Domain names management: a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Mary A. Clark
Department of Decision Sciences and MIS, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
David C. Chou
Department of Finance and CIS, College of Business, Eastern Michigan
University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA
David C. Yen
Department of Decision Sciences and MIS, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA
Keywords
Internet, Computer security
Abstract
A good Internet domain names
management allows electroni c
commerce participant s to enjoy a
convenien t domain name
registration process. Domain
name owners will gain a high
security protection and also live in
a dispute-fre e environment . This
article provides strategic and
managerial perspective s on
domain name-based electroni c
commerce security.
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001 ] 225±232
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0968-5227]
Introduction
Electronic commerce transactions are
growing rapidly after numerous individuals
and organizations conducting business
online. Each Web site needs to be registered
for domain name before it can open to the
public. However, disputes may arise when an
individual or organization claims the
ownership of another registered domain
name.
Domain name ownership becomes
important when a company’s identity is
closely related to that name. A unique
domain name enhances a company’s image
on the Internet, increases a company’s
recognition, and provides that company a
great freedom of movement on the Internet.
Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) was solely
responsible for managing the registration of
the domain name system, including the
dispute-resolution policy. The process of
registering and managing domain names was
under challenge. Many domain name owners
were dissatisfied with the lack of competition
in the domain name management and the
way that NSI followed (Department of
Commerce, 1998). In the mean time, the
international community also expressed
their interests and needs to the domain name
management. Under such circumstances,
President Clinton directed the Secretary of
Commerce to privatize and promote
international participation in the domain
name system on July 1, 1997 (Department of
Commerce, 1998).
A good practice to domain names
management allows electronic commerce
participants to follow a convenient domain
name registration process. The management
authority provides high security protections
to domain name owners and makes them live
in a dispute-free environment. This article
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
provides strategic and managerial
perspectives on domain name-based
electronic commerce security.
This article first discusses the history and
implications of the domain name system. The
next section identifies the concerns and
limitations of the current domain names
practice. After that, the current domain
name system is assessed in order to identify
the existing problems. Finally, this article
proposes a number of solutions to remedy the
problems in the domain name system.
History and implications of the
domain name system
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US
Government funded an organization called
Advanced Research Projects Agency and
created a network for research and the
military usage. The project, dubbed
ARPANET, was accomplished through a root
server system. Today, the root server system
contains 13 root servers around the world,
which mapping out the hierarchy of those
computers reside in the network. Currently,
the US alone manages eight of the 13 systems.
Each of these root systems is updated daily so
that any Internet message can be routed to its
destination (Department of Commerce, 1998).
The root server system guarantees
worldwide connectivity on the Internet.
Originally, programmers used a series of
numbers to network computers. By the early
1980s, ARPANET established a common
communications protocol that
interconnected all of the major research and
educational networks. This system became
known as the domain name system. In the
mid-1980s, the National Science Foundation
established several supercomputer centers
for education and research purposes.
Between 1989 and 1991, Tim Berners Lee of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
[ 225 ]
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
[ 226 ]
CERN (European Laboratory for Particle
Physics) in Geneva developed the concept of
hyperlinks to access information quickly on
the Internet (Domain Name Game, 1999).
1n 1993, the National Science Foundation
awarded three five-year contracts to manage
the Internet. These contracts went to NSI,
AT&T, and General Atomics. Originally,
General Atomics provided the information
services, but they were dropped from the
program in 1995. AT&T delivers the directory
and database services from a home base in
New Jersey, and NSI offers and manages the
registration services through the ``A’’ root
server from Herndon, Virginia. This system
maintains the master file of all the top-level
domains and the individual country codes.
The National Science Foundation
announced that they would no longer fund
NSI as the sole provider for registration
services when the contract came up for
renewal in 1998. However, NSI continued to
manage the system on a temporary basis. In
1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) was formed to
oversee the Internet’s ``A’’ root server. This
turnover means that the ``A’’ root server
moves from Herndon, Virginia to the
University of Southern California, where
ICANN is located.
Each computer on the Internet has a
unique Internet number called an IP
(Internet protocol) address. Each IP address
is 32 bits long and is written as four numbers
separated by periods. However, Internet
users find it difficult to remember these
numbers. The Domain Name System (DNS)
was then developed in the early 1980s to help
combat this problem. Under the DNS system,
one or more names are assigned to represent
a specific IP address.
