draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt J. Postel
ISI
June 1996
New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains
draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-01.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a working
draft or work in progress.
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ds.internic.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or
munnari.oz.au.
Abstract
This document describes a proposed policy, procedure, and control
structure for the allocation of additional top-level domains.
Further it discusses the issues surrounding additional international
top level domains (iTLDs) and registries, qualification proposals for
operating such a registry, and justifications for the positions
expressed in this paper.
This document describes policies and procedures to
o allow open competition in domain name registration in the
iTLDs,
o and provide the IANA with a legal and financial umbrella
Note that while cooperation between competing iTLD registries is
allowed, it is not required. This is specifically not assumed in
this proposal, and is considered to be an operational aspect of a
registry best determined, and coordinated, by contractual agreements
between private interests.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 1]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
The NEWDOM, IETF, and related mailing lists are encouraged to read,
and comment, on this material. Presuming a consensus can be found
within these audiences, the distribution of this memorandum should be
expanded to include general commentary from the Internet community.
1. Introduction
For the purpose of delegation, the top level domains (TLDs) fall into
the categories listed below. While all are described to provide
context, only the last is the subject of this document.
1.1. National TLDs
The two-character namespace is, and will remain, reserved for ISO
country codes under existing accepted Internet RFCs.
National TLDs such as AF, FR, US, ... ZW are named in accordance
with ISO 3166, and have, in the major part, been delegated to
national naming registries. Any further delegation of these TLDs
is undertaken by the Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA), in
accordance with the policies described in RFC 1591.
It is good practice for these delegated TLD registries to publicly
document the applicable management policies and further delegation
procedures for these national domains, as, for example, RFC 1480
does for the US domain.
1.2. US Governmental TLDs
1.2.1. Delegation of the GOV TLD is described by RFC 1816, and is
under the authority of the US Federal Networking Council (FNC).
1.2.2. Delegation of the MIL domain is under the authority of the
DDN NIC. See RFC 1956.
1.3. Infrastructure TLDs
TLDs such as IN-ADDR.ARPA and INT are under the authority of the
IANA and may be delegated to others, e.g., IN-ADDR.ARPA is
currently delegated to the Internic for day-to-day management.
They are created for technical needs internal to the operation of
the internet at the discretion of the IANA in consultation with
the IETF. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on the use of the INT
and ARPA domains.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 2]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
1.4 The EDU TLD
Delegation of the EDU domain is under the authority of the FNC and
is currently delegated to the NSF which has contracted to the
Internic for registration. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on
the use of the EDU domain.
Over time, the FNC and NSF may decide to use other delegation
models, such as those described below for non-governmental TLDs.
1.5 The International Top Level Domains (iTLDs) COM, ORG, and NET
COM, ORG, and NET are the current generic international top level
domains (iTLDs) which are open to general registration. They are
currently delegated to the Internic by the authority of the IANA.
See RFC 1591 for general guidance on the use of the COM, NET, and
ORG domains.
The INT top level domain is also used for a very restricted class
of international organizations established by treaties between the
governments of countries. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on
the use of the INT domains.
1.5.1. The intent for these iTLDs is discussed in RFC 1591.
Generally, COM is for commercial organizations (e.g., companies
and corporations), NET is for the internal infrastructure of
service providers, and ORG is for miscellaneous organizations
(e.g., non-profit corporations, and clubs).
1.5.2. There is a perceived need to open the market in commercial
iTLDs to allow competition, differentiation, and change, and
yet maintain some control to manage the Domain Name System
operation.
The current situation with regards to these domain spaces, and
the inherent perceived value of being registered under a single
top level domain (.COM) is undesirable and should be changed.
Open, free-market competition has proven itself in other areas
of the provisioning of related services (ISPs, NSPs, telephone
companies) and appears applicable to this situation.
It is considered undesirable to have enormous numbers
(100,000+) of top-level domains for administrative reasons and
the unreasonable burden such would place on organizations such
as the IANA.
It is not, however, undesirable to have diversity in the top-
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 3]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
level domain space, and in fact, positive market forces dictate
that this diversity, obtained through free competition, is the
best means available to insure quality service to end-users and
customers.
1.5.3. As the net becomes larger and more commercial, the IANA
needs a formal body to accept responsibility for the legal
issues which arise surrounding DNS policy and its
implementation.
1.6. This memo deals with introducing new registries for iTLDs and
additional iTLDs names, it does not deal with the longer term
issue of the management and charter of the current iTLDs (COM,
NET, and ORG), or the specialized TLDs (EDU, GOV, MIL, INT, and
ARPA).
The current iTLDs may come under the provisions of this document
when their current sponsorship relationship ends.
The specialized iTLDs have such restrictive requirements for
registration that they do not play a significant role in the
competitive business environment.
