INTERNET DRAFT Christopher Ambler Expires 6 June, 1997 6 December, 1996 TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DELEGATION draft-ambler-itld-delegation-00.txt Status - 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." To learn the current status of any Internet Draft, please check the "lid-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Abstract - This document describes the policy, procedure and ongoing control structure for the allocation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs) for the Internet. This document replaces RFC 1591. This document composes a base set of operational guidelines for iTLD Registries (IRs). Acknowledgments - This document has been created with the input of many mailing lists and individuals in mind. The mailing lists for the NEWDOM discussion and the IAHC-DISCUSS list are primary sources of input. Other Internet Drafts provided input, including those by D. Crocker, K. Denninger, S. Higgs, D. Collier-Brown, A. Sullivan, J. Postel, and K. Crispin. As much thought went into these drafts, significant portions have been incorporated into this document. This document attempts to incorporate the points in the referenced drafts which are agreed upon by the author, as well as introducing new points. Introduction - The current state of ITLDs and the monopoly status of the only existing IR suggests strongly that additional iTLDs and IRs would solve the problem by introducing competition. Open, free-market competition has proven itself in other related services, and appears applicable to this situation. Additional IRs will distinguish themselves based on price, level of service, responsiveness, technical ability and the iTLDs they have to offer. Much like the choice of a business name can affect the desirability of a product or service, the choice of the iTLDs that an IR services will have an impact on the desirability of this service. This is controlled, however, by the fact that there are a large number of iTLD possibilities that are very desirable. The level of service provided and pricing will overshadow the desirability of any iTLD over another. What is left out? - The requirement to show financial wherewithal has been left out of this document, as the application fee should guard against frivolous IR applications. Should an IR fail to support itself, the amount of registrations would naturally be very small, and an auction of the iTLD namespace after it was abandoned would, as a result, be relatively painless. The issue of sharing has been left out of this document, as the decision to share should be a business decision of the IRs in question. Technical aspects of sharing are not yet complete, and would seriously delay the implementation of new iTLDs and IRs. ITLDs should be granted to the applying IRs, based on the criteria in this document, as an exclusive award. The proposal to move away from iTLDs and migrate to ISO Country TLDs has been left out, as this is a legal nightmare. Ignoring the fact that some prospective IR owners might call into question the ownership of the root namespace, taking existing domains away from their owners opens the regulating body up to serious legal liability. Many companies have build extensive and expensive marketing plans around their domain name, some even taking their domain name as their corporate identity. To change this would invite domain holders to file suit to protect themselves. Any proposal other than direct application has been left out of this document. While there have been a number of other methods, they all have serious drawbacks. A lottery penalizes forward-thinking companies as well as those who registered with IANA when they were accepting applications. An auction artificially raises the barrier to entry, as well as raising a large amount of money for which a use is not readily apparent. The "percentage payment" has been left out of this document, as it fails to take into account delinquent accounts, discounts, and other business practices that will render the percentage meaningless. Additionally, auditing methods are questionable at best. If the yearly fee is insufficient to fund the administration of the iTLD and IR infrastructure, it may be increased as necessary. Existing iTLDs and ISO Country TLDs - Existing iTLDs (.COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.) will remain in the control of the current holder, who will operate under the policies and procedures outlined in this document. To take the domains away or force sharing upon the current holder would be inappropriate. Existing policies for the assignment of ISO Country TLDs shall remain in place. New iTLDs and new IRs - The root namespace does not belong to any individual or organization, but rather is a public good owned by the people of the world. The IAHC, under the direction of the ISOC and IANA will act as a public trustee by overseeing this resource. The IAHC will allocate iTLDs to new IRs based on requests for new iTLDs, under the following guidelines: 1. Potential new IRs will submit, in writing, a request to the IAHC to be chartered as an IR. Included in this application will be the iTLDs that the IR proposes to administer. Provided that all other technical aspects of the application requirements are met, the iTLDs requested shall be approved for the new IR based on the order submitted. A potential IR requesting an iTLD that is already in use will be notified of this situation, and will be given an opportunity to revise the application with an alternate choice. In the case of the initial application process, potential IRs with applications already pending with IANA or demonstrating operational registries shall be given preference as demonstrating prior use of the iTLD(s) in question. The IAHC shall evaluate all applications for an iTLD in a neutral, impartial, and open manner. All proceedings and evaluations of the applications submitted shall be available for public inspection via an on-line procedure along with all decisions made. The IAHC shall approve conforming applications within 30 days from the date of application. Rejected applications shall state the specific reason(s) for which a rejection has taken place. The IAHC or its designee may operate one or more "escrow services" 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 an iTLD. The IAHC or its delegate shall cause, within 10 days after award, the zone(s) delegated to be listed in the IANA-controlled root nameservers on the Internet, and shall constructively monitor these servers to insure continual service to the general community. 2. A proposed iTLD must be no less than 3 characters and no more than 6 characters in length. There are no other restrictions on new iTLDs other than, as already specified, they must be unique to the application. 