[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50964-50968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21338]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[Docket Number 980212036-0235-06]
RIN 0660-AA11


Management and Administration of the .us Domain Space

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice, Request for Public Comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(``NTIA''), Department of Commerce, requests comments on a draft 
statement of work and draft methods and procedure section (the ``Draft 
SOW''), which is expected to be incorporated in a request for proposals 
\1\ for management and administration of the .us domain space. The 
Draft SOW is set forth in Appendix A of this document. The public is 
invited to comment on any aspect of the Draft SOW including, but not 
limited to, the specific questions set forth below. NTIA expects to 
revise the Draft SOW based on public comments received. Further, NTIA 
may solicit additional comments for this or other elements of its 
request for proposals, proceed with alternative procurement mechanisms, 
or choose to take other actions necessary to secure appropriate 
management and administration of the .us domain space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The request for proposal, if issued, will be consistent with 
all pertinent U.S. Government procurement regulations, and will be 
posted in the Commerce Business Daily and on the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration's homepage at 
www.ntia.doc.gov>.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the Draft 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOW no later than October 6, 2000.

SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS: The Department invites the public to submit 
comments in paper or electronic form. Comments may be mailed to Karen 
A. Rose, Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, Room 4701 HCHB, 1401 Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230. Paper submissions should include a diskette 
in ASCII, WordPerfect (please specify version) or Microsoft Word 
(please specify version) format. Diskettes should be labeled with the 
name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name and 
version of the word processing program used to create the document. In 
the alternative, comments may be submitted electronically to the 
following electronic mail address [email protected]>. Comments 
submitted via electronic mail should also be submitted in one or more 
of the formats specified above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Rose, Office of International 
Affairs, NTIA, telephone: 202-482-1866, electronic mail: 
[email protected]>; or Jeffrey E.M. Joyner, Esq., Office of Chief 
Counsel, NTIA, telephone: 202-482-1816, or electronic mail: 
[email protected]>.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1512; 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(H); 47 U.S.C. 
902(b)(2)(I); 47 U.S.C. 902(b)(2)(M); 47 U.S.C. 904(c)(1).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The .us domain is the country code top level 
domain (``ccTLD'') of the Internet domain name system (``DNS'') that 
corresponds to the United States. Network Solutions, Inc., is 
responsible for the administration of the .us top level domain 
(``usTLD'') under its Cooperative Agreement with the Department of 
Commerce. Network Solutions has subcontracted administration of the 
usTLD to the Information Sciences Institute of the University of 
Southern California (``USC/ISI'' or the ``usTLD Administrator''). Dr. 
Jon Postel established the original structure and administrative 
mechanisms of the usTLD in RFC 1480, entitled The US Domain. Currently, 
second-level domain space is designated for states and U.S. 
territories, and the usTLD space is further subdivided into localities. 
Individuals and organizations may request an exclusive delegation from 
the usTLD Administrator to provide a registry and registrar services 
for a particular locality or localities. Local governments and 
community-based organizations typically use the usTLD, although some 
commercial names have been assigned. (Current usTLD policy requires 
prospective subdomain managers to submit written authorization from the 
relevant local public authority for the delegation.) Where registration 
for a locality has not been delegated, the usTLD Administrator itself 
provides necessary registry and registrar services. The usTLD is a 
widely distributed registry, currently with over 8000 subdomain 
delegations to over 800 individuals and entities, who maintain a 
registry and provide registration services for commercial, educational, 
and governmental entities. This distributed registration model affords 
scalable registration services and opportunities for commercial 
entities to provide name registration services. Nevertheless, because 
of the relative lack of public awareness about the availability of 
usTLD domain names and its deeply hierarchical and somewhat cumbersome 
structure, the usTLD has not attracted a high level of domain name 
registration activity and remains under-populated in comparison with 
other ccTLDs. It has been suggested for some time that the general 
absence of non-locality based registration space in the usTLD has 
contributed to overcrowding in the generic .com, .net, and .org top 
level domains (``gTLDs'').

