Two-Character Letter/Letter Label Comments and Mitigation Measures
As of 13 December 2016, this page is no longer active. Please visit here for more information.
For comments submitted before 6 October 2015, view the archive of comments received.
| TLD | Two Characters | Comments from Government | Last updated | RO Mitigation Plan | RO Name | BRAND TLD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| nationwide | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| schwarz | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| toray | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| weber | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | na | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| bms | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| free | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| insurance | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| juniper | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| latrobe | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlatrobe MitigationBy Latrobe University Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-26 | Latrobe University | Yes |
| lefrak | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlefrak MitigationBy LeFrak Organization, Inc. Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: [Registry Operator] has applied for .[TLD] to run a closed .brand environment. 2016-04-19 | LeFrak Organization, Inc. | Yes |
| lupin | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| mattel | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationmattel MitigationBy Mattel Sites, Inc. .MATTEL gTLD Confusion Avoidance Plan View Documents 2016-04-19 | Mattel Sites, Inc. | Yes |
| nationwide | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| shangrila | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| xn--5su34j936bgsg | in | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| bms | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| emerson | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| free | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| gmbh | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigation View Documents 2016-04-25 | Donuts Inc. | No |
| insurance | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| juniper | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| lidl | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| lupin | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| nationwide | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| schwarz | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| toray | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| weber | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | in | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| bms | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| free | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| insurance | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| juniper | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| latrobe | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlatrobe MitigationBy Latrobe University Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-26 | Latrobe University | Yes |
| lefrak | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlefrak MitigationBy LeFrak Organization, Inc. Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: [Registry Operator] has applied for .[TLD] to run a closed .brand environment. 2016-04-19 | LeFrak Organization, Inc. | Yes |
| lupin | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| mattel | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationmattel MitigationBy Mattel Sites, Inc. .MATTEL gTLD Confusion Avoidance Plan View Documents 2016-04-19 | Mattel Sites, Inc. | Yes |
| nationwide | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| shangrila | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| xn--5su34j936bgsg | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| bms | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| free | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| insurance | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| juniper | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| latrobe | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlatrobe MitigationBy Latrobe University Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-26 | Latrobe University | Yes |
| lefrak | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationlefrak MitigationBy LeFrak Organization, Inc. Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: [Registry Operator] has applied for .[TLD] to run a closed .brand environment. 2016-04-19 | LeFrak Organization, Inc. | Yes |
| lupin | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| mattel | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationmattel MitigationBy Mattel Sites, Inc. .MATTEL gTLD Confusion Avoidance Plan View Documents 2016-04-19 | Mattel Sites, Inc. | Yes |
| nationwide | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| shangrila | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| xn--5su34j936bgsg | ln | View Comments 2016-02-02 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| bms | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| emerson | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| free | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| gmbh | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigation View Documents 2016-04-25 | Donuts Inc. | No |
| insurance | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| juniper | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| lidl | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| lupin | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| nationwide | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| onyourside | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| rexroth | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationrexroth MitigationBy Robert Bosch GMBH Provide a brief explanation of the TLD: 2016-04-25 | Robert Bosch GMBH | Yes |
| schwarz | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | No | ||
| toray | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| weber | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | Yes | ||
| wolterskluwer | ln | View Comments 2016-02-22 | 2016-02-22 | View Mitigationwolterskluwer MitigationBy Wolters Kluwer N.V. Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-05 | Wolters Kluwer N.V. | Yes |
| amica | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| app | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | No | ||
| axa | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| bms | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigationbms MitigationBy Bristol Myers Squibb Proposed Measure to Avoid Confusion—Brand TLD (Specification 13) 2016-04-20 | Bristol Myers Squibb | Yes |
| emerson | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| extraspace | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| farmers | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| free | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | No | ||
| gmbh | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigation View Documents 2016-04-25 | Donuts Inc. | No |
| group | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigation View Documents 2016-04-25 | Donuts Inc. | No |
| insurance | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigationinsurance MitigationBy fTLD Registry Services, LLC Please see the attached file that details fTLD Registry Services' implementation plan for .BANK and .INSURANCE to avoid confusion with corresponding country codes. View Documents 2016-04-20 | fTLD Registry Services, LLC | No |
| lidl | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | No | ||
| locus | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| ltd | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigation View Documents 2016-04-25 | Donuts Inc. | No |
| lupin | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| mcd | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| mcdonalds | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | Yes | ||
| men | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigationmen MitigationBy Famous Four Media Limited By Famous Four media Limited. 2016-04-25 | Famous Four Media Limited | No |
| promo | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | No | ||
| racing | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | View Mitigationracing MitigationBy Famous Four Media Limited By Famous Four media Limited. 2016-04-25 | Famous Four Media Limited | No |
| realtor | sg | View Comments 2016-03-21 | 2016-03-21 | No |
na Comments
By Ziegie Willemse, Deputy Director - MICT, ICTD
RESPONSE TO APPLICATIONS TO AUTHORIZE TWO-CHARACTER (LETTER-LETTER) DOMAINS AT THE SECOND LEVEL BY GAC REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA: 25 MAY 2015
We hereby respectfully submit an objection to release of “.na" with the names in the subject line for its registration by the registry operators of the TLD. We further request clarification from ICANN regarding the implementation of Specification 5 of the current Registry Agreement preventing all two-character ASCII labels from registration or allocation to a registry operator at the second level within the TLD. However, such two-character label strings may be released to the extent that the registry operator reaches agreement with the relevant government and country code manager of the string as specified in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard (my emphasis added).
