Each domain name is made up of a series of labels separated by dots. The right-most label (org) in a domain name is its top-level domain (TLD). The immediate left-label is its second-level domain (bizconst). There are several types of TLDs within the DNS:

TLDs with two letters (.de, .mx, and .jp) have been established for over 240 countries and territories and are referred to as "country-code" TLDs or "ccTLDs". They are delegated to managers who operate the ccTLDs according to local policies and generally consistent with the agreement of the government of that country.

Other TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". These can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs and "unsponsored" TLDs. Typically an unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by ICANN. A sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing a narrower community. Sponsored TLDs also operate under ICANN policies. 

At present, the sponsor is an organization to which is delegated authority on the policy under which the TLD is operated. The sponsored TLD has a charter, which defines its purpose. The sponsor is responsible for selecting the registry operator.

The responsibility for operating each TLD (including maintaining a registry of the second-level domains within the TLD) is delegated to a particular organization. These organizations are called registries. Registries are not allowed to be registrars in the gTLD environment, but some country codes do provide both because their number of registrations remain small.

In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes.

Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November 2000 of seven new 'proof of concept' generic TLDs. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) are unsponsored, with ,biz, .name and .pro having restrictions on who can register in them. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) are sponsored and also carry restrictions on registration.

The ICANN board evaluation of the first round new TLDs was not conclusive in setting a certain process. ICANN was obliged by the September 2002 memorandum between the US Department of Commerce and ICANN to establish a process on how to introduce further gTLDs. In 2005 the three commercial user constituencies within the GNSO produced a white paper calling for such a process but limiting it to only sponsored top-level domain names. sTLDs have four advantages: distinction; accurate and verifiable WHOIS; no cybersquatting or fraud; searchability. In 2005 the GNSO started a policy development process for a certain process..

A task force was established within the GNSO in 2002 to produce standard procedures for transfers that would be fair to losing and gaining registrars and simple to use for domain name users. These recommendations were adopted by the Board in March 2003. Registrars will now be required to implement the procedures that allow the gaining registrar to control the transfer. There is a presumption of good faith in a transfer request and safeguards in case of suspected bad faith. The ICANN staff has established a process to receive complaints regarding problems. The full report is available here:

ICANN Domain Name Transfer Policy became effective 12 November 2004 The new transfer policy includes a robust dispute resolution policy for resolving disputes between registrars involving alleged violations of the policy. As part of this mechanism, registries will be implementing a "transfer undo" functionality in order to be able to efficiently reverse any transfers initiated in violation of the policy. The policy was developed through ICANN's consensus-based, bottom-up policy development process. 

A first comment period on the policy took place in 2005:

For more details, including the complete text of the policy, of the dispute resolution policy, and copies of the approved standardized forms:

 Source: BC

ICANN announced the implementation of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP) effective beginning 21 December 2004. This consensus policy defines a uniform deletes practice that registrars must follow at the time of domain name expiry, as well as specific requirements for registrar handling of expired names that are
subject to a UDRP dispute.

In 2002 the Names Council launched a global survey and review of WHOIS resulting in on-going recommendations to the ICANN Board. The first of these concern accuracy of the data and marketing uses.

Key accuracy recommendations
- ICANN should work with all relevant parties to create a uniform and verifiable mechanism for the enforcement of the WHOIS provisions within the existing ICANN-registrar agreements.

- A process was recommended on how registrars should handle accuracy complaints.

- Registrars should in future remind registrants at the time of renewal of a domain name registration of their obligations to submit and maintain complete and accurate contact data. This has since become GNSO and ICANN policy.

Key marketing recommendation
- Use of WHOIS data for marketing should not be permitted.

Current developments

In 2003 new work - launched by the GNSO Council - started with three task forces on privacy, access and accuracy  of WHOIS. This led in 2005 to the launch of a policy development process for conspicuous notice (accuracy)  whereby Registrars would be obliged to inform users clearly at the time of registration that users must provide accurate contact data. Other issues are still under discussion and to help speed up the work, the GNSO Council in 2005 unified the three previous work groups into one and set them new and focused terms of reference. This unified group produced one output on a process to resolve conflicts between WHOIS provisions and national laws. The unified group continues to work on other issues.

Source: GNSO Council WHOIS report/BC

The policy was originally proposed in a set of recommendations from UN-agency the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The recommendations are known as WIPO1. The recommendations came from the WIPO standing committee on trademarks – a committee comprising representatives of national trademark registration offices. The UDRP has certain characteristics:

- it is fast: a resolution is given in weeks not years.

- it is non-binding on the parties to the dispute: either party can subsequently go to Court.

- it is administered by panellists who are typically experts in trade mark law.

In February 2003 WIPO wrote to ICANN with new recommendations (WIPO2):
- to modify the UDRP to allow international organisations (91) to file complaints
- to amend the UDRP to set up a reserve-list of country names (~329) for which registration as a future top-level domain name would be exclusive to the country itself.

These recommendations, not on trademark matters, also have their origin in WIPO’s standing committee on trademarks. They were not universally supported within WIPO: the US, Canada, Australia and Japan expressed opposition to one or both proposals.

ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee asked the Board to act and a President's Committee in June 2004 produced a lengthy analysis of the legal challenges but was unable to make any recommendation. Since then, there has been bilateral discussion between ICANN staff and WIPO but there is still no proposal. In 2006 the Intellectual Property Constituency made a proposal to Council to advance work on international organisations with a parallel but separate DRP.