Bruce, Your understanding of Base Domain Name matches my understanding. However after a discussion with colleagues that work closely with ICANN, they suggested we misunderstood Specification 13. According to them, and based on my own research after the discussion, it seems that the the correct indicator that a TLD is what we would consider a Base Domain Name is the Code of Conduct Exemption, not the existence of Specification 13 in the Registry Agreement.
You list several examples of TLDs which have Specification 13 but not Code of Conduct Exemptions. .google is a very good example of the difference. Charleston Road Registry (a division of Google) has both .google and .goog. .google has Spec13 and .goog has a CCE. There clearly was some logic in having both. Maybe one of our colleagues from Google can consult their colleagues from the registry to confirm whether they believe Spec13 and/or CCE are appropriate indicators of base domain. Thanks, Peter > On Jun 30, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Bruce Morton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > I thought that the Base Domain Name was made up of two parts: 1) domain name > node to a registry-controlled or public suffix, and 2) the > registry-controlled or public suffix. So a Base Domain Name can be > example.com or example.co.uk. > > I also thought that there was an exception if the gTLD had ICANN > specification 13 applied. In this case the gTLD could be both 1 and 2. So for > .ford, then I could just verify .ford. I think I could also have a server at > https://ford. It would be great if that could be confirmed, especially since > we might have some experience as I see that .apple, .google and .microsoft > are all gTLDs with ICANN specification 13. > > Your proposal does not address the exception for specification 13. In fact, I > think your proposal is adding items which are part 2 of the Base Domain Name. > > Thanks, Bruce. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Public [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Bowen > via Public > Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:03 AM > To: CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL][cabfpub] Base Domain Name correction > > The Baseline Requirements have a definition of “Base Domain Name” which seems > to reference the wrong ICANN standard. Right now it says: > >> Base Domain Name: The portion of an applied‐for FQDN that is the first >> domain name node left of a registry‐ controlled or public suffix plus the >> registry‐controlled or public suffix (e.g. "example.co.uk" or >> "example.com"). For FQDNs where the right‐most domain name node is a gTLD >> having ICANN Specification 13 in its registry agreement, the gTLD itself may >> be used as the Base Domain Name. > > Based on discussions with some colleagues who are very knowledgeable in ICANN > processes, I suggest a change to the last sentence to read: > >> For FQDNs where the right‐most domain name label is a gTLD for which a Code >> of Conduct Notice of Exemption was granted by ICANN >> (https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer), >> or where the right-mode domain label is “mil", the gTLD itself may be used >> as the Base Domain Name. > > The former definition currently references Specification 13, but Spec 13 > allows registrations by companies that license trademarks. For example, > independent auto dealers can operate websites under their licensed brand > (e.g. http://www.mh-autoforum-giessen.audi/ ). Conversely, the exemption > explicitly says: > > 1) All domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained > by, Registry Operator for the exclusive use of Registry Operator or its > affiliates > 2) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of > any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an affiliate of > Registry Operator > > This is the appropriate standard to treat the TLD as the registered domain. > There are currently 78 TLDs that have been granted an exemption: .able, > .agakhan, .akdn, .allfinanz, .aramco, .axa, .bcn, .bond, .broadway, .cal, > .catholic, .cityeats, .crs, .dclk, .dev, .dot, .drive, .erni, .eurovision, > .firmdale, .foo, .ftr, .gbiz, .gle, .globo, .goog, .gotv, .guge, .hangout, > .helsinki, .imamat, .ismaili, .jprs, .kerryhotels, .kerrylogistics, > .kerryproperties, .kfh, .kred, .kuokgroup, .lasalle, .lds, .lifestyle, > .living, .mango, .med, .mma, .mormon, .movistar, .neustar, .nra, .observer, > .office, .ollo, .play, .pohl, .prod, .quest, .realtor, .redumbrella, > .richardli, .sakura, .seat, .shriram, .stc, .stcgroup, .telefonica, .thd, > .travelersinsurance, .trv, .vana, .viva, .xn--80aqecdr1a, .xn--mgbi4ecexp, > .xn--tiq49xqyj, .yamaxun, xn--mgba3a3ejt, xn--ngbe9e0a, xn--w4r85el8fhu5dnra > > The change also recognizes that “mil”, which is a pre-ICANN non-CCTLD, > follows the same rules; everything under .mil is part of the United States > Department of Defense and .mil has no concept of public registrations. > > I believe that this change is in line with the current expectations and will > hopefully be non-controversial. > > Thanks, > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > Public mailing list > [email protected] > https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public _______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
