New TLD Application Analysis and Chart

Leeor Farhadian (, Talia Milgrom-Elcott (, Devesh Tiwary (
Harvard Law School

The document below is the work of Berkman Center student affiliates. Accordingly, it does not represent the views of the Berkman Center institutionally; rather, it presents the perspective of its authors.

Go directly to the chart or comment on this document


In mid-April 2000, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) recommended to the Board of ICANN that the Board establish a policy for the introduction of new top-level domains (TLDs) in a measured and responsible manner. By the close of the application process on 2 October, 2000, 47 applications, ranging from .i to .xxx to .cash, were submitted to the Board. These applications had the potential of becoming pioneers in the expansion of the Domain Name System (DNS) and prototypes for later additional TLDs.

In this paper, we review the application process its origins, goals, and applicants and offer you a non-partisan, outsider review of the 47 applications (see caveat, below). We assess the merits of the proposals (as the applicants present them in their application material on ICANN's website: based on the nine criteria established by the ICANN Staff.

In so doing, we are not offering a critical perspective on the standards themselves; instead, we take the existing criteria as the givens and try to give you, as individuals affected by the process, a chart that emphasizes the most important information submitted in the proposals and a guide for identifying the most comprehensive and urgent proposals. The bulk of our task was to summarize the proposals within the framework of the relevant criteria, but we have also interjected our own evaluations where we felt they complimented or elucidated the proposals, especially regarding the general criterion of completeness. Our perspective is decidedly non-expert, but provides the insights of regular Internet users interested and concerned with the selection process. By its very nature, our chart is an incomplete summary and cannot substitute for a thorough reading of each proposal.

We do believe, though, that its easy reference format can aid you, the concerned Internet user/citizen, by offering a base level framework by which to assess yourselves the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various proposals.


In mid-April 2000, the Names Council of the DNSO recommended to the Board of ICANN that the Board establish a policy for the introduction of new top-level domains (TLDs) in a measured and responsible manner. Shortly thereafter, at its 16 July 2000 meeting in Yokohama, the ICANN Board of Directors adopted a policy for the introduction of new TLDs with the intention of bringing a small number of new TLDs into operation early in the year 2001.

The purpose of inaugurating new TLDs was threefold. First, there was broad consensus that the introduction of new TLDs would enhance the competition in the provision of registration services, a process which until now has been dominated by Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI). Second, new TLDs held forth the possibility of increasing the utility of the DNS by allowing it to be filled in a way that makes logical sense. Third, expanding the number of TLDs would respond to the clear problem of a finite and quickly-depleting store of available semantically appealing domain names.

The introduction of a limited number of new TLDs could also be used as a test-case for the further expansion of the Domain Name System. As such, the Board resolved that the initial introduction of new TLDs should include a variety of types of TLDs, in order to provide useful data to determine what types of TLDs should be introduced in the future.

At the same time, the introduction of new TLDs posed a potential threat to the stability of the overall structure of the DNS. Given that the introduction of new TLDs is not an easily reversible act, particularly once domain names have been registered within it, the potential ramifications of the collapse of a new TLD are enormous. In order to ensure that the new TLDs not endanger the effective functioning of the DNS, the Board resolved to make stability of the DNS a paramount concern in the evaluation of the applications. The care with which the new TLDs are chosen further reflects the recognition that engendering broad user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLDs is critical to the ultimate success of the expansion of the DNS.

The Nine Criteria

The ICANN staff intends to consider the factors described below to determine its initial selection of TLDs. We outline them here to facilitate your understanding of the process and perusal of the chart.

1. The need to maintain the Internet's stability:

ICANN's first priority is to preserve the stability of the Internet including the domain-name system (DNS). The introduction of the proposed TLD should not disrupt current operations. Security and reliability of the DNS, in the face of system outage, technical failure, or malicious activity are important aspects of stability.

2. "Proof of concept" for introduction of top-level domains in the future:

Proposals should be chosen so as to promote effective evaluation of different policies, operational models, business and economic models, institutional structures and the feasibility and utility of different types of new TLDs.

3. The enhancement of competition for registration services:

Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether they are responsive to the general goal of enhancing competition for registration services. For example, how will the proposed TLD compete with other TLDs? Is the proposal particularly attractive to a significant sub-market in which it can compete effectively?

4. The enhancement of the utility of the DNS:

One motivation for introducing new TLDs is that doing so might increase the utility of the DNS. Under this view, the appropriateness of adding new TLDs should be evaluated based on whether addition of the new TLDs would sensibly add to the existing DNS hierarchy and would not create or add to confusion of Internet users in locating the Internet resources they seek.

5. Meeting existing needs:

The DNS should meet a diversity of needs, especially those which are presently unmet.

6. Diversity of the DNS and of registration services generally:

One goal of introducing new TLDs should be to enhance the diversity of the DNS and the manner in which registration services are provided. In particular, types sought are fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered domains with limited scope, noncommercial domains, and personal domains. This criterion must be judged based on the whole group of selected proposals, rather than any single proposal.

7. Delegation of policy-formulation functions for special-purpose TLDs:

For restricted TLDs, the application suggests a "sponsorship" model, in which policy-formulation responsibility for the TLD would be delegated to a sponsoring organization that allows participation of the affected segments of the relevant communities. Proposals will be analyzed to determine whether they offer the opportunity for meaningful, real-world evaluation of various structures for appropriate delegation of policy-formulation responsibilities, as well as evaluation of various allocations of policy-formulation responsibilities between ICANN and sponsoring organizations.

8. Appropriate protections of rights of others:

In introducing new TLDs, care should be taken to ensure that the rights of third parties are appropriately protected. For example, does the proposal have a plan for name allocation during the start-up phase in a way that protects the legitimate interests of existing domain-name holders, businesses with legally protected names, and others with which conflict is likely? Is there a good mechanism for resolving domain-name disputes?

9. Proposal completeness:

The extent to which they demonstrate realistic business, financial, technical, and operational plans and sound analysis of market needs will be analyzed. Clearly presented proposals that are substantive, detailed, and specific will be preferred.


In compiling our recommendations for the best applications for new TLDs, we had a number of objectives in mind. First, we wanted a variety of types of TLDs reflecting the diversity of the applicant pool and the diverse array of possibilities for new uses of the top level domain name system. In this pursuit, we were guided by ICANN's own understanding of diversity as articulated in the nine criteria. As such, we looked especially towards picking an assortment: TLDs that offered unrestricted access, TLDs that proposed restricted and thematically organized access, and TLDs that experimented with entirely new models of what a TLD could provide.

