44 captures

11 Dec 1997 - 21 May 2024

Apr	JUN	Aug
	02
2003	2004	2005

success

fail

About this capture

COLLECTED BY

Organization: Alexa Crawls

Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.

Collection: Alexa Crawl DX

Crawl DX from Alexa Internet. This data is currently not publicly accessible.

TIMESTAMPS

International Ad Hoc Committee
February 4, 1997

This Report contains the final recommendations from the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC), a task force selected by the IAB, IANA, ITU, INTA, WIPO, and ISOC. A companion, part sub-titled "Legal Documents" contains drafts of all relevant instruments to be used in implementing the recommendations in this Report.

This Report provides description and explanation of the gTLD administration and management recommendations selected by the IAHC. The report attempts to be thorough and accurate, with respect to the details of the Legal Documents which implement these recommendations. In the case of disparities between statements in this Report and contents of the Legal Documents, the Legal Documents will take precedence.

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Top Level Domain (TLD) names provide the beginning of the Internet naming scheme. The International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC, www.iahc.org) was formed to pursue enhancements in the administration and use of the "international" Top Level Domain name space (iTLD).

The IAHC has developed recommendations for enhancement to "generic" Top Level Domains (gTLDs) administration and operation which balance concerns for stable operations, continued growth, business opportunities, and legal constraints. The recommendations call for periodic review and modification, as experience dictates.

After extensive discussions and consultations, including the use of public mailing lists as well as attendance at various public forums, the IAHC is now able to submit the following report of its findings and recommendations.

The purview of the IAHC is that of gTLD registries. A registry comprises the range of registration activities, initiated by registrants through registrars which record relevant information in repositories. Oversight of registries is performed by stewards. Each TLD is a separate registry, although actual administration and operations of a set of TLDs may be performed jointly.

The major aspects of this report are outlined here:

Domain Name Service

• The Internet top level domain space is a public resource and is subject to the public trust. Therefore any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet TLD space is a public policy issue and should be carried out in an open and public manner in the interests and service of the public. Appropriately, related public policy needs to openly balance and represent the interests of the current and future stakeholders in the Internet name space.

• TLDs .com, .org, and .net are currently referred to as "international" but are more appropriately called "generic" (gTLDs); only .int represents a truly international portion of the name space.

• Current difficulties with gTLDs are highly exacerbated by inadequate use of the .us TLD and the IAHC requests that scaleable and functional Second-Level Domains (SLDs) for .us be defined and used, in the spirit of those that already exist for many other ISO 3166-based TLDs.

gTLD Governance

• The IAHC plan includes establishment of a non-regulatory policy framework in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which both the public and private sector will be invited to sign. The framework is enabled by the required signatories of the gTLD DNS Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU): IANA and ISOC. The gTLD-MoU will provide a mechanism for additional signatories to advise on future policy evolution of the global Internet domain name system. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has agreed, in principle, to act as the depository for the gTLD-MoU and to publish the list of signatories.

• The IAHC has defined an additional set of seven (7) gTLDs. Any additional gTLDs will be defined under the aegis and policy coordination of the gTLD-MoU. The newly-defined gTLDs are:

• gTLD administration and management will comprise multiple competing registrars, globally dispersed, under a Council of Registrars (CORE) established by a Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU) which is signed by the registrars. CORE will operate as a Swiss non-profit association.

• Stewardship of the gTLD space is assigned to the gTLD DNS Policy Oversight Committee (POC) comprising members named by the Internet Society (ISOC), Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), International Telecommunications Union (ITU), International Trademark Association (INTA), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and CORE.

• A gTLD DNS Policy Advisory Body (PAB) is formed from gTLD-signatories, to obtain public and private sector consultation and review of POC and CORE activities.

• Changes to policy can be initiated by POC and enabled upon the agreement of ISOC and IANA, with the review of PAB and CORE.

• CORE will be responsible for providing common services among the registrars, in particular operating a shared data base repository for the gTLD registries.

Trademark Issues

• Trademark concerns indicate some value in allowing registrants to voluntarily authorize the registrar to undertake a sixty-day publication period, prior to registration of an SLD under a gTLD. ISO 3166-based TLDs are encouraged to make similar notification mechanisms available to registrants under their own portion of the name space. In addition it is suggested that a dedicated name space, called .tm.int, be created to accommodate the international character of some trademarks.

