Draft-denninger-02

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

Comments?

Anyone have the official IETF submission address as well?

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 33 Analog Prefixes, 13 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal



INTERNET DRAFT                                              K. Denninger
Expires 26 May 1997                                     26 November 1996


                    TOP LEVEL DOMAIN DELEGATION DRAFT
                                  Rev 0.2

                    draft-denninger-itld-admin-01.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, IAHC, NEWDOM and related mailing lists and other venues
of concerned Internet citizens are welcome to read, and comment, on this 
material.



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.

Revision history:
0.1	Expired May 1996
0.2	This current revision

No attempt to mark revisions to 0.1 is made in this draft, as much has
changed between these two versions of this text.



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)	It has been demonstrated that thousands (ie: 5,000 to 10,000) TLDs
	will not break the "root" nameservers.  The currently operational
	"root" nameservers handle upwards of 400,000 domains at present as
	they also serve the .COM, .ORG and .NET zones.  This is done today
	without the servers "falling over".  A load of two orders of
	magnitude less in the TLD namespace is unlikely to cause any
	negative operational impact on their functionality.

	There is therefore no documentable technical restriction on large
	numbers of TLDs operating in parallel.

	As such, no artificial limits on the number of actual, operating
	and competing TLDs are imposed by this draft.

7)	The two-character namespace is, and will remain, reserved for ISO
	country codes under existing accepted Internet RFCs.

8)	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 three 
	to six-character alphanumeric TLDs will be assigned under this 
	proposal.  

8)	It is desirable to keep the IANA, IETF, and ISOC 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.

9)	The root namespace (".") does not belong to any individual or
	organization, but rather is a public good owned by the people of 
	the world.  The ISOC, IANA and IETF may, acting as a public trustee,
	oversee this resource and its utilization consistent with the
	following:
	a)	Policies promulgated are expressly designed to permit the
		fullest possible commercial and non-commercial use,
		consistent with the provision of reliable service to the
		public.
	b)	The enactment of artificial barriers to entry into the
		service of DNS names is improper, as no ownership of this
		resource has vested, now or at any time, within the IANA and
		ISOC.
	c)	Fees assessed are consistent with services actually
		provided, and do not accrue unreasonable in excess of
		documented and actual expenses.
	d)	None of the operating organs or committees of these
		organizations have the authority, expressly or otherwise, to
		act as tribunals or otherwise usurp the soverign authority
		of the nations and states under which these services are
		delivered.  As such arbitration of disputes is properly left
		to the legal devices of those nations and states.
	e)	Documented and actual expenses are kept under control
		by adoption of a "minimalist" philosophy of control and
		oversight.
	f)	Policies and procedures are enforced for the expressed
		and demonstrable purpose of maximizing connectivity and
		the ability to constructively resolve names within the DNS
		namespace.



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.  It is expected that registries may coordinate activities
	to provide cooperative services (ie: "shared" TLDs), and that the
	free market will be the best judge of whether such an approach has
	merit over the "one registry, one TLD" approach historically used.

2)	A "global phonebook" of second-level domain holders.  TLD
	registries are expected to provide their own directory service,
	and "Whois" or "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.

	Historically the ISOC, IANA, and IETF have not been interested in,
	and are assumed not to be interested in now, operating what amounts 
	to an insurance agency to protect customers in the event of a business
	failure.  Consumers interested in purchasing insurance of this type
	will have multiple ways of doing so (ie: registering under more than
	one TLD simultaneously, etc).



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 to six character TLD proposed.

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 root 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 ordinary telephone calls 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.  Registrations may be accepted by any or all
	of the following at the discretion of the registry:
	a)	WWW form and submission
	b)	Email
	c)	Surface mail
	d)	Fax
	e)	Carrier pidgeon :-)

	Service policies shall include time-to-respond metrics.

