ICANN Logo Intellectual Property Constituency Comparison of New TLD Applications

IPC Evaluation Chart for Proposed TLD(s)

(Prepared by the IPC, October, 2000)


G = Good ------- Favorable approach, which should be further developed

S = Satisfactory ------- Status quo with existing TLD policies, or new policies which may not be objectionable.

U = Unsatisfactory ------- IPC provisions not addressed or addressed in an unsatisfactory way.

I=Insufficient Information ------- Reference to IPC provisions, but lacking in sufficient detail.

        A.    Does the proposal have a well thought-out plan for allocation of names during the start up phase of the TLD in a way that protects the legitimate interests of significant stake holders, including existing domain-name holders, businesses with legally protected names, and others with which conflict is likely (i.e. Sunrise mechanism for registered trademarks)?

        B.    Does the proposal provide for a reasonably accessible and efficient mechanism for resolving domain name disputes (i.e. means for resolving charter violations; application of the UDRP)?

         C.    Has the proponent considered intellectual property protections for third party interests (periodic sampling to uncover incomplete contact information; publication of domain name before it goes live; periodic review of sites to ensure charter compliance; means for third parties to challenge registration of their personal names, etc.)?

          D.    Does the proposal make adequate provision for WHOIS service that strikes an appropriate balance between providing information to the public regarding domain-name registrations in a convenient manner and offering mechanisms to preserve personal privacy (i.e. access to complete, accurate, and up-to-date WHOIS data; centralized registry WHOIS; WHOIS w/o arbitrary limits on the number of hits; multi-field WHOIS)?

          E.    Does the proposal incorporate policies that are likely to discourage abusive registration practices (i.e. rules governing who may register in a chartered TLD; prescreening of applications in chartered domains to ensure compliance w/charter; cancellation of domain for submission of false contact data or use of a domain name for illegal purposes)?

Proposed TLD(s)






.ads (Name Space) U U U U I

(A) No plan for start-up other than reliance on the introduction of a large number of TLDs to avoid a rush. (B) No UDRP. (D) Registrants may choose not to have their domain names listed in any public directories (opt-out). (E) Need more information on pre-screening. Mandates use of domain name within a reasonable time, forbids registration for sole purpose of resale, and prescreens for "(f)amous and well established and recognized trademarks" (although no such list exists). 

Unwise in principle to move ahead on industry-specific TLDs in which industry has not participated (e.g.,. shoes, .cars, .travel).

.africa, etc. (Rathbawn) 




.LLC, etc. 


.sansansan, etc. 

.xxx and .sex 















































General Comment: The main application and the annexes have some inconsistencies.  For example, in the main application, the applicant states that there will be a "sunrise" period of one month for "famous" or "registered" marks to pre-register.  However, several of the annexes specifically state that there will be no "sunrise" period.  Given that the main application doesn't appear to apply to the individual TLD strings, IPC has rated each annex that sets forth the criteria related to the specific TLD.  

In general, the annexes describing the specifics for each of the proposed TLDs either omit or provide insufficient information with respect to satisfying the BC/IPC principles. 

