RFC2240 - A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation

Network Working Group O. Vaughan

Request for Comments: 2240 Vaughan Enterprises

Category: Informational November 1997

A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

1. IntrodUCtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3. Possible solutions to name exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4. Proposed creation of new SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4

4.2 The case for legal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.3 Allocation of legal SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

7. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

8. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Introduction

The purpose of this memo is to focus discussion on the particular

problems with the exhaustion of the top level domain space in the

Internet and the possible conflicts that can occur when multiple

organisations are vying for the same name. No proposed solutions in

this document are intended as standards for the Internet. Rather, it

is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate

solution to such problems, leading eventually to the adoption of

standards.

2. Overview of the domain space

Presently the domain space is organised as a heirarchical tree-

structured namespace with several top level domains (TLDs), and sub-

domains beneath them. The initial TLDs allocated and rationale are

documented in [1].

The TLDs are functionally split up into 'generic' top-level domains

(gTLDs) and two-letter ISO 3166 country domains for every country in

which Internet connectivity is provided. The allocation of sub-

domains under these TLDs is entirely up to the registry for that TLD.

The registry may decide to allocate further levels of structure or

merely allocate domains in a 'flat' manner.

Example:

+-----+ +----+ +----+

COM UK FR

+-----+ +----+ +----+

+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+

VAUGHAN AC CO UNIV-AVIGNON AXA

+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+

+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+

UNIX NEWPORT CITYDESK SOL MAIL

+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+

+----+ +-----+

NS FTP

+----+ +-----+

1. Flat gTLD 2. Heirarchical country 3. Flat country

In the example we see that the gTLDs are inherently flat, as

organisations are allocated domain names directly under the TLD.

With the country domains however, the domain allocation policy can

vary widely from country to country, and it does. Some may choose to

implement a functional sub-structure mirroring the gTLDs, some may

choose to implement a geographical sub-structure, and some may choose

to have no sub-structure at all.

In the first case the organisation is clearly a commercial one, as it

is allocatged under the "COM" TLD. However, there is no information

as to the country the organisation is based in. In the third case,

we know that the organisation is based in France (FR), but without

studying the actual organisation name we do not know what type of

organisation it is. In the second case, we know the country that

both organisations are based in (UK), and by following the heirarchy,

we can deduce that the first is an academic organisation (AC), and

the second is commercial (CO).

While the system is flexible in not enforcing a strict heirarchy, it

can lead to exhaustion of domain names in the generic space and lead

to conflicts between organisations who may both have a legitimate

claim to have a particular name.

3. Possible solutions to name exhaustion

With such a flexible system, there are many ways of preventing the

name space being exhausted. A solution proposed by [2] is to create

more gTLDs to allow organisations with the same name to be registered

uniquely under different TLDs (FIRM, STORE, WEB, ARTS, REC, INFO and

NOM). However this has several disadvantages as discussed below:

a) It creates confusion in users mind as to what TLD refers to a

particular organisation. For example, MCDONALDS.COM maybe the fast

food corporation and MCDONALDS.FIRM maybe a firm of lawyers, but

how is the user supposed to know which is which?

b) To prevent the above confusion, big corporations will simply

reserve all the different variations of the name, ie. IBM.COM,

IBM.FIRM, IBM.STORE etc. Thus we haven't solved the name

exhaustion or conflict problems, in fact we have made it worse.

c) Names of legitimate trade mark holders or other legally held names

can still be acquired by anybody, leading to potential conflicts.

4. Proposed creation of new SLDs

With the aforementioned problems in mind, it is not a good idea to

create new gTLDs which merely overlap the existing ones. As the

domain name system is heirarchical it would seem a good idea to

eXPand on the existing structure rather than creating several

duplicate structures.

4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be?

With the expansion of the Internet to a truly global medium, the

notion that there can only be one commercial entity, one orgnisation,

and one network provider etc. with the same name seems impossible.

This is the situation that the present system finds itself in. There

is a constantly spiralling number of disputes over who 'owns' or '

deserves' a certain name, with an increasing number ending in

unnecessary and costly legal action. This is not something that the

providers of a domain name service should concern themselves with,

but yet with the present system, this seems inevitable.

4.2 The case for legal names

This proposal allows for country domain names that are related to

legally registered names in the country that they are based by

creating a functional heirarchy beneath the country TLD.

This proposal does not seek to do away with gTLDs, but rather that a

legal name should be sought first and then, if desired, a generic

name could be used alongside it. The organisation would then, in case

of any disputes, have a legally-held name which no other organisation

could have any claim to.

This proposal has several advantages:

a) The process of deciding what names belong to which organisation

is no longer a function of the domain name registry, but of the

company registration authority in the given country. This means

that disputes over names cannot arise as all names are unique

within the context of the legal company title.

b) As all names are unique, there should be no exhaustion

(deliberately or otherwise) of 'desirable' names by other

concerns, as all the owners of legally-held company names will

automatically have the right to the relevant domain name.

4.3 Allocation of legal SLDs

The second level domain identifiers should be created from the

existing company indentifiers within the given country. For example:

LTD.UK for limited companies in the UK

PLC.UK for public companies in the UK

INC.US for incorpated bodies in the US

CORP.US for corporations in the US

GMBH.DE for German companies

The registries for the appropriate top-level country domain should

create and manage the sub-domains based on the laws for allocating

company names in that particular country. Specifically, ALL spaces

should be converted to hyphens '-' and other punctuation either

disregarded or also converted into hyphens.

For holders of international trademarks and other international

names, the gTLD "INT" can be used in place of the country identifier.

For example:

TM.INT } for international trademarks

REG.INT }

4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs

In countries that do not have existing sub-structure it is strongly

recommended that along with the creation of legal SLDs described

here, that other SLDs be created for commercial entities,

organisations, and academic entities to reduce remaining conflicts

from organisations that are not legally-registered companies.

For example:

+------------------+

ISO 3166 country . . . . . . . . .

+------------------+ . .

. .

+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+

AC/ CO/ OR/ LTD INC

EDU COM ORG +-----+ +-----+

+-----+ +-----+ +-----+

4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages

The representation of any domain element is limited to the ASCII

character set of alphabetic characters, digits and the hyphen, as

described in [3]. The representation of names in languages that use

other character sets is limited by that definition or any future

update.

5. Security Considerations

This memo raises no issues relating to network security. However

when delegating the subdomains, the registries must ensure that the

application contains sufficient evidence of the legal rights to a

given name.

6. References

[1] Postel J. and J. Reynolds , "Domain Requirements", RFC920,

October 1984.

[2] "Generic Top Level Domains - Memoranding of Understanding"

<URL:http://www.gtld-mou.org/>

[3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and

Specification", RFC1035, November 1987.

7. Author's Address

Owain Vaughan

Vaughan Enterprises

PO Box 155

Newport NP9 6YX

Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164

Fax: +44 1633 663706

EMail: owain@vaughan.com

8. Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to

others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it

or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published

and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any

kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are

included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this

document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing

the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other

Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of

developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for

copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be

followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be

revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING

TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING

BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.