For all of our picks, stability of the Internet and the domain name system as a whole functioned as a threshold requirement: even if we were enamored with a concept and the business model to support it, if we were not confident that the organization could assure the stability of the Internet and the security of its TLD, we did not include it in our list.

Lastly, we looked for impressive credentials across all nine of ICANN's criteria. Although no one criterion predominated, we did keep the idea of this process as a proof of concept in the not-so-distant background of our calculations. The importance of these first new TLDs in establishing positive and replicable precedent for the continued measured expansion of the TLD system remains a major concern.

The following is our list. We intend it less as an authoritative guide and more as a heuristic by which we invite you to assess your own judgements of the new TLD pool.

.air: .air is among the finer examples of a restricted and focused TLD. The potential constituency -- the airline business and related industries -- lends itself to easy definition of who is and who is not included and represents a burgeoning sector of the economy. The target sector stands to gain real benefits (safety, efficiency) from the proposal, as the new TLD would provide them with a useful set of functions. The combination of clear constituency and useful service/product makes for a potent business opportunity. The sponsor and registry possess the necessary expertise and have constructed a clear proposal with achievable objectives that fulfill ICANN's interest in restricted TLDs.

.biz (Abacus): Abacus's .biz is the most comprehensive plan of those proposed as alternatives to .com. Again, the registry is established and seems able to execute the ambitious proposal. While the proposal itself is not particularly creative, modeled as it is on the ubiquitous .com, it is a fine example of the generic and open TLDs we evaluated. If the expansion of the TLD hierarchy is motivated in part in order to provide genuine competition to .com, we believe that Abacus's .biz may be in the best position to fulfill that goal and/or test its validity.

.health: With .health, the World Health Organization proposes an innovative model of what a TLD can do: provide a seal of approval to health information on the Internet. The TLD is intended to be a source of credible health information and is, as such, not specifically commercial, although potential commercial applications are obvious. .health is representative of the minority of TLDs whose base is outside of the United States, in this case, in Geneva, home of the WHO.

.name: The .name TLD, backed by IBM, offers one of the strongest proposals for a personal domain space. With the goal of providing an easily recognized global personal addressing system, .name offers a non-commercial space that distinguishes individual users from corporate entities. The system is scalable: registration is available only at the third level; however, it remains to be seen how .name intends to deal with the problem of multiple applicants with the same first and last names.

.travel: .travel provides an interesting, focused proposal in an extremely thorough application package. The new restricted TLD is sponsored by a well-respected international organization with many decades of experience in resolving name and designation disputes in the offline world of airline and airport codes. The potential market is large and robust. The new TLD would offer an innovative combination of commercial and informational public service uses.

.post: .post, like .name, is another compelling example of a permanent personal address domain. Sponsored by a UN agency, .post offers yet a different take on the potential uses of a new TLD. The model here presented does so with specialized smart message delivery. The veteran registry operator is robust and trustworthy.

New TLD Application Chart

The following chart analyzes the applications for new TLDs according to the criteria expressed in the ICANN Staff's Criteria for Evaluation of new TLDs. Each TLD application is rated on each criterion on a scale from 0-3. Each application is then given an overall rating from 0-3 based on the ratings in each category.

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights


(Name.Space Inc)

almost 100 specific TLDs that aim to be given meaning by 2nd level domains.

Strength is registry-registrar experience. weaknesses are marketing plan, human resources. Weaker than others in category. 

2: sufficient technical capabilities.  Experience running an alternate root.

0: writes that new TLD’s are “beyond proof of concept,” b/c method already proven

1: considers itself as competitor to .com.  No explanation of tld label choices.  Standard registrar competition.

1: argues that global nature of net requires multiple, specific, TLD’s, that TLD alone is “meaningless”.  Does not distinguish utility of any particular requested label,

0: not described

1:  Uses standard model of relationship with registrars.  For-profit model.  American company.

N/A: no sponsoring organization.  However labels requested suggest possibility of restrictions on registrations.

1: Rejects UDRP in favor of existing legal means; encryption, no cookies, no sale of info; has famous names policy

1: Contrary to established ICANN criteria and policy foundations; aims to work by operating numerous TLDs – unfeasible  under current expansion


(Rawthbawn Computers Limited)

8 diverse TLDs to better characterize domains

Strength is registry experience and large target market.  Incomplete demonstration of understanding of the business. Weaker than others in category.

2: cost-based registry model.  Significant Internet experience.  Accredited registrar, .hm management.  Sufficient technical plan

2: value of identifiable domain names to characterize the domain space; demonstration of price elasticity of domain names

2: use of ICANN accredited registrars.  Formal competition policy.  Agreement to not to act as a registrar for the registry.

2: TLDs are semantically meaningful and appealing.  Not confusingly similar to .com.

2: contrast to vagueness of “.com”, providing sites for populations underrepresented in .com.

2: Cost-based registry model.  Irish company.  Semantically but not formally restricted TLDs.

N/A: no sponsoring organization.  However some of the proposed labels could require policy in the future.

2: endorses UDRP; short sunrise period

2: no explanation of why these particular TLDs were chosen; concept of unrestricted yet specific TLDs could internally conflict


(Societe International de Telecommunications Aeronautique)

restricted TLD for the air transport industry, including information for travelers, airlines, etc.

strengths include focus on target market, commitment to IT to the air transport section, and revenue model and market definition.  Stronger application.

2: some past Internet service experience.  Sufficient technical plan.  Possible financial difficulty due to small market.

2: defines a very clear market.  Possibly a good test for the viability of a restricted-use TLD

1: Market is well represented in .com and small. Few registrars, little or no registrar competition

2: Very clear purpose, not at all confusing.  Semantically meaningful selection of TLD label.

1: Potentially for a market already adequately served.

2: sponsored TLD with restrictions on registration.  European organization.

3: Delegation of all decision-making about entry into TLD to expert body in airline field.  Clear delineation of those who belong in TLD.

3: Generally conforms to ICANN policies, pre-screens for trademark infringement.  Requires references.

2:  the proposal is quite thorough and thoughtful.



5 unrestricted TLDs, with focus on “.biz” as “.com” alternative

Strength is registrar experience and TLD market.  Weakness is lack of marketing analysis and strategy.  Overall not as strong as others in its category.

2: established business.  Strong previous Internet and registration experience.  Good technical plan.  Adequate funding.

3: name registration requires registration of both a second and third level domain.  Start-up phase has auctions for names requested by more than one person.

3: provides competition to .com.  Uses ICANN Accredited registrars.

