Revised Draft

[chris@hal.iodesign.com (Christopher Ambler)]

Based on the comments I've seen here, as well as my own, I have taken
the IAHC 19 December draft and made some changes. This is my current
proposal.

You will find that it is SIGNIFICANTLY different than my original
draft earlier this month. This is no mistake, as I'm trying very
hard to promote compromise. I would appreciate feedback on this
draft rework.

---------
Image Online Design, Inc.
Christopher Ambler
23 December, 1996
                              
Draft Specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs

0.   SCOPE

  This document is a reworking of the 19 December IAHC draft
on the management of gTLDs. It is felt that this document
represents a compromise amongst conflicting viewpoints
on this controversial topic. It is hoped that this document
may promote consensus amongst the participants of this
discussion. This document has been created by taking the
19 December draft and adding, deleting, or modifying 
sections thereof. Unchanged sections are marked as such
to avoid duplication of material unrelated to changes.

1.   INTRODUCTION

  This section is unchanged

1.1  IAHC Charter

  This section is unchanged

1.2  Goals and Milestones

  This section is unchanged

1.3  Public Participation

  This section is unchanged

2.   NATURE OF TLDS

  This section is unchanged

2.1   National

  This section is unchanged

2.2   International

  This section is unchanged, with the following addendum

  The only other International TLD to be considered is
the .arpa TLD, which is used for reverse mapping
(in-addr.arpa). The operation of the .int and .arpa
TLDs will be defined and implemented by CORE (see
below), with the acknowledgement that the existing 
registrar, NSI, currently operates .arpa and .int.

2.3   Generic

RFC 1591 [Post94] refers to the TLDs .com, .org and .net as
"generic" TLDs (gTLD).  IAHC believes that this is the only
accurate characterization of these TLDs.  For example, these
TLDs are, in practise, open to anyone who lives anywhere
(which is why, perhaps, they have come to be referred to as
"international".)  However, there is no criterion that an
applicant for a domain name in any of these spaces act in an
international capacity.  For example, a local entity with no
activity outside of the local area (much less outside of the
country) can obtain a domain name in these TLDs.

The term "generic" TLD is used by IAHC to refer to a TLD in
which any entity from any country may register, whether or
not it has an international character, without having to
conform to any particular criteria.

Recognizing the de facto present situation, IAHC recommends
that  the existing special criteria should be lifted from
.com, .org and .net and they should be considered to be gTLDs.

3.   GTLDS

3.1  Whether to Create New gTLDs

  First 5 paragraphs unchanged.

  In addition, IAHC has decided to ensure that the new gTLDs
are all to be operated in a shared fashion across a number
of domain operators, as soon as all registering entities
are in a position to do so. This is regarded as a secondary
mechanism to ensure that each of these additional gTLDs are
operated in an environment of a competitive market for
access to these name spaces, and the same checks and
balances of the competitive inter-gTLD access space also
apply to the intra-gTLD space through this mechanism.

3.2  Sharing and Exclusive Use

  The ultimate goal is to create a system whereby all gTLDs
are shared amongst all the registrars. There are two primary
barriers to this goal.

  First, the existing registrar, NSI, is not in a position
to be mandated to share the existing gTLDs (com/net/org).
This barrier may be removed by the voluntary cooperation of
NSI. Until such cooperation is given, or their current
agreement with the NSF is dissolved, this barrier remains.
Even once the agreement is dissolved, there is no guarantee
that NSI will share their gTLDs. This issue will be given
immediate attention by CORE in an attempt to secure an
agreement condusive to sharing of gTLDs.

  Second, while there are many technical solutions for
implementing such a shared system, none have been suggested,
tested, or approved. It shall be the first responsibility
of CORE to select and/or develop, test, and approve such
a system.

  As sharing is not immediately feasable, the allocation of
new gTLDs to new registrars shall be on an exclusive-use
basis until these barriers are removed. Once sharing is
possible, a migration to such a system will be undertaken
with all due haste. All new registrars will agree to this
provision as part of their application and acceptance.