1.7. Trademarks
Domain names are intended to be an addressing mechanism and are
not intended to reflect trademarks, copyrights or any other
intellectual property rights.
Except for brief mentions in sections 6.1, 6.4, and 9.3,
trademarks are not further discussed in this document.
1.8. Observations
There seem to be three areas of disagreement about the proposal to
increase the number of top level domains: (1) trademark issues,
(2) competition, and (3) directory service.
1.8.1. Trademark Issues
The statement is made that "increasing the number of top level
domains does not solve the trademark problem". This may be
because "the trademark problem" has no solution.
The Domain Name System was created to simply name computers
attached to the Internet. There was no intention that domain
names identify products or services in any way, or that domain
names have any relationship to trademarks.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 4]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
Two points must be kept in mind: (a) domain names are and must
be unique, and (b) trademarked names are not necessarily unique
(and the are many examples of non-unique trademarks).
There are no international trademarks. There is no official
international registry of world wide trademarks. Trademarks
may be registered per country (and in the United States (at
least) per State). The World Intellectual Property
Organization offers an international arbitration service on
such matters.
There are "strong" trademarks that are registered in many
countries and are vigorously defended. These may come close to
being unique. There are many "not so strong" trademarks that
may be regional or business sector specific (for example,
United Air Lines and United Van Lines, or the Acme Brick
Company and the Acme Electric Corporation)).
There are two conflicting goals of different trademark holders
with respect to domain names: (a) to protect their trademarks
against infringement, and (2) to have access to the domain name
system to use their trademarks in a domain name.
Trademark infringement is the use of a trademarked name in a
way that may confuse the consumer about the source or quality
of a product or service. For strong trademarks there may also
be infringement if the use of a trademarked name dilutes the
value of the trademark.
Holders of strong trademarks want to control every use of their
trademark. These people would say it is pointless to create
additional top level domains since they will acquire, reserve,
and otherwise protect their trademarked name in every top-level
domain so no new users will get access to domain names this
way, and besides you are just making more work for the lawyers.
While these holders of strong trademarks might not actually
acquire their names in all the possible top-level domains (no
extra income to the registries), they probably would take steps
to stop any infringement thus making those name unavailable to
anyone else (extra income to the lawyers).
Holders of not so strong trademarks want the ability to use
their trademarked name in a domain name while some other holder
of the same mark for a different purpose also can use their
trademarked name in a domain name. These people would say it
is essential to create additional top-level domains to permit
fair access to domain names by holders of not so strong
trademarks.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 5]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
I would suggest that the number of not so strong trademarks far
exceeds the number of strong trademarks and that the domain
name system should provide for the needs of the many rather
than protecting the privileges of the few. Thus new top-level
domains should be created.
1.8.2. Competition
Another concern with the current situation in the Domain Name
System is that there is one registry for the top-level domain
names and it is charging fees apparently unconstrained by
effective regulation or competition; it is in a monopoly
position. Given this, it is reasonable to introduce
competition in the form of other registries to provide
equivalent services.
There is a question, though, about how equal the service must
be to provide effective competition. Does the establishment of
new registries provide effective competition with the existing
registry and the most popular top-level domain (that is, the
COM domain)?
Will people be willing to change their domain name to get
better service or lower price? A name acquires substantial
value as it is used and it becomes a significant undertaking to
change a name. It is unlikely that many companies registered
in one domain (for example COM) will change to another (new)
domain.
Can other top-level domains be successful? It seems that it is
most likely that for new top-level domains to be successful
they will have to attract users new to the Internet. This may
require marketing efforts and promotion (that is, exactly the
competition that is currently missing). This can have a
significant impact very quickly. Given that the number of
users of the Internet is doubling every year, in three years
the current population of Internet users - and domain names -
will be a small minority of only one-eighth of the population.
Is there a practical way to share a single domain name between
competing registries? There are technical solutions to this
problem. But are there are manageable administrative
arrangements for this situation. I am not convinced there are.
Even if a manageable administrative arrangement for competing
registries to operate in the same top-level domain can be
found, these arrangements can be introduced in multiple top-
level domains in the future.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 6]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
While new single registry top-level domains may allow only a
limited form of competition, it is a better situation than we
have now, and it can be generalized in the future. Thus there
is no "competition" argument to prevent creating new top-level
domains.
1.8.3. Directory Service
Is the Domain Name System a directory service?
Is it reasonable to expect that if one thinks of a company name
that the string "www.company-name.com" will be the locator for
that company's web page? Even though it works some of the time
now, it is less likely to work in the future even if all
company names are registered in the COM domain due to more
frequent clashes in names and the requirement of uniqueness.
The creation of additional top-level domain names allows
companies to have more natural names in one of the various
top-level domains. This will make it harder to guess the
actually domain name for a company, but probably no harder that
it will become if all companies must find unique names in the
COM domain.
