[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] Contribution from denominated ICANN CTO
[ed. the only editorial changes are to replace ISOC with ICANN
and eliminate sufficient spaces to pass the listserv 40k limit. -amr]
iana-itld-admin-00 J. Postel
ISI
May 1996
New Registries and the Delegation of International Top Level Domains
draft-postel-iana-itld-admin-00.txt
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.
Abstract
This document describes a proposed policy, procedure, and control
structure for the allocation of additional top-level domains.
Further it discusses the issues surrounding additional international
top level domains (iTLDs) and registries, qualification proposals for
operating such a registry, and justifications for the positions
expressed in this paper.
This document describes policies and procedures to
o allow open competition in domain name registration in the
iTLDs,
o and provide the IANA with a legal and financial umbrella
Note that while cooperation between competing iTLD registries is
allowed, it is not required. 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.
The NEWDOM, IETF, and related mailing lists are encouraged 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.
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
The two-character namespace is, and will remain, reserved for ISO
country codes under existing accepted Internet RFCs.
National TLDs such as AF, FR, US, ... ZW are named in accordance
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 TLD 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. See DDS Management Bulletin 9513, dated Nov 7, 1995,
"Policy Governing Domain Registration in the '.MIL' and
'.SMIL.MIL' Domains"
The document can be obtained by either: ftp nic.ddn.mil, cd
ddn-news, get bul-9513.txt or http://nic.ddn.mil/ddn-man.html.
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. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on the use of the INT
and ARPA domains.
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. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on
the use of the EDU domain.
Over time, the FNC and NSF may decide to use other delegation
models, such as those described below for non-governmental TLDs.
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. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on the
use of the COM, NET, and ORG domains.
The INT top level domain is also used for a very restricted class
of international organizations established by treaties between the
governments of countries. See RFC 1591 for general guidance on
the use of the INT domains.
1.5.1. The intent for these iTLDs is discussed in RFC 1591.
Generally, COM is for commercial organizations (e.g., companies
and corporations), NET is for the internal infrastructure of
service providers, and ORG is for miscellaneous organizations
(e.g., non-profit corporations, and clubs).
1.5.2. There is a perceived need to open the market in commercial
iTLDs to allow competition, differentiation, and change, and
yet maintain some control to manage the Domain Name System
operation.
The current 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 changed.
Open, free-market competition has proven itself in other areas
of the provisioning of related services (ISPs, NSPs, telephone
companies) and appears applicable to this situation.
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.
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.
1.5.3. As the net becomes larger and more commercial, the IANA
needs a formal body to accept responsibility for the legal
issues which arise surrounding DNS policy and its
implementation.
1.6. This memo deals with introducing new registries for iTLDs and
additional iTLDs names, it does not deal with the longer term
issue of the management and charter of the current iTLDs (COM,
NET, and ORG), or the specialized TLDs (EDU, GOV, MIL, INT, and
ARPA).
The current iTLDs may come under the provisions of this document
when their current sponsorship relationship ends.
The specialized iTLDs have such restrictive requirements for
registration that they do not play a significant role in the
competitive business environment.
1.7. Trademarks
Domain names are intended to be an addressing mechanism and are
not intended to reflect trademarks, copyrights or any other
intellectual property rights.
Except for brief mentions in sections 6.1, 6.4, and 9.3,
trademarks are not further discussed in this document.
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 subdomains 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 [ICANN],
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 existing iTLDs 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, and [ICANN] which
are specifically necessary for responsible maintenance of the
iTLDs are described.
3.2. [ICANN] acts 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 should draw financial support from a
wide 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 the
handling of technical appeals.
3.5. [ICANN] does not directly operate the net. But it takes legal
responsibility for standards processes and some network management
processes, manages funds, and participates in the appeals process.
3.6. The IANA and any necessary ad hoc groups deal with operational
details.
3.7. [ICANN] and the IANA are not to be legally or
financially responsible for the registries. The registries must
be responsible for themselves.
