INTERNET DRAFT K. Denninger Expires 26 May 1997 26 November 1996 TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DELEGATION DRAFT Rev 0.2 draft-denninger-itld-admin-01.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 "1id-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 memorandum shall be entitled "TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DELEGATION DRAFT", and describes a proposed policy, procedure and control structure for the allocation of additional top-level domains. This memorandum discusses the issues surrounding additional top level domains (TLDs), qualification proposals for operating such a registry, and justifications for the positions expressed in this paper. The IETF, IANA, IAHC, NEWDOM and related mailing lists and other venues of concerned Internet citizens are welcome to read, and comment, on this material. Revisions ========= As a draft, this document may be revised at any time. The revision number of the document in question is displayed at the top of the masthead, and should be referred to when commenting on the proposal contained in this draft. Revision history: 0.1 Expired May 1996 0.2 This current revision No attempt to mark revisions to 0.1 is made in this draft, as much has changed between these two versions of this text. Operating Assumptions ===================== This draft is written under the following assumptions: 1) It is desirable to have competing domain registries for commercial, educational, and other uses (organizational, etc). 2) The current monopoly 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, to the extent possible, neutralized. 3) Open, free-market competition has proven itself in other areas of the provisioning of related services (ISPs, NSPs, telephone companies, etc) and as such appears applicable to this set of situations. 4) 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. 5) It is not, however, undesirable to have diversity in the top-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. 6) It has been demonstrated that thousands (ie: 5,000 to 10,000) TLDs will not break the "root" nameservers. The currently operational "root" nameservers handle upwards of 400,000 domains at present as they also serve the .COM, .ORG and .NET zones. This is done today without the servers "falling over". A load of two orders of magnitude less in the TLD namespace is unlikely to cause any negative operational impact on their functionality. There is therefore no documentable technical restriction on large numbers of TLDs operating in parallel. As such, no artificial limits on the number of actual, operating and competing TLDs are imposed by this draft. 7) The two-character namespace is, and will remain, reserved for ISO country codes under existing accepted Internet RFCs. 8) It is desirable to maintain a "short" suffix on these TLDs to permit easier use by the public. As such, the presumption will be that three to six-character alphanumeric TLDs will be assigned under this proposal. 8) It is desirable to keep the IANA, IETF, and ISOC from becoming involved in operational and contractual aspects of the TLD registries, and it is further desirable to separate, to the extent possible, the IETF and IANA funding from these entities. The presence of a funding path creates a tying arrangement between for-profit organizations and a set of non-profit entities which up to now have not been legally, financially, or otherwise encumbered by the actions of these registries. It is presumed in the best interest of the IETF and the IANA to see that this separation of function is preserved. Indemnification provisions from the registries to the IANA and related organizations, as provided for in other proposals, do 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 judgements 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. 9) 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 ISOC, IANA and IETF may, acting as a public trustee, oversee this resource and its utilization consistent with the following: a) Policies promulgated are expressly designed to permit the fullest possible commercial and non-commercial use, consistent with the provision of reliable service to the public. b) The enactment of artificial barriers to entry into the service of DNS names is improper, as no ownership of this resource has vested, now or at any time, within the IANA and ISOC. c) Fees assessed are consistent with services actually provided, and do not accrue unreasonable in excess of documented and actual expenses. d) None of the operating organs or committees of these organizations have the authority, expressly or otherwise, to act as tribunals or otherwise usurp the soverign authority of the nations and states under which these services are delivered. As such arbitration of disputes is properly left to the legal devices of those nations and states. e) Documented and actual expenses are kept under control by adoption of a "minimalist" philosophy of control and oversight. f) Policies and procedures are enforced for the expressed and demonstrable purpose of maximizing connectivity and the ability to constructively resolve names within the DNS namespace. Items Not Addressed =================== The following items are intentionally omitted from discussion in this draft: 1) Cooperation between competing TLD registries. 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. It is expected that registries may coordinate activities to provide cooperative services (ie: "shared" TLDs), and that the free market will be the best judge of whether such an approach has merit over the "one registry, one TLD" approach historically used. 2) A "global phonebook" of second-level domain holders. TLD registries are expected to provide their own directory service, and "Whois" or "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 TLDs. 3) Internal database and operational issues. These issues, including pricing to customers of the registry, are properly free-market issues and should be excluded from the control of the IETF, IANA, ISOC and other related organizations. 4) Succession issues related to the relationships between customers of a registry and that registry itself. These matters are properly contractual matters between the registry and those entities requesting registration services. It is further 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 entity. As an example, presuming 5,000 registrants of a given registry and a fee of $50.00 per year, a revenue stream of $250,000 (US) 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-existant. Historically the ISOC, IANA, and IETF have not been interested in, and are assumed not to be interested in now, operating what amounts to an insurance agency to protect customers in the event of a business failure. Consumers interested in purchasing insurance of this type will have multiple ways of doing so (ie: registering under more than one TLD simultaneously, etc). Technical Requirements ====================== A commercial or other interest which wishes to operate a TLD shall propose to the IANA the assignment of that domain, and include with its application for same the following information: 1) A diagram substantiating full multi-homed connectivity to the organization's computers which will serve that top-level domain, with each leg of that connectivity being at a non-aggregated data rate of 1.536Mbps (US standard ESF/B8ZS T1) or better. Route advertisement via BGP4 for this organization's connectivity must be operational for at least two of the connections maintained under this multi-homed provision, and the network involved should be operating in a "defaultless" configuration. 2) Operation of at least two (2) nameservers for the top-level domain 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. 3) The three to six character TLD proposed. 4) The name(s) and IP addresses of the hosts which are proposed to serve this TLD, with correct top-level NS records installed and available for verification. 5) A statement that the registrant is in an Internet-related line of business, and intends to operate the registry for a period of not less than two (2) consecutive years. 