By
signing this application through its representative, the Applicant attests that
the information contained in this Description of TLD Policies, and all
referenced supporting documents, are true and accurate to the best of
Applicant's knowledge.
I,
Clive Flory, have signing authority for JVTeam, LLC.
_______________________________
Signature
__Clive
Flory_____________________
Name (please
print)
_CEO__________________________
Title
_JVTeam_______________________
Name of
Applicant
_29 September 2000______________
Date
(c)
2000 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
All
rights reserved.
Updated August 15, 2000
I.
General TLD Policies for
.per (RFP EI)
Introduction
Both in its preliminary report from Yokohama, Japan and its recently released request for proposals, ICANN has set out a number of basic concerns regarding the introduction of new top level domains (TLDs). Among the most important of these concerns to ICANN are the following six central concepts that should be reflected in proposals for new TLDs:
· The need to maintain the Internet's stability, and especially the protection of domain name holders from the effects of registry or registration-system failure
· The extent to which selection of the proposal would lead to an effective “proof of concept” concerning the introduction of top-level domains in the future, including the diversity the proposal would bring to the programs— fully open top level domains, restricted and chartered domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains, and personal domains—in support of a variety of business models and geographic locations
· The enhancement of competition for registration services at the registry and registrar level
· The enhancement of the utility of the DNS
· The extent to which the proposal would meet previously unmet needs
· The importance of appropriate protection of rights of others, including intellectual property rights, in connection with the operation of the TLD, especially during the start-up phases.
The policies developed by or for new TLD registries will provide in major part the framework for meeting ICANN’s goals and addressing any concerns. The JVTeam policy proposals outlined below will address ICANN’s concerns and provide for a stable and competitive TLD registry.
Innovation Through Evolution
JVTeam is conscious that the first-round introduction of new TLDs will provide vital information for the ongoing development of the DNS. JVTeam also is aware that the existing mechanisms and policies implemented by ICANN have, on the whole, been very successful in maintaining the stability of the Internet. As such, the concepts being proposed by JVTeam have been developed with a view to extending and enhancing the existing DNS environment in a measured, even-handed manner. This approach does not preclude innovation but rather it promotes the carefully considered, responsible evolution of the DNS. The concepts being evaluated represent substantial, incremental enhancements to the domain name system as well as solutions to several pre-existing issues. The JVTeam proposal is premised on paving the way for the stable growth of the domain name system.
The introduction of new TLDs is entirely uncharted territory. The domain name system has for the most part remained unchanged since its inception. There have been several forward steps such as the introduction of TLD registrar competition in 1999 and the addition of several ccTLDs. There has been significant progress made in laying the foundation for new TLDs leading up to the current ICANN program, including an initial recommendations document in 1997 by the Ad Hoc Committee, and the meetings in Yokohama, Japan. However, several issues have not been resolved to general acceptance. Some of these issues have been technical in nature while others have involved intellectual property issues and an effective solution to the complexities presented by the start-up period.
In recent years, the most significant change in the DNS environment has been the sheer enormity of its growth as well as the increasingly critical role that it plays in global commerce and communications. So while it may have been possible in the late 80s to implement major modifications with little concern over the impact of such modifications, the breadth of the DNS as it currently exists makes the level of risk inherent in modifications far greater. The world needs the domain name system to grow, but it simply cannot afford a domain name system that is not stable.
It is for this reason that the JVTeam solution is focused on evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes to the DNS. The concepts being proposed for evaluation have been chosen because they represent incremental enhancements that absolutely maintain the stability of the Internet, that facilitate the growth of the DNS and that provide simple solutions to complex problems.
To the extent that JVTeam’s policy proposals vary from existing ICANN policies and procedures, they do so largely to reflect JVTeam’s absolute belief that the registry operator must operate as a trusted neutral third-party in the provision of DNS services and to address new functionality in the new TLD. Access to DNS services is critical to entities wishing to participate in the DNS industry specifically and in Internet business generally. Domain names are the means by which businesses and consumers gain access to, navigate and reap the benefits of the World Wide Web. These benefits cannot be fully realized, however, unless policies are in place to ensure that DNS resources are administered in a fair and efficient manner that makes them available to all parties desiring to provide DNS services. In order to meet this goal, JVTeam submits that DNS services by a registry must be administered to meet the following objectives:
· Facilitate entry into the DNS marketplace by making DNS resources available on an efficient, timely basis to registrars and registrants
· Not unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment or group of consumers
· Ensure that interests of all DNS constituents are considered and addressed fairly and efficiently.
To ensure that JVTeam meets these objectives, it commits to strict adherence to the following Registry Code of Conduct:
REGISTRY
CODE OF CONDUCT JVTeam will at all times operate as a trusted neutral third-party provider of DNS registry services. JVTeam recognizes that domain names are the means by which businesses, consumers, and individuals gain access to, navigate, and reap the benefits of the global Internet. These benefits cannot be fully realized, however, unless DNS resources are administered in a fair, efficient, and neutral manner that makes them available to all parties desiring to provide DNS services. To ensure the provision of neutral registry services, JVTeam will comply with the following Code of Conduct. 1. JVTeam will never, directly or indirectly, show any preference or provide any special consideration to any company that is a DNS registry provider or registrar services provider, as those terms are defined by ICANN, including any affiliated registry or registrar 2. All ICANN accredited registrars shall have equal access to those JVTeam registry services operated directly by JVTeam. In those instances where JVTeam operates as the backend technical services provider for another ICANN accredited registry, access to the services of that registry will be determined by that ICANN accredited registry 3. JVTeam shall not in any way attempt to warehouse or register domain names in its own right, except for names designated for operational purposes 4. Any shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, or other related entity of JVTeam that also operates as a provider of registrar services shall maintain separate books of account with respect to its registrar operations 5. Neither JVTeam, nor its shareholders, subsidiaries, affiliates or other related entities shall have access to user data or proprietary information of a registrar served by JVTeam, except as necessary for registry operations 6. JVTeam will ensure that no user data or proprietary information from any registrar is disclosed to its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related entities 7. Confidential information about JVTeam’s business services will not be shared with employees of any DNS services provider 8. No member of JVTeam’s Board of Directors will simultaneously serve on the Board of Directors of a registrar that obtains registry services from JVTeam 9. No employee of JVTeam will hold a greater than 5% interest, financial or otherwise in a company that obtains registry services from JVTeam 10. No employee of JVTeam will also be an employee of any JVTeam subsidiary, affiliate or other related entity that also operates as a provider of registrar services 11.
No employee
of any JVTeam subsidiary, affiliate or related entity that also operates as a
provider of registrar services will also be an employee of JVTeam 12.
JVTeam will ensure that no user data from or proprietary
information of any registry operated or controlled by JVTeam is disclosed to
any other registry operated or controlled by JVTeam 13. In
addition, JVTeam will conduct internal neutrality reviews on a regular basis.
JVTeam will allow ICANN to hire an independent party, at ICANN’s expense, to
conduct a neutrality review of JVTeam, ensuring that JVTeam and its
shareholders comply with all the provisions of this Registry Code of
Conduct. JVTeam and ICANN will mutually
agree upon the neutrality analyst.
The neutrality review may be conducted as often as once per year. JVTeam will provide the analyst with
reasonable access to information and records necessary to complete the
review. The results of the review
will be provided to ICANN and shall be deemed to be confidential and
proprietary information of JVTeam and its shareholders. |
The concepts proposed in the JVTeam policy proposal are built on the strengths of an intimate knowledge of the DNS and a commitment to the ongoing development of a stable Internet environment. Only JVTeam can bring to this process the knowledge, skills and experience necessary to understand the importance of this process to the long-term future of the DNS. Only the JVTeam has the ability, experience and resources to facilitate the next step in the evolution of the domain name system.
I.1 In
General (RFP Section E1)
JVTeam largely will follow proven Internet and DNS
policies developed by ICANN and the Internet community at large. This approach will ensure the continued
stability and consistent operation of the DNS and recognizes the consensus
efforts of ICANN.
Significant effort by ICANN and the Internet community has gone into the development of policies to govern the relationships between ICANN, TLD registries, TLD registrars, and Internet end-users. These efforts have resulted in the development of a workable shared registry model that encourages competition and Internet stability, as well as protects the individual rights of Internet users. Recognizing these efforts and the need to maintain consistent Internet governance models, JVTeam will utilize as basic models the existing ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, NSI Registrar License and Agreement, ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement, and the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, with only minor modifications as described herein. These modifications are designed primarily to ensure the neutrality of the registry, to account for certain identified aspects of the JVTeam proposal, or to account for differences brought about because these original policies and agreements were designed, at least partially, to facilitate a transition from a monopoly registry to a shared registry system.
I.2 TLD
String (RFP Section E2)
JVTeam proposes to establish .per as a domain space
on the Internet for personal, non-commercial use. Such a space currently is lacking.
JVTeam proposes to offer registry services for the .per TLD as an unsponsored, restricted TLD. .per will be offered for registration by individuals for noncommercial uses only. The .per domain name space will be used to facilitate unique online digital identities (DIDs) for all registrants. There is a pressing need on the Internet for mechanisms to permit unique identification of individuals, as well as to accurately denote noncommercial information. JVTeam submits that the .per TLD will provide such a mechanism and allow for the development of innovative new uses of the DNS under conditions of personal control and privacy. These innovative uses will provide for an excellent “proof of concept” for new functionality and will satisfy currently unmet needs using the DNS.
Although some may argue that there should be no noncommercial restriction on the .per domain space, JVTeam strongly believes that there are many existing and future TLDs that can be and are used for commercial purposes. Registrants seeking commercial domain names will be well served by those other TLDs. The Internet is in need of a restricted noncommercial space to help avoid consumer confusion and enable greater community building on the Internet.
JVTeam is aware that the string “per” is the 3-letter ISO code for Peru. JVTeam does not believe, however, that use of “per” as a TLD will result in consumer confusion regarding the origin or use of the TLD. The “per” string is not in current use, outside of the ISO code lists, including as a TLD, used to designate the country of Peru. Market research among an international sampling of potential new TLD registrants indicates that .per represents significantly the best string for a personal TLD string on the Internet and, therefore, JVTeam recommends its use as a TLD to ensure success of the new domain space. In the event that ICANN determines that .per should not be granted as a new personal TLD, due to the existence of the ISO code, JVTeam submits that if required to choose an alternate string, .nom represents the next best option, and JVTeam would implement a .nom TLD.
I.3 Naming
conventions (RFP SEction E3)
In order to provide for the most competitive,
economically viable, and innovative personal domain name space, JVTeam proposes
to register .per names for unique Digital IDentifications (DIDs).
For a personal name space to reach its full potential on the Internet, it will have to allow for registration and differentiation of multiple (literally thousands) of domain name registrants with the same name. To facilitate this goal, JVTeam will develop tools to assist in the registration of unique names, as discussed below. To maintain customer familiarity and comfort with the DNS, the .per domain names will be registered as second level domains. For example, John Q. Smith might choose Jsmith.per, or JohnSmith.per, or even John-Q-Smith.per. Registrants also would be free to register nicknames (e.g., Sparky.per), diminutives (e.g., Johnny.per), and activity or use affiliations (e.g., JohnQSmith-athome.per). However, registrants would be required to certify that the name chosen is somehow related to that person as an individual. Violation of this principle (e.g., Microsoft.per likely would not be a person’s name) would be a violation of the TLD charter and could result in cancellation of the name through the dispute resolution mechanisms discussed below.
JVTeam will abide by full Internet standards regarding naming and reserved names including RFC 1034, RFC 1123, RFC 2606 and RFC 2352.
Recognizing that there are only limited combinations with which to represent a given name, JVTeam will provide a mechanism through which registrars can assist registrants in choosing unique names. The mechanism would suggest prefixes and suffixes to the requested name in the event the first choice was not available. Typical prefix suggestions could include Mr, Ms, Dr, Herr, etc. Similarly, suffixes might include –ID, Jr, online, 1234, etc. Thus, if John Q. Smith wished to register JohnQSmith.per, but the name was already registered, the registry would provide a list of prefixes and/or suffixes that would result in a registerable name. In this manner, the registry will be able to register as many John Smiths as there are on the planet Earth. JVTeam research indicates that consumers do not typically like to use third level domains.
I.4 Registrars
(RFP Section E4)
JVTeam will operate the registry as a neutral
third-party provider. Consistent with
neutrality requirements, however, JVTeam will follow existing policy models for
registry/registrar relations. This approach
will ensure that the Internet community perceives JVTeam as a trusted, unbiased
provider of core Internet DNS functionality while providing the registry and
registrar industries with consistent, well-known, and stable business models
for operation and use of the new TLD.
