Application number: 1-927-96975 for Top Level Domain Holdings Limited

Top Level Domain Holdings Limited

Craigmuir Chambers Road Town
Tortola VG 1110
VG

+13233005403

http:⁄⁄www.tldh.org

Mr. Antony Van Couvering

CEO

+19174067126

tas.minds.machines@gmail.com

Ms. Elaine Pruis

Vice President

+1 509 899 3161

elaine@mindsandmachines.com

Corporation

BVI

Not Available

London_Stock_Exchange

Antony Van Couvering
Chief Executive Officer
Clark Landry
Non Executive Director
David Weill
Chief Financial Officer
Frederick Krueger
Chief Strategy Officer
Guy Elliott
Chief Investment Officer
Michael Mendelson
Non Executive Director
Peter Dengate Thrush
Executive Chairman

Frederick Krueger
Chief Strategy Officer

blog

Not Available

We ensured that there are no known operational or rendering problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string in two ways:
First, we researched whether any top-level string composed of the letters of the Latin alphabet has ever had any operational or rendering problems. We concluded from that research that there is no third-party experience or knowledge that would lead us to believe that there is any operational or rendering problems with the applied-for gTLD string.
Second, using Minds + Machines’ Espresso system, we created a test-bed version of the applied-for gTLD string as a top-level domain. We then conducted a series of tests, including simulations of many of the day-to-day registry functions, and found no operational or rendering problems.
We concluded that there are no known operational or rendering problems with the applied-for gTLD string.

The goal of the .BLOG domain is to encourage the free flow of ideas and expression through the use of blogs and similar Internet-based self-publishing software. The .BLOG gTLD will and provide bloggers and blog-readers a better Internet identifier than current registration choices. 

A blog (originally a shortened form of “web log”) is a website containing the writerʹs or group of writersʹ experiences, observations, and opinions regarding various topics and issues; blogs may include images, videos and links to other Web sites. To “blog” or to do “blogging” is the act of adding content to a blog.

As of the first quarter in 2010, there were an estimated 450 million active English-language blogs. (Source: http:⁄⁄www.hattrickassociates.com⁄2010⁄02⁄how_many_blogs_2011_web_content). Blogs include but not limited to art blogs, photography blogs, news blogs, law blogs, etc. There is a blog to cater to virtually any subject, activity or trade in which people are interested.

Given the large number of blogs, the .BLOG top-level domain will alleviate pressure on the over-crowded .COM namespace and allow bloggers to find good domain names at a price well below the high prices charged in the .COM secondary market.

18b Benefits
The .BLOG gTLD will motivate people to write and share their ideas and thoughts with the world and individuals, small and medium-sized businesses to share their products, services and ideas with the world, resulting in an economic benefit. It will help Internet users find people who share common ideals, interests and goals. It will increase interaction between authors and readers. The free flow of public speech is, we believe, a public benefit in and of itself; we believe .BLOG will encourage this.

PUBLIC BENEFIT
The .BLOG gTLD will provide all those interested, world-wide, in disseminating or seeking information--whether non-commercial or commercial--issues, news, culture, lifestyle, entertainment, sports or any other topic with a convenient and recognizable domain name that associates them and⁄or their information with bloggers world-wide.

We believe that the Internet-using world will benefit from the existence of a .BLOG gTLD by:

- making domain names ending in .BLOG available to all those who may want to use such .BLOG domain names for their own business, personal, political or other legal purposes in the United States and world-wide.

- the promotion of bloggers world-wide by having information of any and all types and for any and all legal purposes available and disseminated from websites and email addresses ending in .BLOG for the registrants’ and users’ own purposes world-wide.

 - the promotion of bloggers world-wide by allowing businesses, not-for-profits and individuals to associate their products, services, information and selves with blogs and blogging for their own purposes.

 - allowing people and organizations to promote their association with blogs and blogging on the Internet.

 - providing an identifiable means for people, organizations and businesses to communicate with those who associate with or provide blogs.

