DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 1 – Technical Capability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Volume 1 – Technical Capability Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability This page is intentionally left blank. Use or disclosure of data and information contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page II Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability Contents Cover Letter ............................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 2 Neustar: A Track Record of Exceptional Performance ...................................................................... 3 Neustar: Delivering Security, Stability and Performance .................................................................. 4 Neustar: A Unique Understanding of the usTLD Namespace............................................................ 5 Neustar: A Proven Commitment to Invest in Growth ....................................................................... 7 Neustar: Guaranteed High Performance with No Transition Risk ..................................................... 8 Neustar: Providing the Best Value Proposal ...................................................................................... 8 Technical Capability Factors .................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 18 1.1 The State of the usTLD is Secure .................................................................................... 18 1.2 Neustar Provides the Best Value for the usTLD .............................................................. 19 1.3 Neustar has Significant Strengths as a Registry Provider ............................................... 23 1.4 Neustar’s Overall Vision for Future Management of the usTLD ..................................... 25 2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................... 28 2.1 Community Consultation ................................................................................................ 28 2.2 Robust and Reliable DNS ................................................................................................ 30 2.3 Increased Use of the usTLD ............................................................................................ 32 2.4 Infrastructure Management ........................................................................................... 33 2.5 The usTLD Environment: Stable, Secure and Flexible..................................................... 34 2.6 Stability of the usTLD ...................................................................................................... 35 2.7 Technical and Administrative Standards ........................................................................ 37 2.8 Intellectual Property Protections ................................................................................... 39 2.9 Stakeholder Communications ........................................................................................ 40 2.10 ccTLD Best Practice ......................................................................................................... 45 2.11 Promote Competition and Consumer Choice ................................................................. 47 3 Description of Services ................................................................................... 48 3.1 Manage, Maintain, and Operate the usTLD ................................................................... 48 3.2 Location of Primary Operations...................................................................................... 49 Use or disclosure of data and information contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page III Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability 3.3 Performance of the Contract .......................................................................................... 51 3.4 Costs and Fees ................................................................................................................ 51 3.5 Collaboration with Contracting Officer .......................................................................... 53 4 Core Registry Functions ................................................................................. 55 4.1 Registry DNS ................................................................................................................... 56 4.2 Zone File(s) ..................................................................................................................... 65 4.3 WHOIS ............................................................................................................................ 69 4.4 Locality WHOIS ............................................................................................................... 79 4.5 Data Escrow .................................................................................................................... 80 4.6 Compliance with IETF and ICANN Standards .................................................................. 82 4.7 Promotion of the usTLD.................................................................................................. 84 4.8 Registrar Support .......................................................................................................... 127 4.9 Delegated Manager Compliance Monitoring ............................................................... 129 4.10 Customer Support ........................................................................................................ 131 4.11 Security and Stability .................................................................................................... 140 4.12 DNSSEC ......................................................................................................................... 155 4.13 Reserved Names ........................................................................................................... 160 4.14 Multistakeholder Consultation ..................................................................................... 160 5 Core Policy Requirements ............................................................................ 167 5.1 United States Nexus Requirements .............................................................................. 167 5.2 Registrar and Registrant Agreements .......................................................................... 170 5.3 Dispute Resolution and Sunrise .................................................................................... 172 5.4 ccTLD Policy Framework ............................................................................................... 178 5.5 Multistakeholder Consultation Process ....................................................................... 179 5.6 Policy Implementation ................................................................................................. 181 5.7 Code of Conduct ........................................................................................................... 203 6 Locality Based usTLD Structure Functions ..................................................... 205 6.1 Service for Existing Delegates and Registrants ............................................................. 205 6.2 Undelegated Third-Level Sub-Domains ....................................................................... 212 6.3 Modernized Locality-Based usTLD Processes ............................................................. 213 6.4 Coordination of Locality-Based usTLD Users ............................................................... 214 Use or disclosure of data and information contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page IV Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability 6.5 WHOIS .......................................................................................................................... 214 6.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 216 7 Second-Level usTLD Space Functions ............................................................ 217 7.1 Shared Registration System .......................................................................................... 217 7.2 Registrar Accreditation ................................................................................................. 219 7.3 Other Policies ............................................................................................................... 221 7.4 WHOIS .......................................................................................................................... 222 8 Enhanced usTLD Functions ........................................................................... 226 8.1 Functional Enhancements ............................................................................................ 226 8.2 Enhancement of the usTLD During the Current Term .................................................. 227 8.3 Planned Enhancement of the usTLD ............................................................................ 231 8.4 Multistakeholder Consultation Process ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Privacy Policy V1.1
