E0 Executive summary of the GNR proposal

E0.1 What is being proposed

This proposal is for an unsponsored TLD that targets individuals rather than corporations for a personal domain space and it is being made by the Global Name Registry (GNR).

The suggested TLD is .NAME, and significant research has been done to establish the acceptance and need for the string. We have also in this application requested or foreseen the creation of .NOM, .SAN, .XING  and .JINA (the proposed TLD string .JINA has been withdrawn by the applicant), as reflections of the “name” concept in other languages and cultures.  Language and culture are ways in which we express our individuality and we expect this individuality to be reflected in various TLD strings after successfully proving the need for a .name.  

To date, the Internet has been dominated by the English speaking nations (largely because of market demands) and Internet based identification has reflected those forces.  The .COM, .NET and .ORG domains are readily differentiated in respect to purpose and our proposal seeks to create a clear and unambiguous label that is semantically different from all other TLDs.  This not only differentiates our users, but it also enhances the structure of the DNS by creating a hierarchy of need.  In our case, it’s the needs of the individual.  Imagine the advantage of being able to search for your family by finding all the domain holders that have your surname!

Geographical diversity and representation of interests is also a key aspect of the GNR proposal and as a pan-European organisation that will also have an office in the USA , we are well placed to serve a worldwide audience.

Clearly, the current market needs to be serviced, but most would agree that the greatest opportunities for expanding the influence and usefulness of the Internet lie in new markets.  Countries such as Germany, Japan, Canada and the UK are natural extensions to the large and established market in the USA. 

GNR is equally committed to servicing the needs of all users around the world and will measure its success (in part) on the breadth, as well as depth, of its offering.


E0.2 Why do we believe we need it ?

The primary driver is user demand

The concept of a personal domain space has existed for some time and the GNR proposal is a response to this need.  A survey recently conducted by Nameplanet.com (the world’s largest provider of personal email) to 100,000 of its users showed that over 60% believed they would use a personal domain and of those, 10% were prepared to pay for it.  Extrapolate these figures to the broader Internet community and this equates to tens of millions of users.  In fact, our research indicates that upward of 100 million people could have a personal domain space within the next 5 years.


The second reason is differentiation

Current TLDs such as .COM, .NET and .ORG are (in part) intended to separate users into categories of interest but there is no distinction between the individual and the corporate and inevitably, large companies and organizations are able to dominate the space.  Even the use of domain names from ccTLD’s are limited in that they reflect a geographical orientation and in many cases this distinction is a reflection of availability rather than a desire to have an identified nationality.

The .NAME domain identifier is independent of location and commercial orientation and the extension of this concept to .XING, .SAN etc will further differentiate the user base. 

The TLDs requested are all intended to convey the concept of how we identify ourselves, that is, by our names and the way in which we do this varies across geographical and cultural borders.  For example, to those people of African decent, regardless of where they are domiciled, it is our hope that the .JINA (a Swahili word for name) (the proposed TLD string .JINA has been withdrawn by the applicant) might be a more meaningful identifier than .NAME.  Of course, there are practical and commercial considerations to be considered in establishing multiple TLDs such as this, but GNR intends to be at the forefront of innovation and user demand will ultimately drive these considerations.


The third reason is availability

Any user who has tried to register a .COM or .NET domain name will have experienced the shortage of Internet “real estate”.  But will a new TLD expand the space or merely create another mechanism by which a few users (or groups) can dominate the turf ?  The GNR proposal addresses some of these issues by only allowing registration on the third level.  If your last name is “Smith” or “Li”, the current system means that only one user can own smith.com or li.net.  Under the GNR proposal, we will control smith.name and li.name and therefore John Smith and Mary Smith and Graeme Smith and Anson  Li and Wu Li will have equal opportunity to own their personal space.


It’s not just about availability; it’s also about diversity

The .COM, .NET and .ORG TLDs dominate a market that is calling out for diversity.  Although the concept of a personal TLD has previously been suggested, its introduction on a global basis is a compelling proposal to increase the diversity of the domain space.


E0.3 Who is the Global Name Registry ?

The Global Name Registry (GNR) is a new company that blends experience, wisdom, business acumen and technical expertise into one consortium.

The system infrastructure and hosting comes from IBM.  The funding and management input comes from Venture Partners and Four Seasons and the market experience in dealing with a business dedicated to the individual user comes from Nameplanet.com.

The combination of the world’s largest holder of over 700,000 personal emails (Nameplanet.com) and the world’s largest provider of IT systems and solutions (IBM) teaming with investors who measure their combined portfolios in billions of dollars delivers a world class, “best of breed” solution.

GNR has in the application process approached persons with significant experience in different aspects of the Internet. Julie Meyer, co-founder of First Tuesday, and Michael Dillon, a well known name and person in the DNS community, have both accepted to be non-executive directors in the company. GNR aims to have a world class Board of Directors who represent all facets of the user, technical and Internet regulatory communities and will be committed to making this a safe, secure and dynamic environment.


