. The road show was seen as a success by few outside of the actual organization, as many countries and corporations continued to misunderstand the program or know little to nothing about it at all.<ref>[https://omblog.icann.org/?p=527 ICANN Ombudsman Blog, OmBlog.ICANN.org]</ref><ref>[http://urbanbrain.posterous.com/new-gtld-outreach-hits-japan-well-grazes-it-a New gTLD Outreach Grazes Japan, UrbanBrain.Posterous.com]</ref> This percieved failure by those following ICANN was perhaps best underscored by the aforemetioned letter sent by [[Larry Strickling]], of the U.S. [[Department of Commerce]], to [[ICANN Chair]] [[Steve Crocker]] a mere week prior to the gTLD program's launch in January, 2012, which chastised ICANN's failure to educate major brands and concerned parties.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_letter_on_gtld_program_jan_3_2012.pdf NTIA Letter on gTLD Program Jan 3 2012, NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
[[Category: Glossary]]
[[Category: Glossary]]

Revision as of 23:00, 9 January 2012

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 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. There are currently 21 gTLDs in the root zone of the Internet and they are categorized as:

The gTLDs are managed and operated either by their sponsoring organization and or a registry operator approved by ICANN.

Background[edit | edit source]

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.[2] 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.[3]

The original TLDs were managed and administered by the Network Information Center, the first assigned registrar responsible for hosting and registering domain names. NIC was operated by SRI International.[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7] Subsequently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Named and Numbers was created on October 1998.[8] 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.[9]

First Round: New gTLD Expansion[edit | edit source]

Recommendation for the Introduction of New GTLDs[edit | edit source]

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 expressions of interest to become registry operators for new gTLDs.[10][11]

Thousands of comments regarding the introduction of new gTLDs were received by the ICANN Board through the ICANN Public Comment Forum.[12] 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.[13]

ICANN Criteria for Assessing gTLD Proposals[edit | edit source]

On August 15, 2000, the ICANN Board issued the Criteria for Assessing the TLD Proposals, expressing:

  • The need to maintain the Internet's stability.
  • The extent to which selection of the proposal would lead to an effective "proof of concept" concerning the introduction of top-level domains in the future.
  • The enhancement of competition for registration services.
  • The enhancement of the utility of the DNS.
  • The extent to which the proposal would meet previously unmet needs.
  • The extent to which the proposal would enhance the diversity of the DNS and of registration services generally.
  • The evaluation of delegation of policy-formulation functions for special-purpose TLDs to appropriate organizations.
  • Appropriate protections of rights of others in connection with the operation of a TLD.
  • The completeness of the proposals submitted and the extent to which they demonstrate realistic business, financial, technical, and operational plans and sound analysis of market needs.[14]

The TLD Application Process: Information for Applicants was also released on the same date.[15]

ICANN Selects Seven New gTLDs[edit | edit source]

ICANN received more than 40 applications. On November 16, 2000, the ICANN Board conducted discussion and open forum regarding the applications for new gTLD, which was open for an entire day. After an extensive evaluation, the ICANN Board selected seven new gTLDs: .biz (JVTeam), .info (Afilias), .name (Global Name Registry), .pro (RegistryPro), .museum (Museum Domain Management Association), .aero (Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques), and .coop (Cooperative League of the USA). Authority to enter negotiations with the sponsors for these new gTLDs was given to the ICANN President and General Counsel.[16]

On May 11, 2001, ICANN signed the .biz and .info Registry Agreements.[17] The .name Registry agreement was approved on August 1, 2001;[18] .museum was signed on October 17, 2001;[19] .coop was signed November 21, 2001;[20] .aero was signed on December 17, 2001;[21] and the .pro registry agreement was approved on March 14, 2002.[22]

Second Round: New gTLD Expansion[edit | edit source]

The New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) Report[edit | edit source]

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:

  • 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.
  • ICANN Board should determine a time frame and process for the launch of new gTLDs.
  • A TLD Evaluation Advisory Committee (TEAC) should be appointed by ICANN to provide the overall coordination and guidance for the evaluation team, which should be supervised by the ICANN Staff.
  • Provide adequate funds for the evaluation process.
  • Identify to what extent ICANN can initiate the planning and solicitation of proposals for new gTLDs in conjunction with the evaluation and monitoring process.[23]

