Tag Archives: ccTLDs

Issues For New gTLDs And ccTLDs Broaden Their Appeal Focus of US News

Domain names have been the focus of articles in America’s two leading quality newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, over the last few days.The New York Times looked at country code Top Level Domains that have attempted to broaden their base by exploiting their code. For example, the attempt by the .CO (Colombia) registry to market themselves as an alternative to .COM and .ME (Montenegro) to promote its use by social media sites and bloggers.With more than 600,000 registrations of .CO domains in over 200 countries, the registry notes they hope to reach five million registrations with five years.Meanwhile The Washington Post looks at the expansion of new generic Top Level Domains saying “the trusty .com domain … is about to face vast new competition that will dramatically transform the Web as we know it.”The article looks at potentially controversial gTLD strings such as .ABORTION, .ISLAM or .MUHAMMAD and asks who will get to operate these controversial gTLDs. “Can the Ku Klux Klan own .NAZI on free speech grounds, or will a Jewish organization run the domain and permit only educational Web sites – say, remember.nazi or antidefamation.nazi? And who’s going to get .AMAZON – the Internet retailer or Brazil?”While there are bound to be some controversial gTLDs applied for, it is hard to imagine the demand for many of their suggestions. Maybe .AMAZON could be in demand.One controversial gTLD could be .GAY with two groups likely to apply for the rights to operate it, while .ECO also has two groups interested in applying for this string, one of which is “a nonprofit chaired by former vice president Al Gore; the other from a group founded by former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev.”Not being based in the US, it is hard to fully comprehend whether the concerns expressed in .GAY are reasonable.Scott Seitz, the CEO of DotGay LLC, “who is gay, said the simple idea of operating the domain devoted to the gay movement exerts its own pressures. ‘I have a responsibility, and I am in awe of that,'” Seitz told The Washington Post, “adding that he and his business partners intend on donating two-thirds of their revenue to various social causes. ‘I buried 40 friends in 18 months [who died from complications related to HIV]. Having .GAY is scary, it could be crazy. I’ve already told people to get steel doors and window bars for security to protect against anti-gay organizations that wouldn’t want dot-gay to happen.'”To read the articles in full, see:
For Countries That Own Shorter Web Site Suffixes, Extra Cash From Abroad
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/technology/07dotco.htmlRush is on for custom domain name suffixes

The National ccTLD Disputes: Between State Actors and Non-State Actors by Y.J. Park

Since 1985, non-state actors under Jon Postel’s leadership have experimented creating virtual national spaces on the Internet through so-called “country code top level domain names” (ccTLDs). There are 251 ccTLDs on the Internet. In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the newly established coordination body for Internet addresses including ccTLDs – stressed out the principle of private sector leadership instead of public sector administration of Internet identifiers. ICANN’s coordination of ccTLDs required state actors to comply with the principle of private sector leadership in a top-down manner.As of 2009, the question of how to govern ccTLDs is still disputed at the national level between state actors and non-state actors, with state actors starting to reassert their power over ccTLDs, ignoring the principle of private sector leadership recommended by ICANN. This study presents five different national ccTLDs dispute cases, to investigate why national ccTLDs disputes have increased after the establishment of ICANN and how are state actors trying to regain control over ccTLDs.To download and read this article by Y. J. Park in the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, see:

ICANN: Public Comments Requested on ccNSO Working Group Paper on Delegation, Redelegation and Retirement of ccTLDs

The Chair of the ccNSO’s working group on delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLD’s is pleased to announce the publication of the working groups Issue Analysis report [PDF, 1.16 MB]. The objective of the report is to inform and solicit input and comment from the community on the classification methodology developed by the working group and the issues identified and classified using that methodology, in particular on the following topics:

  • Is the methodology developed and employed adequate for the purposes of the DRDWG?
  • Do the policy statements identified provide an adequate baseline to evaluate the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
  • Are there other policy statements which are applicable to the work of the DRDWG? Should they be included in the baseline?
  • Does the documentation identified provide an adequate representation of the actual practices of IANA and the ICANN Board relative to delegation, redelegation and retirement of ccTLDs?
  • Should other cases be included for analyses?
  • Is there other documentation which is applicable to the work of the DRDWG which should be analyzed?
  • Was the methodology properly applied to the cases?

To be most helpful you are kindly requested to submit your comments by 15 September 2010 at: icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201009-en.htm#drd. An archive of all comments received will be publicly available.

Background and next steps:

According to its charter the purpose of the delegation, redelegation and retirement Working Group (DRDWG) is to advise the ccNSO Council whether it should launch a policy development process to recommend changes to the current policies for delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs. The working group has published its first progress report in February 2010 and second progress report in June 2010. Both the charter and the progress reports can be found at here.

The Working Group will continue its work during this consultation period. After closure of the comment period, the working group will finalise this paper taking into account the public comments and input.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:

ICANN: Public Comments Requested on Chairs Draft Interim Paper for Policy on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs

The Chair of the ccNSO’s Internationalised Domain Name Country Code Policy Development Process Working Group (IDN ccPDP WG) for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs is pleased to announce the publication of the Chairs draft Interim Paper [PDF, 170 KB]. The purpose of this paper is to report to the community on structure and potential directions of the recommendations for the overall policy. To be most helpful at this stage of the process the WG seeks your input and comments on the following:

Is the proposed overall approach adequate? If not, what alternative do you propose?

Should process steps be added or excluded?

Should criteria be included, or excluded?

Should the criteria be changed?

This document has not been signed-off by the Working Group whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input during this consultation period.

The working group would welcome if comments and input on this report are submitted by 2 April 2010 via email to idn-ccpdp@icann.org. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at forum.icann.org/lists/idn-ccpdp/.

The IDN ccPDP WG was chartered by the ccNSO Council as part of the ccNSO policy development process to a ccNSO policy development process to recommend to the ICANN Board:

  • A policy on the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs and,
  • Changes to Article IX of the iCANN Bylaws to include IDN ccTLD’s in the ccNSO.

According to its charter, the purpose and scope of the IDN ccPDP WG is limited to identifying and reporting on a feasible policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. In fulfilling its purpose, the WG shall focus on, without limitation, examination of the topics raised in the joint GAC-ccNSO Issues paper. It shall also take into account the proposals and recommendations of the IDNC (Fast Track) Working Group and the Implementation Plan based on the work of the IDNC WG.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from: