Domain Names Supporting Organization E. Brunner Working Group C Draft Abenaki Community of Portland B. Geogh Intertribal Council on Utility Policy A. Mandell Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition J. Cristeau Treaty 7 Tribal Council October 18, 1999 A Position Paper on some new gTLDs Status of this Memo This document is work product of Working Group C (WG-C) of the Domain Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and is in conformance with the charter for WG-C, subsequent expressions of direction from the Names Council (NC) of the DNSO to WG-C, and the WG-C instructions from the Co-Chairs to member drafters, shown below for reference. WG members must submit initial drafts of position papers. We encourage drafters to include these items: an abstract of the proposal, summarizing the drafters' position and recommendations; a clear statement of the proposal and its rationale; an analysis of who and what systems would be affected; a specific implementation plan; a discussion of the costs and risks of the proposal; and a discussion of the proposal's support in the various stakeholder communities. Drafters, however, are free to develop statements in the form they think best. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document is a position paper on the issues before WG-C, specifically on the issues relating to the creation of additional generic top-level domains (gTLD) in the root of the domain name system (DNS). It joins and expands the Co-Chairs' Statement of Consensus ("6-10") and advocates the creation of a jurisdictionally scoped, policy specific gTLD, elsewhere described as a "chartered" or "sponsored", Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 1] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 specifically a gTLD jurisdictionally scoped to North America and the territories, trusts and treaty dependencies of the United States and Canada, and with a policy model of registry delegation to, and registry operation by, the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America. 1. Preface The usages of "chartered" and more recently "sponsored" in the DNSO and larger ICANN literature suggest alternatives to the indiscriminate global (aka "open") gTLDs and those for which a specific jurisdictional scope and policy model (aka ccTLDs) exists or is presumed to exist. This dualism makes for a convenient shorthand, but it is frequently at odds with prevailing practices. Here we propose gTLDs with most of the attributes of jurisdictional scope and policy model casually associated with ccTLDs, and a specific test case for the model of a gTLD which is both jurisdictional scoped and possessed of a policy model, a gTLD for the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America. Please note that jurisdictional scope and policy model may be decoupled, e.g., the policy model of .EDU, and the jurisdictional scope of .TO, to cite but two familiar examples, though a larger set of examples is present in the DNS's SLDs, particularly the SLDs of the ccTLDs. This decoupling is not addressed in this position paper. 2. Introduction The introduction of political geography to the top-level of the DNS [1, 2] was one mechanism (among many possible) for achieving the transition of the day-to-day responsibility for most top and second level Domain Names handling to regional registries. This solution to one problem set introduced a new set of problems in turn: reliance upon the work product [3] of a standards body for which no IAB liason relationship existed then, or subsequent, termination of the IANA's role in the definition of new top level domains, and exhaustion of the IANA's ability to direct discussion of the resolution of the contractor abuse problem. Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 2] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 From that moment to the present the attractions of political geography and those of monopoly market deconstruction (or altered constructions) has managed to confine the terms of discussion of the fundamental properties of the namespace to the terms of this dualist reduction of scope and policy space available to the IANA and its successors in interest. 3. The Working Group C Statements of Consensus Working Group C Co-Chairs issued two consensus statements: There should be new gTLDs. There should be 6-10 new gTLDs in the proximate future, followed by an evaluation period. Subsequently Working Group C Co-Chair Weinberg circulated a position paper addressing seven issues: 1. Should there be new gTLDs? 2. What should be the nature of the new gTLDs? 3. How many new gTLDs should there be? 4. What should the transition to an expanded namespace look like? 5. Should ICANN require each new gTLD registry to be shared, that is, to support competing registrars on an "equal access" basis? 6. Should ICANN require that each new gTLD registry be operated on a non-profit (cost- recovery) basis? 