Generic top-level domain

From ICANNWiki
Revision as of 19:55, 11 May 2022 by Franjavier (talk | contribs) (→‎ICANN Selects Seven New gTLDs: updated)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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. Before the opening of the 2012 application process for the New gTLD Program, there were 22 gTLDs.[1] As of August 2021, 1239 gTLDs have been delegated the root zone of the Internet.[2] GTLDS can be categorized as:

  • 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;
  • generic restricted (.biz, .name, .pro), which can be use only for their specified purposes and
  • infrastructure (.arpa), which is exclusively used to support operationally-critical infrastructural identifier spaces and it is operated by IANA.[3]

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


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.[4] 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.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

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.[9] Subsequently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Named and Numbers was created in October 1998.[10] 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.[11]

First Round: New gTLD Expansion

Recommendation for the Introduction of New GTLDs

In 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.[12][13]

Thousands of comments regarding the introduction of new gTLDs were received by the ICANN Board through the ICANN Public Comment Forum.[14] 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.[15]

ICANN Criteria for Assessing gTLD Proposals

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.[16]

The TLD Application Process: Information for Applicants was also released on the same date.[17]

ICANN Selects Seven New gTLDs

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.[18]

On May 11, 2001, ICANN signed the .biz and .info Registry Agreements.[19] The .name Registry agreement was approved on August 1, 2001;[20] .museum was signed on October 17, 2001;[21] .coop was signed November 21, 2001;[22] .aero was signed on December 17, 2001;[23] and the .pro registry agreement was approved on March 14, 2002[24] and it can also be used for offering legal services.[25]

Second Round: New gTLD Expansion

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:

  • 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.[26]

Subsequently, on August 23, 2002, the ICANN Board directed ICANN President Lynn to create an action plan regarding the NTEPPTF report.[27]

A Plan of Action regarding New gTLDs

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 an extension of the Proof of Concept, following 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 namespace taxonomy should be addressed as a prerequisite to the 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 the 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.[28]

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.[29]

Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria

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:[30]

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

  • provide a detailed business plan to ensure the satisfactory continuation of registry operation
  • ensure that the chosen registry operator will conform to high standards in the 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 a 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 the community

C. Add new value to the DNS

  • value of the 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

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:

Senate Hearing on New gTLD Program

On December 8, 2012, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation conducted a full committee hearing to evaluate the value and effects of the new gTLD expansion program as well as ICANN's efforts in resolving the concerns raised by the Internet community. Witnesses present during the committee hearings included: [39]

Witnesses' Testimonies

Angela Williams represented the concerns of the members of ICANN's 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.[40]

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 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 registrations to protect their trademarks or 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 program 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 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.[41]

Esther Dyson testified that the new gTLD program is not necessary to promote innovation. She said, "The rationale is that there's a shortage of domain names... but actually, there's a shortage of space in people's heads." She recommended for ICANN to conduct further consultation regarding the program and make a broader public outreach. She concluded her testimony with the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"[42]

As a 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:

  • objection procedures for governments
  • procedures for the review of sensitive strings
  • root zone scaling
  • market and economic impacts
  • registry-registrar separation
  • protection of trademark rights and other intellectual property
  • consumer protection issues
  • post-delegation disputes with governments
  • use and protection of geographic names
  • legal recourse for applicants
  • opportunities for stakeholders from developing countries
  • law enforcement due diligence recommendations
  • 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 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.[43]

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 Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) and the Trademark Clearing House, measures to mitigate malicious conduct, create objection processes, maintain 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..."[44] [45]

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:[46]

  • 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:
  1. String Confusion Objection- the proposed new gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing or to another applied-for gTLD string.
  2. Legal Rights Objection- the gTLD string being applied for infringes the existing legal rights of the objector.
  3. Limited Public Interest Objection- the proposed new gTLD string contradicts the generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order that are recognized under the principles of international law.
  4. Community Objection- a significant number of the target community is opposed to the new gTLD string being applied for.

