PROVISIONS FOR EQUIVALENT ACCESS BY ACCREDITED REGISTRARS

The selected successor operator for the .org registry will be required to provide all ICANN-accredited registrars having registry-registrar agreements in effect with equivalent access to registry services through a shared registry system, under which those registrars will provide services (either directly or through resellers) to registrants. This section of the .org Proposal covers the applicant's proposed arrangements for interacting with registrars in a manner that provides equivalent access.

Equal access for registrars to registry services is a crucial obligation of the .org registry operator.  Because the registry represent critical infrastructure to the operation of a registrars business, any unequal treatment will adversely impact competition in the industry and ultimately harm the interests of .org users.  NeuStar takes this obligation seriously; indeed it is the central pillar of NeuStar’s business model.

Operating as a trustee of numerous mission-critical resources, NeuStar has a legacy of providing neutral, even-handed services in highly competitive environments to ensure that resources are managed to serve community interests.  NeuStar ensure equal access and fair treatment through several important mechanisms:

• NeuStar adheres to a comprehensive Registry Code of Conduct, as well as similar codes in each of its other lines of business.  Indeed, NeuStar was the first to introduce the concept of a registry code of conduct to the ICANN process.  These codes are designed to avoid all conflicts of interest, both real and perceived.

• NeuStar has developed internal neutrality and equal access audit procedures designed to serve the communities of interest in each of its lines of business.

• In its operation of .us and .biz, NeuStar adheres to strict equivalent access policies designed to promote competition among users of NeuStar’s registry services.

In addition, as a technical services company, NeuStar must also ensure that its technical operations promote equal access.  For the needs of the .org registry, NeuStar has developed a plan for the migration of the .org registrars from the proprietary RRP protocol to the open EPP protocol in a manner that ensures equal access by registrars during each step in the process.

Leveraging its legacy of successfully providing even-handed services to all, NeuStar will implement and operate the .org registry under a strict code of conduct and principles of fair-treatment that will enable competition among all ICANN-accredited registrars. 

Fairness is central to the role of the .org registry operator.  As the trustee of an important public global resource, ICANN is required by its Articles of Incorporation to promote the public interest in a neutral manner. Consequently, ICANN operates for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in ways that enables fair competition and open entry into Internet-related markets.  Similarly, the .org registry operator must demonstrate that it can treat registrars equally and fairly in providing access to registry services.

Registrars with NeuStar’s current registries already enjoy equivalent and fair access to registry services.  NeuStar accomplishes this by committing to the following:

• A registry code of conduct;

• Fair treatment of registrars;

• Established neutrality principles; and

• Measures that make services available to registrars in different time zones and languages. 

For the .org registry, NeuStar proposes to maintain these established mechanisms for providing registry services to registrars on an equivalent basis.

Code of conduct
NeuStar ensures that all registrars receive equivalent access to registry services by following a registry code of conduct.  The concept of a registry code of conduct is not new to NeuStar, which was the first registry operator ever to introduce and implement the code (in its proposal) to become the operator for the .biz TLD registry.  Ever since then, a registry code of conduct has become a de facto requirement for the operation of TLD registries managed by ICANN, including the .com, .net, and .org TLDs. NeuStar proposes the code of conduct set forth below for inclusion in Exhibit I of the draft registry agreement.  Although this proposed code of conduct is largely identical to the code that has become the standard for ICANN gTLDs, NeuStar has added a provision (Number 14) to ensure that the .org TLD continues to serve the global noncommercial community.

.org TLD code of conduct
NeuStar will at all times operate as a trusted third-party provider of registry services.  Non-commercial entities require that the operator of the .org registry conduct itself in a fair, efficient, and neutral manner. Therefore, in its provision of neutral Registry Services (as defined by the ICANN in its model .org registry agreement), NeuStar will comply with the following registry code of conduct. 

1. NeuStar will conduct periodic reviews of its policy and operation structures to ensure continuing operation of the .org TLD in the public interest.
   
