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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
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
UK
Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164
Fax: +44 1633 663706
EMail: owain@vaughan.com
8. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). 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.