IAHC-DRAFT Expires: 19 December 1996 Ronald J. Fitzherbert Flying Penguin Productions Limited 20 November 1996 ASSIGNMENT OF NEW iTLDs and REGISTRIES -------------------------------------------------------------- Status of This Document This draft, file name draft-iahc-fitzherbert-00.txt, is intended to be become a Proposed Standard RFC. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the IAHC discussion mailing list or the author. This document is an IAHC-Draft. IAHC-Drafts are working documents submitted to the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee, its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. IAHC-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months. IAHC-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use IAHC-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in progress." Abstract [As taken from "FRAMEWORK FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DNS ITLD MANAGEMENT" by D. Crocker, IMC / November 1996] "iTLD administration touches a number of thorny topics, some of which have been an unresolved matter of consideration for over 100 years. Although it is entirely possible that resolution to them will be found soon, it is felt that the near-term requirements for iTLD administration require near-term solutions. If possible, therefore, the Internet should adopt near-term changes to ease the immediate pressures, making it possible to pursue longer-term solutions in a more comfortable manner. In typical Internet fashion, this means making the smallest number of changes, and introducing as little (risky) innovation, as can be accomplished. Increasing the number of registries achieves competition for registration operation. There is strong Internet community sentiment that introduction of registry competition is a simple and direct way to alleviate concerns over registry service quality and registry service fees. It should be noted that there is now only one registry for all international TLDs, but that the full range of DNS TLD management comprises multiple registries. Hence, addition of new registries already has considerable precedent. Increasing the number of international TLDs is expected to ease end-user difficulties in finding "meaningful" domain names, although it will not eliminate all trademark or other intellectual property concerns. Current DNS technology requires limiting the total number of TLDs; however there is room for growth and an opportunity for exploring additional policies and semantics for domain name hierarchies. Again, new TLDs have been added to the DNS from time to time, so there is no precedent set by creating more. Assignment of TLD registration authority has always been conditional; changes in assignments have, in fact, been made from time to time. It should be possible to extend DNS operation within its existing style, easing immediate pressures and buying time for consideration of longer term approaches. Near-term changes would permit additional iTLDs and additional registries. If added according to the current naming and operational style, a number of international legal issues will remain unresolved and they must be pursued. Hence an essential component of any near-term changes is that they, themselves, are subject to change. For example, the familiar form of domain names might, eventually, need to be changed, as might the nature or number of organizations authorized to operate registries. In the near-term, however, such substantive changes to the form and style of DNS strings should not be attempted." Acknowledgments The contributions to this draft by the subscribers of the IAHC Discussion mailing-list gratefully acknowledged: 1. Introduction 1.1 DNS, TLDS & IANA OPERATION [As taken from "FRAMEWORK FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DNS ITLD MANAGEMENT" by D. Crocker, IMC / November 1996] "The Domain Name System provides a mapping service between system names and Internet (IP) addresses. It uses a hierarchical structure both for creating the names and for storing and retrieving mapping information. The hierarchy is displayed in the names through a series of dot-separated fields, with the right-most field showing the highest level in the hierarchy. These are called "Top Level Domains" (TLD). A collection of TLDs pertain to national registration, using ISO-standard two-letter codes. A small number of TLDs pertain to Internet internal operation. The rest have a larger scope and are referred to as "international Top Level Domains" (iTLD). A TLD is operated by a delegated service, called a registry. For nearly 25 years, the job of assigning and overseeing TLD registries has been performed by the Internet Assigned Number Authority, working out of the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute (http://www.iana.org/iana). IANA has operated during that time with the advice and consent of the general Internet community. Its funding has come from the US government. IANA currently has a joint affiliation with the US Federal Networking Council (FNC, http://www.fnc.gov) and the Internet Society (ISOC, http://www.isoc.org). Over the years, IANA's policies and procedures have been revised to accommodate the changing operation and nature of the Internet. ISOC's formation of the International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC, http://www.iahc.org) is the latest IANA-related action to enhance TLD management." 