   
2. Other than in connection with the distribution of dividends or other profits to NeuStar's members and shareholders, NeuStar will not, and will require that its subcontractors do not, directly or indirectly, show any preference or provide any special consideration to any DNS registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrars in the .org registry versus any other DNS registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrars in the .org registry, including a registry or registrar owned by a member of NeuStar.
   
   
3. All ICANN-accredited registrars in the .org registry shall have equal access to registry services provided by NeuStar as set forth in Appendix H of the registry agreement.
   
   
4. NeuStar and its owners shall not, in any way attempt, either to warehouse domain names or attempt to register domain names in its own right, except for names designated for operational purposes in compliance with the registry agreement.
   
   
5. Any shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, or other related entity of NeuStar that also operates as a provider of registrar services shall maintain separate books of account with respect to its registrar operations separate from those of NeuStar.
   
   
6. Neither NeuStar, nor its shareholders, subsidiaries, affiliates, or other related entities shall have access to user data or proprietary information of an ICANN-accredited registrar, except as necessary for registry management and operations. 
   
   
7. NeuStar will ensure that no user data or proprietary information from any ICANN-accredited registrar is disclosed to its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related entities, except as necessary for registry management and operations.
   
   
8. Confidential information about NeuStar's business services will not be shared with employees of any DNS registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrars, except (a) as necessary for registry management and operations or (b) if such information is made available to all DNS registry operator employees and ICANN-accredited registrars on the same terms and conditions.
   
   
9. No member of NeuStar's Board of Directors will simultaneously serve on the Board of Directors of an ICANN-accredited registrar that obtains registry services from NeuStar.
   
   
10. No employee of NeuStar will hold a greater than 5% interest, financial or otherwise, in a company that obtains registry services from NeuStar.
    
    
11. No employee of NeuStar will also be an employee of any NeuStar subsidiary, affiliate or other related entity that also operates as an ICANN-accredited registrar.
    
    
12. NeuStar will ensure that no user data from or proprietary information of any registry operated or controlled by NeuStar is disclosed to any other registry operated or controlled by NeuStar.
    
    
13. NeuStar will conduct internal neutrality reviews on a regular basis. In addition, NeuStar and ICANN may mutually agree on an independent party that ICANN may hire, at ICANN's expense, to conduct a neutrality review of NeuStar for ensuring that NeuStar and its owners comply with all the provisions of this registry operator Code of Conduct. The neutrality review may be conducted as often as once per year. NeuStar will provide the auditor with reasonable access to information and records appropriate to complete the review. The results of the review of the auditor will be provided to ICANN and shall be deemed to be confidential and proprietary information of NeuStar and its owners.
    
    
14. NeuStar shall not market .org domain names or offer promotions or incentives that are specifically targeted at encouraging commercial registrations within the .org TLD.
    
    

Fair treatment
NeuStar reiterates its long-standing commitment to fairly treat all ICANN-accredited registrars, a requirement expressly set forth in Section 3.5 of the draft registry agreement for the .org TLD.  More than reiterating its commitment, however, the next registry operator of the .org registry must provide ICANN with evidence of such fairness.  NeuStar does that by proposing measures that it successfully implemented in its operations of the .biz TLD.  These measures include the following:

• Avoiding combinations with inherent conflicts of interest; and

• Developing and implementing a statement on equal access and non-discriminatory practices.

Avoiding conflicts of interest.  As required by Section 3.5.3 of the draft registry agreement for the .org TLD, NeuStar will not serve as an accredited registrar of .org domain names while serving as the registry operator under the .org TLD.  Moreover, NeuStar can make the further representation that it is not owned or controlled by any prospective .org TLD registrar. 

As ICANN is no doubt aware, the combination of a registry operator and its registrars, whether in function or by ownership, invariably leads to conflicts of interest inconsistent with both ICANN’s mandate to promote the public interest in a neutral manner and the registry operator’s requirement to provide registry services to all accredited registrars on an equivalent basis.  For example, a registry operator that is owned or otherwise controlled by registrars for the same TLD is subject to immense pressure to make decisions benefiting the limited number of registrars who happen to own or control the registry operator at the expense of the Internet as a whole and other ICANN-accredited registrants in particular.  Furthermore, and for the same reasons, such a registry operator likely will lack the independence necessary to enforce ICANN policies and the requirements set forth in the registry-registrar agreement. 