This directory problem is not really a Domain Name System
problem. The Domain Name System provides a name to address
look up service. It assumes that one starts with the exactly
correct name and allows the look up of information associated
with that name. The Domain Name System does not (and never
was) intended to provide a general search facility. It is much
more appropriate to use application level search tools like the
various web search systems, or directory services like the
X.500 directory service to find the exact Domain Name System
based on a fuzzier description of the company identity.
The nub of this issue is the question "Should domain names be
guessable?" My answer is that it is not possible in general to
have guessable domain names, so we shouldn't try too hard.
Thus there is no "directory service" argument to prevent
creating new top-level domains.
1.8.4. Side Remarks
1.8.4.1. Case Law on Trademarks and Domain Names
Trademark holders must assume that domain names are related
to trademarks. One of the requirements to keep a trademark
is that it be defended. If a trademark holder becomes aware
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 7]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
of something that might be an infringement of the trademark,
it would be folly not to pursue the issue, lest it turn out
to be important, and they loose their trademark because of
lack of action. That they take this action doesn't mean
that it is required, just that there is some doubt. Until
one of these cases actually makes it to a high-level court,
no one is going to know for sure.
The courts will either decide that domain names don't
infringe trademarks, simply because of their existence
(unless possibly someone has a trademark on a full name like
"isi.edu" or "cisco.com") at which stage the trademark
holders will know that they don't have to go chasing every
domain that happens to use their magic word somewhere in it,
or they made decide that the use of "foo.com" is actually a
violation of someone's trademark on "foo", in which case
people may make trademark searches before registering domain
names.
Even if the use of a trademarked word in a domain name is
ruled to not inherently infringe the trademark it is still
possible use the domain name in a way that would be an
infringement of the trademark.
It is also possible that creating new top-level domains will
strengthen the interpretation that the Domain Names System
simply names computers and is not related to trademarks by
making it clear that in a domain name like "foo.com" or
"foo.bus" the "foo" part cannot be extracted and be left
with any meaning at all, it means something only with the
complete suffix appended as an indivisible string.
Treating the Domain Name System as a directory service may
also strengthen the arguments that domain names identify
products and services and thus are subject to trademark
considerations.
In two real cases in the United States courts have found
that use of the equivalent of the "foo" in "foo.com" is a
violation of trademark. For practical purposes the law is
now established - the use of someone else's trademark in a
domain name in and of itself can be an infringement of
trademark.
1.8.4.2. Proposal to Eliminate International Top-Level Domains
There is a viewpoint that the problems generated by the
Unites States legal system should be confined there (and the
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 8]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
same for every country in the world). This argues to
eliminate the the international top-level domains (COM, NET,
and ORG) altogether and proposes to sweep the current users
of those domains into the country code domains. One logical
consequence of this view is that corporations in the Unites
States should be registered in COM.US.
This argument suggests that the trademarked words versus
domain names issue is a United States only phenomenon.
While this might be possible, i think it is short sighted.
When the number of companies registering domain names in
other countries reaches a large number or a substantial
percentage of the number of companies in that country, i
think they will find they have substantially the same
problems as currently occur with the COM domain.
This proposal would not fix the trademark, competition, or
directory issues, but it would repatriate them. There is
presumably no existing law, but it might be relatively easy
to establish that acme-cleaners.co.uk and acme-
cleaners.com.us were distinct and non-confusing to
consumers. So there may be actually some improvement with
respect to not so strong trademarks.
While this is an interesting suggestion, it is completely
unrealistic. The concept of moving - renaming - all the
over 200,000 companies now registered in the COM domain is
simply a non-starter.
So, the argument goes, just close the COM (and NET and ORG)
domain to new registrations and tell all those making
registration requests "were sorry, COM was a mistake, you
now have to register under your country code". After all,
by the growth argument, in a couple of years the number of
companies in COM will be a small percentage of the total
population.
I don't think this will work. There would certainly be a
lot of complaints (and probably legal actions) suggesting
that some unfair practices were being followed and that the
new requesters were being arbitrarily disadvantaged. I
think it would be hard to argue that over 200,000
registrations following a procedure in place over 5 years
was a small mistake.
By the way, i've explored the possibility that there might
be technical reasons to limit the size of a domain. For
example, not enough disk space, or too big to transfer for
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 9]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
backup, or whatever. The technical experts say not to
worry, there are solutions for all those possible problems.
A key point in this little story is the statement "This
would not fix the trademark, competition, or directory
issues, but it would repatriate them.", which is an
admission that no problem is solved by this proposal, rather
the problem is moved to some other sphere of responsibility.
As a practical matter, the suggestion is to close COM and
open COM.US. The result would be a lot of pain for
registration authorities and staff as well as the companies
denied registration in the COM domain, and not much else.
All the existing conflicts would emerge at once. Much pain,
no gain.
A side point to this proposal is that it reinforces
nationalistic tendencies rather than supports the shared
world spanning community feeling.
