Network Working Group O. Vaughan
Request for Comments: 2240 Vaughan Enterprises
Category: Informational November 1997
Network Working Group O. Vaughan
Request for Comments: 2240 Vaughan Enterprises
Category: Informational November 1997
A Legal Basis for Domain Name Allocation
域名分配的法律依据
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本备忘录为互联网社区提供信息。它没有规定任何类型的互联网标准。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1997年）。版权所有。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Overview of the domain space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Possible solutions to name exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Possible solutions to name exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Proposed creation of new SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4
4.2 The case for legal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3 Allocation of legal SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Proposed creation of new SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1 The world is not flat so why should domains be? . . . . . . 4
4.2 The case for legal names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3 Allocation of legal SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4 Allocation of miscellaneous SLDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.5 Identifiers in non-ASCII languages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Authors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The purpose of this memo is to focus discussion on the particular problems with the exhaustion of the top level domain space in the Internet and the possible conflicts that can occur when multiple organisations are vying for the same name. No proposed solutions in
本备忘录旨在集中讨论互联网顶级域名空间耗尽的特殊问题，以及多个组织争夺同一名称时可能发生的冲突。在这方面没有提出解决办法
this document are intended as standards for the Internet. Rather, it is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solution to such problems, leading eventually to the adoption of standards.
本文件旨在作为互联网标准。相反，希望就这些问题的适当解决办法达成普遍共识，最终通过标准。
Presently the domain space is organised as a heirarchical tree-structured namespace with several top level domains (TLDs), and sub-domains beneath them. The initial TLDs allocated and rationale are documented in [1].
目前，域空间被组织为具有多个顶级域（TLD）及其下的子域的继承架构树结构名称空间。分配的初始TLD和基本原理记录在[1]中。
The TLDs are functionally split up into 'generic' top-level domains (gTLDs) and two-letter ISO 3166 country domains for every country in which Internet connectivity is provided. The allocation of sub-domains under these TLDs is entirely up to the registry for that TLD. The registry may decide to allocate further levels of structure or merely allocate domains in a 'flat' manner.
TLD在功能上分为“通用”顶级域（GTLD）和两个字母的ISO 3166国家域，用于提供互联网连接的每个国家。这些TLD下的子域分配完全取决于该TLD的注册表。注册中心可以决定分配更多层次的结构或仅以“扁平”方式分配域。
Example:
例子：
+-----+ +----+ +----+
| COM | | UK | | FR |
+-----+ +----+ +----+
| | | | |
+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+
| VAUGHAN | | AC | | CO | | UNIV-AVIGNON | | AXA |
+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+
| | | | |
+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+
| UNIX | | NEWPORT | | CITYDESK | | SOL | | MAIL |
+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+
| |
+----+ +-----+
| NS | | FTP |
+----+ +-----+
+-----+ +----+ +----+
| COM | | UK | | FR |
+-----+ +----+ +----+
| | | | |
+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+
| VAUGHAN | | AC | | CO | | UNIV-AVIGNON | | AXA |
+---------+ +----+ +----+ +--------------+ +-----+
| | | | |
+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+
| UNIX | | NEWPORT | | CITYDESK | | SOL | | MAIL |
+------+ +---------+ +----------+ +-----+ +------+
| |
+----+ +-----+
| NS | | FTP |
+----+ +-----+
1. Flat gTLD 2. Heirarchical country 3. Flat country
1. 平面gTLD 2。继承国3。平坦的乡村
In the example we see that the gTLDs are inherently flat, as organisations are allocated domain names directly under the TLD. With the country domains however, the domain allocation policy can vary widely from country to country, and it does. Some may choose to implement a functional sub-structure mirroring the gTLDs, some may choose to implement a geographical sub-structure, and some may choose to have no sub-structure at all.
在本例中，我们看到GTLD本质上是扁平的，因为组织直接在TLD下分配域名。但是，对于国家域，域分配政策可能因国家而异，而且确实如此。一些可能选择实现镜像gtld的功能子结构，一些可能选择实现地理子结构，一些可能选择根本没有子结构。
In the first case the organisation is clearly a commercial one, as it is allocatged under the "COM" TLD. However, there is no information as to the country the organisation is based in. In the third case, we know that the organisation is based in France (FR), but without studying the actual organisation name we do not know what type of organisation it is. In the second case, we know the country that both organisations are based in (UK), and by following the heirarchy, we can deduce that the first is an academic organisation (AC), and the second is commercial (CO).
