ICANN Questions:
ICANN is in the process of reviewing NeuStar's TLD Application. As outlined in the October 23, 2000 TLD Application Review Update which appears at http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-review-update-23oct00.htm, ICANN may "gather the additional information [it] require[s] by posing specific questions to applicants in e-mail and requesting a written response."
Keeping in mind the goal to evaluate applications to operate or sponsor new TLDs in as open and transparent a manner as possible, both the questions posed by ICANN and the Applicant's responses will be publicly disclosed on the ICANN website.
Accordingly, ICANN requests your reponses to the following questions:
1. Neustar and Melbourne IT are associated
with a number of applications for new TLDs as part of a joint
venture named JVTeam. The application for the new TLD .web, however,
is submitted solely by Neustar. Please identify the entity that
will operate the registry, and if the entity is not Neustar,
provide all information regarding this arrangment as required
by Sections D13.2.10 and D15.3 of the Registry Operator's Proposal.
2. Identify and describe in detail the portion of "Other Direct Expenses" which are related to marketing costs?
3. Identify and summarize Applicant's assumptions with respect to the existence of other general purpose TLDs in determining the total number of registrations in your application.
4.Identify and describe in detail why it state's on the last page of the
Executive Summary of your application that "JVTeam's proposal is based on a
rich understanding of the needs of the global community."
5. Identify and describe in detail why it state's on the last page of the
Executive Summary of your application that "the information in this proposal is a demonstration of how JVTeam will contribute positively to that evolution by using all of the resources and knowledge at our disposal to provide the next generation domain name registry."
6. Identify and describe in detail why JVTeam and Melbourne IT are
identified in Section I of your application, where the identity of the
registry operator is to be disclosed.
7. Identify and describe in detail why JVTeam is identified as the registry
operator in Section II.1 of your application, where an overview of registry
operators capabilities is to be provided.
8. Identify and describe in detail why your application contains the JVTeam
management organization chart and the resumes of JVTeam directors, officers
and employees.
9. Identify and describe in detail why your application provides in Section
II.2.15 that "[t]he JVTeam, combining the unique strengths of Neustar and
Melbourne IT, has a unique appreciation for the mission critical nature of
the DNS registry."
10. Identify and describe in detail why your application provides in Section
II.3 that "JVTeam has developed a comprehensive business plan around a next
generation architecture with increased functionality and higher service
levels than the incumbent system, for an overall lower cost to the
industry."
11. Identify and describe in detail why the organizational documents for
JVTeam are provided in Section II.4.1 of your application.
12. In Section III of your proposal it states "[t]he Neustar/Melbourne IT
Joint Venture's (henceforth JVTeam) proposed technical solution provides two
co-active data centers in Sterling, Virginia and Chicago, Illinois--each of
which is capable of processing the full SRS data-center workload--plus
multiple nameserver sites dispersed globally to protect against natural or
man-made disasters." Identify and describe in detail the co-active data
centers and multiple nameserver sites which are provided for by Neustar.
13. Section V (E28-E32) provides for a concept to be proven "That charter
compliance may affectively be administered via an extended UDRP." Identify
and describe in detail the charter mentioned in this part of the application.
14. In Section V, page 20, you provide in a chart that "the utility of the
DNS can be extended via a TLD intended for business use as opposed to
individual use." Describe in detail how this applies to your application
for .web.
15. In the same chart, you provide for "policy application through
charter." Describe in detail the referenced charter.
16. In the same chart, you provide for "registry level authentication for
business domains." Describe in detail how this applies to your .web
application.
17. If you will indemnify ICANN, identify and describe in detail the resources you propose to utilize for the indemnification.
18. Hypothetically, if you receive .site as a new TLD instead of .web, describe in detail the effect, if any, on the pro forma financial statements submitted with your application.
19. Hypothetically, if you receive .dot as a new TLD instead of .web,
describe in detail the effect, if any, on the pro forma financial statements submitted with your application.
20. Hypothetically, if you receive .surf as a new TLD instead of .web, describe in detail the effect, if any, on the pro forma financial statements submitted with your application.
21. Hypothetically, if you receive .spot as a new TLD instead of .web, describe in detail the effect, if any, on the pro forma financial statements submitted with your application.
22. Hypothetically, if you receive .info as a new TLD instead of .web, describe in detail the effect, if any, on the pro forma financial statements submitted with your application.
23. Identify and describe in detail the timetable in which you will allow full access to ICANN accredited registrars.
24. If you intend to provide bulk Whois service, identify and provide a summary of the party or parties who will provide that service.
25. Identify and describe in detail the your average and worst case transaction times for a post to confirmation of acceptance.
26. Identify and describe in detail the service level to which you are willing to contractually commit for post to confirmation of acceptance.
27. Identify and describe in detail your projected level of Whois query traffic.
28. Identify and describe in detail the projected query traffic level to the Whois function to which you are willing to contractually commit.
29. Assuming you receive a new TLD, identify and describe in detail the timetable for the availability of the following services:
30. Identify the service availability timetable to which you are willing to contractually commit for the following:
31. Assuming your primary site experiences a catastrophic failure, identify and describe in detail the timetable required to restore:
32. Identify whether you will provide a test-bed for registrars to validate their protocol software.
NeuStar Responses: 1. The .web proposal has been submitted solely
by NeuStar. During the proposal development process Melbourne
IT was associated with another applicant which has submitted
an alternate bid. Given this association, Melbourne IT elected
not to jointly submit the .web proposal. NeuStar is fully capable and unconstrained
from operating the registry and in delivering all that is included
in the .web proposal. It is NeuStar's preference however, if
awarded .web, to implement and operate the domain with full support
from JVTeam. The .web proposal reflects this preferred approach,
which would be accomplished by assignment of the contract to
JVTeam after the award.