[[Page 50965]]

    On July 1, 1997, as part of the ``Framework for Global Electronic 
Commerce,'' President Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to 
privatize management of certain technical aspects of the DNS in a 
manner that increases competition and facilitates international 
participation in DNS management.\2\ In response to this directive, the 
Department of Commerce, through NTIA, published a request for comment 
on a ``green paper'' entitled ``Improvement of Technical Management of 
Internet Names and Addresses.'' \3\ NTIA subsequently issued a 
statement of policy entitled ``Management of Internet Names and 
Addresses'' setting forth the Administration's policy regarding 
privatization of certain technical aspects of the domain name 
system.\4\ As part of both the proposal and the final statement of 
policy, the Department noted its commitment to further explore and seek 
public input, through a separate request for comment, about the 
evolution of the usTLD space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce'' (July 1, 
1997) (available at http://www.ecommerce.gov/framewrk.htm>).
    \3\ See ``Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names 
and Addresses,'' Proposed Rule and Request for Public Comment, 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
Department of Commerce, 63 FR 8825 (Feb. 20, 1998) (available at 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm>).
    \4\ See ``Management of Internet Names and Addresses,'' 
Statement of Policy, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 63 FR 31741 (June 10, 1998) 
(available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm>). The Department of Commerce entered into a 
memorandum of understanding with the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on November 25, 1998, in which 
the parties agreed to collaborate on a transition mechanism to 
privatize technical management of the domain name system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 4, 1998, NTIA solicited comments addressing the future 
expansion and administration of the usTLD space.\5\ On March 9, 1999, 
NTIA hosted a public meeting regarding the future management and 
administration of the .us domain with approximately 60 participants, 
including the current usTLD Administrator, current .us registrars, 
educators, representatives of the technical, public interest and 
business communities, and federal, state and foreign government 
officials.\6\ NTIA also established an open electronic mailing list to 
facilitate further public discussions of the issues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See ``Enhancement of the .us Domain Space,'' Notice, Request 
for Comments, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 63 FR 41547 (Aug. 4, 1998) 
(available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotusrfc.htm>). The comment period was extended to October 5, 1998, 
to afford interested parties a full opportunity to address the 
issues raised in the request. See also ``Extension of Comment 
Period,'' National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, Department of Commerce, 63 FR 45800 (Aug. 24, 1998) 
(available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotusext.htm>).
    \6\ See ``Enhancement of the .us Domain Space, Notification of 
Public Meeting,'' Notice, National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, Department of Commerce, 64 FR 6633 (Feb. 
10, 1999). The agenda for that meeting is available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov//ntiahome/domainname/dotusagenda.htm>.
    \7\ See ``Enhancement of the .us Domain Space, Notification of 
Open Electronic Mailing List for Public Discussions Regarding the 
Future Management and Administration of the .us Domain Space,'' 
Notice, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
Department of Commerce, 64 FR 26365 (May 14, 1999) (available at 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/dotuslistfedreg51099.htm>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an effort to develop a more concrete framework for the 
procurement of usTLD administration services, NTIA has now prepared 
this Draft SOW for public comment, which may be incorporated in a 
request for proposal (``RFP'') for management and administration of the 
usTLD. The public is invited to comment on any aspect of the Draft SOW.

Questions for the Draft SOW

    The public is invited to comment on any aspect of the Draft SOW 
including, but not limited to, the specific questions set forth below. 
When responding to specific questions, responses should cite the 
number(s) of the questions addressed, and the ``section'' of the Draft 
SOW to which the question(s) correspond. Please provide any references 
to support the responses submitted.

Section I.A

Question 1
    Regardless of the naming structure or registration policies of the 
usTLD, several core registry functions need to be provided by the 
successful offeror responding to an RFP to administer the usTLD 
(``Awardee''). Does the list in Section I.A of the Draft SOW accurately 
reflect the full range of core registry functions? Should other/
additional core functions be included?

Section I.B

Question 2
    Are any particular technical specifications, software, or methods 
and procedures necessary to complete the tasks outlined? Are there 
other tasks that should be required as part of this section?