  In the event that NSI is willing to share the existing
gTLDs, and a technical solution is immediately available,
there will be no exclusive use period.

3.3  Which gTLDs to Create

  The decision of which gTLDs to create is a business aspect
of running a registration service, and is outside the scope
of the IAHC. As such, registrars will be solely responsible
for the selection of the initial gTLDs, with no registrar
selecting more than 3 gTLDs. Once the initial formation of
CORE is complete, CORE shall have, as one of its operating 
responsibilities, the creation of new, shared, gTLDs at
the request of participating registrars. The procedures and
policies for such creations shall be defined by CORE.

  These new gTLD's will consist of letter strings of three to
five letters each. The general or contextual meaning of these
strings is left to the registrar.

  In the case of a conflict in the selection of gTLDs where
two or more registrars select the same gTLD, and an exclusive
use period will be in effect, the allocation of said gTLD
will be determined in the following manner:

  First, the conflicting registrars will be requested to attempt
to arrive at a resolution on their own. Failing this, CORE
will assign the gTLD in question based upon documented evidence
of prior use in the establishment of a working registry and
a business plan to develop the gTLD in question. Should no
clear indication of such use prevail, the contesting parties
agree, as part of their application, to binding arbitration.

4.   REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS

4.1  Definition of Terms

  Definitions unchanged.

4.2  Choosing gTLD Registrars

  The ultimate goal for registries operating in the gTLD space
is that any qualified entity may be a registrar, and that
every registrar shares responsibility for registering domain
names in all gTLDs.

IAHC will establish the qualifications required of each
applicant to become a registrar. These qualifications will
be objective and will be subject to independent
confirmation. The application forms for Registrars will be
prepared by IAHC, and will include the following provisions:

(a)  Each application must be accompanied by a US$ 20,000
  fee. This fee will be refunded in the event an
  applicant is found to be not qualified.

(b)  Each applicant will be responsible for payment of an
  appropriate fee for a report by an independent business and
  credit reporting agency, designated by IAHC, which will
  confirm the validity of information submitted by the
  applicant; this fee is non-refundable;

(c)  Each successful applicant will be required to be a
  signatory to the Council of Registrars Memorandum of
  Understanding (CORE-MoU); 
  
(d)  Each applicant will be required to submit any disputes
  regarding the selection process to binding arbitration in a
  location to be specified by IAHC;

(e)  Applicants must commit to sharing all gTLDs once a
  technical solution for such sharing is available and all
  existing gTLDs are shared.

(f)  Applications are limited to one per organization.  An
  organization is any unit whose legal and financial
  responsibilities are shared.

(g)  Award of registrar status is non-transferable.

4.3  Objective Criteria for Registrar Selection

  Certain objective criteria, including verifiable factual
information as well as pledges to abide by certain minimum
levels of service shall be used to qualify a registrant for
the position of a registrar. These shall include:

1.  Documentation of sufficient connectivity to the Internet to support
the
    operation of a registrar. This connectivity shall have, as a
minimum,

    a.  Full multi-homed connectivity, with each leg of that
        connectivity being at a non-aggregated data rate of 
        1.536Mbps (US standard ESF/B8Zs T1) or better.

    b.  Route advertisement via BGP4 for the connectivity must be 
	operational for at least two of the connections maintained under the
        multi-homed provision, and the network should be operating in a 
	defaultless configuration.

2.  Documentation of the operation of at least two nameservers for the
    gTLDs in question (total, not two per gTLD). 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. These name servers must be operational concurrent with the
    application, and must be authoratative for the SLD nic.[gTLD] as an 
    example.

3.  A statement that the applicant intends to operate as a registrar for
    a period of time not less than two consecutive years.

4.  A written offer, which may or may not be called by CORE, 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 registrar.

5.  A written agreement that the applicant agrees to the terms and
    conditions of the sharing goal, and will abide by them.
    Additionally, a written agreement that the applicant will be a 
    signatory to the CORE-MoU.

