Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         O. VaughanRequest for Comments: 2352                           Vaughan EnterprisesObsoletes:2240                                                 May 1998Category: InformationalA Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain NamesStatus 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.RFC Editor's Note   This RFC is 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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998Table of Contents1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.   Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.   Possible solutions to name exhaustion  . . . . . . . . . . .44.   Proposed solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.1   The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . .44.2   The case for legal names  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.3   Allocation of legal sub-domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54.4   Allocation of miscellaneous sub-domains . . . . . . . . . .64.5   Identifiers in non-ASCII languages  . . . . . . . . . . . .64.6   Non-textual identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.   Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78.   Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.  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 inRFC 920 [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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998   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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 19983.  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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 19984.2 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 companiesVaughan                      Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 1998   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 inRFC 1035 [3]. The representation of names in languages   that use other character sets is limited by that definition or any   future update.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 19984.6 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",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", STD 13,RFC 1035, 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.comVaughan                      Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2352   A Convention For Using Legal Names as Domain Names   May 19988.  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.Vaughan                      Informational                      [Page 8]