“.biz” creates DNS space; “.inc” as corporate info. space; “.xxx” as identifier, separator with “.fam” as counterpart, “.cool” for youth .  May be confusing.

2: Choices of TLDs based on surveys inquiring into need.  Attempting to deal with the saturation of .com

2: new model for registration for unrestricted TLD.  Interesting start-up phase.  Similar in business model to .com.  For-profit.  American.

N/A:  no sponsoring organization and proposing and unrestricted TLD.  Some of the requested strings could require delegation in the future.

3: supports UDRP with minor modification; pre-screening for confusing domains; sunrise period for famous marks

3: comprehensive and useful; diversity in TLDs



alternative to “.com” restricted to established businesses to prevent cyberhoarding

Strengths are large market, Internet experience and innovative business model.  Weaknesses are lack of detailed marketing plan and support for revenue model.  Overall not as strong as others in category. 

1: Very good capital and good technical capabilities.

2: restricting to “active” businesses while still competing with .com.  registration similar to some cc’s in that registration may be in a third level with the tld, then a country code, then the company name

1: doesn’t claim to increase comp.

2: corollary to “.com”   may be useful for providing some level of trust that businesses there are legitimate businesses.

1: possibly filling any need created by .com scarcity or for TLD for verified businesses.

2: restricted to “legitimate businesses”.  Registrations in third level domains.  One registration per registrant no registration of confusingly similar names.

2: Registrar accepts applications, checks initial biz eligibility, checks duplicates; registry records registrations, maintains database, final checks

2: prevent cyberhoarding through checks on biz credentials; screening period for trademarks searches, similar names; major marks system;  slightly modified UDRP;

2: laudable goal of prevention of cyberhoarding, might not necessitate creation of new TLD; unclear what role “.com” would continue to play

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights



an alternative to “.com” restricted to commercial businesses and particularly attentive to intellectual property problems

Strengths are registrar experience, marketing, involvement of CORE.  Weakness is low initial capitalization.  Stronger than others in category.

2: Good past experience through sister company.  Good technical plan.  Adequate financials.

2: testing out potential of emphasizing geographic location by giving 3rd level domains in 2nd level country-specific domains.  Fat registry

2: directly competitive with .com

2: Expert group will determine criteria to distinguish commercial identities; dual naming aids in directory services; still may cause confusion.

2: alternative space to “.com” to deal with .com scarcity problem.

2: very similar to .com model.  Good geographic diversity and strong emphasis on geographic diversity.

2: No sponsoring organization but a Business Advisory Panel to enforce restriction.  Allows only commercial enterprises and checks by tax ID

2: sunrise period for trademarks: adopts UDRP; reqd. prepayment, min. 2 year registration period; no pre-screening

1: seems to make disorganization problem of other countries our own in dual naming



competition for .com in the form of a large .biz TLD limited to use by businesses.

Strength is very strong marketing plan and exploration of target markets.  Weakness is high projected initial losses.  Stronger than others in category.

2: Solid technical and financial plan

1: generally quite similar to .com in structure.  Some small innovations in start-up policies and management of registrant data.

2: directly competitive with .com.  Structured similarly to allow for good competition.  Use of accredited registrars.

2: possibility of confusion with .com.  Semantically meaningful because it is only for businesses.

2: alternative space to “.com” to deal with .com scarcity problem.

1: restricted to businesses.  Otherwise very similar to .com

2: very little delegation, but some is needed in order to make determination of whether organization is a business.

2: adopts the UDRP with minor modifications.  Structure of registrations is similar to .com with respect to prevention of trademark disputes.

2: a thorough and clear proposal.  The most basic .com competitor applying.  Few innovations, but solid proposal.


(kdd internet solutions)

two very generic, unrestricted  TLDs, aiming to create space, with focus on expanding Asian presence

Strengths are parent with resources and partner with Internet experience.  Weakness is role of NSI.  Stronger than others in category.

2: thorough compliance scheme

2: increase in domain names; upgrade of whois; geographic diversity

2: competition for Asian business

“.biz” for global, “.home” for homepage; more sophisticated Whois

2: need for more Asian registrants

2: Asian registry and large emphasis on geographic diversity. 

N/A: no sponsoring organization

2: endorses UDRP and other existing procedures; no sunrise period

No details of functions of  TLD’s except focus on Asian market – might be achieved through increased attention under existing TLD’s



3 TLDs that restore self-identification to domain holders that have been diluted by “.com”

Strength is resources and stability. Weaknesses are lack of experience, market definition, incompleteness of application.  Weaker than other apps in category.

2: more stability by sponsor as registry and registrar; adequate financial and technical plans

2: single-registry, registrar model; augmented DNS space; self-i.d.; measured by registration numbers and problems

1: none initially at registrar level; aims for more efficient pricing

2: restores self-i.d. of affinity groups; claims image of security to domains using “.secure,” but no tech. support.  May cause confusion with .com

2: generally expanding name space to deal with the scarcity problem.

2: 3 TLD’s aimed to certain groups, but not restricted.  Not all necessarily distinguishable from .com

N/A: no sponsoring organization

2: sunrise period to check trademarks; no pre-screening or pre-registrations; supports UDRP; open access to whois info.

2: benefit is essentially creating more DNS space, but risk of confusion (e.g. or


(Cooperative League of the USA)

Restricted TLD for co-ops to identify themselves to users

Strengths are assessment of market, thoroughness of business proposal, and critical objectives.  Registry may need more employees.  Solid, strong proposal.

2: Respond to all elements of application; physical security not discussed

Firewalls, 3rd party monthly sweeps; no single point of failure; off-site redundancy;

2: TLD with cross-sector reach; TLD cuts across different industries, levels of wealth; unique registry model

1: single registrar during startup period; expertise re co-ops req’d.; competition with existing TLDs

2: clearly serving a particular target audience.

1: limited use for users outside co-ops but co-ops financially distinct from current TLD’s; establish trust and identity

2: members must be co-ops; diverse in economies

2: registrar checks eligibility; otherwise, standard delegation

2: supports UDRP, no pre-screening; only legal names can be registered; sunrise period

2: limited use even for co-ops; required i.d. as co-op creates risk in registry model



Meta-directory TLD restricted to existing TLDs as second level domains, for purpose of allowing domain name holders in other domains to publish directory information about their site in an easy to locate spot

Strength is innovative approach.  Weakness is insufficient marketing plan and chance of no market acceptance.   Interesting but risky proposal.