.air (Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques S S S (A) Use of domain name permitted only by accredited air transport related entities. No special start up procedure and will implement WIPO protection for well-known marks when specified. (B) Registrants should accept UDRP. (C) SITA has internal guidelines and processes and will also follow UDRP. (D) Will have WHOIS. Unclear, however, on prohibition of false contact data and searchability of WHOIS. (E) Will have pre-screening. Has mechanisms to avoid abuses and to deal with if not avoided.
.biz (Abacus America, Inc.) U S I I U (A) "Sunrise" proposal only for "famous marks" in startup, although no such list exists. Prescreening for same name in other TLDs. (D) Explanation on WHOIS insufficient. (E) No provision for cancellation due to false contact data or illegal use.
.biz, etc. (Affinity Internet, Inc.) G G G S (A) Restricted to active businesses; Registrar performs trademark search if applicant has no trademark registration for area of business (country). "Sunrise" for "major marks." (B) Modified UDRP. Manual examination. (D) Enhanced WHOIS searchability. (E) Highly restricted domain, and extensive prescreening. However, no explicit provision regarding cancellation due to false contact data.
.biz, etc. (iDomains, Inc.) G S G G G (A) "Sunrise" present. (B) UDRP present. (D) "Fat" registry with query-based searches, and monitored subscription service for more complex queries across multiple fields. However, monitoring function of WHOIS subscription service must be clarified. Sampling of data for accuracy.
.biz (JVTeam, LLC) U U U S U (A) No "sunrise" provision, but will, for a fee, alert a mark owner of registration of notified marks. Notification of a trademark is insufficient to block registration by someone else. (B) Applicant espouses a UDCRP which is a modified version of the UDRP - it is unclear as to what the need for a modification of the existing UDRP is. Need for use of the modified UDRP for charter violations. (C) No sampling; pre-publication except for those who pay for such a service. (D) Existing WHOIS, although some concern over how privacy rules apply and how bulk access is defined. (E) No effort is made to prescreen; only a self-certification: As a registry it puts enforcement burden on registrars.
.biz, etc (KDD Internet Solutions Co, Ltd) U S S U S (A) No "sunrise" provision. (B) UDRP. (D) Closed WHOIS possible. Blanket opt-out of WHOIS.
.cash, etc. (Diebold Incorporated) G G S S S (A) Expanded "sunrise" provision. (B) UDRP present, encourages further development. (D) Unclear on enhanced searchability of WHOIS. (E) Commits to suspending registration based on false contact data, but no third party challenge mechanism provided. 
.co-op, etc (Cooperative League of the USA) G S S I S (A) Registrations during start-up phase (6 mos.) is limited to members of NCBA, who can only register their legal name or obvious abbreviations thereof. (B) Registrars are required to apply UDRP. (D) Minimal information on WHOIS (may be status quo). (E) NCBA/ICA will review applications to ensure their applicants are legitimate cooperative associations meeting well-established criteria for co-ops.
.dir (Novell) S S S S S (A) Companies must have an existing domain name registration in the .com, .org, or .net domain to register a .dir, and then it is registered by simply adding ".dir" to the existing domain name, e.g. "abc.com.dir". Therefore any conflict in the .dir domain will occur only where there is a corresponding conflict in the .com, .org, or.net domain; (B) ICANN UDRP applies. (D) Status quo on WHOIS, etc.
.dot, etc. (Neustar, Inc.) U G S S S (A) Application states that registry will implement "Daybreak/Sunrise" proposals only if mandated by ICANN; (B) Adopt UDRP, including provisions for charter violations. (C) Proposes a notification system where owners of registered marks can enroll their names, and be notified when someone registers a domain name with that string. This is solely a notification system—the trademark owner’s only recourse is UDRP or litigation. (D) Status quo on WHOIS. (E) Same procedures as .com.
.dubai, etc. (Dubai Technology, Electronic Commerce and Media Free Zone Authority I S U S I (A)Several possible approaches are being "considered" establishing a list of famous marks (to which one could pay to be included), registered trademarks, etc. "could" benefit from a "right of first refusal." More definite information needed. (B) Will adopt existing, or as modified, ICANN UDRP. (C) No sampling for complete contact information, no prior publication, etc. (but see vague list at the beginning of E5.1). (D) Teamed with VeriSign to run the WHOIS system for the Registry; Registrars will provide all WHOIS information required by ICANN-accredited registrars. (E) While E5.3 speaks of a "statement of justification," a "description of purpose" etc. at the front end, these measures are only being "considered." No cancellation for false contact data.
.event (Internet Events) S S S S (A) Closed to public during six-month startup period. (B) Follow UDRP. (C) Failure to comply with restrictions may lead to revocation. (D) WHOIS available through registry and registrars. 
.fin (Association Monegasque des Banques) U S G (A) No "sunrise" provision. (B) Follow UDRP and UNCITRAL. (C) Thirty-day waiting period before registration and publication of application. (D) WHOIS is gTLD status quo plus fat registry and possibly additional search capabilities. (E) Prescreening limits those becoming registrants. Registration criteria and cancellation procedures should be better spelled out. 
.find (Monsoon Assets) I S I U I General Comment: The Description of TLD Policy covers .find as an alternative. As this is a directory service the questions are not fully applicable. This appears to be essentially a search engine for Yellow Pages directories. No URL’s in this TLD will be registered; there are no registrars; no discussion of WHOIS.
.firm (Eastern Communications) U S S S S

(A) Prescreening for famous and well-known marks, but no "sunrise" period. IPC notes that no famous marks list exists. (B) Will follow UDRP and will introduce mediation, if both parties agree. (D) WHOIS is status quo. (E) Will follow WIPO Study Annex IV to address abusive domain name registrations.  

