Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         O. VaughanRequest for Comments: 2240                           Vaughan EnterprisesCategory: Informational                                    November 1997A Legal Basis for Domain Name AllocationStatus 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 Contents1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.   Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.   Possible solutions to name exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . .34.   Proposed creation of new SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.1   The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . .44.2   The case for legal names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.3   Allocation of legal SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.4   Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.5   Identifiers in non-ASCII languages  . . . . . . . . . . . .55.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.   Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68.   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.  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 inVaughan                      Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997   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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997   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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 19974.1 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 companiesVaughan                      Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 1997   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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 19976.  References   [1]  Postel J. and J. Reynolds , "Domain Requirements",RFC 920,        October 1984.   [2]  "Generic Top Level Domains - Memoranding of Understanding"        <URL:http://www.gtld-mou.org/>   [3]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and        Specification",RFC 1035, 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.comVaughan                      Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2240                 Domain Name Allocation            November 19978.  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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 7]