Network Working Group         International Ad Hoc Committee
Expiration <6/97>                          December 19, 1996

                  Draft Specifications for
           Administration and Management of gTLDs


This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of
six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use
Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other
than as ``work in progress.''

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please
check the ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the
Internet- Drafts Shadow Directories on
(Africa), (Europe), (Pacific
Rim), (US East Coast), or (US
West Coast).
                              International Ad Hoc Committee
                                           December 19, 1996

                  Draft Specifications for
           Administration and Management of gTLDs

     This  document  is  a draft specification from  the
     IAHC, a task force selected by the IAB, IANA, ITU,
     INTA, WIPO, and ISOC.  This document is valid  for
     public review and comment until January 17,  1997.
     On  January  31,  1997  the IAHC  will  publish  a
     finalized document.


  1.1 IAHC CHARTER            6.1 ISO 3166 Country Codes
  1.2 GOALS AND               6.2 Trademark-specific Domain
     MILESTONES                 Name Spaces
  1.3 PUBLIC

                           10. CONTACT
     NEW GTLDS                11.1 Appendix  A - SLD
  3.2 WHICH GTLDS TO            Application Requirements
     CREATE                   11.2 Appendix B - SLD Renewal
  3.3 EXISTING GTLDS            Application Requirements




Top Level Domain (TLD) names provide the beginning of the
Internet naming scheme.  The International Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC, was formed to pursue enhancement in the
administration and use of the "international" Top Level
Domain name space (iTLD).  After extensive discussions,
including the use of public, Internet-based mailing lists,
IAHC has decided the following:

*    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 currently referred to as "international" are more
  appropriately called "generic" (gTLD); only .int represents
  a truly international portion of the name space.

*    IAHC has developed specifications for enhancement to
  gTLD administration and operation which balance concerns for
  stable operations, continued growth, business opportunities,
  and legal constraints.  The specification calls for periodic
  review and modification of the specification, as experience

*    Current difficulties with gTLDs are highly exacerbated
  by inadequate use of the .us TLD and it is strongly
  recommended that functional Second-Level Domains (SLDs) for
  .us be defined and used, as they are for most other ISO 3166-
  based TLDs.

*    The .com, .org and .net are classified as existing
  gTLDs.  IAHC will define an additional set of seven (7)
  gTLDs.  Any addtional gTLDs will be defined under the aegis
  and policy coordination of the CORE, described below..

*    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).  The CORE-MoU provides the
  necessary contractual, legal, oversight and public policy
  framework under which CORE and the individual Registrars
  must operate.   All authorized gTLD registrars will be
  members of CORE.

*    The CORE board of trustees will ensure that gTLDs are
  administered and operated as a public trust.  The board will
  be composed of half elected members and half outside,
  unaffiliated community representation.  Any registrar may
  make assignments for any gTLD.  An independent organization
  will operate the assignment repositories for all gTLDs and
  will use a first-come, first-served rule for arbitrating
  among competing registrar requests.

*    Trademark concerns require a sixty-day publication
  period, prior to authorization of an SLD under a gTLD.
  Random-number domain names will be available for immediate
  use.  ISO 3166-based TLDs are encouraged to make similar
  domain names available under their own portion of the name
  space.  An international trademark-specific domain space
  should be created, called, to accommodate the
  international character of some trademarks.


The International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) was formed at the
initiative of the Internet Society, and at the request of
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).  IANA has
responsibility for the maintenance of core administrative
tables for Internet services, including "top level" domain
names (TLD) and the delegation of their maintenance to
appropriate agencies.  The IAHC is tasked with developing
administration and management enhancements for the general
class of TLDs that have been called "international".

This proposal represents the preliminary recommendation 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 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.

The proposal will be modified according to feedback received
from the Internet community.

1.1  IAHC Charter

(This is the original charter, unmodified by later IAHC
positions and views.)

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. IAHC is an international multi-
organization effort for specifying and implementing policies
and procedures relating to iTLD.

Membership in 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, 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

The DNS is an international resource and IAHC will at all
times operate with that perspective. IAHC specification
effort will address legal, administrative, technical and
operational concerns, with particular attention to the
questions of fairness and functional stability. 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, IAHC will focus
initially on the issues of highest priority.

