1. State in detail your position as it relates to possible legal claims by certain applicants and/or non-applicant third parties based on alleged trademark, patent or other violations of purported rights in the TLDs identified in your application. 2. If you receive a new TLD, state whether you will indemnify ICANN for claims arising from legal challenges regarding your right to operate the new TLD. If you will indemnify ICANN, identify and describe in detail the resources you propose to utilize for the indemnification. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Identify and summarize Applicant's standards and/or methods for the election of Class A Unit Members. 6. Identify any party or parties who have asked for membership as a Class A Unit Member. If a party or parties requested membership as a Class A Unit Member, describe what action, if any, was taken with respect to the request(s). 7. Identify and describe whether additional registrars can become owners of Afilias. 8. Identify any party or parties who have asked for membership as a Class B Unit Member. If a party or parties requested membership as a Class B Unit Member, describe what action, if any, was taken with respect to the request(s). 9. Identify and describe in detail the financial, technical and other criteria for a party to become a Class B Unit Member. 10. Identify the number of registrars Afilias expects to qualify for the first Subscription Program. 11. Identify the total number of Class B Units Afilias expects to offer in the first Subscription Program. 12. Section 5.4 of the Afilias Operating Agreement provides for an 11% ownership cap by any member. Please state the reasons for this limitation of ownership. 13. Section 3.6(ii) of the Afilias Operating Agreement provides for the voting rights of Class B Unit Members. Please state the reasons the Class B Unit Members' have a 60% ceiling in voting rights. 14. Section 3.6(i) of the Afilias Operating Agreement provides for the voting rights of Class A Unit Members. Please state the reasons the Class A Unit Members' have a 40% floor in voting rights. 15[a]. Section 6.1 of the Afilias Operating Agreement provides in part "Net Income and Net Losses shall be allocated among the Members ratably in proportion to their respective Unit Percentages; provided, however, that if the aggregate number of the Class B Units outstanding exceeds 60% of the total outstanding Units, such allocation shall be made 40% to the holders of the Class A Units and 60% to the holders of Class B Units allocate pro rata within the such class relative to the number of Units of such class held by the Members." Please state the reasons for the Class A Unit Member's receipt of 40% of Net Income in the case where Class B Unit Members own more than 60% of the total outstanding Units. 15[b]. 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. 16. For each period covered by Applicant's pro forma statements, please identify the level of rebates you project on a per registration basis. 17. State how the use of 25% rebates for payment to registrars was decided. 18. Identify and describe how your pro forma statements would change if Applicant received the .info or .site TLDs. 19. Identify and describe in detail your estimated DNS availability.
20. Identify and describe in detail the DNS service level to which you are willing to contractually commit.
21. Identify and describe in detail your projected and worst case transaction time for post to reliance upon DNS.
22. Identify and describe in detail your estimated Whois service availability.
23. Identify and describe in detail the Whois service level to which you are willing to contractually commit.
24. Identify and describe in detail the your average and worst case transaction times for the following:
25. Identify and describe in detail the service level to which you are willing to contractually commit for the following:
26. Identify and describe in detail your projected level of Whois query traffic.
27. Identify and describe in detail the projected query traffic level
to the Whois function to which you are willing to contractually commit.
28. Identify whether you will provide a test-bed for registrars to
validate their protocol software.
Afilias Responses: 1. The notion of third parties asserting proprietary
or other rights or claims in TLDs is not novel. Prior to submitting
its application, Afilias considered the materials and precedents
outstanding to date to assess the validity of any such claims
and their possible effect on the Afilias bid. Based on a review of all such materials,
Afilias believes that third party claims based upon trademark,
patent or other rights in TLDs, including those contained in
the Afilias application, are without merit. In particular, Afilias notes the following
precedents in support of its position: A. United States Patent and Trademark
Office ("USPTO") On September 29, 1999, the USPTO issued
EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99 (the "Guide"), available
at (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm),
among other things, to address issues regarding the relationship
between domain names and trademarks. Section D of the Guide states: "Marks Comprised Solely of TLDs for
Domain Name Registry Services If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for
"domain name registry services" (e.g., the services
currently provided by Network Solutions, Inc. of registering
.com domain names), registration should be refused under Trademark
Act ''1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. ''1051, 1052, 1053 and 1127,
on the ground that the TLD would not be perceived as a mark.
