Hereinafter, except where the context so requires, the foregoing shall be collectively referred to as the New TLDs.

DTEC-MFZA has exercised its best efforts to ensure that neither of the New TLDs is duplicative or in conflict with any other existing or otherwise reserved TLDs, or that they would lead to confusion.

It is to be noted that there is currently no ISO 3166 country code digraph for the Emirate of Dubai.

E3.      Naming Conventions

At present, DTEC-MFZA intends to employ a naming convention and structure within the above TLDs that only allows for names to be registered at the second level directly under each new TLD.  For example:

                        <dubaiinternetcity.go>

                        <dubaiinternetcity.dubai>

However, with the benefit of experience, DTEC-MFZA may consider in the future allowing for sub‑domains to be registered, subject to further consultations and agreement with ICANN. 

E4.      Registrars

DTEC-MFZA proposes to allow any ICANN-accredited registrar to register <.go> domain names.  DTEC-MFZA has thoroughly reviewed ICANN’s registrar accreditation requirements and considers that these requirements both support and promote the objectives underlying the New TLDs.  DTEC-MFZA thus intends to implement those requirements at a minimum in evaluating accreditation requests by registrars for the <.go> TLD. 

DTEC-MFZA intends to supplement its accreditation procedures by introducing contractual and administrative procedures that would allow it to verify that accredited registrars are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the accreditation  (e.g., whether the registrar is processing registration requests in accordance with the established registration criteria and procedures, whether the registrar is acting in accordance with the procedures established for resolving domain name registration conflicts).

However, because of the restrictions relating to registrations in the <.dubai> TLD, DTEC-MFZA proposes that initially the registration of <.dubai> domains would only be through the Dubai Internet Domains Registration Authority (DIDRA). 

The respective roles and responsibilities of accredited registrars and the Registry shall be as set out variously in the following documents:

·        Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy (adopted
March 4, 1999);

·        Registrar Accreditation Agreement (approved November 4, 1999);

·        NSI-Registrar License and Agreement (approved
November 4, 1999);

·        ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (approved November 4, 1999 and signed November 10, 1999).

As the Registry, DIDRA (together with Network Solutions Inc.(VeriSign Global Registry Services)) will accept registrations and registration service requests from all accredited, licensed registrars, while protecting the integrity of registrations from unauthorized access and interference by third parties. Every new domain name application will be checked to ensure that the domain name is not already registered.  This function demands exceptional speed and accuracy to confirm registrations definitively and to arbitrate near-simultaneous requests for the same domain name.  In addition, DIDRA will play a partnership role with accredited registrars in screening <.go> domain name applications.

Domain name registrations and name servers, including domain name, name servers, IP address, registrar name, transfer date, registration period, expiration date, status, registration creation date, created by, updated date, and updated by information will be maintained by DIDRA/VeriSign, which shall be the authoritative source for the TLD zone file content (i.e., domain name, name server, and associated IP address). 

The registrar of the particular domain name or name server will be responsible for maintaining all other customer data.  This is in order to protect customer privacy, give greater flexibility to registrars and allow them to determine their business models. DTEC-MFZA will have a formal con­tractual relationship with each individual registrar accredited for registering domain names in their new TLD.  This is commonly referred to as a “thin” registry model.

Registration of a domain name or name server in the Registry database does not automatically create entries in the Internet DNS. For this to occur, a zone file associating all registered domain names with their corresponding IP addresses is generated and exported to the DNS root servers for the TLD.  DIDRA/VeriSign will operate and maintain distributed root servers to which the zone file is exported and from which the domain name information is dis­seminated to the Internet community.  

To enable close to 100% Registry availability, multiple data­base servers will be used, with off-site backup to protect against catastrophic data loss.  Redundancy will be in place at almost every level within the Registry to ensure high-availability of the systems and applications for the registrars.

SRS is the Registry architecture and processes used to enable registrations by multiple registrars.  It includes the Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP), which is used to support communications between the Registry and Registrars, and provides the security and authentication functions to protect the Registry database while supporting all necessary registrar operations.  RRP is also used during the certification process for accredited registrars for operational testing and evaluation of registrar implementations of the RRP prior to commencement of actual registrar operations.  DIDRA/VeriSign will be responsible for providing the RRP software interfaces, documentation, and training to accredited registrars for the <.go> TLD.  Hands-on technical support to new registrars will be available from DIDRA/VeriSign to assist them in resolv­ing difficulties in successful inter­facing with the Registry.

In sum:  DTEC-MFZA will establish the <.go> registration policies, DIDRA/VeriSign will implement the infrastructure for the <.go> policies, and accredited registrars will give effect to those policies.  