Among the most important aspects of the JVTeam neutrality policy will be the registry’s relationship with registrars. As noted above, the registry controls a vital input in the DNS industry: the names themselves. As a result, any favoritism or unfair treatment, perceived or real, of one registrar over another may harm significantly competition in the DNS industry. Therefore, JVTeam has taken strong steps to ensure that registrars are presented with a level playing field with respect to the provisioning of registry services.
In order to ensure a level playing field, a truly neutral registry operator, and the continued open, stable and technically consistent operation of the Internet, JVTeam proposes largely to follow the existing guidelines for registry/registrar relations established by ICANN for the .com, .net, and .org registry. This approach will ensure that the industry model will be well established and familiar to registries, registrars and consumers. Such stability and consistency in the models used for the introduction of new TLDs will prove highly beneficial to a successful “proof of concept” because ICANN will have relevant reference points in existing TLDs.
Will domain name
holders deal through registrars, directly with the registry operator, or some
combination of the two?
Domain name holders will deal with the registry through registrars. The registry will avoid direct relationships with domain name holders in order to ensure its continued neutrality. A neutral third-party operator such as JVTeam must not be perceived as competing with its customers (i.e., the registrars in this case) and therefore JVTeam will not deal directly on a customer-provider basis with the domain name holder. Moreover, this approach preserves established DNS business models and will increase DNS competition at the registrar level.
What are the
respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the registry operator and
registrars?
As the registry operator, JVTeam will be responsible for the provision of high quality, efficient and neutral TLD registry services including registration and Whois services and database management services. The registrars will be responsible for domain name holder registrations, customer relations, and additional services.
JVTeam’s strict adherence to the Registry Code of Conduct discussed above will ensure that no registrar is treated unfairly vis-ŕ-vis JVTeam services and that no registrar or group of registrars will be able unduly to influence JVTeam’s operations and services. Under this model, the registrars will be responsible for all consumer/end-user relations and the registry will be responsible for the fair, efficient, and high-quality technical operation of the registry itself. Thus the registry maintains unquestioned neutrality and can implement, so long as technically feasible, any registrar policy adopted by ICANN for the benefit of the Internet community.
Unlike the existing registry, however, JVTeam proposes to operate a “fat” registry. This “fat” registry will centralize the databases normally associated with the registry but typically operated separately by each registrar. The decentralized approach is inefficient, requiring significant duplication of efforts and resources. JVTeam intends to eliminate such duplications and, using the associated economies of scale, reduce the costs of DNS services to the registrars.
In addition, because of the innovative additional functionality that the DID concept will facilitate, the registry also will be responsible for working with registrars and third-party providers in developing the necessary implementation of new DNS functionality.
If registrars are
to be employed, how and by whom will they be selected or accredited?
In order to encourage the rapid implementation of the new TLD, promote strong competition among registrars and registries, and ensure the continued neutrality of the registry, JVTeam will provide registry services to all existing and future ICANN accredited registrars without material restriction. Eligibility to use the registry will be subject only to technical testing and approval by JVTeam technical staff, the payment of a registrar deposit (to cover initial registration), and the execution of a Registrar License and Agreement similar to that required for existing registrars in the .com TLD.
If the number of
registrars will be restricted, what number of registrars will be selected?
Because JVTeam proposes an open shared registry, there will be no restrictions on the number of registrars permitted to register names in the system. The only limitations on the number of registrars will be interest within the industry and ICANN's ability to process and approve accreditation applications.
Have the
qualifying registrars already been selected?
All existing and future ICANN accredited registrars will be eligible to operate as registrars to the JVTeam TLD. No specific selections have been or need be made.
On what basis
will selections among those seeking to be registrars be made, and who will make
them?
All selections will be made on the basis of ICANN accreditation only. JVTeam is prepared to assist ICANN if needed in the accreditation of new registrars, subject to final ICANN approval.
If registrars are
to be used, what mechanisms will be used to ensure that TLD policies are implemented?
JVTeam will have a Registrar License and Agreement with each registrar that operates with the registry. The agreement explicitly will require that each registrar comply with all TLD policies of ICANN and the registry and further will require the registrars to mandate registrant certification that they are individuals and will only use the domain name for personal noncommercial purposes. Although based closely on the NSI Registrar License and Agreement, certain modifications will be made to ensure that TLD policies are implemented.
Of particular importance to the Registrar Agreement will be a Registrar Code of Conduct. JVTeam must have a workable mechanism for requiring registrars to follow important TLD policies. Therefore, the Code of Conduct, which will be developed in consultation with the registrars, will set out required conduct for registrars, violation of which will be grounds for termination of the registrar/registry relationship. The Agreement will also, of course, provide an opportunity to cure breaches of the Registrar Code of Conduct and also will establish a reconsideration process in the event of termination. JVTeam believes that this approach will provide sufficient means to ensure policy implementation and compliance by the registrars.
I.5 Intellectual
Property Provisions (RFP Sections E5-E5.6)
JVTeam proposes a domain name space which limits
significantly intellectual property issues.
Since well before the formation of ICANN, intellectual property owners have debated whether new TLDs should be introduced into the DNS and how to protect their trademarks and globally famous marks on the Internet. On April 30, 1999, the World Intellectual Property Organization recommended to ICANN a proposal for providing a mechanism to protect globally famous trademarks in any new TLDs. ICANN’s Domain Name Support Organization (DNSO) thereafter created Working Group B to address the issue of whether protection should be given to famous names in the DNS.
JVTeam recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property. By its very nature, however, the .per TLD does not give rise to the same level of intellectual property concerns discussed above. Because the proposed TLD pair is restricted to purely noncommercial individual use, intellectual property concerns are less likely to apply because there will be no commercial exploitation of a right holder’s property.
What measures
will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe
intellectual property rights?
Because .per will be a
noncommercial TLD, JVTeam does not intend to establish initial measures designed
to prevent registration of domain names that may result in intellectual
property right infringement. JVTeam is
cognizant, however, of the fact that registrants may violate the noncommercial
requirement of the TLD or engage in other violations of intellectual property
using a registered .per domain name
in a commercial space. To address
violations of the non-commercial/ individual restriction, JVTeam has developed,
and proposes the adoption of, the Uniform Charter Dispute Resolution Policy
(UCDRP). This proposal consists of
modifications to the existing UDRP to allow UDRP agents to entertain complaints
for violations of the charter. Upon a
finding of violation of the charter, the offending domain name would be deleted. A copy of the UCDRP is attached hereto as Appendix
1.