在第一种情况下，该组织显然是一个商业组织，因为它是根据“COM”TLD分配的。但是，没有关于该组织所在国家的信息。在第三个案例中，我们知道该组织位于法国（FR），但没有研究实际的组织名称，我们不知道它是什么类型的组织。在第二种情况下，我们知道这两个组织的总部都在哪个国家（英国），通过继承权，我们可以推断第一个是学术组织（AC），第二个是商业组织（CO）。
While the system is flexible in not enforcing a strict heirarchy, it can lead to exhaustion of domain names in the generic space and lead to conflicts between organisations who may both have a legitimate claim to have a particular name.
虽然该系统在不强制执行严格的继承权方面很灵活，但它可能会导致通用空间中的域名用尽，并导致可能都有合法要求拥有特定名称的组织之间的冲突。
With such a flexible system, there are many ways of preventing the name space being exhausted. A solution proposed by [2] is to create more gTLDs to allow organisations with the same name to be registered uniquely under different TLDs (FIRM, STORE, WEB, ARTS, REC, INFO and NOM). However this has several disadvantages as discussed below:
有了这样一个灵活的系统，有许多方法可以防止名称空间被耗尽。[2]提出的一个解决方案是创建更多的GTLD，以允许具有相同名称的组织在不同TLD（公司、商店、网络、艺术、REC、信息和NOM）下进行唯一注册。但是，这有以下几个缺点：
a) It creates confusion in users mind as to what TLD refers to a particular organisation. For example, MCDONALDS.COM maybe the fast food corporation and MCDONALDS.FIRM maybe a firm of lawyers, but how is the user supposed to know which is which?
a) 这会让用户对TLD所指的特定组织产生混淆。例如，MCDONALDS.COM可能是快餐公司，MCDONALDS.FIRM可能是律师事务所，但用户如何知道哪个是哪个？
b) To prevent the above confusion, big corporations will simply reserve all the different variations of the name, ie. IBM.COM, IBM.FIRM, IBM.STORE etc. Thus we haven't solved the name exhaustion or conflict problems, in fact we have made it worse.
b) 为了避免上述混淆，大公司只需保留名称的所有不同变体，即IBM.COM、IBM.FIRM、IBM.STORE等。因此，我们没有解决名称耗尽或冲突问题，事实上，我们让情况变得更糟。
c) Names of legitimate trade mark holders or other legally held names can still be acquired by anybody, leading to potential conflicts.
c) 任何人仍然可以获得合法商标持有人的姓名或其他合法持有的姓名，从而导致潜在的冲突。
With the aforementioned problems in mind, it is not a good idea to create new gTLDs which merely overlap the existing ones. As the domain name system is heirarchical it would seem a good idea to expand on the existing structure rather than creating several duplicate structures.
考虑到上述问题，创建仅与现有GTLD重叠的新GTLD不是一个好主意。由于域名系统是继承人架构，因此在现有结构上扩展似乎是一个好主意，而不是创建几个重复的结构。
With the expansion of the Internet to a truly global medium, the notion that there can only be one commercial entity, one orgnisation, and one network provider etc. with the same name seems impossible. This is the situation that the present system finds itself in. There is a constantly spiralling number of disputes over who 'owns' or ' deserves' a certain name, with an increasing number ending in unnecessary and costly legal action. This is not something that the providers of a domain name service should concern themselves with, but yet with the present system, this seems inevitable.
随着互联网向真正的全球媒体的扩展，只有一个商业实体、一个组织和一个网络提供商等拥有相同名称的概念似乎不可能。这就是目前的制度所处的情况。关于谁“拥有”或“应得”某个名字的争议不断上升，越来越多的争议以不必要和昂贵的法律诉讼告终。这不是域名服务提供商应该关心的事情，但在目前的系统中，这似乎是不可避免的。
This proposal allows for country domain names that are related to legally registered names in the country that they are based by creating a functional heirarchy beneath the country TLD.
该提案通过在国家TLD下创建功能继承权，允许国家域名与其所在国家的合法注册名称相关。
This proposal does not seek to do away with gTLDs, but rather that a legal name should be sought first and then, if desired, a generic name could be used alongside it. The organisation would then, in case of any disputes, have a legally-held name which no other organisation could have any claim to.