E0.4 How will it be managed ?

Through a well known channel

GNR is proposing to market the .NAME TLD exclusively via ICANN accredited Registrars.  Further, there will be no charge to the Registrars (new or old) to become GNR accredited and existing methods for registering domain names via Network Solutions will be maintained.


The concept will be to maintain the best elements of the current model with a minimum of change and create an atmosphere that encourages growth and competition.

In safety

Whilst there will be no requirement for Registrars to change their systems in any way, GNR is proposing a simpler and more secure registration protocol that is protected by hardware encryption. 

With no preferential treatment

The .NAME TLD is intended for individuals and for personal use.  There is no pre-registration period.  All Registrants will be required to certify their bona fide interest in registering a domain name for personal use and they may be required to produce evidence of this interest in the event of a dispute.

The wide variance of convention in respect to the structure and expression of a person’s name (including nicknames) is such that screening processes (by comparing names to a pre-determined list), or even potential trademark issues are virtually impossible to implement.  Further, the fact that a trademark may exist in a corporate environment does not necessarily exclude its availability for personal use.

We are, however, committed to protecting the rights of trademark and service mark holders and are proposing to introduce a system by which holders of these marks can be notified of potential infringements.

As registrations will only be allowed on the third level, the advantage to “squat” or “warehouse” names is greatly reduced.  In other words, because GNR will hold the lastname.name (eg, smith.name and li .name), and register the third level only (as in john.smith.name or wing.li.name) this element is not attractive.

Lastly, GNR will fully implement the tried and tested Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to deal with any issues of dispute.  The rules in this area are clear and it discourages deliberate breaches of the guidelines.  Whilst this is not a perfect answer, it is the fairest. 

For a creative and innovative future

Our marketing plans are simple, yet effective and the proposal outlines possible future expansions to the service.  This might include micro-sites (the concept is not dissimilar to geocities), email on the 2nd level (such as firstname@surname.name) and even the provision of multi-lingual domain names.

E1. Description of TLD Policies – general

The fundamental tenet of the GNR proposal is that there exists a significant worldwide market for the creation of a personal domain space that reflects the needs of an individual and not those of commerce.  Our research (see D15.2.4) and experience (see D13.1-D13.1.4) has shown that people are attracted to the prospect of having a domain space reserved for personal use. 

The .NAME top level domain shall serve the need for domain name addresses, granting individuals the possibility of registering an Internet address that includes their first and last names or names by which they might be known (such as a nickname) for private use.

The contractual structure will be such that GNR operates the .NAME registry under an Agreement with ICANN. Companies that are accredited by ICANN under a Registrar Agreement will operate the Registrar functions.

The Registrant, or holder of a specific domain name, will have a contractual relationship with both GNR as the Registry and its chosen Registrar.

The contractual relationships will be as follows:

GNR – ICANN (Registry Agreement) (See Appendix.E.1)

GNR – Registrar (Registrar Agreement) (See Appendix.E.2)

GNR – Registrant (Terms and Conditions) (See Appendix.E.3)


The word “personal” in the context of the GNR proposal is intended to mean an individual and not a legally incorporated entity.

The words “personal use” are intended to mean that there is no commercial intention or activity.

“Sunrise period” is defined to mean the period of time leading up to and including launching of the GNR service (post ICANN delegation) plus 30 days.  GNR reserves the right to extend the sunrise period indefinitely and at its own discretion.


Individuals can register and hold domain names under the .NAME top level domain.  No specific limitation to the number of domain names an individual can register or hold is implied.

Registrants will be required to declare that the domain name being applied for is intended for personal use and that there exists a relationship between the name being applied for and the registrant.  Such proof of relationship may be required in cases of a dispute. 

Registrations are open on the third level only.

No registrations will be accepted on the second level.

A domain name eligible for registration will consist of the following elements: “firstname.lastname.NAME”, where the first name constitutes a third level registration, the surname constitutes a second level registration, and  .NAME constitutes a top level domain.

The corresponding email address will take the following form:  “something@firstname.lastname.NAME”.  Notwithstanding the above, an email address can alternatively, or additionally, have the following form firstname@surname.NAME (for future services as described in D13.2.4.5).

Domain names are allocated on a first come, first served basis and a “round robin” allocation process will apply.

Registrations for a domain name can only be submitted through ICANN Accredited Registrars.

During the sunrise period, holders of registered national trademarks and service marks will be invited to submit strings for inclusion in the trademark list.  Trademark and service mark holders can be advised  (via a Registrar) when domain names are registered which match the string(s) supplied.

Disputes in respect to domain names will be referred to the UDRP process.

Data protection

The Registry will adhere to all applicable data protection legislation.  As a UK incorporated entity, GNR is subject to the UK Data Protection Act 1988.


If a domain name is transferred, a transfer fee will apply.

If a domain name is cancelled or suspended the registration fee will not be repayable.


The Registry will operate two types of WHOIS-database search facilities.