4)	An administrative fee of US $500 per annum per TLD to be paid to 
	the ISOC for its oversight of this process.  The ISOC may delegate
	this fee structure and disbursement of funds through open, public
	procedure as it sees fit.

5)	A registry may hold up to the following:
	a)	Twenty (20) unique TLDs.
	b)	No more than four (4) applications for a TLD may be 
		pending at any given time.

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.



ISOC/IANA Responsibilities
==========================

(In all paragraphs in this section, the ISOC may replace "IANA" with
any other committee or operating group, at its discretion, while acting
as a public trustee of this resource)

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 as called forth in this draft
are met by the organization making the request.

TLD registry operators with currently-existing and operational registries
which are held out to the public prior to the acceptance of this procedure
shall be given precedence over new registration requests, provided that
other requirements in this document are or can be met within 30 days of 
the initiation of these proceedings.

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 independantly 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.

The IANA or its delegate shall cause, within 10 days after award, the 
zone(s) delegated to be listed in the IANA-controlled root nameservers on 
the Internet, and shall constructively monitor these servers to insure 
continual service to the general community.

If at any time one or more of the existing "root" nameservers or their
operatiors shall fail to cooperate in providing the service set forth to the
Internet community at large, including but not limited to repeated technical
failures to perform or any instance of refusal to comply with a listing
requirement, the IANA shall direct that this server shall be replaced by one
operated by a registry in accordance with the provisions of this draft.

The IANA shall cooperate, to the fullest extent possible, with other TLD
registration authorities and sources of delegation to insure that the
"first-come, first-served" paradigm is preserved and that competition for
listing of TLDs is effected both within the IANA community and outside of
it.

This draft does not confer "ownership" of the root namespace (".") on the
ISOC, IANA, or IETF. 



Dispute Resolution
==================

It is envisioned that two forms of dispute resolution requests may be 
brought before the IANA, ISOC or IETF groups with regards to these new
TLDs and others which currently are operating:

1)	Disputes related to the operation of a TLD and its policies.

	These disputes should be relegated to the policies and procedures 
	called out in the appropriate TLD documentation and operational 
	policies which all TLD applications are expected to provide and 
	keep current.

	The IETF and IANA should become involved only where there is a
	charge of violation of charter under the guidelines for TLD 
	delegation as set forth in this draft.  All other disputes should 
	be returned to the individuals or firms who allege that an improper
	action has occurred.

	Customers with a protest regarding the operation of a particular
	registry are urged to seek resolution through normal legal means or
	via the use of their right to select a vendor for these services on 
	the merits, including any business policies that the registrant or
	potential registrant may find relavent to their operations.

2)	Disputes related to the award of a TLD.  Since the process as called
	forth in this draft specifies that "first come, first served" is the
	reservation and priority mechanism, the only available appeal
	through the IETF, IANA or ISOC should be on the basis of prior 
	use.  Documentation substantiating that an operational registry
	service was online for customer use prior to a competing filing,
	or that a request was made to the IANA for the TLD prior to the
	award for the specific TLD in question shall, upon examination
	and validation, be considered prior use.

	This memorandum specifically does not empower the IAHC, IANA, ISOC
	or IETF to act as arbitrers of disputes related to trademarks or
	other claims of intellectual property between potential or actual
	TLD registry operators.  It is presumed that the legal systems in
	the countries which are home to the potential combatants in such a
	dispute provide both an adequate and proper venue for such disputes
	to be aired, and that it is in the best interest of the IANA, ISOC,
	IAHC and IETF to refuse to intervene in what is properly a legal
	matter in the relavent jurisdictions.  Specifically, an attempt to
	usurp the authority of the judicial branch of the governments
	involved is invalid on its face under International and most
	national legal codes, and will only serve to invite legal
	proceedings directed at the IAHC, IANA, ISOC and IETF.



Deletion or Transfer of a TLD; Escrow of Records; Violations
============================================================

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-01.txt                   Expires 26 May 1997