Top Level Domains (TLD) in 2025

What is a top-level domain (TLD)?

A top-level domain (TLD) represents the first stop after the root zone in the DNS hierarchy. In simpler terms, a TLD is everything that follows the final dot of a domain name. For example, in the domain ‘google.com’, ‘.com’ is the TLD. Some other popular TLDs include ‘.org’, ‘.uk’, and ‘.edu’.

TLDs play an essential role in the DNS lookup process. For all uncached requests, when a user enters a domain name like ‘google.com’ into their browser window, the DNS resolvers start the search by communicating with the TLD server. In this case, the TLD is ‘.com’, so the resolver will contact the TLD DNS server, providing the resolver with the IP address of Google’s origin server.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has authority over all TLDs used on the Internet, and it delegates the responsibility of these TLDs to various organizations. For example, a U.S. company called VeriSign operates all ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ TLDs.

Another purpose of TLDs is to help classify and communicate the meaning of domain names. Every TLD will tell you something about the domain that precedes it; let’s look at some examples:

• ‘ .com’ is intended for commercial businesses.
• ‘ .gov’ is for U.S. government entities.
• ‘ .uk’ is for domains from the United Kingdom.

NIXI’s justification for two domains per person? National Security

In December 2021, NIXI published an undated notice stating that if any entity wants to register for more than two [dot]in domains, they’ll have to seek written permission from the NIXI CEO. In our RTI request, NIXI responded that the notice was issued for “national security”.

Remember NIXI’s two-domain per-person policy? The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) is the nodal authority for [dot]in domains in India. In December 2021, NIXI published an undated notice stating that if any entity wants to register for more than two of India’s Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) – [dot]in domains, they’ll have to seek written permission from the NIXI CEO. In our RTI request on this notice, NIXI responded with an incomplete response stating that the news was issued for “national security”. Go figure.

Background

NIXI is a government not-for-profit organization established in 2003 under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013. One of its critical tasks is to set up domestic Network Operation Centers (NOCs) among Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to enable domestic interest traffic within the country instead of re-routing via NOCs abroad. It reduces bandwidth charges for the ISPs and provides better service quality due to reduced latency.

NIXI has been authorized as the.IN Registry by the Government of India, since January 2005. The.IN domain names are available to anyone on a first-come-first-served basis. However, in an undated notice published on its website in December 2021, NIXI said that in case an individual registrant submits a request for registering more than two ccTLDs or if a registered accredited company requests for more than a hundred ccTLDs, then written approval of the CEO, NIXI is required.

We asked, and they refused

After the NIXI order was brought to our notice, we filed an RTI request with them seeking further clarifications and demanding transparency on how permission would be granted for more than two [dot]in domains.

We requested the following information from NIXI:

Request 1: Please provide information regarding the legislation or the power under which the policy changes to seek permission for domain registration after two successful rolls have been notified.

NIXI’s response:

“The new policy is per the powers available with the Registry under the Registry-Registrar Agreement. (Clause no 9.19).”

Clause 9.19 of the Registry-Registrar Accreditation Agreement states

“9.19 Amendments: This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Notwithstanding anything mentioned above, IN Registry, at its discretion, may occasionally post/publish new or amended Policies and Advisories on the Registry Website. The Registrar accepts that under their publication on such a website, the Registrar shall be deemed to have notice of such new or amended Policies or Advisories.”

It defies legal understanding of how a contractual agreement can empower NIXI to exercise such powers. Clause 9.19 can reserve such capabilities; however, it cannot by itself create them.

Request 2: Please provide information on whether any legal opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law or any other Ministry for the policy change.

NIXI’s response: “The above decision is taken concerning National Security.”

Request 3: Please provide information concerning whether any meetings were conducted to discuss the policy change. If yes, please provide a list of individuals/organizations who were a part of those meetings as well as the minutes of the arrangements.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

Request 4: Please provide information on whether third-party consultations were sought for the policy change. If yes, please provide information concerning the basis for selecting these third parties.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

Request 5: Please provide a copy of all documents related to the queries herein, including any legal opinions, minutes of meetings, and reports related to the change in policy.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

NIXI refused to respond to our request numbers 3, 4, and 5, which is against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.