    CENTRALNIC LTD REGISTRY PRIVACY POLICY Version 1.1 September 2018 CentralNic Ltd 35-39 Moorgate London EC2R 6AR Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 2 AMENDMENT ISSUE SHEET ................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 DATA PROTECTION RIGHTS ................................................................................................................. 5 RELATIONSHIP WITH REGISTRARS ......................................................................................................... 6 WHAT INFORMATION CENTRALNIC COLLECTS .......................................................................................... 6 INFORMATION CENTRALNIC DOES NOT COLLECT ....................................................................................... 8 HOW INFORMATION IS STORED ............................................................................................................ 8 HOW WE USE INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 8 HOW INFORMATION IS PROTECTED ..................................................................................................... 13 HOW INFORMATION IS DELETED ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 7-17-11 an EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS of FAIR USE
    Draft 7-17-11 AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF FAIR USE DECISIONS UNDER THE UNIFORM DOMAIN-NAME DISPUTE-RESOLUTION POLICY David A. Simon INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 I. THE UDRP AND ITS PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 7 II. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 12 A. Sample Selection: Method of Selection .......................................................................................... 13 B. Types of Cases Selected for Sample............................................................................................... 14 III. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 A. U.S. Respondents Win Twice as Many Fair Use Cases as Other Respondents ............................. 17 B. U.S. Law Dominates UDRP Decisions .......................................................................................... 21 C. U.S. Panels Decide Mostly Cases Involving U.S. Respondents ..................................................... 23 IV. IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 25 A. Explaining U.S. Favoritism
    [Show full text]
  • Periodiek Oktober-November-December 2007
    België - Belgique P.B.-P.P. 2000 Antwerpen 1 BC 9497 PERIODIEK DRIEMAANDELIJKS TIJDSCHRIFT VAN HET VLAAMS GENEESKUNDIGENVERBOND 62ste jaargang Oktober – November – December 2007 Nr. 4 AFGIFTEKANTOOR: 2000 ANTWERPEN 1 Inhoud VOORWOORD ................................................................................................................................................... 3 GESCHIEDENIS VAN DE GENEESKUNDE.................................................................................................4 VAN TABOE NAAR VRIJHEID.................................................................................................................................................................... 4 BALANS............................................................................................................................................................... 8 HET VERHAAL VAN POLITICI DIE WEIGEREN HUN MACHT TE GEBRUIKEN*................................................................ 8 FORUM ..............................................................................................................................................................10 IN NAGEDACHTENIS VAN COLLEGA KENENS..............................................................................................................................10 SOCIALE ZEKERHEID VAN HUISARTSEN BLIJFT ONDERMAATS!..........................................................................................10 ZET VLAANDEREN OP HET INTERNET! ............................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Opensrs Contract Fax Cover Sheet for .Us Reseller Agreement______
    OpenSRS Contract Fax Cover Sheet for .us Reseller Agreement_____________ Please use this as your cover page when you fax in your OpenSRS contract. Before faxing the contract to OpenSRS, please be sure that you have: Signed up to be an OpenSRS Reseller at: https://horizon.opensrs.net/~vpop/subscribe/ Completely reviewed the contract, providing all necessary information, namely: Date and company information on Page 2 Address and contact information on Page 13 Signature and date on Page 13 Please provide the information below: Company Name:__________________________________________________ Web site URL:http://________________________________________________ OpenSRS Username:*______________________________________________ *obtained after you’ve signed up online Please fax only pages 2 and 13 of the .us OpenSRS contract to: +1 416-531-2516 Thanks, Team OpenSRS Page 1 Tucows Inc. .us RSP v1.1 REGISTRATION SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT This Agreement (the "Agreement") is dated as of ("Effective Date") by and between: TUCOWS Inc. ("TUCOWS") and (*) ("RSP") (TUCOWS and RSP may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") WHEREAS, TUCOWS is authorized to provide domain name registration services for second-level domain names within the .us top-level domain; WHEREAS, RSP intends to establish the right to initiate the registration of .us domain names through OpenSRS (as defined below); NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein, TUCOWS and RSP, intending to be
    [Show full text]
  • I Wish to Thank the United States Department of Commerce's
    Comments from Danny Younger Introduction: I wish to thank the United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration for this opportunity to comment on the continuation of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system to the private sector. As a member of the public that has had the honor of serving as an elected Chair of the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, I sincerely appreciate your posting of a Notice of Inquiry and wish to share with you my thoughts on the transition process as an individual that has tracked ICANN-related matters on a regular basis for the last six years. It has been said that “ICANN may not be the world’s most unpopular organization, but if it had consciously set out to make itself loathed it could hardly have been more successful.”1 I share that assessment. ICANN, the organization selected to embody the principles set forth in the White Paper2 is almost universally reviled. From my vantage point as a long-time ICANN participant, I have come to conclude that this passionate loathing has a single root cause: we detest ICANN because it has not remained true to the White Paper’s noble vision – rather than striving to become an organization committed to private, bottom-up coordination operating for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, ICANN has chosen instead to focus its attention exclusively upon that select stakeholder community that feeds its coffers – it has become primarily a registry-registrar Guild Manager.
