.Name Domains: The Facts

[Grrilla]

:gl: I've done some research on .Name, and hope this will be helpful in clearing up some of the confusion and misunderstanding concerning the TLD. Quotes are copied directly from nic.name, and more info is available w/ links both to them and to ICANN for those interested.

Second level .Name registrations were opened 14Jan04.
"Global Name Registry has opened up its second level for registrations, meaning names like spike.name, abc.name, pmorgan.name, now are available"
http://www.nic.name/

"Hundreds of thousands of extremely attractive names, taken on most other TLDs like .com, .net, .org and .info, now are available on .NAME, probably for the last time in many years. .NAME is the last TLD to open its second level domain space of the 7 new top-level-domains introduced by ICANN in 2001"

"With the opening of the second level, .name becomes structurally and technically identical to other TLD's e.g. .com and .net, and registrations of personal names can be made directly on the second level, e.g. jim.name"

Nic.Name is doing somewhat of a balancing act, due to a conflict arrising between the the original marketing of the 3rd level.name and a shift in approach when the the second level was opened to registration . Maintaining the the original premise for .Name use while opening up the second level that operates in the same way as the other tld's has created some of the confusion over the purpose and appropriate use of the name. ie Allowing.name to operate in a way "identical" to the other tld's while maintaining the "personal" qualities which defined (and continues to define) the domain's original purpose. (Akin to playing both sides of the fence).

Adding to the confusion, is the problem that arrises when 3rd and 2nd level names are duplicated at the second level. ie Best.Domain.Name has been regd as a 3rd level domain, now what to do concerning that registrants rights when the 2nd level opens up and Domain.Name becomes available? Additionally, there is the problem of how to deal w/ email addresses, when there is already an active email w/ the second level name. ie If Best @Domain.Name is in use, how does a different registrant w/Domain.Name receive mail? This obstacle is made even more difficult by the fact that an email address was one of the benefits that was part of the third level .Name registration package.

The Registry's answer was to create a system of "defensive registration", which gives the 3rd level holder, (as well as the trademark holder if the name warrants), the oppurtunity to "guard" the second level, or, ".Domain", (using the Best.Domain.Name and Domain.Name example). The only names that the registry won't allow are: dir, directory, email, genealogy, http, mail, mx, mx[followed by a number from 0 to 100], ns, ns[followed by a number from 0 to 100], wap, www and www[followed by a number from 0 to 100]. : The following is a summary of the Defensive Registration policy copied from nic.name site. More details available at ICANN site: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appl-8aug03.htm

Effect of a Defensive Registration:

Defensive Registrations will not resolve within the DNS.

2ndLevel:A second level Defensive Registration will prevent a Personal Name Registration that uses the same string at the second level.

Thus, for example, a second level Defensive Registration for example.name will prevent a third party from registering <any string>.example.name or <any string>@example.name.

However, a second level Defensive Registration will not prevent a Personal Name Registration that uses the same string at the third level.

3rd Level:A third level Defensive Registration will prevent a Personal Name Registration that uses the same string at the third level.

Thus, for example, a third level Defensive Registration for example.<any string>.name will prevent a third party from registering example.<any string>.name or example@<any string>.name.

However, a third level Defensive Registration will not prevent a Personal Name Registration that uses the same string at the second level.

In short, w/ the exception of dir, directory, email, genealogy, http, mail, mx, mx[followed by a number from 0 to 100], ns, ns[followed by a number from 0 to 100], wap, www and www[followed by a number from 0 to 100], all names have been made available to register, w/ the exception of Defensive Registrations. From my perspective, which is pro-.Name, the losers in this scheme, were those who had a good, generic name at the 3rd level and either did not make a defensive reg to protect the name at the second level, or did not have an active email address in place before the 2nd level name was reggd. The top winner, was the individual who had Example.Domain.Name and made a defensive registration of Domain.Name. Not totally transparent, but the picture gets clearer.

Whether or not .Name has any commercial potential for it's owners, is a matter of speculation. My minority point of view is that it will be viable, (perhaps very much so), particularly in niche markets where "name" fits conceptually and thematically.:gl:

 

[armstrong]

from http://nic.name/ FAQ page:

A second level domain is available if a) it is not already registered, and b) it does not conflict with a Premium Defensive Registration or a Standard Defensive Registration registered prior to the second level opening, and c) it is not already in use for a third level domain registration/email

My understanding of the above is that if 3LD Best.Domain.Name was previously registered (scenario c), then the 2LD Domain.name can not be registered. If they erroneously allow it, then because the 2LD is fully delegated, then there is no way the 3LD can continue to function without the cooperation of the 2LD domain holder.

 

[g0ldy]

Yup i think the 3rd level domain thats already registered, will be unavaliable for level 2 to reg.