2: maintains pre-existing TLD in 3rd level; no rush for new names, no ambiguity, disputes

2: number of registrations, different uses; level of interoperability; new routing procedures

3: differentiated marketing; competition in interoperable services, hosted content; model encourages longevity

3: facilitates digital certificates (encryption, authentication…);

better data delivery; fresher data

2: federation point for building relationships

2: restricted to existing domain names in second level

2: direct dealing with registrar; standard delegations

2: supports UDRP; good-faith checks

3: aids biz to biz, fresher data; stable and realistically achievable implementation; unique in scope and aim among proposals

TLD Label
General Description

ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights



proposes “.web” as unsponsored, unrestricted domain space to compete with “.com” on the Net.

Strength is thorough marketing and analysis.   Good application made weaker by withdrawal of Melbourne IT as a partner.

2:  ample physical security and infrastructure

2:level of competition; lower prices, charter compliance within limited UDRP,  round robin startup method, fat registry

3: unlimited registrars; ICANN accreditation basis

1: possibility of confusion with  “.com” by users

1:  conventional advantages of creating more space;  competition, fresh infrastructure, better pricing

1: generic TLD, conventional registry model

N/A: unsponsored TLD.

3: modified “daybreak;” supports UDRP; will follow ICANN; “string screening;”

2; thorough proposal, a new “.com” space and nothing more


(Dubai Technology Electronic Commerce and Media Free Zone Authority)

1 restricted TLD, “.dubai” and one general, “.go”

Strength is resources.  Weakness is insufficient market analysis and financial statements.  Weaker than other apps in category.

2: multi-database servers with offsite backup; alliance with Network Solutions

1: number, satisfaction of applicants; costs and revenues

0: not discussed

2: theoretically more stringent standards against abuse by registrants

1: new open space in “.go”; affiliation with UAE in “.dubai”

2: restricted and unrestricted proposals, “.dubai” to be affiliated with UAE, additional criteria for “.go” to be devised

2: registry to create policies and registrar to implement them; registry runs whois

2: screening criteria; monetary damages; description of use; projected activation dates; supports UDRP

2: proposed goals are same as current TLD system; basically a fresh start for “.com,” but with almost no new safeguards; poor proof of concepts


(Internet Events International, Inc.)

to represent event industry in its broadest characterization; 2nd level domains during first 6 months only, beginning with 6 already picked

Weaknesses: no firm financing, no detailed business plan, no registrar or registry experience.  Weaker than other apps in category. 

2: registration in parts aids stability

2: projected registrations; publically accessible restricted TLD; sub-domain structure; search engine

1: will compete with online TLDs at all levels

2: easier searches

1: easier accessability of events, organization of related sites

2: use of sublevels diversifies; content limited by PICS; new sub-event domains

occur quarterly

0: not described

2: startup period for commercial uses only; supports UDRP

1: incomplete, no specific needs to be met by proposal, no description of biz model


(Association Monegasque Des Banques)

A restricted TLD devoted to the finance sector to “promote the interests of the international financial community.”

Strengths are targeted market, experience in sector. Weak marketing, demand, and representativeness.  Could be successful within its market. 

2: experienced registry/ar; independent systems at  different locations of well known connectivity

2: value of restricted TLDs; connection between accredited membership and integrity of information available; appeal to financial sector of a TLD other than .com; no pricing scale

1: may provide alternative to .com. all ICANN- approved registrars can register; no proposals for how they’ll compete with .com; serving needs of arguably well-served constituents

2: the name is well-matched to its function, but not in all languages; may lead to confusion, as .fin can refer to find, as well.

1: although TLD could add integrity to financial information on the web, the entities that would be served by .fin are arguably well-served by .com already.

2: Geographic; strong European  and internat’l base;  restricted with clearly defined membership; commercial.

2: decisions made by Board and approved by government of Monaco.

1: no sunrise period; posting of all apps. on web site; review;

for disputes, either Board decides or UDRP; UNCITRAL;

compliance with “all competent legal authorities;” Whois

2: criteria for inclusion in .fin not yet established; procedure for denying or canceling membership not established; little advertising.


(Monsoon Assets Limited)

A search engine that will provide a technology platform to enhance existing directory services.

Strength is innovative proposal. Weakness is incomplete and insufficient business proposal.  Other apps in category are stronger.

3: fully respond to criteria in application

2: innovative use of a TLD; value of directory as TLD; use of region as basis.

1: doesn’t enhance or intend to enhance competition; doesn’t serve new market.

1: .yp is confusing, especially for non-users of American yellow pages; .find is also particularly English;  similar to .fin

2: Doesn’t service a new population; does enhance ease of access. Q: is this technology uniquely suited to be a TLD?

2: different conception of how to use TLDs; doesn’t serve a new constituency

2: Unclear; policy issues secondary.

2: largely a non-issue, as this is only providing a service; UDRP.

3: careful analysis; good tech background; strong principals participants; strong business model.


.game/.news/ .shop/.tour
(Eastern Communications Company Limited_

Unrestricted but differentiated  TLDs for commercial purposes.

Strength is diversity and financials of Eastcom.  Weakness is no marketing plan, rationale for estimate demand, rationale for resources to meet demand.  Weaker than other apps in category.

3: high level of expertise; respond to all elements of application.

2: viability of differentiated but unrestricted TLDs; no pricing scale to deal with initial rush.

2: may offer competition; utilizes all existing registrars.

2: the names relate to their purposes, but primarily in English; there are no restrictions to membership, so members’ content need not relate to TLD name.

2: potential competition, for .com; not tapping a new market.

1: unrestricted with intended limited scope; commercial; based in China.

2: unspecified, except that utilize ICANN policy  where it already exists.

1: undeveloped and conflicting plan (ex. Reference to contradictory policy for famous marks); UDRP; Whois; ICANN-NSI privacy policy

2: undeveloped business proposal;

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights


(SRI International)

TLD that will provide infrastructure for registering and discovering georeferenced information on the Internet.

Strengths are sponsor and operator resources, experience and capabilities.  weaknesses are market definition and acceptance.  Overall, could lead to a successful new TLD

3: high level of expertise; respond to all elements of application.

2: value of innovative use of a TLD; ability of TLD to enhance a technology; does it reflect purpose of adding TLDs?

2: new market; competition in geodata providers; no apparent competition with existing TLDs; competition among registrars.

2: while .geo will not add confusion and is semantically connected, unclear that it adds sensibly to existing DNS hierarchy.

2: unclear if this is a need that hasn’t been met and would be best served by adding a TLD as opposed to offering a web-based service

3: different conception of how to use TLDs; restricted domain with limited scope for a uniquely defined constituency

2: delegate policy to body within SRI which will open and representative. 