EXPANDING THE TLD NAMESPACE
Over the past decade, the market for domain name registrations has grown at a tremendous pace. From 2000 to 2010 domain name registrations increased from 40 million to 200 million domain names registered globally. 2011 experienced a growth of approximately 9%, which was significantly higher than the previous year’s 6% growth, ending third quarter 2011 with approximately 220 million domain names registered globally. Approximately 60% of these are gTLDs, while the remaining 40% are comprised of ccTLDs. More specifically, gTLD growth was approximately 8% in 2011, while ccTLD growth exceeded 11%.

Existing TLDs, such as .COM and .NET, do not provide adequate solutions for many registrants. Domain names that relate to the registrants’ business, interests, or associations are often already registered, priced exorbitantly high, or available options are unsuitable. Additionally, other options, such as ccTLDs, do not provide adequate alternatives as a registrant may not have any geographic relation or meet the criteria associated with other gTLDs such as .MUSEUM or .AERO. Therefore, the only available opportunity to pursue a relevant and useful domain name registration may be through a brand new registration of a gTLD.

Taking into account the new opportunities available with new gTLDs, growth is expected to continue in all sections of the domain name industry. It will benefit registrants and users by allowing registrants to reach more targeted audiences and increase their web presence. Additionally, it will allow registrants to more closely identify with a particular market segment.

At present, there is no specific .BLOG domain name, or useful top-level alternative domain name, that exists for the people, organizations or businesses that associate themselves blogs and blogging globally or people, organizations or businesses that want to communicate with them. Those desirous of a domain name that indicates some level of association with bloggers world-wide could seek a second level domain name such as “BLOG.COM,” “BLOG.US” or “BLOG.NET,” but such domains (or similar names) are not readily available under the limited number of existing gTLDs, and--more importantly--only provide a secondary (at best) or weak (at worst) relationship between the domain name and blogging, which we believe is the primary goal of the registrant of such names.

From a competitive perspective, registrants that want a domain name that effectively and efficiently shows an association with blogs, bloggers and blogging or registrants that want a domain name that allows them to identifiably communicate with people who associate or identify with it face a domain name marketplace that provides them with few, if any, options for their purposes. The .BLOG top-level domain will resolve this problem by providing registrants with an efficient, effective, prominent, instantly understood way of showing their association with bloggers world-wide, and provide those registrants who desire it a domain that that can effectively communicate information to such Internet users in an identifiable way. At the same time, .BLOG provides competition with the existing TLDs and new gTLDs that will be approved by ICANN, benefiting the Internet community at large by increasing consumer choice.

We believe that the .BLOG top-level domain will add significantly to competition and differentiation in the top-level domain space, both for registrants and Internet consumers. With respect to competition, registrants are presently extremely limited in their choice of domain names that allow them to efficiently and effectively associate themselves with bloggers world-wide. The availability of useful, effective, straight-forward domain names on existing top-level domains, such as .COM, .NET and .ORG, are few and far between, or may be for sale at prices that are out of reach for most. .BLOG will allow registrants to obtain useful, effective, straight-forward domain names rather than be forced to purchase, for example, their fifth, sixth or even later choice .COM or .NET name--which may well barely relate to the registrant’s purpose--or use of a domain name that may be confusingly similar with numerous other .COM or .NET domain names. In addition, some existing generic top-level domain names, though newer, such as .XXX, may be inappropriate for most registrants for content associational reasons, while country-code top-level domains, though numerous, are not useful or appropriate for many registrants for geographical associational reasons. Thus, .BLOG will increase competition for registrants who want a domain name that clearly, effectively and efficiently associates them with bloggers and blogging for their domain name purposes as well as for those registrants who want to reach Internet users who identify with it.

.BLOG will also increase pricing competition in the top-level domain name space by assuring that .BLOG domain names are priced at levels that are appropriate to the vast majority of potential registrants to whom .BLOG is targeted.

Internet consumers benefit from this increase in competition, as less confusing and clearly associated .BLOG domain names will make it easier for them to know that the owner of the second-level domain name is a member of or seeks to associate with blogs, bloggers, and blogging.

Likewise, .BLOG will help significantly increase differentiation in the top-level domain space. Existing leading generic top-level domain names, such as .COM, .NET and .ORG no longer require and no longer represent any real differentiation in association, purpose or content. Newer top-level domains, such as .XXX, .AERO and .MUSEUM, do represent differentiation, but are either inappropriate or unavailable to most prospective registrants at whom .BLOG is targeted. .BLOG will further increase differentiation by allowing registrants to be associated, and consumers to know that the registrant seeks to associate with bloggers world-wide.