1.2  Goals and Milestones

Nov 11, 96  Publish IAHC charter & press release
            Solicit near-term iTLD policy & procedure proposals

Dec 19, 96  IAHC proposal available for public review

Jan 17, 97  Last day to submit reviews of proposal

Jan 31, 97  Near-term iTLD Policies & Procedures published
            Implementation group formed for reviews and awards

Feb 28, 97  Deadline for applications according to new policies and

Mar 15, 97  Initial awards according to new policies and procedures

1.3  Public Participation

The IAHC invites comments on its proposal.  General
discussion should take place on the
mailing list.  Formal comments may be sent to iahc-; these comments will be posted to the IAHC
web page.   Additional material, as well as instructions for
subscribing to the IAHC mailing list, are located at


The current DNS Top level domains (TLD) are considered to be
divided into several classes:  ISO 3166 country codes (.fr,
.ca, .au, etc.), sometimes referred to as national TLDs, and
so-called international TLDs (.com, .org, .net and .int).
In addition, special, US-specific historical cases exist,
such as .mil, .gov and .edu.

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

2.1   National

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 U.S. IAHC recognizes the
national interests of sovereign nations in setting policies
for these country code TLDs.

2.2   International

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.

2.3   Generic

RFC 1591 [Post94] refers to the TLDs .com, .org and .net as
"generic" TLDs (gTLD).  IAHC believes that this is the only
accurate characterization of these TLDs.  For example, these
TLDs are, in practise, 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 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, IAHC recommends
that  the existing special criteria should be lifted from
.org and .net and they should be considered to be gTLDs.

3.   GTLDS

3.1  Whether to Create New gTLDs

There is a body of opinion that suggests that there is no
fundamental need for expanding the top level domain space
with further entries. The basis for this view includes the
observation that the existing top level domain space
provides some level of "overflow" through the existing,
widely-adopted, second level domain structure within the ISO
3166 national domain spaces.  It further includes the claim
that generic top level domains which expressly overlapped
with the most popular of the existing gTLDs, .com, would
encourage immediate duplication of registration in these
additional name spaces, further exacerbating the current
issues associated with the utility and viability of the DNS
structure within the Internet.

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

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.

IAHC has decided to create further gTLDs as a means of
increasing the level of competitive supply and access to the
gTLD space for the global Internet community.

In addition IAHC has decided to ensure that the new gTLDs
are all to be operated in a shared fashion across a number
of domain operators. This is regarded as a secondary
mechanism to ensure that each of these additional gTLDs are
operated in an environment of a competitive market for
access to these name spaces, and the same checks and
balances of the competitive inter-gTLD access space also
apply to the intra-gTLD space through this mechanism.

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

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

3.2  Which gTLDs to Create

It is noted that an immediate large increase of gTLDs does
increase the risk of impacting the coherence of the overall
gTLD space, through increasing the level of complexity in
the process of determining which is the appropriate gTLD for
any end consumer of these services to choose. Therefore,
IAHC will adopt an initially conservative approach to the
number of additional gTLDs, through the initial expansion in
the first annual round to a total of ten gTLDs. This entails
the creation of seven new gTLDs.

These new gTLD's will consist of letter strings of three to
five letters each. IAHC has also decided that each gTLD
should have general, contextual meaning, i.e. the gTLD
should suggest a connection with the Internet, with business
or with personal uses.

The initial seven gTLD's will be specified by IAHC. Comments
from the Internet community and other stakeholders in
response to this specific proposal will be considered.

3.3  Existing gTLDs

The IAHC recommends that all existing gTLDs be shared in the
same fashion as mentioned in section 0.


4.1  Definition of Terms

A REGISTRY comprises the roles and activities involved in
the administration of a portion of the Domain name space.
With respect to the work of IAHC, a registry pertains to a
single gTLD and encompasses all of the services needed for
assignment and maintenance of that TLD and its

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

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 first come, first served basis.