2. Goals
To facilitate administration of the domain name subsystem within the
Internet by ensuring that there is an open and competitive
marketplace for clients to obtain and subsequently maintain
delegation of subdomains within the iTLDs, while preserving the
operational integrity of the Internet DNS itself.
The specific measures to achieve this objective are as follows:
2.1. Provide the IANA with the international legal and financial
umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC),
2.2. Allow open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs,
which will then allow registries to charge for their services,
2.3. Allow multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly in
the existing iTLDs and/or other multi-registry iTLDs which may be
created,
2.4. Facilitate creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful, but
reliable, fashion,
2.5. Provide for reliable maintenance of the registrants of an iTLD
should the current delegatee no longer wish to maintain it, and
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 10]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
2.6. Define iTLD policies and procedures by open methods, modeled on
the IETF process and/or using IETF mechanisms when appropriate.
3.0 Scope of this Document
This document describes the administrative structure for the
operation of the iTLDs. While other administrative issues may exist
within the broader domain of the DNS, they are not addressed in this
document.
Specifically:
3.1. Only those relationships between the IANA, IETF, and ISOC which
are specifically necessary for responsible maintenance of the
iTLDs are described.
3.2. The Board of Trustees acts for the ISOC, the IAB for the IETF,
and the IANA for itself.
3.3. Long range maintenance of the IANA is not described; although it
is believed that the IANA should draw financial support from a
wide community.
3.4. The IETF is not directly involved in operation of the net.
Hence it serves the iTLD administrative work mainly in a technical
capacity, such as the formalization of new protocols and the
handling of technical appeals.
3.5. The ISOC does not directly operate the net. But it takes legal
responsibility for standards processes and some network management
processes, manages funds, and participates in the appeals process.
3.6. The IANA and any necessary ad hoc groups deal with operational
details.
3.7. The ISOC, the IETF, and the IANA are not to be legally or
financially responsible for the registries. The registries must
be responsible for themselves.
3.8. Creation of a large staff is not desired.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 11]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
4. Technical Assumptions
Further growth within the iTLDs can be accommodated technically, and
tools are in evidence to automate much of the process of registration
and maintenance of entries within the DNS as well as multiple
administrative access to a single delegated domain.
4.1. The size of current TLD databases such as COM, while large, is
not really a burden on servers, nor is it expected to become so in
the near future.
4.2. Procedures which allow mutual exclusion for the creation of
names within a single TLD are being developed within the IETF's
"dnsind" and "dnssec" working groups, and a test implementation is
available.
4.3. Tools are being developed to ease the processes of registration
and running the information servers which are expected of
registries.
5. The Process
5.1. The IANA continues to supervise and control all operational
aspects of the iTLDs, and is the second level of the appeals
process after the registries (which are the first level). It
appoints three members to the ad hoc iTLD group. The IANA may
directly review appeals and/or it may ask the Internet DNS Names
Review Board (IDNB) to participate in the review of an appeal.
The IANA has the option of asking the IDNB to review an appeal, or
the IANA may handle the appeal itself.
As described in RFC 1591 regarding a dispute between parties
contending for the management of a national TLD, the IDNB, a
committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for
cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among
themselves.
Now the role of the IDNB is expanded to include appeals on a
technical basis of the process documented in this memo.
5.2. The IETF, as part of its normal procedures, publishes documents
which describe technical and operational aspects of the domain
space including the iTLDs. It also provides an appeals procedure
for process issues and appoints two members to the ad hoc iTLD
group(s). That is, it reviews appeals that question whether the
process was properly followed.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 12]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
5.3. The ISOC provides the legal and financial umbrella, and the
final level of the appeal process. It provides an appeals
procedure for procedural issues and appoints two members to the ad
hoc iTLD group(s). The ISOC assumes legal liability for the
process and the iTLDs. The ISOC reviews appeals that question the
fairness of the process itself (not the application of the process
to a particular case).
5.4. The ad hoc working group, for developing procedures and deciding
creation of new iTLDs and chartering of registries, consist of
seven members appointed by the IANA (3), the IETF (2), and the
ISOC (2).
5.5. Note that 'ad hoc' means 'for this purpose only.' In this case,
a new ad hoc group is created and convened on a periodic basis
(probably annual) when needed to change procedures or to review
registry and iTLD applications.
5.6. It is estimated that approximately thirty (30) new iTLDs
allocated to approximately ten (10) new registries will be created
per year. It is expected that this will continue for the next
five years - unless something significant happens to change this
plan.
In this first year of this plan significantly more new iTLDs and
registries may be chartered, perhaps up to one-hundred-fifty (150)
iTLDs allocated to up to fifty (50) registries.