 

[Grrilla]

I could be wrong, but after researching both sites, I was under the distinct impression that Defensive Registration was set up as an answer to this conundrum and that all names were available as SLD names. I didn't copy all the regulations, but one rule in particualr stands out here, which relates to the potential of an existing conflict between a SLD name and a 3LD email address stating that the SLD cannot be registered *if* there is an active email at tne 3rd level. Why would that rule exist, and why the defensive regstr for the 3LD registrant, if, by rule, the SLD couldn't be regd under this condition?

In other words, I read what Armstrong has quoted to, as leaving an opening for the SLD to be reggd if those conditions aren't met.

And more. (Phew!) ie john/@domain.name (or joe, or jill) would continue receiving email, and SLD owner could not, but SLD owner could not receive email at john/joe/[email protected], but could at admin @domain.name and any other email address that weren't in use. Otherwise, how would John, Joe and Jill be able to receive their mail w/ the same last name? Could only one Smith on the planet be able to register example.smith.name? And if more then one Smith can reg their name, where would the sticking point be for a Smith SLD reg? Certainly not w/ the Registry/Registrar marketing the domain.

 

[armstrong]

also from nic.name FAQ:

For clarification, a Premium Defensive Registration of "string3", will block registration of the following third level registrations: "*.string3.name", "string3.*.name", "*@string3.name", "string3@*.name", and the following second level registration: "string3.name".

So lets say Intel buys a premium defensive reg of string "intel". This means that no one can register the 3LD of intel.smith.name or the 2LD intel.name. Of course, you can create the 3LD intel.stats.name since stats.name is yours and fully delegated to your choice of nameservers.

From this example, I don't see why anyone would register a premium defensive reg, as it won't stop anyone with a 2LD domain from infringing on the defensive reg anyway.

Could only one Smith on the planet be able to register example.smith.name?

Yes, there can be only one example.smith.name. There is no conflict, since the 2LD smith.name can't be regged with [email protected] already in use.

Also, I can't find a definition for a standard defensive reg. Anyone know where to find this?

 

[Grrilla]

Aren't the premium defensive regs for cos w/Trademarks?

You see readers, the facts are here! (or soon will be)

Yes, there can be only one example.smith.name There is no conflict, since the 2LD smith.name can't be regged with [email protected] already in use.

OK. You are saying multiple Smith 3LD.Name's can be regd. Agreed. Am off to retreive what I found about SLD 's relationship here.

Also, I can't find a definition for a standard defensive reg. Anyone know where to find this?

Yes. My ICANN link w/ first post should bring you there or nic.name under "FAQS" or "Policies"-4th SubTopic down, I believe..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All I'm seeing about restrictions for SLD Regs is that a Defensive Reg cannot be placed on a 3LD personal name registration, which indicates to me that the SLD can be reggd . Otherwise, what would be the necessity of the rule? If Smith.Name can't be reggd *after* jane.smith.name has been regd, why would the following Def Regstration rule be necessary? It appears that .name is structured in such a way that enables personal 3LD and 2LD's that share the same "last name" (SLD) to coexist. I think the info is there, but in an indirect (and confusing!) way.

A Defensive Registration will not be granted if it conflicts with a then-existing Personal Name Registration or other reserved word or string.

Thus, for example, if the domain name jane.smith.name has already been registered , then a second level Defensive Registration will not be granted for <any string>.smith.name. Similarly, if the SLD E-mail address [email protected] has already been registered, then a third level registration may not issue for jane.<any string>.name.

Similarly, if the domain name janesmith.name has already been registered, then a second level Defensive Registration will not be granted for <any string>.janesmith.name.

 

[armstrong]

Still, I think this is a very convoluted way of protecting trademark rights, since it doesn't seem to protect anything worthwhile. Why not just reg the name in the 2LD instead of filing a defensive reg?

I think that the registry has started to realize this, hence instructions on how to file a defensive reg are nowhere to be found. I tried, and that info just doesn't seem to be available anywhere!

 

[AdoptableDomains]

After reading even part of the complications above, Is it any wonder the TLD is and will continue to be sub-par.

These are smart people who understand domains and TLD's, not the personal name users who the TLD was intended. Even many web hosts can't figure out how to setup email and DNS when you are operating on shared 2LD and email and hosting 3LD and email addresses.

Think how rediculously complicated this is to a newbie:
A person can register john.smith.name. The registry itself basically hosts email on the second level with [email protected]. The registrant can host the server "john" with a double tld .smith.name, making the domain sometimes even 4 levels like www.john.smith.name, since many newbies add the "www." to all domains. At the host level, they cannot get standard email on the second level, since the registry hosts it. they can however get email on the third level at the host if the host can figure out the settings. The privately hosted email would be [email protected] or [email protected] to be more confusing. Who would want long email names with multiple dots? Then consider that a lot of people who would use www.john.smith.name would the forward to something like johnsmith.tripod.com/johnsmith/index.html and try to figure out how to publish their pages.