• Trademark concerns require the availability of dispute mechanisms which are alternatives to court litigation. These include an administrative challenge process against the assignment of SLDs that allegedly violate gTLD policy regarding internationally known intellectual property rights, as well as mediation and expedited arbitration options. In addition, the SLD application and renewal process will include detailed contact information including submission to jurisdiction, publication of all SLD applications on a publicly accessible site, a voluntary 60 day pre-assignment waiting period and permanent identification of those applicants who chose to utilize the 60 day period.

1 INTRODUCTION

This report comprises the recommendations of a committee formed to resolve a difficult and long-standing set of challenges in the Domain Name System, namely enhancing its use while attempting to juggle such concerns as administrative fairness, operational stability and robustness, and protection of intellectual property. Each component of this topic offers a wide range of solutions. Each possible solution has a supporting constituency.

Necessarily, any proposal attempting to navigate the many constraints must represent equally many compromises. This proposal is offered with the hope and expectation that the Internet community will appreciate that necessity and offer constructive suggestions for improvements which maintain the reasonable balance attempted by this proposal.

1.1 IAHC Charter

The Domain Name System (DNS) is an essential component in the Internet's operational infrastructure. Designed for locating machines on the Internet, it maps between their human-friendly names and their transport (IP) addresses. Machine names are a series of textual fields, representing a registration and lookup hierarchy. Each registry in the hierarchy is delegated authority from the registry above. A number of "Top Level Domain" (TLD) registries already exist: one for each country, and a small number which are international (iTLD) such as .com, .org and .net. For more than ten years the set of TLD registries was stable and sufficient. The recent explosive commercialization of the Internet has produced a requirement for enhanced assignment procedures. A complicating factor is that the human-friendly quality of domain name strings has also made them commercially valuable. The IAHC is an international multi-organization effort for specifying and implementing policies and procedures relating to iTLDs.

Membership in the IAHC comprises a broad range of legal, administrative, operations and technical constituencies. Representatives come from organizations that sponsor TLD administration, sponsor similar international activities, review and define relevant international legal matters, provide Internet service, and develop Internet technologies and products.

Proper operation of TLDs is essential for the smooth running of the Internet. This includes both administration of domain name assignments, as well as the real-time behavior of the distributed lookup service which achieves DNS mappings for client software. Further, the topic of iTLDs has become controversial and includes potentially large financial implications. For its specification effort, the IAHC will operate in the style of an Internet standards "design team", formulating criteria and procedures but seeking review, modification and consensus from the rest of the Internet community. Internet standards are developed according to the principal of "rough consensus" which means a strongly dominant sense of preference within the community that is seeking to achieve forward progress, in spite of differing opinions.

The DNS is an international resource and the IAHC will at all times operate with that perspective. the IAHC specification effort will address legal, administrative, technical and operational concerns, with particular attention to the questions of fairness and functional stability. the IAHC will attempt to define procedures which are as simple, fair and direct as possible, resolving the minimum required issues. In order to provide timely results, the IAHC will focus initially on the issues of highest priority.

1.2 Goals and Milestones

1.3 Public Participation

1.4 IAHC Documents

2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Nature of TLDs

The IAHC believes that the term "international" is currently misapplied. The IAHC considers the DNS as comprising the following three types of top-level domain names:

NATIONAL (nTLD)

Each country is assigned a top level domain name that corresponds with its ISO 3166 country code (for example, .au for Australia, .ch for Switzerland, .jp for Japan, .us for United States, etc.). The .edu, mil, and .gov are special domains, historically used by the US. The IAHC recognizes the national interests of sovereign nations in setting policies for these country code TLDs.

INTERNATIONAL (iTLD)

The IAHC adopts the view that international top-level domains are those which are dedicated exclusively to entities which have a truly international character. The most reasonable example of this is the ".int" TLD, which includes, inter alia, international intergovernmental organizations.

The term "international" inherently refers to actions, or recognition, of multiple national governments. For example, a corporation is not an international corporation merely because it exports products to other countries.

While it is not believed that there need to be any additional top level domains in this class of TLDs, at this time, an appropriate international organization, such as the ITU, should make recommendations concerning the development and enrichment of the truly international domain name space.