The domain name is used for e-mail and
URL addresses. In an e-mail address, it serves
as a part of the complete URL address for a
Web site. The URL address consists of four
components, which includes the protocol, the
server name, the pathname and the filename.
The domain name can be broken down into
three parts. The first component is called the
Top Level Domain (TLD). There are
currently seven generic TLDs in the USA.
They are .gov, .com, .edu, .net, .org, .mil and
.int. These domain names describe the
intended function of that particular domain
name. For example, ``.com’’ indicates that the
domain name is used for commercial purpose
and ``.gov’’ is used for government purpose.
Appendix 1 lists the TLDs used in the USA.
The sub-domain or the second level domain
is the name to the left of the generic TLD.
Frequently, a company uses its company
name as a sub-domain name, such as
``www.mcdonalds.com’’. Most of the
trademark disputes stem from the
sub-domain name. Domain names can be
identified by a country code, which is
typically a two-letter code. Foreign URLs
possess their country codes. Appendix 2
shows a complete list of country codes. In the
USA only certain sub-domains are allowed to
use the two-character country code (that is,
.us). These sub-domains include community
colleges, public schools, and state and local
governments. The portion of the domain
name that this article focuses on is the
sub-domain, which is the source of most
trademark disputes.
Because of a shortage of domain names at
the top level, the Internet Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC) proposed the following seven new
TLDs in February 1997:
1 .store (businesses offering goods to
purchase);
2 .firm (other businesses or firms);
3 .web (businesses related to the WWW);
4 .arts (arts and cultural-oriented entities);
5 .rec (recreation or entertainment sources);
6 .info (information services);
7 .nom (individuals or families).
At its meeting on November 16, 2000, the
ICANN Board selected seven new TLDs for
negotiation of agreements. These seven new
TLDs are:
1 .aero (air-transport industry);
2 .biz (businesses);
3 .coop (cooperatives);
4 .info (unrestricted use);
5 .museum (museums);
6 .name (for registration by individuals);
7 .pro (accountants, lawyers, and
physicians).
The ICANN (2001) announced on May 15 that
it has finalized accreditation agreements
with the new .biz and .info TLD registries.
These new registries will add to the existing
registries such as .com, .org, and .edu
(ICANN, 2001). This will mark the first
introduction of new global TLDs since the
mid 1980s when the current domain name
system became operational.
Concerns and limitations to the
current domain name practice
There are three types of disputes over
domain name practice, including domain
name versus trademarks, shared
trademarks, and cybersquatting.
The domain name versus trademark
disputes arise when a company registers a
domain name that is the same or very similar
to the trademark of another company or
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
individual. For example, IBM developed a
development tool called ``dynamic language’’.
They registered a domain name called
``Dylan’’ which joining the leading letters of
the product name. A musician, Bob Dylan,
filed a lawsuit against IBM, who claimed that
IBM was infringing on his rights.
Disputes over shared trademarks are
difficult to resolve. A dispute occurs when
multiple parties own the trademark of a
certain name but in different classifications.
For example, Delta Faucet, Delta Airlines,
and Delta Dental are companies that have
``Delta’’ in their names. All of them may like
to own ``delta.com’’ as their domain name.
Disputes arise over the ownership of such
domain name. The company that currently
holds this domain name is DeltaComm, an
Internet Service Provider in North Carolina.
Cybersquatting occurs when someone
registered a domain name and then tried to
sell it at an inflated price. For example,
Dennis Toeppen registered Panavision’s
trademarks as one of his domain names on
the Internet. Later, he told Panavision that
they would have to pay him $13,000 before he
would release the domain name that he
originally paid $79 to register. Toeppen has
also been accused of cybersquatting several
other trademarks.
Current system to handle domain
name disputes
Co-sponsored by NSI, domain names are
currently registered through InterNIC on a
first come, first serve basis. These registered
domain names can ascertain their identities
through the search engine ``whois’’. A way to
avoid the possible lawsuits over trademark
rights is to check this list before registering a
specific domain name. Although NSI
develops a dispute-resolution process to deal
with trademark conflicts, this process has
been widely known as ineffective, expensive,
and cumbersome.
NSI needs to take a few steps to handle
domain name disputes (Tanenbaum, 1998).
First, the owner of the trademark must notify
the owner of the domain name and indicate
that the domain name violates the lawful
rights of the trademark owner. If the owner
of the domain name ignores the complaint or
refuses to comply, the trademark owner then
files a complaint with NSI. The trademark
owner must show proof of the trademark
through a certified copy not more than six
months old of its federal or foreign
registration of an identical mark.