Illegal response

The decision of the PIO, NIXI, to decline information without giving proper justification under the RTI Act 2005 is also in contravention of the Central Information Commission’s decision in CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated July 7, 2006. In this case, the CIC held that:

“Through this Order, the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”

Further, the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, in its judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Police v/s D K Sharma [W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009], dated 15-12-2010, held that:

“6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009, to deny the information under the RTI Act, the authority concerned would have to show a justification regarding one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.”

Further, S.8(2) of the RTI Act provides that

“Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible following sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”

Since our request for information was aimed at furthering public interests and increasing transparency in decision-making, we requested the legal basis of the order. Any legal opinion sought consultations received or asked, and minutes of meetings in which such a decision was taken. However, declining access to such information indicates a need for more transparency by PIO and NIXI.

Challenges

The reasons for mandating written approval of the CEO of NIXI have yet to be stated in the original notice published on its website. Further, in response to our RTI request, the PIO has merely stated that [the] “above decision is taken concerning National Security.” Repeating “national security” as a mantra to defeat transparency, even when not probably emerging from the topic of policy formation, is a growing tendency in decision-making.

Further, the PIO has declined our request for access to documentation of the meetings in which such a decision was taken. More clarity is needed because the approval request may be granted or denied. It merely mentions that “approval of CEO, NIXI will be provided within 24 hours of submission of the request irrespective of weekly off/ Theliday.”

The absence of a written procedure developed without consultation with stakeholders in a non-transparent way indicates public disinterest on the part of NIXI. Further, attempts to thwart information sought through right-to-information requests harm the spirit of the RTI Act of 2005. We have filed a first appeal against the response received to seek clarifications and further transparency in public interests.

ICANN has received a request to redelegate the.IN domain, a country-code top-level domain representing India, to the National Internet Exchange of India. ICANN Staff have assessed the request and provided this report for the ICANN Board of Directors to consider.

Factual Information

Country

The “IN” ISO 3166-1 code is designated to represent India, located in Asia, with a population of approximately 1.2 billion people.

Chronology of events

The.IN domain was initially delegated in the DNS root zone in the National Centre for Software Technol, the sponsoring organization (NCST).

In 2002, NCST was merged into the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a scientific research and development institution of the Ministry of Information Technology. No application was made to ICANN to transfer operations into this new entity.

In September 2004, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) received a presentation by Shri R.K. Arora of the Department of Information Technology. They were advised the Department was revamping the.IN Registry by way of bringing necessary policy changes to making the domain name registration system “liberal, efficient and market-friendly”. The minutes of the meeting concluded:

In this context, a Committee consisting of representatives of [the Department], ERNET, and NIC went into the details and brought out a report which comprised the following for setting up a new policy framework and implementation plan.IN Network Information Centre (INNIC):

• Major policy elements for.IN registration
• institutional framework for INNIC
• implementation mechanisms for INNIC

With the approval of the Competent Authority, it has been decided to entrust the responsibility of setting up INNIC for carrying out.IN Registry operation to NIXI Noida as an appropriate organization for this Internet business.

Accordingly, NIXI will set up INNIC at the current premises of STPI Noida, where NIXI already has its Internet Exchange point.

On September 30, 2004, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) passed the resolution:

According to Section 17 and other applicable provisions, if any, of the Companies Act 1956 and subject to confirmation from the Company Law Board and the Member of the Company, the main Object Clause of the Memorandum and Article of Association be and is as a result of this altered by adding the following new Clause after the existing Clause III (A) (4):

To carry on Internet domain name registry operations and related activities.

On November 20, 2004, the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology issued an order that the Department “designates and appoints National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) as . IN Registry for . IN country code top-level domain name”.