Section I.C

Question 3
    While usTLD registration policies may change or be adjusted over 
time, the Draft SOW contemplates that the current usTLD locality-based 
structure will continue to be supported. What mechanisms should Awardee 
employ to provide outreach to and coordination among the current usTLD 
community? Is information dissemination through a website (as required 
in Section I.A. of the Draft SOW) sufficient?
Question 4
    Are there any drawbacks or disadvantages to continuing the support 
for the current .us structure? If support for the existing usTLD 
structure, or portions of it, should be discontinued, please describe 
how any transition should take place.
Question 5
    Regarding the requirement to investigate and report on possible 
structural, procedural, and policy improvements to the current usTLD 
structure, are there specific procedures or policy improvements that 
should be implemented by Awardee prior to completion of this study? Are 
there issues that need to be specifically addressed in the required 
study, such as ``locality-squatting,'' the role of state and local 
governments, or appropriate cost recovery mechanisms?
Question 6
    In the SOW, the Department of Commerce contemplates directing the 
usTLD Administrator to suspend additional locality delegations and to 
provide registration services directly for all undelegated subdomains. 
The Draft SOW contemplates that this arrangement would continue until 
the required study is completed. This ``status quo'' period is intended 
to provide a stable environment in which to conduct the study. Is such 
delegation suspension during this time necessary? Is the requirement to 
provide direct registration services in the undelegated subdomains 
enough to ensure the continued availability of the usTLD during this 
period? Should delegation transfers also be suspended?
Question 7
    Currently, the usTLD Administrator does not charge fees for its 
services. We contemplate that the Awardee would administer the existing 
locality-based usTLD structure under this same policy, pending 
completion of the study and the approval of any recommended cost 
recovery mechanism. Should the

[[Page 50966]]

Awardee be allowed to establish a cost recovery mechanism for the 
existing usTLD space upon award? If so, on what basis should such fees 
be determined and how should such fees be phased in?

Section I.D

Question 8
    Commenters have suggested that an expanded usTLD structure that 
allows direct registrations under the usTLD as well as under specified 
second level domains would be most attractive for prospective 
registrants. In this Draft SOW we provide a great deal of latitude to 
consider and propose expansion of the usTLD structure. Should the final 
SOW impose more specific requirements in this area? Should certain 
second-level domains in the usTLD be required or specified? If so, 
which ones and how should they be selected? Should a second level 
domain for the registration of domain names for personal, non-
commercial use be created? Are there disadvantages to allowing second 
level domain registrations directly under .us? Would a system that both 
establishes specific second level domains and allows direct 
registration under .us be feasible or would a mixed approach cause 
confusion for users?
Question 9
    The Draft SOW contemplates that the Awardee will follow ICANN 
adopted policies relating to open ccTLDs, unless otherwise directed by 
the Department of Commerce. NTIA believes that this will allow 
straightforward administration of the expanded usTLD, with little 
additional policy development required. To the extent that additional 
substantive policy is required, NTIA contemplates that it would work 
cooperatively with the Awardee to develop such policy. What are the 
advantages and disadvantages to such an approach? Should other 
approaches be considered? Please describe alternate approaches, and 
discuss their advantages and disadvantages.
Question 10
    Under current usTLD policy, registrations in the usTLD must be 
hosted on computers in the United States (RFC 1480 Section 1.3). Should 
this requirement apply to the expanded usTLD structure? Should 
registrations in the usTLD be further restricted to individuals or 
entities ``located in'' or ``with a connection to'' the United States? 
If so, what are appropriate criteria for determining eligibility: valid 
street address in the United States; citizenship or residency in the 
United States; incorporation and/or establishment in the United States? 
How would such criteria be established and enforced? How would such 
requirements affect administration of the usTLD?
Question 11
    The Draft SOW contemplates that registrations in the expanded usTLD 
would be performed by competitive registrars through a shared 
registration system. (Awardee will not be permitted to serve as a usTLD 
registrar, except with respect to registrations in the existing, 
locality-based usTLD space until the required study has been 
completed.) Under this system, who should be eligible to serve as usTLD 
registrars? ICANN has established accreditation procedures for 
registrars in the .com, .net and .org top level domains. Should all 
individuals and entities accredited by ICANN be eligible to register in 
the usTLD? If not, why not? What alternative process, procedures, 
criteria, or additional requirements should be used?
Question 12
    What type of contractual arrangement and provisions should be 
required of usTLD registrars? Should usTLD registrars enter into an 
agreement similar to ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement (see 
http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm>). How would the ICANN 
agreement need to be modified to fit the usTLD context? Is this a 
feasible approach? Are there any provisions of the ICANN agreement that 
should not be included in a usTLD accreditation agreement? If so, which 
provisions should not be included and why? Are there any provisions 
that should be added, and if so, why?
Question 13
    Should the interface between Awardee's usTLD registry and the usTLD 
registrars be specified in the final SOW? If so, should the interface 
follow the specifications set forth in RFC 2832 (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2832.text?number=2832>), or should other/additional 
technical and/or functional specifications be used? What, if any, 
quality of service requirements should Awardee be expected to meet? If 
other/additional specifications should be used, what should these 
specifications be?
Question 14
    It is likely that Awardee will want to license usTLD registrars to 
use its registry access software. Is Network Solutions' Registrar 
License Agreement (see http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-rla-28sept99.htm) a 
good model for such a license? If not, why not? What provisions of the 
NSI agreement should be deleted? What provisions should be added?