GENERIC (gTLD)

RFC 1591 [Post94] refers to the TLDs .com, .org and .net as "generic" TLDs (gTLD). The IAHC believes that this is the only accurate characterization of these TLDs. For example, these TLDs are, in practice, open to anyone who lives anywhere (which is why, perhaps, they have come to be referred to as "international".) However, there is no criterion that an applicant for a domain name in any of these spaces act in an international capacity. For example, a local entity with no activity outside of the local area (much less outside of the country) can obtain a domain name in these TLDs.

The term "generic" TLD is used by the IAHC to refer to a TLD in which any entity from any country may register, whether or not it has an international character, without having to conform to any particular criteria.

Recognizing the de facto present situation, the IAHC recommends that any existing special criteria should be lifted from .com, .net and .org and they should be considered to be gTLDs.

2.2 Registries

A REGISTRAR is an entity which is authorized to obtain, enter and modify a registry's data, based on customer contact.

A REGISTRANT is a registrar customer applying for, or holding, a subordinate domain name. In the case of this Report, a Registrant obtains an SLD under a gTLD.

A REPOSITORY contains the primary (master) data for a registry. It is important to note that a repository is NOT part of the operational (real-time) DNS, but rather provides records to DNS primary servers, through regular updates. Repository data is often made available through the WHOIS name service.

A registry may have multiple registrars. A registrar may be authorized for multiple registries. In determining the numbers of registrars for a registry, a fundamental issue is one of trust and cooperation. If multiple registrars share a registry and they have a fully cooperative relationship, the repository for the registry can be maintained using fully distributed data base technology.

If the registrars for a registry have a mutually suspicious relationship -- as is typical in competitive business circumstances -- then the repository for that registry needs to be operated by a trusted, independent third party, with simple rules of access. Particularly appropriate rules include fair use and assigning precedence for competing requests on a first come, first served basis.

A STEWARD has oversight responsibility for a registry, ensuring that it is operated in the public trust. If the registry is a monopoly, the steward, the registrar, and the operator of the repository are typically one in the same. When multiple, competing registrars exist for a registry, it is appropriate to have independent stewardship. This ensures operation of the registry in the public trust. It assesses performance of the repository and the registrars, enacting changes as necessary.

3 SPECIFIC GTLDS

3.1 Recommendations

Seven, new gTLDs are specified here. It is expected that no further allocations will be made until April, 1998.

The existing gTLDs are:

3.2 Discussion

3.2.1 Whether to Create New gTLDs

Equally there is a body of opinion which suggests that there is a need to create alternative entry points into the DNS within the gTLD space. The basis for this view includes the observation that creation of such additional gTLDs would allow a form of natural competition with existing gTLDs, creating alternate entry points for access to the gTLD domain space, and that such natural forms of competition will assist in preventing the operators of any particular gTLD from assuming the role of a monopoly provider with the associated inherent risks of monopoly-based market trading practices.

A decision to undertake creation of new gTLDs requires balancing the relative attributes and risks of each approach, with the objective of ensuring coherence, utility and efficient accessibility of the DNS name space to the constituency of the Internet.

The unique nature of the gTLD space, and the current exclusive, operational profile of the existing gTLD space in terms of their respective administrative arrangements does pose a significant strategic risk to the overall objectives as outlined above. Given that this gTLD space is one which is expressly outside the ISO 3166 derived name spaces naturally assigned to national bodies, the assessment of this risk factor was considered to be a major determinant issue to the question of whether to create further gTLDs.

Implementation of the IAHC recommendations necessarily carries risks. Given that the DNS is critical to the operation of the Internet, the IAHC is defining initial changes of a relatively modest scale, with later evaluation and modification as appropriate.

It is noted by the IAHC that competitive shared access to any domain registry is a useful market control mechanism to reduce the risk of monopolistic trading practices. This is a major premise in the IAHC's decision for administration and management of gTLD space. The IAHC further recommends this policy be considered by the relevant ISO 3166 TLD national authorities and administrations.

3.2.2 Which gTLDs to Create

The choices include a sampling of names, some of which are highly non-specific and others of which give substantive indication of the activity in which the named organization engages. At this point in time, it is not clear what types of names will prove popular and the IAHC feels that a mixture of names will permit useful exploration by the community. Later choices will reflect experience gained from this set.

3.2.3 Existing gTLDs

4 CHOOSING GTLD REGISTRARS

4.1 Recommendations

4.1.1 Regional Allocations

• Up to 28 entities will be selected as registrars. The selection will use a regional quota mechanism, whereby up to four (4) qualified applicants will be selected from each of seven (7) global regions. The regional structure used is defined by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is listed in < http://www.iahc.org/docs/countries.html>. If a region does not produce 4 qualified applicants, the unused slots will be dropped.