The examining attorney should include evidence from the NEXIS7
database, the Internet, or other sources to show that the proposed
mark is currently used as a TLD or is under consideration as
a new TLD. If the TLD merely describes the subject
or user of the domain space, registration should be refused under
Trademark Act '2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. '2(e)(1), on the ground that
the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services." B. Communique of the Government Advisory
Committee ("GAC"), August 24, 1999, Santiago, Chile
(http://www.icann.org/gac/communique-24aug99.htm).
"1. The GAC reaffirmed its May resolution
that the Internet naming system is a public resource and that
the management of a TLD Registry must be in the public interest. 2. Accordingly, the GAC considers that
no private intellectual or other property rights inhere to the
TLD itself nor accrue to the delegated manager of the TLD as
the result of such delegation." C. United States Courts Afilias also notes two decisions by United
States courts specifically addressing ownership of the ".web"
string. a) In an unpublished 1997 case, a California
state judge ruled from the bench that plaintiff Image Online
Design did not have any proprietary interest in the .web TLD,
saying: "I find the evidence insufficient
to support either factually, or as a matter of law, that the
Plaintiff has established that it has protectable proprietary
interest in the term -- or the word -- term "dot web,"
considering the nature of the interweb and the usage of the term,
vis a vis, the interweb -- the Internet." Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority, No.
SC 046960 (Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County,1997), transcript of
judge's ruling, page 21 (please see attached
PDF file). b) More recently, in Image Online Design,
Inc. v. CORE Association, No CV-99-11347 RJK (C. D. Ca, June
22, 2000) (http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/iod-v-core-22jun00.htm),
a United States federal court ruled that plaintiff Image Online
Design had no trademark rights in the mark ".web": "In sum, Plaintiff's use of the mark
.web in connection with domain name preregistration services
does not confer trademark protection. As a gTLD, .web does not
indicate the source of the services; instead, it indicates the
type of services. The Court finds that .web, as used here, falls
out of the ambit of trademark categorization. Further, even if
it could be categorized, .web is simply a generic term for websites
related to the World Wide Web. Accordingly, the mark is not protectable." D. ICANN Additionally, Afilias believes that its
position is consistent with the position of ICANN as set forth
in two letters and email correspondence from ICANN Secretary
and General Counsel Louis Touton: a) Letter to Anthony R. Kinney, Lawyer
for Economic Solutions, Inc. (ESI) (23 October 2000) (http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/bz-response-23oct00.htm). b) Letter to John M. Cone, Lawyer for Shepher
Corporation d/b/a biz.com 23 October 2000) (http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/biz.com-response-23oct00.htm) c) E-mail Exchange with Alan Ezeir (9 and
23 October 2000) (http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/ws-email-and-response-23oct00.htm). 2. Afilias will indemnify ICANN for any third
party claims asserted against ICANN that are directly attributable
either to the grant of a TLD to Afilias or the actions of Afilias,
including without limitation claims that the award of the .web,
.site, or .info TLD's to Afilias violates the proprietary rights
of any third party. Afilias is also prepared to negotiate with
ICANN in good faith, to the extent ICANN believes that it is
necessary or appropriate, regarding a mutually acceptable level
of indemnification for claims other than those described above,
including particularly claims regarding the conduct of the TLD
application process. If awarded a TLD, Afilias intends to procure
an insurance policy to cover any such indemnity claims. This
insurance policy would be treated as a standard operating expense,
and Afilias would utilize a portion of operating expenses earmarked
for legal and insurance fees (see line items "Legal Services"
and "Insurance" under "General and Administrative"
in the Detail P&L and Other Inputs (http://www.icann.org/tlds/info1/confidence.htm)
initially to fund this insurance policy. If necessary, Afilias
will institute an additional capital call from its members for
any additional funding required to procure the insurance policy. 3. and 4. (Questions 3 and 4 are answered below in
a single response). Afilias' marketing consultants conducted
a variety of domestic and international market studies of the
.web, info, and .site strings. These studies indicated that, of the three
strings, .web was the most popular, most easily recognized in
different languages, and would easily and quickly gain international
acceptance. .info placed second in the studies, with .site coming
in third. Based on these studies, Afilias believes
that .web is most likely to succeed as a viable and immediate
alternative to the current gTLDs, and thus would most successfully
constitute a true proof-of-concept. Therefore, in the event that
ICANN decides to award Afilias a TLD, Afilias favors an award
of the .web string. Afilias' registration forecasts were based
upon assumptions regarding the market demand for a new unrestricted
TLD, and not based upon the actual string selected. The company
has not attempted therefore to quantify the financial differences
between operating a .web TLD and operating a .info or .site TLD. In the event that the actual market acceptance
of a new TLD mirrors the marketing studies that Afilias conducted
however, revenues received by Afilias could be lower than those
described in our pro forma statements, particularly during the
early years of operation, as these strings could take a longer
period of time to gain market acceptance. Notwithstanding, Afilias
firmly believes that the introduction of a new unrestricted TLD(s)
will be valuable to the global internet community, and thus would