In addition, JVTeam will implement as Intellectual Property Notification Service, discussed below, to discourage bad faith registrations. Intellectual property violations, however, are not properly within the purview of the registry. Rather, such matters must be left to the UDRP agents and the courts. JVTeam will, of course, abide by the decisions of the UDRP agents and any court of proper jurisdiction, but it cannot be responsible for making determinations regarding intellectual property rights. Therefore, JVTeam proposes to establish no initial mechanisms to prevent a given domain name registration, with the possible exception of notification mechanism described below.
JVTeam understands that first-come-first-served registration of memorable names creates the possibility that certain “famous names” will not be available to their famous namesakes. For example, JVTeam is well aware of the case of juliaroberts.com and the successful challenge the actress made in court against a cybersquatter. Although famous individuals certainly have the right to protect their names from unauthorized commercial use, non-famous individuals of the same name also have the right to utilize their own names. To the extent that a registrant violates a famous person’s right in their name through unauthorized commercial exploitation, that individual may take legal action in a court of proper jurisdiction, or seek cancellation of the name for violation of the charter under the UCDRP.
If you are
proposing pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations, how will the
pre-screening be performed?
As a neutral third party provider, JVTeam cannot be perceived as favoring intellectual property owners over noncommercial interests. Therefore, JVTeam proposes no pre-screening of registrations that would result in the necessary refusal of a registration. However, recognizing that under certain circumstances, registrants might seek to violate the intellectual property rights of a given individual or company through the commercial use of a .per registration, JVTeam proposes to establish a service to notify participating intellectual property rights holders of potential infringing registrations.
JVTeam will implement a service whereby, for a fee to cover costs, an intellectual property right claimant would register a string with the registry. The claimant would then be notified if a registrant registered a domain name that contained that string. The intellectual property claimant then would be able to monitor the use of the domain name to ensure that its use did not violate intellectual property rights. A complete description of this service can be viewed in Registry Operator’s Proposal, Section II.2.1 of this proposal.
JVTeam stresses, however, that it will not refuse any registrations through this program.
What registration
practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?
The individual noncommercial nature of the .per TLD does not give rise to the same level of concern for abusive filings as other TLDs. JVTeam believes that the mechanisms discussed above will address this issue.
What measures do
you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation?
JVTeam will, of course, comply with all applicable laws. However, existing trademark and cybersquatting legislation will not require specific action by JVTeam beyond the mechanism discussed above.
Are you proposing
any special protections (other than during the start-up period) for famous
trademarks?
Because JVTeam proposes a personal, noncommercial restriction on the use of .per domain names, no further famous trademark protections will be required. The Intellectual Property Notification Service discussed above will assist famous trademark holders in policing their intellectual property.
How will
complete, up-to-date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be
maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?
JVTeam plans to operate as a “fat” registry in that it will maintain in a centralized fashion, all relevant databases for the registry. This approach increases stability, security and fault tolerance of the registry. JVTeam will backup and escrow all data to ensure its integrity. The Whois database will be updated on a near real-time basis and access will be provided subject to strict data privacy requirements.
In order to ensure up-to-date Whois data, included in the Registrar Code of Conduct discussed above will be a provision requiring registrars to make “best commercial efforts” to maintain up-to-date registrant data. In addition, JVTeam intends to explore with the registrars the development of a 3-month Whois data update reminder system. Registrants would be asked every three months whether their Whois data remains accurate and would be provided with an update link if data was out of date. Moreover, JVTeam will design the registration system to only complete a registration if all registration data is complete.
A more detailed discussion and description of Whois services can be found in Registry Operator’s Proposal, Section III.2.8 of this proposal.
I.6 Dispute
Resolution (RFP Section E6-E6.2)
To what extent
are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?
As discussed above, JVTeam proposes evolutionary development of new TLD policies rather than revolutionary change. In keeping with this approach, JVTeam intends to implement the UDRP with no changes for trademark issues. However, as discussed above, the .per TLD does not raise the same level of trademark concerns as commercial TLDs. Thus the application of the UDRP will be limited. Indeed, it likely only will apply in those circumstances when the registrant has violated the charter by using the name for a commercial purpose.
Please describe
any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution procedures you
are proposing.
Attached as Appendices 1 and 2 are copies of JVTeam’s proposed Uniform Charter Dispute Resolution Policy (UCDRP) and corresponding proposed Rules for Uniform Charter Dispute Resolution Policy (UCDRP Rules), which not only incorporate the policy of addressing bad-faith intellectual property domain name disputes (as already implemented by ICANN), but also serve as a dispute procedure in the event that a registrant violates a specific Charter (for a Restricted TLD).
I.7 Data
Privacy, Escrow, and Whois (RFP Section E7)
Data Privacy
JVTeam, as a trusted neutral third-party registry, must maintain the trust of the registrars and the consumers. Therefore, JVTeam will not market, in any way, the registrant information obtained from registrars for purposes of running the registry, nor will it share that data with any unrelated third parties. The registry operator will only have access to such data as is necessary for operation of the registry itself and will use that data only for registry operation.
JVTeam will provide registrars with a mechanism for accessing and correcting personal data and will take reasonable steps to protect personal data from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration or destruction. To further secure registrant data, each registrant will have a secure password for his or her registry records. Only through use of this password will data be changed, registrars transferred, domain name servers be updated, etc. Registrars will, in consultation with the registry, develop secure password verification and authentication mechanisms. Moreover, as part of the Registrar Code of Conduct, all registrars will be required to abide by all applicable international, national, and local laws.
Registry Data Escrow
JVTeam will maintain redundant data centers, as well as, follow the escrow requirements established by ICANN with respect to .com, .net, and .org. By so doing, JVTeam will ensure that all data necessary for operation of the registry will be available in the event of a catastrophic failure of the registry or following the selection by ICANN of a new registry. Please refer to Registry Operator’s Proposal Section III.2.7, Data Escrow and Backup, for a more detailed discussion of data escrow mechanisms.
Whois Service
Because of the personal nature of .per, Whois policy must be different than for other TLDs. In order to protect the privacy of .per registrants, only limited information will be publicly available in a Whois search unless the registrant explicitly designates his or her information for public disclosure. This approach will maintain the privacy of registrants while ensuring that the legitimate purposes for Whois data can be served.