3. The number of new IRs created shall be limited only by the number of applications submitted that comply with all technical requirements. No limit on the number of iTLDs owned by a registry shall be imposed, as such a limit could be overcome by the creation of additional corporations. To insure fairness, however, no more than 4 iTLD requests may be pending from any on IR at any time. 4. The IAHC may specify a length of time for the award of an iTLD to an IR. Should a length be specified, renewals of the award shall be automatic and perpetual, providing the IR continues to comply with the provisions of this document. Dispute Resolution - Disputes relating to the assignment of iTLDs and IRs may be made to the IAHC, which will evaluate the dispute and reply back to the disputant with an explanation of the decision reached. Should the disputant wish to appeal the decision of the IAHC, such an appeal may be made to the ISOC directly. It is understood that a disputant, if still unsatisfied, may elect to use the legal system of the appropriate venue to resolve any disputed issues. Since the process as called forth in this draft specifies that of order of application, the only anticipated appeal should be on the basis of prior use. Documentation substantiating that an operation registry service was online for customer use prior to a competing filing, or that a request was made to the IANA for the TLD prior to the award for the specific iTLD in question shall, upon examination and validation, be considered prior use. It is expected that this situation will only arise during the initial award period, as in all future awards, the potential IR would be expected to submit an application concurrent with or before beginning operational activities. Disputes relating to the assignment of Second Level Domains (SLDs) under approved iTLDs shall be the sole responsibility of the IR in question. Customers with a protest regarding the operation of a particular registry are urged to seek resolution through normal legal means or via the use of their right to select a vendor for these services on the merits, including any business policies that the registrant or potential registrant may find relevant to their operations. Trademark issues shall be the sole responsibility of the IR in question. An IR requesting an iTLD that is a trademark may be assigned the requested iTLD, and will face the consequences of their action. The IAHC may, at its discretion, require an IR to pledge to hold harmless the IAHC from actions taken as a result of the iTLD selected. Trademark issues with respect to SLDs shall be the sole responsibility of the IR. It is the responsibility of the applicant for the SLD to be sure s/he is not violating a trademark. Each IR should include a statement to this effect in any registration template. Solutions for protecting an IR against trademark issues have been proposed by many individuals. One solution, for example, is that an IR could establish a policy of filing as an Interpleader in any dispute. It is the responsibility of the IR to establish and publish their policy. Application Process and Operational Criteria - An interest which wishes to operate an IR shall propose to the IAHC the assignment of the iTLDs, and include in the application: 1. Documentation of sufficient connectivity to the Internet to support an IR. This connectivity shall have, as a minimum, a. Full multi-homed connectivity, with each leg of that connectivity being at a non-aggregated data rate of 1.536Mbps (US standard ESF/B8Zs T1) or better. b. Route advertisement via BGP4 for the connectivity must be operational for at least two of the connections maintained under the multi-homed provision, and the network should be operating in a defaultless configuration. 2. Documentation of the operation of at least two nameservers for the iTLDs in question (total, not two per iTLD). 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. 3. A statement that the registrant intends to operate the registry for a period of time not less than two consecutive years. 4. A written offer, which may or may not be called by the ISOC, to operate a root domain server as part of the general Internet infrastructure. This commitment to provide this service shall be perpetual during the life of the IR. 5. An application fee of US$1000 to be placed in the "iTLD escrow fund." This fund shall be used to fund the administration of the iTLD and IR infrastructure. This fee may be increased or decreased as necessary to maintain sufficient working capital. Additionally, all IRs must provide the following services and policies, which should be outlined in the application: 1. A means, via the "whois" protocol, to search the database of SLDs maintained by the IR. This information shall include, at a minimum, a. The owner of the SLD, including contact name(s), physical address(es), and telephone number(s) of the responsible parties for the operation of the SLD. b. The nameserver hostnames and IP addresses serving that SLD. c. The current status, as defined by the IR (e.g. "operational," "on hold," etc. 2. A help desk and staff to answer questions via electronic mail, fax, and telephone during customary business hours. 3. A published set of policies, including (but not limited to) a. fees b. service policies c. services offered d. dispute policies (including refund policies) e. trademark policies (including refund policies in cases of violation or transfer of domains due to trademark issues) f. registration procedures, including all methods acceptable These policies shall be available, as a minimum, via the following methods a. WWW b. E-mail responder c. FTP 4. Registrations must be accepted by, as a minimum, a. WWW form and submission b. E-mail template(s) c. Surface mail d. Fax The actual form of the registrations is left to the IR. It is anticipated that IRs may wish to standardize this form, and may wish to draft an RFC to this end. This is, however, a decision left to the IRs themselves. Annual Fees - IRs shall pay an annual fee of $1000 per iTLD to the "iTLD escrow fund." Transfer of 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: 1. Any organization may transfer the authority for, and registration services provided, for an iTLD to any other entity provided that the new IR complies with all provisions in this document. The business and financial terms under which this transfer is conducted shall be properly between the old and new IR and not under the jurisdiction of this document. 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 iTLDs shall be auctioned to the highest bidder by an open, competitive bid process adjudicated by the IAHC or its designees, which shall be conducted without undue delay. 3. An organization which is alleged to be in violation of the terms of this document shall be given notice of intent to recover the iTLD domain space allocated under this policy via certified 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 entity under (1) above, or (c) constructively abandon for public auction the namespace under the provisions of (2) above. Where the facts are disputed regarding possible violations of this policy, the IAHC is authorized to promulgate reasonable adjudication policies which should include an arbitration provision. Author's Address - Christopher J. Ambler Image Online Design, Inc. 1241 Johnson Avenue, Suite 201 San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 USA Voice: +1 805 543 4716 Fax: +1 805 543 4735