Once these steps are taken, NSI would
determine whether the trademark
registration was identical, confirm that the
trademark registration was authentic, and
determine the activation date of the
registrant’s domain name.
If all of these criteria were met, then NSI
would give the domain name registrant two
options. If the registrant wants to continue to
use the domain name then the registrant
must submit proof of a registered trademark
identical to the second level domain name
within 30 days. The proof must be the same
type of certified copies discussed above.
Otherwise, the registrant must relinquish
control of the domain name and agree to
transfer it to the complainant. The registrant
has the right to select a new domain name
and use both the old and the new names
during a transition period of up to 90 days.
If the registrant refuses to follow either
option, the domain name is then put on hold
and neither party can use it until NSI
receives a final order from a US federal or
state court stating which party is entitled to
use the name.
The need for changes
The NSI dispute-resolution system may work
well when a controllable amount of domain
names are there, however, the need for
changes has grown in recent years as more
and more companies get online. Concerns
over the current domain name management
process have been expressed from various
parts of the world (Department of Commerce,
1998). Some of the most widely expressed
complaints and concerns are listed below:
Concerns over the lack of competition in
domain name registration.
The current process for resolving conflicts
between the owner of a trademark and the
owner of a domain name is expensive and
time consuming. Also, this process favors
big companies.
Changes are needed to offset the
possibility of increasing lawsuits. This
could lead to chaos as courts around the
world apply their own antitrust law and
intellectual property law to Internet
lawsuits (Department of Commerce, 1998).
Many commercial companies would like
to see a more formal management
structure to be established in the domain
name registration process.
More and more individuals and
organizations outside the USA are getting
on-line and would like to involve in the
coordination of the Internet.
A formal decision process needs to be
established when adding a new top-level
[ 227 ]
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
domain to the URL rather than adding
them on an ad hoc basis.
Many users believe that it is
inappropriate for the government to
continue to get involved in and to fund the
Internet now.
Current solutions to domain name
concerns
NSI was under a five-year contract (1993-1998)
with the US Government to provide
registration services of the top-level domains.
This project was funded by the National
Science Foundation. Since then NSI has been
overseeing the registration services through
a transitional period. After the concerns over
the management of the top-level domain
system and the continuous growth of the
Internet, President Clinton directed the
Secretary of Commerce on July 1, 1997 to
privatize, increase competition, and promote
international participation in the domain
name system (Department of Commerce,
1998).
Changes in domain name
registration
In order to increase the level of competition
in domain name registration, NSI agreed to
develop a protocol and software that allows
more than one registrar to register domain
names within .com, .net, and .org. In October
1998, NSI unveiled the Shared Registration
System. In addition to NSI, the US
Government granted accreditation to five
new organizations to register domain names
(Network Solutions, Inc., 1999). These
organizations include:
1 The ICANN;
2 Domain Names Supporting Organization
(DNSO);
3 Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO);
4 Address Support Organization (ASO); and
5 World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO).
These five organizations participated in a
test bed for multiple registrations during
April 30, 1999 and June 30, 1999. Because of
the success of the test another 29 entities are
accredited as domain names registrars, one
of them is the America Online.
ICANN is a non-profit organization that
was established by the Internet community
to oversee certain Internet domain name
functions. ICANN assumes responsibility for
the IP address space allocation, protocol
parameter assignment, domain name system
[ 228 ]
management, and the ``A’’ root server system
management in September 2000.
DNSO, PSO, and ASO will oversee the
participating domain name registrars. WIPO
also provided an international forum for the
development and implementation of
intellectual property policies through
treaties and other policy instruments (WIPO,
1999).
International policies set by WIPO
In April 1999, the WIPO released a final
report indicating the process that should be
followed when granting domain name
registrations worldwide. WIPO was
primarily concerned with stamping out the
practice of cybersquatting. They proposed
three key elements to the registration
procedure to eliminate cybersquatting
(Gurry, 1999):
1 obtaining contact details;
2 establishing an anti-cybersquatting
procedure; and
3 establishing exclusions for globally
famous trademarks.
WIPO’s first element to eliminate
cybersquatting is to obtain contact details
from registrants. Obtaining contact details
from registrants is the most controversial
element among them. WIPO calls registrars
to require domain name registrants to
disclose their contact information publicly.
