Hubbry Logo
Second-level domainSecond-level domainMain
Open search
Second-level domain
Community hub
Second-level domain
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Second-level domain
Second-level domain
Second-level domain
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the Domain Name System (DNS) hierarchy, a second-level domain (SLD or 2LD) is a domain that is directly below a top-level domain (TLD). For example, in example.com, example is the second-level domain of the .com TLD.

Second-level domains commonly refer to the organization that registered the domain name with a domain name registrar. Some domain name registries introduce a second-level hierarchy to a TLD that indicates the type of entity intended to register an SLD under it. For example, in the .uk namespace a college or other academic institution would register under the .ac.uk ccSLD, while companies would register under .co.uk. Strictly speaking, domains like .ac.uk and .co.uk are second level domain themselves, since they are directly below a TLD in the hierarchy. A list of Internet top-level domains (TLDs) can be found at the IANA.[1] An ordinal-free term to denote domains under which people can register their own domain name is public suffix domain (PSD).

Country-code second-level domains

[edit]
Main article: Country code second-level domain

Algeria

[edit]
Main article: .dz § Second-level domains

Australia

[edit]
Main article: .au § Second-level domains

Austria

[edit]
Main article: .at § Second-level domains

In Austria there are two second-level domains available for the public:

  • .co.at intended for commercial enterprises
  • .or.at intended for organizations.[2]

The second-level domain

  • .priv.at is restricted to Austrian citizens only, while
  • .ac.at and .gv.at are reserved for educational institutions and governmental bodies respectively.[3][4]

Bangladesh

[edit]
Main article: .bd § Second-level domains
  • .com.bd, .net.bd and .org.bd is open for registration for all Bangladeshi citizens and companies.
  • .edu.bd and .ac.bd is open for all kinds of educational institutions in Bangladesh.
  • .info.bd is restricted for personal use.
  • .co.bd is open for companies or agencies. But presently not available for registration.
  • .gov.bd is restricted to the government entities.
  • .mil.bd is restricted for military use.
  • .tv.bd is open for broadcasting and media agencies.

Brazil

[edit]
Main article: .br § Second-level domains

France

[edit]
Main article: .fr

In France, there are various second-level domains available for certain sectors, including

  • .avocat.fr for attorneys,
  • .aeroport.fr for airports and
  • .veterinaire.fr for vets.[5]

Hungary

[edit]
Main article: .hu

New Zealand

[edit]
Main article: .nz § Second-level domains

Nigeria

[edit]
Main article: .ng § Second level domains
  • com.ng – open domain, commercial entities and businesses
  • org.ng – semi-open domain, non-commercial organizations
  • gov.ng – closed domain, governmental organizations
  • edu.ng – closed domain, degree awarding institutions
  • net.ng – closed domain, ISP infrastructure
  • sch.ng – closed domain, secondary schools
  • name.ng – open domain, individuals
  • mobi.ng – open domain, suitable for mobile devices
  • mil.ng – closed domain (Nigerian military establishments only)
  • i.ng – open domain, any purpose

Pakistan

[edit]
Main article: .pk § Domain categories

India

[edit]
Main article: .in § Second-level domains

As of 2005, liberalised policies for the .in domain allow unlimited second-level registrations under .in. Unlimited registrations under the previously structured existing zones are also allowed:

  • .in (available to anyone; used by companies, individuals, and organisations in India)
  • .co.in (intended for banks, registered companies, and trademarks)
  • .com.in (available to anyone; used by companies, individuals, and organisations in India)
  • .firm.in (intended for shops, partnerships, liaison offices, sole proprietorships)
  • .net.in (intended for Internet service providers)
  • .org.in (intended for nonprofit organisations)
  • .gen.in (intended for general/miscellaneous use)
  • .ind.in (intended for individuals)

Zones reserved for use by qualified institutions in India:

  • .ernet.in (Older, for both educational and research institutes)
  • .ac.in (Academic institutions)

Before the introduction of liberalised registration policies for the .in domain, only 7000 names had been registered between 1992 and 2004. As of March 2010, the number had increased to over 610,000 domain names with 60% of registrations coming from India and the rest from overseas. By October 2011, the number had surpassed 1 million domain names. As of March 2016, the number has more than doubled to over 2 million domain names.

Israel

[edit]
Main article: .il § Second level domains

Japan

[edit]
Main article: .jp § Second level domains

Russia

[edit]
Main article: .ru § Second-level domains

South Africa

[edit]
Main article: .za § Second-level domains

South Korea

[edit]
Main article: .kr § Domains and subdomains

Spain

[edit]
Main article: .es § Second-level domains

Sri Lanka

[edit]
Main article: .lk § Second-level domains

Registrations are taken at the second level and also at the third level beneath various categorized second level names. A second-level registration automatically blocks the name from registration by anybody else under any of the third-level names.

  • .com.lk: Commercial entities
  • .org.lk: Noncommercial organizations
  • .edu.lk: Educational sites
  • .ngo.lk: Non-governmental organizations
  • .soc.lk: Registered societies
  • .web.lk: Web sites
  • .ltd.lk: Limited liability companies
  • .assn.lk: Associations
  • .grp.lk: Groups of companies
  • .hotel.lk: Hotels

Thailand

[edit]
Main article: .th § Second level domains

Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]
Main article: .tt
  • co.tt
  • com.tt
  • org.tt
  • net.tt
  • travel.tt
  • museum.tt
  • aero.tt
  • tel.tt
  • name.tt
  • charity.tt
  • mil.tt
  • edu.tt
  • gov.tt

Turkey

[edit]
Main article: .tr § Third-level

In Turkey, domain registrations, including the registration of second-level domains is administrated by TRABİS.[6] There 22 active second-level domains under the .tr TLD.[7] The registration of domains is restricted to Turkish individuals and businesses, or foreign companies with a business activity in Turkey.[8] Second-level domains include .com.tr for commercial ventures, .edu.tr for academic institutions and .name.tr for personal use.[7] Turkey second-level domains include:

