Exhibit I
To
iDomains Registry
Operator’s Proposal
CORE is the result of an open and neutral process launched by the IAHC. The framework upon which CORE was built served the policy setting function to the independent Policy Oversight Committee (POC; the successor organisation of the IAHC) and defined the Policy Advisory Body (PAB) as policy recommendation forum. The members of these two bodies have contributed widely to the ICANN and DNSO processes which now server the purposes for which the POC and the PAB were originally created.
CORE Internet
Council of Registrars
World Trade Center II
29 route de Pre-Bois
CH-1215 Geneva
Switzerland
Telephone +41 22 929 5744
Fax +41 22 929 5745
E-mail address: tldapp@corenic.org
CORE is an association whose members have their own marketing and customer service functions. CORE's members have offices in 20 countries on 4 continents and interact with customers in over 19 languages. (See CORE member listing attached to this proposal).
CORE is a non-profit association established under Swiss law.
At the time of writing CORE has 72 members. 11 members have joined the association in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Several CORE members are major Telecommunications or Internet infrastructure and application service providers. CORE's current membership is spread over 20 countries:
|
001 |
Nominalia |
Spain |
|
003 |
PSI
K.K. |
Japan |
|
004 |
Internet
Domain Registrars Corp. |
Canada |
|
005 |
First
Identity Net |
USA |
|
008 |
Chungwa
Telecom Co. Ltd |
Taiwan |
|
009 |
California
Suncare, Inc. |
USA |
|
010 |
ETSI |
France |
|
011 |
CSL
GmbH |
Germany |
|
012 |
TUCOWS
International Corp. / Domain Direct |
Canada |
|
013 |
Melbourne
IT |
Australia |
|
014 |
DENIC
eG |
Germany |
|
016 |
NetBenefit
(UK) LTD |
United
Kingdom |
|
017 |
Interdomain,
S.A. |
Spain |
|
018 |
Namebay
S.A.M |
Monaco |
|
019 |
Pacific
Communications Dev. Corp. |
Taiwan |
|
020 |
Aktiv
GmbH |
Germany |
|
022 |
Global Internet Services, Inc |
USA |
|
024 |
Bahamas Telecommunications Corp |
Bahamas |
|
025 |
Corporate Domains, Inc. |
USA |
|
028 |
Net Wizards, Inc. |
USA |
|
030 |
Saritel S.p.A |
Italy |
|
033 |
IP Consult GmbH |
Germany |
|
035 |
Smartphone
SA |
Switzerland |
|
038 |
Callisto
germany.net |
Germany |
|
039 |
Knipp
Medien und Kommunikation GmbH |
Germany |
|
040 |
Retevisión
SA |
Spain |
|
041 |
Telia
AB Network Services |
Sweden |
|
043 |
Alinet
Italia Srl |
Italy |
|
045 |
Domain
Names International, LLC |
USA |
|
046 |
Eurotel |
Germany |
|
048 |
LanMinds,
Inc |
USA |
|
049 |
L.M. - Sitename Ltd |
Israel |
|
050 |
Médiafusion Inc. |
Canada |
|
051 |
Netlink
Holdings Pty Ltd |
Australia |
|
052 |
Netlink
Internet Services Ltd |
United
Kingdom |
|
053 |
CASDNS, Inc. |
USA |
|
054 |
eNom,
Inc. |
USA |
|
056 |
TotalNet Inc. Div. MPACT
Immedia Inc |
Canada |
|
058 |
Internet
Name Registrar |
USA |
|
059 |
The
Edge Consultants Pte Ltd. |
Singapore |
|
060 |
France
Telecom Transpac |
France |
|
061 |
Freedom
Communications, Inc. |
USA |
|
063 |
Ji
Tong Communications Co., Ltd. |
China |
|
064 |
SITA
|
Switzerland |
|
066 |
Demon
Internet Ltd. |
United
Kingdom |
|
068 |
Epoch
Networks |
USA |
|
071 |
Secunet
Security Networks GmbH |
Germany |
|
072 |
Halo
Technologies Ltd. |
USA |
|
075 |
Deutsche
Telekom AG |
Germany |
|
076 |
Network
Information Centre (NIC-SE) |
Sweden |
|
077 |
wespe.de
GmbH |
Germany |
|
078 |
Domain
Bank, Inc. |
USA |
|
079 |
Axone Services & Développement SA |
Switzerland |
|
080 |
Capital
Networks Pty Ltd. |
Australia |
|
081 |
InterNetX
GmbH |
Germany |
|
082 |
Grona
Verket AB |
Sweden |
|
084 |
Tele
Danmark A/S |
Denmark |
|
085 |
KPN
Telecom BV |
The Netherlands |
|
086 |
Europe Online |
Luxembourg |
|
087 |
ARK
Inc. |
Japan |
|
088 |
Tokyo
Internet Corporation |
Japan |
|
090 |
InterQ |
Japan |
|
091 |
InterneXt |
France |
|
093 |
7WAYS |
France |
|
092 |
Cegetel
S. A. |
France |
|
094 |
Boston
Light Software Corp. |
USA |
|
095 |
OLM, LLC |
USA |
|
096 |
Global Village GmbH |
Germany |
|
097 |
ABC
TeleMedia AG |
Germany |
|
098 |
COLT
Telecom AG, Switzerland |
Switzerland |
|
099 |
3W-Media
GmbH |
Germany |
|
101 |
Kamp
Netzwerkdienste GmbH |
Germany |
CORE members operate in full competition with one another as far as CORE is concerned. While alliances can exist between individual members, they are not related to organised through CORE.