Public search

A free, publicly available mechanism will be available.  The system will return 1 record and the information will be limited to;

·         Domain name

·         Registrar

·         Registrar WHOIS

·         Registrar URL

·         Nameserver/s

·         Modification date


Contact details regarding the Registrant of that domain name will be available from the corresponding Registrar.

The information returned via the Registrar WHOIS  will be;

·         Domain Name

·         The full name of the registrant/administrative contact, technical contact and billing contact

·         The contact details of the administrative contact, technical contact and billing contact, including postal, facsimile, telephone and email.

·         The date when the address was registered

·         Expiration date

·         The date of last modification


Registrar Search

GNR recognises the need to protect Intellectual Property rights and, in particular reference to ICANN resolution of July 16th, 2000, will introduce special measures for the sunrise period.

GNR will maintain a cross-registry database.  Access is permitted to all data as approved by appropriate data protection laws.  The information will only be available to GNR accredited Registrars via a protected area on the GNR web site.  Information will be available to all Registrars, regardless of which Registrar the domain name application is held or was processed by.   Registrars must demonstrate to GNR that they have the capability to manually process the requests from the trademark or service mark holder and have certified to GNR that they have satisfied themselves of the identity and rights of trademark or service holders for which this service is being requested. (See D13.2.1 for a detailed description)


The Registry will not charge for this service.


Further, GNR will introduce an Automated String Notification System.  The system will return a notification to the appropriate Registrar of new domain name registrations that match a string(s).  For example, a Registrar may request notification of any domain name registration that includes “ibm” or “ford” in the string.

The Registry will charge Registrars for this service.


Dispute Resolution

GNR will fully adopt the ICANN Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).  GNR will not participate in the administration or conduct of any proceeding before an Administrative Panel. In addition, GNR will not be liable as a result of any decisions rendered by the Administrative Panel.

English law shall govern GNR policies and the legal relationship between the Registrant and the Registry.

Any dispute with GNR shall be subject to online arbitration by eResolution (URL: http://www.eresolution.ca) under its General Arbitration Procedure. Each party shall bear its own legal costs and split the arbitration fees with an equal amount each. Either party may bring the dispute before English courts within one month after the decision of eResolution.  The costs before the ordinary courts shall follow the ordinary rules of civil procedure.

The domain name policies may change from time to time. Such changes will be reflected in the domain name policy document and a notice will be given on the GNR web site. Notice may also be given via email to the registered email addresses and/or to the email addresses registered as legal handle.



E2 TLD string

At this time, English is the language of choice for the majority of Internet users and therefore GNR is positioning its offering as “A .name for everyone”, but it is intended for this concept to be transposed to a multitude of other languages and hence, GNR is requesting the following TLD strings.

·         .NAME 

·         .NOM (from the Latin meaning name)

·         .XING (a Mandarin word denoting name)

·         .SAN (Japanese honorific title)

·         .JINA(Swahili for name) (the proposed TLD string .JINA has been withdrawn by the applicant)


It is proposed that GNR would market .NAME as the first offering with the other strings being introduced when user demand warrants. 


E3 Naming conventions

The concept described in this section has been formulated through the experience of Nameplanet.com, which has, in a few short months, become the largest provider of personal email addresses of the format firstname.lastname.com  The service currently has over 700,000 registered users and is growing at 5% per week.

Nameplanet.com has gained knowledge a about large number of the world’s last names and, not surprisingly, most people share their last name with hundreds (or thousands) of others.  The ideal situation would be a top level domain for each last name such as .smith, .jones, and .andersson. This would fulfill a significant market where people desire to have an Internet address only containing their name.  The introduction of thousands (perhaps millions) of toplevel domains, each equaling a surname is impractical for the DNS, both under the present and foreseeable future circumstances. 

For those people who wish to have a domain name corresponding to their last name, the current system of issuing second level domains only affords the opportunity for one person or organization to obtain the domain name.  The primary issue here is the lack of availability of second level domain names for the available top-level domains.  Further, even users are able to secure a second-level name, they are still forced to use a top-level domain that doesn’t reflect their personal use.

GNR proposes to approach this problem by retaining “ownership” of both the top level and second level, and only allowing registrations (via Registrars) on the third level. In essence, this is similar to having top level domains of the type .smith.name, .jones.name, .andersson.name (or .smith.nom, .jones.nom, .andersson.nom).  Registrations can only be done on third level, but on any conceivable second level. In practice, this means that any last name in the world will be available for third level registrations, and this effectively creates an infinite hierarchy under the top- level domain.

The proposed system is in many ways similar to that of several country code top-level domain such. .uk, .as and .au, who have established categories within the second-level domain. The Australian AUnic  for instance has established categories such as .com.au (commercial), .net.au (Internet) etc including a .id.au for individuals. This increases their domain name space compared to the country code top-level domains who allow registrations on the second level, such as the German .de.

The GNR proposal takes the model further than the Australian .id.au, since it will only allow registrations on the third or “firstname” level, thereby opening the surname for all individuals carrying that surname, but with a different first name.