• Registrar rights are non-transferable to other entities without consultation with the gTLD DNS Policy Oversight Committee.

• Applications are limited to one per organization. An organization is any unit whose legal and financial responsibilities are shared.

4.1.2 Requirements for Qualifying to Participate in the Lottery

• Applicants in a zone where there are less than five (5) applicants must have five hundred thousand dollars (US$ 500,000.00) in disability and liability insurance. Applicants in zones with five (5) or more applicants must have at least five million dollars (US$ 5,000,000.00) in disability and liability insurance.

• Applicants in a zone where there are less than five (5) applicants must have at least five (5) FTEs (full time employees) or their equivalent. Applicants in zones with five (5) or more applicants must have at least ten (10) FTEs or their equivalent. Employees must be dedicated to the employer's task of being a registrar. Employees may be currently working elsewhere but have provided a notarized letter stating their intention to work for the applicant in the event the applicant wins the lottery.

• Applicants in a zone where there are less than five (5) applicants must have at least US$ 300,000.00 in capital. Applicants in zones with five (5) or more applicants must have US$ 500,000.00 in capital. Capital can be a guaranteed bank loan, a guaranteed credit line, or any other form of liquid capital that will be made available in the event that the applicant wins the lottery.

• The applicant must agree to locate the Registrar only in countries that are party to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, or are Members of the World Trade Organization and comply with at least Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

• The applicant owns an existing SLD (second level domain), which when checked via http://www.iahc.org/dnswalk.html, produces no valid DNS errors. Ownership is determined via queries to public data bases maintained by existing Internet registrars.

4.1.3 Lottery

• In the event that a region produces more than four qualified applicants, four will be chosen randomly by an independent audit agency.

4.1.4 Fees

• Each application must be accompanied by a US$ 20,000.00 fee. This fee will be refunded in the event an applicant is found to be not qualified or the applicant is not selected in the lottery process.

• Each applicant will be responsible for payment of an appropriate fee for a report by an independent business and credit reporting agency, designated by the IAHC, which will confirm the validity of information submitted by the applicant; this fee is non-refundable.

4.1.5 Authority

• Each successful applicant will be required to sign the Council of Registrars Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU).

• Each applicant is required to submit any disputes regarding the selection process to binding arbitration in a location to be specified by the IAHC.

• Applicants must commit to sharing all gTLDs.

4.2 Discussion

4.2.1 Qualification criteria

Another concern of the IAHC has been the ability of small startup operations to participate in the registrar lottery. By setting low enough standards in regards to capital, insurance and number of employees the IAHC will be allowing companies from developing countries as well as small venture capital backed companies to compete with global multinationals in the lottery process.

Lastly, the IAHC wishes to differentiate between regions where there will be few competitors for the available slots available vs. regions where there will many more applicants than available slots. The IAHC will be accomplishing this via setting higher standards for popular regions.

A fully conscientious applicant will satisfy both the objective and the subjective criteria recommended by the IAHC. They are:

Business

• Have a detailed business and marketing plan available;

• Comply with standard accounting practices for the country where they are located;

• Carry an appropriate level of disability and liability insurance;

• Have a sufficient amount of liquid capital available for the operation of the registrar.

• Include staff with previous network operations experience with routers and DNS services;

• Include staff having previous SQL experience;

• Include staff having previous Unix sysadmin experience;

• Include staff having previous large scale transaction processing experience.

• Operate a helpdesk having 7x24 (7 days a week; 24 hours a day) availability;

• Use an automated call distribution system;

• Manage a formal response hierarchy;

• Use English as at least a spoken second language;

• Implement UPS powered systems (Uninterruptable Power Supply);

• Ensure highly reliable access through a multi-homed Internet connection or by distribution of on-line resources;

• Employ robust backup procedures;

• Develop disaster recovery plans.

• Provide staffing which includes adequate expertise for organization management, clerical administration, business marketing, system operations and customer support.

4.2.2 Fees

5 GTLD REGISTRY GOVERNANCE

5.1 Recommendations

5.1.1 Policy

The gTLD-MoU is the basic instrument for implementing the recommendations of the IAHC. It stipulates that the Internet top level domain space is regarded as a public resource and is subject to the public trust. Therefore, any administration, use and/or evolution of the Internet TLD space is a public policy issue and must be carried out in an open and public manner in the interests and service of the public.