CORE current organisational structure is based on the following bodies: (a) Member plenary, (b) the Executive Committee, (c) the permanent Secretariat, (d) the SRS operations and maintenance team and (e) Working Groups.
As a not-for-profit Association, CORE cannot be owned nor can it distribute any profits. CORE's financial resources are provided through advances from members based on a strict equal treatment concept. All members have the same voting power irrespective of size or usage of the central resources.
Thanks to its ability to outsource key functions to members, CORE does not currently have any employees of its own for its registrar activity. CORE's current outsourcing contracts account for ten (10) full-time positions devoted to CORE's central coordinating functions:
CORE shared registry System (Düsseldorf, Germany): 5 staff provided by CSL GmbH
CORE Secretariat (Geneva, Switzerland): 5 staff provided by Axone SA
For the sake of comparison to existing gTLD registrars with centralised business models, CORE has made an approximate count of CORE member staff concerned with domain registrations via CORE. The approximate aggregate number of number employees concerned with CORE registrations is 200.
For the CORE-Registry operations, a directly employed staff of 10 is to be built up prior to launching its first TLD. This staff will partly be newly hired and partly be seconded from members of the Association.
Current members of the Executive Committee are
Mr. Ken Stubbs, Chair
Dr. Jonathan Robinson, member of Executive Committee
Mr. François Luc Collignon, member of Executive Committee
Mr. Hal Lubsen, member of Executive Committee
Ms. Rosa Delgado, member of Executive Committee
Mr. Robert F. Connelly, member of Executive Committee
Mr. Werner Staub, member of Executive Committee and Head of CORE Secretariat
Werner Staub, Head of CORE Secretariat
Siegfried Langenbach, Head of Shared Registry System (SRS) Operation and Development
Uwe Ohse, SRS Operation and Development, Front-end and client systems
Christoph Schiffer, SRS Operation and Development, Back-end systems
Marc Baradez,
CORE Secretariat
Radek Maturana, CORE Secretariat
CORE's gross cash revenue during 1999 amounts to USD 2.4 million in registration fees paid by members for .com, .net and .org domain registrations performed through CORE. Net of fees paid to the .com/.net/.org registry and ICANN, the Association's cash revenue from registration amounts to USD 0.6 million.
The Association's total accrued membership contributions for 1999 amounted to USD 728,000.
CORE is an open association of companies who are fundamentally concerned with domain names and have created a co-ordinating technical framework while freely competing amongst each other. Thanks to the diversity of its membership CORE has access within its membership to the resources of
- World class telecommunications companies (Cegetel, France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, KPN, Saritel/TelecomItalia, Telia, Colt Telecom);
- Highly specialised domain name registrars, a large number of whom are already ICANN-accredited;
- ccTLD registry operators (in particular DENIC, the largest registry after .com with over 3 million domains under .de; NIC-SE concerned with .se; DKNIC concerned with .dk);
- Internet Service providers; and
- a standards organisation (ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute). ETSI is the forum for key standards such as GSM and UMTS, and one of the four members of the ICANN´s PSO.
The co-operation of members through the CORE framework is limited to areas where shared resources are technically necessary. The shared resources are developed and managed by way of multi-lateral consensus building and fair sharing of costs.
CORE's current activity as a shared registrar is the result of US Department of Commerce "White Paper" which implicitly delayed the introduction of new TLDs but specified the transition of the .com/.net/.org registry to a shared model. The existing CORE SRS was adapted to interact with the newly created shared "light" registry operated by NSI. As the NSI registry does not record domain holders and contact information, the existing CORE shared system is a shared registry as far as domain holders and contacts are concerned. With over 800,000 domains managed in a shared environment, the CORE's current registrar system demonstrates the scalability and the validity of CORE shared "heavy" registry concept.