The following figure illustrates the approach:

From a DNS perspective, this creates much more efficient sharing of the domain name space, and moves the strain on DNS servers further down the hierarchy


E4 Registrars

The basic policy of GNR will be to foster the expansion of the personal domain market through a network of ICANN accredited Registrars.  All existing ICANN accredited Registrars will be invited to also become .NAME Registrars.

There will be no restriction to the number of Registrars.

The negative effects of limiting the amount of Registrars outweigh any need to “dampen” Registrations in the initial phase.  It is impractical to select which Registrars should be allowed to register domain names in the initial period.  Further, such a scheme would unnecessarily limit competition on the Registrar level.

Roles, functions & responsibilities


The Registry will be responsible for managing the operations of the domain name database and the second level DNS and implementing ICANN policy for its base of Registrars.

The Registry will also be responsible for the marketing of the TLD string(s) and concept.  It will have a dynamic relationship with the Registrars by assisting in establishing registration systems (consultancy) and managing the expansion of new Registrars in new markets.

The Registry will manage a cross-registry database for the duration of the sunrise period as described in E1.4.7 WHOIS.

The Registry will only have contact with the domain name holder in the special circumstance as described in Section D15.2.3 as it relates to a domain name holder wishing to transfer between Registrars without a password.  In this special case, an end-user can request the transfer password be sent directly (via email) from the Registry.  It is the Registrant’s responsibility to keep the email address to which this message will be sent and all other contact details current.



The Registrar’s role is to have the relationship with the Registrant, take payments and make the appropriate modifications in the Registry database on behalf of the Registrant.

Registrars will maintain a log of all activity in relation to each domain name.

During the sunrise period, Registrars will be required to provide all applicable data for the Registry to manage the cross-registry database as described in E1.4.7 WHOIS.

Registrars will implement procedures sufficient to minimise the possibility of spam.


Accreditation policies

Any ICANN Accredited Registrar will be accepted as a GNR Registrar.


Registrar’s agreement

The GNR – Registrar Agreement will be governed by English law.

Disputes between GNR and the Registrars will be handled online through eResolution.


Registrar Policies

Registrations will only be possible on the third level.

Only ICANN accredited Registrars will be accepted by GNR.

As ICANN accredited Registrars, each Registrar will be responsible for end-user commitment to ICANN policies.

There are no policies that need to be technologically enforced.

GNR respects the right of every Registrar to set their own pricing policy for domain name registration and any associated services.


Registrant Policies enforced by the Registrars

The Registrant agrees to abide by UDRP.

Registrant certifies their bona fide to the name being registered and that the registration is intended for personal use.


WHOIS data

Registrars will be required to provide accurate WHOIS data in escrow for the Registry to transfer to another Registrar in case of business failure.

Registrars agree that a cross-registry database will be maintained by GNR for (at least) the duration of the sunrise period and that all appropriate data elements in respect to Registrants will be no more than 7 days old.


Transfers between Registrars

All domain name owners will have an explicit right to transfer the management of their domain name details (and the associated billing rights) between Registrars

The Registry will be entitled to charge a Transfer Fee

The Registrar from whom the service is transferred is not entitled to charge a fee

The Registrar from whom the service is transferred will be required to delete all contact details and WHOIS information within 30 days

Prohibited List

A list of prohibited names will be maintained on the GNR web-site and will include names for the second and third levels.

Without limitation, on the second level, this list shall include the word “example” as per RFC2026 “nic”, “www” and “registry”

Without limitation, on the third level, this list shall include “email”, “www”, “hostmaster”, “postmaster” “mail” and “webmaster”, “info”, “w3”, “wap”, “phone”, “tel”.

Single letter domain names on either the second or third level will not be permitted




E5.1. What measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights?

GNR Registrars will be required to inform new Registrants that the Registry is managing a cross-registry database and that dispute resolutions will be referred to the UDRP process.

New Registrants will be required to complete an online declaration that will include Intellectual Property provisions.

Since the .NAME is intended for personal use only and the use of a personal name is not necessarily an infringement of trademark (as the use of street names is not a trademark infringement), no other special provisions will be undertaken.

Trademark owners will not be able to register a domain name before the launch of the service.  Trademark and service mark holders will be able to register a string(s) as per the E1.4.7 WHOIS during the sunrise period.

The safeguard that the trademark owner has is to bring a claim under the UDRP.  This procedure has a deterrent effect on registrations and use of domain names that might infringe intellectual property rights.

E5.2. If you are proposing pre‑screening for potentially infringing registrations, how will the pre‑screening be performed?

We are not proposing to pre-screen applications.  Alternatives have been considered, but none are practical.

A system to compare the registration with a list of known names, first names and last names has been considered. Names that are on this list could be either denied as not being a name or made subject to a special registration procedure.  Doubtful names could be posted on a publicly available list for a short period to allow for objections to be raised.