This information must be current and
accurate. WIPO holds top-level domains as
undifferentiated, so that people can do
commercial transactions and perform
commercial services in any of these domains.
As long as this is in process, WIPO believes
that the interests of IP coincides with public
policies, which requires contact details of
domain name holders to be accurate and
reliable and made available to the public
(Gurry, 1999). By providing reliable and
accurate contact information, the registrant
accepts responsibility for his or her actions
over the Internet, making it more likely that
the registrant wants to register the name for
legitimate purposes.
WIPO’s second element to eliminate
cybersquatting is to establish an
anti-cybersquatting procedure. WIPO
recommends that ICANN should adopt a
dispute-resolution policy under which a
uniform administrative dispute-resolution
process is made available for domain name
disputes in all top level domains (WIPO,
1999). WIPO believes that this process should
be mandatory for bad faith, abusive
registrations. ``Abusive’’ was defined in
reference to trademark rights. The
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
administrative process would primarily take
place online. Domain name holders would be
required to follow the process if there were
allegations that they were involved in
cybersquatting. Those found guilty of
cybersquatting would be required to cancel
or transfer the domain name registration and
pay for the costs of the process but not
including the attorney’s fees. The
registration authorities should enforce the
procedures under the dispute-resolution
policy (WIPO, 1999).
Some fear that this process would establish
conditions for harassing registrants. To
eliminate this fear, WIPO further established
three conditions as a safeguard (Gurry, 1999):
1 That the domain name is identical or
misleadingly similar to a trademark in
which someone else has rights.
2 That the holder of the domain name has
no rights or legitimate interests in that
domain name.
3 That the domain name has been registered
and is used in bad faith.
WIPO’s third element to eliminate
cybersquatting is to establish exclusions for
famous trademarks. Famous and well-known
trademarks have been the primary targets of
cybersquatting. Under the recommendations
made by WIPO, the owner of famous or
well-known trademarks would be given the
opportunity to obtain an exclusion in some or
all top level domains for the name of the
trademark (WIPO, 1999). However, the
trademark must be famous and well known
over a widespread geographical area and
across different classes of goods or services.
Also, exclusion would cover only the exact
name of the famous or well-known trademark
(WIPO, 1999). For example, IBM is well
known worldwide as a computer
manufacturer. Since cybersquatters typically
register many close variations of well-known
trademarks, the registrant would bear the
burden of proving justification for using an
identical or misleadingly similar trademark
(WIPO, 1999).
Some fear that creating this exclusionary
mechanism would reduce the number of
names available to registrants (Gurry, 1999).
WIPO replies that the exclusionary
mechanism would only apply to those
trademarks that are famous on a widespread
geographical basis. Meanwhile, others
believe that this is showing a preferential
treatment. Some arguments question that:
why just famous marks, why can’t you get an
exclusion for a well-known event that is
coming along? Still others debate that the
exclusionary mechanism is showing
favoritism to large companies, and it leaves
the small business at a disadvantage. But
WIPO insists that famous marks have
consistently been the subjects of
cybersquatting and this exclusionary
mechanism would greatly minimize the
amount of cybersquatting (Gurry, 1999).
Adding new top level domains
Currently the top-level domain names in the
USA include .com, .org, .gov, .edu, .net, .mil,
and .int. In February 1997, the International
Ad hoc Committee on Domain names
recommended adding the following new
top-level domain names (Tanenbaum, 1998):
.firm, .store, .web, .arts, .rec, .info, and .nom.
By adding new top-level domain names to the
existing list would allow the domain name to
be registered to a specific classification that
similar to the way a trademark is registered.
Adding new top-level domain names could
make additional confusion to Internet
community. There is already a problem made
by cybersquatters, that is, they registering
domain names that are very similar to a
trademark or another domain name to
mislead the public. If new top-level domains
are added and the same name or a similar
name can be registered more than once onto
a different classification, this would create
more confusion to the public than what
already exists.
New technology support
Keyword system
Using a keyword system is an alternative to
remedy domain name problems. Keyword
systems are being used as an alternative
means of locating Web sites without using a
domain name. Keyword systems allow the
user to enter into the system regarding the
name of the company they are looking for.
Then, depending on the system, it will either
direct the user to the page it believes the user
is seeking or will return a page with links to
various pages the user can choose from
(Fisher, 1999).