  • gov.tr (reserved for the Government of Turkey and state institutions/organizations)
  • mil.tr (reserved for the Turkish Armed Forces; retired in 2010 and replaced by tsk.tr)
  • tsk.tr (reserved for the Turkish Armed Forces; used since 2010)
  • k12.tr (reserved for schools approved by the Ministry of National Education)
  • edu.tr (reserved for higher education institutions approved by the Council of Higher Education)
  • av.tr (reserved for freelance lawyers, law firms and attorney partnerships)
  • dr.tr (reserved for medical doctors, medical partnerships, hospitals, and healthcare services)
  • bel.tr (reserved for provincial, district, and town municipal organizations and governments)
  • pol.tr (reserved for the General Directorate of Security and police)
  • kep.tr (reserved for Registered Electronic Mail Service Providers [KEPHS] authorized by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority)
  • com.tr (intended for commercial entities)
  • net.tr (reserved for network operators/providers, as well as internet-related access services such as portals, e-mail, etc.)
  • org.tr (reserved for nonprofit entities such as foundations, associations, and non-governmental organizations)
  • info.tr (intended for informational websites)
  • bbs.tr (reserved for entities providing BBS services)
  • nom.tr (reserved for individual/personal use)
  • tv.tr (reserved for entities in the television industry)
  • biz.tr (intended for commercial entities)
  • tel.tr (reserved for use in connection with Turkish telephone numbers)
  • gen.tr (general use)
  • web.tr (general use)
  • name.tr (reserved for individual/personal use)[7]

Ukraine

[edit]
Main article: .ua § Second-level domains

Ukraine second-level domains include:

  • .gov.ua – available for government agencies.
  • .com.ua – for commercial use.
  • .in.ua – for commercial use.
  • .org.ua – intended for non-profit organizations.
  • .net.ua – intended for Internet providers.
  • .edu.ua – for academic institutions.

There are also numerous geographic names.

United Kingdom

[edit]
Main article: .uk § Second-level domains

United States

[edit]
Main article: .us § States and territories

A two-letter second-level domain is formally reserved for each U.S. state, federal territory, and the District of Columbia.

Zambia

[edit]
Main article: .zm § Second-level domains

Historic second-level domains

[edit]

There are several second-level domains which are no longer available.

Australia

[edit]

Second-level domains under .au which are no longer available include: .conf.au originally intended for conferences; .gw.au for the Australian Academic and Research networks; info.au for general information, .otc.au and .telememo.au for the X.400 mail systems.[9]

Canada

[edit]

Prior to 12 Oct 2010 there were second level domain based on province: .ab.ca — Alberta, .bc.ca — British Columbia, .mb.ca — Manitoba, .nb.ca — New Brunswick, .nf.ca — Newfoundland, .nl.ca — Newfoundland and Labrador, .ns.ca — Nova Scotia, .nt.ca — Northwest Territories, .nu.ca — Nunavut, .on.ca — Ontario, .pe.ca — Prince Edward Island, .qc.ca — Quebec, .sk.ca — Saskatchewan, .yk.ca — Yukon [citation needed]

Since 2010, some have been replaced (for example, alberta.ca) while others have remained under the provincial two letter SLD (e.g., Calgary Board of Education www.cbe.ab.ca) and others were moved to more traditional subdomains (www.transportation.alberta.ca).[10]

France

[edit]

Historic second-level domains for France included: .tm.fr (for brands), .com.fr (for commercial use) and .asso.fr. [11][12]

The Netherlands

[edit]

Historic second-level domains for the Netherlands included: .co.nl (for commercial use)[13][14]

Yugoslavia

[edit]

In 2006 the .yu ccTLD was replaced by .rs (for Serbia) and .me (for Montenegro). Second-level domains under .yu included: .ac.yu – for academic institutions, .co.yu for commercial enterprises; .org.yu for organizations and .cg.yu for residents of Montenegro. Only legal entities were allowed to register names under .yu and its second-level domains.[15]

Tuvalu

[edit]

Historic second-level domains for Tuvalu included: co.tv

[edit]

As a result of ICANN's generic top-level domain (gTLD) expansion,[16] the risk of domain squatting has increased significantly. For example, based on current regulations, the registration of the gTLDs .olympics or .redcross is not allowed; however, the registration of sites such as olympics.example or redcross.example is not controlled.[17] Experts say [who?] that further restrictions are needed for second-level domains under the new gTLD .health, as well. For example, second-level domains under .tobacco.health or .diet.health can be easily misused by companies and therefore are a potential threat to Internet users.[18]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Second-level domain

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In the (DNS), a second-level domain (SLD) is the portion of a that appears immediately to the left of the (TLD), forming the primary label under which websites, email, and other services are hosted. For example, in the "whois.icann.org", "icann" serves as the second-level domain, while "org" is the and "whois" is a third-level subdomain. Second-level domains represent the foundational unit of ownership in the DNS hierarchy, enabling registrants—such as individuals, businesses, or organizations—to secure a within a chosen TLD for establishing an online presence. Registration of SLDs is overseen by TLD registry operators, who define policies on eligibility, renewal terms, and pricing, often through accredited registrars that facilitate the process for end users. Once registered, SLD owners gain authority to create and manage an unlimited number of subdomains at lower levels, supporting complex structures like departmental websites (e.g., "blog.example.com") or localized services (e.g., [email protected]). SLDs operate across all TLD categories, including generic TLDs (gTLDs) like .com and .org, which are globally available for broad use, and country-code TLDs (ccTLDs) like .us and .uk, where SLDs may incorporate geographic or functional subdivisions to align with national regulations. The system also accommodates internationalized domain names (IDNs) at the second level, allowing non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese characters to enhance global accessibility, subject to label generation rules established by ICANN to prevent conflicts. This structure ensures scalability and stability in the DNS, with over 378 million registered SLDs worldwide as of September 2025, underscoring their critical role in internet addressing.

Fundamentals

Definition and hierarchy

A second-level domain (SLD), also known as a second-level label, is the portion of a (FQDN) that immediately precedes the (TLD), serving as the primary identifier under a given TLD. For instance, in the FQDN "example.com", "example" constitutes the SLD. This label is typically alphanumeric, limited to 63 characters, and must be unique within its TLD to prevent naming conflicts. Within the Domain Name System (DNS), SLDs occupy a specific position in the hierarchical tree structure that organizes the global namespace, starting from the root zone at the apex. The hierarchy descends as follows: the root (represented by a null label or ".") delegates to TLDs (e.g., .com or .org), which in turn encompass SLDs as their immediate subdomains; SLDs may further delegate to third-level domains or hosts (e.g., www.example.com).[](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1034.html) This structure enables distributed management, where the root zone file points to TLD name servers, and TLD operators maintain authoritative records for their SLDs. SLDs represent the primary registrable units in this namespace, as they are the level at which individuals or organizations typically acquire domain names for use. Key to this hierarchy is the concept of , where authority over portions of the is passed from higher to lower levels via (NS) resource records, allowing TLD registries to manage and register SLDs independently. Registries, contracted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers () for generic TLDs or by relevant authorities for country-code TLDs, operate the databases for SLD registrations under their TLD, ensuring availability, stability, and resolution through the DNS protocol. This model partitions the into zones, with each SLD zone potentially containing its own subdomains while remaining subordinate to the TLD zone. The hierarchical framework for SLDs originated in the foundational DNS specifications outlined in RFC 1034 ("Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities") and RFC 1035 ("Domain Names - Implementation and Specification"), published in November 1987 by the (IETF). These documents established the tree-like naming system to replace flat host tables, introducing SLDs as essential components for scalable, delegated administration of addresses.