In terms of user experience, .BLOG will provide users with a top-level domain name that allows them to easily recognize that the registrant seeks to have its second-level domain name and content associated with bloggers world-wide. We believe this will be of substantial benefit to the Internet user community in generally--and blogs, bloggers, and blogging specifically--as it will allow them to more easily and more readily understand the purpose or motives of the registrant’s website or email, allowing for better, more efficient and more effective use of their time online.

On balance, and for the reasons set forth above, a .BLOG domain will be in the public’s interest; it will serve as a catalyst to promoting free speach; and it will benefit blogs, bloggers, and their readers.

18c Rules
This applicant, like most organizations, takes its good reputation seriously. We are fully cognizant, for example, that artistic, political, economic and social issues, all of which can be associated with blogs, often provoke heated debate and are at times controversial. However, we recognize and support the free speech rights of both registrants and Internet users as fundamental rights and believe that such free speech rights are important to the success of the .BLOG business plan. We believe that any plan to stifle free speech would be more harmful to .BLOG’s reputation and business success than any attempt by us to govern speech. That being said, to protect .BLOG’s reputation and the associational benefits it offers registrants and Internet consumers, we will actively promote and enforce our Acceptable Use and Abuse Prevention policies and procedures, which we believe will effectively combat improper or unlawful unprotected speech and online conduct. We believe that these mechanisms will be effective in assuring the reputation of the .BLOG top-level domain, its registrants, Internet Users, as well as the public.

The .BLOG top-level domain will be marketed to registrants who want to associate themselves, their products, services, thoughts, ideas or anything else in a positive way with blogs and blogging, as well as to those who want to communicate with them in an easily identifiable way. Therefore we believe that the great majority of registrants who apply for a .BLOG domain name will do so because of its association with or because they want to reach those who do, and not for other reasons. In these ways, the .BLOG top-level domain will bring a special association with blogs to the top-level domain name space.

We are dedicated to protection of third-party rights and prevention of abusive uses of the .BLOG domain name. We intend to achieve this goal by crafting our Naming Policy, Acceptable Use Policy, and other policies to be readily understandable and easily accessible, and by making sure that our mechanisms for enforcing rights and preventing abuse (such as our Complaint Resolution Service) operate effectively, efficiently, and fairly. In addition, we will ensure that they work symbiotically with other ICANN-mandated rights protection mechanisms such as the UDRP.

We have crafted a draft framework for registration of .BLOG domains that fully supports the goals and benefits set forth above. Our draft registration framework is based on advice from ICANN, WIPO, applicable laws, and a variety of other expert sources. Specifically, the .BLOG draft framework includes these interrelated sets of agreements setting forth our policies and regulations, all of which registrants must agree to be bound by:

 - The Registrant Agreement, which registrars contracted with .BLOG must present to registrants. This is a collateral agreement to the Registrar Registry Agreement (detailed below), and will bind registrants to .BLOG’s Acceptable Use Policy (as detailed below), .BLOG’s Privacy & Whois Policy (detailed below), ICANN-mandated rights protection mechanisms (including the Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), and the Complaint Resolution Service;

 - The Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”), which details the proper use of domain names that end in .BLOG, which is incorporated by reference in the Registrant Agreement that registrants must agree to;

 - The Privacy and Whois Policy, which describes how a registrant’s personal data is to be used, which is also incorporated by reference in the Registrant Agreement;

 - The Registrar-Registry Agreement, which is the contract between .BLOG and its ICANN-accredited registrars, which sets forth, inter alia, the duties and obligations of the registrar with respect to .BLOG registrants and the .BLOG registry; and

 - The Naming Policy, which sets out .BLOG’s policies governing prohibited, blocked or reserved domain names.