    [Show full text]
  • Equinix Solution Neustar
    EQUINIX SOLUTION NEUSTAR A Global Best Practice for Online Success. Equinix and Neustar Deliver High-Performance Global Platform for Managed Services. “With Neustar offering its DNS and monitoring service combined with Equinix’s industry leading network neutral colocation and interconnection facilities, we provide the world’s best DNS routing and application monitoring services to create a seamless IT fabric that covers the globe.” Alex Tulchinsky, SVP Shared Services, Neustar Performance Failure is Not an Option Consider the impact of poor network performance: Companies deploying mission and market critical online applications and websites are recognizing they can optimize their performance • Google now includes a website’s speed in its search ranking and availability by migrating from algorithms and writes that “Faster sites create happy users and a single-homed, single-site we’ve seen in our internal studies that when a site responds 1 deployment to a globally slowly, visitors spend less time there.” distributed model. This brief • In a joint experiment, Google and Bing concluded that “Delays discusses the reasons for this under half a second impact business metrics.”2 move and key best practices for success. • Amazon.com found that every 100-ms increase in the page load time decreased sales by 1 percent.3 • AOL has demonstrated that slower page speeds reduce page views per visit.4 • Wikia demonstrated that exit rates—the percentage of users leaving a site from a given page—drop as pages get faster.5 • After a year-long performance
    [Show full text]
  • Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting
    GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING 4 October 2007 Group Chair: Mike Rodenbaugh ICANN Staff: Olof Nordling, Patrick Jones STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the final version of the Outcomes Report from the GNSO ad hoc group on Domain Name Tasting, submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 October, 2007. GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 1 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE 5 3 BACKGROUND 7 4 OUTCOMES 10 5 NEXT STEPS 32 ANNEX 1 - SUBSCRIBERS TO THE DT LIST 33 ANNEX 2 - RFI RESPONSES 34 ANNEX 3 - EXPERIENCES FROM CCTLDS 97 ANNEX 4 - COMMENTS FROM UDRP PROVIDERS 104 ANNEX 5 – IPC CONSTITUENCY SUPPLEMENTAL RFI116 ANNEX 6 – REQUEST TO VERISIGN 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 2 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 1 Executive summary 1.1 Background Following a request from the At-Large Advisory Committee in spring 2007, the GNSO Council called for an Issues Report on Domain Tasting from ICANN Staff in May 2007. This Issues Report, available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain- tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf was discussed at the ICANN San Juan meeting, where the GNSO Council on 27 June 2007 (minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml) resolved to establish an ad hoc group for further fact-finding on the practice of domain tasting.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Internet Commerce Association
    No. 19-46 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. BOOKING.COM B.V., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF THE INTERNET COMMERCE ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT Megan L. Brown Counsel of Record David E. Weslow Ari S. Meltzer Jeremy J. Broggi WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 719-7000 [email protected] February 19, 2020 Counsel for Amicus Curiae - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .......................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................3 ARGUMENT ...............................................................7 I. The Government Seeks A Bright-Line Rule That Would Devalue Registered Domain Names As A Class Of Intellectual Property Assets. ...............................................................7 II. The Government’s Rule Would Discourage Investment In The Internet Economy By Precluding Trademark Protection For New Types of Domain Names. ............................... 13 III. The Government’s Rule Would Eliminate A Critical Consumer Protection And Anti-Fraud Tool, Opening The Door To More Domain Name Abuse. ................................................... 15 A. Cybercriminals Abuse Domain Names Through Typosquatting And Domain Name Hijacking To Perpetrate Fraud And Proliferate Malware. .................... 16 B. Companies Rely On Trademark Protection To Combat Domain Name Abuse. ................................................... 20 C. Non-Trademark Remedies Do Not Provide A Sufficient Means For Combatting Domain Name Abuse. ..... 26 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 28 - ii - TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Central Source LLC v. annaulcreditreports.com, No. 20-CV-84 (E.D. Va.) ....................................... 23 Central Source LLC v. aabbualcreditreport.com, No. 14-CV-918 (E.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: OECD (2006-04-12), “The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/231550251200 OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 111 The Secondary Market for Domain Names OECD Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL
    [Show full text]
  • Ftld Registrar - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    fTLD Registrar - Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) How do I become an fTLD registrar? See the information at BECOME AN fTLD REGISTRAR for details on the process. fTLD Registry System Who operates the fTLD Registry System? Verisign is the Registry Service Provider and Symantec is the Verification Agent. Is there a web interface available for registrars to process registrations for fTLD? No, fTLD registration is not supported by a web interface to EPP. Registration is initially first-come, first-served, but what is used to determine which registration arrived first? The registration that arrives at the EPP editor first and is put into pending create will lock the domain name until verification is either approved or rejected. Can eligible registrants register any domain name(s) they want? Any domain name(s) that corresponds to the registrant’s trademarks, trade names or service marks can be registered during General Availability. For guidance on selecting domains, please see the fTLD Name Selection Policies and their Implementation Guidelines here. Are there any differences between the “corresponds to” rule for domain names in .BANK and .INSURANCE? Yes, in .INSURANCE domain names must correspond to a trademark, trade name or service mark of the Applicant in bona fide use for the offering of goods or services, or provision of information, in the jurisdiction where the registrant is licensed, approved or certified to conduct business. Please consult section 3.1 of the .INSURANCE Name Selection Policy for specific information. When does the five-day (5) Add Grace Period start since domain names are put into a pending create status when initially registered? The five-day (5) Add Grace Period starts when the domain name has been put in pending create status by Verisign.
    [Show full text]
  • From WHOIS to WHOWAS: a Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy Under the GDPR
    From WHOIS to WHOWAS: A Large-Scale Measurement Study of Domain Registration Privacy under the GDPR Chaoyi Lu∗†, Baojun Liu∗†¶B, Yiming Zhang∗†, Zhou Li§, Fenglu Zhang∗, Haixin Duan∗¶B, Ying Liu∗, Joann Qiongna Chen§, Jinjin LiangY, Zaifeng ZhangY, Shuang Hao∗∗ and Min Yang†† ∗Tsinghua University, †Beijing National Research Center for Information Science and Technology, flcy17, zhangyim17, zfl[email protected], flbj, [email protected], [email protected] §University of California, Irvine, fzhou.li, [email protected], ¶Qi An Xin Group, Y360 Netlab, fliangjinjin, [email protected], ∗∗University of Texas at Dallas, [email protected], ††Fudan University, m [email protected] Abstract—When a domain is registered, information about the [39], online advertising [55], [96], [103], [102] and usability registrants and other related personnel is recorded by WHOIS of privacy notices [104], [78], [79], [90], [50], [49], [27], [72]. databases owned by registrars or registries (called WHOIS providers jointly), which are open to public inquiries. However, Due to its broad scope, not only does the GDPR protect due to the enforcement of the European Union’s General Data normal users browsing websites, users setting up websites and Protection Regulation (GDPR), certain WHOIS data (i.e., the the associated infrastructure are also protected. One example records about EEA, or the European Economic Area, registrants) is domain registration. After a user registers a domain name, needs to be redacted before being released to the public. Anec- e.g., example.com, its sponsoring registrar and upper-stream dotally, it was reported that actions have been taken by some registry will store his/her personal information like name and WHOIS providers.
    [Show full text]
  • Registry Operator Monthly Report
    Registry Operator Monthly Report February 2020 Prepared: March 2020 Registry Services, LLC 21575 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 Monthly Progress Report for February 2020 As required by the Department of Commerce/Registry Services, LLC (“Neustar”) Agreements, this report provides an overview of Neustar Registry activity during the reporting month. Table of Contents: Section 1: Summary of Major Events ........................................................................................ 3 Section 2: Performance Data ...................................................................................................... 5 Section 3: Monthly Transaction Statistics ................................................................................. 5 Section 4: Monthly Registration Data ........................................................................................ 7 Section 5: Website Statistics ........................................................................................................ 7 Section 6: Accredited Registrar Status ...................................................................................... 7 Section 7: .US Locality Statistics ................................................................................................ 7 Section 8: WHOIS Complaint Statistics .................................................................................... 7 Page 2 Monthly Progress Report for February 2020 Section 1: Summary of Major Events Technical and Operational Update There were no operational changes
    [Show full text]