Any objections should be filed to one of the three independent dispute resolution providers approved by ICANN, including the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (string confusion objections), WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (legal rights objections), and the International Chamber of Commerce-International Center of Expertise (limited public interest and community objections). Moreover, Pritz also emphasized the appointment of an Independent Objector, whose responsibility will be to review applications on behalf of the public interest and to file an objection if necessary.

  • Sunrise Period- Pritz informed the members of the committee that a Sunrise Period is mandated for all approved new gTLDs. The Trademark Clearinghouse will serve as a central repository of trademark rights information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated. All trademark holders will have the chance to record all their nationally and multi-nationally registered word marks from all jurisdictions. All the authenticated trademark rights data in the Trademark Clearinghouse will be used to protect those related domains during the pre-launch of the Sunrise Period and the Trademark claims services.
  • DNS Security (DNSSEC)- Pritz confirmed that all new gTLD applicants are required to implement DNSSEC. He also informed them that 82% of existing TLD registries have already deployed DNSSEC to ensure the security and stability of the DNS.
  • 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 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.

In early November 2012, Chehadé invited a group of business, IP, and noncommercial users, along with registrar and registry stakeholder groups, to discuss Clearinghouse-related issues. Resolutions and decisions for ICANN include[47]:

  • Registration: How registration recording and verification are addressed
  1. Agreeing to map out trademark submission and verification components
  2. Developing a new system to offer timely and accurate information on new gTLD launches
  3. Implementing seminars between implementers and various users
  • Sunrise Management: How to use Sunrise data files and offer flexibility for rights holders
  1. Offering model in which Clearinghouse data can be provided securely to rights holders for early sunrise registration
  2. Giving details on the degree of "matching" between a Clearinghouse record and a domain name's Whois data.
  • Claims Management: How new gTLDs registries and registrars will facilitate Clearinghouse records during the registration process
  1. Agreeing to a hybrid decentralized and centralized system for Trademark Claims
  2. Offering trademark claims service for at least the first 60 days of general registration and all new gTLD registries must offer a minimum 30-day sunrise period
  3. Decided not to implement measures to address the potential mining of the Clearinghouse database for purposes not related to rights protection, on the basis that most controls would be ineffective

Third Round: New gTLD Program

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.[48]

Closed Generic Strings

After ICANN published information on its 1,930 applications in the third round of gTLD expansion ("The New gTLD Program") it was immediately noted that some companies had applied for a number of generic terms relevant to their business, writing in their applications that they intended to be the sole registrant for the TLD. There was no Brand TLD distinction in this round, though there were guesses that ICANN would create rules for such TLDs in any future round. Thus, the closed generic terms violated no rules as developed through the GNSO process and as included in the Applicant Guidebook. Some noted that this was in fact an intentional byproduct of the program that had been considered while others disagreed.[49]

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 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 here.[50]

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 addressing 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,; Robert Birkner, 1API GmbH; the whole letter can be seen here. Blacknight continued to lead public awareness campaigns against closed generics into 2013, when the ICANN Board requested a public comment period on the issue.[51]

The largest applicant for closed gTLDs is Amazon, and many worried that their applications to control a large number of generic terms would result in them circumnavigating traditional navigation for shopping online and give them an unfair competitive advantage. Other notable portfolio applicants with multiple applications for closed generic terms include L'Oréal and Google.[52] In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a GAC Early Warning from GAC Chair, Heather Dryden. The early warning system is the work of an individual GAC member but signals that the larger GAC organization may later issue official advice recommending the rejection of the TLD application as-is by the ICANN Board. Those applicants that receive warnings are encouraged to work with the objecting representative. The German representative also raised issues with regards to closed generics.[53][54]

Following further questions, ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee looked at the issue. Information on their January meeting that was released in February 2013 shows that they were unclear how to even define a closed generic, what its common attributes are, what an appropriate remediation strategy would be, and they further note that there is no violation taking place between the applications and the Applicant Guidebook, and therefore have no room to comment or change policy without further direction from a policy development process started in the GNSO. Still, they opened up a public comment period on February 5th, 2013, to ascertain opinions on what a closed generic is, and what the criteria are for when a proposed registry can operate a "closed" or "open" string.[55]

Objections to closed generics have come from Microsoft, who notes the danger they pose to competition on the Internet, and an online petition started by Tom Gilles of[52][56]