7. What should ICANN's process be for selecting new domains and registries? This draft expands on three of the seven questions. Question 2. What should be the nature of the new gTLDs? Fundamentally the nature of the new gTLDs should not preclude solutions to the problems introduced by the introduction of political geography as the one of two prevailing mechanisms for the organization of the DNS name space. Neither should the nature of the new gTLDs preclude solutions to the problems induced by the reliance upon monopoly control over the some portions of the thematic DNS name space (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG) treated as a private resource, beyond both regulatory oversight and protected from economic competition. To this end the new gTLDs should include both commonly understood forms of TLDs. There should be both "open" gTLDs, and "chartered" gTLDs (aka "restricted" or "sponsored"). Additionally, there can also be a new ccTLD, if only to provide an institutional form for examples to late-adopting or problematic ccTLD registries, and to Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 3] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 facilitate technically uncomplicated allocation and operation of each new ccTLD, e.g., the ccTLD which the Palestinian Authority will eventually seek, as well as for other compelling technical reasons. This proposal, draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-00.txt, calls for the creation of a jurisdictionally scoped, policy specific gTLD. While it is reasonable for ICANN to create new gTLDs, first "open", then "chartered", then "open", in alternating groups, it is not in ICANN's interests to delay overly long before identifying the actual requirements of both "open" and "chartered" gTLDs. Proposals which are for scoped but not policy specific new gTLDs, or for non-scoped but policy specific new gTLDs are likely to arise in the near future. Examples of each are: jurisdictionally scoped - European Union, etc., and, policy complete - aeroports only, lawyers only, etc. Question 5. Should ICANN require each new gTLD registry to be shared, that is, to support competing registrars on an "equal access" basis? Co-Chair Weinberg's Position Paper calls for the rebuttable presumption that registry access be open and competitive. We wish to draw attention to the role of policy in the definition of a registry. In the Co-Chair's example, ".family", the underlying issue is a shared policy model for registrars accessing a registry, in contrast to the registrar discretionary model. A similar construction will arise for shared jurisdictional scopes for registrars accessing a shared registry, in contrast to the implicitly non-scoped model. Question 7. What should ICANN's process be for selecting new domains and registries? Two mechanisms are proposed in the Co-Chair Weinberg's Position Paper. The first is identification of new gTLDs by ICANN, followed by solicitations for registrars for the gTLD. The second is selection of registrars by ICANN, followed by identification of the new gTLDs by the registrars. The Co-Chair offers the observation that under both approaches, a small group of people will choose the names for and associated Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 4] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 registries of new gTLDs, or visa versa, and that the distinction between the two mechanisms is not crucial, to ICANN or the user communities of the DNS. We differ. The decisions made by elites reflect the composition of, and common motivations of the elites. The composition of the ICANN elite is distinct from the composition of the NSI and its potential competitors elites, and the motivation of public benefit is distinct from the motivation of private benefit. We are confident that ICANN will act on the issue of indigenous requirements of the DNS root, if not now, then in the reasonable future. We cannot even dimly foresee the epoch when the motivation for private benefit will result in equivalent action on the same issues. 4. Statement of the Proposal and Rationale At least one new TLD name be approved forthwith with the intent that it shall be run as a jurisdictional scoped gTLD, the policy model for which is delegated to the jurisdictionally defining body. Specifically, the TLD name "NAA" shall be approved forthwith with the intent that it be run as a gTLD jurisdictional scoped to North America and the territories, trusts and treaty dependencies of the United States and Canada. The policy model, not limited to the operation and management of the associated registry, to be delegated to the designates of the National Congress of American Indians/Assembly of First Nations, pursuant to Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000[4]. The NCAI/AFN are the appropriate bodies to accept the delegation of a gTLD with the jurisdictional scope specified. The NCAI/AFN are the appropriate bodies to delegate the basic policy model articulated in the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples[5], specifically recommendation 1.8, to establish an appropriate body with appropriate mechanisms to: a) preserve and monitor the commercialism or otherwise of indigenous cultural properties in the public domain, and b) generally advise and encourage indigenous peoples to take steps to protect their cultural heritage, and the operation of a registry as a public trust along the lines of cost-recovery and tribal infrastructure development. Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 5] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 5. Analysis of Affected Parties Only one party can be clearly identified as affected by this proposal, the IANA. Currently the IANA functions as registrar of the NSN.US SLD. It is possible that this registry would experience a net loss of registrants consequent to this proposal being approved and the NAA registry start of operations. As of August the zone transfer revealed only 45 registered names in the NSN.US SLD, so this effect is minimal. The effect upon the registries used by tribal concerns and others other than the NSN.US SLD is also minimal, involving only a few thousand registrants scattered in the .CA, .COM, .ORG, and .NET TLDs. 6. Specific Implementation Plan The NAA shall operate according to the public resource model described below: Registry data is a public resource, subject to tribal and other privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by the NCAI/AFN or its designates, which by default is ICANN. The NAA registry shall operate as a shared registry on a cost- recovery, tribal infrastructure development basis. The registry operators are: Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition, Treaty 7 Tribal Council, National Indian Telecommunications Institute, Abenaki Community of Portland, and (policy role only, non-operational) Intertribal Council on Utility Policy. The registry will be organized along the lines of the European and North American registries, especially the French and Irish models. Two organizational modes will be employed: dotted suffix notation (canonical sub-domain form) Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 6] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 hyphen prefix notation (sectorial-regional form) The NAA shall operate consistent with the norms of the international law system, in particular the intellectual property system, and the statement of principles contained in the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Where conflicts arise between the international law system and the system for the promotion and preservation of indigenous knowledge, or the systems of the United States or Canada (aka "Federal Indian Law" and "Aboriginal Law", respectively) the indigenous claim shall be rebuttably presumed to be the better claim. The conflicts resolution body is the Indigenous Intellectual Property Council and the Intellectual Property Constituency of the DNSO, sitting jointly as collegial peers. The process model for this body is to be determined. Where conflicts arise within the system for the promotion and preservation of indigenous knowledge, e.g., between Indigenous Nations, the conflicts resolution body is the Indigenous Intellectual Property Council. 7. Cost and Risk Discussion There is no anticipated cost or risk to ICANN, or to the DNSO for this proposal. The anticipated cost to establish the NAA registry is comprised of one-time and recurring costs. The one-time costs are primarily comprised of the fees associated with authorization by ICANN to operate the NAA registry, and costs to acquire a Shared Registry System (SRS), and the costs to acquire supported DNS software from the Internet Software Consortium. The recurring costs are primarily comprised of staffing, provisioning, and related costs ordinarily bourne by Internet Service Providor entities. There is no risk anticipated to the registry not adequately addressed by the adoption of a geographically distributed set of initial registrars operating on the basis of mutual trust and common policy within a specific jurisdictional scope. Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 7] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 8. Stakeholder discussion The stakeholders in a top-level domain to be operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America in the DNS root are the National Congress of American Indians and Assembly of First Nations, the network information centers (registry operators), the voice and data network infrastructure providers, tribal governments and quasi- governmental bodies, elected officials and candidates for elected offices, non-profit organizations, for-profit entities, individuals, bands and clans, language and arts institutions, general educational institutions, sectorial formations and professional and trade associations, and trademark agents. Other stakeholders may be identified as the registry operation matures. The stakeholders who are aware of this proposal, and the corresponding proposal to extend the domain of "intellectual property rights" to indigenous knowlege systems, support this proposal unanimously. The interested reader is encouraged to subscribe to The Benton Communications Policy Mailing List , where a lengthy review of the actual state of affairs in a portion of North America (US) is available. The title of this extensive stakeholder discussion is "Native Americans and the Digital Divide". 9. Acknowledgements This document has benefited from innumerable rounds of review and comments in various fora of the Indigenous Law, Indigenous Knowledge, Indigenous Telecomms and Data Networks communities, the generous reviews by members of the DNS community, and the generous reviews by present and former members of the IESG and IAB. Tribal access to the DNS has been the subject of discussions between tribal early adopters and the IANA and DoD since 1992. This particular discussion began in 1996, between the principal author and Jon Postel. Unfortunately the shortness of life precluded this discussion contributing to the operational character of the Domain Name System. 