JVTeam understands that ordinarily available Whois data may serve to assist claimants whose rights allegedly have been violated by a given TLD registrant. However, existing legal mechanisms exist for obtaining access to such data in the case of a restricted Whois. JVTeam will require that registrars comply with any proper court subpoena or court order requiring disclosure of Whois data.
I.8 Billing
and Collections (RFP SEction E8)
JVTeam’s billing and collections procedures will be consistent with existing industry procedures. All payments for new TLD registrations will be on an upfront payment basis. No registration will be completed until the registry receives payment. Because registry services to the registrant will be provided through the registrars, all billing and collections policy matters with respect to the registrant will be the responsibility of the registrars. The registry will implement for the registrars a five (5) day registration cancellation period for faulty registrations (for example misspelled domain names) or non-payment.
I.9 Services
and Pricing (RFP Section E9)
For a complete discussion of JVTeam’s proposed registry services and pricing, please refer to Registry Operator’s Proposal Sections II.2.1 and II.2.2.
I.10 Other
(RFP Section E10)
Because JVTeam proposes policy evolution rather than revolution, the policies discussed in response to specific ICANN questions represent the sum of JVTeam’s additional policy proposals. Should ICANN and the industry determine in the future that additional policies are necessary, JVTeam will happily consider further evolution of its TLD policies.
II. REGISTRATION
POLICIES DURING THE START-UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs) (RFP Sections
E11-E15)
Overview
As no new generic TLDs have been introduced since .com, .net and .org, it is extremely difficult to establish accurate predictions of the initial volume of registration requests. While some basic assumptions will assist in defining boundaries, any solution to the start-up issues must take into account a degree of uncertainty and be able to provide contingencies for the case where demand greatly exceeds predictions.
How do you propose to address the potential rush for registration at
the initial opening of the TLD?
To ensure an orderly introduction of the .per TLD, and to guard against unexpected higher levels of registration traffic, JVTeam will implement a round robin batch processing solution to moderate system resources.
As demonstrated in Exhibit II-1, the round robin system will provide an effective and fair method for ensuring the stability of the new TLD and the Internet during the initial registration period.
Phase 1: Communication of the process—To ensure the smooth implementation of the start-up procedures, JVTeam will undertake a pro-active educational campaign with registrars. This will involve distribution of information kits by email as well as personal contact from the registry customer support staff and account managers. In this way, registrars will be ensured the opportunity for a complete understanding of the procedures and processes involved in the round robin solution.
Phase 2: Submission of registration lists—Each accredited registrar will provide a list of domain names and registration details. There will be no minimum or maximum limit for the lists. The registration files will be submitted via a secure transport mechanism before a specified closing time for first submissions. Registration lists cannot be modified until the first batch is processed and completed.
Phase 3: Randomly assigning a sequence position to each registrar—Immediately prior to processing the submitted lists, all registrars will be allocated a random position in numerical order. For example, if there are 100 registrars, each registrar is allocated a position between 1 and 100. Registrars would not be made aware of their assigned sequence in the round robin solution to prevent modifications or “trading” of the registrar sequence.
Phase 4: Round one of batch processing—Once the registration system is activated, a domain name will be randomly selected from the list supplied by the registrar assigned position number one. This domain name will then be entered into the registry database. Once the registrar with sequence 1 is allocated a domain name, the system “activates” the list supplied by the registrar who has been assigned position number two. A domain name is selected at random from the list and entered into the system. If the domain name chosen is unavailable, then another name is chosen at random from the registrar’s list until one of the following occurs:
· A successful registration is complete
· The registrar has no more available names on their list
· The batch time frame concludes.
This process will be repeated for each registrar in the random sequence and will rotate around all registrars for a 12-hour period.
Phase 5: Results and resubmissions—At the end of each batch, the results of registrations are returned to the registrar. Registrars are then allowed a fixed period of time to submit a new list of domains for the second batch of processing. The batches will continue in twelve-hour blocks until the number of registrations being submitted falls below a specified volume.
Phase 6: Commencing normal registration procedures—When it is determined that the demand for new registration volumes has fallen below a certain number, all registrars will be advised that the batch processing has concluded and the registry will be activated on a specific date and time to accept new registrations directly into the registry via the XRP.
The Benefits
The round robin solution provides the following benefits:
· Neutral, impartial allocation of domain names during the start-up period
· Effective management of technical resource issues
· Non-discriminatory application process for all parties of new domain names
· Scalable and effective support for any volume of registrations
· Flexible system capable of responding to rapidly changing volumes
· Inexpensive solution to implement
· No member of the Internet community is excluded because of price.
The Intellectual Property Notification Service and the round robin solution will effectively moderate the anticipated volumes of registration requests without having any significant impact on fairness, stability or system resources. The JVTeam solution is fully scalable so that stability is assured even if registration volumes greatly exceed predictions. Only JVTeam has the experience and knowledge to develop and implement this solution.
How many
requested registrations do you project will be received by the registry operator
within the first day, week, month, and quarter?
For a discussion of projected registration volumes, se
Registry Operator’s Proposal, Section II.2.5.
What period do
you believe should be considered the TLD's "start-up period," during
which special procedures should apply?
Because of the restricted nature of the .per TLD, the “start-up period” should last no more than thirty (30) days. Indeed, JVTeam expects that registration volumes will level off by the first two weeks of operation.
Do you propose to
place limits on the number of registrations per registrant? Per registrar? If so, how will these limits be implemented?
JVTeam does not intend to place numerical restrictions on the number of registrations by a registrant. Individuals may indeed have legitimate noncommercial reasons for wanting multiple individual names. However, under the Registrar Code of Conduct registrants will be required to self-certify that each registration is reasonably related to that person as an individual, and so there will be a natural limitation on the number of registrations an individual would make. Registrations in excess of this natural limit would be in violation of the Registry Charter. These restrictions will help to ensure that the .per TLD remains a personal (i.e., individual) TLD and that ICANN has an effective proof of concept of a truly personal domain space.
Will pricing
mechanisms be used to dampen a rush for registration at the initial opening of
the TLD? If so, please describe these
mechanisms in detail.
JVTeam does not propose pricing mechanisms to dampen a rush for registration on initial offering of the TLD. Registrars will set all registration prices. As noted above, JVTeam does not anticipate a rush that would threaten to overload JVTeam’s resources. Moreover, JVTeam submits that to encourage individual use of the new TLD, individual registrants must not be discouraged from registering in the new domain. Higher price points would significantly impact the perceived fairness of the process since it would severely restrict access to lower income individuals. It would also involve a somewhat arbitrary allocation of price points to domain names.