1.2 REVIEW OF CURRENT ITLD MANAGEMENT [As taken from "FRAMEWORK FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DNS ITLD MANAGEMENT" by D. Crocker, IMC / November 1996] "All existing iTLDs are currently administered under a registry operated by NSI, through a contract with the US National Science Foundation. As NSF funding for this effort was withdrawn, NSI instituted charging for assignment and maintenance of new second-level domain names under the .com and .org iTLDs. For many years, there has been public discussion about DNS management and operation. In the last two years, increases of Internet use for commercial purposes has made contention over "interesting" domain names problematic. Combined with this, creation of administrative user fees engendered particularly strong community interest in changes to increase the number of registries and increase the number of iTLDs. Domain names have come to hold economic value. Hence, the assignment of iTLD registration authorities is certain to be the subject of competitive effort. The latest round of community discussions about these changes has already been protracted, resulting in a need for timely and near-term resolution. On the other hand, there are many and complicated legal issues with respect to domain names and their relationship to trademarks and other intellectual property. Complete resolution to these issues is likely to take a long time. Concern over the current operation includes two major issues: Exclusivity of registry control over "interesting" TLDs Constraints on the name space which result in contention over specific names" 2. Choice of New iTLDs 2.1 Number of New iTLDs and Rate As the concern is and should be the number of usable domain names under the existing iTLDs rather than the financial viability of existing or new iTLDs and the people who operate the registries it would be advisable that the number of new iTLDs created be minimal. Many of the concerns that have been raised regarding the scarcity of useable domain names could have been avoided with proper management of the existing namespace and the correct utilization of second- and third- level domains. If controls are put into place to insure the proper management of the iTLD and distribution of second-level domains then there should be no need for more than two or perhaps three new iTLDs at this time. These two or perhaps three new iTLDs should be introduced as soon as possible after the adoption of the new names in order to alleviate the current actual or perceived problems. New iTLDs can be created and issued at a later date as resources once again become an issue. Having 100's of iTLDs makes as much sense as dumping names and using IP addresses. 2.2 What names for these iTLDs should be authorized Any and all new names authorized should adhere to currently accepted standards. The names should be three characters in length and should apply to a generic segment of the internet. The current iTLDs are designed for use in specific instances, however the regulation of these uses has been dropped by the current registry which has severely blurred what each iTLD identifies. New iTLDs may end up being blurred in the same way, but as a base line there needs to be some generic purpose behind them. The purpose behind the name should also lead to the reasonable conclusion that there would be sufficient registrations under that iTLD to justify its creation. If a new iTLD was created specifically to apply to "people who have a webserver in their bathrooms" it could be reasonably be assumed that the number of registrations in this iTLD would be low (unless people were not registering within the iTLD for the purpose it was created). The names of the new iTLDs should also be applicable to a generic use so entities will not feel the need to register in multiple iTLDs for different purposes. In the case of a iTLD named .pop which is intended for use by entities providing email services it could be reasonably assumed that these entities would eventually desire to have names in more generic iTLDs. The new names should also be in a form that makes them uniquely identifiable with their specific purpose. If a iTLD such as .aaa was created it would not be uniquely identifiable with "Academic Association and Administration", and following the previous paragraphs outline it would also fail quantity test. Some of the types of names that would be considered acceptable would be: .npo (non-profit organization) .ltd (corporation or limited-partnership) .inc (corporation) .isp (internet service provider) .ind (individual) 2.2.1 Selection Process The process of creating new iTLD names should be that formal proposals are accepted from the internet community (which encompasses everyone on the planet) which would outline the rationale behind the name. The proposal would need to address the points detailed in section 2.2 and each proposal would be reviewed by the IANA/IAHC or their designees and the two or three names that are found to appear to provide the most "promise" would be selected as the next iTLDs to be issued. The party or parties submitting the name would receive no benefit from having the name selected, nor would they have any claim to the name. They may or may not choose to apply to manage the registry for that iTLD later in the process. 2.3 Policies for assigning second-level domains Assignment will be on a "first-requested" basis following the process outlined in Section 2.4 of this draft. 