NeuStar will not place itself in a position where a conflict of interest might compromise its neutrality.  Furthermore, NeuStar agrees to abide by its Code of Conduct (see above), which prohibits NeuStar from:

• Showing any preference or providing any special consideration to any ICANN-accredited registrars;

• Allowing its shareholders, subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related entities to have access to user data or proprietary information of an ICANN-accredited registrar;

• Disclosing to its affiliates, subsidiaries, and other related entities any user data or proprietary information from any ICANN-accredited registrar;

• Sharing its confidential information with employees of any ICANN-accredited registrars; and

• Having a member of its Board of Directors serve simultaneously on the Board of Directors of an ICANN-accredited registrar.

NeuStar takes its neutrality obligations seriously.  For the operation of the .org TLD registry, NeuStar will continue avoiding any conflicts of interest that detract from ICANN’s mission to promote the public interest in a neutral manner.

Statement on equal access and non-discriminatory practices.  As part of Exhibit H of the registry agreement, the NeuStar Statement on Equal Access and Non-discriminatory Practices (the “Statement”) details NeuStar’s internal mechanisms for ensuring that registrars of the .org TLD are treated fairly by the registry operator.  With respect to the Statement, NeuStar proposes to accomplish the following:

• Provide all registrars around the globe with the opportunity to register domain names pursuant to the terms and conditions of a registry-registrar agreement;

• Provide all ICANN-accredited registrars with equivalent access to the registry-registrar protocol; and

• Certify to ICANN on a semi-annual basis that NeuStar, in its capacity as the .org TLD registry operator, is providing all ICANN-accredited registrars with such equivalent access.

As with its .biz TLD operations, NeuStar proposes to implement the Statement by taking the following affirmative steps:

• Abiding by a registry code of conduct.

• Ensuring that financial statements for NeuStar are prepared using United States GAAP.

• Conducting business and technical operations from different premises than any ICANN-accredited registrar.

• Restricting access to NeuStar premises and facilities to assigned personnel employed or contracted by NeuStar. 

• Implementing an access to data policy setting forth procedural safeguards for ensuring that data and information of the registry business are not utilized to advantage one ICANN-accredited registrar over another.

• Providing formal training to all NeuStar personnel and other employees who have a need to know its business. 

• Providing a compliance officer solely for ensuring that NeuStar acts in accordance with equal access and non-discriminatory practices.

• Requiring that all NeuStar personnel and others with a need to know its business sign a non-disclosure agreement and a certification acknowledging, among other things, his/her understanding of the requirements, and certifying that he/she will strictly comply with the provisions of the Statement.

NeuStar has successfully employed the Statement and implemented the foregoing measures in its current TLD registry operations.  For the .org TLD, NeuStar proposes to continue meeting these well-developed requirements.

Neutrality legacy
NeuStar’s defining quality is its adherence to stringent neutrality and fairness requirements.   For NeuStar, neutrality is not a platitude. It is our identity. Impeccable, high-quality, and evenhanded service is essential to the central role we play in the industries we serve. We process extremely sensitive and proprietary service provider data using the highest security and confidentiality standards. NeuStar does not provide services that compete with our customers or constitute a conflict of interest. All of our services are available to all registrars on non-discriminatory terms. Further, our entire staff is sworn to corporate codes of conduct.

Unlike other companies capable of operating a domain name registry, NeuStar has been subject to and has successfully operated in accordance with numerous neutrality regimes, including those that apply to the following NeuStar operations, which are further described below:

• gTLD Registry;

• ccTLD Registry;

• Numbering Plan; and

• Local Number Portability.

gTLD registry—Under Section 3.5 of its agreement with ICANN for the operation of the .biz registry, NeuStar is required to provide all ICANN-accredited registrars with registry-registrar agreements equivalent access to registry services, including to its shared registration system.  Moreover, the same agreement requires that NeuStar ensure that its revenues and assets are not utilized to advantage affiliated registrars to the detriment of other ICANN-accredited registrars.

ccTLD registry—Under its agreement with the United States Department of Commerce, NeuStar serves as the accrediting body for registrars seeking to register domain names under the .us ccTLD.  Under that agreement, NeuStar is obligated to provide a “fair” accreditation process and “ensure neutrality of the registry”.