Will you offer
any “sunrise period” in which certain
potential registrants are offered the opportunity to register before
registration is open to the general public?
If so, to whom will this opportunity be offered (those with famous
marks, registered trademarks, second-level domains in other TLDs,
pre-registrations of some sort, etc.)? How
will you implement this?
The implementation of a “sunrise period” applies only in the context of a commercial TLD. As noted previously in this discussion, the .per TLD by its very nature does not give rise to the kind of intellectual property concerns that a “sunrise period” would be designed to address. As a basic matter, because of the personal noncommercial restrictions on .per registrations, no individual has any greater right to a particular name than any other individual. Therefore, registrations will be handled on a first-come-first-served basis from the first day of operation. Only with this approach, will JVTeam be able to ensure the development of a truly non-commercial domain space.
III. REGISTRATION
RESTRICTIONS (Required for restricted TLDs only) (RFP Sections E16-E21)
JVTeam intends to establish a personal noncommercial
TLD. The need for a noncommercial space
on the Internet is clear. Despite the
existence of numerous TLDs on the Internet presently, none operates in a truly
noncommercial manner that is available for individual use.
Despite the existence of numerous TLDs on the Internet. There currently exists no place on the Internet for entirely personal, noncommercial uses. The lack of such a space limits individual use of the net and creates consumer confusion with respect to use of the Internet. Absent such a noncommercial space, users of the Internet are forced to weed through countless commercial sights to find the information they need. In addition, given the structure of those commercial TLDs, it is nearly impossible for individuals to establish personalized, unique Internet identifications. .per solves this problem.
Describe in
detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation of the reasoning behind the specific
policies chosen.
JVTeam proposes .per as a restricted TLD. Only individuals may register names in .per. In addition, .per may not be used for commercial purposes. These restrictions form the core policies for .per.
The need to keep commercial uses out of .per is apparent. It will be impossible to evaluate the introduction of a new personal TLD if commercial interests overrun the space. Thus, legal business entities will not be permitted to register within the TLD.
Registrants will be required to certify that the name chosen is reasonably related to that person as an individual. Violation of this principle (e.g., Microsoft.per likely would not be a persons name) would be a violation of the TLD charter and could result in cancellation of the name pursuant to a UCDRP challenge.
In addition, JVTeam will abide by full Internet standards regarding naming and reserved names including, RFC 1034, RFC 1123, RFC 2606 and RFC 2352.
Describe the
application process for potential registrants in the TDL.
JVTeam’s plan to introduce stable evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes in Internet DNS policy and processes mandates that changes to the domain name registration process be minimal. JVTeam proposes a registration process virtually identical to current processes. The registrants will provide the necessary registration information through registrars who will have the functional interface with the registry. Registrants will also be assigned a password for the management of their domain name Whois data. One difference, however, will be that registrants will be required to certify that they are an individual, that the name is reasonably related to them as an individual and that they will not use the name for commercial purposes.
Describe the enforcement
procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the registration requirements.
JVTeam will require that registrars collect a certification from the registrant that the requested domain name is for an individual and will be not be used for commercial purposes. This certification will form the basis for the deletion of a registered name through the UCDRP where necessary and a registration will not be completed without a complete certification. JVTeam will not, however, deny initial registrations except for duplicate requests.
Describe any
appeal process from denial of registration.
To ensure fairness and neutrality in operations, any individual that is denied a registration will be able to send a request for review to its registrar to demonstrate that the requested name meets the requirements of the TLD charter. Upon an adequate showing, the individual will be permitted to register the requested name. As a general matter, however, JVTeam does not intend to deny initial registrations.
Describe any
procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD registration
for failure to comply with restrictions.
As noted above, JVTeam proposes a UCDRP to permit challenges to domain names that are made or are being used in violation of the charter. Any third party will be able to utilize this open process. This approach will promote stability by ensuring that any claim against a given name will follow a formal, fair and open procedure for resolution. JVTeam recommends that ICANN revisit the cost of a UDRP challenge as it relates to challenges by individuals with respect to .per violations. In particular, ICANN should consider whether it will be necessary to reduce the tie to individuals for charter violation challenges.
IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD
WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs) (RFP Sections E22-E27)
The Internet has evolved over recent years such that it is now the realm of individuals every bit as much as it has been the realm of organizations in the past. The introduction of a domain space intended specifically for individuals is a natural next step in the evolution of the domain name system. A personal domain name will allow every child, woman and man to enjoy the benefits of a unique identity on the Internet and will foster the development of a truly global community. The .per domain space will beckon a new era in the domain name system. As communications and transportation technologies continue to shrink the globe, it is only natural that people will seek to communicate with each other, share cultures and experiences and generally broaden their own and others’ horizons. By providing a designated virtual gathering place for the people of the world, the .per TLD will facilitate such interaction.
What will
distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLDs? How will this distinction be beneficial?
The DNS has been developed, to date, with an almost complete lack of true differentiation between the use and purposes of the name spaces. Indicative of this issue is the lack of an individual, noncommercial domain name space. JVTeam submits that the establishment of a restricted noncommercial, personal TLD will benefit the Internet community by allowing for separation of business and individual content and functionality on the Internet. Utilizing personal TLDs, Internet users better will be able to search through the tremendous amount of information on the World Wide Web and more efficiently target information for certain groups or individuals. This added specialization will increase the functionality of the DNS.
Creation of a designated space on the World Wide Web for individuals will provide an important proof of concept for the establishment of chartered or restricted TLDs. Currently, the organizational nature of the existing TLDs forces individuals into a name space dominated by commercial interests. Individuals get lost in a sea of e-commerce and other commercial information. The .per TLD will simplify communication on the Internet for individuals and reduce the impact on other TLDs.
What community
and/or market will be served or targeted by this TLD? To what extent is that community or market already served by the
DNS?
The JVTeam believes that the legitimate needs of individuals for identity on the Internet have not been adequately addressed by the current DNS. The purpose of this application is to correct that deficiency. To date, individuals have been forced to use other intended purpose TLD spaces such as .com, .net, or .org. Such uses represent an unfortunate dilution of the goal of those other spaces and do not serve adequately the important needs of individuals on the Internet.
Please describe
in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently unmet
needs. How would the introduction of
the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users? For the community served by the TLD?
The intent of the .per domain space is to implement a namespace that would permit every man, woman and child on the planet to establish their own unique individual identity on the Internet. Our intent, however, should be clear from the outset that the uses of the unique domain name string go much further than the simple creation of personal web pages, personal portable email addresses and the like. We believe that .per, as an identifier, could be an index key as well as a portal to a wide variety of new and yet to be identified Internet services an individual might want to have associated with their identity. The concept behind .per is therefore a new class of secure “digital identity” that is abstracted from a particular class or type of service and is globally portable.
Initially, the .per TLD will allow individuals to establish online digital identities for such purposes as portable e-mail and personal websites. Beyond these basic functionalities, JVTeam believes that the .per DNS can become a platform for numerous future applications that depend upon unique identification of individuals. For example, by taking advantage of the extensibility of the Whois database to be developed by JVTeam, individuals may create a secure central repository of personal data that could be used for any number of new services. Some possible new services for which individuals could obtain include:
· Service Affinity Programs
· Follow-me Mail Service
· Automatically Digitally Certified Communications and Encryption Services
· User-controlled Information Access and Distribution
Registrars and other third-party providers would implement these additional services and DNS functionalities. The registry would enable such services by providing, on a totally open and even basis the centralized secure database functions necessary to support these new functionalities. Individuals would benefit from the availability of a totally secure yet highly customizable personal data clearinghouse.
How would the
proposed TLD enhance competition in domain name registration services,
including competition with existing TLD registries?
The JVTeam proposal for .per creates competition among registries by creating a new global market segment that cannot effectively be served by existing registries. The .per “digital identity” concept allows new functionality in the DNS that simply cannot be matched by legacy registry systems. This new competition will spur further innovation and refinement among all TLDs to ensure ever-increasing market share. Consumers will benefit from enhanced functionalities, improved performance, increased security and a new choice for TLD services.
The .per TLD also will enhance competition among registrars. As new functionalities are developed, and the value of the extreme extensibility of the JVTeam platform is recognized in the industry, registrars will develop newer and better functionalities in an attempt to further distinguish their services from their competitors. These competitive developments will greatly benefit individual consumers as well as further advance the state-of-the-art of the Internet and the DNS.
V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL
AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs) (RFP Section E28-E32)
JVTeam intends to ensure maximum leverage and instructional experience from the introduction of TLDs. In pursuit of this goal, the JVTeam is proposing several methods of capturing and measuring information. In particular through the use of online feedback forms for use by registrars and registrants, technical discussion groups and the ongoing compilation and analysis of the captured data, JVTeam hopes to compile a clear picture of the impacts of the introduction of a new personal namespace. This information will be made available to ICANN and/or other relevant bodies for use in the release of further top level domains.
What concepts are
likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in
the manner you propose?
The .per domain space represents an exciting new branch in the ongoing evolution of the DNS – a TLD that is specifically for individuals. The introduction of .per will pave the way for new TLDs by providing a new application for a TLD, by taking an innovative approach to registry services, by addressing the unique challenges of the start-up period, by offering an IP Notification Service and by operating according to a comprehensive marketing and operational plan. These concepts represent the JVTeam’s evolutionary approach to the ongoing development of the DNS.
A new application for top level
domain names
The core concept being evaluated in .per is the notion of a top level domain space that is explicitly for the noncommercial use of individuals. The existing TLDs have an organizational bent with an implicit attachment to companies (.com), network providers (.net) and miscellaneous organizations(.org). This distinction made sense when web sites were largely used by businesses and organizations but since the explosive growth of the World Wide Web into homes, by far private individuals represent the most significant proportion of Internet users. Up until now there has been no domain space specifically allocated to individuals.
The .per domain space will be an unsponsored chartered domain space exclusively for non-commercial, personal use and hence this new application for a TDL creates an excellent opportunity for evaluating such domain spaces. As individuals represent the single largest component of the Internet community, it makes sense to offer a domain space specifically intended for this purpose.
Concept to be
proven: That a domain
space intended specifically for individuals will meet a currently unmet market
need.
A domain space for everyone—The focus for the .per domain space will be global acceptance by Internet users. Since one of the applications for a personalized domain name is a centralized email address and since email represents the single largest internet activity, it is the JVTeam’s contention that a carefully constructed marketing plan combined with user focused features will provide an extremely attractive and successful consumer product.
Concept to be
proven: That a domain space intended for a specific and
widely utilized Internet application will very rapidly achieve broad market
acceptance.
A policy of purpose—The JVTeam acknowledges the substantial work undertaken by ICANN in the development of policy in particular with relations to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy. For the purposes of .per, the charter of the space will be administered by registrars according to all of the requirements of the currently active UDRP as well as an additional section that covers the issue of charter compliance. This is an evolutionary application of the UDRP to effectively deal with charter violations without compromising the efficiency of domain name registration and administration.
Concept to be proven: That charter compliance may be affectively
administered via an extended UDRP.
An innovative approach to the start-up period—One of the most challenging issues attached to the introduction of any new TLD will be the initial rush for registrations during the start-up period. The 3 key issues are; managing the extremely high transaction volumes, providing some mechanism to moderate registration volumes at levels which cannot be accurately predicted during the initial period and ensuring fairness and evenhandedness in the allocation of domain names.
There are several possible ways to approach this issue including:
· Attempting to handle the volumes with increased hardware—This approach has several shortcomings, not the least of which is an exorbitant cost which would seriously impact the price competitiveness of registry services. In addition it does not take into account the high degree of uncertainty in attempting to predict initial volumes.
· Using higher price points to control demand—Higher price points would significantly impact the perceived “fairness” of the process since it would severely restrict access by some individuals. It would also involve a somewhat arbitrary allocation of price points to domain names.
·
Moderating registrations via a start-up specific policy (the round
robin solution)—In this scenario, lists of domain names are submitted to the
registry by registrars. The lists are processed in a round robin system after
the sequence of registrars is randomly assigned. The strength of this solution
is that it will provide an effective means of moderation regardless of the size
of registration volumes. The solution
will function effectively whether the demand for registrations is ten or ten
million. In addition the round robin
solution ensures complete impartiality in domain name allocation at the
registry level.
It is the JVTeam’s contention that the round robin solution will prove extremely valuable as a solution for future controlled introduction of new TLDs.
Concept to be proven: That the
round robin solution will provide an effective and fair
solution to managing
high transaction volumes during the startup period and set a standard for the
introduction of future TLDs.