Section II

Question 15
    On February 23, 2000, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee 
(``GAC'') adopted ``Principles for the Delegation and Administration of 
Country Code Top Level Domains'' (see http://www.icann.org/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm>). The document sets forth basic principles 
for the administration and management of ccTLDs, as well as a framework 
for the relationships among the relevant local governments in the 
context of a ccTLD, the ccTLD administrator, and ICANN. The Department 
of Commerce has endorsed and intends to implement the GAC Principles. 
Are there any provisions of the GAC Principles that should not be 
included in an agreement between Department of Commerce and the 
Awardee, or between the Awardee and ICANN? If so, which provisions 
should not be included and why? Are there any provisions that should be 
added, and if so, why?

Kathy D. Smith,
Chief Counsel.

Appendix A

I. Statement of Work

    Considerable latitude exists for the submission of creative 
proposals responsive to this solicitation; however, each proposal 
must address lists of minimum services that are outlined below. 
These lists should not be viewed as exhaustive; as such, offerors 
are encouraged to suggest other services that they consider 
important to the efficient administration and management of the 
usTLD. The provision of services below may be accomplished through 
coordinating resources and services provided by others, but joint 
proposals should clearly indicate how the requirements of the 
Statement of Work will be fulfilled.
    Proposals should describe the systems, software, hardware, 
facilities, infrastructure, and operation, for the following 
functions:

A. Core Registry Functions

     Operation and maintenance of the primary, authoritative 
server for the usTLD;
     Operation and/or administration of a constellation of 
secondary servers for the usTLD;
     Compilation, generation, and propagation of the usTLD 
zone file(s);
     Maintenance of an accurate and up-to-date registration 
(Whois) database for usTLD registrations;
     Maintenance of an accurate and up-to-date database of 
usTLD sub-delegation managers; and

[[Page 50967]]

     Promotion of and registration in the usTLD, including 
maintenance of a website with up-to-date policy and registration 
information for the usTLD domain.

B. Technical Enhancements to the Existing, Locality-Based usTLD

    A number of technical enhancements to the usTLD system functions 
are required to make the system more robust and reliable. Because 
the usTLD has operated for the most part on a delegated basis for a 
number of years, the availability of centralized contact information 
for the usTLD has proven difficult to maintain. For example, the 
current usTLD Administrator advises but does not require that the 
administrator of a delegated subdomain operate a database of 
accurate and up-to-date registration information (``Whois'') 
service.
    There is considerable latitude for suggesting enhancements to 
the existing, locality-based usTLD system, however, the following 
tasks must be incorporated into each proposal. Proposals should 
describe the systems, software, hardware, facilities, 
infrastructure, and operation, for completing the tasks as well as 
proposed methods for the collecting registration and delegation 
information:
     Development of a single database for up-to-date and 
verified contact information for all delegations made in the usTLD 
to locality-level and second level (where delegated) administrators, 
and for all sub-delegations made by such locality-level and second 
level administrators. Such databases should allow for multiple 
string and field searching through a free, public, web-based 
interface, and consist of at least the following elements:
    The name of the delegation;
    The IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary 
nameserver(s) for the delegation;
    The corresponding names of those nameservers;
    The date of delegation;
    The name and postal address of the delegated manager;
    The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone 
number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact 
for the delegated manager; and
    The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone 
number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative 
contact for the delegated manager.
     Development of an enhanced searchable Whois database 
that contains, or provides access to, all domain name registrations 
at the delegated and sub-delegated levels. Such Whois database 
should allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, 
public, web-based interface, and consist of at least the following 
elements:

--The name of the domain registered;
--The IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary 
nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;
--The corresponding names of those nameservers;
--The identity of the delegated manager under which the name is 
registered;
--The creation date of the registration;
--The name and postal address of the domain name holder;
--The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, 
and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the 
domain name holder; and
--The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, 
and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for 
the domain name holder.

     Modernization and automation of .us registry and 
registration operations, including the creation of an electronic 
database to store historical usTLD registration data.