5.7. The policies and procedures to be used by the ad hoc working
group will be decided by the first ad hoc group in an open process
and will be clearly documented. This group will be appointed and
convene in in the next few months. It is expected that these
policies and procedures will mature over time.
5.8. Multiple registries for the COM TLD database, and multiple
registries for other (new and old) iTLDs may be created in the
future.
5.9. New iTLDs and registries will be created over time. This is a
direct change to RFC 1591. New iTLDs may be created with a non-
exclusive administration arrangement (multiple registries for one
iTLD).
5.10. The intent is similar to the licensing of radio stations in
some countries.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 13]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
5.11. Registries pay for charters, and the fees collected are kept in
a fund managed by the ISOC and used for the iTLD process (such as for
insurance against an iTLD registry withdrawal or collapse), and
possibly to support an evolved future funding model for the IANA.
6. Selection of iTLDs and Registries
6.1. The New Registries and iTLDs
There will be up to one-hundred-fifty (150) new iTLDs allocated to
as many as fifty (50) new registries, with no more than two thirds
(2/3) in the same country, created in 1996, and chartered to
operate for up to five years.
In the case that all the applications are from one country (for
example, United States) then only thirty-three (33) new
registries and only ninety-nine (99) new iTLDs would be
established
Up to three iTLDs may be operated by any single organization.
Each new registry will choose up to 3 new iTLD names it will
manage under its charter.
There will be no institution of multiple registries per iTLD in
1996 by the ad hoc committee. Registry operators are encouraged
to make such arrangements on their own initiative.
Summary: A new registry gets up to three new iTLDs for exclusive
management for a period of up to five years; if the registry
chooses it may establish a joint management of one or more of its
iTLDs with other registries. All registries will be reviewed
after five years, it is very likely that registries that provide
good services will be rechartered.
6.1.1. The new iTLD Name Space
It is desirable to maintain a "short" suffix on these iTLDs to
permit easier use by the public. As such, the presumption will
be that only three-character alphanumeric iTLDs will be
assigned.
The space of new iTLD names will be restricted to alpha numeric
strings of exactly 3 characters. iTLD names are case
independent (i.e., COM = com = cOm).
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 14]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
::=
::= |
::= A | B | C | ... | Z
::= 0 | 1 | 2 | ... | 9
These names must be generic, i.e., not well known company
identifiers or trademarks. iTLDs which are previously
registered trademarks are specifically excluded from
consideration as appropriate assignments.
A possible exception might be for a generic term that is
trademarked substantially world wide and is not associated
with a particular product or service or purpose other than
domain name registration.
This condition may be impossible to enforce, since on a world
wide basis in may be very difficult to determine if a
particular string of letters is a trademark in any country or
is the identification of a well known company in any country.
In any case the neither the IANA nor the ad hoc committee plan
to spend any time or energy on research in this area. The
applicants to operate registries and manage iTLDs are on their
honor not to select iTLD names knowingly in violation of this
condition.
6.2. Who May Apply
Persons or organizations wishing to operate registries and manage
iTLDS shall send applications to the IANA in accordance with the
provisions of this memo.
A "person or organization" may be a single person or organization
or any group of persons and organizations which may combine to
offer registration services under one name as a cooperative or
competitive provider of services, provided that all partners in
the confederation or alliance shall otherwise be in compliance
with the terms of this document.
Organizations granted iTLD names may add or remove additional
cooperating registration partners at their discretion, provided
that doing so does not violate the provisions of this memorandum.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 15]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
6.3. Open Process
The applications for iTLD domain names and registries shall be
evaluated in a neutral, impartial, and open manner.
The proceedings and evaluations of the applications submitted
shall be available for public inspection via an on-line procedure
(e.g., web site) along with the decisions made.
Financial and business aspects of proposals are kept confidential
during the evaluation process. The complete proposal of the
successful applicants, including these aspects, will be made
public at the completion of the ad hoc committee process.
6.3. Review Criteria
All applications are judged on three criteria: Registration
Services, Operational Resources, and Business Aspects.
Business aspects are not necessarily the most important criteria,
reliability, quality of service, sustainability, are also
important aspects.
When a registry which has provided good quality and reliable
service comes up for charter renewal, barring unusual
circumstances, the charter renewal application should be approved.
6.3.1. Registration Services
Each registry provide the following administrative services and
policies for each iTLD they administer:
1) Access to the Registration Database
The DNS database files and "whois" databases maintained by any
iTLD operator are deemed to be publicly available and public,
non-protected, information. The intent is to allow easy access
to the information needed to investigate and correct
operational problems.
A registry shall provide guaranteed availability of the
registration data in a useful form should transfer of
responsibility become necessary, e.g., regular publication of
the information, or regular deposits of copies of the
information with a reputable "escrow holder" instructed to
release the information to the IANA.
The IANA is authorized to designate an organizations as the
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 16]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
escrow holder of said database information for the purposes
described below under "Termination of Registries".