In mid-February 2013, it was announced that an applicant represented by industry lawyer Philip Corwin would be contacting and lobbying lawmakers in Washington and Brussels, or raising litigation, against Google. The applicant in question remains unknown though it is in contention with Google for at least one TLD. It is not in contention with Amazon, which has in fact applied for many more closed TLDs than Google. The issue at hand is the competition advantage that Google has given its search dominance and its ownership of sites such as youtube. Therefore, its applications for .film, .movie, .mov, .live, .show and .tube could all be used to create further market dominance within the online video and content streaming markets.[57]

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.[58]

IO on Closed Generics

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.[59]


  1. New gTLD Program, DigWatch
  2. Statistics, nTLDs, ICANN
  3. IANA Root Zone Data Base
  4. RFC 920
  5. IANA Report
  6. SRI's Role in Assigning Top-Level Domain Names and Managing the Network Information Center
  7. RFC 1591
  8. Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses; Proposed Rule
  9. Management of Internet Names and Addresses
  10. Proposal for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
  11. Group C-new gTLDs Interim Report, October 23th, 1999
  12. DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs
  13. ICANN Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
  14. Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
  15. Regular Meeting of the Board Minutes-New Top-Level Domains
  16. Criteria for Assessing the TLD Proposals
  17. TLD Application Process: Information for Applicants
  18. Second Annual Meeting and Organizational Meeting of the ICANN Board Preliminary Report
  19. IANA Report on .biz and .info
  20. IANA Report .name
  21. IANA
  22. IANA Report .coop
  23. IANA Report .aero
  24. IANA Report .pro
  25. Consider the Purpose
  26. Draft of Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
  27. 2002-08-23 - New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
  28. A Plan of Action regarding New gTLDs by Stuart Lynn, ICANN President
  29. Establishment of new sTLDs: Request for Proposals
  30. Evaluation Methodology and Selection Criteria
  31. Registry Agreement
  32. .cat TLD Sponsorship Agreement
  33. .jobs Registry Agreement
  34. .mobi TLD Sponsorship Agreement
  35. .tel Registry Agreement
  36. .travel Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement
  37. .POST Sponsored TLD Agreement
  38. .XXX Registry Agreement
  39. Hearings-ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains-Dec. 8, 2012. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.
  40. Testimony of Angela F. Williams, Senate Hearing, Dec. 8, 2012. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.
  41. Testimony of Daniel L. Jaffe, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2012. U.S. Senate. Published 2012 December 8.
  42. Testimony of Esther Dyson, Hearing on ICANN's Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.
  43. Testimony of Fiona M. Alexander, Hearing on ICANN’s Expansion of Top Level Domains, Dec. 8, 2011. U.S. Senate. Published 2011 December 8.
  44. Testimony of Kurt Pritz, Hearing on Expansion of Top Level Domain Names, Dec. 8, 2012
  45. 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.
  46. Pritz to Boxer. Published 2012 January 25.
  47. Building a Secure and Reliable Trademark Clearinghouse. ICANN Blog. Published 2012 November 7. Retrieved 2012 November 13.
  48. About the New gTLD Program
  49. User Summary, AM
  50. Consumer Watchdog Slams Outrageous Google and Amazon Keyword gTLD bids,
  51. Blacknight Urges ICANN to reconsider, Retrieved 18 Feb 2013
  52. 52.0 52.1
  53. The gTLD Land Grab Controversy Google Amazon and the GAC Part II, Pub 14 Jan 2013, Retrieved 6 Jan 2013
  54. GAC Early Warnings,
  55. Announcement, ICANN.org5 February 2013
  56. Microsoft is Latest to Come Out Against Closed Generic New gTLDs in Letter to ICANN, Published and Retrieved 6 Feb 2013
  57. Mystery gTLD Applicant to Take Googe Fight to Lawmakers, Published 13 Feb 2013, Retrieved 14 Feb 2013
  58. Google Bows to Pressure on Closed Generics, Retrieved March 8th, 2013
  59. The Issue of Closed Generic gTLDs, Retrieved 14 Mar 2013