strive to make its operation of either the .web, .info or .site
TLD a success. 5. Over the past year, various registrars
discussed the possibility of working together to submit an application
to ICANN to operate a new unrestricted TLD. This concept was
further discussed among registrars who attended the ICANN meetings
in Yokohama in July, at which ICANN announced that it would accept
applications for the operation of new TLDs. After ICANN's announcement in Yokohama,
a message was posted to the Registrar Constituency mailing list,
followed by messages to individual registrar contacts that appeared
on ICANN's list of accredited registrars at the time. These messages
invited all active ICANN-accredited registrars to participate
in the formation of an entity to submit an application to operate
a new TLD. After these messages were sent, interested
registrars participated in a teleconference lead by the Registrar
Constituency to further discuss the formation of the registrar
group. Membership criteria established for joining
the group were minimal, as the group was committed to forming
as large, open and diverse a consortium as possible. The group
required that members be willing to contribute the time and money
necessary to form Afilias, and to quickly and thoroughly prepare
its application. The initial capital contribution required of
each registrar was US$20,000, and a second US$30,000 capital
contribution was required shortly before Afilias submitted the
final application. One additional criteria for membership
was that all registrars execute a Non-Disclosure/Non-Competition
Agreement ("NDA"), agreeing that they would not participate
in discussions regarding, or otherwise join, endorse, or fund,
another bid for an unrestricted TLD. Members felt that execution
of the NDA was essential for two reasons. First, it would insure
that the formulation and preparation of the information contained
in the bid would be maintained as confidential. Second, it would
avoid the potential for members to submit bids that could compete
with Afilias and thereby undermine the efforts of the group.
The NDA did, however, permit members to submit applications for
restricted TLD's, as members believed that these would not compete
with, or diminish the chances of acceptance of, Afilias' unrestricted
bid. 6. The nineteen current members of Afilias
all sought and received Class A membership in Afilias. In addition
to these 19 members, other registrars expressed an interest in
joining Afilias before October 2, 2000, including: Other registrars expressed an interest
in joining Afilias after the New York meetings, but it was resolved
at these meetings that only registrars that had expressed an
interest in joining Afilias prior to the New York meetings would
be permitted to join, given the short time frame within which
an application needed to be prepared and submitted. After ICANN posted the Afilias application
on the ICANN web site, Afilias received other inquiries about
membership from registrars such as domains.ca and Interdomain.
These inquiries were not specific requests for Class A membership,
but rather were general inquiries about the opportunity to become
members. In each instance, Afilias informed the inquiring party
that it would open its membership in accordance with Afilias'
Operating Agreement. 7. Additional registrars can, and hopefully
will, become members of Afilias. In fact, the organizational
structure, business plan, and founding vision of Afilias are
all centered on encouraging registrars from around the world
to do so. While Afilias currently benefits from being owned by
registrars with significant diversity in size and resources,
the majority of its members are small companies, thus demonstrating
Afilias' commitment to embracing the large and small players
in the industry to help achieve its registry vision. In addition, Afilias' business plan contemplates
adding new members, as well as profit sharing with non-member
registrars who register names with Afilias. Afilias adopted these provisions specifically
to carry out one of the founding premises of Afilias -- that,
to the fullest extent possible, this new TLD should not be owned
or controlled by, nor should it exist solely for the benefit
of, one or two large businesses. Instead, a geographically diverse
group of ICANN-accredited registrars of a variety of sizes and
backgrounds will own and control Afilias, thereby benefitting
the global community. Additionally, Afilias wanted its membership
to embrace registrars on a going-forward basis, and thereby enable
newly-admitted registrars to share in the profits and benefits
that membership in Afilias will provide. Afilias hopes to admit
as Class B members registrars that were not able, or did not
wish, to participate in Afilias previously, as well as registrars
that are accredited by ICANN in the future. 8. As described in response to Question 6,
after ICANN posted its application on the ICANN web site, Afilias
received several inquiries about membership from registrars such
as domains.ca and Interdomain. These were general inquiries about
the opportunity to become members, however, not specific requests
to become Class B members. In each instance, Afilias informed
the inquiring party that it would open its membership in accordance
with Afilias' Operating Agreement. 9. Afilias has not yet firmly established
any specific criteria for a party to become a Class B member
pursuant to its Subscription Program, but it has set certain
parameters for these criteria: 1. those that will track the Registrar
Code of Conduct currently being developed by the ICANN Registrar
Constituency, 2. those that are designed to provide appropriate
respect and protection for both established intellectual property
rights and the rights of individual domain name holders, and 3. those that will facilitate the transfer
of registrations. 10. Afilias has no specific expectations about
the number of registrars that will qualify for the first Subscription
Program. As previously noted, however, Afilias does hope that
it will have a large and ever-expanding, globally diverse membership.