As explained above in the S.O. Proposal and in D.1., CORE points out once more that a registry operator should not be allowed to be a registrar in its own registry unless this takes place for a short transition time. This plan is built on the principle that the not-for-profit CORE Registry Operator will be institutionally separated from the not-for-profit CORE Registrar. There are to be two separate membership processes, separate supervisory bodies and separate staff. Both organisations will independently have the rights to use the current CORE shared registry system. It is to be expected that a number of CORE members will become members of both the CORE Registry and the CORE Registrar.
The existing CORE SRS has originally been built as a registry system. Some changes were made to match the architecture of NSI registry and the RRP (Registrar Registry Protocol) developed by NSI. A series of concepts used by the NSI registry (in particular the so-called light registry concept, the management of name servers) are at odds with the technical judgement of the CORE SRS working group. In other areas, the Registrar activity has given CORE members valuable experience on how to manage a highly distributed registration process (in particular with respect to division of work between member and resellers). The intermediate version of the CORE SRS specified in this plan (corresponding to SRS protocol version 1.1) represents a design goal compatible with CORE's time schedule and registry requirements. This design will be validated by a newly CORE Registry SRS working group, under the supervision of CORE Registry CTO.
CORE members are keenly aware of the need for convergence in registry protocols. This must be achieved through consensus-building between registries and registrars.
CORE is committed to contribute to the convergence of shared registry protocols and concepts. However, CORE does not feel that the current RRP is an appropriate working basis. CORE is looking forward to work on a common shared registry protocol with ccTLD registries and new and existing gTLD registries, within the ITEF framework.
While CORE has relied on outsourcing contracts (principally with members), the central management of the new registry operator activities is to be entrusted to staff directly employed by the CORE Registry.
CORE will continue to rely on outsourcing relationships, especially with members as its membership is particularly well-suited for most services and functions, in particular for commodity services or for functions that can and should be duplicated (WhoIs servers, Name servers …etc).
Interaction with customer and value-added services are areas of intense competition between members. The registry is not involved in customer interaction except for automated registry messages, where the interaction with registrar alone would not be sufficient. The customer cannot contact the registry to obtain direct interaction for normal transactions. If the registry is contacted, it directs the customer to the maintaining registrar for a given registration, or to the list of registrars, in a neutral fashion. If problems are reported, the registry informs the members involved and keeps track of the follow-up.
Value-added service by member registrars can be built upon instruments provided by the registry, such as the ability (available equally to all member registrars) to store optional information in the registry: PGP Public Keys, Personal Ids …etc.
The registry operator funding process is based on members' parity in terms of contributions and risk sharing where an initial capital needs must be met. The history of CORE has shown that despite competition, there is enough solidarity between members to fund investments. The fee paid for registrations is equal for all members who have the freedom to set their own pricing. The registration fees are set as cost recovery and comprise the minimum reserve per domain needed to cover the duration of the registration and the contingencies that could arise over the average registration period.
CORE's shared registration system is proven its value with over 800,000 domains shared by 30 CORE members who register .com, .net and .org domains via CORE. The current proposal is based on a variant of CORE Shared Registry System Protocol with slight modifications compared to the existing version (SRS Protocol Specification 1.1). For reasons linked to editorial work sharing and the limited time available for this proposal, some newly required procedures described in this proposal or in the registration policy documents are not yet described in this document. These are based on additional payload definitions and process specifications but analogous in architecture to the principal transactions.
As a Registrar organisation, CORE is committed in contributing to converge on shared registry protocols. There is reason to expect productive dialogue between registries and registrars in this area as soon as the TLD application period ends. CORE will ensure that members can operate in compatibility mode and work with the registrar community at large to develop next generation protocols. There is a widely held view within CORE's membership that new protocols should give due consideration to recent standards such as XML and be developed on the traditional "rough consensus, running code" philosophy.
CORE currently operates as an ICANN-accredited registrar enabling its members to register domains under .com. ,net and .org for their clients and resellers through CORE. In doing so, CORE stands as the contractual counter party to the domain holders, to ICANN, to the .com/.net/.org registry and to the members.
One of the key purposes for which CORE has been chartered is the development of a shared registry system and related standards. CORE's development activity is based on (1) the consensus-building within CORE' SRS working group and (2) compensated development work by members or third parties. The existence of CORE's SRS working group goes back to October 1997; the current group essentially composed of members using the SRS on a daily basis for domain registrations. A CORE member has developed the current implementation of the CORE SRS.
CORE does not market any products other than the services made available to its members acting as domain registrars. Barring urgencies and problem tracking, CORE does not interact with customers other than through the member in charge of a given registration. Domain registrations can be transferred within CORE from one member to another at the request of the customer.
The Shared Registration System (SRS) used by CORE is based on the model originally designed for use by a registry. Experience has shown that the same, or similar sharing mechanisms, are useful on registrar level as well.