6) A written offer, which may or may not be called by the ISOC and IANA, 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 registry which is delegated, even if the IANA, ISOC or IETF shall deem it unnecessary or inadvisable to request that this service be provided at the inception of the domain space requested. Administrative Requirements =========================== Each entity holding a TLD shall be required to provide the following administrative services and policies: 1) 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 numbers serving that second-level domain. c) The current status (operational, on hold, pending, etc) of that second-level domain. 2) A help desk and staff to answer questions via electronic mail, fax and ordinary telephone calls during customary business hours. 3) A published registration, fee, and service policy, available via WWW, FTP and automated email responder at an address associated with the organization. Registrations may be accepted by any or all of the following at the discretion of the registry: a) WWW form and submission b) Email c) Surface mail d) Fax e) Carrier pidgeon :-) Service policies shall include time-to-respond metrics. 4) An administrative fee of US $500 per annum per TLD to be paid to the ISOC for its oversight of this process. The ISOC may delegate this fee structure and disbursement of funds through open, public procedure as it sees fit. 5) A registry may hold up to the following: a) Twenty (20) unique TLDs. b) No more than four (4) applications for a TLD may be pending at any given time. 6) The DNS zone files and "whois" databases maintained by any TLD operator is deemed to be publically available and public, non-protected information; the IANA is authorized to designate one or more organizations as "escrow holders" of said zone information for the purposes outlined below under "Deletion or Transfer of a TLD". 7) For the purposes of this document, an "entity" may be any combination of organizations which may combine to offer registration services under one TLD name as a cooperative or competitive provider of services, provided that all members of the confederation or alliance shall otherwise be in complience with the terms of this document. Organizations granted TLD namespace may add or remove additional cooperating registration entities at their discretion, provided that doing so does not violate the provisions of this memorandum. ISOC/IANA Responsibilities ========================== (In all paragraphs in this section, the ISOC may replace "IANA" with any other committee or operating group, at its discretion, while acting as a public trustee of this resource) The IANA or its designee shall evaluate all applications for TLD domain space 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 (web site, etc) along with the decisions made. TLD requests shall be granted in the order submitted provided that the technical and administrative requirements as called forth in this draft are met by the organization making the request. TLD registry operators with currently-existing and operational registries which are held out to the public prior to the acceptance of this procedure shall be given precedence over new registration requests, provided that other requirements in this document are or can be met within 30 days of the initiation of these proceedings. The IANA or its designee 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 IANA may designate one or more entities to independantly evaluate the applications made for top-level-domain space on a contracted or other basis as the IANA shall deem proper, so long as the other requirements of this memorandum are complied with. The IANA 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 accidential destruction due to a registry forfeiting a TLD under this memorandum. The IANA 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. If at any time one or more of the existing "root" nameservers or their operatiors shall fail to cooperate in providing the service set forth to the Internet community at large, including but not limited to repeated technical failures to perform or any instance of refusal to comply with a listing requirement, the IANA shall direct that this server shall be replaced by one operated by a registry in accordance with the provisions of this draft. The IANA shall cooperate, to the fullest extent possible, with other TLD registration authorities and sources of delegation to insure that the "first-come, first-served" paradigm is preserved and that competition for listing of TLDs is effected both within the IANA community and outside of it. This draft does not confer "ownership" of the root namespace (".") on the ISOC, IANA, or IETF. Dispute Resolution ================== It is envisioned that two forms of dispute resolution requests may be brought before the IANA, ISOC or IETF groups with regards to these new TLDs and others which currently are operating: 1) Disputes related to the operation of a TLD and its policies. These disputes should be relegated to the policies and procedures called out in the appropriate TLD documentation and operational policies which all TLD applications are expected to provide and keep current. The IETF and IANA should become involved only where there is a charge of violation of charter under the guidelines for TLD delegation as set forth in this draft. All other disputes should be returned to the individuals or firms who allege that an improper action has occurred. 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 relavent to their operations. 2) Disputes related to the award of a TLD. Since the process as called forth in this draft specifies that "first come, first served" is the reservation and priority mechanism, the only available appeal through the IETF, IANA or ISOC should be on the basis of prior use. Documentation substantiating that an operational 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 TLD in question shall, upon examination and validation, be considered prior use. This memorandum specifically does not empower the IAHC, IANA, ISOC or IETF to act as arbitrers of disputes related to trademarks or other claims of intellectual property between potential or actual TLD registry operators. It is presumed that the legal systems in the countries which are home to the potential combatants in such a dispute provide both an adequate and proper venue for such disputes to be aired, and that it is in the best interest of the IANA, ISOC, IAHC and IETF to refuse to intervene in what is properly a legal matter in the relavent jurisdictions. Specifically, an attempt to usurp the authority of the judicial branch of the governments involved is invalid on its face under International and most national legal codes, and will only serve to invite legal proceedings directed at the IAHC, IANA, ISOC and IETF. Deletion or Transfer of a TLD; Escrow of Records; Violations ============================================================ Organizations providing registry services may elect to terminate their involvement in this program and release the TLD namespace delegated to their organization under the following circumstances: 1) Any organization may transfer the authority for, and registration services provided, for a TLD to any other entity *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. 2) TLDs 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 TLD namespace shall be auctioned to the highest bidder by an open, competitive bid process adjudicted 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. 3) An organization which is alleged to be in violation of the terms of this delegation memorandum shall be given notice of intent to recover the TLD 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 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 IANA is authorized to promulgate reasonable adjudication policies which should include an arbitration provision. Author's Address ================ Karl Denninger Email: Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1] Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] draft-denninger-itld-admin-01.txt Expires 26 May 1997