Network Working Group O. Vaughan
Request for Comments: 2352 Vaughan Enterprises
Obsoletes: 2240 May 1998
Category: Informational
A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
RFCEditor's Note
This RFCis an independent submission that discusses a possible
convention for allocating domain names based on corporate and other
names as registered by law.
It appears to depend on corporations changing their domain names from
their present form to more cumbersome handles, sUCh as changing
cisco.com to cisco-systems.co.ca.us or ibm.com to international-
business-machines.co.ny.us, without giving them an incentive to do
so, such as deprecating the .com and .net gTLDs. It also appears to
legislate the structure each national registry applies to its name
space, something which the document itself asserts is within national
purview and not for global standardization.
It may not be politically feasible to implement as described.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Possible solutions to name exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Proposed solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4
4.2 The case for legal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3 Allocation of legal sub-domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous sub-domains . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6 Non-textual identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
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. The proposed solutions in
this document are intended as a framework for development, such that
a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solution to the
problems in each case, 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 RFC920 [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.
Another set of possible solutions are discussed by The World
Intellectual Property Organisation [4] but this only addresses
dispute resolution when trademarks are used as domain names under
gTLDs, and not in the full legal context of their origin of
registration.
4. Proposed solution
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-code-based domain names that are
related to legally registered names in the country (or locality,
state or province within that country) that they are based in, by
creating a functional heirarchy beneath the country TLD.
This proposal does not seek to do away with gTLDs, but rather
suggests 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 name or trade mark registration authority in the given
locality. This means that disputes over names cannot arise as all
names are unique within the context of the legal name.
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 names will
automatically have the right to the relevant domain name.
4.3 Allocation of legal sub-domains
The sub-domain identifiers should be created from the existing
indentifiers for company names and trade marks within the given
locality, state, province or country.
The general form of such a sub-domain is:
<legal-token>.<locality-identifier(s)>.<iso3166-country>
For example:
LTD.UK for limited companies in the UK
PLC.UK for public limited companies in the UK
TM.FR for trademarks in France
INC.<state>.US }
LTD.<state>.US } for incorpated bodies in the US
CO.<state>.US } (each is equivalent)
CORP.<state>.US }
LLC.<state>.US for limited liability companies in the US
GMBH.DE for German companies
The registry for the appropriate upper level country, state, province
or locality domain should create entries in these sub-domains based
on the laws for allocating such legal names in that particular
country, state, province or locality. Specifically, the full legal
name should be used, but omitting the legal token (eg. Ltd, Corp,
etc.) as this will be determined by the choice of upper level domain.
ALL spaces within the name 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 sub-domains
In countries that do not have existing sub-structure it is strongly
recommended that along with the creation of legal sub-domains
described here, that other sub-domains be created for commercial
entities, organisations, and academic entities to reduce remaining
conflicts from organisations that are not legally-registered.
For example:
+------------------+
ISO 3166 country . . . . . . / / . .
+------------------+ . .
. .
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-------+
AC/ CO/ OR/ LTD state
EDU COM ORG +-----+ +-------+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+-----+
INC
+-----+
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 RFC1035 [3]. The representation of names in languages
that use other character sets is limited by that definition or any
future update.
4.6 Non-textual identifiers
The registration of non-textual trade marks such as logos or three
dimensional shapes under this scheme is beyond the scope of this
document. It is unlikely that these marks will need to be used in the
way that domain names are used presently, but their use is not
explicitly prohibited.
5. Security Considerations
This memo raises no issues relating to network security. However,
when delegating entries in sub-domains, 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", STD 13, RFC1035, November 1987.
[4] "Trademarks and Internet Domain Names",
<URL:http://www.wipo.int/eng/internet/domains/>
7. Author's Address
Owain Vaughan
Vaughan Enterprises
PO Box 155
Newport NP9 6YX
UK
Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164
Fax: +44 1633 663706
EMail: owain@vaughan.com
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
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.