3.8. Creation of a large staff 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 TLD databases 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 TLD are being developed within the IETF's
"dnsind" and "dnssec" working groups, and a test implementation is
available.
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 second level of the appeals
process after the registries (which are the first level). It
appoints three members to the ad hoc iTLD group(s). The IANA may
directly review appeals and/or it may ask the Internet DNS Names
Review Board (IDNB) to participate in the review of an appeal.
The IANA has the option of asking the IDNB to review an appeal, or
the IANA may handle the appeal itself.
As described in RFC 1591 regarding a dispute between parties
contending for the management of a national TLD, the IDNB, a
committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for
cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among
themselves.
Now the role of the IDNB is expanded to include appeals on a
technical basis of the process documented in this memo.
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 process issues and appoints two members to the ad hoc iTLD
group(s). That is, it reviews appeals that question whether the
process was properly followed.
5.3. The [ICANN] provides the legal and financial umbrella, and the
final level of the appeal process. It provides an appeals
procedure for procedural issues and appoints two members to the ad
hoc iTLD group(s). The [ICANN] assumes legal liability for the
process and the iTLDs. The [ICANN] reviews appeals that question the
fairness of the process itself (not the application of the process
to a particular case).
5.4. The ad hoc working group, for developing procedures and deciding
creation of new iTLDs and chartering of registries, consist of
seven members appointed by the IANA (3), the IETF (2), and the
[ICANN] (2).
5.5. Note that 'ad hoc' means 'for this purpose only.' In this case,
a new ad hoc group is created and convened on a periodic basis
(probably annual) when needed to change procedures or to review
registry and iTLD applications.
5.6. It is estimated that approximately ten (10) new registries and
thirty (30) iTLDs will be created per year. It is expected that
this will continue for the next five years - unless something
significant happens to change this plan. In this first year of
this plan more new registries may be chartered, perhaps up to
fifty (50).
5.7. The policies and procedures to be used by the ad hoc working
group will be decided by the first ad hoc group in an open process
and will be clearly documented. This group will be appointed and
convene in in the next few months. It is expected that these
policies and procedures will mature over time.
5.8. Multiple registries for the COM TLD database, and multiple
registries for other (new and old) iTLDs may be created in the
future.
5.9. New iTLDs and registries will be created over time. This is a
direct change to RFC 1591. New iTLDs may be created with a non-
exclusive administration arrangement (multiple registries for one
iTLD).
5.10. The intent is similar to the licensing of radio stations in
some countries.
5.11. Registries pay for charters, and the fees collected are kept in
a fund managed by the [ICANN] and used for the iTLD process (such as
for 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. The New Registries and iTLDs
There will be up to fifty (50) new registries, with no more than
two thirds (2/3) in the same country, created in 1996, and
chartered to operate for up to five years.
Up to three iTLDs may be operated by any single organization.
Each new registry will choose up to 3 new iTLD names it will
manage under its charter.
There will be no institution of multiple registries per iTLD in
1996 by the ad hoc committee. Registry operators are
encouraged to make such arrangements on their own initiative.
[In future years, charters may be for a new registry (creating
a multiple registry iTLD) for either an existing iTLD or a new
iTLD, or for renewing the charter of an existing registry and
iTLD(s).]
Summary: A new registry gets up to three new iTLDs for
exclusive management for a period of up to five years; if the
registry chooses it may establish a joint management of one or
more of its iTLDs with other registries. All registries will
be reviewed after five years, it is very likely that registries
that provide good services will be rechartered.
6.1.1. The new iTLD Name Space
It is desirable to maintain a "short" suffix on these iTLDs to
permit easier use by the public. As such, the presumption will
be that only three-character alphanumeric iTLDs will be
assigned.
The space of new iTLD names will be restricted to alpha numeric
strings of exactly 3 characters. iTLD names are case
independent (i.e., COM = com = cOm).
<iTLD-name> ::= <let-dig> <let-dig> <let-dig>
<let-dig> ::= <letter> | <digit>
<letter> ::= A | B | C | ... | Z
<digit> ::= 0 | 1 | 2 | ... | 9
These names must be generic, i.e., not well known company
identifiers or trademarks. iTLDs which are previously
registered trademarks are specifically excluded from
consideration as appropriate assignments.
