INTERNET DRAFT K. Denninger Expires 25 July 1996 25 January 1996 TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DELEGATION DRAFT Rev 0.1 draft-denninger-itld-admin-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 "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, NEWDOM and related mailing lists are welcome 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. 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. 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) The two-character namespace is, and will remain, reserved for ISO country codes under existing accepted Internet RFCs. 7) 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 only three and four-character alphanumeric TLDs will be assigned under this proposal. TLDs which are registered trademarks under US Federal Law are specifically excluded from consideration as appropriate assignments. 8) It is desirable to keep the IANA and IETF 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. 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. 2) A "global phonebook" of second-level domain holders. TLD 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 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. 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 or four character TLD proposed, along with an indemnity statement indemnifying the IANA for any infringement of trademark which may be created by the IANA authorizing this assignment. 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 top-level 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 normal telephone 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. 4) An administrative fee of US $1,000 per annum to be paid to the IANA for its oversight of this process. 5) Only one TLD may be operated by any single organization, with the exception of existing TLD names which are currently assigned. These will be grandfathered into the execution of this procedure (ie: NSI which currently operates .ORG and .COM). 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. IANA Responsibilities ===================== 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 are met by the organization making the request. 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 independant 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. Deletion or Transfer of a TLD; Escrow of Records ================================================ 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-00.txt Expires 25 July 1996