Oversight responsibility for a registry rests with a
STEWARD.  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 as a
public trust for the Internet.  It assesses performance of
the repository and the registrars, enacting changes as

4.2  Choosing gTLD Registrars

The ultimate goal for registries operating in the gTLD space
is that any qualified entity may be a registrar, and that
every registrar shares responsibility for registering domain
names in all gTLDs. Noting its concern for managing change
to a critical Internet resource, IAHC believes that the
number of additional Registrars authorized in the next year
should be limited to between twenty and thirty, with
additional Registrars added at the rate of twenty to thirty
per year, subject to an annual review of the efficient
functioning of the system. The limit on the number of
Registrars should be completely removed when the capacity to
register domain names in the present gTLD .com, .org and
.net domains become shared among all Registrars.

In order to ensure equitable international participation
among Registrars, IAHC has determined that a fixed number of
Registrars will be initially allocated equally to each of
the six (6) ITU designated geographical world zones (X.121
world zones 2-7); the current list being available at

The selection of registries in a region will be by lottery
among qualified applicants.  Registrar rights are non-
transferable to other entities.

IAHC will establish the qualifications required of each
applicant to become a registrar. These qualifications will
be objective and will be subject to independent
confirmation. The application forms for Registrars will be
prepared by IAHC, and will include the following provisions:

(a)  Each application must be accompanied by a US$ 20,000
  fee [estimated]. 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;

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

(c)  Each successful applicant will be required to be a
  signatory to the Council of Registrars Memorandum of
  Understanding (CORE-MoU);

(d)  Each applicant will be required to submit any disputes
  regarding the selection process to binding arbitration in a
  location to be specified by IAHC;

(e)  Applicants must commit to sharing all gTLDs;

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


5.1  Council of Registrars (CORE)

IAHC delegates stewardship for the set of gTLDs to the
Council of Registrars (CORE), comprising the multiple,
competing gTLD registrars.  All gTLDs are shared among all
member registrars.

CORE will be established through a Memorandum of
Understanding (CORE-MoU). The IAHC will draft the framework
for CORE-MoU with input from the Internet community and
other stakeholders. The CORE-MoU provides the necessary
contractual, legal, oversight and public policy framework
under whichCORE and the individual Registrars must operate.
Internet Registrars are mandatory signatories to the CORE-
MoU.   Other signatories include other stakeholders and
oversight bodies in the Internet name space.

The CORE-MoU will stipulate that the Internet top level
domain space is regarded as a public resource and 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 Board of trustees for CORE will ensure that gTLDs are
administered and operated in a public and open manner which
balances the commercial interests of registries with the
public policy interests of the Internet domain name space..
The Board shall comprise:  Half elected from member
organizations, and half external to CORE, having no direct
entanglement with CORE-related activities.

CORE provides first-level oversight and coordination among
those registrars, ensuring consistent service by registrars
and fairness among them. The details of its management will
be determined by CORE Board of trustees.  CORE will develop
procedures for handling disputes among Registrars and/or
other signatories preferably by binding arbitration.
Creation of any future gTLDs is under the aegis and policy
coordination of the CORE.  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.  Fees for membership
will be determined by the Board of trustees.

5.2  Existing gTLD Registrars

Registrars for existing gTLDs are encouraged to join CORE
and abide by CORE principles and rules, unifying the
handling of all gTLDs and obtaining equal benefits with
other gTLD registries.

5.3  gTLD Repository

CORE will contract with an independent and neutral third-
party for operation of the shared gTLD repository data base
(gDB).  The specific details of gDB subcontracting and
operation will be determined by CORE.

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

5.4  Second-Level Domains

SLD application

IAHC will specify the information to be required in all
applications for SLDs under gTLDs.  It is desirable that a
domain name application include sufficient information
regarding the applicant and the applicant's intended use of
the domain name to ensure applicant accountability and to
ensure that sufficient information is available to enable
trademark owners to assess the need for a challenge to the
proposed SLD domain.  The application must therefore include
sufficient contact and intended use information, appointment
of an agent for service of process and an agreement to
jurisdiction in the event of trademark litigation.  Appendix
A, attached, includes 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 shall develop
policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no
longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations).