NIXI was announced on August 22, 2005.IN domain registrations advising, “The Government of India has decided that C-DAC will cease providing.IN domain name services on November 30, 2005. C-DAC was the.IN domain registry operator until December 30, 2004, when NIXI took over as the new registry operator.”

By January 2006, C-DAC continued to take responsibility for the.IN domain but no longer had any direct operational role.

In January 2009, C-DAC wrote to ICANN advising that NCST was no longer in existence and had been superseded by C-DAC, and that with effect of January 1 2005. I had been transferred to NIXI. ICANN responded by advising of the requirements of the redelegation procedure and asking what the relationship between NIXI and C-DAC was to identify if the change could be considered non-substantive.

On September 18, 2009, a redelegation request was submitted to ICANN requesting the redelegation of the IN domain to NIXI.

Proposed Sponsoring Organisation and Contacts

The proposed sponsoring organization is the National Internet Exchange of India, an incorporated company under Indian law. Its registered office is Incube Business Centre, 5th floor, 18 Nehru Place, New Delhi, India.

The proposed administrative contact is Rajiv Kumar. The administrative contact is understood to be resident in India.

The proposed technical contact is Howard Eland.

Evaluation of the Request

String Eligibility

The top-level domain “IN” is eligible for delegation under ICANN policy, as it is the assigned ISO 3166-1 two-letter code representing India.

Public Interest

Demonstrations of significant community deliberation or consultation concerning the transfer of operations from NCST to NIXI in 2004 have yet to be provided. The transfer was made by decree by the Department of Information Technology. In association with this 2009 request, two organizations — the Internet Services Providers Association of India and the Cyber Café Association of India, have written contemporary support of the transfer.

The government has been consulted in this process and consents to the transfer. The current sponsoring organization is an entity of the government, and the government chairs the private-sector organization proposed to be the sponsoring organization.

The application is consistent with known applicable local laws within India.

The applicant undertakes to operate the domain fairly and equitably through a policy that is published on its website.

Operation of the sponsoring organization is overseen by its Board of Directors comprised of the Chairman, the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology, two additional members from the Department, ten representatives of Internet Service Providers, and one from the Indian Institute of Technology.

Based in country

The proposed sponsoring organization is constituted in India. The proposed administrative contact is understood to be resident in India.

Stability

An unauthorized transfer of registry operations, absent completion of the redelegation process, has already been conducted. The transfer between NCST and NIXI occurred in January 2005. As a result, there are no foreseen transfer issues as the de facto operator is already NIXI.

The transfer is deemed uncontested, with the legal successor to the current sponsoring organization consenting to the change.

Competency

For the reasons stated above, the.IN Registry has already been operational with NIXI for some time. NIXI comprises 13 staff, with registry operations provided by Afilias, a registry services provider that provides service to several other top-level domains.

Evaluation Procedure

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is tasked with managing the Domain Name System root zone as part of a set of functions governed by a contract with the U.S. Government.

A subset of top-level domains are designated for the local Internet communities in countries to operate in a way that best suits their local needs. These are known as country-code top-level domains and are assigned by ICANN to responsible trustees (“Sponsoring Organisations”) who meet several public interest criteria for eligibility. These criteria primarily relate to the level of support the trustee has from their local Internet community, their capacity to ensure stable domain operation, and their applicability under relevant local laws.

An ICANN department known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) receives requests for delegating new country-code top-level domains and redelegating or revoking existing country-code top-level domains. An investigation is performed on the circumstances pertinent to those requests, and, when appropriate, the recommendations are implemented. Decisions on whether to implement requests are made by the ICANN Board of Directors, taking into account ICANN’s core mission of ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems.

Purpose of evaluations

The evaluation of eligibility for country-code top-level domains and of evaluating responsible trustees charged with operating them is guided by several principles. The objective of the regulations is to ensure the secure and stable operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. The evolution of the principles has been documented in “Domain Name System Structure and Delegation” (RFC 1591), “Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation” (ICP-1), and other informational memoranda.

