What's in a gTLD?(economist.com)
economist.com
What's in a gTLD?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/01/internet-domain-names
2 comments
The geographic protections are mainly at the top level, i.e. you can't apply for a new gTLD of .unitedkingdom for example. The geographic restrictions are mainly in three parts, you can't apply for 2 ASCII character gTLDs (this in effect protects any potential new countries that come into existence). You can't apply for a gTLD that is either the proper full name or short form name of a country or anything that is confusingly similar, i.e. no .unitedstates. And finally if you want to apply for a name that is a city or region name you need at least a letter of non objection from the constituent governments.
Trademark protections come in three parts. At the top level a trademark holder can object to you applying for a TLD that is an exact match for a trademark they hold in any jurisdiction. There are provision for trademark front running as well here. At the second level registries are required to provide protection for trademark holders both at registry start up (sunrise and landrush) as well as for ongoing operations. The protections during sunrise and landrush are stronger than during ongoing operations.
During sunrise and landrush registries are required to restrict registrations that are an exact match to marks in the trademark clearing house. They are also required to implement the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) during sunrise and landrush and the first 60 days of general availability. There is also a requirement for the UDRP for ongoing operations but this is almost exactly the same for other existing gTLDs (ccTLDs are a different matter).
Obviously there are corner cases to the above and there are a large number of details involved. If you want more information a good starting point is the Applicant Guidebook which you can get from this link:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
EDIT: added information about UDRP.
Trademark protections come in three parts. At the top level a trademark holder can object to you applying for a TLD that is an exact match for a trademark they hold in any jurisdiction. There are provision for trademark front running as well here. At the second level registries are required to provide protection for trademark holders both at registry start up (sunrise and landrush) as well as for ongoing operations. The protections during sunrise and landrush are stronger than during ongoing operations.
During sunrise and landrush registries are required to restrict registrations that are an exact match to marks in the trademark clearing house. They are also required to implement the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) during sunrise and landrush and the first 60 days of general availability. There is also a requirement for the UDRP for ongoing operations but this is almost exactly the same for other existing gTLDs (ccTLDs are a different matter).
Obviously there are corner cases to the above and there are a large number of details involved. If you want more information a good starting point is the Applicant Guidebook which you can get from this link:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
EDIT: added information about UDRP.
Right now you can guess that a company's web address is probably companyname.com, but .companyname alone can't be a web address.
Not true, and you can see it yourself:
http://ac/
http://ai/
http://tm/
Nothing technically prevents a TLD from having an A record, it's just uncommon. So there could very well be http://microsoft/ or http://apple/, which would appear as "microsoft" and "apple" in FF and Chrome, at least.
Not true, and you can see it yourself:
http://ac/
http://ai/
http://tm/
Nothing technically prevents a TLD from having an A record, it's just uncommon. So there could very well be http://microsoft/ or http://apple/, which would appear as "microsoft" and "apple" in FF and Chrome, at least.
Are you sure about that? ac, ai and tm do not resolve:
nslookup tm
Non-existent domain
It does have an A record:
% dig a tm
; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> a tm.
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 41011
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;tm. IN A
;; ANSWER SECTION:
tm. 86366 IN A 193.223.78.213
;; Query time: 1 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.66.32#53(192.168.66.32)
;; WHEN: Thu Jan 12 10:20:15 2012
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 36
% nmap tm.
Starting Nmap 5.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2012-01-12 10:24 BRST
Interesting ports on serv213.icb.co.uk (193.223.78.213):
Not shown: 997 filtered ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
113/tcp closed auth
443/tcp open httpsYou might want to check your DNS server, because nslookup tm works fine here.
And yes, browsers redirect to .com if you jut put "tm", but at least Firefox loads the correct website if you put the whole URL, with http://
And yes, browsers redirect to .com if you jut put "tm", but at least Firefox loads the correct website if you put the whole URL, with http://
Server: 8.8.8.8
Address: 8.8.8.8#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: tm
Address: 193.223.78.213
I think you'll find that IANA (currently ICANN) refuses to put general purpose A, and AAAA records in the root. As far as I am aware only NS, "glue" A (and AAAA), and DNSSEC records are allowed in the root (aside from the records necessary for the root itself, i.e. SOA etc).
You should also note that email addresses that doesn't have a '.' in the host part are technically invalid, i.e. me@mytld is not a valid fully qualified email address.
You should also note that email addresses that doesn't have a '.' in the host part are technically invalid, i.e. me@mytld is not a valid fully qualified email address.
I don't know what IANA decided; all I know is the TLDs I listed do have A records, and they load at least on Firefox, so there's obviously no technical reason the new TLDs can't.
You should also note that email addresses that doesn't have a '.' in the host part are technically invalid, i.e. me@mytld is not a valid fully qualified email address.
Hmm, has RFC 2822 been superseded? Because it clearly says the domain part can be a dot-atom, which is defined in the same RFC in ABNF form as:
You should also note that email addresses that doesn't have a '.' in the host part are technically invalid, i.e. me@mytld is not a valid fully qualified email address.
Hmm, has RFC 2822 been superseded? Because it clearly says the domain part can be a dot-atom, which is defined in the same RFC in ABNF form as:
dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
I suspect those A records are probably grandfathered and they are of course ccTLDs so the rules are different. None of the gTLDs have A records for their TLD (although they almost certainly have glue A records). From memory I queried John Craine (ICANN Security, Stability and Resiliency Director) about this a number of years ago and again if I remember accurately his response was that they wouldn't allow any additional types of records. I suspect this is a policy decision rather than a technical one.
RFC 2822 has been superceded by RFC 5322. The problem is not being allowed to put MX records in the zone for a TLD, and hence the mail is not routeable. Also remember that you would need to differentiate between "me@mytld<.localdomain>" and "me@mytld.", I'm not sure if all MTA software (let alone MUA) will do the right thing with differentiation. This is probably considered to impact stability and hence is discouraged.
RFC 2822 has been superceded by RFC 5322. The problem is not being allowed to put MX records in the zone for a TLD, and hence the mail is not routeable. Also remember that you would need to differentiate between "me@mytld<.localdomain>" and "me@mytld.", I'm not sure if all MTA software (let alone MUA) will do the right thing with differentiation. This is probably considered to impact stability and hence is discouraged.
Trademarks in which country / how do they plan to cope with conflicting trademarks?
Geographic protections, .norfolk - does that refer to the county in the UK or to one of the places in the US, or else where?