Trademark concerns for SLDs

The allocation and use of  SLDs has raised concerns with
respect to their relation to trademarks.  It is recognized
that trademark owners have a legitimate interest, under
national trademark law, in policing against infringement,
and that SLDs are capable of infringing trademark rights.
Disputes can arise between trademark owners and
"extortionists" - those who deliberately obtain a SLD that
mirrors a well-known mark or name for the purpose of selling
it to the trademark owner or the highest bidder - and
between trademark owners and holders of SLDs for legitimate
business or personal use.   However, trademark
considerations have not, for the most part, been taken into
account in the context of  SLD allocation, which has led, as
electronic commerce has exploded, to a predictable collision
between SLD allocation and national trademark law.  There is
no single, universal international law of trademark, so it
is not possible to reserve disputes involving trademark and
domain names to an international body applying a globally
recognized body of law.

One gTLD registrar has attempted to address this problem by
inserting itself as an arbiter of disputes between trademark
owners and SLD holders:  The registrar will 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, cannot 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.  This well-intentioned policy,
which has generated significant controversy, unjustifiably
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.  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.

IAHC seeks a 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.
In order that domain name applicants/holders may be held
appropriately accountable for any infringement of legal
rights, sufficient contact and context information should be
available, and there should be sufficient public notice
before a domain name is assigned, to facilitate dispute

60-day publication period

In light of the legitimate interests of domain name holders
and trademark owners, and in the overall interests of
consistency and fair play, IAHC strongly believes all gTLD
registries and ISO country code registries should,
therefore, publish applications for SLDs, for a period of
sixty (60) days prior to assigning the requested SLD to the
applicant.  Such publication should take place on a publicly
available, publicized web site and include the SLD and the
contact and use information contained in the application
(see Appendix A).

However, in view of the fact that an existing gTLD registrar
currently registers SLDs without a waiting period, the
requirement that gTLD registries institute a 60 day
publication period will not be effective until that
registrar changes its policy to include the 60 day
publication period.  In the interim, other gTLD registries
are encouraged, but not required, to use this 60 day waiting
period.  Once that registrar agrees to the 60 day
publication period, CORE will implement the 60 day
publication period immediately across the other gTLD

Immediate SLDs

To ensure immediate availability of some domain names, it is
recommended that gTLD registries offer "random alphanumeric"
domain names which require no waiting period.


6.1  ISO 3166 Country Codes

Functional SLDs under ISO 3166 TLDs

It is noted that in many ISO 3166 TLD national name spaces
the original generic Internet top level name structure has
been adopted as the second level name structure, or a
functionally equivalent variant, sometimes using the
national language as the source of the appropriate

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

*    .com. and .co.used for
     commercial organisations.
*    .edu. and .ac. used for
     educational institutions
*    .gov. used for governmental bodies and
     public institutions
*    .org. used for organisations of no
     specific characterisation
*    .net. used for communications service

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". 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.

IAHC strongly recommends that the domain administrator for
us undertake further delegations along the lines of the
functional SLD structure, and recommends this functional
structure to other ISO 3166 national name space
administrators as a widely understood structure.

Addition of .tm.

IAHC recommends that the functional name .tm.,
or a local language equivalent thereof, be added to the
functional name set documented in section 6.1.1 of this
document, above, as described more fully in section 0 of
this document (see below).

Notification period within ISO 3166 name spaces

In further considering the existing operation of the ISO
3166 second level domain spaces, IAHC recommends that the
administrators of these spaces add a fixed 60 day
notification period between application and delegation as a
means of reducing the subsequent levels of litigation within
these name spaces, as per the related recommendations in
section 4 of this document relating to gTLDs.

Addition of .nui.

IAHC notes that the implication of the recommendation in
section 0 is that there will be a consequent market demand
for domain names which are available within a more rapid
period than 60 days. IAHC recommends that the administrators
of ISO3166 name spaces consider the addition of a functional
name space, proposed to be a network user identifer:
nui." . The characteristic of this space is
that it would be filled by randomly generated, meaningless
alphanumeric strings, available within a short period after
application, in order to provide an alternative mechanism to
the process of obtaining a specified name which may include
a 60 day notification period.