2: start-up phase protection for trademarks. Whois.  Unclear dispute resolution. Verification certificates.

3: well-conceived; sufficient resources; as long as there is real market need, the plan looks strong.


(World Health Organization)

Restricted TLD to “promote health information quality on the Internet.”

Strengths are WHO role in community, trusted health info, and CORE involvement.  Weak target market discussion and financial statements.  Could be successful.

2: respond to all elements of application; however, registry failure provisions do not seem as robust as other TLDs’.

3: restricted, not specifically commercial TLD; sunrise period for approval process; competition between registrars re: pricing and services.

3: Registrars can compete based on speed and efficacy of accreditation; potential competition with existing health sites

3: .health suggests the purpose; is chosen by international body, so likely useful in many different languages; doesn’t conflict with existing tlds

3: plans to provide a seal of approval to health info on the net, a potentially growing and useful service.

3: sponsored; restricted; not specifically commercial; centered in Geneva; source for information.

2: no specific delegation of policy; WHO will make decisions; accept recommendations from outside organizations.

3: provisions for variety of circumstancess; UDRP; ex ante attempts to minimize infringement; Whois.

2: well-conceived; backed by serious resources and respected international body; potential liability problem; what are international ethical principles?


(Sarnoff Corporation)

Structured addressing system which is hierarchically expansible based on an ordered naming convention.

Strength is good marketing plan. Weakness is unclear capital commitment.  Stronger than other in category. 

2.5: high level of expertise; respond to all elements of application;

2: value of innovative use of a TLD; ability of TLD to enhance a technology; pay scale: free registration for a lesser domain name.

2: Competition b/w registrars; competition in software creation; no competition with existing TLDs.

1: while .i relates to personal information in English, .i has no relevance in other languages.

2: provides a personal domain, in contrast to .com, .net, and .org

2: different conception of how to use TLDs; non-commercial; personal domain.

2: plan to create an unofficial policymaking organization to develop standards.

3: non-transferability of domain names; UDRP; Sunrise (here called daybreak); takedown policy; Whois

2: application is robust;


(Afilias, LLC)

Unrestricted TLD intended to compete with .com, positioning itself in relation to a global or particularly international market.

Strengths are market understanding, market plan, resources, and rationale for demand.  Stronger than other applications in its category.

3: well-thought through plans; mirroring servers to minimize potential disruption; sunrise period before official registration period opens up;  no technical staff yet.

3: whether unrestricted TLD can compete with .com without duplicating; co. owned by collection of rivals; flat fee

2: registrar-level competition;

unclear how TLD will compete with .com; could lead to confusion and second-rate status.

3: .web is connected to intent of the TLD, is recognized internat’lly. Fosters creation of web presence for companies that share DNs.

2: mirrors .com for global market; replenishes set of DNs;  offers previous DN holders priority, so unclear why won’t just buy xyz.web.

1: commercial; unrestricted; i does not provide diversity in manner in which registration services are provided; geographic diversity in support facilities.

1: manage most affairs internally.

2: sunrise period; robust Whois services; UDRP;  no pre-screening;

Privacy: Full disclosure, must sign privacy policy; no unsolicited emails based on Whois list.

2: unclear that any unrestricted TLD can compete with .com in interesting way; possible that experimenting with it will lead to the inability to backtrack; may be worth it for P of C; otherwise strong


(Blueberry Hill Communications, Inc.)

unrestricted TLD intended to provide a secure environment for kids, but without guidelines for content.

Strengths are target market and vision.  Weaknesses are lack of registration restrictions and committed subcontractor.  Weaker than others.

2: Less robust technical background;  some of the technical elements of proposal are speculative or vague.

2: Using business to generate charitable funding; low capital requirement; new use of DNS

1: unclear how .kids will compete with .com or what particular appeal .kids as an unrestricted TLD holds;

2: TLD label suggests use, although primarily in English; is distinct from existing TLDs; no guarantee that label predicts content.

1: open access doesn’t provide code of ethics for kids’ material .kids says is lacking.

1: commercial, fully open; no particular geographic diversity; standard business model

2: Unclear; advisory board for facilitation, but no explicit policy-making functions

2: accept UDRP; privacy policies, limited access to Whois; don’t charge upfront; sunrise phase

1: no definition of “appropriate material for children”; no body to deal with questionable content; vague business plan


(DotKids, Inc.)

Unresitricted TLD for kids and teens intended to give Internet users confidence in the content.

Strengths are vision and experience of partner.  Weaknesses are irregular financial statements.  Weaker than others in category.

1: Less robust background than other TLDs; no information on operation of registry system; Plans to outsource to unknown company.

1: No plans as to technical operations makes for dangerous first round new TLD; does provide rating system along with TLD.

2: standard competition among registrars; unclear if .kids could compete with .com based on unrestricted nature

2: See above.

1: Since TLD is unrestricted, unclear why it will provide confidence in the material.

1: see above

3: team consisting of partners with varying expertise; using outside advisers and rating service

2: Full implementation of UDRP; sunrise period for trademark holders; privacy: undetermined.

1: : The business model is unclear and the technical side is virtually nonexistent. See section D.13.2.7 and 2.8

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights


(ICM Registry)

Two TLDs with the goal of differentiating child- from adult-oriented material through self-rating and self-determined guidelines.

Strengths are marketing strategy, large target market, IP experience, financials, and technical partners.  Weaknesses are staff size and feasibility of objective.  Stronger than others in category.

3: partners with experience and credibility in providing such services; detailed plan that deals with necessary elements.

3: Auction method of DN registration and protection  of IP rights; advisory boards to establish norms and regulate content; filtering services as revenue generator

2: will provide competition to .coms in the registration of porn sites, although likely existing porn sites will want the parallel .xxx site, as well, leading to redundancy.

2: TLD labels do suggest use; uncertain if proliferation of porn on the web, a certain outcome of .xxx, is a primary goal for this first round of new TLDs.

1: While relative consensus as to need for kids' space, not so for porn; unclear that TLD is way to provide for kids; unclear that this plan provides incentive for DN holders to self-rate their content?

1: restricted domain with scope based on purpose; geographic: plan to market to N America first; largely commercial (although .kids may be non-profit); standard business model

3: Based on a coalition of businesses; policy made by Advisory Board w/ broad base of members

2: UDRP; sunrise period; public posting of all applications; independent Regsitry to monitor IP infringement; auction when interests compete.

2: while strong business plan,  unclear how disputes will be resolved by policy boards; how rating system and filtering will comply with Const. limits.


(.Kids Domain Inc.)

