ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    USA Goverment Relations US Revises Rules on .gov Registrations
    posted by michael on Tuesday April 08 2003, @04:30AM

    ICBTollFree carries the text of the US Government's new regulations for the management of .gov, 68 Fed. Reg. 15089 (March 28, 2003), to be codified at 41 CFR Part 102-173. The rules set out who can register, and states that the General Services Administration may start charging for .gov domains in the future. Students of regulation will find these rules notable because rather than being written in bureaucratese, "The final rule is written in a plain language question and answer format. This style uses an active voice, shorter sentences, and pronouns. ... A question and its answer combine to establish a rule." GSA is trying to be user-friendly.



    Some highlights:
  • Under these rules, .gov is limited to, "official governmental organizations in the United States including Federal, State, and local governments, and Native Sovereign Nations."
  • "GSA has the authority to employ a system of collection that includes a one-time setup fee for new registrations, which will not exceed $1000, depending on the level of assistance that may be provided by GSA, and a recurring annual charge that will not exceed $500 for all dot-gov domains."
  • GSA is not going to enforce a hierarchical geographic taxonomy:
    To register any second-level domain within dot-gov, State government entities must register the full State name or clearly indicate the State postal code within the name. Examples of acceptable names include virginia.gov, tennesseeanytime.gov, wa.gov, nmparks.gov, mysc.gov, emaryland.gov, and ne-taxes.gov. However--
    (1) Use of the State postal code should not be embedded within a single word in a way that obscures the postal code. For example, Indiana (IN) should not register for win.gov, or independence.gov; and
    (2) Where potential conflicts arise between postal codes and existing domain names, States are encouraged to register URL's that contain the full State name.
    (b) There is no limit to the number of domain names for which a State may register.
  • Similarly,
    To register any second-level domain within dot-gov, City (town) governments must register the domain name with the city (town) name or abbreviation, and clear reference to the State in which the city (town) is located. However--
    (1) Use of the State postal code should not be embedded within a single word in a way that obscures the postal code; and
    (2) Inclusion of the word city or town within the domain name is optional and may be used at the discretion of the local government.
    (b)(1) The preferred format for city governments is to denote the State postal code after the city name, optionally separated by a dash.
    Examples of preferred domain names include--
    (i) Chicago-il.gov;
    (ii) Cityofcharleston-sc.gov;
    (iii) Charleston-wv.gov;
    (iv) Townofdumfries-va.gov; and
    (v) Detroitmi.gov.
  • A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 67 FR 34890, May 16, 2002.
  •  
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • management of .gov
  • More on USA Goverment Relations
  • Also by michael
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    US Revises Rules on .gov Registrations | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Domain structure
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday April 08 2003, @06:58AM (#11463)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    While I don't mind some loosening of .gov rules to allow, to some extent, the registration of "vanity domains" by governmental entities instead of enforcing an overly rigid structure (because this might possibly curb the urge on the part of the "marketing types", with which even governmental entities seem to get infested, to get inappropriate .com names instead), I'm still not all that happy with their encouraging of less logically structured or consistent naming for local government sites; why is Cityofcharleston-sc.gov better than the existing format of ci.charleston.sc.us? That has the advantage of consistency, unlike the crazy quilt of names which can get registered by cities under the new rules (or, for that matter, in .com or .org as some do already).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com