The gTLD-MoU is enabled upon obtaining the required signatures from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and from the Internet Society (ISOC). Changes to the gTLD-MoU are initiated by the Policy Oversight Committee and approved by IANA and ISOC, following consultation with PAB and CORE.

ITU Depository

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an international treaty organization (Geneva), has agreed, in principle, to act as the Depository for the gTLD-MoU, pursuant to the basic provisions of the Constitution of the ITU which include:

• The maintenance and extension of international cooperation between all Members of the Union for the improvement and rational use of telecommunications of all kinds;

• Promotion of the development of technical facilities and their most efficient operation with a view to improving the efficiency of telecommunication services, increasing their usefulness and making them so far as possible generally available to the public;

• Promotion of the extension of the benefits of the new telecommunication technologies to all the world's inhabitants.

The IAHC delegates stewardship for the set of gTLDs to the gTLD Policy Oversight Committee (POC). The POC will ensure that gTLDs are administered and operated in a public and open manner which balances the commercial interests of the registrars with the public policy interests of the Internet domain name space.

Members of the POC will be named by the following organizations (in the indicated numbers):

Appointments will be initiated so as to create staggered, 3-year terms. Successive appointments are encouraged to be drawn from different geographic regions, according to the seven (7) global regions, defined by the World Trade Organization (WTO), described at <http://www.iahc.org/docs/countries.html>.

Among its other responsibilities, POC will determine the creation of any future gTLDs. gTLD Policy Advisory Body (PAB)

The gTLD Policy Advisory Body (PAB) is made up of signatories to the gTLD-MoU and includes relevant governmental organizations, non-governmental Organizations, industry, and Internet operations organizations

CORE-MoU

The Council of Registrars (CORE) will be established by POC, through a Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU). The CORE-MoU provides the necessary contractual, legal, oversight and public policy framework under which CORE and the individual Registrars must operate. All Internet registrars will be signatories to the CORE-MoU.

Articles of Association

CORE will be established as a Swiss, non-profit Association, subject to Swiss law. The Articles of Association specify the structure and purview of CORE. In particular, it provides for an Executive Committee, to be elected by the CORE membership, and for a Permanent Secretariat to act as staff for the organization.

5.1.2 Operations

CORE's primary functions are to coordinate activities among the registrars, such as operation of the shared registration data base repository.

Registrars

Direct interaction with SLD registrants will be by gTLD registrars who perform registration services and provide customer support. Registrars must locate their registration information in the shared repository and otherwise agree to abide by the rules and dictates of the gTLD-MoU, CORE-MoU and the POC. Beyond those constraints, a registrar may develop and operate their service as they see fit.

5.2 Discussion

The POC is charged with ensuring that the public trust is served. It is not involved in the daily operation of the gTLD registries but, instead, attends to matters of registry policy only. Within the bounds of that policy, wide range of business and operational models are available to those serving as registrars

The POC membership is broad based, initially based on the composition of the IAHC which developed this report. Policy decisions and changes to the MoUs will be made through an open and consultative process, in particular using review and advice from the PAB and CORE.

Once the administrative scheme under the gTLD-MOU (including CORE and the gTLD registrars) is working and stable, and the PAB has grown to become a body that is broadly representative of Internet stakeholders, the make-up of the POC will be reviewed.

6 GTLD REGISTRY OPERATIONS

6.1 Recommendations

6.1.1 CORE

CORE will develop and operate a shared repository for gTLD registration data. It also will operate the DNS master server(s) for these TLDs.

CORE will develop procedures for handling disputes among Registrars and/or other signatories preferably by binding arbitration.

CORE will make available public reports and statistics available about registration activities during fixed reporting periods.

CORE will be a not-for-profit association, funded through member fees, on a cost-recovery basis.

6.1.2 Existing gTLD Registrars

6.1.3 gTLD Repository

Members of CORE will have equal access to the repository data base. Allocation of SLD registrations is made on an equitable first-come/first-served basis among the registries.

6.1.4 gTLD DNS Master Servers

6.1.5 Second-Level Domains

Application for a second-level domain name must include:

• Sufficient contact and intended use information

• Appointment of an agent for service of process

• Agreement to jurisdiction in the event of trademark litigation.

• Mediation and arbitration clause (discussed in a later section)

A separate document entitled "SLD Applications" (see section 1.4) contains the information that must be included in a SLD application. Applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity.