In addition, because there are minimal barriers to membership,
Afilias hopes and believes that the number of Class B members
will be very close to, if not the same as, the number of active
ICANN-accredited registrars that desire membership. 11. Afilias cannot predict the number of Class
B Units it will distribute because it will depend on the level
of interest that non-member registrars have in joining the company.
As stated above, Afilias hopes to provide a large number of registrars
with Class B shares. 12. Afilias has imposed an 11% membership cap
to help prevent capture of the company by any single, and most
likely, large registrar or group of registrars. Afilias was founded on the premise that
a large and diverse membership base will ultimately benefit not
only the company but also the internet community generally. The
maintenance of a large and diverse group of members will permit
Afilias to share the financial benefits flowing from the TLD
among the greatest portion of the registrar community possible.
It will also serve to disseminate globally the learning and experience
gained through the operation of the registry. Afilias chose 11% percent with an eye towards
preserving its large and diverse membership but also in recognition
of a reality within the registrar industry -- consolidation.
As the registrar industry matures, large or small players may
determine that it is fiscally impossible or irresponsible to
continue to operate their registrar activities. Afilias believes
that the consolidation of the operations of such players into
existing registrars will insure the continued service of the
existing registrars' customers, and thus benefit the industry
and consumers alike. Accordingly, Afilias chose a number that
would allow for minimal consolidation in the industry while not
permitting any single entity from obtaining too much control
in the company. 13. - 15[a]. (Afilias answered Questions 13 through
15[a] in a single response). As a sign of their commitment to achieving
a diverse membership, the founding members of Afilias agreed
that, as new members are added, the founders will give up control
and the other benefits of majority ownership of the company.
Accordingly, Afilias will allow Class B, non-founding member
registrars to hold up to 60% of its voting power and to receive
up to 60% of its profits. The founding Class A members of Afilias
believed it reasonable to guarantee for themselves 40% of the
voting power within Afilias, in recognition of a variety of factors,
including: (i) the contribution of capital necessary to cover
legal and other expenses to form Afilias and prepare the application;
(ii) the entrepreneurial risk that they have assumed in connection
with the formation of Afilias; (iii) the commitment of the time
and energy necessary to prepare and submit the Afilias application.
In addition, when Afilias allocates its net income or losses,
at least 40% is reserved for the Class A members. This 40% allocation
reflects Afilias' best estimate of the minimum return to which
the founding members should be entitled as compensation for assuming
the above-mentioned risks. Afilias believes that these allocations
allow non-founding registrars to reap the majority of the rewards
and control the majority of the voting power of Afilias, while
recognizing the amount of effort contributed and risk taken by
the founding members. 15[b]. Afilias formulated its estimates of potential
registrations in the new TLD on the premise that the currently
planned expansion of the domain name space is, as has been indicated
by ICANN, a "proof of concept" expansion. Accordingly,
Afilias assumed that ICANN intends to accomplish a number of
objectives, such as introducing a few TLD's in this initial expansion
to test the integration of such TLD's into the existing root.
Additionally, Afilias believes that ICANN would like to avoid
introducing a multitude of unrestricted TLD's and thereby potentially
diluting the opportunity for these new TLD's to successfully
compete with the current gTLD's. Accordingly, in order to test and achieve
a legitimate proof of concept, Afilias assumed that ICANN would
only approve a minimal amount, perhaps one or two, of new unrestricted
TLDs as part of the current expansion plan. 16. For each "confidence level" financial
model in Appendix C to Afilias's application (http://www.icann.org/tlds/info1/confidence.htm),
there is a line item in the Summary P&L labeled "Rebates."