本提案并不寻求废除GTLD，而是应首先寻求一个合法名称，然后，如果需要，可在其旁边使用通用名称。如果出现任何争议，该组织将拥有一个其他任何组织都无法拥有的合法名称。
This proposal has several advantages:
这项建议有几个优点：
a) The process of deciding what names belong to which organisation is no longer a function of the domain name registry, but of the company registration authority in the given country. This means that disputes over names cannot arise as all names are unique within the context of the legal company title.
a) 决定哪些名称属于哪个组织的过程不再是域名注册处的职能，而是特定国家的公司注册机构的职能。这意味着名称争议不会产生，因为在合法公司名称的上下文中，所有名称都是唯一的。
b) As all names are unique, there should be no exhaustion (deliberately or otherwise) of 'desirable' names by other concerns, as all the owners of legally-held company names will automatically have the right to the relevant domain name.
b) 由于所有名称都是唯一的，因此不应（故意或以其他方式）因其他原因而用尽“理想”名称，因为所有合法持有公司名称的所有者将自动拥有相关域名的权利。
The second level domain identifiers should be created from the existing company indentifiers within the given country. For example:
第二级域标识符应根据给定国家/地区内的现有公司标识符创建。例如：
LTD.UK for limited companies in the UK PLC.UK for public companies in the UK INC.US for incorpated bodies in the US CORP.US for corporations in the US GMBH.DE for German companies
LTD.UK适用于英国的有限公司PLC.UK适用于英国的上市公司INC.US适用于美国的非营利机构CORP.US适用于美国的公司德国公司GMBH.DE
The registries for the appropriate top-level country domain should create and manage the sub-domains based on the laws for allocating company names in that particular country. Specifically, ALL spaces should be converted to hyphens '-' and other punctuation either disregarded or also converted into hyphens.
相应顶级国家/地区的注册处应根据特定国家/地区分配公司名称的法律创建和管理子域。具体来说，所有空格都应转换为连字符“-”，其他标点符号可以忽略，也可以转换为连字符。
For holders of international trademarks and other international names, the gTLD "INT" can be used in place of the country identifier. For example:
对于国际商标和其他国际名称的持有人，可以使用gTLD“INT”代替国家标识。例如：
TM.INT } for international trademarks REG.INT }
TM.INT}国际商标注册号REG.INT}
In countries that do not have existing sub-structure it is strongly recommended that along with the creation of legal SLDs described here, that other SLDs be created for commercial entities, organisations, and academic entities to reduce remaining conflicts from organisations that are not legally-registered companies.
在没有现有子结构的国家，强烈建议在创建此处所述的合法SLD的同时，为商业实体、组织和学术实体创建其他SLD，以减少非合法注册公司组织的剩余冲突。
For example:
例如：
+------------------+
| ISO 3166 country | . . . . . . . . .
+------------------+ . .
| | | . .
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| AC/ | | CO/ | | OR/ | | LTD | | INC |
| EDU | | COM | | ORG | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
+------------------+
| ISO 3166 country | . . . . . . . . .
+------------------+ . .
| | | . .
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+ +-----+
| AC/ | | CO/ | | OR/ | | LTD | | INC |
| EDU | | COM | | ORG | +-----+ +-----+
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+
The representation of any domain element is limited to the ASCII character set of alphabetic characters, digits and the hyphen, as described in [3]. The representation of names in languages that use other character sets is limited by that definition or any future update.
如[3]所述，任何域元素的表示仅限于由字母、数字和连字符组成的ASCII字符集。名称在使用其他字符集的语言中的表示受该定义或任何未来更新的限制。
This memo raises no issues relating to network security. However when delegating the subdomains, the registries must ensure that the application contains sufficient evidence of the legal rights to a given name.
本备忘录未提出与网络安全相关的问题。然而，在授权子域时，注册中心必须确保应用程序包含对给定名称的合法权利的充分证据。
[1] Postel J. and J. Reynolds , "Domain Requirements", RFC 920, October 1984.
[1] Postel J.和J.Reynolds，“领域要求”，RFC 920，1984年10月。
[2] "Generic Top Level Domains - Memoranding of Understanding"
<URL:http://www.gtld-mou.org/>
[2] "Generic Top Level Domains - Memoranding of Understanding"
<URL:http://www.gtld-mou.org/>
[3] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - Implementation and Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.
[3] Mockapetris，P.，“域名-实现和规范”，RFC10351987年11月。
Owain Vaughan Vaughan Enterprises PO Box 155 Newport NP9 6YX UK
Owain Vaughan Vaughan Enterprises邮政信箱155 Newport NP9 6YX UK
Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164
Fax: +44 1633 663706
EMail: owain@vaughan.com
Phone: +44 1633 677849/822164
Fax: +44 1633 663706
EMail: owain@vaughan.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1997年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。