Renewal and non-use

To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually. Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be included in a renewal application. Renewal applications submitted electronically must include state of the art electronic identification; written renewal applications must be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized representative if the applicant is an entity.

In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE will develop policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations).

6.2 Discussion

7 DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES & CHALLENGES

7.1 Recommendations

7.1.1 On-Line Mediation and Expedited Arbitration

• To participate in on-line mediation under the mediation rules of the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (Geneva), if such mediation is initiated by a right holder who wishes to challenge the domain name applicant's right to hold and use the second level domain name.

• To participate in binding expedited arbitration under the corresponding rules of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, if such arbitration is initiated by a right holder who wishes to challenge the domain name applicant's right to hold and use the second level domain name.

The actual clause to be included is contained in an annex to the CORE-MOU.

7.1.2 Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels

Administrative domain name challenge panels would consist of international experts in the fields of intellectual property and Internet domain names. The procedures for creating the panels and for bringing challenges before the panels will be administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (Geneva). Challenges would be heard on-line wherever possible. Challenges which are initiated within 60 days of the registration of the domain name in question would be on a "fast-track", and would be concluded within 30 days of the initiation of the challenge. Challenges and proposed decisions will be made public on the Internet, and there would be a reasonable period for submission of comments by appropriate third parties (including relevant governmental or regional authorities) before a final decision is made.

An administrative domain name challenge panel would be able to decide that a challenged SLD should be excluded from the gTLD in which it was registered and, in appropriate and exceptional cases, from some or all other gTLDs which fall within the gTLD-MOU. In appropriate cases, second-level domain names which are closely similar to the challenged domain name may also be excluded. Exclusions would be subject to exception, modification or cancellation on appropriate grounds, upon petition by a third party to an administrative domain name challenge panel. The original challenging party would have the right to full participation in any such procedure.

An administrative domain name challenge panel would have authority only over second-level domain names under the gTLDs administered by CORE. That authority derives only from the gTLD-MOU. An administrative domain name challenge panel therefore would not have authority over the parties in a given challenge, and would not have any authority to review or enforce any national or regional intellectual property right or obligation, other than to determine if a second-level domain name is held in violation of the policy set out above.

No decision of an administrative domain name challenge panel would affect the power of the appropriate national or regional sovereign court to hear cases interpreting and enforcing intellectual property rights that fall within its jurisdiction. Likewise, this procedure would not prevent any party from bringing a case before such national or regional sovereign court, nor from initiating arbitration or mediation procedures that are otherwise available.

Registrars would be obligated to honor decisions of administrative domain name challenge panels with respect to exclusion of second-level domain names.

7.1.3 Publication

• Name of the SLD;

• Contact and use information contained in the application;

• A permanent tag or label (created by CORE) indicating whether the applicant chose the option of waiting 60 days prior to assignment of the requested SLD or chose to forego the 60 day wait;

• Entry validation using accepted digital signature and timestamping techniques.

Those applicants choosing not to wait will not be in a position to claim the defensive benefit of the waiting period against a challenge, at any time, by a trademark owner.

7.2 Discussion

7.2.1 Trademark concerns for SLDs

One possible approach is for the registrar to insert itself as an arbiter of disputes between trademark owners and SLD holders: The registrar would put an SLD on hold at the behest of the owner of a trademark registration certificate if the holder of an "identical" SLD, once challenged, could not produce its own, trumping trademark certificate or otherwise establish that its use of the domain predates either the effective date or first use date of trademark registration. Such a well-intentioned policy, summarily confers upon a non-judicial body the discretion to essentially grant an injunction against continued use of a SLD, without any adjudication of the merits of the trademark owner's claim against the domain holder. The IAHC feels that such an approach is inconsistent with basic tenets of trademark law and principles of equity and fair play. The dispute policy unfairly burdens the domain holder - who may actually have trademark rights superior to those of the challenging trademark registrant.

The IAHC seeks a registry policy in which registrars are involved as little as possible in trademark disputes. It is recognized that there is a substantial interest in minimizing litigation, including litigation against registries, and in encouraging resolution of legitimate disputes prior to the time that significant investment is made in a domain name.

7.2.2 Publication

However, in response to public comment received, and upon further consideration, the IAHC has determined that this 60 day period should be voluntary, at the choice of the applicant, or at the choice of any registrar that chooses to implement a 60 day pre registration period for all SLDs it registers.