Unwise in principle to move ahead on industry-specific TLDs in which industry has not participated (.game and .tours).

.geo (SRI International) G S G G G

(A) Trademark-type search prior to accreditation (registration), followed by a sixty-day opposition period. (B) Will adopt the UDRP. 

(D) WHOIS at registry level with enhanced searchability. (E) Appears to accept responsibility for notice and take down under DMCA, though this needs clarification. This TLD is invisible to end-users. 

.health (World Health Organization) S S S U S (A) Startup period of three to six months with stringent screening. (B) UDRP will be adopted. (D) Less than full range of status quo data elements will be made public via WHOIS. (E) Revocation possible for abusive practice.
.i (Sarnoff Corporation) G S G U G (A) "Daybreak" period provides preemption for trademark owners. (B) UDRP followed in all contracts. (C) Will use a takedown provision for similar domains names registered after registrant found to be a bad faith registrant in UDRP. (D) Only registrant name and number of registered domains will be available via WHOIS. All other information requires attorney certification and only for trademark purposes. (E) Registrations non-transferable.
.info, etc. (Affilias, LLC) G G U S I (A) Institution of "sunrise." (B) UDRP and dispute resolution procedure during "sunrise" period. (C) No periodic sampling to uncover incomplete contact information and no publication of domain name before it goes live. (D) Registry level WHOIS, lists information that will be made available, enhanced searchability available, but for a fee. (E) No information referring to cancellation due to false contact data.
.jina, etc. (The Global Name Registry, Limited) U U I U U

General Comment: Application sorely lacking in the  necessary protections. Most obvious was the apparent confusion created by the application. The application purports to be for "personal names for personal use"; however, the application goes on to indicate that this is an "unrestricted" TLD. While the application has put some procedures in place, the proposed procedures are totally inadequate.  

No provision for cancellation due to false contact data; registrar WHOIS obligations unclear; reference to notice and take down unclear. 

.kids (Blueberry Hill Communications) U S S S U*

General Comment: This proposal offers nothing new with regard to IP protection. Throughout the application, the applicant states that the UDRP is the appropriate vehicle for resolving disputes, but is vague as to how this would be accomplished.  

(A) No "sunrise" provision in accordance with IPC guidelines. (B) The application does call for a modification of the UDRP to handle disputes between legitimate rights holders during the "sunrise period," that would then disappear at the end of the "sunrise period." The application only provides "enhanced" protection for trademark holders that provide an affidavit. This affidavit is drafted to prove fame of the mark and the last two paragraphs of the Affidavit are somewhat disturbing. (D) Status quo on WHOIS. (E) *Although not every open TLD is unsatisfactory, the IPC has concern that the .kids designation is misleading, in that the public will likely regard it as a restricted TLD.

.kids (by DotKids, Inc.) U S I I U* (A) The application does propose a "sunrise proposal," but it talks in terms of "globally recognized" trademarks. No "globally recognized" mark list exists. The application also indicates that the cost of such registration would be prohibitively expensive. The proposal contains several statements indicating DotKids’, Inc. willingness to work with IP owners to ensure IP protection; however, the proposal is very short on any type of specifics in this regard. (D) Fat registry WHOIS, but the absence of some specifics leaves open questions (e.g., how many hits will be available, what type of searching can be done, etc.) (E)* Explicit reference to cancellation for bad data. Lastly, while not technically a chartered TLD this application does indicate that it will have a contractual provision with regard to the type of content a registrant may provide in the proposed .kids TLD. Need to incorporate registration restrictions into a charter.
.kids and .xxx (ICM Registry) S G G G G (A) Positive that "sunrise" applied to registered trademarks, but cannot endorse use of "sunrise" for common law marks. (B) Advocates UDRP, has means for resolving charter violations. (C) Confirmation of payment, strong back-end charter compliance checks. (D) Centralized registry is positive aspect, mentions "up-to- date," some concern over subscription service ($200/yr), needs more detail on what type of information will be made available, monitoring function of WHOIS subscription service must be clarified; (E) Negative - no provision for prescreening to ensure charter compliance, positive is provision for cancellation of domain name when false contact data is provided, contact point for reporting instances of charter violations or use of site for illegal purposes. 
.kids (.KIDS Domains, Inc.) U S G S S

(A) Limits "sunrise" to marks on "famous" list (although no such list exists) and only to marks that are registered in the U.S., which overlooks other national trademark registries (E. 15); (C) detailed process for charter compliance audits, maintenance of IP advisor. 