6.2  Trademark-specific Domain Name Spaces

IAHC believes that the establishment of trademark-specific
domain names is desirable to allow for voluntary
registration of such names by trademark owners who either
are precluded, by the first-come first-served nature of
current gTLD registration, from otherwise obtaining such
domain names or who otherwise choose to obtain a trademark
specific domain name.

In addition, a trademark-specific domain space would provide
an assurance that the domain name reflects a subsisting
trademark registration.

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.

Some principles concerning trademark-telated domain names

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
thetrademark-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.

National trademark domain name space

Some trademark owners have registrations in one country
only.  For these, a national trademark-specific sub-domain
space might be desirable.

Therefore, IAHC recommends 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.".  (Note that already exists in
France, and can be used as a model.)

It is especially recommended that the registration authority
in the .us domain space consult with the relevant U.S.
government agencies to examine the creation of a
domain name space for owners of U.S. trademark registrations
who may desire to register in such a space.

Further, it would be appropriate, in the spirit of
international harmonization, for a relevant international
trademark organization, for example, 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.

International trademark domain name space

While it is recognized that there is not yet an
international trademark registration which is, of itself,
valid for multiple countries in all regions of the world, it
is also recognized that there exist international standards
for trademarks, and that additional standards are being
developed, and more will be developed in the future.  In
fact, accelerated development of international trademark
standards may be driven by new technologies such as the

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.  IAHC recognizes
that trademark owners such as these might prefer a trademark-
domain space that is international in nature.

IAHC therefore recommends that an international trademark-
specific domain space be created, and recommends 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-specific domain name space, under
the international sub-domain "".  The details
concerning registration in that domain space should be
developed in cooperation with the relevant trademark

User-friendly directory

It appears that a domain name in a trademark-specific domain
space would have to have an element, such as a random number
tag, to accommodate the required criterion that a unique
domain name should be available to every trademark owner,
even if there are many different owners of the identical

Since such a domain name may not be particularly user-
friendly, IAHC recommends that each trademark-specific
domain name space should be accompanied by an on-line, user-
friendly directory, which would allow a user who enters a
trademark to easily find the associated web page.  The user-
friendliness of such a directory could be enhanced by
including the associated logo in the directory.

It may also be found desirable to establish a single
directory which covers all of the trademark-specific 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


The Domain Name Service is essential to the smooth operation
of the Internet.  Changes to the structure or style of DNS
operation therefore carry considerable risk.  The
specification offered here attempts to make substantial
changes to the administration and operation of gTLD names,
but limits the scale of those changes during an initial,
"experimental" period, permitting expansion of the changes
as experience dictates.


The IAHC's efforts have greatly benefited from extensive on-
line discussion, both within the committee and on public
discussion lists.  Also, the Committee's open request for
proposals resulted in numerous submissions from which some
concepts and details in IAHC's proposal were adapted.  The
current draft specification is the result of integrating the
discussions and proposals, seeking a fair and practical


[Post94]  Postel, J. , Domain Name System Structure and
          Delegation, RFC 1591, March 1994.