6.  Documentation of a means, via the "whois" protocol, to search the 
    database of SLDs maintained by the registrar.

7.  A written agreement that the applicant will operate a help desk and 
    staff to answer questions via electronic mail, fax, and telephone 
    during customary business hours, as a minimum level of service.

8.  A published set of policies, including (but not limited to)

    a.  fees
    b.  service policies
    c.  services offered
    d.  dispute policies (including refund policies)
    e.  registration procedures, including all methods acceptable

    These policies shall be available, as a minimum, via the following 
    methods,

    a.  WWW
    b.  E-mail responder
    c.  FTP

9.  A written agreement indicating that registrations will be accepted
    by, as a minimum,

    a.  WWW form and submission
    b.  E-mail template(s)
    c.  Surface mail
    d.  Fax

5.   REGISTRY OPERATION

5.1  Council of Registrars (CORE)

IAHC delegates stewardship for the set of gTLDs to the
Council of Registrars (CORE), comprising the multiple,
competing gTLD registrars.

CORE will be established through a Memorandum of
Understanding (CORE-MoU). The CORE-MoU will be drafted
by the first membership of CORE. The CORE-MoU provides the 
necessary contractual, legal, oversight and public policy 
framework under which CORE and the individual Registrars must 
operate.

Internet Registrars are mandatory signatories to the CORE-
MoU.

The CORE-MoU will stipulate that the Internet top level
domain space is regarded as a public resource and subject to
the public trust. Therefore, any administration, use and/or
evolution of the Internet TLD space is a public policy issue
and must be carried out in an open and public manner in the
interests and service of the public.

The Board of trustees for CORE will ensure that gTLDs are
administered and operated in a public and open manner which
balances the commercial interests of registries with the
public policy interests of the Internet domain name space..
The Board shall comprise:  One member from each registrar,
and the full membership of the IAHC as comprised at the
time. The policy for appointment to the IAHC shall remain
as it is, with members being appointed by the different
Internet operation groups.

CORE provides first-level oversight and coordination among
those registrars, ensuring consistent service by registrars
and fairness among them. The details of its management will
be determined by CORE Board of trustees.  CORE will develop
procedures for handling disputes among Registrars and/or
other signatories preferably by binding arbitration.
Creation of any future gTLDs is under the aegis and policy
coordination of the CORE.  CORE will make available public
reports and statistics available about registration
activities during fixed reporting periods.

CORE will be a not-for-profit association, funded through
member fees, on a cost-recovery basis.  Fees for membership
will be determined by the Board of trustees.

5.2  Existing gTLD Registrars

Registrars for existing gTLDs are required to join CORE
and abide by CORE principles and rules, unifying the
handling of all gTLDs and obtaining equal benefits with
other gTLD registries. Understanding that the existing
registrar, NSI, is under no obligation to join CORE at
this time, CORE is under no obligation to share new
gTLDs with NSI. The final decision on this issue,
however, is left to the first CORE board.

5.3  gTLD Repository

CORE will contract with an independent and neutral third-
party for operation of the shared gTLD repository data base
(gDB).  The specific details of gDB subcontracting and
operation will be determined by CORE.

Members of CORE will have equal access to the repository
data base.  Allocation of SLD registrations is made on a
first-come/first-served basis among the registries.

The cost of operating the gDB shall be shared equally
amongst all registrars.

5.4  Second-Level Domains

SLD application

IAHC will specify the information to be required in all
applications for SLDs under gTLDs, subject to modification
by CORE.  It is desirable that a domain name application 
include sufficient information regarding the applicant and 
the applicant's intended use of the domain name to ensure 
applicant accountability and to ensure that sufficient 
information is available to enable trademark owners to assess 
the need for a challenge to the proposed SLD domain.  
The application must therefore include sufficient contact 
and intended use information, appointment of an agent for 
service of process and an agreement to jurisdiction in the 
event of trademark litigation.  Appendix A, attached, 
includes the information that must be included in a SLD 
application.  Applications submitted electronically
must include state of the art electronic identification;
written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an
individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized
representative if the applicant is an entity.

