INTERNET DRAFT R. Bush
draft-ymbk-itld-admin-00.txt RGnet
B. Carpenter
CERN
J. Postel
ISI
January 1996
Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)
Status of this Memo
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. Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a working
draft or 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 ds.internic.net, nic.nordu.net, ftp.nisc.sri.com, or
munnari.oz.au.
0. Abstract
This document describes policies and procedures to
o allow open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs,
o allow multiple registries for the COM and other iTLDs,
o and provide the IANA with a legal and financial umbrella
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
National TLDs such as AF, FR, US, ... ZW are named in accordance
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
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.
1.2. US Governmental TLDs
1.2.1. Delegation of the GOV zone 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. [ is there a descriptive or governing document? ]
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 zones.
Some people (Americans and non-) feel that EDU should be restricted
to US institutions. That is outside the scope of this discussion.
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 entities, NET is for the internal
infrastructure of service providers, and ORG is for miscellaneous
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
entities.
1.5.2. There is a perceived need to open the market in commercial
iTLDs to allow competition, differentiation, and change.
1.5.3. As the net becomes larger and more commercial, the IANA needs
a formal body to accept indemnity for the touchy legal issues which
arise surrounding DNS policy and its implementation.
2. Goals
To facilitate administration of the domain name subsystem within the
Internet by ensuring that there is an open and competitive marketplace
for clients to obtain and subsequently maintain delegation of sub-
domains 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 and financial
umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC),
2.2. Allow open competition in 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, ISOC, etc. which
are specifically necessary for responsible maintenance of the iTLDs
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
are described.
3.2. It would not be reasonable for this document to specify what
particular agent, board, or committee of the ISOC, IANA, or IETF acts
for each. Hence, they are described in generic terms, and left for
each organization to specifcy. This specification may change from
time to time.
At this writing, 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; although it
is believed that the IANA could draw financial support from a wider
community.
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 handling of technical
appeals.
3.5. The ISOC does not directly operate the net. But it takes legal
responsibility, provides ad hoc group members, 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 no be legally or financially
responsible for the registries. The registries must be responsible
for themselves.
3.8. Creation of permanent bureaucracy 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 zones 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 zone are being developed within the IETF's
dnsind and dnssec WGs, and a test implementation is available.
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
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 first level of the appeals process
after that of the registries. It appoints members to the ad hoc iTLD
group(s).
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. It also provides an appeals procedure for
technical issues and appoints members to the ad hoc iTLD group(s).
5.3. The ISOC provides the legal and financial umbrella, and the final
level of the appeal process. It provides an appeals procedure for
procedural issues and appoints members to the ad hoc iTLD group(s).
The ISOC assumes legal liability for the process and the iTLDs.
5.4. Ad hoc working groups, for developing procedures and deciding
creation of new iTLDs and chartering of registries, consist of seven
members appointed by the IANA, the IETF, and the ISOC.
5.5. Note that 'ad hoc' means 'for this purpose only.' In this case,
an ad hoc group is created and convened on a periodic basis when
needed to change procedures or to review iTLD applications.
5.6. Some may feel that this is too informal. Should this opinion
prevail, a permanent panel would be created, with two members each
appointed by the IANA, the IETF, and the ISOC and one member mutually
chosen from the general community. Members would serve two year
staggered terms.
5.7. The process/policy development may take three to six months, and
initial chartering another six. It is estimated that approximately
five new iTLDs will be created a year.
5.8. The policies and procedures to be used by the ad hoc working
group will be decided by the zeroeth ad hoc group in an open process
and will be clearly documented. This group will be appointed and
convene in March or April 1996. It is expected that these policies
and procedures will mature over time.
5.9. Multiple registries for the COM zone, and registries for new
iTLDs will be created.
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
5.10. 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 provisions of creation of an iTLD.
5.11. The intent is similar to the licensing of radio stations in some
countries, a few commercial ones and a few public service ones.
5.12. Registries pay for charters, and the fees collected are kept in
a fund managed by the ISOC and used solely for the iTLD process,
insurance against an iTLD registry withdrawal or collapse, and
possibly to support an evolved future funding model for the IANA.
6. Selection of iTLDs and Registries
6.1. There are useful proposals for registries and iTLDs which are not
able to demonstrate solid financial stability and/or raise sufficient
funding to ensure continued operation to protect the registrants
should their efforts fail. Yet it is desirable that these technical
and social experiments be conducted.
Hence, two types of charter are provided, commercial and public
service, with the understanding that fees from commercial registry
charters cross-subsidize low fees from public service efforts.
This is intended to provide, among other benefits, a path for
migration of the EDU and other TLDs.
iTLD and registry charter applications specify whether they are
commercial or public service.
6.2 An application is for chartering a new registry for an existing
iTLD, or for creation of a new iTLD and creation of one or more
registries.
If a new iTLD is proposed, then it is assumed to allow chartering of
multiple registries unless exclusive registration charter is specified
in the application. Request for exclusive registration must be well
motivated and well justified.
6.3. Financial and business aspects of proposals are kept confidential
during the evaluation process, as a bidding war is not desirable.
Charter approval does not necessarily go to the highest bidder.
Reliability, quality of service, sustainability, etc. are more
important criteria.
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
6.4. When a registry which has provided good quality and reliable
service comes up for charter renewal, barring unusual circumstances,
the charter renewal application should be approved.
