idnits 2.17.1 draft-isoc-dns-role-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-26) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. ** Expected the document's filename to be given on the first page, but didn't find any == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 7 longer pages, the longest (page 1) being 64 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 ISOC B. Carpenter 2 Internet Draft L. Landweber 3 November 1995 J. Postel 4 N. Trio 6 Proposal for an ISOC Role in DNS Name Space Management 8 Abstract 10 draft-isoc-dns-role-00.txt 12 This draft proposes that the Internet Society should take a formal 13 role in the oversight and licensing of competitive registries for the 14 international Internet name space, in support of the IANA and with 15 the assistance of the IAB. 17 Although this draft has been discussed in various bodies, it is not 18 final, it should not be regarded as a consensus document, and it is 19 presented for open debate in the Internet community. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 24 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 25 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 33 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 34 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet- Drafts 35 Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 36 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific 37 Rim). 39 Table of Contents: 41 Status of this Memo.............................................1 42 1. PROCESS......................................................2 43 2. INTRODUCTION.................................................2 44 3. THE PROPOSAL.................................................3 45 Security considerations.........................................7 46 Acknowledgements................................................7 47 Authors' Addresses..............................................7 49 1. PROCESS 51 The intended process for the finalisation of this document is as 52 follows (with this version being Step 2): 54 1. Distribute early drafts to solicit comments from ISOC Trustees and 55 Advisory Council Officers, IAB, IESG. 57 2. Based on comments on early drafts, prepare an Internet Draft for 58 comment by the wider Internet community. 60 3. In parallel, organize a meeting to present the preliminary ISOC 61 plan and obtain further feedback. All stakeholders will be invited to 62 this meeting. 64 4. Also, in parallel, hold focused discussions with U.S. government 65 officials and other key individuals regarding the transition from the 66 current system. 68 5. Present the current details of the DNS plan at the Dallas IETF and 69 solicit further input. It is expected that there will be time for 70 IETF participants to review the Internet Draft prior to this meeting. 72 6. Based on all input received, describe final details in an 73 Informational RFC and present to ISOC BOT and the IAB for 74 ratification. 76 2. INTRODUCTION 78 The recent introduction of charging for commercial (.com) domain name 79 registration and an interest in fostering competition in this area 80 led to discussions as to the proper role of Government, and as to the 81 role that independent bodies such as the Internet Society (ISOC) 82 might play. Indeed, the ISOC is prepared to provide an independent, 83 neutral home for coordination of essential central elements of 84 Internet infrastructure. These include the root domain and selected 85 top-level domains of the domain name system. 87 Therefore, this document is the draft of a proposal, to all Internet 88 stakeholders, for increased ISOC involvement in the domain name 89 registration process. Its goal is to address concerns of the global 90 Internet community in the area of domain name registration and 91 support. Its eventual adoption will require consensus from the user 92 community and from stakeholders, including Internet service and 93 content providers, the CIX, relevant software and hardware 94 industries, relevant government agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere, 95 and multinational networking organizations. Assignment of names 96 within national domains will remain the responsibility of national 97 authorities, and hence is not included in this proposal. 99 The ISOC role would include setting policy, providing administrative 100 oversight, and directly managing the selection of domain name 101 providers for non-national top level domains. It would not include 102 managing operational infrastructure or engaging in other activities 103 that are commonly included under the umbrella of "operations." These 104 will continue to be the responsibility of Internet Service Providers 105 and their representative organizations (e.g., the CIX). Examples of 106 operational activities in this context include, among others, 107 operation of routers and domain name servers, allocation of leaf 108 domain names subject to global policy, and the servicing of 109 customers. 