The escrow holder will have to keep very up to date copies
of the database probably through some automated system that
makes a copy on a daily basis.
There may be reasons (other than "transfer of responsibility"
or "termination of registries") to provide controlled access to
the data held by the escrow holder for special purposes, such
as legal proceedings in trademark cases.
The registry must provide a means, via the "whois" protocol, to
search the database of second-level domains maintained by this
registry and return common directory information. This
information shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:
a) The "owner" of the second-level domain, including contact
name(s), physical address(es), and telephone number(s) of
the persons responsible for the operation of the second-
level domain.
b) The nameserver hostnames and IP addresses serving that
second-level domain.
c) The current status (operational, on hold, pending, etc) of
that second-level domain.
There is no intent to have a "global phonebook" of second-level
domain holders. The intent is to provide information necessary
for tracking down and resolving operational problems.
iTLD registries are expected to provide their own directory
service, and "rWhois" is designated as one of the operational
choices which a registry may wish to utilize. However, no
attempt is made to mandate any particular technical or
organizational requirements from a registry to service requests
for lookups of a domain holder in other, competing registries
and iTLDs.
Internal database and operational issues are to be decided by
the registry. These issues, including pricing to customers of
the registry, are properly free-market issues and are excluded
from the control of the IETF, IANA, ISOC and other related
organizations.
2) A help desk and staff to answer questions via electronic
mail, fax and normal telephone during customary business hours.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 17]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
3) Published policies on services offered, registration
procedures, and fees.
4) A clear description of the appeals mechanism within the
registry, including the entry point for appeals and the
expected response time.
5) All of the public information identified in points 1 through
4 above shall be made available via WWW, FTP, and automated
email responder at an address associated with the organization.
6.3.2. Operational Resources
1) Internet Connectivity
A description of the Internet connectivity to the site where
each nameserver for each iTLD will be located.
For example, a diagram showing full multi-homed connectivity to
the organization's computers which will serve as the iTLD
nameservers, with each leg of that connectivity being at a
non-aggregated data rate of <*** whatever ***>.
And route advertisement via BGP4 for this organization's
connectivity must be operational for the connections maintained
under this provision, and the network involved should be
operating in a "defaultless" configuration.
2) Nameserver Performance
The description of at least two (2) nameservers for the iTLDs
in question. These nameservers shall run the latest
"consumable" release of the BIND code (4.9.x at present), and
may include local enhancements, changes, or operational
improvements.
The names and IP addresses of the hosts which are proposed to
serve the iTLDs.
6.3.3. Business Aspects
A description of the applicant which shows sufficient business
viability that the registry is likely to operate successfully
for at least five years (this is not a business plan, rather
some documentation that lends credibility to the applicant's
proposal).
An initiation fee of USD 10000 payable to the "Internet
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 18]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
Society" to be deposited in the "iTLD fund"; and each registry
established under this plan will contribute one percent (1%) of
its gross income from fees, dues, or other charges to its
customers to the "Internet Society" to be deposited in the
"iTLD fund", to be paid on a quarterly basis.
6.4. The Application
All of the information required to be supplied with an application
should be prepared for transmission via email in plain ASCII text,
in English. The details of the submission of applications will be
determined by the ad hoc committee.
The application shall include the following:
6.4.1. Applicant Name
The name of the applicant, including the contact information.
6.4.2. iTLD Names
The three three-character iTLDs proposed, along with an
statement indemnifying the IANA and the ISOC for any
infringement of trademark which may be created by the IANA
authorizing this assignment.
6.4.3. The Criteria Statements
The applicant's approach to the three criteria of section 6.3,
Registration Services, Operational Resources, and Business
Aspects.
These statements should include:
A clear statement of the charter, policies, and procedures,
a statement of registrant qualification procedures,
a statement that they will be non-discriminatory in the sense
of treating all applicants equally (if a registry chooses to
operate the iTLD "CHM" for companies in the chemical business
it may decline to register companies not in that business)
a description demonstrating the organizational and technical
competence to run a registry and the expected accompanying
information services,
a statement that the registry will
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 19]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
(1) abide by the results of the appeals process (as
described in this memo) and the direction of the IANA, and
(2) hold harmless ISOC, IANA, IETF, the ad hoc committee,
and
(3) obtain the usual prudent insurance.
6.4.4. The Application Fee
A non-refundable application fee of USD 1000 payable to the
"Internet Society" to be deposited in the "iTLD fund".
6.5. Charters are for a period of five years, but annual progress
reports are submitted for review by IANA and the ad hoc group. Only
in exceptional cases of radical change or abuse of a charter may the
IANA or the ad hoc group recommend to the IANA and ISOC that the
charter be reevaluated before the charter period is reached (see
appeals process, and termination of registries sections).
6.9. Sorting Out the iTLD Requests
It is fairly likely that severral applicants will request the same
iTLDs.