General Comment: IPC appreciates reference to 8/24 IPC paper. However, more detail is needed. Particularly with respect to (D) and (E).

.law (dotlaw, Inc.) U S U (A) "Sunrise" only covers law firms, not registered trademarks. (B) Positive adherence to the UDRP. (C) No review for incomplete information or charter compliance. (D) Only technical information in WHOIS, no reference to accuracy of information, no "up-to-date," no reference to # of "hits," etc. (E) Language regarding evaluation of applications and prescreening.
.mall, etc. (Commercial Connect, LLC) S S U U (A) "Sunrise" provision present. (B) Will adhere to UDRP. (C) No references to registry obligation to check information or ensure charter compliance. (D) Positive that application calls for centralized (fat) registry, but unclear. Little information is provided re: WHOIS. (E) objects to pre-screening. Barely restricted, but no 3d party challenges allowed to registration.
.mas (Nokia Corporation) U U General Comment: The proposal is flawed from an IPC perspective because (1) it imposes an undesirable and unattainable burden on trademark agents and legal practitioners; (2) it merely shifts the problems we have and are facing from the second-level domains to the third-level domains; and (3) it bears little or no resemblance to existing or emerging legal principles regarding domain name disputes.  Lacks detail on WHOIS. 
.mus (Museum Domain Management) S S G U G

General Comment: Favorable attributes include, e.g., electronic verification against database; domain name designations to be clearly derived from museum's name; a novel "cooling off" period of five days post-registration; and pre- and post-screening to ensure that applicant/registrant actually meets or can meet the criteria as a "museum" and has demonstrated such ability in its submissions.   

(A) No "sunrise" needed, as registrants must be on a dedicated list. (D) WHOIS limited to registrant name and mailing address.

.nom (CORE Internet Council of Registrars) U S S U I (A) Appears to limits "sunrise" to marks on "famous" list. No "famous" mark list exists. Uncertain as to how this would work. Needs more information. (D) Very weak on WHOIS, reliance on "designated agent for contact" of registrant. (E) Uncertain as to how prescreening during registration process would work. 
.nom (dotNOM Consortium) U S U (A) No "sunrise." (B) Adheres to UDRP, but no provision for charter violations. (D) Would provide WHOIS like that of dotTV (no public access except upon individual request to registry).
.one S S S

(A) No "sunrise," because limited to numeric SLDs. (B) Adheres to UDRP. (D) Fat registry WHOIS model; applicant should clarify full public availability unless specifically restricted by applicable law.  

Note: character-based SLDs might be considered at a later date, subject to IP considerations.

.per U U U U U (A) No "sunrise." (B) Adheres to UDRP, but proposes a "Uniform Charter Dispute Resolution Policy" that is unclear and appears to be too limited in scope. (D) Essentially unrestricted domain; WHOIS data collected on "opt in" basis; fat registry (but with nothing in it).
.pid (Dada Spa) U S S U S General Comment: Opt out for all WHOIS data. Most restrictive of personal name TLDs (must use own surname).
.post (Universal Postal Union) U I G S S

(A) No "sunrise." (B) Prefer to resolve disputes and many other concerns by UPU policies, and only refer to the UDRP as a last resort. Insufficient information about the efficacy of UPU policies and experience with UPU disputes to comment on short notice on whether such remedies will prove adequate when applied to internet disputes.  

(D) Appears to be status quo with respect to WHOIS.