111 With the rapid commercialization and globalization of the Internet, 112 it is important that responsibility for key central components of 113 Internet infrastructure evolve away from support and oversight by the 114 US government to an independent and international basis. ISOC is an 115 international, individual membership and organizational, membership 116 organization. The organizational membership provides support from a 117 broad range of businesses and other organizations involved in 118 significant components of the global Internet infrastructure. The 119 approximately 5,000 individual members include many key developers, 120 maintainers, managers, providers, supporters, and users of Internet 121 infrastructure. Individual members are located in over one hundred 122 countries. Because of its diverse individual and organizational 123 membership, ISOC represents a major segment of the Internet industry 124 and support structure throughout the world. 126 ISOC brings a knowledgeable community to this challenging problem 127 and, with support from the larger Internet community, it can provide 128 a framework for institutionalizing the Internet Assigned Numbers 129 Authority (IANA) and related functions on a scale suited to the 130 Internet as we expect it to be in the future. 132 3. THE PROPOSAL 134 1. The Internet Society will assume responsibility for the DNS name 135 space. This will include: 137 (a) determination of policies, procedures, processes, and standards 138 for the allocation of domain names in non-country-specific top level 139 domains such as "com," and other similar top level domains (e.g., 140 corp, ltd or bus) that might be introduced by the IANA in the future. 141 Policies for the assignment of domain names within national domains 142 such as fr, us, or jp, will remain the responsibility of a party 143 designated by the IANA in agreement with national authorities. 145 (b) the selection, licensing, and oversight of Internet Name 146 Providers (INPs) who are delegated to assign names within a 147 designated portion of the DNS name space; 149 (c) dispute resolution; 151 (d) provision of a legal umbrella for the activity; and 153 (e) financial oversight and accountability for funds received and 154 disbursed by the IANA, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and 155 ISOC for this activity. 157 It should be emphasized that ISOC is not proposing to provide direct 158 operational services. It is merely offering to serve as a neutral 159 body which can help to foster competition by providing support in the 160 enumerated areas. 162 2. The IAB, acting through the IANA, will be designated as the ISOC 163 entity that will be responsible to act on behalf of ISOC in matters 164 relating to (a) and (b) above. 166 Determination of policies, procedures, processes, standards will be 167 done by an open process (such as normal IETF procedures), permitting 168 input and discussion by the full range of Internet stakeholders. Such 169 openness is an important pre-requisite to the universal acceptance of 170 IAB recommendations. When full developed, IAB recommendations will be 171 presented to the ISOC Board of Trustees for final ratification. 173 The IAB has been designated to be responsible for this task because 174 it is the oversight body for the IANA, the organization that 175 currently has responsibility for the Internet domain name space and 176 because of its role in the Internet standards process. It is a 177 constituent body of the Internet Society whose members are selected 178 by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and approved by the 179 ISOC Board of Trustees. Because of this, references to 180 responsibilities of the IAB should not be construed as limiting the 181 ultimate responsibility of the Internet Society for this activity. 183 3. The IANA will be delegated as the organization responsible for 184 implementing the policies, procedures, processes, and standards 185 specified by the IAB. 187 4. A goal of the DNS management activity will be to provide for an 188 efficient, flexible, stable, and low cost environment in which a 189 choice of different INPs will be available to customers. To 190 accomplish this, the IANA will license INPs who will be responsible 191 for allocating portions of the name space. To provide for 192 competition, new top level domains may be established or mechanisms 193 may be developed to share a single top level domain among multiple 194 INPs. 196 5. Each INP will be required to adhere to the policies, processes, 197 procedures, and standards as determined by the IAB and ratified by 198 the ISOC Board of Trustees. A failure to adhere to these policies, 199 processes, procedures, and standards may result in the revocation of 200 the license or other action. In this regard, it will be necessary to 201 architect the system in such a way as to allow for graceful 202 changeover between INPs in the event of a revocation as well as to 203 provide legal protection for the IANA/IAB/ISOC in the event of a 204 legal action. 206 6. INP licensees will pay an annual fee to ISOC. Funds raised will be 207 used to support the DNS name space management activity described in 208 this document. Fee structures will be set to generate only 209 sufficient funds to cover DNS-related activities of IANA, IAB, ISOC 210 and will not fund programs or activities not connected with DNS name 211 space management. Examples of anticipated expense categories include 212 support staff, liability insurance for the IANA, IAB, and ISOC, 213 overhead items such as space and computing support, and travel. It 214 is an open issue whether support of root nameservers would be 215 included. An estimate of required license fees will be developed as 216 part of the continuing process of refining this proposal. 