Distinction from other domain levels

Second-level domains (SLDs) occupy a distinct position in the Domain Name System (DNS) hierarchy, immediately below top-level domains (TLDs) such as .com or .org. TLDs represent the highest level after the zone and are delegated by the (IANA), which maintains the root zone database and coordinates their operation through root name servers. In contrast, SLDs like "example" in example.com are not directly managed by IANA but are instead delegated to and administered by registry operators under the authority of the TLD, with responsibilities including registration processing, database maintenance, and DNS record provisioning. SLDs differ from third-level domains, which function as subdomains under the SLD and are typically created and controlled by the SLD registrant rather than the registry. For instance, in the domain www.example.com, "www" is a third-level domain (subdomain) pointing to specific services like a website's homepage, while "example" remains the core SLD as the primary registrable entity in most TLDs. This structure allows SLDs to serve as the foundational unit for domain ownership, with third-level domains added optionally for organizational purposes. A common misconception arises around "naked domains," which refer to the SLD combined with the TLD without any subdomain prefix, such as example.com, as opposed to extended forms like www.example.com that include subdomains or even full URLs with paths. In certain country code TLDs (ccTLDs), however, the SLD may function primarily as a structural category rather than a directly registrable unit; for example, under .uk, registrations often occur at the third level beneath predefined SLDs like "co.uk" for commercial entities, where "co" is a delegated second-level label managed by the registry but not available for independent registration. This setup can lead to confusion, as the effective registrable name appears as a third-level domain while adhering to the overall DNS hierarchy. An important edge case involves internationalized domain names (IDNs) registered at the second level, which support non-ASCII characters from various scripts to accommodate global languages. To maintain compatibility with the ASCII-restricted DNS protocol, these IDNs are encoded using Punycode, a bootstring-based transformation that converts Unicode strings into ASCII equivalents prefixed with "xn--", such as a hypothetical non-Latin SLD appearing as xn--example.com in the registry. This encoding ensures seamless resolution while preserving the SLD's role as the key registrable component under the TLD.

Applications in top-level domains

In generic top-level domains

Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are categorized into unsponsored and sponsored types, where second-level domains (SLDs) are registered directly beneath the gTLD. Unsponsored gTLDs, such as .com and .net, operate for the general benefit of all Internet users without specific community restrictions, allowing broad registration of SLDs by individuals or organizations. Sponsored gTLDs, like .edu and .gov, are tied to particular communities—educational institutions and U.S. government entities, respectively—and while SLDs are also registered directly, eligibility criteria apply to ensure alignment with the sponsor's mission. Registration of SLDs in gTLDs is handled exclusively by ICANN-accredited registrars, who interface with registry operators to facilitate the process. To register, applicants search for availability using WHOIS or RDAP protocols, which query public databases to confirm if the desired SLD is unregistered. Valid SLDs must consist of 1 to 63 characters, using only letters (a-z), digits (0-9), and hyphens (-), with no hyphens at the start or end, and must begin with a letter or digit per the syntax rules outlined in RFC 1035. Registrants provide contact details, including name, address, email, and phone, which are stored in WHOIS records unless protected by privacy services. Prominent examples include "google" in google.com, a classic unsponsored gTLD SLD used for commercial purposes, and "harvard" in harvard.edu, illustrating a sponsored gTLD restricted to accredited U.S. higher education institutions. As of the third quarter of 2025, .com alone hosts 159.4 million SLD registrations, underscoring its dominance in the gTLD ecosystem and the massive scale of global domain usage. The landscape of gTLD SLDs expanded significantly following ICANN's 2012 New gTLD Program, which opened applications for new extensions and resulted in over 1,200 delegations by 2023, including community-specific ones like .app (for mobile applications) and .blog (for publishing platforms). This initiative has diversified SLD options, enabling more targeted branding while maintaining the direct registration model under each gTLD.

In country code top-level domains

Country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) are two-letter top-level domains designated for countries, territories, or other geographic entities based on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard, such as .uk for the United Kingdom and .au for Australia. These domains are delegated and overseen by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which maintains the root zone database and coordinates with national or regional registries responsible for their operation. As of 2025, there are over 300 active ccTLDs, representing a diverse global ecosystem managed independently by local authorities to reflect national policies and user needs. In ccTLDs, second-level domains (SLDs) frequently serve as a required layer for domain registrations, creating structured sub-namespaces that categorize users by purpose or sector, such as commercial, organizational, or governmental uses—for instance, .com.au for businesses or .co.uk for companies. This approach contrasts with many generic top-level domains (gTLDs), where direct SLD registrations under the TLD are more common without such mandatory categorization. The primary purpose of these SLDs is to organize the namespace efficiently, enabling targeted policies for different user groups like academia or non-profits, which enhances local relevance and administrative control. The implementation of SLDs in ccTLDs offers several advantages, including strengthened local governance through registry-specific rules that align with national regulations and cultural contexts. This structure facilitates spam and abuse mitigation by imposing eligibility checks and restrictions at the SLD level, resulting in lower phishing and malicious registration rates compared to unrestricted namespaces. Additionally, SLDs support internationalized domain names (IDNs) in ccTLDs, allowing registrations in native scripts to better serve non-Latin language communities, as seen with the .рф IDN ccTLD for Russia. Overall, these features promote a more tailored and secure domain ecosystem under IANA's coordination.