E5.      Intellectual Property Provisions

E5.1.   What measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights?

DTEC-MFZA intends to implement an infrastructure that is as comprehensive as possible to discourage registration of domain names that infringe established intellectual property rights.  This infrastructure will be based on the inter-marriage of properly promulgated regulations for Dubai Internet City, sound policy, rigorous implementation of those regulations and policies, co-operation agreements and partnering relationships with national trademark and copyright offices and state-of-the-art technical tools.

E5.2.   If pre‑screening for potentially infringing registrations is being proposed, how will the pre‑screening be performed?

As discussed below, domain name applicants will be required to provide information, and perhaps documentary support, establishing prima facie their right to the domain name that is the subject of the application.  

DTEC-MFZA is considering two types of pre-screening.  The first method would entail “character mapping”, whereby the second-level domain character string would be mapped against an existing database.  Applications that, for example, mapped against an existing name, or portion thereof, would be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and evidentiary burden.  The second method would entail a longer-term project of co-operation agreements and partnering relationships with national trademark authorities and involvement in initiatives that DTEC-MFZA is aware of that are underway at the World Intellectual Property Organization and within the European Union. 

E5.3.   What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?

Because of the rationale underlying the New TLDs, DTEC-MFZA intends to put in place rigorous registration procedures and criteria, to be implemented in partnership with accredited registrars.  While dispute resolution policies will be available at the back-end to deal with abusive registrations in the same manner as is currently possible through the infrastructure of the Uniform

E5.4.   What measures are proposed to comply with applicable trademark and anti‑cybersquatting legislation?

As yet, there is no legislation in force in the Dubai Technology, Electronic Commerce and Free Zone with respect to intellectual property protection.  However, it is to be re-emphasized that, Article 8 of Law No. 1 of 2000 provides that among the objectives of DTEC-MFZA shall be:

“To prepare researches and advise the Government [of Dubai] in relation to laws appropriate to the regulation and encouragement of Technology, Electronic Commerce and Media in the Emirate, including but not limited to

DTEC-MFZA is keenly aware of the importance of intellectual property protection and safeguard measures.  Notwithstanding the present application, DTEC-MFZA has sponsored a major initiative involving international legal experts to develop a comprehensive set of laws and regulations for the Free Zone.  The expert group includes international intellectual property experts, who will be working closely with intellectual property constituencies and associations to develop legislation to give effect to the mandate contained in Article 8 of Law No. 1 of 2000. The group will also be studying legislation already adopted in countries such as Belgium and the United States with a view towards assessing the applicability thereof for the Free Zone.

It is to be expected that the registration policies, criteria and procedures for the New TLDs will be consistent and in full compliance with the relevant laws adopted for the Free Zone.

E5.5.   Are you proposing any special protections (other than during the start‑up period) for famous trademarks?

DTEC-MFZA is aware that the issue of famous and well-known marks is currently being studied and debated within ICANN forums and has followed the process that led to the recommendations reflected in the Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process.

DTEC-MFZA does not wish to propose policies or implementation measures concerning an issue and in an environment which is still not yet settled, but will await the outcome of the ICANN process before taking steps in this area.  Consistent with its overall approach, DTEC-MFZA expects that, in all likelihood, it will follow the policies for famous and well-known marks adopted by ICANN.

It is perhaps appropriate to note that, in the context of its screening operations, DTEC-MFZA has considered the possibility of establishing a minimal list of marks that could conservatively be considered “famous and well-known”; this would not be exclusive and mark holders could be added to the list on a fee-paying basis.  Web sites and associated domain names would be screened in relation to that list.  Furthermore, registration requests involving a domain name that reflected all or any part of a name appearing on the list would be flagged for special consideration.  

E5.6.   How will complete, up‑to‑date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?

As Registry Operator, DIDRA will have primary overall responsibility for the Whois database.  However, it should be noted that DTEC-MFZA has entered into a teaming relationship with Network Solutions Inc. (VeriSign Global registry Services), pursuant to which VeriSign will design, deploy and support an onsite registry infrastructure and provide critical monitoring and management services.  It is expected that until DIDRA takes over the full registry function, that the Whois data compilation and database creation, organization and maintenance will be done by VeriSign.  It is anticipated that the Whois information and services currently available for existing open gTLDs will also be available for the New TLDs.

Domain name registrations and name servers, including domain name, name servers, IP address, registrar name, transfer date, registration period, expiration date, status, registration creation date, created by, updated date and updated by information will be maintained by DIDRA/VeriSign; the authoritative source for the TLD zone file content, that is, domain name, name server, and associated IP address.