In considering requests to delegate or redelegate country-code top-level domains, input is sought regarding the proposed new Sponsoring Organisation, as well as from persons and organizations that may be significantly affected by the change, particularly those within the nation or territory to which the ccTLD is designated.

The assessment is focused on the capacity of the proposed sponsoring organization to meet the following criteria:

• The domain should be operated within the country, including having its sponsoring organization and administrative contact based in the country.
• The environment should be performed in a way that is fair and equitable to all groups in the local Internet community.
• Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the prospective trustee is the appropriate party to be responsible for the environment, with the desires of the national government taken very seriously.
• The domain must be operated competently, both technically and operationally. Management of the domain should adhere to relevant technical standards and community best practices.
• Risks to the stability of the Internet addressing system must be adequately considered and addressed, particularly concerning how existing identifiers will continue to function.

Method of evaluation

To assess these criteria, information is requested from the applicant regarding the proposed sponsoring organization and method of operation. In summary, a request template is sought to specify the exact details of the delegation being sought in the root zone. In addition, various documentation is sought to describe the views of the local internet community on the application, the competencies and skills of the trustee to operate the domain, the legal authenticity, status and character of the proposed trustee, and the nature of government support for the proposal. The view of any current trustee is obtained. In the event of a redelegation, the transfer plan from the previous sponsoring organization to the new sponsoring organization is also assessed to ensure the ongoing stable operation of the domain.

After receiving this documentation and input, it is analyzed concerning existing root zone management procedures, seeking input from parties related to and independent of the proposed sponsoring organization should the information provided in the original application be revised. The applicant can cure any deficiencies before a final assessment is made.

Various technical checks are also performed on the proposed sponsoring organization’s DNS infrastructure to ensure name servers are correctly configured and can respond to queries for the requested top-level domain. Should any anomalies be detected, IANA staff will work with the applicant to address the issues.

Assuming all issues are resolved, an assessment is compiled, providing all relevant details regarding the proposed sponsoring organization and its suitability to operate the requested top-level domain. This assessment is submitted to ICANN’s Board of Directors to determine whether to proceed with the request.

NIXI’s Decision on Indian Domain

NEW DELHI, INDIA – In a surprising move that has left investors and domain resellers in disbelief, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), the official Registrar of Indian domains, decided to eliminate the potential for investment associated with .in domain names.

Unrest in India as the Value of .in Domain Resales Takes a Dive.

The sudden pronouncement had a massive impact, with masses rallying in the streets against it.

Venture Loses High-Income Status

Savvy domain investors have profited by flipping .in names for almost two decades. NIXI’s resolution regarding .in domains endangers Indian domain traders’ profiteering goals.

The story going public exposes public address systems to Bollywood tunes, amplifying energy levels at rallies and shifting protests into celebrations. Turbaned groups in multiple hues can be seen on street demonstrations captured by TV cameras using drone technology.

“Domain reselling was our livelihood. It was akin to unearthing digital gold,” expresses a crestfallen Rajesh’ Momo’ Kumar, a domain investor with a considerable portfolio of valuable .in domains listed for sale on GoDaddy. “Now, it feels as if our rights are being ripped away. It’s tantamount to depriving a South Indian of their beloved masala dosa!”

“Now, it feels as if our rights are being ripped away. It’s tantamount to depriving a South Indian of their beloved masala dosa!”

Rajesh Kumar

India’s Future Economy: Analysis of the Impact

Indian technocrats argue that limiting access to .in domains solely for private or commercial purposes might negatively impact India’s financial prospects and economic growth potential. They contend that this action suppresses the entrepreneurial drive, strengthening India’s domain market.

Amid ongoing protests, is there a chance for resolution or further alternative exploration from domain traders and NIXI itself?

About NIXI and its Policies

Founded under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013, NIXI is a non-profit organization that started on June 19, 2003. The Government of India has empowered NIXI as the.IN Registry since January 2005. India’s.IN domain names, the country’s top-level internet domain is now open for anyone to register on a first-come, first-served basis.