Country code second-level domains

Africa

In African country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), second-level domains (SLDs) are commonly structured to categorize registrations by purpose, such as commercial, organizational, governmental, or academic activities, reflecting a regional emphasis on localized digital identity amid growing internet adoption. This approach facilitates easier management and relevance for users, with many registries adopting patterns like .com.[ccTLD] or .co.[ccTLD] for commercial entities to mirror global conventions while promoting economic sectors. As of late 2023, registrations under African ccTLDs totaled over 4.33 million, underscoring the continent's expanding online presence, though growth varies by country due to infrastructure and policy differences. Projections indicate continued expansion at an average annual growth rate of 12.4%, potentially exceeding 5 million by late 2025. A prominent example is Algeria's .dz ccTLD, managed by the National Center (NIC.DZ), which offers SLDs including .com.dz for commercial entities, .org.dz for organizations, and .gov.dz for bodies, alongside others like .asso.dz for associations and .net.dz for network providers. These SLDs require local presence or , supporting Algeria's focus on national digital . Nigeria's .ng ccTLD, overseen by the Nigeria Registration Association (NiRA) since its establishment in 2009, features SLDs such as .com.ng for commercial use, .org.ng for organizations, and .gov.ng for entities. Direct registration at the second level (e.g., example.ng) became available starting in 2013, enhancing accessibility, with active .ng domains reaching over 111,000 by mid-2018 and growing to approximately 229,000 by April 2025. South Africa's .za ccTLD, regulated by the .ZA Domain Name Authority (ZADNA), maintains an extensive SLD framework, including .co.za for commercial purposes, .org.za for non-profits, .gov.za for government, and .ac.za for academic institutions. This structure has driven high adoption, with .za registrations exceeding 1.3 million as of 2025, making it the dominant African ccTLD and exemplifying mature liberalization policies. Other African ccTLDs follow similar patterns, such as Zambia's .zm, administered by the Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority (ZICTA), which includes .co.zm and .com.zm for commercial entities, alongside .biz.zm for businesses and .ac.zm for academics. Trends toward liberalization are evident in countries like Kenya's .ke ccTLD, managed by the Kenya Network Information Centre (KeNIC), where .co.ke supports commercial registrations and has seen increased promotion in the 2020s to boost local business online visibility, contributing to over 111,000 total .ke domains as of June 2025. Overall, these SLD implementations in African ccTLDs prioritize commercial growth through dedicated namespaces like .com.[ccTLD], aligning with broader continental efforts to enhance digital economies, though challenges like varying regulatory maturity persist.

Asia

In , second-level domains (SLDs) under country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) exhibit diverse structures tailored to national needs, often incorporating sector-specific categories to support economic and administrative functions in rapidly digitizing economies. India's .in ccTLD, managed by the (NIXI), features prominent SLDs including .co.in for commercial purposes, .org.in for non-profit organizations, and .gov.in for government entities, with .nic.in reserved for the National Informatics Centre's registry operations. By 2025, the .in registry has surpassed 4 million domain registrations, reflecting India's booming digital sector. Japan's .jp ccTLD, administered by Registry Services (JPRS) since its establishment in , enforces strict eligibility requiring a permanent Japanese address for registrations. Key SLDs include .co.jp for corporations, .or.jp for non-profits and associations, and .ac.jp for academic institutions, promoting organized allocation in one of Asia's most mature markets. South Korea's .kr ccTLD, overseen by the Korea Network Information Center (KRNIC), supports second-level registrations in both and characters via Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). Common SLDs are .co.kr for businesses, .or.kr for organizations, and .go.kr for government bodies, enabling culturally resonant online identities amid high penetration. Other Asian countries similarly leverage SLDs for targeted use: Pakistan's .pk ccTLD, managed by PKNIC, includes .com.pk for commercial sites, facilitating e-commerce in a growing online economy. In Bangladesh, the .bd ccTLD under BTCL administration uses .com.bd for commercial registrations, with a 2025 expansion to direct second-level .bd domains to enhance flexibility. Thailand's .th ccTLD, governed by THNIC, employs .co.th for companies, requiring Thai entity status and aligning with policies for second-level registrations introduced in phases since 2014. Regionally, Asian ccTLDs show heavy reliance on sector-specific SLDs to categorize users, from to , which supports regulatory oversight and trust. This trend is amplified by expansion, where SLDs like .com.[ccTLD] gain popularity for local branding and SEO in markets projected to drive Asia's digital economy growth to over $300 billion by 2025.

Europe

In European country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), second-level domains (SLDs) often serve to categorize registrations by purpose or sector, while direct second-level registrations under the ccTLD have become increasingly common to simplify access and align with broader goals. This structure supports multilingual Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) for languages such as German, French, Spanish, and Cyrillic-based ones in , enabling native script usage under frameworks like the EU's regulation for . The European Union's (GDPR), effective since 2018, significantly influences SLD and direct registration processes by mandating privacy protections for registrant data, often resulting in redacted outputs and requiring consent-based data handling across ccTLD registries. In the 's . ccTLD, managed by Nominet, traditional SLDs include .co.uk for commercial entities, .org.uk for non-profits and organizations, and .gov.uk exclusively for government bodies and organizations. Direct registrations at the second level under .uk (e.g., example.uk) were introduced in June 2014, allowing broader access without mandatory SLDs and phasing out exclusive reliance on third-level options like .co.uk. France's .fr ccTLD, overseen by AFNIC, prioritizes direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.fr), a policy favored since March 2009 to streamline procedures and expand eligibility to EU residents. Prior to this simplification in the late 2000s and early 2010s, registrations were more restricted to third-level SLDs such as .com.fr for commercial use, but these have been de-emphasized in favor of the direct model to boost adoption. Germany's .de ccTLD, administered by , operates primarily through direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.de) with no mandatory SLDs, making it one of Europe's most straightforward systems since its inception. While subdomains (third-level, e.g., sub.example.de) are commonly used for organizational purposes, the absence of required SLDs supports flexible, direct access open to global registrants since local presence rules were relaxed in 2018. Other notable examples include 's .es ccTLD, managed by the Network Information Centre of Spain (NIC.es), where SLDs like .com.es are designated for commercial activities alongside direct .es registrations. In , the .ru ccTLD under the Coordination Center for TLD .RU/.РФ supports both direct second-level registrations and legacy third-level SLDs such as .com.ru for commercial purposes, with a policy shift encouraging direct .ru usage for simplicity since the early 2010s. Ukraine's .ua ccTLD, handled by Hostmaster LLC, features sector-specific SLDs including .gov.ua for government entities, .com.ua for businesses, .edu.ua for educational institutions, and .net.ua for networks, promoting targeted allocations while allowing limited direct .ua registrations. As of , European ccTLDs collectively hold approximately 77 million registrations, representing about 20% of the global domain market, with GDPR compliance enhancing trust in data handling for these SLD structures.