10. Principle Author's Address Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 8] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 Eric Brunner 1415 Forest Avenue Portland, ME 04103 Email: brunner@world.std.com Phone: +1 617 803 3699 11. References: [1] Cooper, A., and J. Postel, "The US Domain", RFC 1480, June 1993. (Status: INFORMATIONAL) [2] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC 1591, March 1994 (Status: INFORMATIONAL) [3] ISO 3166:1988 (E/F) - Codes for the representation of names of countries - The International Organization for Standardization, 3rd edition, 1988-08-15. [4] Brunner, E., Gough, B., Mandell, A., "Creation of a Top-Level Domain Operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America in the Domain Name System (DNS) root", National Congress of American Indians Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000, October 4-8, 1999. [The text in full, reformatted, constitutes Appendix 1.] [5] Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane 12-18 June 1993 Aotearoa New Zealand. 12. Appendix 1 -- Text of the NCAI Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000 Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000 Title: Creation of a Top-Level Domain Operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America in the Domain Name System (DNS) root. WHEREAS, We, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 9] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 otherwise promote the welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and WHEREAS, The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and largest national organization established in 1944 and comprised of representatives of and advocates for national, regional, and local Tribal concerns; and WHEREAS, The health, safety, welfare, education, economic and employment opportunity, and preservation of cultural and natural resources are primary goals and objectives of NCAI. WHEREAS, The NCAI reaffirms the Working Principles stated in the Declaration of Kinship and Cooperation among the Indigenous Peoples and Nations of North America through the Assembly of First Nations and the National Congress of American Indians in Vancouver, 23 July 1999. WHEREAS, The NCAI endorses the recommendations to Indigenous Peoples contained in the Mataatua Declaration, and in particular recommendation 1.8, to establish an appropriate body with appropriate mechanisms to: a) preserve and monitor the commercialism or otherwise of indigenous cultural properties in the public domain, and b) generally advise and encourage indigenous peoples to take steps to protect their cultural heritage, Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane 12-18 June 1993 Aotearoa New Zealand. WHEREAS, The NCAI notes the undertaking of United Nations Member States to: "Adopt or strengthen appropriate policies and/or legal instruments that will protect indigenous intellectual and cultural property and the right to preserve customary and administrative systems and practices." - United Nations Conference on Environmental Development: UNCED Agenda 21 (26.4b). WHEREAS, The NCAI further notes the undertaking of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to take over responsibility for domain name system management, and root server system management functions now performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities. WHEREAS, The INTERTRIBAL Council On Utility Policy (COUP) has pointed out the economic and social value of the Internet to the advancement of the Indigenous Peoples and Nations of North America, and of the central relationship of the domain name system (DNS) to the full expression of the potential to realize these values. WHEREAS, The NCAI endorses the preparation to meet the requirements for the operation and management of a top-level domain, and of the capabilities of the Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition (NIEC) and Treaty 7 Tribal Council (TREATY7), internet service providers, and Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 10] WG-C DRAFT October 1999 the National Indian Telecommunications Institute (NITI) and Abenaki Community of Portland (WAMPUMPEAG), centers of technical excellence. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American Indians does hereby request the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to create a top-level domain to be operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America in the DNS root. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that National Congress of American Indians does hereby request that NEIC.NET, TREATY7.ORG, NITI.ORG, and WAMPUMPEAG.COM, undertake the operational and management responsibilities for this top-level domain, and, in conjunction with the INTERTRIBAL COUP, undertake the responsibility for basic policy and cost recovery. CERTIFICATION ______________________________ W. Ron Allen, President ATTEST: ____________________________________ Lela Kaskalla, Recording Secretary Adopted by the General Assembly during the 1999 Mid-Winter Session held at the Palm Springs Convention Center, in Palm Springs, California, on October 4-8, 1999. Draft agenda Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 11]