.pro (DotPro Consortium) S/U S U (A) Has "sunrise," but does not limit to registered marks. Proposes auctions, which are typically viewed by the trademark community as problematic. (C) No periodic sampling to uncover bad contact data. (D) Short on specifics as to what information WHOIS would contain. WHOIS follows dot TV policy (i.e., no public access except upon individual request to registry).
.pro (RegistryPro, Ltd) G S S (A) "Sunrise" period for registered trademarks. (B) UDRP, court decisions, domain name will be placed on hold during a dispute. (C) Possibility to remove a domain name if a registrant cannot prove his "professional" status. (D) Fat registry WHOIS model with pledge of more robust searchability in future. (E) Restricted TLD – all applicants will have to prove that they are qualified, makes cybersquatting less possible and less attractive.
.tel (Pulver, Peek, Marschel) S S I I G (A) No "sunrise" as it is deemed not necessary – "all domain names are essentially predetermined" under the .tel, but what happens if a telephone number also is a trademark? (B) Adoption of iTAB’s dispute policy (a shared Conflict Resolution Tool), UDRP only as a "last resort," ITAB’s policy however likely sufficient for telephone numbers. (D) Fat registry WHOIS model, but query deletion of "web-based" and "public" from standard agreement. (E) Due to the nature of .tel, TM infringements are less likely compared to open TLDs. ITU standards are used to identify applicants.
.tel (Number .tel LLC) S S S S S General Comment: Given the nature of the proposed TLD, the proposed mechanisms are satisfactory.
.tel (Telnic Limited) U I I S I (A) No "sunrise" and appears not to be limited to numbers. Use of auctions deemed risky. Often used words "may" and "likely" leave a lot of unanswered questions with respect to IP protection. WHOIS provisions appear to follow gTLD status quo. 
.travel (International Air Transport) U S G I G (A) No "sunrise" provision. (B) Will adhere to UDRP. (C) Encouraged by monitoring procedures, publication of applications. (D) Talk of "minimum amount of information" in WHOIS, "may" decide to provide more expansive WHOIS. (E) Prescreening, undertaken.
.union (ICFTU) U U U U

General Comment: The application itself states that the guidelines on domain name use in this TLD are still in draft form and "are likely to run" as set forth in the application. As a result, much more specifity is required before the TLD policies set forth therein can be found satisfactory, let alone good.  

(A) There is no "sunrise" mechanism for registered trademarks covering union-related services. There was no express provision requiring prepayment of the registration fees, or certification that all statements in the application are true. In addition, there is no requirement that an officer of the union registering under this TLD represent/warrant it has the authority to act on behalf of that union.  

(B) There is no mechanism for resolving charter violations. Also, it appears the only way to challenge a registrant’s qualifications to register under this TLD is through an adjudication panel made up solely of union-type members (no ip representation) and not the UDRP.  

(C) The only intellectual property protection provided is publication of the domain name before it goes live, BUT the publication period can be waived under certain conditions.  

(D) There is no requirement for the registrant to keep the data current. The application simply refers to a "standard" WHOIS service without any details.   

(E) The application specifically states that there will be no pre-screening of registrations for infringements of intellectual property rights. In addition, registrations will only be subject to greater scrutiny during the "start-up" period (there is discretion whether to extend past the start-up period. However, it states that in the majority of cases, applications would not be closely tested according to the "bona fide trade union organizations" criteria, and instead a fast track mechanism would approve the majority of registrants without the need for close scrutiny. Moreover, the TLD applicant is relying on the restrictions on which organizations have the right to register names as the best guard against abusive behavior, but the trustees reviewing such information do not include parties representing intellectual property interests.

.web (Image Online) U S U S U

(A) The application contemplates the validation of its pre-registration of .web domain names, clearly in contradiction to ICANN and the Names Council’s press release. Moreover, the application specifically rejects a "sunrise" type proposal. Trademark owners have preemptive rights to challenge existing .web applications, however, unlike a "sunrise" provision where trademark owners are the first to file, there is a phase in period during which trademark holders can place existing .web registrations (i.e., presumably those that have also been pre-registered) on hold pending the resolution of a dispute under either the UDRP or a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(B) The application states its adherence to the UDRP, and since this is not a restricted TLD, there are no provisions regarding charter violations. 

(C) Intellectual property protections for third party interests such as periodic sampling to uncover incomplete contact information; publication of domain name before it goes live; periodic review of sites to ensure charter compliance; means for third parties to challenge registration of their personal names are not provided. The applicant relies on the preemptive rights mentioned above and the UDRP/courts. 

(D) The application states that the publicly accessible look-up system WHOIS currently in use offers sufficient search capabilities for trademark holders, and thus does not specifically cover the provisions in the IPC Guideline paper. 

(E) While the application n provides for prepayment of the registration fee, there is a provision that allows customers with established credit a limited amount of time to pay. Assuming the amount of time is truly limited (i.e., days), this appears reasonable. 


Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.

Page Updated 08-November-00
(c) 2000  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.