A better registry/registrar solution—The existing registry/registrar model has in large part been successful at introducing competition at the registrar level. However, the system has failed to meet the demands of a transient registrant community in particular with relation to the transfer of registrar operation. Because of a lack of consistency in Whois formats and authentication procedures, many registrars have struggled with management and automation of this procedure. The lack of clear guidelines for the presentation of Whois data has also created significant confusion for domain name license holders with several instances of inadvertent and or unauthorized registrar transfers and change of registrant operations.
The JVTeam believes that the manner in which registrant details are stored must be reviewed so that future registries do not suffer the same administrative shortcomings of the existing registry/registrar model. One such solution, and the one proposed by JVTeam, which could be introduced is the concept of the “fat” registry incorporating a centralize Whois service.
Concept to be proven: That the fat registry model will provide solutions
to many of the existing administrative and security issues with .com.
A competitive registry environment—The JVTeam registry will represent the next step forward in the evolution of TLD registry operations. The solution will draw on JVTeam’s extensive experience in database management, domain name services, channel management, registry and registrar experience, policy administration and the provision of high transaction software and infrastructure. This unique skill set and experience enables the JVTeam to understand the existing issues in the single registry environment and innovate in all key areas including better adapted functionality, better service standards, increased reliability, effective marketing and business development. The result in all this for the consumer is the ability to choose a domain name backed up by a registry capable of delivering these improvements.
Concept to be
Proven: That a registry which
provides the next generation of services and service standards will assist in
cultivating a competitive multiple registry environment.
The introduction of .per will be an evolutionary step for the domain name system. The JVTeam proposal poses several key areas for evaluation in the interests of gathering information for the future introduction of TLDs and additional registry providers. JVTeam is committed to ensuring that lessons learned in the introduction of .per will benefit the whole DNS community. Only the JVTeam, with its demonstrated history of neutrality and intimate involvement in the DNS is capable of understanding these issues and their implications for the future of the domain name system.
How do you
propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what criteria should the success or lack
of success of the TLD be evaluated?
JVTeam is committed to establishing simple,
measurable and attainable reference points for assessing the success of the
introduction of the .per domain space.
JVTeam will draw on its in-depth understanding of the entire DNS
environment to set these points of reference in close consultation with all
interested parties.
Listening to the end users—JVTeam understands the importance of this phase of new TLDs in the ongoing development of the DNS. JVTeam is also committed to the notion that domain names are much more than a technical object, they are a critical tool for business and end users and therefore it is ultimately they who should judge the success of any new TLDs. JVTeam will at all stages take a consultative approach to measuring the success of the new TLD and as there are several distinct “user groups”, the measures of success will be customized for each one. The JVTeam will seek input from several different bodies and communities in defining exactly what the success criteria should be and seek their assistance and in evaluating the results. It is envisaged that the evaluation process will be undertaken in close consultation with ICANN representatives.
· Key groups who will be encouraged to participate in this process will include:
· The end user community (domain name license holders)
· The registrar community
· ICANN
· IPC
· WIPO
· The Internet service provider community
· The IETF
· Other registries.
The table below provides an example of the evaluation methods and measures of success that could be used for specific concepts. These methods and measures will be further refined as part of an ongoing dialogue with all relevant parties.
|
SAMPLE EVALUATION METHODS AND MEASURES FOR SUCCESS |
||
|
Concept |
Evaluation method |
Measure of success |
|
The
utility of the DNS can be extended via a TLD intended for personal use as
opposed to organizational use |
Measure
number of domains registered and activated with new functionality |
>70%
domains registered in first 3 months of launch activate new functionality |
|
Policy
application through charter |
Monitor
registrations during first 3 months and automate an audit of charter
compliance at registry level |
<5%
charter violations |
|
Round
Robin Solution to start-up |
Feedback
from registrars and registrants via registrars and ICANN |
>70%
positive feedback |
|
|
Measure
disputes under UDRP during start up period via registrars |
<5%
of registrations precipitate UDRP actions |
|
Additional
registry functionality creates competitive edge for the new TLD |
Ongoing
market research on perceived value of additional functionality and its impact
on demand |
Market
research indicating competitive value proposition of new TLD over existing
spaces |
|
A
better registry / registrar model will provides solutions to administrative
issue |
Registrar
feedback online forms |
>70%
reduction in manual administrative functions such as transfer of registrar |
|
|
Registrant
feedback on online forms via registrars |
>70%
positive feedback |
|
Registry
level authentication for individual domains |
Count
number of domain hijacking claims |
>90%
decrease in hijacking claims |
|
Trademark
Notification System |
Registrar
feedback on online forms |
>70%
positive feedback |
|
|
Registrant
feedback online forms via registrars |
>70%
positive feedback |
|
|
Feedback
forms provided to WIPO, IPC for distribution amongst legal representatives |
>70%
positive feedback |
By taking a consultative approach to evaluation and by actively facilitating feedback mechanism, JVTeam will evaluate the success of the .per domain space and utilize the information to constantly improve the registry’s services and operations as well as provide it to ICANN for use in the ongoing program of introducing new TLDs and registry-level competition.
In what way would
the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?
Because JVTeam proposes an evolutionary approach to the introduction of new TLDs, ICANN will have a ready reference point in the existing TLDs. The data to be gathered and reported to ICANN will provide the necessary input to pave the way for a technically stable, multiple registry environment.
JVTeam submits that the results of its evaluation of the introduction of the .per registry will assist ICANN and the Internet Community at large to:
· Confirm the technical stability of a multiple registry environment with particular attention to management and distribution of zone files
· Confirm the commercial viability of additional TLDs
· Confirm the commercial viability of enhancing TLD utility and expansion into arenas outside of traditional uses
· Confirm the “moderated” approach to the start-up issues associated with introducing a new TLD
· Identify improvements to the process for the introduction of new TLDs by capturing feedback and suggestions from the registrar community
· Confirm that the “fat registry” model is the way forward for a multiple-registry environment.
For this round of allocations there is not any substantial existing data to base predictions and projections for technical and administrative issues. By collecting, analyzing and publishing data gathered from this process, it will be much simpler for ICANN and future registries to project requirements for system and administrative resources in launching further TLDs.
Are there any
reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this particular
TLD should be included in the initial introduction?
ICANN not only must consider the impact of the introduction of new TLDs, but also must consider the impact of the introduction of different kinds of TLDs. A .per type TLD is likely the only noncommercial and personal introduction for this round. ICANN must have the data necessary to consider such introductions in the future.