The primary advantage to this type of
system is that it would eliminate the disputes
over trademarks. The major drawback of this
system is its lack of convenience. It also takes
more time for the visitor to perform a search
since it is much quicker to type in a domain
name and go directly to a desired site or page.
Sometimes the user may not be able to find
the site they want, particularly if it is a small
company. This method would definitely favor
larger companies with greater name
recognition and put smaller companies at
disadvantageous situation.
[ 229 ]
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
Encryption
Currently, NSI provides three levels of
security while registering a domain name
through InterNIC. At the first level, the
registrant’s e-mail address is verified to
ensure that the information is coming from a
reliable source. The second level provides a
password that the registrant must use when
updating information. The third level is the
most secure one, that using encrypted key
technology of Pretty Good Privacy. Under
this system, the user creates two keys: one
public key and one private key. Both keys are
registered with InterNIC. This process is
much like opening a safety deposit box at a
bank. In order to complete the registration or
update network address, the owner must sign
in with the secret key. InterNIC then verifies
the request by matching it with the
registered key (Davis, 1996). Now that the
root server is moved to California and
managed under ICANN, it is undetermined
whether they will continue with Pretty Good
Privacy or install some other system.
Framework of the new domain
names system
The framework of the new DNS assures the
convenience of registration process, high
security protection to domain names, and
dispute-free environment. This new system
includes application policy, education
programs, search engine, Internet
management, and security and privacy
protections.
Application policy
The transitional period under the new DNS is
completed on September 30, 1999. This
process includes the transfer of management
responsibilities, the root system, and all of
the databases to ICANN. Organizations
throughout the world are expected to develop
their own registration process that follows
the recommendations made by WIPO. These
recommendations included:
obtaining contact details;
establishing a process for eliminating
cybersquatting; and
establishing exclusions for globally
famous trademarks (Gurry, 1999).
Education programs
As organizations around the world become
accredited registrars, WIPO needs to either
accept responsibility for training these
organizations or to form a committee that is
responsible for training these organizations
and informing them possible policy changes.
[ 230 ]
Because of the dramatic changes that are
taking place in the area of domain name
registration and management, it will be
necessary to educate the individuals and
companies about these changes. This process
should fall under the responsibility of the
organization that accepts the company or
individual’s registration.
Search engine
The current search engine used for searching
domain names is called ``whois.’’ When an
individual enters a string such as a name,
web address, NIC handle, or a host IP, the
search engine can identify which company,
organization, or individual is currently using
that string.
This search engine is limited in that it does
not identify who may own a trademark for
that name. Therefore, the search engine
``whois’’ needs to be upgraded to include this
feature. By identifying in advance who may
own a trademark for a given name, even if
that name is not registered as a domain
name, it will help avoid trademark owners
from filing lawsuits in the future.
Internet management
The WIPO will act as a public forum for
individuals and organizations to express
their concerns and ideas over certain
intellectual property issues involving the
domain name process. WIPO established
recommendations for resolving disputes that
may arise over Internet domain names.
These recommendations will be handed over
to the ICANN. ICANN is the new
organization that was formed to manage and
coordinate the Internet domain name system.
These recommendations will also be reported
to other countries that are members of WIPO.
NSI will continue to act as a registrar for
domain name registration. In addition to
this, NSI has developed software that allows
more than one entity to register a domain
name. This software is called the ``Shared
Registration System.’’ The Shared
Registration System will open up the
registration process to the marketplace,
making it more competitive and possibly
driving down the cost of registration.
Each entity that is interested in becoming
a registrar must be accredited first. The US
Government is currently in the process of
issuing accreditation to another 29
organizations in addition to the five that
have already been issued. Internet Service
Providers are the likely candidates for
accredited registrars since they already
provide a broad range of Internet services to
the public. AOL is one that has recently
become accredited.
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
Security/privacy protection
NSI had three levels of security: e-mail
verification, password, and Pretty Good
Privacy using a two key encryption system.
Once the management of the ``A’’ root
server system shifts control to ICANN, they
should continue to use Pretty Good Privacy
as their security system. Because all the
lawsuits and legal issues are surrounding
sub- level domain names, only the most
secure system should be used for the
registration process.
Future Implications and conclusion
Originally, domain names were developed as
a way to connect easily with other computers
on the Internet. With the globalization and
commercialization of the Internet, domain
names have taken on a new significance as
business identifiers, they no longer act only
as a means of locating particular computers.