2.4 Dispute settlement among assignees for second-level domains The IAHC itself, other internet bodies and the registries shall not be directly involved in the dispute settlement process. It will be the responsibility of the registrant to insure that they are not infringing upon any other parties rights. Since the internet is large and the number of countries involved in any possible dispute is great it will be near impossible for any one registrant to verify that the name they wish to register is free and clear of any encumbrances there does need to be some mechanism in place to allow interested parties a chance to defend their rights. To this end all new second-level domains will be placed into a "comment" queue for 30 days from the time they are submitted until they are listed in the root domain servers. Names placed into the "comment" queue will be published by appropriate means as pending registrations. Interested parties may review this queue in order to research possible infringements and if any are found may take appropriate actions as necessary to have the submitter revise or withdraw their application. However, at the end of the 30-day comment period the name will be placed into the root-domain servers unless the original submitter has revised or withdrawn their application. The registries are acting as an agent of the submitter, they are not authorizing the use of a particular name, rather, they are listing a currently unused name at the request of a particular entity. In short, the registries are providing a service of pointing DNS requests to a particular place based upon a "first request for services". Any dispute arising from an entities use of a name is to be settled with the original requester, not the registries. The root-domain servers will continue to advertise the name submitted until such a time as the original requester cancels their application or other requirements are not met by the original requester. 2.5 Preservation of Trademark Rights This section is outside the scope of the IAHC. Trademark usage and preservation is better left out of the discussion as it is not the responsibility of the IAHC to preserve trademarks, rather it is the responsibility of the legal system and the courts. Since iTLDs can and will be utilized by entities in all countries of the world it will be impossible for any registry to understand and implement the laws and regulations of all of the relevant countries. However, in order to allow any interested/affected parties time to resolve any possible disputes the mechanisms described in Section 2.4 will be followed. 3. Choosing New Registries 3.1 Number of new registries, and rate The number of new registries should be variable. The number of registries should be adequate to insure that the iTLD portion of the DNS system is available and stable. The number of registries should not be dependent upon the number of iTLDs. 3.2 Requirements for a Registry Operator The requirements for a registry should be evaluated in two parts. The first part being the ability to perform the duties required of a registry from a technical standpoint. Considerations should include internet connection capacity and stability, hardware and software adequate for the job, staffing levels and expertise to perform the required functions. The second part being the business type and location of the registry. The entity desiring to manage a registry shall be of a non-profit nature. A for-profit corporation may provide an application to manage a registry, but they must have in place a plan to form a non-profit, separate entity prior to starting management of the registry (if they are selected to manage one). All fees collected for registrations will be placed directly into a special account and expenses will be presented monthly to the oversight committee for reimbursement. Therefore the entity desiring to manage a registry must have sufficient monetary resources available to provide for its operation until at least 30 days after the first registration is received. 3.3 Dispute Prevention/Resolution The attempt to prevent disputes will be handled by the usage of uniform guidelines. In the event that a dispute does occur it will be a matter for the disputing parties to resolve. Unless directed by the originator of the domain registration to stop service of the name it will not be the place of the registry to become involved in the dispute. If the disputing party cannot compel the originating party (through legal or other means) to release the domain then it is not the business of the registry to become involved. However, violation of the terms of the original usage agreement will be cause for the immediate suspension/removal of service. 3.4 Maintenance of iTLD in absence of Registry In the event that a registry fails or is removed for cause then only the currently resolvable names will be maintained in the root domain servers until a replacement registry can be found to process new requests. Technically significant changes would be manually entered by the oversight committee (this would be basically limited to changing nameserver pointers). 3.5 Shared Registries The shared registry model would be the preferred model to follow, however, for this model to actually be implemented there would need to be a meta-registry somewhere in the system. 4. Assignment verses Operation 4.1 iTLD Assignment 4. 2 iTLD Operation 5. IAHC Operation 5.1 Selection of iTLD Names 5.2 Selection of Registry Operators 5.3 Fees 5.4 Transition to New Process 6. Security Considerations Security considerations are not addressed by this draft. Appendixes A1. References "FRAMEWORK FOR MODIFICATIONS TO DNS ITLD MANAGEMENT" by D. Crocker, IMC / November 1996 A2. Author's Address The author of this draft may be contacted at: Ronald J. Fitzherbert President Flying Penguin Productions Limited Post Office Box 3785 Arlington, Virginia 22203-0785 U.S.A. 01.703.358.9219(vox) 01.703.522.2798(fax) ron@penguin.net A3. Expiration and Filename This document DRAFT-IAHC-FITZHERBERT-00.TXT will expire no later than 19 December 1996.