Restricted TLD with internally mandated standards whose goal is to create a safe platform for businesses to reach children.

Strengths are narrow focus, content control, capitalization. Weakness is unspecified marketing plan. Strongest application in this category.

2: While tech partner Tucows has experience and existing infrastructure and uses an open-source system to increase portability, registry failure provisions are relatively thin.

3:Restricted, content-based site with internal audit; many DNs procured through auction; high costs of registration; shared pages for disputed marks.

1: no registrar-level competition; possible that auction will price smaller DNholders out of market for appealing DNs; may provide competition with .com for kid-related sites.

3: TLD label suggests use, although primarily for English-speakers; is distinct from existing TLDs.

2: Broad appeal of monitored kids' space on net, although uncertain if TLD and this plan are best solution.

2: Restricted TLD based on their internally-created criteria; commercial.

2: While policy is based on external standards, it is internally created and enforced by a Content Policy Board

3: UDRP (patterned on existing one); Whois; sunrise period; independent checks against existing TMs; plan for shared pages for disputed TMs.

2: Funding commitment for .kids, tech partner Tucows has established fiancial capabilities. However, see concerns above.


(DotLaw, Inc.)

Restricted TLD whose purpose is to serve the international legal community

Strength is focus community.  Weakness is lack of detail, marketing and financial statements.  Weaker than others in category.

2: Redundant systems; constant power supply; guarded protection; scalable system; current backup

2: Effect of small pool on startup process; restricted, themed site; outside authorization for admision

2: Registrars must apply; potential competition for .com, but will it only lead to duplicative sites?

3: TLD label suggests use, for English and non-English speakers; distinct from existing TLDs.

1: Entities that would be served by .law are arguably well-served by .com already.s

2: Restricted; sponsored; crierion for inclusion established; American-based; both commercial and non-commercial.

2: Unclear: will look to the Bar Associations and ICANN

2: no DN resale; protection for famous TMs; Whois; UDRP; right of first refusal

3: Specific marketing plan; business plan; guidelines for content established


(Commercial Connect)

3 second-level TLDS for commercial entities with different registration criteria for each TLD

Strength is financials of one partner, registry experience of others.  Weakness is lack of detailed business/marketing plan. Weaker than others in category.

2: creation of new space probably doesn’t disrupt old, but for familiar problem of user confusion in using proper TLD; core backed proposal

1: that shopping can proliferate exponentially

1: will create more demand for new shopping  services on the web, and competition will follow

2: clarity of use from user perspective; personalized service

2: creates new space as alternative to “.com;” claims to restore “purity” to the Net

2: restricted TLD w/ biz credentials checks; for private individuals as well; “.shop” for sale of goods, “.svc” for services; “.mall” for commercial outlets

2: majority of dealings w/ registrar, registry as overseer

2: adopts UDRP, sunrise period; no pre-screening; thick registry; centralized whois; 2 year initial registration

2: thorough but uncreative application; 3 TLDs excessive for biz use; poor proof of concept, competitive model



8 non-profit TLDs focusing on the power of mobile communications, with phone number or nickname as domains, plus special services designed for mobile access

Strength is financial and technical resources.  Weakness is marketing and business plan.  Not as strong as others in its category. 

2: domains managed systematically; technical solutions developed step by step to allow testing

2: utility of this distinct TLD, ease of mobile communications; registry model; creation of new features

1: substantial number of registrars projected

3: supports mobile communications in efficient manner; users will be sure phone can handle the content; allows creation of new features

2: Supports increasing Net use by phone of distinct, untraditional uses

2: restricted to providers of mobile services

2: registry registers 2nd level domains, registrars the 3rd; traditional overseer role for registry

2: must demonstrate clear utility for users of domain; similarity to trademark checks; pre-screening, UDRP adopted

3: wireless internet is the future and will require sweeping changes for better compatibility


(Museum Domain Management Association)

Restricted TLD devoted to serving the international museum community through museum related sites

Strengths are sponsor’s international presence in community, financial resources, authenticity, operators registry experience.  Weak demand and financial projections.  Strong proposal. 

3: high level of Internet-related expertise of CORE, proposed registry operator; respond to all elements of application.

3: Restricted TLD; small membership determined by long-standing, international body; non-profit sponsor; use of TLD to promote education; two-tiered naming convention

2: Limits registrars; registrars establish retail pricing; no true competition with other TLDs; may provide competition between museums.

3: .mus based on Latin “museum”; used in many modern languages

2: Legitimacy of source of information from website; small number of registrants but could service international cultural community;

3: Non-profit; public interest; education-oriented; international; small number of registrants, clearly defined, but potential wider audience?

2: Although voting rights for professionals, members of MDMA, no official delegation of policy making to outside body as such. Board makes decisions.

3: robust WhoIs capability; 5-day cooling-off period; strict eligibility criteria; UDRP; no pre-screening; privacy agreement

2: Thorough; strong if small constituency; solid business plan.

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights


(Global Name Registry, Limited)

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

Strengths are very good marketing plan and financial backing.  Stronger than other applications in its category. 

3: backed by IBM, careful planning in response to potential problems; orderly assignment of DNs

3:Reducing charge scale; registration only at 3rd level; viability of personal name-based TLD; round robin distribution

2: Uses all registrars, but controls the prices; no true competition with other TLDs providing same service.

3: highly associated purpose with name; dist. individual users from corporate entities

3: a/c to mkt research, large numbers; no similar space reserved for individual users

3: new market, restricted use, creation of non-commercial space, personal domain

2: low level of affected pop. participation; does give registry operator full flexibility based on ICANN model

3: Whois w/ limited queries. Highly specific. Choice of law explicit (Eng)

2: The sponsors guarantee seriousness of endeavor, but don’t deal explicitly with multiple John Smith problems.



Restricted TLD devoted to personal use by individuals.

Strength is experience in the market.  Weakness is delegation of marketing responsibility to registrars.  Overall stronger than others in category. 

3: high level of technical background; respond to all elements of application.

3: Restricted TLD without prescreening; two dot policy; registrar flexibility; not intended for but allowing commercial use; modified UDRP; centrally-managed application queues.

1: Registrar flexibility leads to competition in price and service; cost-recovery model could lead to price competition. 

2: name suggests use; potential confusion with .com

3: No current personal gTLD, so no similar space reserved for individual users

3: new market; restricted use; personal domain;

2: advisory counsel; Working Group for policy formulation; public comments on web

3: Modified UDRP; user contract for accuracy; no pre-screening; complaint driven; non-transfer policy; limited WhoIs; sunrise period; queue-building process (E12)

2: Build on existing success of other TLDs; considered potential pitfalls of personal TLD, but don’t deal explicitly with multiple John Smith problems; discussion of commercial use unclear (see E3)


(DotNOM  Consortium)

For communities amateurs, professionals, and hobbyists,

Strengths are market analysis and requests for capitalization.  Weakness is only in comparison to others in category which were more thorough on marketing and business plan.