The information included in an application for SLDs shall be
considered to be public information at all times.

Renewal and non-use

To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize
obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually.
Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be
included in a renewal application.  Renewal applications
submitted electronically must include state of the art
electronic identification; written renewal applications must
be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an
officer or other legally authorized representative if the
applicant is an entity.

In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE shall develop
policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no
longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations).

Trademark concerns for SLDs

The allocation and use of  SLDs has raised concerns with
respect to their relation to trademarks.  It is recognized
that trademark owners have a legitimate interest, under
national trademark law, in policing against infringement,
and that SLDs are capable of infringing trademark rights.
Disputes can arise between trademark owners and
"extortionists" - those who deliberately obtain a SLD that
mirrors a well-known mark or name for the purpose of selling
it to the trademark owner or the highest bidder - and
between trademark owners and holders of SLDs for legitimate
business or personal use.   However, trademark
considerations have not, for the most part, been taken into
account in the context of  SLD allocation, which has led, as
electronic commerce has exploded, to a predictable collision
between SLD allocation and national trademark law.  There is
no single, universal international law of trademark, so it
is not possible to reserve disputes involving trademark and
domain names to an international body applying a globally
recognized body of law.

NSI has attempted to address this problem by
inserting itself as an arbiter of disputes between trademark
owners and SLD holders:  The registrar will put an SLD on
hold at the behest of the owner of a trademark registration
certificate if the holder of an "identical" SLD, once
challenged, cannot produce its own, trumping trademark
certificate or otherwise establish that its use of the
domain predates either the effective date or first use date
of trademark registration.  This policy,
which has generated significant controversy, unjustifiably
confers upon a non-judicial body the discretion to
essentially grant an injunction against continued use of a
SLD, without any adjudication of the merits of the trademark
owner's claim against the domain holder.  Such an approach
is inconsistent with basic tenets of trademark law and
principles of equity and fair play.  The dispute policy
unfairly burdens the domain holder - who may actually have
trademark rights superior to those of the challenging
trademark registrant.

IAHC seeks a policy in which registrars are involved as
little as possible in trademark disputes.  It is recognized
that there is a substantial interest in minimizing
litigation, including litigation against registries, and in
encouraging resolution of legitimate disputes prior to the
time that significant investment is made in a domain name.
In order that domain name applicants/holders may be held
appropriately accountable for any infringement of legal
rights, sufficient contact and context information should be
available, and there should be sufficient public notice
before a domain name is assigned, to facilitate dispute
resolution.

60-day publication period

In light of the legitimate interests of domain name holders
and trademark owners, and in the overall interests of
consistency and fair play, IAHC strongly believes all gTLD
registries and ISO country code registries should,
therefore, publish applications for SLDs, for a period of
sixty (60) days.  Such publication should take place on a publicly
available, publicized web site and include the SLD and the
contact and use information contained in the application
(see Appendix A). This publication period does not preclude the
immediate inclusion of the SLD into the DNS, however.

6.   OTHER NAME SPACES

6.1  ISO 3166 Country Codes

  This section is unchanged.

6.2  Trademark-specific Domain Name Spaces

  This section is unchanged.

7.

  This section deleted.

8.   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  This section is unchanged.

9.   REFERENCES

[Post94]  Postel, J. , Domain Name System Structure and
          Delegation, RFC 1591, March 1994.

  This section includes all drafts submitted to the IAHC
as a result of their call for proposals.
          
10.  CONTACT

In addition to the IAHC contacts, unchanged

  Christopher Ambler
  President, Image Online Design, Inc.
  1241 Johnson Avenue, Suite 201
  San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 US
  +1 805 543 4716 Voice
  +1 805 543 4735 Fax
  chris@iodesign.com

11.  APPENDIX

11.1 Appendix  A - SLD Application Requirements

  This section is unchanged.

11.2 Appendix B - SLD Renewal Application Requirements

  This section is unchanged.

[end of document]