6.5. All applications are judged on
6.5.1. a clear statement of charter, policies, and procedures,
including whether the iTLD is to have shared registries or be
exclusive,
6.5.2. organizational and technical competence to run a registry and
the expected accompanying information services,
6.5.3. innovation in type of service, audience, or technology,
6.5.4. a statement of registrant qualification procedures and a
statement that they will be non-discriminatory,
6.5.5. a clear description of the appeals mechanism within the
registry, including its guaranteed response time,
6.5.6. a statement that the registry will abide by the results of
the appeals process and the direction of the IANA,
6.5.7. indemnification of ISOC, IANA, IETF, ad hoc committees, and
all others believed to be at risk from this process, as well as the
usual prudent insurance, and
6.5.8. 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.
6.6. In addition, commercial applications are judged on
6.6.1. a business and financial plan which shows sufficient
viability that the registry is likely to operate successfully for at
least five years,
6.6.2. a bid to be paid to the iTLD fund if charter is awarded, and
6.6.3. a bid to be paid annually to the iTLD fund.
6.7. In addition, public service applications are judged on
6.7.1. clear demonstration of goals and means which are in the
public good and which have not been or might not be satisfied by a
commercial applicant,
6.7.2. a business and financial plan which need only show viability
and cost recovery, and which might even rely on income from donor
agencies, and
6.7.3. a minimal annual fee of USD5,000 to the iTLD fund.
6.8. Charters are for a period of five years, but annual progress
reports are submitted for review by IANA and the ad hoc group. Only
in exceptional cases of radical change or abuse of a charter may the
IANA or the ad hoc group recommend to the IANA and ISOC that the
charter be reevaluated before the charter period is reached (see
appeals process).
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
7. Finances
7.1. A registry may charge as it sees fit, within the bounds of the
policy published when it is chartered.
7.2. 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.
A significant amount of the chartering fees in the ISOC-managed iTLD
fund are reserved to pay for some other entity to operate the failing
iTLD or registry until it again becomes viable or until the
registrants have safely migrated elsewhere.
The iTLD process must be prepared for the case where a very popular,
possibly because it is low cost, iTLD or registry fails. 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). So prudent
reserves must be kept.
7.3. 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.
7.4. Charter fee income is used to pay legal costs of the IANA, IETF,
ISOC, and ad hoc groups when serious legal disputes arise from the
iTLDs.
7.5. 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.
7.6. Charter fee income may also be used to fund the IANA if and when
the IANA becomes more openly funded.
7.7. Should the reserves be embarrassingly large, a consensus of the
IANA, IETF, and ISOC Board would allow disbursements for the general
network good, e.g. scholarships for engineers from developing
countries, etc.
7.8. The ISOC charges a modest amount for administering the iTLD
account.
8. Appeals
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
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.
8.1. 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.
8.2. The appeals process does not apply to charging and billing. This
is left to market forces, arbitration, and the courts.
8.3. The appeals process applies to all other aspect of registry
processing of registration requests.
8.4. A registrant's first recourse is to the registry which has denied
them registration or otherwise annoyed them.
8.5. 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.
8.6. If appellant is dissatisfied with the registry response, appeal
may be escalated to the IANA.
8.7. The IANA must define its entry point for appeals and must respond
to appeals within four weeks.
8.8. If appellant is dissatisfied with the IANA response, and the
appeal has nontrivial technical aspects, the appeal may be escalated
to the IETF. The IETF hears appeals based only on technical issues.
8.9. 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 against breach of appeals procedure. I.e.
the decision of IANA and/or IETF is final, unless there is an appeal
against breach of appeals procedure.
8.10. The appeals process works by email. Appellant must provide
concise history of the case and summarize grounds of appeal. The
IANA, 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.
8.11. The IANA, the IETF and the ISOC establish appeals sub-committees
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
chosen either from their own membership or outside of it by whatever
means each deems reasonable for their procedures and purposes.
9. Appendix A - A Thousand Domains Experiment
It has been suggested that the root domain be opened up to a fairly
arbitrary registration of new iTLDs. While the idea has its social
appeal,
o it would be an irreversible decision with no prior experience and
o some argue that TLDs, like global variables, should be few and
created with great care.
Therefore we suggest that one of the early public service proposals
that should be seriously considered would be one which proposes a
shared iTLD which would have very open creation of sub-registries;
thereby conducting the 1,000 domain experiment one level down.
10. Security Considerations
There are no known security considerations beyond those already extant
in the DNS.
11. Acknowledgments
A lot of significant and constructive input and review was received
from the following kind folk:
Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com>
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Geoff Huston <gih@aarnet.edu.au>
John Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
12. Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
Unaligned geek
RGnet
9501 SW Westhaven Phone: +1 503 227-5665
Portland, Oregon 97225 Fax: +1 503 297-9078
USA Email: randy@psg.com
Brian E. Carpenter
IAB Chair
Group Leader, Communications Systems Phone: +41 22 767-4967
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT Delegation of iTLDs January 1996
Computing and Networks Division Fax: +41 22 767-7155
CERN
European Laboratory for Particle Physics Email: brian@dxcoms.cern.ch
1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
Jon Postel
IANA Phone: +1 310 822-1511
USC/Information Sciences Institute Fax: +1 310 823-6714
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU
Bush, Carpenter, Postel Expires Jul 22, 1996 [Page 11]