Subsequently on August 23, 2002, the ICANN Board directed ICANN President Lynn to create an action plan regarding the NTEPPTF report.[24]

A Plan of Action regarding New gTLDs[edit | edit source]

On October 18, 2002, Lynn submitted a Plan of Action regarding new gTLDs, recommending the following:

  • Instruct the ICANN Staff to solicit three or more proposals for sponsored TLDs (sTLDs) 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.
  • Those applicants who submitted their proposals for new sponsored TLDs in 2000 should be invited to update and resubmit their proposals. New sponsored TLD proposals will also be accepted.
  • 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.
  • The independent and financial evaluation process should be simplified, particularly the review of financial capacity, in order to accelerate the process and reduce cost.
  • Use the existing contractual framework for the new sponsored TLDs.[25]

[edit | edit source]

On June 23, 2003, ICANN released the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the establishment of new sponsored top level domain names. The RFP emphasized that the requirements for operating a new sTLD are rigorous and only applicants with high qualifications that meet or exceed the selection criteria will be accepted. An additional $25,000 would be required on top of the $50,000 application fee for those whose applications were already evaluated in 2000.[26]

Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria[edit | edit source]

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:[27]

A. Applicants should provide evidence of ability to ensure stable registry operation.

  • 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 a full range of registry services
  • ensure continuity of registry operation in the event of business failure of the proposed registry

B. Conform to requirements of sponsored TLD

  • provide precise definition of Sponsored TLD Community (determine the persons and entities within the community)
  • appropriateness of the Sponsoring Organization and the policy formulation environment
  • responsiveness to Sponsored TLD Community
  • demonstrate a large base of support from community

C. Add new value to the DNS

  • value of name
  • enhanced diversity of the DNS

D. Reach and enrich broad global communities

  • demographic reach
  • global reach and accessibility

E. Protect the rights of others

  • assurance of charter-compliant registrations and avoidance of abusive registration practices
  • assurance of adequate dispute-resolution mechanisms
  • provision of ICANN-policy compliant Whois service

F. Provide complete and well-structured applications

ICANN Added 8 New sTLDs[edit | edit source]

After extensively evaluating the applications for new sTLDs, the ICANN Board approved 8 strings to be added in the root zone of the DNS which include:

New gTLD Program[edit | edit source]

Main Article: New gTLD Program

After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a 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 New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.[36]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ IANA Root Zone Data Base
  2. ↑ RFC 920
  3. ↑ IANA Report
  4. ↑ SRI's Role in Assigning Top-Level Domain Names and Managing the Network Information Center
  5. ↑ RFC 1591
  6. ↑ Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule
  7. ↑ Management of Internet Names and Addresses
  8. ↑ Proposal for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  9. ↑ Group C-new gTLDs Interim Report, October 23th, 1999
  10. ↑ DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs
  11. ↑ ICANN Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
  12. ↑ Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
  13. ↑ Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes-New Top Level Domains
  14. ↑ Criteria for Assessing the TLD Proposals
  15. ↑ TLD Application Process: Information for Applicants
  16. ↑ Second Annual Meeting and Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board Preliminary Report
  17. ↑ IANA Report on .biz and .info
  18. ↑ IANA Report .name
  19. ↑ IANA Report.museum
  20. ↑ IANA Report .coop
  21. ↑ IANA Report .aero
  22. ↑ IANA Report .pro
  23. ↑ Draft of Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
  24. ↑ 2002-08-23 - New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
  25. ↑ A Plan of Action regarding New gTLDs by Stuart Lynn, ICANN President
  26. ↑ Establishment of new sTLDs: Request for Proposals
  27. ↑ Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria
  28. ↑ Registry Agreement
  29. ↑ .cat TLD Sponsorship Agreement
  30. ↑ .jobs Registry Agreement
  31. ↑ .mobi TLD Sponsorship Agreement
  32. ↑ .tel Registry Agreement
  33. ↑ .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement
  34. ↑ .POST Sponsored TLD Agreement
  35. ↑ .XXX Registry Agreement
  36. ↑ About the New gTLD Program

Deprecated. Domain Name Supporting Organization. Predecessor of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which advised the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System (ICANN Bylaws).

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Generic_top-level_domain&oldid=50968"