These agreements and policies are designed to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory policies for the registration of .BLOG names; fair and competitive pricing; protection of personal data and privacy; adherence by registrars and registrants to the AUP; protection of trademarks, the names of natural and legal persons and other property rights; prevention of the registration of illegal terms; and the prevention violations of the law. Moreover, our policies promote competition among registrars, combat abuse of the DNS, address cybercrime, protect intellectual property rights, and align the .BLOG top-level domain with applicable regulatory and legislative environments and Internet registry best practices.

These policies will effectively support the key mission, purposes and goals of the .BLOG top-level domain, which is to allow registrants who want to associate themselves with, while at the same time protecting third-party rights and preventing abuse.

We specifically examined more restrictive registration policies, such as limiting registration to members of organizations with a specific tie to blogs, blogging, bloggers and their readers. We rejected such limitations because they would interfere with .BLOG’s primary mission, purpose and goals--which is to encourage as many registrants as possible to associate themselves with bloggers world-wide for any legal purpose. Factors that we took into account when considering a more restrictive registration policy included:

 - Our recognition that registrants of a .BLOG domain name will self-select because they have an interest in blogs and blogging world-wide, naturally reducing the number of potential registrants; and, because restrictive policies such as, for example, requiring membership in a specific organization or organizations, would exclude many legitimate registrants from obtaining a .BLOG domain name. For example, and by way of illustration, if membership an organization were required for registration, businesses and charitable organizations that would find a .BLOG top-level domain name an effective marketing tool would be excluded from registering a .BLOG domain name as they might not be eligible to be members in an organization that accepted only natural persons for membership.

With respect to protecting registrant privacy and confidential information, we will comply with all applicable ICANN rules, including Whois policies, and all applicable laws, rules and regulations of appropriate jurisdictions. Registrant privacy and use of confidential information are set forth in our Privacy & Whois Policy. Information concerning updates and changes to the Privacy & Whois Policy will be promptly and prominently displayed on the .BLOG web site.

.BLOG’s back-end registry services provider will also be required to employ industry-standard procedures to prevent the unauthorized or illegal access of registrant privacy or confidential information.

With respect to users, .BLOG’s Registration Agreement will require that all registrants comply with any and all applicable laws, rules or regulations concerning user privacy and confidential information for applicable jurisdictions; failure to do so may result in suspension or loss of their .BLOG name and may, in addition, result in legal actions by appropriate authorities.

We plan to minimize social costs primarily through clearly written, widely disseminated, and easy-to-understand policies. Our Acceptable Use Policy clearly delineates unacceptable behavior and prohibited content by registrants using domain names in the .BLOG zone.

Our rules concerning applications for the same domain name establish clearly delineated rules, and will be published well in advance. They provide adequate safeguards for the rights of all participants as well as expeditious and cost-effective challenge procedures in the event of disputes.

During the Sunrise period and Landrush periods, multiple applications for the same name will be resolved by auction. UDRP or URS will be used if there are disputes as to rights to a name.

After Sunrise and Landrush, domain names will be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis. All domains are subject to UDRP and URS challenges.

At all times, .BLOG’s Complaint Resolution Service will be available to registrants and the public in the case of alleged prohibited use or content.

.BLOG does not envision special discounts for different classes of registrants, but may consider such offers in the future. We may offer introductory discounts for first-time registrants in .BLOG. Bulk registration discounts are not being considered at this time.

.BLOG plans to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price increases. .BLOG will contract with its registrars that any percentage increase in renewal and first registration fees will be applied uniformly across all registrations, and that notice of any price increases will be provided on the registrar’s website and by the registrar to registrants via email six months or more in advance.

No

Not Available

No

--PROPOSED MEASURES FOR PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES AT THE SECOND AND OTHER LEVELS IN THE APPLIED-FOR GTLD--

We have accepted the advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) that we should adopt appropriate procedures to block names with national or geographic significance at the second and other levels, and will do so in the manner described below:

The country and territory names contained in the following internationally recognized lists will be initially reserved at the second level, as follows:

The short form (in English) of all country and territory names contained on the ISO 3166-1 list, as updated from time to time, including the European Union; on the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names, Part III Names of Countries of the World; and on the list of United Nations member states in the six official United Nations languages prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names.