2: respond to all elements; wide Internet and technology experience; registry for dotTV; failure provisions not as robust

1:mix of personal and limited commercial registrants; viability of personal name-based TLD; no demand dampening mechanism; unrestricted personal space;

1: accredited and non-accredited registrars; open pricing for DNs;

2: name suggests use; broad multi-lingual appeal; potential confusion with .com

3: No current personal gTLD, so no similar space reserved for individual users

3: new market; unrestricted personal domain; international;

1: no explicit delegation; encourages ICANN to establish “best of class” procedures

1: first-come, first-serve; UDRP; no sunrise; complaint driven; Whois with limited queries

2: Thorough Operator’s Proposal; dotTV already runs TLD; appears that certain key issues have not been fully thought through


(Group One Registry, WebVision, Inc.)

TLD reserved for names made up of digits for Internet-connected devices other than computers

Strengths are large potential market. Weaknesses are market acceptance,  lack of registrar experience.  Stronger than others in category. 

3:long-term Internet-related experience; robust registry failure provisions; respond to all elements

3: value of numeric names; phased registration process; ability of TLD to enhance technology; separation of marketing and tech

2: registrar-level competition; may aid competition among Internet services providers and devices

1: while distinct, .one does not necessarily suggest a numbers-only TLD; is not applicable across languages.

2: growing market of Internet-connected devices other than computers; unclear if this constituency is aided by a TLD; more efficient, but harder to remember.

2: Numeric only TLD; new model for efficiency of TLD

1: No explicit delegation, although plan to look to ICANN for policy; Registry Policy Board

3: Consulted with WIPO; as SLDs are numbers, IP protection less crucial; UDRP; Whois

2: Unclear if numeric-based DNs will be palatable for consumers; possible that they have hit on growing market niche, though. Strong proposal otherwise.



personal non-commercial TLD

Strengths are very thorough marketing and business plans.  This is one of the stronger applications in its category. 

3: Multiple global centers, firewalls, 24/7 security.  Respond to all elements of application; extensive Internet-related experience

2: noncommercial personal TLD; generic; round robin startup method; information gathering to aid in measuring; feasibility of ICANN consultations

3: expanded registrar base through enhanced registry service; potential competition with existing email providers

3: name suggests use across a variety of languages; not easily confused with existing TLDs or other meanings

3: No current personal gTLD, so no similar space reserved for individual users; creating new standard for transactions between the registry and registrars; deal with problem of multiple John Smiths

3: personal domain; international; intended solely for individuals, but not exclusive

2: Have parent companies with a strong history in policy development

3: Modified UDRP; monitoring through IP Notification Service; Whois; privacy provisions; individual certification of name

2: Good proposal; but common name problem not well resolved (first come first served)


(DADA Spa)

Permanent ID domain

Strengths are innovative approach and resources.  Weaknesses are implementation strategy and demand assessment.  Stronger than others in category. 

1: Duplicate hardware; physical security not discussed; Sponsor is ICANN accredited in Italy as .com, .org and .net registrar

2: DNS as a resource (person) locator

3: Unlimited registrars, compete by service

2: TLD name not intuitive, may be confusing.

3: No current personal global TLD

2: No current universal way to keep permanent ID ; submitted by  DADA Spa, an  Italian organization

1: no sponsoring organization and no mention of how to handle delegation of policy decisions.

1: UDRP; 1 registration per applicant; verification procedure not stated; Whois with option of locking records given to registrants

2: Good proposal; but common name problem not well resolved (use nicknames)

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights


(Universal Postal Union)

Restricted monitored TLD for organizational and personal addresses

Strengths are sponsor relation to target market and operators experience.  Weakness is demand analysis.  This is a weaker application. 

3: large registrar history, 800,000 domain names

3: Use of DNS for secured, verified  postal service

2: CORE (proposed registry) itself is association of competing companies

3: Obvious name; similar in many languages; trust-engendering

3: No current verified general purpose TLD

3: Different from current TLDs, but broad appeal

3: Verification by postal authorities; submitted by UN agency: Universal Postal Union

3: Accreditation service; UDRP is last resort; centralized Whois

2: Sponsored by a UN agency, fulfills need for a permanent personal address with specialized “smart” message delivery. Robust veteran registry operator


(DotPRO Consortium)

special purpose TLD,

Professional sites, subdivided by profession

Strength is understanding of general marketplace. Weakness is general financials.  Weaker than other apps. 

3: redundancy, firewalls; core registry functions spanning two continents

2: Easier Second Level Domain Name roll-out

0: Not mentioned

2: Name suggests use in many languages; but may confuse with a “pro” stance towards an issue

1: Professional sites, but not verified

2: Slightly different purpose from existing TLDs, but may evolve into .com alternative

1: No delegation because no verification

2: auction for disputed names, then UDRP; central Whois database

3: Very thorough proposal; good backing; without credential verification, limited usefulness



Special purpose TLD,

restricted to licensed professionals, subdivided by profession

Strength is partner’s experience, well conceived.  Weakness is potential lack of demand and initial losses.  Overall stronger than others.

3: highly redundant services with core registry functions spanning two continents

3: restricted TLD survival; alternative to directory; minimize confusion

3: All ICANN accredited registrars

2: Name suggests use in many languages; but may confuse with a “pro” stance towards an issue

3: “Verified” professionals

3: “Verified” professionals

1:Allow, but not require, verification by professional organizations

2: Sunrise period, then UDRP; shared registry, centralized Whois database

3: Very thorough proposal; good backing; application states it wants trustworthy sites, but not willing to require verification


(Pulver, Peek, and Marschel)

Special purpose TLD, map existing phone numbers

Strength is thorough business plan.  Weakness is state of market of Internet telephony.  Overall this is a stronger application in this category. 

3: multi-site hardware redundancy; firewalls

3: Converge PSTN and internet addressing; lower barriers of entry for registrars

3: Modified ICANN accreditation; compete with

3: Name suggests use in most languages

3: For internet telephony

2: No current similar special purpose TLD; ENUM compliant

3: international non-profit Internet-Telephony Addressing Board defines policies “guaranteeing open and free competition for the provisioning of ENUM services on a global basis”; Whois provided by NetNumber

3: Only “day-to-day” phone number owner can register, so no start-up rush expected; UDRP last resort

3: Thorough proposal; backed by large groups


(, LLC)

Special purpose TLD, map existing phone numbers

Strength is Tucows’ experience.  Weakness is lack of marketing and promotional strategy. Other applications are stronger from a business perspective. 