2.
The marketing expenses enumerated in the .web proposal captured only the media expenses, i.e., print ads, radio spots, etc, outlined in the marketing plan. In the table below, we identify the portions of other direct expenses that are attributable to marketing that include PR efforts, staff salaries and travel expenses, marketing publications, and trade show events.
Additional Marketing Expense that is a part of Other Direct Expense
3.
We believe that forecasting the impact of other TLDs on the demand for .web is crucial to sound forecasting methodology. We have incorporated the impact of both, existing gTLDs (.com, .net and .org) and the introduction in subsequent rounds of other new open TLDs, on the demand projections .web contained within the application.
We've made the following assumptions about the impact of other open TLDs on new registrations for .web.
2) Our forecast assumes that new open TLDs will be introduced in subsequent rounds which will decrease demand and growth rate for .web. Specifically for our 50% case we assumed;
The graph below shows the effect of the introduction of new open TLDs on .web growth in new registration:
4.-12. Questions numbers 4-12 below appear to be related to a previous ICANN question requesting clarification of what entity is performing the registry operator function under the NeuStar open TLD application. We believe the following response should provide clarification relating to registry operation and therefore should address all of questions 4 - 12.
The .web proposal has been submitted solely by NeuStar. If awarded an open TLD, NeuStar specified in its submission that it would prefer "to utilize the registry solution offered by the NeuStar/Melbourne IT joint venture." To clarify this point NeuStar will subcontract the registry operations to the JVTeam.
13. - 16. This content is not applicable to the .web proposal and was included in error.
17. If awarded the .web TLD, NeuStar will assume all legal expenses associated with claims of other third parties may make in relation to ICANN's right to award the .web gTLD or NeuStar's right to operate the registry associated with the .web TLD. The resources to be utilized include the use of both NeuStar internal legal resources as well as the retention of qualified outside counsel. The verifiable NeuStar financial resources required to do so are documented in our .web application.
18. Issuance of a new TLD with a name other than .web would have an impact on the pro form financial statements, specifically in regard to marketing expense. The marketing survey conducted prior to submission of our application showed consumers made a positive correlation between .web and Internet addresses. For this reason, we feel additional resources would be required to effectively raise global awareness of a .spot, .site, .dot, .info, or .surf TLD. Thus, only the marketing expenses (PR, media and staff) would be expected to increase by as much as (20-40%), thereby reducing the EBIT and increasing the cash requirement. Regardless of TLD granted, NeuStar is prepared to make the necessary investment to effectively brand and market the space.
19.-22. See response to question #18 above.
23. Within 6 months of contract signing, a test environment will be available for registrar turn-up and interoperability testing with the SRS client system. During this timeframe, the infrastructure will also begin taking landrush registrations. Full access to the SRS for live registrations will be available to ICANN accredited registrars 9 months from contract signing.
24. NeuStar will solely provide the bulk Whois service to all ICANN accredited registrars.
This program is detailed in the Technical Capabilities Section III 2.8.1: “The proposed data mart bulk-access program would: reduce the load that data mining currently imposes on the core Whois service; contractually limit subscribers in the ways they can use the data; provide a source of revenue to fund advanced service levels; reduce the incentive to download entire database without legitimate purpose; provide the entire database in a format that facilitates such data mining as conducting trademark searches, compiling industry statistics, and providing directory services. The registry will make the Whois data available to registrars, who will conduct the actual bulk-access program.”
25. The system is designed for 95% of transaction times for a post to confirmation of acceptance of to meet an average of 500 milliseconds. In the worse case 95% of the post to confirmation of acceptance is less than 3 seconds.
26. With respect to post for confirmation of acceptance, NeuStar will contractually commit to a maximum time of 3 seconds for 95% of the post to confirm transactions.
27. As stated in the Technical Capabilities Plan Section III 2.10.2, “the [projected] peak Whois transaction rate is estimated to be 5,000 queries per second [within the first year of operations], with an estimated packet size of 10,000 bits … the Whois server cluster is initially sized to handle three times the projected steady state workload, or 5,000 peak transactions per second.”
28. With respect to query traffic levels for the Whois function, a minimum of 3 million queries/day should be expected in the first year of operation. NeuStar is willing to contractually commit to 15 minutes update frequency for 95% of Whois updates.
29. Within 6 months of contract signing, a test environment will be available for registrar turn-up and interoperability testing. During this timeframe, the infrastructure will be available to take landrush registrations. Full access to the SRS for live registrations will be available to ICANN accredited registrars 9 months from contract signing.
30. NeuStar is willing to commit to the following timetable: within 6 months of contract signing, a test environment will be available for registrar turn-up and interoperability testing. During this timeframe, the infrastructure will also begin taking landrush registrations. Full access to the SRS for live registrations will be available to ICANN accredited registrars 9 months from contract signing.
31. Catastrophic failure at a single SRS site will not cause a failure in the SRS, as a replicated co-active SRS will be available to operate and deliver service. This is detailed in Registry Operator’s Technical Capabilities Plan Section III.2.13.8: “If an Individual cluster experiences a processor failure, the processor’s applications are transferred to another processor within approximately 30 seconds; however, the remaining processor nodes in the cluster continue applications processing without interruption.”
32. Yes. As stated in the Implementation section of the proposal, “NeuStar will build a separate laboratory system to be used for two types of integration testing: the registrar’s internal testing of software releases, and the registrar’s interoperability testing of their XRP-client interfaces …
Registrar’s will perform client-side interoperability testing with the registry XRP server, secure Web portal, and Billing and Collections systems before they interface with the actual operating system.”
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site should be sent to webmaster@icann.org. (c) 1998-2000 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved. |