Procedurally, the geographical names contained in these lists, as described in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement, will be added to the registry software system “prohibited word” function. This function, part of Espresso, our registry platform, allows strings to be blocked from registration. Upon an attempt via the EPP or web interface, the registration will not be allowed. Any attempt to register a domain containing those geographical names will be automatically denied, as they were similarly blocked in the .INFO TLD. If a Government or public authority decides to register a geographic name which has been blocked by the process describe above, the .INFO procedure for notice, authentication, and registration will be substantially adhered to, as follows:

 1. The Government or public authority concerned informs the GAC Secretariat of their request to register the name, and the designated beneficiary.
 2. The GAC Secretariat authenticates the request and transfers it to the ICANN staff and to the registry operator.
 3. The registry operator verifies the availability of the name and issues an authorization number that is transmitted directly to the designated beneficiary in the country concerned.
 4. The designated beneficiary (the Registrant) registers the name, paying the normal fee, with an ICANN-accredited registrar contracted with the registry operator using the authorization number as their authority.

The registry operator may at some point seek agreement with the applicable governments to release these reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.

For protection of geographic names at other levels, we have a complaint mechanism in place and any geographic entity may register a complaint if they feel their national rights have been violated.

We believe that the measures outlined above incorporate GAC’s advice and serve as a pledge to block, at no cost to governments, geographically significant names and allow a means of challenging any abuse of the use of a geographically significant name.

Introduction

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. has elected to partner with NeuStar, Inc (ʺNeustarʺ) to provide back-end services for the .BLOG registry. In making this decision, .BLOG recognized that Neustar already possesses a production-proven registry system that can be quickly deployed and smoothly operated over its robust, flexible, and scalable world-class infrastructure. The existing registry services will be leveraged for the .BLOG registry. The following section describes the registry services to be provided.

23.2 Standard Technical and Business Components

Neustar will provide the highest level of service while delivering a secure, stable and comprehensive registry platform. Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. will use Neustarʹs Registry Services platform to deploy the .BLOG registry, by providing the following Registry Services (none of these services are offered in a manner that is unique to .BLOG):

-Registry-Registrar Shared Registration Service (SRS)

-Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

-Domain Name System (DNS)

-WHOIS

-DNSSEC

-Data Escrow

-Dissemination of Zone Files using Dynamic Updates

-Access to Bulk Zone Files

-Dynamic WHOIS Updates

-IPv6 Support

-Rights Protection Mechanisms

-Internationalized Domain Names (IDN).

The following is a description of each of the services.

23.2.1 SRS

Neustarʹs secure and stable SRS is a production-proven, standards-based, highly reliable, and high-performance domain name registration and management system. The SRS includes an EPP interface for receiving data from registrars for the purpose of provisioning and managing domain names and name servers. The response to Question 24 provides specific SRS information.

23.2.2 EPP

The .BLOG registry will use the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) for the provisioning of domain names. The EPP implementation will be fully compliant with all RFCs. Registrars are provided with access via an EPP API and an EPP based Web GUI. With more than 10 gTLD, ccTLD, and private TLDs implementations, Neustar has extensive experience building EPP-based registries. Additional discussion on the EPP approach is presented in the response to Question 25.

23.2.3 DNS

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. will leverage Neustarʹs world-class DNS network of geographically distributed nameserver sites to provide the highest level of DNS service. The service utilizes ʺAnycastʺ routing technology, and supports both IPv4 and IPv6. The DNS network is highly proven, and currently provides service to over 20 TLDs and thousands of enterprise companies. Additional information on the DNS solution is presented in the response to Questions 35.

23.2.4 WHOIS

Neustarʹs existing standard WHOIS solution will be used for .BLOG. The service provides supports for near real-time dynamic updates. The design and construction is agnostic with regard to data display policy is flexible enough to accommodate any data model. In addition, a searchable WHOIS service that complies with all ICANN requirements will be provided. The following WHOIS options will be provided:

Standard WHOIS (Port 43)

Standard WHOIS (Web)

Searchable WHOIS (Web)

23.2.5 DNSSEC

An RFC compliant DNSSEC implementation will be provided using existing DNSSEC capabilities. Neustar is an experienced provider of DNSSEC services, and currently manages signed zones for three large top level domains: .biz, .us, and .co. Registrars are provided with the ability to submit and manage DS records using EPP, or through a web GUI. Additional information on DNSSEC, including the management of security extensions is found in the response to Question 43.

