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: <karl@MCS.Net>
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