Numbering and portability—As part of its approval of NeuStar as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that NeuStar ensure certain protections to safeguard its neutrality.  These safeguards include:

• Appointment of two independent directors to serve on the NeuStar Board of Directors;

• Establishment of an independent voting trust;

• Requirement for quarterly neutrality audits conducted by an independent auditor; and

• With respect to NANPA, a requirement that NeuStar operate impartially and without alignment with any particular telecommunications industry segment. 

Even though the FCC declared in December 1999 that NeuStar met these neutrality requirements, NeuStar continually ensures it adherence with these regulations as it grows existing businesses and offers new services.

Further, NeuStar’s contract with the North American Portability Management (NAPM) for Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) call for similarly stringent adherence to neutrality requirements.

NeuStar believes that it is uniquely qualified to ensure the success of the .org TLD.  Our plan builds on NeuStar’s legacy of managing public resources in a responsible and neutral manner.  NeuStar’s proven experience in operating under various neutrality requirements will deliver a high level of service to the noncommercial community.

Registration, technical assistance, and other services
NeuStar currently provides registry services, including, but not limited to, registration, technical assistance, and other services on an equivalent basis to all accredited registrars having registry-registrar agreements in effect, including to those registrars in different time zones and relevant languages.  As part of its proposal to ICANN, NeuStar will continue to provide the following services to registrars:

• Web-based, self-help services;

• Support on a 24 x 7 x 365 days a year basis;

• Communications via e-mail; and

• Assistance in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Korean.

NeuStar proposes to continue providing these high-quality services to registrars under the .org TLD, thus ensuring that registrars are granted an equivalent level of support regardless of the time of day or where they are located.  For more information on the support services, please see Section C17.11 of NeuStar’s Proposal for the Reassignment of the .org TLD.

VeriSign, Inc., the current operator of the .org registry uses a registry-registrar protocol (RRP) documented in RFC 2832. At the time of the transition, the selected successor operator will be required to continue to support the RRP (unless a migration of registrars in .org to another protocol has already been completed by that time). In addition, the selected successor operator will be required to implement support for the IETF provreg working group's protocol specification for an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) no later than 135 days after it is adopted as a Proposed Standard [RFC 2026, section 4.1.1]. Provide a detailed description of your plan for supporting RRP at the time of transition, for supporting EPP within the required time frame, and for providing registrars with a smooth, low-cost migration path from RRP to EPP.

To ensure the continuing stability and integrity of the .org registry the migration of the .org registrars from the RRP protocol to the EPP protocol must occur after the successful and stable transition of the registry itself from the incumbent operator.

NeuStar is dedicated to the development and implementation of open industry standards.  Common, well-documented interface protocols are critical to the overall stability of the Internet.  More importantly for .org, it is critical to ensure the stability and integrity of the registry, as well as for providing equal and fair access to each of the .org registrars.  Proper management of the registry-registrar interface through the transition and ongoing operations will be a crucial element in ensuring the stability of the namespace.

Currently, the registry interface for .org uses a protocol called the Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP), documented in IETF Informational RFC 2832.  RRP is a proprietary protocol developed by the incumbent registry.  Thus it has not gone through the process of peer review required of an industry standard.  The domain industry has recently begun an evolution of the registry-registrar model from proprietary protocols, like RRP,  to the open Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP).  EPP is in the process of becoming an IETF standard.  NeuStar fully supports the EPP protocol and has been a primary participant in its development.  Therefore, the successor registry for .org must account for the fact that the .org registry currently utilizes the RRP interface.  The new .org operator will need to develop a comprehensive plan for the easy, low-cost migration of the .org registrars to the EPP protocol once it is recognized as a proposed standard by the IETF.