The GNR proposal seeks to provide a personal domain space to a worldwide audience.  Given the diversity of language and culture in respect to how an individual is recognized, it is difficult to document what is a name, and it is unlikely that all possible combinations (including nicknames) can be captured and maintained in a list.

Secondly, we have considered comparing proposed registrations with a list of trademarks. This solution is not viable. As with combinations of names, a trademark list is difficult to administer and the fact that there exists a trademark does not necessarily exclude other uses of the same name.  This same principle applies for examples such as street names.

Pre-screening for registrations that are intended for personal use has to be assessed in the context for which the domain name is being used.  The UDRP policy is specific in respect to the obligations of Registrars and Registrants in applying for domain name registration and the dispute resolution process is an accepted practice by which disputes are resolved.

Further, GNR will implement a procedure for trademark and service mark holders to be notified of potential infringements as described in E1.4.7.

E5.3. What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?

The term “abusive registrations” is broad and defined in our context as breaches of the UDRP guidelines.

The GNR will implement a policy of issuing passwords with registrations.  This process will minimize fraudulent applications and is described in D15.2.4.

The difference between personal and commercial use of a domain name is important in considering whether a registration is abusive or not and whether it infringes on intellectual property rights. Deciding whether a registration is abusive or not is impractical at the point of registration without any information on how the domain name will be used.

Even the use of hate speech, racial or defamatory speech is difficult to police.  The arbitrary exclusion of a name or names on this basis does not necessarily mean that the name is not protected by free speech considerations under a number of other jurisdictions.

The GNR as a Registry should, to the largest extent possible, maintain a hands-off policy with regard to registrations and the use of domain names. The GNR is a “transmitter” of registry services; and will neither select nor deny a Registrant; it will not select or modify the domain name that the Registrant wishes to register; and it will not initiate any registration other than through general marketing. GNR will not monitor the registrations and the use of domain names, ex officio.  On the contrary, if the GNR were to exert an influence on any of the above items, it might lose its immunity under Article 12 and 15 in the EU Directive on E-commerce, that is likely be implemented by all EU countries.

GNR will implement any administrative or court order under Section 2, Article 12 of the EU directive, and remove infringing or abusive registrations under the relevant jurisdiction. Under US jurisdiction, GNR will ensure compliance with the US Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (Title II in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act).

Legislation, enacted by competent legislators, strikes a fair balance between the problem of abusive registrations and the problem of censorship and pre-monitoring.

E5.4. What measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti‑cybersquatting legislation?

The cross-registry as described in E1.4.7 WHOIS will be managed by GNR for the duration of the sunrise period.

A fundamental difference in the GNR proposal is that only third level domain names are to be released.  The potential for squatting or warehousing is dramatically reduced by the very nature of this approach. The appropriate forum for determining the bona fide of names to be issued on the third level is with an independent process.  The UDRP is a clear and specific process and will be adopted in full by GNR.


E5.5. Are you proposing any special protections (other than during the start‑up period) for famous trademarks?

No special protections are proposed for famous trademarks.

E5.6. How will complete, up‑to‑date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?

Refer also to D15.2.8 for this subject.

WHOIS data will be updated continuously. Registrations done through the RRP are querying the database directly and will get real-time results, while the publicly available WHOIS service will have a time-delay equal to the update frequency.

If a Registrar wants to register a domain name for a client, it can either request registration directly, or the public WHOIS service will give information on whether the domain name was registered at the time of the last update.

If a domain name is registered in the period between the last WHOIS update and the request from the Registrar, the request will be rejected.


E6. Describe the policies for domain name and other dispute resolution

Since the registrations of .NAME domain names will be offered world-wide and without any restriction as to nationality or geography, it is difficult to foresee laws that may apply to the service. In principle GNR might be subject to the laws and jurisdictions of each country in which Registrants reside.

The UDRP is the process by which disputes will be resolved.

As legal conditions vary across international boundaries, the GNR will be governed by English law.

E6.1. To what extent are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?

We are proposing to implement the policy in its entirety.

E6.2. Please describe any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution procedures you are proposing.

We are proposing that disputes between the Registry and domain name holders shall be resolved by way of online arbitration conducted by eResolution.



E7. Data Privacy, Escrow, and Whois. Describe the proposed policies on data privacy, escrow and Whois service

The Registry is established in the UK and must therefore adhere to the UK Data Protection Act 1998 and the corresponding EU Directive on Data Protection 1995. The act can be found at  “http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm”. Any breach of this act is considered a criminal offence.

The Data Protection Commissioner describes the act and its eight principles the following way:

Anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They say that data must be:

·         fairly and lawfully processed;

·         processed for limited purposes;

·         adequate, relevant and not excessive;

·         accurate;

·         not kept longer than necessary;

·         processed in accordance with the data subject's rights;

·         secure;

·         not transferred to countries without adequate protection.

Personal data covers both facts and opinions about the individual. It also includes information regarding the intentions of the data controller towards the individual, although in some limited circumstances exemptions will apply. With processing, the definition is far wider than before. For example, it incorporates the concepts of 'obtaining', holding' and 'disclosing'.

The Registry must notify the UK Data Protection Commissioner on what data it will obtain from the registrants. Further, the Registry must notify the Commissioner on what data it will disclose and make available on the Internet through a WHOIS service.

Our WHOIS-service will be searchable on domain names, but not on personal names. The latter will of course not  have any affect if the domain name also equals the name of the holder. However, keep in mind that we are proposing that both individuals and organizations can register an unlimited amount of domain names under the .NAME TLD.

The information that will be supplied is the name and address of the holder of the specific domain name; the date when the domain was registered; and the IP number of the two domain servers.



E8 Billing and Collection

Billing of the Registrars will be done in an identical fashion to how it is done by Network Solutions with ICANN Accredited Registrars today. This includes the following elements of billing and collection from the Registrars:

a)      Surety Instrument

i)         The Surety Instrument is a financial guarantee that would be employed by the Registry if faced with a third party claim in which the Registrar did not indemnify the Registry. The Surety Instrument must be for the amount of One Hundred Thousand US Dollars ($100,000).

b)      Payment Security

i)         The minimum Payment Security must be equal to at least the number of anticipated monthly registrations times the number of years (minimum one year and maximum of ten years) multiplied by the annual registration fee. Acceptable vehicles to satisfy the payment security are:

(1)    Cash Deposit;

(2)    Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit; or

(3)    Payment Security Bond from an approved surety or bank

ii)       The amount of the Payment Security establishes the Credit Limit in the Shared Registration System. The registration volume during a billing cycle may not exceed the credit limit, and low balance notices will be sent to the routine email contact when the Registrar’s remaining credit balance falls below a pre-established threshold.


E9 Services and Pricing

New registrations (1st year): 5 USD (plus applicable Business Development Fund levy)

Transfers between Registrars: 5 USD

Registry interface client software licence: No charge

Renewals: Applicable annual charge (see D13.2.1)

Registry-Registrar interface set-up assistance: Standard consultancy fees.

Automated String Notification System: 0.25 USD per record returned



E10 other policies

Besides pre-payment, Registrars will also be required to provide the minimum data elements as for ICANN requirements in respect to gTLDs and to state:

1.       That the name being sought has a correlation to the Registrant

2.       That the Registrant accepts the obligation to a) refrain from any illegal activities using the domain name, b) keep all registration data current and accurate, and c) use the domain name only for personal use.

3.       That the Registrant understands that the .name registration can be cancelled for failure to fulfill these obligations.

4.       That the Registrar has informed the Registrant of a) the existence of a password for domain name transfer between Registrars, b) that transfers will only be approved by the Registry with the correct transfer-password.

GNR will require that the Registrar be obligated to conduct (at the time of registration) at least a minimum level of automatic screening for false contact data or registrations that violate the TLD’s charter and that the Registrar should reject any registration that is incomplete.



No answer required


E12 Sunrise period solutions

GNR will be implementing a sunrise period as described in E1.

From a technical perspective, the technical system will ensure a fair and orderly registration process at all times and allows for software controls on volume of registrations (see D15.2.2).

In all other respects, registrations are only being allowed on the third level and therefore the perceived advantage of registering a domain name on the second level that excludes all future uses of that name are eliminated. 

For example, a purchase of smith.name under a second level domain name system would preclude any further use of the “smith” name.  This creates a demand for the more desirable names and encourages “squatting” on potentially useful names.  Under the GNR method, John Smith, Mary Smith and Robert Smith would all have equal opportunity to purchase a domain name as the allocation would be for john.smith.name, mary.smith.name and robert.smith.name (or any variation thereof).

As the potential combination of names (including nicknames) is almost limitless and laws in respect to trademarks are not conclusive (certainly not globally), GNR will accept all registrations and rely upon the established UDRP principles and processes to deal with disputes.

GNR will not accept any pre-registrations.   All registrations will be treated equally and in the manner described as the “round robin” method. 

The allocation of domain names on a first-come, first-served principle functions well in an established environment such as the one that exists for .COM.  A new TLD is likely to create significant interest and the prospect of coincidences and nano-seconds deciding who gets a certain domain name is not optimal.  GNR will implement a ”first come, first served” principle with regard to registrations.  Each Registrar is able to register one domain name and the system will then pass the opportunity to the next request.   The very first Registrar to be assigned the first allocation will be a random event, but each successive registration thereafter will be the “first come, first serve” basis.

This system also makes it impossible to “warehouse” registrations.

E13 Limits on registrations

There will be no limit on the number of registrations per registrant.

There will be no technical limits on the number of registrations per Registrar.

E14 Pricing mechanisms to dampen growth

The Business Development Fund program as described in D13.2.4 will have a natural dampening effect.  A reducing scale of levy from $15 for the first 100,000 registrations down to $1.50 for 500,001 to 750,000 registrations will apply.   It is worth noting that this levy is volume and not time-based and also totally dependent upon the forces of demand.

It is likely that the levy will be passed to Registrants and as such, a $20 fee will inhibit growth in the earlier stages, although the scale of this effect is currently unknown.

The Business Development Fund monies will be exclusively used in marketing the .NAME TLD via a co-operative scheme with the Registrars. The levy will therefore benefit positively and add to the penetration of .name on the Internet.

E15 Sunrise period for registered trademarks

No specific mechanism for registered trademarks will be implemented.  It is assumed that only bona fide individuals will register on this TLD.  As previously described, only the third level will be allocated and therefore people who are legitimately named (for example) Arthur Andersen, Thomas Weisly, and Ron McDonald will apply.

Further, the applicability (and enforceability) of trademarks in the context of personal names is untested and will not be the responsibility of the .NAME TLD.  GNR will defer all disputes to the UDRP process.


E16. Restrictions within the TLD

As noted in the new tld application process overview, a restricted tld is one with enforced restrictions on (1) who may apply for a registration within the domain, (2) what uses may be made of those registrations, or (3) both. In this section, please describe in detail the restrictions you propose to apply to the tld. Your description should define the criteria to be employed, the manner in which you propose they be enforced, and the consequences of violation of the restrictions. Examples of matters that should be addressed are [e17 – e21]:


GNR will not impose any restrictions either on (1) who may apply for a registration within the domain, nor (2) what uses may be made for those registrations.


E17. Criteria for registration in the TLD

Describe in detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation of the reasoning behind the specific policies chosen.


There will be no restrictions with regard to who can register a domain name.

E18. Describe the application process for potential registrants in the TLD

1)       Registrant contacts Registrar, either directly, or through a reseller (ie, an organisation that bundles services with the domain name registration)

2)       Registrant does a WHOIS query in Registrar interface, or directly with FWHOIS, to find out if the domain name of choice is taken.

3)       Registrant accepts the conditions of registration.

4)       Registrant fills out the requested information and submits it to the Registrar, including nameservers. It is expected that if Registrant has no nameservers, the Registrar will provide same.

5)       Registrar accepts payment from Registrant.

6)       Registrar logs on to the Registry and registers domain name (if available).

7)       Registry deducts payment from the Registrar account and sends acknowledgement of registration to the Registrar together with a password.  For information in respect to the treatment of the password, see Section  D15.2.3 

8)       The domain name is inserted into the Registry DNS servers and WHOIS servers.

9)       The domain name goes active after the new DNS entry has replicated across the Internet.


E19. Enforcement procedures

Describe the enforcement procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the registration requirements


There are no special qualifications for registering a personal domain space and therefore, there will be no enforcement procedures when registering.

It is not a practical possibility to have full knowledge regarding all possible combinations of name (and even nickname) structures for a worldwide audience and therefore any procedures that attempt to overcome this issue are not likely to be effective.  The administrative burden upon the Registry or Registrar for the likely effect is not warranted.

There will be no restrictions on how a name is articulated and, for example, a person with the name Steve Martin Anderson could register any of the following variations.  Of course, these are only examples and the possibility of choice need not be limited to these:

1)       Steve.Anderson.name

2)       Martin.Anderson.name

3)       Steve.Martin.name

4)       Steve.Nickname.name

5)       Anderson.Steve.name

6)       Anderson.Martin.name

7)       S.Anderson.name

8)       SM.Anderson.name

9)       Steve.MartinAnderson.name

10)   Martin.SteveAnderson.name

This, in turn, would lead to the possiblity for this individual to have any of the following examples:

1)       mail@Steve.Anderson.name

2)       Steve@Martin.Anderson.name

3)       Anderson@Steve.Martin.name

4)       Martin@Anderson.Steve.name

5)       private@Anderson.Martin.name

6)       email@S.Anderson.name

7)       mail@SM.Anderson.name

8)       mail@Steve.MartinAnderson.name

9)       private@Martin.SteveAnderson.name

GNR proposes to fully adopt the UDRP and to authorise all ICANN accredited dispute-resolution service providers.  All disputes will be resolved via this mechanism.


E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.

No registrations will be denied.

E21. Cancellation procedures

Describe any procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD registration for failure to comply with restrictions.


We are proposing an “unrestricted” top-level domain. Third parties must therefore seek redress through UDRP or ordinary court or administrative processes.


No answer required.


E23 What will distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLD’s. How will this distinction be beneficial?

Distinguishing features

·         GNR will operate exclusively in the Personal Domain Space and registering Personal Domain Names for individuals with no commercial connotations.

·         Allocation will only occur on third level domains (rather than second), and therefore create a hierarchy with more structure adapted to last name, and higher availability of preferred addresses.

·         Services will be developed (e.g. build and manage name microsites[1]) which will foster and promote a vision of a single unified naming solution.