218 7. INPs will be allowed to determine their fees. 220 8. INPs will be required, where possible, to obtain liability 221 insurance and to, in their contract with ISOC, hold ISOC and its 222 designated representatives harmless for their actions. It will be 223 important for INPs to have an awareness of the legal issues related 224 to this activity and for them to have the infrastructure and 225 financial resources to both participate in the dispute resolution 226 process described below (see 9) and to defend themselves in cases 227 where legal action is initiated. 229 ISOC will also obtain liability insurance to cover its designated 230 representatives and will also endeavor, through the specification and 231 establishment of fair and open processes and dispute resolution 232 mechanisms, to minimize the likelihood of legal action. 234 One area to be addressed concerns how to deal with issues that arise 235 when an INP is either unable or unwilling to continue to provide 236 DNS-related services. Among the questions to be resolved are the 237 maintenance and transfer of data and the transfer of responsibility 238 to a new INP. 240 9. The purpose of this section is to propose a mechanism to resolve 241 disputes in managing the DNS. The aim is to, as much as possible, 242 solve conflicts outside the formal legal process. The mechanism is 243 similar to those of many organizations and is based on an arbitration 244 mechanism. 246 (a) all "owners" of DNS names agree to place disputes before an 247 arbitration panel, a DNSAP, and to accept its decisions as binding. 249 (b) all parties agree that the DNSAP and its members will be held non 250 liable for any of its lawful activities under this mechanism and will 251 waive access to internal DNSAP communications. 253 (c) members of a specific DNSAP will be drawn from a panel of senior 254 people from a variety of fields including technology, law and 255 business who agree to serve without pay. The specific members will 256 need to assure themselves and the DNSAP Administrator that they have 257 no conflict of interest in the case being considered. 259 (d) all pleadings will be done via electronic communications: email, 260 web presentation etc. 262 (e) except in extremely complex cases as decided by the DNSAP 263 Administrator, the panel will only meet electronically. 265 (f) decisions of the panel will be made as promptly as possible and 266 the report will be issued to the parties involved as well as the 267 DNSAP Administrator. 269 (g) decisions will be made available to a court with jurisdiction in 270 the event of any further action on the part of the complaining party. 272 10. The IAB will provide liaison, as appropriate, in this area with 273 national governments, international organizations, Internet Service 274 Providers, and industry and educational organizations and 275 associations. 277 11. ISOC recognizes that while the DNS name space is international, 278 the U.S. government has played an important role in the development 279 of the Internet. ISOC will work closely with U.S. government 280 officials to effect a smooth transition, free of financial risks, 281 from the current administrative structure to the one described above. 283 12. This proposal does not initially deal with other categories of 284 central support such as Internet addresses assignment, IPv6 address 285 assignment, MIME-type registration, or RFC support. All of these are 286 areas for further study. 288 13 It is recognized that this proposal extends the scope of 289 activities of the ISOC and of the IAB and the IANA in particular. 290 Dedicated staff support for these new activities is known to be 291 essential and indeed will be the main cost leading to the need for 292 license fees. 294 Security considerations 296 None. 298 Acknowledgements 300 Constructive comments have been received from many members of the 301 ISOC Board, IAB and IESG. 303 Authors' Addresses 305 Brian E. Carpenter 306 IAB Chair 307 Group Leader, Communications Systems Phone: +41 22 767-4967 308 Computing and Networks Division Fax: +41 22 767-7155 309 CERN 310 European Laboratory for Particle Physics Email: brian@dxcoms.cern.ch 311 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 313 Larry Landweber 314 ISOC President 315 Computer Sciences Dept. 316 University of Wisconsin 317 1210 W. Dayton St. Phone; +1 608 263 7442 318 Madison, WI 53706, USA. Email: lhl@cs.wisc.edu 320 Jon Postel 321 IANA Phone: 310-822-1511 322 USC/Information Sciences Institute Fax: 310-823-6714 323 4676 Admiralty Way 324 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Email: Postel@ISI.EDU 326 Nicholas R. Trio 327 ISOC Advisory Council 328 IBM Internet Systems and Operations Phone: 914-945-1850 329 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Email: nrt@watson.ibm.com 330 PO Box 218 331 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598