Another thing not mentioned is that number only or number/dash only names are not allowed (such as phone numbers). Do you think GNR is doing that to save some market for their next TLD bid of .number? Maybe then we could really complcate things by having 4 level domains like 192.168.100.100.number. Then people could actually use numbers that look like IP numbers but are not, or are even longer and harder to remember than the actual IP number.

Sheesh!!

 

[Grrilla]

...and more will be revealed. Anyways, Armstrong, w/ all the .name bashing being dished out by all of the "NoNames" out there, it's good to have some company. Most of the best .name 2LDs that look good, and are sound thematically appear to be going or gone. Speaking for myself, I have a couple of keepers and I know that you do, so, Cheers!

 

[armstrong]

Another thing not mentioned is that number only or number/dash only names are not allowed (such as phone numbers). Do you think GNR is doing that to save some market for their next TLD bid of .number?

No that doesn't make sense. If someone wants to reg 1-1.number and 1-1.name, then why stop them if the point is to make more money? No, I think the reason that naming rule is there is more due to the original intent of the .name tld.

After reading even part of the complications above, Is it any wonder the TLD is and will continue to be sub-par.

This may be true of their original charter, but the recent move to allow 2LD shows that the registry is gaining a better appreciation of the market. From this point onwards, if they continue to learn from previous mistakes, then I believe that this tld will gain increased acceptance.

 

[Grrilla]

Sorry Adoptable, our posts hit about the same time and wasn't being flippant about your response. I agree w/ your point and think alot of what I read and quoted was info intended for registrars, server hosts, etc. and not for the avg Joe or newb.

Interesting stuff on the .number and how true. Sometimes I get the paranoid feeling that the creation of more and more product is not a reaction to a need in the marketplace, so much, as it is a need to invigorate the domain sales market, and enfuse it w/ something new and exciting. Not the whole picture, but to some degree a justifiable observation, depending on the state of paranoia.

 

[Elefekt]

All i think on the situation is that its confusing and not worth the trouble. Although I wouldnt mind picking up a few .names

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Originally posted by armstrong
No, I think the reason that naming rule is there is more due to the original intent of the .name tld.

I agree, I was just been sarchastic. the " " was meant for that whole paragraph.

Originally posted by Grrilla
[B...w/ all the .name bashing being dished out by all of the "NoNames" out there, it's good to have some company. Most of the best .name 2LDs that look good, and are sound thematically appear to be going or gone... [/B]

Yes, there are some good .names, and I attempted to get a couple of the no-brainer ones, but most were quickly taken. I ended up with two or three I think.

I do think .name is the long road to success and there is much more fertile ground in .info/biz/us for the near term, with .info being the hottest.

That reminds me... I need to develop my .aero domains. Anyone else have any of those?

 

[Anthony]

What an odd thread this is... It basically comes down to this... .name has opened to 2nd level registrations that will function like all other TLDs. There isn't any other major confusion, except for people who have 3rd level names, those suckers.

.name now just has to wait to get recognized to become valuable.

 

[Grrilla]

What an odd thread this is

Yes, it's been an odd sort of day. My .name "investigation" began as a result of discussing the attributes of .name as I perceive them, and using "domain.name" as an example of one of the best available domains for selling DNs w/. Someone responded by telling me that domain.name (and several other *awesome* names) came up as unavailable and showed no ownership info, and therefore it could be assumed that the names had been "held back" by the registry, due, no doubt, to put a curb on domain speculators "misusing" the domain and subverting it's intended us.

Probably got involved in more detail than was necessary, but wanted to get to the bottom of my own confusion in this area, so went to the source and studied. In retrospect, I could have saved myself a couple of hours by talking w/ you first, Anthony. But it's all

 

[bensontwenty]

my head hurts :lol:

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Grrilla
Yes, it's been an odd sort of day. My .name "investigation" began as a result of discussing the attributes of .name as I perceive them, and using "domain.name" as an example of one of the best available domains for selling DNs w/. Someone responded by telling me that domain.name (and several other *awesome* names) came up as unavailable and showed no ownership info, and therefore it could be assumed that the names had been "held back" by the registry, due, no doubt, to put a curb on domain speculators "misusing" the domain and subverting it's intended us.

Probably got involved in more detail than was necessary, but wanted to get to the bottom of my own confusion in this area, so went to the source and studied. In retrospect, I could have saved myself a couple of hours by talking w/ you first, Anthony. But it's all

Well, life's an adventure, right? And remember, my PM's always open!