A possible exception might be for a generic term that is
trademarked substantially world wide and is not associated
with a particular product or service or purpose other than
domain name registration.
This condition may be impossible to enforce, since on a world
wide basis in may be very difficult to determine if a
particular string of letters is a trademark is any country or
is the identification of a well known company in any country.
In any case the neither the IANA nor the ad hoc committee plan
to spend any time or energy on research in this area. The
applicants to operate registries and manage iTLDs are on their
honor not to select iTLD names knowingly in violation of this
condition.
6.2. Who May Apply
Persons or organizations wishing to operate registries and manage
iTLDS shall send applications to the IANA in accordance with the
provisions of this memo.
A "person or organization" may be a single person or organization
or any group of persons and organizations which may combine to
offer registration services under one name as a cooperative or
competitive provider of services, provided that all partners in
the confederation or alliance shall otherwise be in compliance
with the terms of this document.
Organizations granted iTLD names may add or remove additional
cooperating registration partners at their discretion, provided
that doing so does not violate the provisions of this memorandum.
6.3. Open Process
The applications for iTLD domain names and registries shall be
evaluated in a neutral, impartial, and open manner.
The proceedings and evaluations of the applications submitted
shall be available for public inspection via an on-line procedure
(e.g., web site) along with the decisions made.
Financial and business aspects of proposals are kept confidential
during the evaluation process. The complete proposal of the
successful applicants, including these aspects, will be made
public at the completion of the ad hoc committee process.
6.3. Review Criteria
All applications are judged on three criteria: Registration
Services, Operational Resources, and Business Aspects.
Charter approval does not necessarily go to the highest bidder.
Reliability, quality of service, sustainability, are also
important aspects.
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.
6.3.1. Registration Services
Each registry provide the following administrative services and
policies for each iTLD they administer:
1) Access to the Registration Database
The DNS database files and "whois" databases maintained by any
iTLD operator are deemed to be publicly available and public,
non-protected, information. The intent is to allow easy access
to the information needed to investigate and correct
operational problems.
A registry shall provide 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.
The IANA is authorized to designate one or more organizations
as "escrow holders" of said database information for the
purposes described below under "Termination of Registries".
The escrow holder will have to keep very up to date copies
of the database probably through some automated system that
makes a copy on a daily basis.
The registry must provide 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 addresses serving that
second-level domain.
c) The current status (operational, on hold, pending, etc) of
that second-level domain.
There is no intent to have a "global phonebook" of second-level
domain holders. The intent is to provide information necessary
for tracking down and resolving operational problems.
iTLD 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 iTLDs.
Internal database and operational issues are to be decided by
the registry. These issues, including pricing to customers of
the registry, are properly free-market issues and are excluded
from the control of the IETF, IANA, [ICANN] and other related
organizations.
2) A help desk and staff to answer questions via electronic
mail, fax and normal telephone during customary business hours.
3) Published policies on services offered, registration
procedures, and fees.
4) A clear description of the appeals mechanism within the
registry, including the entry point for appeals and the
expected response time.
5) All of the public information identified in points 1 through
4 above shall be made available via WWW, FTP, and automated
email responder at an address associated with the organization.
6.3.2. Operational Resources
1) Internet Connectivity
A description of the Internet connectivity to the site where
each nameserver for each iTLD will be located.
For example, a diagram showing full multi-homed connectivity to
the organization's computers which will serve as the iTLD
nameservers, with each leg of that connectivity being at a
non-aggregated data rate of <whatever>.
And route advertisement via BGP4 for this organization's
connectivity must be operational for the connections maintained
under this provision, and the network involved should be
operating in a "defaultless" configuration.
2) Nameserver Performance
The description of at least two (2) nameservers for the iTLDs
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.
The names and IP addresses of the hosts which are proposed to
serve the iTLDs.