It is expected that the CORE Registrar will act as a registrar in newly created TLDs in the same or similar fashion as it currently does for .com, .net and .org. For this reason, CORE intends to split its Registrar and Registry functions into two separate entities.
CORE Internet Council of Registrars was established in October 1997 for the purpose of creating a shared not-for-profit domain name registry under the terms of the generic Top-Level Domains Memorandum of Understanding (gTLD-MoU; see http://www.gtld-mou.org). The gTLD-MoU had been signed in May 1997 under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union.
The gTLD-MoU formalised an open public consultation process launched at the initiative of the Internet Society (ISOC), the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the International Telecommunication Union in response to the explosive growth of the DNS. The need for additional top-level domains was also felt in the context of the full monopoly held then by Network Solutions, Inc. on the registration of generic top-level domains. The need to specify an alternative was also felt because the contract between Network Solutions Inc. and the US National Science Foundation was due to expire in March 1998.
The consultation process leading to the gTLD-MoU and subsequently to the creation of CORE was organised through an ad-hoc multilateral committee called IAHC (International Ad Hoc Committee) composed of representative appointed by ISOC, IETF, IAB, INTA and the International Telecommunication Union.
The IAHC recommended the addition of 7 new Top-Level Domains to be managed in the public trust by a newly created shared registry to be called CORE Internet Council of Registrars. It specified the framework under which was to be set up including the gTLD-MoU, the CORE-MoU to be signed by all CORE members, the draft Articles of Association and Regulations of CORE, CORE's legal form as a Swiss not-for-profit Association, the membership criteria for CORE, the independent membership qualification approval process, the independent Policy Oversight Committee for CORE and the seven new TLDs to be managed by CORE. These specifications were published before companies could apply for membership.
It is important to point out that no member of CORE is associated with any of the members of the IAHC. All of the founding members of CORE were approved by an independent organisation based on the objective qualification criteria.
During the second half of 1997, 88 membership applications were approved. After the formal creation of CORE in October 1997, CORE started to build a shared registration system in 1997 in order to be ready for registrations by February 1998. This first version of an automated shared domain registry system based on the principle pre-payment was tested by a large number of CORE members.
Following the publication of the US Government Green Paper on the Domain Name System, CORE and its members participated extensively in the consultation process which led to the publication of the US Government White Paper and later the creation of ICANN and the DNSO.
In January 1999 CORE initiated the development of a second implementation of its registration system.
In the context of CORE's ICANN registrar accreditation and selection in 1999 as a Testbed registrar for the newly shared .com/.net/.org registry, this system was adapted to operate as a shared registrar system.
At the time of writing, CORE's shared registration system handles over 800,000 domain names. Over 30 CORE members participate as so-called reselling members in CORE's current role of ICANN-accredited registrar.
CORE's com/net/org registrar framework has been in production mode since July 1999. Members' and outsourcing partners' involvement in domain registrations dates back to the early stages publicly available Internet services.
Shared databases as used in a shared registry are a relatively recent development. Even prior to developing its own system, CORE has been able to build on the experience made by CORE members who worked with two major shared registries, DENIC (.de) and Nominet (e.g. .co.uk). Several members of CORE's SRS working group held supervisory board positions in the Equally important bodies were contributions from members who worked with a large number of different domain name registries.
CORE's current shared Registrar System is a variant of the second implementation of its SRS design. Both implementations of the CORE SRS have originally been developed as a full-fledged registry system.
At the time of writing, the CORE SRS manages over 800,000 domains under the responsibility of 30 CORE members. The SRS team manages the central Whois server (whois.corenic.net), which is updated within minutes after domain or contact information is changed.
The CORE SRS version used for .com/.net/.org is based on the second implementation of the CORE SRS developed in 1999. The interconnection with the NSI Registry took place in the framework of the NSI shared registry testbed for which CORE was selected as a "testbed registrar" by ICANN. It is important to point out that technically, a shared registrar system to be kept in synchrony with a "dorsal-spine-only" shared registry is more complex than a standalone registry. Moreover, CORE's work on the NSI interconnection could only start in June 1999 as NSI had not previously published its RRP protocol and at that time required a non-disclosure agreement and a performance bond before supplying any information.
Additional plausibility-checking, automated archiving and the SRS team and the CORE secretariat run verification tools. These systems are updated and improved continuously.
Despite its generally decentralised organisations, CORE relies on certain centralised verification mechanisms, such as those involved in domain holder changes. Experience with these mechanisms is key for CORE's proposals for distributed enforcement and verification mechanisms with a central audit electronic trail.
Most CORE members have a long-standing track record of internet related activities, either as Internet application developers, ISPs, Telecommunications companies, application hosting providers, hardware housing providers, ccTLD registries or specialised domain name registries.