2: hardware redundancy spanning US, Japan, Europe

3: Usefulness of number based system; eliminate domain name selling; administration via 3 part system:  a non-profit Oversight Board for overseeing the sale and use of TLD in cooperation with ICANN

3: ICANN accredited registrars; perhaps telephone companies and financial institutions

1: increase in international usage of the web and promote the use of foreign websites by persons throughout the world; name suggests use in most languages

0: Not stated

0: Not stated

N/A: only verification by phone companies

3: only individuals, businesses or organizations to which a telephone number is already assigned by a national telephone system can register it; no sunrise period; Whois in compliance with current ICANN-NCI Registry Agreement

1: Incomplete; tripartite governance intriguing, but overall mission not clearly stated

TLD Label
General TLD Description
ICANN Staff Report Review Summary
Proof of Concept
Complementariness: Filling Unmet Needs
Protection of Rights




Generic, top-level domain dedicated to communications-over-the-Internet, including video, voice and data communications.

Strengths are financing, potential market, and experience.  Lack of market analysis and support for demand assumptions.  Weaker application within category. 

3: Respond to all elements of application; hardware redundancy spread throughout 6 continents; firewalls; experience running ISP

2:;  value of innovative use of a TLD; ability of TLD to enhance a technology; 2-phase rollout; Q; does .tel reflect purpose of adding TLDs?

1: ICANN-accredited registrars, plus some unspecified criteria; unclear if .tel would provide any competition with existing TLDs; may compete with email providers.

2: .tel is semantically associated with communication, if not exactly name-based internet telephony; name suggests use in mostlanguages; is not confusingly similar to any other TLD.

3: Expand the development and use of video and voice internet telephony services; unclear whether there is great need for such a TLD,o or whether TLD is best way to enhance technology.

3: different conception of how to use TLDs; ; geographic; variation on personal domain;

2: Independent Policy Advisory Board  with proposed ICANN involvement, no details determined Telnic will control most policy;

2:UDRP; Whois; 2 month pre-launch period to register trademarks

3: Thorough application; interesting use; may help increase nontraditional use of internet; may be better to wait until the market for non-computer Internet communication increases in prominence and stability.


(International Air Transport Association)

Special purpose TLD restricted to providers of travel-related products, services and information.

Strengths are focus on specific market and understanding of market.  Weakness is lack of unmet need within market.  Could lead to a successful TLD. 

2: Respond to all elements of application; multiple global centers; firewalls; 24/7 security; experience in registry operations

2: value of restricted TLDs; connection between accredited membership and integrity of information available; ability of TLD to promote industry; non-profit sponsor;; round robin startup; information gathering to aid in measuring;

3: Expanded registrar base through enhanced registry service; may provide competition to .com for travel sites, although possible will encourage some duplication.

2: Whiile .travel is semantically associated with its purpose in English, not so in other languages; no confusion with existing TLDs.

2: While .travel has the potential of growing the online travel industry and guaranteeing integrity of information, given current success, it is not clear that there is great need for a travel-specific TLD.  Special purpose TLD for travel related businesses and information; intuitive name for English speakers

3: Restricted based on industry; narrow scope; commercial and information provifers;geographic diversity; not-for-profit TLD

3: Ceation of advisory committee; IATA-Registrars Forum; IATA will manage .travel, establish membership criteria

3: UDRP + 8 tiers of monitoring and DR; monitoring through IP Notification Service; accreditation; Whois; privacy provisions;

3: Extremely thorough application; sponsored by long-standing international organization; large, well-established and -researched market; provides for both commercial use and informational public service; robust registry operator.


(International Confederation of Free Trade Unions)

Restricted TLD reserved for the use of bona fide trade union organizations sponsored by ICFTU, a UN-related trade organization.

Strengths are market assessment, business processes and critical objectives.  Weaknesses are employee sharing between registry operator traditional services and new services.  Overall, this could lead to a successful TLD. 

2: Respond to all elements of application; physical security not discussed

Firewalls, 3rd party monthly sweeps; no single point of failure; off-site redundancy;

3: Non-profit registrar; value of limited membership TLD; ability of low cost of DN to help bridge digital divide; flat pricing scheme

2: 1 registrar during startup period, then open registration to any registrar; niche marketing; unlikely to compete with .com or other proposed TLDs.

2: .union highly associated with workers in English; not so in other languages, but indication by applicant of desire to map to other languages; no likely confusion with other TLDs.

2: Restricted but large (123 million workers) market; unclear what exactly a TLD for workers will accomplish;

2: geographic diversity: sponsored by international  non-profit ICFTU based in Belgium; restricted TLD; clearly-defined constituency;

2: ICFTU will make policy decisions specifically regarding membership; Initial core group during startup, then open;

2: 3 phases of registration;; user contract for accuracy;  no pre-screening; UDRP, ICANN privacy agreement modified in undetermined ways; Whois;

: Thorough proposal serving a clearly-defined constituency; concern that too few TLDs  will be given out to justify .union as among the first new TLDs; interesting opportunities borne of TLD devoted to sector that uses the Internet less than average.


(Image Online Design)

.Web offers an unrestricted TLD intended to compete directly, .net and .org

Strengths are general understanding of the market.  Weaknesses are unrealistic projections, business plan, and technical support.  Overall a weaker application in its category. 

2: Claim to have been operating .web registry for four years outside DNS root.  Adequate financial and technical capabilities and plan.

2: whether unrestricted TLD can compete with .com; no pricing mechanism to control registration; controlled DN registration prices.

1: May offer competition;; single registrar during start-up, then ICANN-accredited registrars can compete; controlled pricing structure

2: While the name .web is connected to the web, it does not help users guess what type of sites they will find there.  Could be confused with a TLD devoted to web-related activity.

2: replenishes set of available domain names; concern, however, that broad nature of TLD will dilute its efficacy

1: commercial; mirrors set-up of .com; US based; unrestricted

N/A: Unrestricted, unsponsored TLD, so no policy delegation not required; do not offer any policy delegation model.

3: UDRP; trademark holders get blackout period with pre-emptive challenge rights; free exchange of DNs in cases of potential infringement; Whois; no pre-screening.

2: Thorough proposal; concern about their historical position as a non-NIS root system; usefulness of creating a TLD even more inclusive than .com