Suppose that two or more of the registry applicants that have been
otherwise approved by the ad hoc committee have requested the same
name as one of their new iTLDs.
The ad hoc committee will have to use an unbiased and fair method to
select which applying registry is to manage that iTLD.
This could result is some approved registries having fewer than three
iTLDs to manage.
After all the original iTLD requests of the approved registries have
been resolved any registries with fewer than three iTLDs to manage
will be asked to propose additional iTLD names until three non-
conflicting names have been selected.
6.10. Contract
The actual agreement to establish a new registry will take the form
of a contract between the registry organization and the Internet
Society (ISOC).
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 20]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
6.11. Schedule
There are several stages that each take some time: forming the ad hoc
committee, finalizing the procedure, accepting the applications, and
evaluating the applications.
6.9.1. Assume the ad hoc committee is be formed day 1.
6.9.2. The ad hoc committee will finalize and announce its procedures
by day 30.
6.9.3. The ad hoc committee will accept applications until day 90.
6.9.4. The ad hoc committee will review the applications and announce
its selections by day 135.
For example suppose the ad hoc committee was formed on 1-May-96.
Then the schedule would be:
01-Jul-96 ad hoc committee formed
01-Aug-96 procedures finalized,
begin accepting applications
01-Oct-96 stop accepting applications,
begin evaluation
15-Nov-96 announce selections
7. Termination of Registries
iTLD registries may decide they no longer wish to operate their
registry. Likely, the operation will not be profitable when this
occurs, yet the registrants under the iTLD may need to be supported
for a considerable time.
Some portion of the fees in the ISOC-managed iTLD fund may be used to
pay for some other organization to operate the failing iTLD or
registry until it again becomes viable or until the registrants have
safely migrated elsewhere.
While it is unclear how expensive providing even temporary service
for the iTLDs of a failed registry might be, the iTLD process must be
prepared for the case where a very popular, possibly because it is
low cost, iTLD or registry fails.
Some views on the possible scenarios:
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 21]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
It will be very expensive.
Bailing out the registrants of a failing domain could be very
expensive, even on the order of a million USD (remember, a
likely failure mode may be because someone thought they could
do it for less).
It is not a big deal.
It is presumed that any registry with a significant client base
will constitute a legitimate on-going business interest with
revenue prospects sufficient to insure that the registry will
in fact be transferred to another organization.
As an example, presuming 5,000 registrants of a given registry
and a fee of 50 USD per year, a revenue stream of 250000 USD
per year would inure to the benefit of any organization taking
over the services of a defunct organization.
Should a registry close without having significant second-level
registrations in place at that time, the impact to the Internet
users as a whole will be minimal or non-existent.
Succession issues related to the relationships between customers of a
registry and that registry itself are properly contractual matters
between the registry and its customers, and when properly attended to
do not involve the IETF, ISOC, or the IANA.
The IANA or its designee may operate an "escrow holder" to insure
that the records contained in a registry will remain available in the
event of intentional or accidental destruction due to a registry
forfeiting a iTLD.
Organizations providing registry services may elect to terminate
their involvement in this program and release the iTLD namespace
delegated to their organization under the following circumstances:
7.1. Any organization may transfer the authority for, and
registration services provided, for a iTLD to any other
organization provided that the new registration authority complies
with all provisions of this memorandum. The business and
financial terms under which this transfer is conducted shall be
properly between the old and new registry organizations and not
under the jurisdiction of the IANA, the IETF or the ISOC. However,
the IANA must be notified of such a transfer, and the charter of
the registry for the management of these iTLDs shall be reviewed
as a renewal of the charter at the next normal session of the ad
hoc committee.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 22]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
7.2. iTLDs which are "orphaned" by a registry that constructively
abandons them or ceases business operations without first securing
a successor organization to assume the authority and registration
services for that namespace shall be deemed "abandoned".
Abandoned iTLD namespace shall be auctioned to the highest bidder
by an open, competitive bid process adjudicated by the IANA or its
designees, which shall be conducted without undue delay. During
the interim period in question the IANA shall be authorized to
designate one or more firm(s) to hold the existing registration
records to prevent the interruption of service.
7.3. An organization that is found by the IANA to be in violation of
the terms of this delegation memorandum shall be given notice by
the IANA of intent to recover the iTLD domain space allocated
under this policy via normal postal mail. Within 30 days, the
organization against which the complaint has been lodged shall a)
cure the violation(s) of this policy, (b) transfer authority to
another organization under 7.1 above, or (c) constructively
abandon for public auction the namespace under the provisions of
7.2 above. Where the facts are disputed regarding possible
violations of this policy, the IANA is authorized to promulgate
reasonable adjudication policies which should include an
arbitration provision.