Sally M. Abel, is a partner in   Perry E. Metzger is president
the law firm of Fenwick and      of Piermont Information Systems
West and chairs the Internet     Inc.
Subcommittee of the                   160 Cabrini Blvd., Suite
International Trademark               #2
Association (INTA).                   New York, NY  10033
     Fenwick & West                   
     2 Palo Alto Square          Jun Murai is an associate
     Palo Alto, CA  94036        professor on the Faculty of
                   Environmental Information at
     Phone:  415-494-0600        Keio University.
     Fax:  415-494-8022          Hank Nussbacher, an independent
Dave Crocker, a director of the  networking consultant,
Internet Mail Consortium, is a   currently works with IBM
principal with Brandenburg       Israel.
Consulting.                           Rechov Weizmann 2
                                      Tel Aviv
     675 Spruce Dr.                   Israel
     Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA          
                    Phone:  +972-3-6978852
     Phone:  +1 408 246 8253          Fax: +972-3-6978115
     Fax:    +1 408 249 6205     Robert Shaw is an advisor on
Donald M. Heath, is president    Global Information
and CEO of the Internet Society  Infrastructure (GII) issues at
and chairs IAHC.                 the International
     12020 Sunrise Valley        Telecommunication Union (ITU).
     Drive, Suite 210                 Place des Nations
     Reston, VA  20191-3429           1211 Geneva 20
     Phone:  703/648-9888             
     Fax:  703/648-9887               Phone: +41 22 730 5338
Geoff Huston is the technical         Fax: +41 22 730 5881
manager of Australia's Telstra   George Strawn is with the US
Internet.                        National Science Foundation
     5/490 Northbourne Ave       (NSF) and chairs the Federal
     Dickson, ACT 2609           Networking Council.
     Australia                        National Science
                     Foundation, Rm 1175
     Phone: +61 6 208 1908            Arlinton, VA 22230
     Fax: +61 6 248 6165              USA
David W. Maher, a partner at          
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal,        Phone: 703 306 1950
is a registered patent                Fax:   703 306 0621
attorney.                        Albert Tramposch is senior
     8000 Sears Tower            legal counsellor at the World
     Chicago IL 60606            Intellectual Property
     <  Organization (WIPO) in Geneva.
     >                                34, chemin des Colombettes
     Phone:  312/876-8055             1211 Geneva 20
     Fax:  312/876-7934               Switzerland
                                      Phone:  (41 22) 730-9660
                                      Fax :  (41 22) 733-5371

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


11.1 Appendix  A - SLD Application Requirements

Every application for assignment of a SLD must include the
following elements (incomplete applications must be returned
to the applicant for completion):

1.   Applicant's name, business or residential address,
  email address, fax and phone number(s).

2.   The state or country of incorporation or partnership
  (if applicable).

3.   The name and address of a designated agent for service
  of process where the registrar is located, which may be the
  applicant in the case of an individual.  (The applicant may
  designate the registrar as the agent for service of

4.   A sworn statement by the individual applicant or by an
  officer or general partner of a corporate or partnership

     a.   that there is a bona fide intent to use the domain name
       publicly within 60 days of registration, and a bona fide
       intent to continue such use in the foreseeable future;

     b.   that the domain name will be used for [fill in the
       blank, e.g., "for a web site to advertise applicant's candy
       manufacturing business"].  This may be a broad statement and
       is not intended in any way to restrict actual use.  However,
       to the extent that a commercial use is intended, this
       statement should identify the industry in which the use is
       intended to be made and should indicate which of the
       following uses will be made: web site, email, bulletin board
       and/other (describe);

     c.   that the applicant believes that the  intended use of
       the domain name will not infringe any rights of any other

     d.   that the reason for requesting this particular domain
       name is that it conforms to [check one of the following]:

          ___  applicant's company name or variation thereof

          ___  applicant's trademark or variation thereof

          ___  individual applicant's name or variation

          ___  other (provide full explanation)

     e.   that the applicant submits to the personal and subject
       matter jurisdiction and venue of a competent tribunal in the
       country where the registrar resides for purposes of any
       action brought under trademark law, unfair competition laws,
       or similar/related laws arising out of actual or intended
       use of the domain name applied for; and applicant waives all
       rights to challenge such personal jurisdiction, subject
       matter jurisdiction and/or venue.

11.2 Appendix B - SLD Renewal Application Requirements

Every application for renewal of a SLD must include the
following four elements (incomplete applications must be
returned to the applicant for completion):

1.   Applicant's name, business or residential address,
  email address, fax and phone number(s).

2.   The state or country of incorporation or partnership
  (if applicable).

3.   The name and address of the designated agent for
  service of process if there has been a change since the
  initial application or the last renewal.

4.   A sworn statement by the individual applicant or by an
  officer or general partner of a corporate or partnership

     (a)  that the domain name has actually been used for [fill
        in the blank, e.g. "for a web site to advertise applicant's
        candy manufacturing business"].  This may be a broad
        statement and is not intended in any way to restrict actual
        use.  However, to the extent that a commercial use is being
        made, this statement should identify the industry in which
        the use is being made and should indicate which of the
        following uses are being made: web site, email, bulletin
        board and/or other (describe);

     (b)  that the applicant believes that the actual use of the
        domain name  does not infringe any rights of any other

[end of document]

(read the last line, please)
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segre Place                                   
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                       

Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions