See also:  Whois IP Whois Hosting WebMail Statistics Drivers LA-Counter Web Shop 
  Docs Library 
  Payment Info 
  Our Prices 
    History of the... 
    Your Certificate 
    Account Manager 
    DNS Master 
    RACE Domain 
  GEO RU Domains 
3-4 chars available, deleted expired, premium domains

first symbol
number of records
Select from
Search by name

    Partners Program 
    Partners List 
    Domains for Sale 
    Countries cTLDS 
    Bookmark us 
Internet  WWW  ccTLDs  gTLDs  iTLDs  sTLDs 

WGR12. Specialized Top Level Domains


The Name Council created he WG-Review inorder to seek additional inputs to its own questionnaire on consensus-building procedures from Internet Stakeholders. Mrs YJ Park, Chair person of the WG-Review has proposed 10 subjects for the review of the Working Group. Three additional subjects have added by the WG-Review Members. These subjects are presented on separated pages to the advantage of the Members of the Working Group.

Mail to the WG-Review Chair - 01/02/2001

  • the ICANN has adopted a new procedure in order to evaluate and accept TLDs. This procedure rises many questions (legality, legitimacy, terms and conditions, industrial property, duration of the propositions) which have never been discussed not voted. This should have been discussed within the DNSO
  • ICANN Board has clearly stated at the GAC public meeting in MDR that the DNS system could accept one million of TLDs. Will the above procedure apply to them all with 50 billions of US$ as an expected return for the ICANN or will they become more common. This is of the utmost importance for the STLDs: this should be discussed within the DNSO/STLD and any rate decrease policy be approved in common.
  • What is going to be the future attitude of the ICANN regarding the root, its management, the stability of the root service, the dissemination of the root servers? Would the sTLD and the ISP be directly associated?
  • one of Jon Postel position was "no conflict" in the TLD area. The WIPO and the GAC have declare TLD space as public. specialized TLDs and prospective sTLDs should be given a space to dialog with non ICANN approved TLDs.
  • several ccTLDs compete with sTLDs. Would here not be a dialog area for them within the DNSO?
  • most of the propositions have adopted the existing UDRP. This procedure has not been defined in cooperation with any specialized TLD and does not take into account the specificities of charter and do not define a domain name as such and as part of the name space of a specialized TLD. This should have been discussed and acted upon in the DNSO/STLD group.
  • there should be test bed period for any new TLD before any decision of the ICANN. The terms and conditions of such a test bed period and the rights of the registrants should be agreed within the DNSO/STLD and approved by the BoD to permit a fair and protected try.
  • in spite of the FCC and ICANN warnings several registrars pre-register Domain Names in violation of the sTLDs sunrise plans. Actions should be studied at DNSO/STLD the ICANN could undertake in such cases.
  • novelties introduce new concepts in terms of usage of the DNS, hence of the definition of domain names and TLDs. This kind of topics should be discussed withe gTLDs and ccTLDs.
  • specialized TLDs may require not to disclose or to disclose more information about their registrants. Special WhoIs should be develop and or new additions should be brought to the WhoIs.
  • Definition of the sTLDs and TLDs community Best Practice.
  • application of TLDs in local language?
  • definition of he nature and of the obligations/protection of the local or private TLDs
  • organization of a procedure of appeal against the TLDs
  • creation of a site of all TLDs (ICANN and not ICANN proposed) to common advantage.
  • contract of registration of the domain names.
  • joint position concerting the TM, freespeach, copyrights, novation, etc.. and the DNS.
  • various types of TLDs management programs (existing, joint specification, development sharing)
  • multilingual domain names
  • direct negotiation vs. published contribution to the ICANN

Debated questions by the IDNSO

The IDNSO Char has currently identified 4 Centers of Interest. Several are under way proposed bu CINICs. These Centers of Interest are:

14   [BY CONSENSUS] Studying methods and tools for consensus at CINICS, IDNSO and others
14   [IDNH] The individual domain name holders' vairious interests
14   [STLD] Specialized TLDs interests and developments, relations with RSC and ICANN
14   [BY CONSENSUS] Studying methods and tools for consensus at CINICS, IDNSO and others
15   [DNDEF] Definition of the domain name, member name, and their developments to be used in dictionary, contracts and laws

ICANN and DNSO Links




2CO is an authorized retailer for GeoNIC.NET
.COM .NET   
Registration for holders of Ukrainian Trade Marks


home  |  help  |  contact  |  domain registration  |  Domains Wish  |  DNS-Master  |  account manager  |  site map
Copyright © 2000~2002 (tm). All rights reserved.
Powered by (tm).Terms & Conditions
Портал города Одесса Бесплатное бронирование услуг СТО
Туристическое агентство Хороший отдых Студия "Pixarion" - разработка сайтов и интернет реклама
Labelled with ICRA