The registrar of a particular domain name or name server will maintain all other customer data in order to ensure customer privacy and to maintain the current flexibility enjoyed by ICANN-accredited registrars.  DTEC-MFZA will have a formal contractual relationship with each individual registrar accredited to register domain names in the New TLD <.go>.  In accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, registrars will be required to provide all required Whois information in the same way as is currently required of ICANN-accredited registrars.

E6.      Dispute Resolution

DTEC-MFZA believes that the UDRP administrative procedure provides a sound model for domain name dispute resolution.  However, DTEC-MFZA believes that certain procedural modifications, such as those recently discussed at a meeting convened by ICANN of approved dispute resolution providers, could be made to expedite the process and to introduce additional safeguards to protect the interests of the parties

As DTEC-MFZA contemplates that the procedural amendments would be developed in consultation with ICANN and to ensure consistency with the UDRP, the dispute resolution procedure for the New TLDs could be used as a testing ground for future modifications to the UDRP. 

E7.      Data Privacy, Escrow, and Whois

See generally, Item E.5.6.  All policies will be consistent with those set out in the following documents:

 See generally, Registry Operator Proposal, Section 13.2.

See preceding section.

As set out more fully in the Registry Operator’s Proposal and in Item E.9 above, because of the “premium” character of the New TLDs, the pricing structure should impact the demand for registrations. 

One idea that DTEC-MFZA has considered in order to create a preference for “famous and well known” mark holders is to set initially a registration price that only such mark holders would be willing to pay.

DTEC-MFZA is aware of the various proposals that have been raised regarding “sunrises” and is continuing to study and evaluate them.  As mentioned above, DTEC-MFZA is considering implementing such a period whereby famous mark holders, registered trademark holders, second‑level domain registrants in other TLDs could benefit from a “first right of refusal”.  Such a period would also allow DIDRA an opportunity to perfect its registration criteria and procedures.

In implementing the foregoing, the following proposals are being considered:

q       Inviting the top companies listed on national stock exchanges or included in tracking indexes to be the first to register;

q       Differentiated premium pricing;

q       Detailed eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements;

Applicants that do not meet the eligibility criteria would enter a queue for second-stage screening.

The purpose behind the proposed <.dubai> restricted TLD may be characterized as encompassing all of the requirements for <.go> and, in addition, the requirement of a nexus between the applicant/domain name holder and activities being carried out in or with or arising out of or relating to the Emirate of Dubai or Dubai Internet City.

The application process will be the same as for <.go>, with certain additional requirements relating to the requirements of a Dubai nexus.

DTEC-MFZA does not intend to use this application for a discourse on the importance of the domain name system for the phenomenal growth of the Internet.  Suffice it to say that, in large part, the Internet has grown because of the ease with which it has been possible to register a domain name and thereby establish an on-line identity.  This has resulted in remarkable benefits for the global community:  e-commerce, social and cultural interchange, information dissemination, to mention a few.  At the same time, this has also led to gross abuses of the Internet:  child pornography, financial fraud, trademark and copyright abuse, again, to mention only a few.

IN DTEC-MFZA’s humble opinion, what is required now is the introduction in the DNS of what may be characterized as a “next generation” open TLD that does not directly compete with the existing gTLDs, but rather that offers the on-line community a viable alternative by virtue of the fact that it represent reliability, integrity, safety and soundness based on the following principles:

(i)         The implementation of sound registrar accreditation policies based on the criteria and policies established by ICANN;

(ii)        The on-going verification of accredited registrars to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the accreditation;

(iii)       The development of registration criteria intended to reflect the above goals;

(iv)       The rigorous implementation by registrars of those registration criteria;

(vi)       The introduction of fair and balanced measures to safeguard intellectual property rights;

(vi)       On-going monitoring to ensure that the second-level domain is being used in a manner consistent with the representations made at the time of application;

(vii)      Cost-effective, expeditious, fair, balanced, neutral and transparent conflict resolution procedures.

A TLD based on the foregoing principles would contribute in fundamental and significant ways to promoting confidence in Internet-based commerce, and the overall utility of the Internet as a medium of interaction and exchange.

Because of the value-concept underlying the <.go> TLD, registrars accredited to register <.go> domain names would be offering a “premium” service.  Such registrars, in addition to competing on price, would also be competing on the basis of their effectiveness in implementing the registration criteria and procedures established by DTEC-MFZA.

E29.    What concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in the manner you propose?

E31.    In what way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?

The above factors will be generally relevant in allowing ICANN to better evaluate the feasibility of introducing more demanding registration criteria in order to minimize, in the future, replication of the problems that currently afflict the <.com> space (and to a lesser extent <.org> and <.net>).

Dubai on the 28^th day of September in the year 2000.