6.3.3. Business Aspects
A description of the applicant which shows sufficient business
viability that the registry is likely to operate successfully
for at least five years (this is not a business plan, rather
some documentation that lends credibility to the applicant's
proposal),
A bid amount in USD to be paid to the iTLD fund if charter is
awarded, and
A bid amount in USD to be paid annually to the iTLD fund.
6.4. The Application
All of the information required to be supplied with an application
should be prepared for transmission via email in plain ASCII text,
in English. The details of the submission of applications will be
determined by the ad hoc committee.
The application shall include the following:
6.4.1. Applicant Name
The name of the applicant, including the contact information.
6.4.2. iTLD Names
The three three-character iTLDs proposed, along with an
statement indemnifying the IANA and the [ICANN] for any
infringement of trademark which may be created by the IANA
authorizing this assignment.
6.4.3. The Criteria Statements
The applicant's approach to the three criteria of section 6.3,
Registration Services, Operational Resources, and Business
Aspects.
These statements should include:
A clear statement of the charter, policies, and procedures,
a statement of registrant qualification procedures,
a statement that they will be non-discriminatory in the sense
of treating all applicants equally (if a registry chooses to
operate the iTLD "CHM" for companies in the chemical business
it may decline to register companies not in that business)
a description demonstrating the organizational and technical
competence to run a registry and the expected accompanying
information services,
a statement that the registry will
(1) abide by the results of the appeals process (as
described in this memo) and the direction of the IANA, and
(2) hold harmless [ICANN], IANA, IETF, the ad hoc committee,
and
(3) obtain the usual prudent insurance.
6.4.4. The Application Fee
A non-refundable application fee of USD 1000 payable to the
"Internet Society" to be deposited in the "iTLD fund".
6.5. 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 [ICANN] that the
charter be reevaluated before the charter period is reached (see
appeals process, and termination of registries sections).
6.9. Schedule
There are several stages that each take some time: forming the ad hoc
committee, finalizing the procedure, accepting the applications, and
evaluating the applications.
6.9.1. Assume the ad hoc committee is be formed day 1.
6.9.2. The ad hoc committee will finalize and announce its procedures
by day 30.
6.9.3. The ad hoc committee will accept applications until day 90.
6.9.4. The ad hoc committee will review the applications and announce
its selections by day 135.
For example suppose the ad hoc committee was formed on 1-May-96.
Then the schedule would be:
01-May-96 ad hoc committee formed
01-Jun-96 procedures finalized,
begin accepting applications
01-Aug-96 stop accepting applications,
begin evaluation
15-Sep-96 announce selections
7. Termination of Registries
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.
Some portion of the fees in the [ICANN]-managed iTLD fund may be used to
pay for some other organization to operate the failing iTLD or
registry until it again becomes viable or until the registrants have
safely migrated elsewhere.
While it is unclear how expensive providing even temporary service
for the iTLDs of a failed registry might be, the iTLD process must be
prepared for the case where a very popular, possibly because it is
low cost, iTLD or registry fails.
Some views on the possible scenarios:
It will be very expensive.
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).
It is not a big deal.
It is 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 organization.
As an example, presuming 5,000 registrants of a given registry
and a fee of 50 USD per year, a revenue stream of 250000 USD
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-existent.
Succession issues related to the relationships between customers of a
registry and that registry itself are properly contractual matters
between the registry and its customers, and when properly attended to
do not involve the IETF, [ICANN], or the IANA.
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 accidental destruction due to a
registry forfeiting a iTLD.
Organizations providing registry services may elect to terminate
their involvement in this program and release the iTLD namespace
delegated to their organization under the following circumstances:
7.1. Any organization may transfer the authority for, and
registration services provided, for a iTLD to any other
organization 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 [ICANN]. However,
the IANA must be notified of such a transfer, and the charter of
the registry for the management of these iTLDs shall be reviewed
as a renewal of the charter at the next normal session of the ad
hoc committee.
7.2. iTLDs 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 iTLD namespace shall be auctioned to the highest bidder
by an open, competitive bid process adjudicated 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.