Uncertainly, .IN has a unique role of representation for India in the global assembly. NIXI follows Indian government policies for managing the IN Registry.

The Registrar Accreditation Agreement mandates that registrars must forgo squatting, grabbing, hoarding, infringing upon, auctioning, and drop-catching.IN domain names and avoid high prices. Any engagement leads to the suspension of accreditation, financial penalties, and legal consequences according to Indian laws.

In none of the Terms and Conditions for Registrants is there any reference to protecting registered domain names from being auctioned or sold at inflated prices? Though illegal and unfair trade practices regarding.IN/BHARAT domain names are present. NIXI proposed an amendment to include both the Registrant and Registrar in the respective policies and RAA to combat these issues.

Detailed Insight into Future Possibilities

The restriction of .in domains to food, film, and cricket sites might have unexpected consequences. This barrier hinders innovation and shrinks the possibilities available in the Indian digital ecosystem. Until recently, the system was known for its flexibility and inclusion, providing a space for different types of businesses and allowing for innovative expression.

Looking ahead, it seems likely that the Indian digital investment landscape will experience substantial transformation owing to these developments. Domainers and digital entrepreneurs will start to explore opportunities beyond traditional domain reselling. This might increase interest in digital assets such as cryptocurrency and NFTs, which have been profitable in other regions.

Additionally, these changes might cause a reconsideration of regulatory policies. The top-level domain industry and the broader digital community could push for a more flexible and comprehensive domain policy. As evidenced by these protests, a solid public feeling may lead to changes in the regulatory framework.

Adversity offers a chance for growth and change. The diversity and strength of the Indian digital world will play a vital role in managing these emerging regulations. Viewing the influence of these rules on India’s digital investment and entrepreneur ecosystem will be captivating.

The digital world constantly sees change, a testament to the age-old adage. How we respond and adapt to these changes will shape the future of the Indian domaining market.

FAQS

Can I buy more than two .in domain?

In domains, registrants to email ceo@nixi.com for written approval to register more than 2 . in parts (for individual registrants) or more than 100. in fields (for businesses and organizations). With this approval, the Registry may keep the extra domains and let the registrant know.

Who owns the trademark?

The trademark owner is the party who controls the nature and quality of the goods and services used in connection with the brand. The trademark owner is the person who applies the mark to goods that they produce or uses the pattern in the sale or advertising of services they perform.

What is the definition of a trademark?

A trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or combination that identifies your goods or services. It’s how customers recognize you in the marketplace and distinguish you from your competitors. The word “trademark” can refer to both trademarks and service marks.

What is the top-level domain of India?

It is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for India. 

Which domain is the most professional

The .com top-level domain is, by far, the most popular extension and, thus, with the highest value for professional websites. While it was initially conceived to host commercial websites, nowadays, its use has extended to any site despite the long list of alternatives devised for other purposes. 

Who owns the .com domain?

VERISIGN

The .com top-level domain (TLD) is owned by VERISIGN, which operates the infrastructure for several TLDs, including .com and . .net. It manages and operates the authoritative Registry for .com, which maintains the master database of all .com domain names and their associated information.

Who are the CEOS of the domain?

Our Executive Leadership Team

• Jason Pellegrino. Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director. …
• John Boniciolli. Chief Financial Officer. …
• Nathan Brumby. Chief Product & Technology Officer. …
• John Foong. Chief Revenue Officer. …
• Rebecca Darley. Chief Marketing Officer. …
• Alison Hancock. Chief People Officer. …
• Catriona McGregor. …
• Pooyan Asgari.

Which domain is best: .com or .in or come in?

IN extension uses ccTLD country code that stands for country code top-level domain. .in extension is best for websites that will target Indian users and audiences. At the same time, .com uses a gTLD – which stands for the generic top-level domain. It means it can be used for any website with a global reach.

Thanks for reading this article. We are here for Your Suggestions. You can write them down in the comment section or use the Contact Us page.

Here are a few Recommendations for you.

Best Web Hosting Services for Small Business & Prerequisites and Requirements of Website Step by Step