In , second-level domains under top-level domains (ccTLDs) exhibit varied structures, often overshadowed by the dominance of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) like .com, which account for approximately 78% of domain adoptions in the region. This preference stems from the global recognition and ease of use of gTLDs, limiting ccTLD uptake despite efforts to promote local identities. Among major North American ccTLDs, the ' .us and Canada's .ca illustrate this trend, with .us showing particularly low utilization. The .us ccTLD, administered under oversight from the U.S. (NTIA), supports second-level domains organized by and affinity groups, as outlined in RFC 1480. Examples include state-specific domains like ca.us (for entities) and affinity namespaces such as .gov.us (reserved for federal government use) and .k12.us (for educational institutions). Direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.us) became available to U.S. citizens, residents, or entities with a U.S. nexus starting in 2002, but adoption has remained modest, with only about 1.8 million registrations as of 2023—far below .com's scale—due to the entrenched preference for gTLDs. In the 2010s, promotional efforts by registry operator , including marketing campaigns and partnerships, led to a slight uptick in registrations, achieving a of around 4.4% from 2014 onward, though .com.us remains rarely used outside niche contexts. Canada's .ca ccTLD, managed by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA), emphasizes direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.ca) for general use, with eligibility restricted to individuals or entities demonstrating Canadian presence—such as citizenship, residency, or business incorporation—enforced since to prioritize national identity. Second-level domains like .gc.ca (for federal government) and provincial ones such as .on.ca (for ) support specialized sectors, while legacy third-level options like .com.ca (commercial) and .org.ca (organizations) persist for grandfathered registrations but are not available for new ones. This structure has fostered stronger adoption than .us, reaching 3.4 million registrations by 2023, though growth slowed to 1.4% that year amid gTLD competition. In , the .mx ccTLD, overseen by NIC México, features prominent second-level domains tailored to entity types, including .com.mx for commercial purposes (open to all since 2009) and .net.mx for network providers. Direct .mx registrations (e.g., example.mx) are also permitted without restrictions, promoting broader accessibility and contributing to over 1 million total .mx domains. Similarly, Trinidad and Tobago's .tt ccTLD, managed by TTNIC, offers second-level domains such as .com.tt and .co.tt for commercial and corporate use, alongside direct .tt options (e.g., example.tt), with no local presence requirement for most registrations. These examples highlight regional patterns where ccTLD second-level domains enhance local relevance, yet overall North American reliance on gTLDs persists, with .us liberalization in the yielding only marginal gains in SLD utilization.

Oceania

In Oceania, the second-level domain (SLD) structures for country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) are prominently featured in Australia and New Zealand, with variations in smaller Pacific island nations. Australia's .au ccTLD, managed by the .au Domain Administration (auDA), employs a segmented SLD system to categorize registrations by purpose, including .com.au for commercial and business entities, .org.au for non-profit organizations, .gov.au for government bodies, and .edu.au for educational institutions. This structure ensures eligibility-based allocation, with auDA overseeing policy enforcement and registry operations through Identity Digital Australia. Since March 24, 2022, direct registrations at the second level (e.g., example.au) have been permitted alongside traditional SLDs, enhancing flexibility for individuals and businesses while maintaining strict nexus requirements for Australian connection. New Zealand's .nz ccTLD, administered by the Domain Name Commission (DNC) under InternetNZ, similarly utilizes SLDs for functional segmentation, with .co.nz serving as the primary for commercial purposes and .org.nz for organizations, mirroring the purpose-driven approach of .au. Direct .nz registrations are also supported, contributing to high adoption rates; as of August 2025, total .nz registrations exceeded 756,000, reflecting robust usage in a population of about 5.3 million. Like .au, .nz emphasizes moderated SLDs for sectors such as government (.govt.nz) and education (.ac.nz), promoting organized within the namespace. Among smaller Oceanic nations, 's .tv ccTLD operates primarily through direct second-level registrations without widespread SLD implementation, allowing global commercial sales that capitalize on the "TV" abbreviation for media and broadcasting entities. Reserved SLDs like .gov.tv exist for local third-level use, but the model prioritizes unrestricted direct access, generating significant revenue for Tuvalu despite limited domestic adoption. Regionally, Oceania's ccTLDs, dominated by .au and .nz, total over 4.9 million registrations as of mid-2025, with .au alone surpassing 4.2 million under management. A key focus across these domains is anti-abuse measures, including auDA's DNS abuse prevention framework to maintain trust and security, and DNC's Clean DNS tool for monitoring and mitigating malicious activities.

South America

In South America, second-level domains (SLDs) under country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) reflect the region's predominantly Spanish- and -speaking populations, with structures often incorporating language-specific categories for commercial, organizational, and governmental use. These SLDs facilitate localized online presence, supporting economic activities in a where digital adoption is rapidly growing due to increasing penetration. Regional ccTLD policies emphasize accessibility, with many allowing international registrations to attract foreign investment, while incorporating internationalized domain names (IDNs) to accommodate accented characters common in Iberian languages, such as ã in or ó in Spanish. Brazil's .br ccTLD, managed by Registro.br, operates a hierarchical system of over 140 predefined SLDs tailored to various sectors, promoting organized allocation. Key examples include .com.br for commercial entities, .org.br for non-profits, and .gov.br for government institutions, which require proof of eligibility such as business registration or official status. This structure has driven high adoption, with approximately 5.4 million domains registered under .br as of late 2025, representing over 40% of all South American ccTLD registrations and underscoring Brazil's dominant . IDN support enables registrations with Portuguese accents, enhancing usability for local users. In , the .ar ccTLD, administered by NIC Argentina, traditionally relies on SLDs like .com.ar for commercial purposes, .org.ar for organizations, and .gob.ar for government entities, which remain popular for their specificity. Since September 2020, direct second-level registrations under .ar have been opened to individuals and companies worldwide without local presence requirements, broadening access while maintaining the legacy SLD framework for targeted uses. This dual approach supports Argentina's diverse online ecosystem, with IDN capabilities allowing accented characters to align with . Chile's .cl ccTLD exemplifies a streamlined model, permitting direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.cl) open to anyone globally since its inception, without mandatory SLDs or local representatives. Managed by NIC Chile, it prioritizes simplicity and has grown to over 720,000 registrations by November 2025, fostering widespread adoption among businesses and individuals. Like its neighbors, .cl supports IDNs for Spanish accents, contributing to regional trends toward inclusive digital naming conventions. Across , the push for IDN integration in ccTLDs addresses linguistic needs, with growing support for diacritics in SLDs to improve accessibility and cultural relevance in online content. This evolution aligns with broader continental efforts to harmonize digital policies, influenced by economic blocs like , which indirectly promote cross-border digital through trade-focused infrastructure initiatives.