This line item appears after the line item "Pretax Consortium
Profit (Before Rebates)" and before the line item "Pretax
Consortium Profit." Submitted herewith is a spreadsheet
summarizing the "Pretax Consortium Profits (Before Rebates)"
and "Rebates" line items for the 10%, 50%, and 90%
confidence levels. The Rebate pool derives from the company's
profitability. Therefore, analyzing the rebate on a "per-registration"
basis may be misleading, since other factors beyond the number
of registrations will affect Afilias' profitability. Because
the rebates are a function of Afilias' profitability, the company
anticipates that they will begin to be disbursed during the third
year of operations, as shown in the attached summary analysis. 17. As stated previously, the members of Afilias
are committed to ensuring that the broadest possible number of
registrars are able to share in the pecuniary gains, if any,
derived from operating a new TLD registry. To this end, Afilias
instituted the Subscription Program described above to admit
other registrars as members into the company. Because some registrars,
at a given point in time, may not be eligible for membership
or may chose not to join Afilias, the company established a rebate
program as a way for non-member registrars that register domain
names in the new TLD to also share in the economic profits of
Afilias. Pursuant to the rebate program, on an annual
basis, 25% of the company's profits will be distributed to all
registrars that register domain names in the new TLD in any given
year, whether or not the registrars are also members of Afilias.
The amount of any given registrar's rebate will be determined
by the number of domain names that registrar has registered in
the TLD during that year. Additionally, Afilias hopes that its rebate
program will encourage registrars to market aggressively to their
customers the new TLD, thereby fostering market acceptance of
the TLD while at the same time increasing the size of their potential
rebate. 18. Afilias' marketing consultants conducted
a variety of domestic and international market studies of the
.web, info, and .site strings. These studies indicated that, of the three
strings, .web was the most popular, most easily recognized in
different languages, and would easily and quickly gain international
acceptance. .info placed second in the studies, with .site coming
in third. Based on these studies, Afilias believes
that .web is most likely to succeed as a viable and immediate
alternative to the current gTLDs, and thus would most successfully
constitute a true proof-of-concept. Therefore, in the event that
ICANN decides to award Afilias a TLD, Afilias favors an award
of the .web string. Afilias' registration forecasts were based
upon assumptions regarding the market demand for a new unrestricted
TLD, and not based upon the actual string selected. The company
has not attempted therefore to quantify the financial differences
between operating a .web TLD and operating a .info or .site TLD. In the event that the actual market acceptance
of a new TLD mirrors the marketing studies that Afilias conducted
however, revenues received by Afilias could be lower than those
described in our pro forma statements, particularly during the
early years of operation, as these strings could take a longer
period of time to gain market acceptance. Notwithstanding, Afilias
firmly believes that the introduction of a new unrestricted TLD(s)
will be valuable to the global internet community, and thus would
strive to make its operation of either the .web, .info or .site
TLD a success. 19. Afilias' proposed DNS architecture will result in significantly higher levels of availability than currently available in the gTLD name space. Afilias currently estimates that its DNS availability will be 99.9%. Additionally, given the level of system redundancy, combined with the robust nature of the Afilias system architecture- - including geographically diverse placement of zone file servers and load balancing and cluster technology - - DNS users should not be affected even when Afilias' systems experience low availability or degraded operations.
20. As described in section D 15.2.11 of the Afilias application, the Afilias registry will set a minimum standard availability for all services at 99.9 % availability. As part of its agreement with Tucows, Afilias' technology provider, Tucows agreed to provide this standard as a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
A 99.9% availability level sets the maximum level of total down time (planned and unplanned) at one hour per month, which is a significant improvement over the current gTLD registry SLA.
21. As described in section D15.2.4 of the Afilias application, Afilias projects that generation of zone files will be automatically handled such that modifications are updated every five minutes. This time period commences when the command to update the domain information is completed on the registrar side.
Pursuant to the SLA's agreed to with Tucows, a worst case delay would be one hour and five minutes (one hour of total downtime, plus 5 minutes standard update time) from the time a registrar completed the command to update to the time the zone files were updated.