A successful migration from RRP to EPP must address three primary concerns in order to properly serve the .org community.  These are:

• Stability and integrity—The migration must be conducted to ensure that the .org registry is unaffected and that the migration is transparent to the registrants.  In particular, the registry operator must prevent any corruption of the registry database;

• Equal access— The migration must be conducted such that all .org registrars, regardless of size or technical capacity, will continuously enjoy equal access to registry systems; and

• Straightforward/low cost—The migration must be conducted in a manner designed to minimize the impact on registrars, both with respect to technical development requirements and costs.

NeuStar’s solution addresses these concerns:

• NeuStar enhances stability through a phased migration to the EPP protocol only after completion of stable transition;
• NeuStar will work closely with the registrars to address issues raised by the implementation of EPP in .org, including equal access and necessary protocol modifications; and
• NeuStar’s will provide necessary tools,  testing and support to minimize the impact of the migration on .org registrars.

The following discussions provide more detailed discussion of each element of the NeuStar protocol migration solution.

Support for RRP
As with most aspects of the successful transition of a TLD from one operator to another, requirements that are simply stated are often quite complex in execution.  There are a number of approaches that an applicant could propose for conducting the migration. 

1. Require migration to EPP at time of transition;

2. Offer both RRP and EPP at the time of transition; and

3. Transition with RRP and migrate to EPP only when the transitioned registry is fully stable.

NeuStar strongly advises that only the third option will ensure that the migration meets the requirements listed above.  Requiring migration to EPP at the time of transition raises the concern that not all registrars would have the resources to make the migration in time to participate in the transition.  This approach would result either in some registrars lacking equal access, or delay of the transition.  In addition, a basic principle of transitioning critical infrastructure is that you must minimize the number of variables in the process.  Requiring movement to EPP at the same time as the transition introduces additional variables and thus additional risk.  Therefore, this first option is unsatisfactory.

The second approach would be for the new registry to offer both an EPP and RRP interface at transition.  The registry provider would then evolve all registrars to the standard EPP interface after it has been designated a standard by the IETF.  While at first glance, this approach may seem attractive, it actually would create the possibility for different levels of access for different registrars.  A common interface ensures that all registrars are treated the same because all registrars have access to the same interface documentation and the registry processes all commands in the same manner.  Also, multiple interfaces create the possibility for corruption of the .org database, and for causing problems with registrar transfers.  For example, questions could arise regarding whether a name is registered, to whom it is registered, and the actual expiration date for a given name.  Obviously, the .org community would not be well served if the data within the .org database could not be trusted.  Thus, this approach also would endanger the success of the transition. 

Given the potential harm from these approaches, NeuStar proposes that the most reasonable and responsible approach is to migrate from RRP to EPP only after the successful transition of the registry.  NeuStar will update it's current registry to provide an RRP interface to .org.  The NeuStar .org registry will be compatible with the current toolkits provided by VeriSign and used by the current .org registrars.  There will be a test environment and technical support provided to the registrars for system testing prior to the transition.  NeuStar will work with the registrars to test and implement their interface to the new registry.  Then we will work with the registrars to transition the registry from VeriSign to NeuStar using a common RRP interface.

Once the registry is transitioned using the common RRP protocol, NeuStar would have the opportunity to analyze the stability of the registry, as well as the registrar operations and interface.  After determining that the transition has been completed in a stable manner, it would be safe to begin a migration to EPP, while working closely with registrars to address any significant issues.

The benefits to the .org community of NeuStar’s approach are significant.  The primary benefit is that it eliminates risk of data corruption or stability problems as a result of conflicts between the protocols.  Also, it ensures that the registrars, at all times, are treated equally.  Finally, because RRP is currently used by the registrar, this approach represents the easiest and lowest cost approach during the transition.  Following transition, NeuStar would provide additional tools and assistance to ease the migration and reduce impact on all registrars.

