RANDOM DRAFT 53-D.1 J. Palmer AGN December 1996 Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs) Modified from DRAFT 53-C (by Jon Postel) (draft-iahc-palmer-itld-delegation-00.txt) Status of this Memo IETF DRAFT boiler plate goes here when this is an IETF DRAFT as long as it recognizes that the internet is an international organ of commerce and that free enterprise should drive its operation 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 the time-tested policy of "first-come, first-serve" in domain name registration in the iTLDs, just as it has worked for so many years in the common second-level domains under .COM, .ORG, etc. o provide for financial support for the root name servers while not allowing any organization (such as the IANA) from succeeding in unlawful enrichment schemes 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. 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. The ISO 3166 3-letter country codes ARE NOT to be reserved as domain names as this would eliminate many viable iTLD's from commercial use for no reason. 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 DDS Management Bulletin 9513, dated Nov 7, 1995, "Policy Governing Domain Registration in the '.MIL' and '.SMIL.MIL' Domains" The document can be obtained by either: ftp nic.ddn.mil, cd ddn-news, get bul-9513.txt or http://nic.ddn.mil/ddn-man.html. 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. 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. 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 The iTLDs are generic top level domains which are open to general registration. They are currently delegated to the InterNIC by the authority of the IANA. 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 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. Open, free-market competition has proven itself in other areas of the provisioning of related services (ISPs, NSPs, telephone companies) but does not appear to be applicable to this situation. as these aforementioned services deal with a finite resource (limited radio frequency spectrum, area codes, etc). 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 unless such organizations are compensated for the extra expense (and only for the expenses, and no more). It is not, however, undesirable to have diversity in the top- level domain space, and in fact, positive market forces dictate that free enterprise and open competition will give users of the internet many options and will foster excellence in service. In the real world, when a company is created, the government agency that acts as a registry for corporations (state departments of commerce) operate on a first-come, first-serve basis. That is, whoever is the first to claim a company name gets it. This has worked fine in the past and should be the guiding principle of this new policy. 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, and INT). 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 but in many places, reflect trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property rights. This policy must acknowlege this. Except for brief mentions in sections 6.1, 6.4, and 9.3, trademarks are not further discussed in this document. 2. Goals To facilitate administration of the domain name subsystem within the Internet by ensuring that there is a 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 umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC), 2.2. Allow 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 COM domain 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 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; It is not the subject of this document and fees for iTLD's should be used only to support the root name servers and any other support structures neccessary to directly support management of iTLD's by the root servers and IANA. 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. 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(s). The IANA may directly review appeals and/or it may ask the IDNB to participate in the review of an appeal. As described in RFC 1591 regarding a dispute between parties contending for the management of a national TLD, the Internet DNS Names Review Board (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 INDB 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. Via the IAB, it also provides an appeals procedure for process issues and appoints two members to the ad hoc iTLD group(s). The IAB reviews appeals that question whether the process was properly followed. 5.3. The ISOC provides the legal and financial umbrella, and the final level of the appeal process. Via the BoT, 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 BoT reviews appeals that question the fairness of the process. 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 ten (10) new registries and thirty (30) iTLDs 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 more new registries may be chartered, perhaps up to fifty (50). These estimates should NOT be used to restrict the number of new iTLDs, however. 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 will be created over time. This is a direct change to RFC 1591. New iTLDs may be created with a non-exclusive administration arrangement, i.e. multiple operators for any further iTLDs may be within the conditions of creation of an iTLD. Note that it is not required that multiple operators exist for an iTLD. 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), but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should these funds be used for current or future funding models for other activities of the IANA. 6. Selection of iTLDs and Registries 6.1. The New Registries and iTLDs [In future years, charters may be for a new registry (creating a multiple registry iTLD) for either an existing iTLD or a new iTLD, or for renewing the charter of an existing registry and iTLD(s).] 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 three to six-character alphanumeric iTLDs will be assigned. The space of new iTLD names will be restricted to alpha numeric strings of from 3 to 6 characters. iTLD names are case independent (i.e., COM = com = cOm). 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. 6.3. Open Process The applications for iTLD domain names and registries shall be evaluated in a neutral, impartial, and open manner. Applications shall be approved if the applicant can show it can provide the name servers for the iTLD's and that these servers are robust enough to survive network outages (see below). It is suggested that a WHOIS database be operated by the registries, but at this time, it is not required. 