".na" is the country code for Namibia and the Applicants are new gTLDs. Save for an agreement between the involved Registry Operators and the Namibian Government, through facilitation by the designated government representative accredited to the GAC, the “.na" with the names in the subject line must remain reserved until assigned to a person or entity proposed, supported or accepted by the Namibian Government and the ccTLD manager for “.na”.
The objection and request for clarification are necessitated based on the following considerations:
· A national policy on the matter is due to be revised to address changes and advances in the Namibian DNS arrangements, which may require such reservations.
· The Namibian Government enacted national legislation on the operation and management of the “.na’ name and these are subject to revision, including ongoing consultations to develop a Namibian solution for the mandate to administer the “.na” name.
· The Namibian Government and wider internet community have limited understanding and appreciation for the two-character ASCII labels authorization process and need urgent and effective capacity building in this critical area from ICANN.
This would allow us to avoid third parties using the name “.na” for the wrong reasons and in a way that could negatively affect the Namibian internet community and the Government of Namibia.
We shall appreciate being informed of the decision taken in regards to our request and objection.
Kind regards,
Henri Jacob Kassen
Director for ICT Development
Ministry of ICT, Government of Namibia
in Comments
By Rahul Gosain, Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of communication and Information Technology
India is not favouring the release of Two-Character ASCII labels "in", "1n" and deceptively similar as the ccTLD ".in" at the second level. ICANN is requested that India's objection on release of Two-character ASCII labels "in" and "1n" at the second level should apply to all current and future requests from new gTLD's
in Comments
By Rahul Gosain, Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of communication and Information Technology
“India restates its position of not favouring the release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” , “1n” and deceptively similar as the ccTLD “.in” at the second level. ICANN is requested that India’s objection on release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” and “1n” at the second level should apply to all current and future requests from new gTLDs.”
in Comments
By Rahul Gosain, Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of communication and Information Technology
“India restates its position of not favouring the release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” , “1n” and deceptively similar as the ccTLD “.in” at the second level. ICANN is requested that India’s objection on release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” and “1n” at the second level should apply to all current and future requests from new gTLDs.”
in Comments
By Rahul Gosain, Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of communication and Information Technology
“India restates its position of not favouring the release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” , “1n” and deceptively similar as the ccTLD “.in” at the second level. ICANN is requested that India’s objection on release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” and “1n” at the second level should apply to all current and future requests from new gTLDs.”
in Comments
By Rahul Gosain, Director, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of communication and Information Technology
“India restates its position of not favouring the release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” , “1n” and deceptively similar as the ccTLD “.in” at the second level. ICANN is requested that India’s objection on release of Two-Character ASCII Labels “in”, “ln” and “1n” at the second level should apply to all current and future requests from new gTLDs.”
sg Comments
By Queh Ser Pheng, Deputy Director, Internet Resource Management, Policy & Competition Development Group, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
We hereby respectfully submit our comment regarding the release of letter/letter two-character labels as second level domains.
At this stage, we are unable to agree to the release of the two-character "sg" label at the second-level under gTLDs because of the concern that such use would create public confusion with the ccTLD "sg" representing Singapore. Until further notice, this policy is to be applied to all gTLDs who have requested or will be requesting for the release of letter-letter two-character labels at the second level.
To elaborate further, we are open to considering the release of "sg" to registry operators who have robust framework in place to address concerns of government. We recognise there are legitimate and valid reasons for such use. However, we are of the view that it is prudent for ICANN to first put in place a holistic and robust framework before approvals can be given. More thoughts need to be given to the evaluation process and in particular the remedies available should a registry operator use the approved names in an undesirable manner. Besides possible public confusion with the corresponding country code and/or country/territory name, we are also concerned with:
(a) The possible reputational harm if ".sg.
(b) The direct harm if ".sg.
ICANN's current policy focuses only on the "initial release" process. There needs to be considerations given to "post-release" issues. As such, the ICANN framework should include:
(a) A recourse for the government/country code manager to issue a notice to object to the content and/or manner-of-use that is misleading, questionable, objectionable or contrary to the country’s reputation and laws. There should be an effective and robust process acceptable by the government/country code manager for the registry operator to address the concern; and
(b) Provisions to require the registry operator to re-seek approval from government/country code manager should there be material changes in ownership or organisational control (for example merger with or acquisitions by another entity).
In addition, ICANN must be committed to take actions against the registry operator should they fail to comply with the framework (e.g. implement a process for country/territory to raise objections to ICANN and for ICANN to take appropriate remedial actions such as remove/delete/revoke affected names).