Instead they have become an integral part of
the company’s identity, similar to
trademarks.
It is impossible to eliminate all disputes
over trademarks versus domain names.
There will always be disputes arising in this
area especially as more and more
individuals, companies, organizations, and
institutions move online. Although most of
them are unintentional infringements, it is
necessary to implement a sound procedure
that could limit the number of complaints
and minimize possible cybersquatting to
electronic commerce security.
The formation of the WIPO occurred at a
propitious time. The Internet is quickly
becoming an international marketplace for
business. The Internet makes businesses of
all sizes to sell products or services abroad.
As the world marketplace expands,
international issues will play a much larger
role, with other countries seeking a more
equal footing in the decision making process.
Therefore, we believe that WIPO will
continue to grow in importance and will play
an ever-increasing role in resolving security
conflicts at the international level.
References
Davis, J. (1996), Domain name sign-up made more
secure, at http://www.news.com/News/Item/
0,4,1657,00.html
Department of Commerce (1998), The green paper,
at http://www.nsiregistry.com/history/
green_paper.html
Domain Name Game (1999), History of the
Internet and domain names, at http://www.
domainnamenow.com/history.htm
Fisher, W. (1999), Domain names, at http://www.
eon.law.harvard.edu/property/domain/
main.html.
Gurry, F. (1999), Transcript of press conference to
launch the final report of the WIPO Internet
domain name process, at http://wipo2.wipo.
int/process/eng/PressConf.html.
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) (2001), Announcement
May 15, at http://www.icann.org/
announcements/icann-pr15may01.htm.
Network Solutions Inc. (1999) , Change coming in
domain name registration, at http://www.
networksolutions.com/internic/internic.html.
Tanenbaum, W.A. (1998), Rights and remedies for
three common trademark-domain name
disputes, at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/
property/domain/fulltanen.html.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
(1999), Final report of the WIPO Internet
domain name process, at http://wipo2.wipo.
int/process/eng/final_report.html.
Appendix 1. Top-level domains in the USA
There are seven US top-level domains (com
and edu, are also used by foreign countries as
sub-domains):
1 com ± commercial organizations that may
wish to profit from a site.
2 edu ± four-year, degree-granting colleges.
3 gov ± US government agencies.
4 mi ± US Department of Defense
agencies.
5 net ± networks, such as Internet service
providers.
6 org ± organizations with not-for-profit or
nonprofit status.
7 int ± international entities.
.us is usually preceded by the state code used
by the US post office. The following sub
domain names can be used instead of the
state code:
fed ± agencies of the federal government.
isa ± interstate authority.
nsn ± native sovereign nations; used for
Native American communities that
cross state, regional, or national
boundaries.
These sub-domains can be placed in front of a
state code:
ci ± city government agencies.
co ± county government agencies.
k12 ± public schools.
cc ± community colleges.
tec ± technical and vocational schools.
lib ± state, county, and city libraries.
state ± state government agencies.
gen ± general independent entities.
cog ± councils of government.
mus ± museums.
dst ± districts.
[ 231 ]
Mary A. Clark, David C. Chou
and David C. Yen
Domain names management:
a strategy for electronic
commerce security
Information Management &
Computer Security
9/5 [2001] 225±232
[ 232 ]
Appendix 2. International top-level domains
All countries except the USA use a country
code as their top-level domain. The following
is a list of codes for some major countries:
arb Argentina
at
Austria
au
Australia
be
Belgium
br
Brazil
ca
Canada
ch
Switzerland
cl
Chile
cn
China
cr
Costa Rica
cu
Cuba
cz
Czech Republic
de
Germany
dk
Denmark
ec
Ecuador
eg
Egypt
es
Spain
fi
Finland
fr
France
gr
Greece
hk
Hong Kong
hu
Hungary
ie
Ireland
il
Israel
in
India
iq
Iraq
ir
Iran
it
jp
kp
kr
kw
lk
ly
mx
my
nl
no
nz
pa
pe
pl
pr
pt
ro
sa
se
sg
sk
sl
sn
su
sy
th
tr
tw
ua
uk
Italy
Japan
North Korea
South Korea
Kuwait
Sri Lanka
Libya
Mexico
Malaysia
The Netherlands
Norway
New Zealand
Panama
Peru
Poland
Puerto Rico
Portugal
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Sweden
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Senegal
Russia
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Taiwan
Ukraine
UK