Historic second-level domains

Discontinued implementations

The .yu country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the former featured second-level domains (SLDs) such as .co.yu for commercial entities, .ac.yu for academic institutions, and .org.yu for organizations, which were managed under a hierarchical structure until the country's dissolution in the early 2000s. Following the breakup into successor states, including , the .yu domain and its SLDs were phased out starting in 2006, with a transition period allowing migrations to new ccTLDs like .rs for and .me for . The discontinuation was finalized on March 30, 2010, when the .yu delegation was removed from the by , as the code was deemed transitively reserved and no longer representative of an existing entity; approximately 4,000 remaining .yu domains were redirected or expired during this process. In , the .ca ccTLD operated with a restrictive second-level domain structure prior to 2000, where registrations were limited to category-specific SLDs such as .com.ca for commercial use, .net.ca for networks, .org.ca for organizations, and provincial SLDs like .on.ca for , managed informally by volunteers at the (UBC) since 1987. This system aimed to organize domains by purpose or geography but was criticized for its complexity and limited accessibility, with only about 120,000 registrations by late 2000. Upon the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) assuming control in December 2000, the policy shifted to allow direct second-level registrations (e.g., example.ca) for all eligible Canadian entities, simplifying the process and promoting broader adoption without the need for intermediary SLDs; legacy SLDs were grandfathered but new direct registrations became the standard. The .nl ccTLD for the began with informal direct registrations in the 1980s, managed by Piet Beertema at the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI). This approach, formalized after the establishment of the Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland (SIDN) in 1996, prioritized simplicity and growth, leading to the first .nl domain (cwi.nl) in 1986 and rapid expansion without mandatory SLD hierarchies. By the late , the policy fully embraced open direct registrations, avoiding the segmented SLD models seen in other ccTLDs and contributing to .nl becoming one of the largest ccTLDs with over six million domains by 2020. For Tuvalu's .tv ccTLD, initial plans in the late 1990s envisioned a structured second-level domain system to allocate domains for local governmental, educational, and commercial uses within the island nation, following its assignment in 1996. However, these SLD frameworks were abandoned after the default of the first commercial partner, Information.ca, in 1999, which had been tasked with organized distribution; instead, Tuvalu opted for a global direct-registration model through a new agreement with dotTV Corporation (later acquired by VeriSign), emphasizing unrestricted worldwide sales to capitalize on the domain's appeal for television and video-related branding. This pivot, yielding an initial $50 million deal that tripled Tuvalu's national budget, reserved only select SLDs like .gov.tv for domestic third-level use while phasing out broader structured implementations in favor of commercial openness.

Notable evolutions and transitions

In the evolution of country code top-level domains (ccTLDs), several nations have transitioned from mandatory third-level registrations under specific second-level domains (SLDs) to optional direct second-level registrations under the ccTLD itself, simplifying structures and improving accessibility. This shift often responds to user demand for shorter, more intuitive domain names while maintaining compatibility with existing namespaces. Australia's .au namespace, managed by auDA, historically required third-level registrations such as example.com.au to denote commercial use or example.org.au for non-profits, creating a layered structure that added complexity. On 24 March 2022, auDA launched direct .au registrations, enabling names like example.au for eligible Australian entities and individuals, thereby reducing administrative hurdles and aligning with international standards for concise domains. This evolution has seen rapid adoption, with .au direct becoming the second-largest namespace in .au within its first year, behind only com.au. France's .fr ccTLD, overseen by AFNIC, has supported direct second-level registrations since its early days but initially restricted them to French residents, often channeling commercial entities toward third-level options like example.com.fr. A key transition occurred on 6 December 2011, when AFNIC expanded eligibility to include residents of the , countries, , , , and , allowing broader direct access to .fr domains without geographic barriers. Building on this, AFNIC's 2014 naming policy update further liberalized rules by opening registrations for one- or two-character .fr domains during a phased sunrise and general availability period starting 8 December 2014, enhancing options for short, premium names and contributing to .fr's growth to over 2.5 million registrations by year-end. The 's . , operated by , long emphasized third-level domains like .co.uk for companies, resulting in longer names such as example.co.uk. On 10 June 2014, Nominet introduced direct .uk registrations, running parallel to existing SLDs and permitting shorter alternatives like example.uk for UK-connected registrants. This launch included a sunrise phase for holders to prioritize desirable names, followed by general availability, and has supported an ongoing migration where .uk domains now represent a growing share of the namespace, with over 300,000 registrations in the first year alone. Globally, post-2012 trends in ccTLD management have favored SLD simplification, spurred by 's new (gTLD) program launched that year, which expanded the DNS and pressured ccTLDs to streamline for competitiveness. IANA, as part of , has facilitated these changes through updated delegation guidelines and support for flexible policies, encouraging managers to adopt direct registrations to reduce user friction without disrupting legacy systems. Concurrently, transitions involving Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) in ccTLDs have gained momentum in the , with 's IDN Guidelines advancing to version 4.1 effective April 2025, enabling better integration of non-Latin scripts in direct SLDs and addressing issues like label validity and variant handling for multilingual accessibility.