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 The only review criteria allowed is wether or not the applicant can supply a robust name server configuration for the requested iTLDs. Applicants who meet this requirement and that pay the annual fee MUST be appoved. No other discretion is allowed. 6.3.1. Registration Services Each registry holding a iTLD shall provide the following administrative services and policies: 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, if the organization operates such a database. 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 agent instructed to release the information to the IANA. The IANA is authorized to designate one or more organizations as "escrow holders" of said database information for the purposes described below under "Termination of Registries". 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) Published policies on services offered, registration procedures, and fees, available via WWW, FTP, and automated email responder at an address associated with the organization. 3) A clear description of the appeals mechanism within the registry, including the entry point for appeals and the expected response time. 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 . 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. 6.4. The Application All of the information required to be supplied with an application should be prepared for transmission via email in plain ASCII text. 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 iTLDs proposed. 6.4.3. The Criteria Statements These statements should include: A clear statement of the charter, policies, and procedures, a statement of registrant qualification procedures and a statement that they will be non-discriminatory, a description demonstrating the organizational and technical competence to run a registry and the expected accompanying information services, a statement that the registry will abide by the results of the appeals process and the direction of the IANA. 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". If approved, this fee pays for one year of charter. 6.5. Charters are for a period of five years. 6.5.1 Previous Applications The IANA, when executing the "first-come, first-serve" paradigm, will honor any applications sent to the InterNIC for iTLD's prior to the adoption of this policy. That means if there were any applications submitted before this policy was adopted, that they get placed first in line. The IANA will notify any persons or organizations who have previously sent in an InterNIC domain template with an application for a top level domain, that a policy is now in place and will inform said person or organization that he/she/it has the right to claim that iTLD. IANA will send a copy of all application instructions and a copy of this policy to that person or organization. 6.9. 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 begin accepting applications. 6.9.4. The ad hoc committee will review the applications and announce all of the applcations which meet the criteria beginning on day 135. For example suppose the ad hoc committee was formed on 1-May-96. Then the schedule would be: 12-Nov-96 ad hoc committee formed 15-Jan-97 procedures finalized, begin accepting applications 01-Mar-97 announce first appovals 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 are reserved 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: 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 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 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. 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 which is alleged to be in violation of the terms of this delegation memorandum shall be given notice 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 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 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 and the IANA to see that this separation of function is preserved. Note: 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. The IANA must publish an annual report showing revenues and expenses related to the operation of iTLD's and also a budget for the next calendar year. This report is due in public on March 1st of the succeeding year. The new budget is due in public on Oct 1st of the succeeding year. 8.2.1 The annual charter fee for a particular year shall be the current years expenditure divided by the current number of iTLD's plus 10 percent for inflation with a minimum charter fee of US$1,000 8.3. Charter fee income may be used to pay legal costs of the IANA, IETF, ISOC, and ad hoc groups when serious legal disputes arise from the iTLDs process, But only those legal costs associated with iTLDs and only of one of the aforementioned agency is named as a party in a suit. 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. 8.5. Charter fee income may NEVER be used to fund the IANA in its other activities not related to iTLDs. 8.6. Should the reserves be too large, the surplus should be paid back to charter holders by decreasing the annual charter fee in subsequent years. During any calendar year, if there is a large surplus, that surplus must be paid back in reduced charter fees within TWO calendar years. 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 the 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. 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 annoyed them. 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 (via the IAB) hears appeals based only on process issues, that is breach of appeals procedure. 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 IAB (acting on behalf of 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. 11. Acknowledgments This memo is a considerable rip off of a draft by Randy Bush and Jon Postel, combined with substantial inclusion of material from a draft by Karl Denninger. To the base of 53-C, I've made many changes. The significant ones deal with ELIMINATING any unlawful enrichment scheme of the IANA and ensuring that ONLY THE FUNDS needed to support the root servers (or the portion dealing with iTLDs) and modest IANA administrative costs associated with iTLDs. The second one was ENSURING "first-come, first-serve" policy. A lot of significant and constructive input and review was received from the following: (These were included by Jon Postel) Alan Barrett Randy Bush Brian E. Carpenter Karl Denninger Robert Elz Geoff Huston John Klensin Lawrence Landweber 12. Author's Address John Palmer AGN Phone: +1 810 790-9522 Internetworking Services Fax: +1 810 790-0156 31511 Harper Ave. St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 Email: jp@AGN.NET