7.3. An organization that is found by the IANA to be in violation of
the terms of this delegation memorandum shall be given notice by
the IANA of intent to recover the iTLD 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 organization under 7.1 above, or (c) constructively
abandon for public auction the namespace under the provisions of
7.2 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.
8. Finances
It is desirable to keep the [ICANN], IANA and IETF from becoming
involved in operational and contractual aspects of the iTLD
registries, and it is further desirable to separate, to the extent
possible, the IETF and IANA funding from these organizations.
It is presumed in the best interest of the IETF, the IANA, ant the
[ICANN] to see that this separation of function is preserved.
Note:
Indemnification provisions from the registries to the IANA and
related organizations may not serve to properly insulate the
[ICANN], 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 judgments
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.
There is a concern that the presence of a funding path creates
a tying arrangement between for-profit organizations and a set
of non-profit organizations which up to now have not been
legally, financially, or otherwise encumbered by the actions of
these registries.
8.1. A registry may charge as it sees fit, within the bounds of the
policy published when it is chartered.
8.2. The [ICANN] manages all finances in a separate iTLD fund with open
reporting and published budgets. Agreement of the [ICANN], the IANA,
and the IETF is required on all budgets.
8.3. Charter fee income may be used to pay legal costs of the IANA,
IETF, [ICANN], and ad hoc groups when legal disputes arise from the
iTLDs process.
8.4. 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, the administrative staff, and costs incurred by the
[ICANN].
8.5. Charter fee income may also be used to fund the IANA if and when
it becomes necessary.
8.6. Should the reserves be too large, a consensus of the IANA, IETF,
and [ICANN] would allow disbursements for the general network good,
e.g., scholarships for engineers from developing countries.
8.7. The [ICANN] may charge a modest amount for administering the iTLD
account.
9. Appeals
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 courts.
9.1. 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.
9.2. The appeals process does not apply to charging and billing.
This is left to market forces, arbitration, and the courts.
9.3. The appeals process applies to all other aspect of registry
processing of registration requests.
9.4. A registrant's first recourse is to the registry which has
denied them registration or otherwise failed to provide the
expected service.
9.5. 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.
9.6. If appellant is dissatisfied with the registry response, appeal
may be escalated to the IANA. The IANA hears appeals based only
on technical issues. Note that the IANA may use the IDNB to
process the appeal.
9.7. The IANA must define its entry point for appeals and must
respond to appeals within four weeks.
9.8. If appellant is dissatisfied with the IANA response, and the
appeal has nontrivial process aspects, the appeal may be escalated
to the IETF. The IETF hears appeals based only on process issues,
that is, claims that the procedure was not followed.
9.9. If appellant is dissatisfied with the IANA and, if invoked, the
IETF response, appeal may be escalated to the [ICANN]. The [ICANN]
appeals process hears appeals only about the fairness of the
procedure. I.e. the decision of IANA and/or IETF is final,
unless there is an appeal that the procedure itself is unfair.
9.10. 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 [ICANN] 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.
9.11. The IANA, the IETF and the [ICANN] may establish appeals sub-
committees chosen either from their own membership or outside of
it by whatever means each deems reasonable for their procedures
and purposes.
10. Security Considerations
There are no known security considerations beyond those already
extant in the DNS.
11. Acknowledgments
This memo is a total rip off of a draft by Randy Bush, combined with
substantial inclusion of material from a draft by Karl Denninger.
The appeals section was originally written by Brian Carpenter.
To this base i've made many changes small and large. So to the
extent you like this it is probably their work, and to the extent you
don't like it it is probably all my fault.
A lot of significant and constructive input and review was received
from the following:
Alan Barrett <apb@iafrica.com>
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Brian E. Carpenter <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Karl Denninger <karl@MCS.Net>
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Geoff Huston <gih@aarnet.edu.au>
John Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Lawrence Landweber <lhl@cs.wisc.edu>
Nick Trio <nrt@watson.ibm.com>
12. Author's Address
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