Intellectual property disputes

Intellectual property disputes involving second-level domains (SLDs) primarily revolve around and , where registrants acquire domain names in to profit from confusion with established brands. The (UDRP), administered by the (ICANN), provides a key mechanism for resolving such conflicts in generic top-level domains (gTLDs) like .com, requiring complainants to demonstrate trademark rights, lack of legitimate interest by the registrant, and registration or use. This policy applies directly to SLDs within participating gTLDs, enabling arbitration through providers such as the (WIPO). For example, successfully reclaimed over 20 SLDs, including nikeairmax97.com and nike-trademark.com, in a 2018 WIPO UDRP proceeding against a cybersquatter operating counterfeit sites. In the late and early , a surge of cases in .com SLDs highlighted vulnerabilities in , prompting legislative responses. High-profile disputes, such as those involving trademarks like "ava.com" and "people.com," exposed how squatters exploited the first-come, first-served system to demand exorbitant fees or divert traffic, leading to consumer confusion and brand dilution. These incidents directly influenced the enactment of the U.S. (ACPA) in November 1999, which created a federal against bad faith registration of SLDs confusingly similar to trademarks, allowing courts to award damages up to $100,000 per domain and enabling in rem actions against domain registrars. Similar challenges emerged in country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), such as Australia's , where the auDRP—modeled after the UDRP—was introduced in 2001 to address abusive SLD registrations; for instance, Nirvana LLC secured transfer of nirvana.com.au and nirvanallc.com.au in a 2014 auDRP case before WIPO, citing by the registrant. In ccTLD SLDs, intellectual property challenges often involve generic or descriptive terms, where trademark owners seek control but face hurdles due to national policies emphasizing fair use. For example, in the .co.uk space, disputes over terms like "londonplumber.co.uk" illustrate how Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service (DRS) resolves claims by requiring evidence of abusive registration, rejecting monopolization of purely descriptive SLDs unless bad faith is proven. Such cases are typically handled through country-specific arbitration, like the UK's DRS, which prioritizes local trademark law and has seen declining filings since 2021, dropping to record lows amid stricter eligibility rules. The expansion of new gTLDs since 2012 has exacerbated registrations, creating more opportunities for squatters to target brand variants across diverse SLDs. WIPO data shows UDRP filings rising steadily, from 5,128 cases in 2021 to 6,192 in 2023 and 6,168 in 2024, reflecting over 5,000 annual disputes by and underscoring ongoing IP pressures in the domain ecosystem.

Regulatory and governance frameworks

The plays a central role in overseeing second-level domains (SLDs) within generic top-level domains (gTLDs) through contractual agreements with registry operators. These agreements outline the rights, duties, liabilities, and obligations required to operate gTLDs, including the management and registration of SLDs such as . 's gTLD Compliance Program monitors adherence to these provisions, divided into areas like data accuracy and abuse mitigation to ensure stable SLD operations. For country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), the , a function of , handles delegations and redelegations to national or local bodies upon authoritative requests, following guidelines that require managers and administrative contacts to be resident in the designated country. National regulations further shape SLD governance, often integrating cybersecurity and administrative requirements. In the , the NIS2 Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555), entered into force on January 16, 2023, with member states required to transpose it into national law by October 17, 2024, and application starting October 18, 2024, expands cybersecurity obligations for essential entities, including domain name registries, by mandating risk management measures and incident reporting; this impacts .eu SLDs and EU ccTLDs like .de and .fr, requiring verification procedures to combat abuse. In the United States, the (NTIA) supervises the .us ccTLD through a cooperative agreement with the registry operator, ensuring SLD administration aligns with policies for stability, security, and , as outlined in contracts dating back to 2007 and renewed periodically. WHOIS protocols for SLD registration data have evolved significantly due to privacy regulations. Since the EU (GDPR) entered into force on May 25, 2018, and contracted parties have implemented reforms to limit public access to in outputs, redacting information like names and addresses to comply with data protection principles. By August 21, 2025, 's Registration Data Policy standardizes redaction for gTLD SLD registrations, requiring contracted parties to collect but restrict disclosure of sensitive registrant details while maintaining access for legitimate purposes, such as . This policy replaces interim measures and includes specific redaction rules under Section 9.2 to balance transparency and . Looking ahead, discussions emphasize SLD sustainability in the face of emerging technologies like -based name systems, which pose challenges to the traditional (DNS). Recent publications and advisory committee meetings, such as those in 2024 and 2025, explore safeguards to maintain DNS stability while addressing alternative systems' growth, advocating for pragmatic policies to prevent fragmentation without endorsing specific integrations.