NeuStar recognizes, of course, that, in the event that all .org registrars migrate to EPP prior to award of .org to a successor operator, that operator will be required to implement dual protocols.  NeuStar is prepared and sufficiently experienced to address such eventualities and work to minimize the impact of the issues discussed above if necessary.  However, we strongly submit that the third approach, and NeuStar’s solution, discussed above best serves the .org community.

The migration to EPP
As is discussed above, the .org community should not address the migration from RRP to EPP until after a successful transition from the current registry to the new registry.  The transition timeframe will include a stability period after transition during which RRP will be the common protocol.  Once the registry is transitioned and stabilized, the .org community will begin to address the transition from RRP to EPP. 

The registry must very closely manage the migration to a new registry interface.  Change management is one of the more critical, but often overlooked, functions of any service organization, including Internet registries.  Since the registry is critical infrastructure for all registries, a change to the interface dramatically affects all registrars.  Further, changes to the interface can also affect changes in the .org database itself, causing potentially serious integrity concerns.  For these reasons, the registry must start with a stable baseline and provide detailed oversight for each change to the interface.  In some cases the changes will be minor and relatively easy to implement.  In other cases, such as a change from the RRP protocol to the EPP protocol, the changes will be significant and require significant preparation, testing, and documentation. 

To effectively address the many potential issues related to a protocol migration, the successor registry must have an intimate understanding of the protocols involved and the risks associated with moving from one to the other.  NeuStar is an active supporter of EPP both in our registry and at the IETF.  NeuStar has authored two drafts of the EPP protocol in the Provreg Working Group, the IETF Working Group responsible for EPP, and has participated in the crafting of all of the drafts produced in the working group.  Moreover, NeuStar’s registry has a fully compliant EPP-04 interface.  Most other registries support earlier versions of the EPP draft standard or have implemented interfaces that are not fully compliant with EPP-04. 

Thus, NeuStar is uniquely positioned to transition registrars seamlessly from RRP to EPP in a straightforward and cost effective manner.  We can easily transition the .org interface 135 days after EPP is made a standard, as required by ICANN.  Indeed, this transition would require only minor modifications to NeuStar's current registry software and registrar toolkit. 

Migration of the registry system is, of course, only half the battle.  The successor registry must work closely with ICANN and the .org registrars with regard to planning and timing of the registrar migration as a number of technical protocol decisions are required.  For example, RRP only supports a “thin” registry model, and while EPP can support a “thin” registry model, it is predominantly associated with a “thick” registry model.  The industry and the noncommercial community should consider whether a thick or thin registry model is preferred.  If a thick model is preferable, then the registry will be required to work with the registrars to determine an effective approach for updating the registry database with the EPP fields associated with the thick model.  This update process will raise the costs of the transition for existing registrars and, therefore, should not simply be imposed by the registry.  Similarly, if the thin model is preferable, then certain modifications will be necessary to the EPP protocol to remove the thick registry fields for the .org EPP.  Currently there are no known implementations of EPP that utilize the "thin" registry options.  Therefore it would be an unproven protocol.

In addition, there is a critical difference between the business rules required in EPP and those supported in RRP.  EPP requires authenticating information (authinfo) to be associated with each domain name.  This authinfo is required when performing a registrar transfer.  If the registrar does not submit the authinfo with the transfer request the request will be denied.  RRP does not provide for such a capability.  This means that none of the names in the .org database have authinfo currently associated with them, nor does the registry require it when performing a transfer.  A transition from RRP to EPP will have to account for this difference.  Either the standard will have to be changed to delete the authinfo or the authinfo will have to be provisioned in the .org database for all existing names.  The best approach to this issue will have to be considered by all affected parties.

Therefore, it is clear that there are important issues associated with the migration from RRP to EPP that must be considered by the industry.  The migration must occur in a careful fashion following the registry transition.  NeuStar would begin working with the .org registries on these issues immediately following transition to ensure a timely migration.  Only through careful planning by a successor registry, like NeuStar, with detailed knowledge of both the RRP and EPP protocols, will the .org registrars experience a seamless migration from RRP to EPP.

Exhibit C22-1 provides an overview of the registry protocol migration process.