7.2.3 Administrative Domain Name Challenge

It is hoped that the administrative challenge panels will provide a useful alternative to court litigation for solving disputes. It is also hoped that use of the voluntary 60-day waiting period will be recognized by jurisdictions, so that challenges after that period will come to have reduced leverage against the domain name holder.

8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS

8.1 ISO 3166 Country Codes

8.1.1 Functional SLDs under ISO 3166 TLDs

Examples of functional generic name structures adopted typically have the following components:

• .com.<iso3166-code> and .co.<iso3166-code> used for commercial organizations.

• .edu.<iso3166-code> and .ac.<iso3166-code> used for educational institutions

• .gov.<iso3166-code> used for governmental bodies and public institutions

• .org.<iso3166-code> used for not-profit organizations

• .net.<iso3166-code> used for communications service providers.

The IAHC believes that this is a widely understood functional structure, and notes that this structure has not to date been adopted within the ISO 3166 country code ".us". The IAHC further believes that a major source of demand pressure on the current gTLD space is based on the historical origin of this space and the subsequent introduction of the ".us" country code which does not include the commonly adopted functional second level name structure as described above.

The IAHC suggests that the domain administrator for .us undertake further delegations along the lines of the functional SLD structure, suitably modified to account for large-scale delegation and management, and suggests this type of functional structure to other ISO 3166 national name space administrators as a widely understood structure.

8.1.2 Addition of .tm.<iso3166-code>

8.1.3 Notification period within ISO 3166 name spaces

8.1.4 Publication

8.2 Trademark-specific Domain Name Spaces

The IAHC recognizes that there are both national and international characteristics of the current trademark system. Therefore, it would be desirable to have both country-related trademark domain name spaces, and an international trademark-specific domain name space, to reflect the dual national/international aspects of the current trademark system.

In a trademark-specific domain name space, each trademark owner should be entitled to a unique domain name which contains its trademark, even if there are multiple owners of registrations for the identical trademark (for example, for use in conjunction with different goods and services, or registrations in different countries.) A formal check of the ownership and validity of the trademark registration on which the domain name application is based would be required.

It should be made clear that there would be no obligation on the part of any trademark owner to register in any of the trademark-specific domain name spaces, or to be listed in any associated trademark-domain name directory. In addition, there would be no negative legal consequences to a trademark owner for not having a trademark-specific domain name or not being listed in a trademark-domain name directory. In particular, the existence of a trademark-specific domain name space does not imply that trademark rights in other top-level domain name spaces are negatively affected in any way.

8.2.1 National trademark domain name space

Thus, the IAHC suggests that the domain name registration authority in each country, in consultation with the relevant trademark registration authority in that country, create a trademark-specific sub-domain within the ISO 3166 country code top-level domain. Such a sub-domain could take the form ".tm.<iso3166-code>". (Note that .tm.fr already exists in France, and can be used as a model.)

It would be appropriate, in the spirit of international harmonization, for a relevant international trademark organization, for example, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to coordinate, in cooperation with the relevant national trademark offices, the generation of common principles for creating and administering national trademark-domain name spaces.

8.2.2 International trademark domain name space

Many trademark owners obtain trademark registrations for the same mark in a number of countries. Many others apply for trademark registrations through the international application/registration system administered by WIPO -- there are currently over 300,000 active international registrations in this system. Still others obtain registrations in regional trademark offices which provide a single registration that covers multiple countries, such as the trademark office of the European Union. The IAHC recognizes that trademark owners such as these might desire a trademark-specific domain space that is international in nature.

The IAHC therefore suggests that an international trademark-related domain space be created, and suggests to the organization responsible for the administration of the ".int" TLD that it delegate to an appropriate international trademark administration organization, such as WIPO, the responsibility for the creation and administration of an international trademark-related domain name space, under the international sub-domain ".tm.int". The details concerning registration in that domain space should be developed in cooperation with the relevant trademark offices.

8.2.3 User-friendly Directory

It may also be found desirable to establish a single directory which covers all of the trademark-related domain name spaces (including country code spaces and the international space), and perhaps even to open the directory to trademark owners who have domain names in other TLDs but who wish to be listed in the trademark-domain name directory.

9 IAHC SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS

10 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

11 REFERENCES

12 CONTACT

Committee outside counsel is Stuart Levi, a partner in Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.