8. Finances
It is desirable to keep the ISOC, IANA and IETF from becoming
involved in operational and contractual aspects of the iTLD
registries, and it is further desirable to separate, to the extent
possible, the IETF and IANA funding from these organizations.
It is presumed in the best interest of the IETF, the IANA, ant the
ISOC to see that this separation of function is preserved.
Note:
Indemnification provisions from the registries to the IANA and
related organizations may not serve to properly insulate the
ISOC, IANA and IETF from legal proceedings, as it should be
presumed that any organization which is legally challenged in a
significant fashion may be unable to properly pay any judgments
levied against it. Current "deep pockets" legal practice
exposes related organizations to the negative effects of these
legal actions should the original organization be unable to
fulfill its financial obligations.
There is a concern that the presence of a funding path creates
a tying arrangement between for-profit organizations and a set
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 23]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
of non-profit organizations which up to now have not been
legally, financially, or otherwise encumbered by the actions of
these registries.
8.1. A registry may charge as it sees fit, within the bounds of the
policy published when it is chartered.
8.2. The ISOC manages all finances in a separate iTLD fund with open
reporting and published budgets. Agreement of the ISOC, the IANA,
and the IETF is required on all budgets.
8.3. Charter fee income may be used to pay legal costs of the IANA,
IETF, ISOC, and ad hoc groups when legal disputes arise from the
iTLDs process.
8.4. Charter fee income is also used to pay modest and publicly
visible costs of the chartering process, e.g., the costs of the ad
hoc committee, the administrative staff, and costs incurred by the
ISOC.
8.5. Charter fee income may also be used to fund the IANA if and when
it becomes necessary.
8.6. Should the reserves be too large, a consensus of the IANA, IETF,
and ISOC would allow disbursements for the general network good,
e.g., scholarships for engineers from developing countries.
8.7. The ISOC may charge a modest amount for administering the iTLD
account.
9. Appeals
Arbitration to resolve conflicts is encouraged. That an appeals
process is specified should not preclude use of arbitration. The
appeals process described here is for when arbitration has failed or
when the parties decide not to use arbitration, yet they do not wish
to exercise recourse to lawyers and courts.
9.1. The appeals process does not apply to disputes over Intellectual
Property Rights on names (trademark, service mark, copyright).
These disputes are best left to arbitration or the courts.
Registries may require appropriate waivers from registrants.
9.2. The appeals process does not apply to charging and billing.
This is left to market forces, arbitration, and the courts.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 24]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
9.3. The appeals process applies to all other aspect of registry
processing of registration requests.
9.4. A registrant's first recourse is to the registry which has
denied them registration or otherwise failed to provide the
expected service.
9.5. All registries must specify in their applications an entry point
and a process for appeals, as well as a response time, and must
subsequently conform to them.
9.6. If appellant is dissatisfied with the registry response, appeal
may be escalated to the IANA. The IANA hears appeals based only
on technical issues. Note that the IANA may use the IDNB to
process the appeal.
9.7. The IANA must define its entry point for appeals and must
respond to appeals within four weeks.
9.8. If appellant is dissatisfied with the IANA response, and the
appeal has nontrivial process aspects, the appeal may be escalated
to the IETF. The IETF hears appeals based only on process issues,
that is, claims that the procedure was not followed.
9.9. If appellant is dissatisfied with the IANA and, if invoked, the
IETF response, appeal may be escalated to the ISOC. The ISOC
appeals process hears appeals only about the fairness of the
procedure. I.e. the decision of IANA and/or IETF is final,
unless there is an appeal that the procedure itself is unfair.
9.10. The appeals process works by email. Appellant must provide
concise history of the case and summarize grounds of appeal. The
IANA, the IETF, or the ISOC may ask for information from third
parties. All information is normally treated as nonconfidential
and may be made publicly available. Confidential information is
considered only in special circumstances.
9.11. The IANA, the IETF and the ISOC may establish appeals sub-
committees chosen either from their own membership or outside of
it by whatever means each deems reasonable for their procedures
and purposes.
10. Security Considerations
There are no known security considerations beyond those already
extant in the DNS.
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 25]
...-itld-admin-01.txt New Registries and iTLDs June 1996
11. Acknowledgments
This memo is a total rip off of a draft by Randy Bush, combined with
substantial inclusion of material from a draft by Karl Denninger.
The appeals section was originally written by Brian Carpenter.
To this base i've made many changes small and large. So to the
extent you like this it is probably their work, and to the extent you
don't like it it is probably all my fault.
A lot of significant and constructive input and review was received
from the following:
Alan Barrett
Randy Bush
Brian E. Carpenter
Karl Denninger
Robert Elz
Geoff Huston
John Klensin
Lawrence Landweber
Nick Trio
12. Author's Address
Jon Postel
IANA Phone: +1 310 822-1511
USC/Information Sciences Institute Fax: +1 310 823-6714
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Postel Expires 12-Dec-96 [Page 26]