·         Only ICANN accredited Registrars will be accepted as GNR Registrars.  As part of the recruitment process, GNR will provide a range of services to allow an individual Registrar to commence trading more speedily, safely and effectively.

·         A Business Development Fund will be established to promote “.NAME” from an innovative global co-marketing programme which will reduce by half the time taken to achieve 1 million users.

Benefits to individuals

The decreasing availability of domain names that can be registered with existing services means that it is almost impossible to get a name even aproaching your given name.  With .NAME, millions of people will be able to have exactly their names on the internet with the following benefits:


·         A more intuitive and easier mechanism for communicating with friends and family

·         Non-commercial connotation

·         No geographical identifier

·         .NAME clearly defines purpose

Benefits to the channel

There is an acute shortage of internet ”real estate” and a new TLD’s  such as .NAME with it’s hierarchy on third level will create a new market opportunity for all concerned.

Furthermore, the channel will benefit from the nature of differentiation of .NAME  from the existing TLDs. .NAME has a distinct role and a clearer role for domain registrants than today’s .com, .net and .org.




E24 The community served by the global name registry

E24.1 Definition of the community

The domains environment (up to now) has been serving the needs of businesses and organisations. .NAME is being proposed to specifically serve the individual user and their families. In terms of a short definition:

“To provide an easily recognised global personal addressing system that is reserved for the community of individual users”.


E24.2 Why this community is not adequately served by the existing DNS

The existing DNS does not have any domains specifically designated for personal use. Although users do register their names on global and country level domains, and email providers such as Nameplanet.com have made great use of lesser know ccTLD’s, these are “work around” solutions rather than servicing a community of users.  In the same way that .COM and .ORG (in theory) distinguishes companies from organisations, .NAME connotes a personal service allocated by a name.


E25. Please describe in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently unmet needs.

The success of Nameplanet.com and Mailbank.com has shown that there is a considerable need and demand for personal identity on the web, and the growth of service providers such as Geocities also demonstrates the demand for people to have personal space on the web.

GNR will operate the domain differently from the existing domains. Users will only be able to register at the third level, and in this way will increase the likelihood of availability to users.

E26. How would the introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users? For the community served by the TLD?

New TLDs enhance the utility of the DNS by the very nature of the introduction of a hierarchy that distinguishes communities of users.  In the same way that .COM and .ORG are differentiated by the organisations that can or will utilise the domain names, .NAME appeals to those who want to be distinguished by their name.

E27. How would the proposed TLD enhance competition in domain-name registration services, including competition with existing TLD registries?

The .COM domain name currently accounts for almost 60% of the total market.  The introduction of new TLD’s will increase the size of the market without impacting the existing market.  Having a .COM domain does not preclude an individual from also owning a .NAME domain.

With the limited availability of .COM names, other providers (such as the ccTLD’s) have offered services that meet this demand.  From a users perspective, this is a compromise and the .NAME TLD targets those users who do not wish to have a country (such as .as or .tv) or commercial (such as .com) connotation to their domain name.

The .NAME TLD proposal encompasses a decreasing cost basis to the end-user.  This will grow the market and encourage new and better services to be developed.



No answer required.


E29. What concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in the manner you propose?

The market demand for personal domain names is large and growing

That personal and business interests can co-exist and are not mutually exclusive

The DNS will be enhanced by diversity

That demand will drive price down


E30. Evaluation of the introduction

How do you propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?


Regular, independent surveys to establish satisfaction in 3 key areas


·         Policy. To what extent do GNR policies on pricing, DNS availability and competition apply and are they helping or hindering Registrars in their activities. There might be, for example the need to modify pricing policy geographically.

·         Operations. To what extent is GNR managing effectively the allocation of domain names.

·         Marketing. Is the co-marketing budget effective. Is the budget large enough and fairly allocated.


The results will be published on the web site

·         Number of personal domain names sold as a percentage of all domain names registered.  These need to be taken in context with


·         Total number of Domains Registered

·         Total number of Personal Domains Registered

·         Total market share of Personal Domains Registered


Number of new Registrars. The number of ICANN Accredited Registrars has increased from 1 to 119 since 1999. We would expect that number to double in 12 months as competition increases in the mature markets (e.g. UK, USA) and the rate of growth of the online population in the new markets continues to increase (e.g. China, Japan).

General level of awareness and reaction to this TLD amongst


·         Members of the internet community

·         Registrars

·         Consumers


E31. In what way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?

As for E25


E32. Are there any reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this particular TLD should be included in the initial introduction?

 There is a large body of data which proves that there is a pressing need for a Personal Domain Naming solution:

·         With 18 million registrations already, .COM is full for all three and four letter combinations.

·         Of what is considered to be the 10 largest markets with most potential for growth 80% have restricted or semirestricted status for individuals registering Domain names.

·         .COM/.NET/.ORG are not appropriate for individuals

·         There is latent demand (see Nameplanet.com survey D13.2.4)


[1] On the .Smith.name micro site you might find genealogical details and contact details for all the Smiths registered on the .name directory.