C. Administration of the Existing, Locality-Based usTLD Structure

    During previous consultations with the public on the 
administration of the usTLD, a considerable number of parties 
expressed a desire for the continued operation and support of the 
existing usTLD domain structure. Some also noted that enhanced 
coordination of the existing locality-based usTLD structure would 
make the space more easily accessible and increase communication and 
cooperation within the community of usTLD subdelegation managers. 
Some concerns have been expressed that more should be undertaken to 
ensure that the locality-based aspects of the usTLD are operating in 
the interest of the relevant local community.
    Proposals should describe how the offeror will perform the 
following functions:
     Continue to provide service and support for existing 
delegees and registrants in the existing, locality-based usTLD 
structure under current practice, including policies set forth in 
RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies.
     Conduct an investigation and submit a report to the 
Department of Commerce, within 9 months of the award, evaluating the 
compliance of existing sub-domain managers with the requirements of 
RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies. Such report must 
recommend structural, procedural, and policy changes designed to 
enhance such compliance and increase the value of the locality-based 
structure to local communities. During this evaluation period, 
Awardee shall make no additional locality delegations unless 
otherwise directed by the Department of Commerce.
     Continue to provide direct registry and registrar 
services for all other undelegated third level locality sub-domains, 
including services for CO and CI, and undelegated special purpose 
domains (K12, CC, TEC, LIB, MUS, STATE, DST, COG and GEN).

D. Expansion of the .us Space

    Many parties in previous consultations have suggested that the 
current usTLD space should be expanded by creating opportunities for 
registration directly at the second level and/or at the third level 
under specified second level domains. It has been suggested that 
this more ``generic'' space would greatly increase the 
attractiveness of the usTLD to potential registrants. Awardee will 
not be allowed to act as a registrar in the expanded usTLD space.
    Proposals should describe how the offeror will perform the 
following functions:
     Develop and implement a new structure for the usTLD 
that enables the registration of domain names directly under the 
usTLD and/or under specified second level domains. The proposed 
expanded usTLD structure, including proposed administration 
procedures and registration policies, must be described. Awardee 
must agree to be bound by a Department of Commerce contract to 
follow ICANN adopted policies applicable to open ccTLDs unless 
otherwise directed by the Department of Commerce.
     Develop and implement a shared registration system 
whereby qualified competing registrars may register domain names for 
their customers in the expanded usTLD space. At a minimum, the 
system must allow an unlimited number of accredited/licensed 
registrars to register domain names in the expanded usTLD; provide 
equivalent access to the system for all accredited/licensed 
registrars to register domains and transfer domain name 
registrations among competing accredited/licensed registrars; update 
domain name registrations; and provide technical support for 
accredited/licensed registrars.
     Provide customer service and technical support to 
accredited/licensed usTLD registrars and registry support for the 
expanded usTLD space.
     Provide the core registry functions listed in Section A 
above.
     Require usTLD registrars to participate in an 
alternative dispute resolution procedure, consistent with United 
States law and international treaty obligations, to resolve cases of 
alleged cyber-squatting. Offerors are encouraged to consider how 
ICANN's uniform dispute resolution procedure (UDRP) might be 
implemented in the context of the usTLD.
     Develop an enhanced searchable Whois database that 
contains, or provides access to, all domain name registrations in 
the enhanced usTLD space. Such database must be accessible through 
any ``universal Whois service'' adopted by ICANN registrars and must 
accommodate multiple string and field searching through a free 
public, web based interface and consist of at least the following 
elements:

--The name of the usTLD domain registered;
--The IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary 
nameserver(s) for the registered usTLD domain name;
--The corresponding names of those nameservers;
--The identity of the usTLD registrar under which the name is 
registered;
--The creation date of the registration;
--The name and postal address of the usTLD domain name holder;
--The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, 
and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the 
usTLD domain name; and
--The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, 
and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for 
the usTLD domain name.

II. Methods and Procedures

    On February 23, 2000, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee 
adopted ``Principles for the Delegation and Administration of 
Country Code Top Level Domains'' (see http://www.icann.org/gac/

[[Page 50968]]

gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm>). The document, which enjoys the 
support of the Department of Commerce, sets forth basic principles 
for the administration and management of ccTLDs, as well as a 
framework for the relationship between the relevant local government 
in the context of a ccTLD, the ccTLD administrator, and ICANN. The 
Awardee will be required to abide by the principles and procedures 
set forth in the document, and enter into contractual arrangement 
consistent with the document, unless otherwise directed by the 
Department of Commerce not to follow specific provisions.

[FR Doc. 00-21338 Filed 8-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-60-P