22. It is estimated that the Afilias/Tucows proposed Whois architecture will result in significantly higher levels of Whois availability than currently experienced in the gTLD name space. This is due in part to the level of redundancy built into the Afilias system, combined with the robust nature of the system architecture- - including geographically diverse placement of whois file servers and load balancing and cluster technology.
Additionally, a significant improvement over the current gTLD registry system will be Afilias' proposed centralized Whois service. Currently, Whois data is maintained at both the registry and registrar levels. Accordingly, users seeking complete Whois information must search more than one database. Additionally, individual registrars who maintain these Whois databases may follow different availability levels.
A centralized Whois database maintained at the registry level will enable Afilias to provide a complete, highly reliable, highly available uniform standard of service, which will not be impacted by service levels of individual registrars.
23. As described in section D 15.2.11 of the Afilias application, the Afilias registry will set a minimum standard of availability for all services at 99.9 % availability. As part of its agreement with Tucows, Afilias' technology provider, Tucows agreed to provide this standard as a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
A 99.9% availability level sets the maximum level of total down time (planned and unplanned) at one hour per month, which is a significant improvement over the
SLA maintained by the current gTLD registry.
24. With regard to 24.a., we interpreted "post to confirmation of acceptance" to correlate to the "Add Domain average" which is currently covered under the SLA described in section D 15.2.11 of the Afilias application as 800 ms. Since updates to Whois are determined by an update to the master registry database, which is accessed by an execution of the XRP, the confirmation of an update to the database is in essence what is described in 24.a.. Please note that all database update, query, and Whois related performance criteria do not include Internet network round trip times from the registrar, but refer to the time required from when the packet has been received within the Afilias Registry network.
With regard to 24.b. and 24.c., the SLA described in section D15.2.11 of the Afilias application anticipated establishing numerical figures for the following criteria:
1. Whois update maximum time lag
2. Whois response time
These figures would be determined following initial operational testing in order to establish meaningful benchmarks for SLA criteria. These criteria would correspond to 24.b. and 24.c.
The goal for Whois updates is to establish near real time Whois update capabilities. Therefore the order of magnitude for Whois update time would be in the order of minutes, rather than the order of hours as it is currently measured. At a minimum, the average update time would likely be established at a level close to the committed zone file update time of five minutes. However, these figures should be determined following testing and in concert with our technology provider, Tucows.
For Whois query response time, Afilias estimates that this would correlate to roughly the level established for "Check domain average" for an XRP command, which has been initially determined at 400 ms. The goal would be to reach sub 100 ms query standards, however these figures
should be determined following testing and in concert with our technology provider, Tucows.
25. As described in the answer to question 24., the level at which Afilias would contractually commit to 25.a. would be 800 ms for "Add domain average" within the SLA.
For criteria 25.b. and 25.c., due to the fact that actual data points have not yet been established, Afilias would be willing to tentatively commit to the levels discussed above, that is 5 minutes for "post to appearance on Whois," and 400 ms for "single Whois query". Before agreeing on final figures, Afilias would prefer to conduct at least initial system testing, in order to determine meaningful benchmarks in concert with our
technology provider, Tucows.
26. Projected Whois query traffic was interpolated from estimated marketing demand. In particular due to the estimate that there will be a high level of queries during the initial registration period, the estimated "average number of queries per domain" was increased significantly.
As described in section D15.2.10 of the Afilias application, while the Afilias marketing estimates call for 125,000 registrations in the first day, and 375,000 registrations during the first week, the Afilias system will have the ability to serve at least 150,000 registrations per day, per server. Since the architecture calls for multiple load balancing servers, the minimum level of registrations, and consequential
Whois activity the system would be able to support would be 300,000 registrations per day. Afilias' proposed Whois architecture is extremely robust, to the extent that the number of Whois queries per day should support this level of registrations.
27. Afilias is committed to meeting and exceeding Whois traffic demand. Afilias received a contractual commitment Tucows, our technology provider to be able to meet
the estimated number of registrations described above. Following initial systems testing and evaluation, Afilias would commit to determining and meeting concrete Whois query services levels determined from actual data testing.
28. Yes, Afilias would. The Afilias proposal calls for a test environment in order for new registrars to become operational, and to test their own systems in a non-mission critical environment. This test environment would continue to
be accessible to operational registrars and would be used in order to introduce protocol upgrades and new services in a stable and reliable manner.
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. |
