Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

PIR goes live with three non-Latin .org gTLDs

Kevin Murphy, March 10, 2014, 15:30:48 (UTC), Domain Registries

The internet has its first IDN versions of legacy gTLDs.

Public Interest Registry had three new gTLDs delegated over the weekend, all non-Latin versions of its flagship .org.

The gTLDs were .संगठन, which means “organization” in Hindi, and the Chinese .机构 and .组织机构, which seem to be two ways of saying “organization” too.

They’re not strictly speaking transliterations, as they represent whole dictionary words conceptually related to .org, rather than trying to approximate the spoken sound of “org”.

The .com equivalents Verisign has applied for in other scripts are actually meant to sound the same as “com” without actually meaning “commercial” or “company” in their language.

Because PIR has taken a different approach, there’s no grandfathering for existing .org registrants.

These three new gTLDs will be unrestricted, according to PIR’s applications, but will have slightly stricter rules on abuse — no porn will be allowed, for example.

Tagged: , , , , ,

Comments (12)

  1. JS says:

    “Because PIR has taken a different approach, there’s no grandfathering for existing .org registrants.”

    Is there a source for this bit of info ?

    Thx

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      There’s no mention of grandfathering in the applications.

      • JS says:

        There wasn’t in VRSN’s either. 😉

        Hindi has never been allowed in 2nd level .org, thus there is nothing to grandfather for संगठन.

        For the Chinese TLDs however, PIR should publicly comment on the question.

  2. Drewbert says:

    They’re not the first, .OPR (xn--c1avg) beat them by 4 days.

    And to be REALLY pedantic, I don’t think you can call them “IDN versions of Legacy TLD’s” if the IDN registrants in .org are being chucked under a bus by PIR.

    Legacy implies inheritance. PIR’s existing registrant base didn’t inherit anything, other than a good rogering.

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      You’re right about .OPR. My software caught it when it was delegated but my brain didn’t.

      No comment on your second point.

  3. According to my information the upcoming launches from PIR are .орг, .机构, .संगठन – the Cyrillic, Chinese 2-character, and Hindi versions of .org. But I have not found any info on a TLD .组织机构. I am only a beginner in Chinese and also struggling but it seems you got mixed up with the Chinese 4-character version of .org which is 机构体制 and which to my info has not been announced yet. Hope this helps.

    • Drewbert says:

      Hi Lutz,

      Both .机构 (xn--nqv7f) and .组织机构 (xn--nqv7fs00ema) were delegated on 20140309

    • Kevin Murphy says:

      My Chinese is non-existent, but I’m referring to this:

      https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1762

      The Chinese string there is 组织机构, which is what I used in this post. I’ve searched ICANN’s web site for 机构体制 and couldn’t find any applications.

      Have I misunderstood what you’re saying?

      • Hi Drewbert, hi Kevin,
        I know that both Chinese strings from PIR were delegated. But in the communication to the registrars PIR only announced the upcoming launch for the two character string in Chinese (plus the Cyrillic and Hindi version) with a probable sunrise (unconfirmed) in the coming weeks. PIR did not mention an upcoming launch of the 4-character string in Chinese even though it was delegated. I should have been clearer in my language.
        And, Kevin, indeed your 4 characters in Chinese were definitely the right ones. Sorry for the confusion. Like I said – I am only a beginner in Chinese.

  4. M says:

    I am not a language expert but it is possible org in Cyrillic is both a translation and transliteration.

    .org – Organization
    .орг – Организация (Organization)

    RegistrantA now owns Россия.org and RegistrantB will own Россия.орг

    Both sound identical.

    I thought ICANN did not permit aural confusion.

    agb 2.2.1.1.3:

    “Such category of objection is not limited to
    visual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type of
    similarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning)”

    • Rubens Kuhl says:

      Only PIR itself had standing to file string confusion objection. That was one of the AGB design flaws: registrants, perhaps thru the Independent Objector or ALAC, should have standing if the same registry is proposing a confusingly similar TLD.

Add Your Comment