References

  1. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-domain-names-2018-08-30-en
  2. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-2012-02-25-en
  3. https://www.brandsec.com.au/q3-2025-domain-name-industry-insights/
  4. https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms/second-level-domain-en
  5. https://www.icann.org/en/icann-acronyms-and-terms/domain-name-en
  6. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1034.html
  7. https://www.icann.org/tlds/
  8. https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services
  9. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035.html
  10. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/domain-name-registration-process-2023-11-02-en
  11. https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/uk
  12. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3492/
  13. https://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-strategy.pdf
  14. https://gac.icann.org/work-efforts/
  15. https://lookup.icann.org/
  16. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1035
  17. https://investor.verisign.com/news-releases/news-release-details/dnibcom-reports-internet-has-3785-million-domain-name
  18. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/newgtlds-history-2023-04-05-en
  19. https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program
  20. https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html
  21. https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db
  22. https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation
  23. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-annual-report-2024-31jul24-en.pdf
  24. https://www.networksolutions.com/blog/what-is-cctld/
  25. https://www.atom.com/blog/what-is-a-cctld/
  26. https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/domains/domain-extensions/cctlds-all-you-need-to-know-about-country-code-domains/
  27. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctlds-21-2012-02-25-en
  28. https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/cyb/ip/docs/itu-draft-cctld-guide.pdf
  29. https://www.iana.org/about/presentations/davies-sofia-bestpractice-061025.pdf
  30. https://gsmaragd.github.io/publications/CCS2024/CCS2024.pdf
  31. https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/russian-idn-cctld--opens-for-registrations-makes-history-16-11-2010-en
  32. https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/africa-domain-name-industry-study
  33. https://coalitionfordigitalafrica.africa/highlight-series/unlocking_growth_the_future_of_africas_domain_name_industry
  34. https://icannwiki.org/.dz
  35. https://nira.org.ng/pdf/NIRA-Domain-Names-Policy.pdf
  36. https://web-solutions.eu/news/ng-top-level-domains-are-now-available-for-registration-nigeria.htm
  37. https://guardian.ng/technology/nigerias-active-domain-name-hits-111146/
  38. https://www.thisdaylive.com/2025/05/08/again-nigerias-ng-domain-name-registration-slides-to-229250-after-attaining-231556-in-march/
  39. https://www.zadna.org.za/
  40. https://www.nominus.com/blog/global-domain-market-2025-2030
  41. https://icannwiki.org/.zm
  42. https://www.kenic.or.ke/
  43. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kenyanwallstreet_fresh-data-from-the-communications-authority-activity-7378383086612414464-emE3
  44. https://www.aftld.org/exploring-african-cctlds-trends-challenges-and-opportunities/
  45. https://www.registry.in/policies
  46. https://registry.gov.in/
  47. https://www.naavi.org/wp/nixi-has-killed-the-dot-in-domain-name/
  48. https://jprs.co.jp/en/jpdomain.html
  49. https://jprs.co.jp/en/regist.html
  50. https://krnic.or.kr/jsp/eng/domain/kr/aboutKr.jsp
  51. https://www.nic.or.kr/jsp/eng/domain/policy.jsp
  52. https://pknic.net.pk/domain-structure.html
  53. https://domain.btcl.gov.bd/itblog-single-page-layout/btcl-to-launch-second-level-bd-domains-with-sunrise-period
  54. https://thnic.or.th/doc/thPolicy-EN-MAR2024.pdf
  55. https://www.nominus.com/en/dm/blog/country-domains/navigating-asia-s-internet-domains-which-tlds-and-websites-dominate-the-asian-digital-market
  56. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-eu-gdpr-2022-12-22-en
  57. https://www.openprovider.com/domains/tlds/uk
  58. https://www.nominet.uk/uk-registry/
  59. https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-and-manage-a-gov-uk-domain-name
  60. https://www.afnic.fr/en/observatory-and-resources/news/evolution-of-the-fr-and-re-registration-rules-and-procedures-on-march-30th-2009/
  61. https://www.denic.de/en/domains/de-domains/registration
  62. https://www.netim.com/en/domain-name/com.es-domain
  63. https://cctld.ru/en/domains/about/
  64. https://support.rebel.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001444414-About-UA-domains
  65. https://stats.centr.org/public/tld_market_report
  66. https://www.nominus.com/blog/cctld-or-gtld-smart-domain
  67. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1480
  68. https://www.about.us/locality-structure
  69. https://www.afnic.fr/wp-media/uploads/2024/07/study-afnic-the-global-domain-name-market-in-2023.pdf
  70. https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/publications/technical_proposal_volume_1.pdf
  71. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/08/22/00-21338/management-and-administration-of-the-us-domain-space
  72. https://www.cira.ca/en/resources/documents/domains/general-registration-rules/
  73. https://www.godaddy.com/help/about-mx-domains-5305
  74. https://www.dondominio.com/en/products/domains/mx/
  75. https://www.nic.tt/
  76. https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/au-rules-and-policies/domain-name-eligibility-and-allocation-policy-rules-open-2lds-2012-04/
  77. https://www.auda.org.au/news-insights/blog/au-direct-one-year/
  78. https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/auda-announces-registration-for-au-direct-namespaces-to-commence-from-march-2022/
  79. https://dnc.org.nz/about/compliance-and-enforcement/moderated-second-levels/
  80. https://sitehost.nz/blog/nz-domain-growth-2025
  81. https://dnc.org.nz/about/compliance-and-enforcement/nz-rules/nz-rules/
  82. https://x.com/auda/status/1922068111504687498
  83. https://www.victorianchamber.com.au/news/trusted-au-domain-ranked-in-worlds-top-10
  84. https://www.auda.org.au/au-domain-names/manage-your-au-domain-name/keep-your-au-secure/
  85. https://dnc.org.nz/about/about-the-commission/our-board/2022-2023-annual-report/compliance-and-enforcement-2022-2023/
  86. https://historyofdomainnames.com/yu-the-history-of-domain-names/
  87. https://www.iana.org/reports/2010/yu-report-01apr2010.html
  88. https://www.rnids.rs/en/what-s-new/yu-domain-becomes-history
  89. https://www.rferl.org/a/Yugoslav_Internet_Domain_Name_yu_Finally_Discontinued/1998387.html
  90. https://www.cira.ca/en/about-cira/history/
  91. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/33568
  92. https://www.sidn.nl/en/about-sidn/our-milestones
  93. https://www.sidn.nl/en/news-and-blogs/the-nl-domain-turns-thirty-five
  94. https://icannwiki.org/Stichting_Internet_Domeinregistratie_Nederland
  95. https://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/08/tuvalu.domain.idg/index.html
  96. https://www.zdnet.com/article/tiny-tuvalu-cashes-in-on-tv-domains/
  97. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/04/business/tiny-tuvalu-profits-from-web-name.html
  98. https://www.afnic.fr/wp-media/uploads/2021/01/afnic-naming-policy-2014-12-08.pdf
  99. https://www.nominet.uk/news/nominet-ushers-in-new-era-for-uk-namespace/
  100. https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/news-releases/press-release-details/2014/Shorter-Sharper-UK-Domain-Name-Extension-Now-Available-Biggest-Change-in-the-UK-Domain-Space-Since-1985/default.aspx
  101. https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-highlights-idn-progress-with-release-of-idn-annual-report-june-2025-05-08-2025-en
  102. https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy/uniform-domain-name-dispute-resolution-policy-01-01-2020-en
  103. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/nike-victorious-on-domain-name-dispute-as-brands-crack-down-online/
  104. https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/publication/nirvanallcobtainstransferoftwoaudomainnamessmellslikebadf_pdf.pdf
  105. https://sprintlaw.co.uk/articles/how-to-handle-domain-name-disputes-in-the-uk/
  106. https://nominet.uk/news/uk-domain-disputes-at-record-low/
  107. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/news/2025/news_0001.html
  108. https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases.jsp
  109. https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements
  110. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-2012-02-25-en
  111. https://gac.icann.org/principles-and-guidelines/public/principles-cctlds.pdf
  112. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/nis2-directive
  113. https://dnsrf.org/.k-media/4c33cad76547838b090f09bd982761a4.pdf
  114. https://www.ntia.gov/page/us-domain-space
  115. https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/publications/ustld2007_contract.pdf
  116. https://gac.icann.org/activity/whois-and-data-protection?language_id=11
  117. https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-registration-data-policy-now-in-effect-for-contracted-parties-21-08-2025-en
  118. https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies/registration-data-policy
  119. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/registration-data-policy-faqs-21aug25-en.pdf
  120. https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/new-icann-publications-explain-blockchains-and-name-system-technologies-17-10-2024-en
  121. https://gac.icann.org/presentations/public/icann84-ssac-gac-slides.pdf
  122. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.