23.2.6 Data Escrow

Data escrow will be performed in compliance with all ICANN requirements in conjunction with an approved data escrow provider. The data escrow service will:

-Protect against data loss

-Follow industry best practices

-Ensure easy, accurate, and timely retrieval and restore capability in the event of a hardware failure

-Minimizes the impact of software or business failure.

Additional information on the Data Escrow service is provided in the response to Question 38.

23.2.7 Dissemination of Zone Files using Dynamic Updates

Dissemination of zone files will be provided through a dynamic, near real-time process. Updates will be performed within the specified performance levels. The proven technology ensures that updates pushed to all nodes within a few minutes of the changes being received by the SRS. Additional information on the DNS updates may be found in the response to Question 35.

23.2.8 Access to Bulk Zone Files

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. will provide third party access to the bulk zone file in accordance with specification 4, Section 2 of the Registry Agreement. Credentialing and dissemination of the zone files will be facilitated through the Central Zone Data Access Provider.

23.2.9 Dynamic WHOIS Updates

Updates to records in the WHOIS database will be provided via dynamic, near real-time updates. Guaranteed delivery message oriented middleware is used to ensure each individual WHOIS server is refreshed with dynamic updates. This component ensures that all WHOIS servers are kept current as changes occur in the SRS, while also decoupling WHOIS from the SRS. Additional information on WHOIS updates is presented in response to Question 26.

23.2.10 IPv6 Support

The .BLOG registry will provide IPv6 support in the following registry services: SRS, WHOIS, and DNS⁄DNSSEC. In addition, the registry supports the provisioning of IPv6 AAAA records. A detailed description on IPv6 is presented in the response to Question 36.

23.2.11 Required Rights Protection Mechanisms

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd., will provide all ICANN required Rights Mechanisms, including:

-Trademark Claims Service

-Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)

-Registration Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)

-UDRP

-URS

-Sunrise service.

More information is presented in the response to Question 29.

23.2.12 Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)

IDN registrations are provided in full compliance with the IDNA protocol. Neustar possesses extensive experience offering IDN registrations in numerous TLDs, and its IDN implementation uses advanced technology to accommodate the unique bundling needs of certain languages. Character mappings are easily constructed to block out characters that may be deemed as confusing to users. A detailed description of the IDN implementation is presented in response to Question 44.

23.3 Unique Services

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. will not be offering services that are unique to .BLOG.

23.4 Security or Stability Concerns

All services offered are standard registry services that have no known security or stability concerns. Neustar has demonstrated a strong track record of security and stability within the industry.

24.1 Introduction

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. has partnered with NeuStar, Inc (ʺNeustarʺ), an experienced TLD registry operator, for the operation of the .BLOG Registry. The applicant is confident that the plan in place for the operation of a robust and reliable Shared Registration System (SRS) as currently provided by Neustar will satisfy the criterion established by ICANN.

Neustar built its SRS from the ground up as an EPP based platform and has been operating it reliably and at scale since 2001. The software currently provides registry services to five TLDs (.BIZ, .US, TEL, .CO and .TRAVEL) and is used to provide gateway services to the .CN and .TW registries. Neustarʹs state of the art registry has a proven track record of being secure, stable, and robust. It manages more than 6 million domains, and has over 300 registrars connected today.

The following describes a detailed plan for a robust and reliable SRS that meets all ICANN requirements including compliance with Specifications 6 and 10.

24.2 The Plan for Operation of a Robust and Reliable SRS

24.2.1 High-level SRS System Description

The SRS to be used for .BLOG will leverage a production-proven, standards-based, highly reliable and high-performance domain name registration and management system that fully meets or exceeds the requirements as identified in the new gTLD Application Guidebook.

The SRS is the central component of any registry implementation and its quality, reliability and capabilities are essential to the overall stability of the TLD. Neustar has a documented history of deploying SRS implementations with proven and verifiable performance, reliability and availability. The SRS adheres to all industry standards and protocols. By leveraging an existing SRS platform, Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. is mitigating the significant risks and costs associated with the development of a new system. Highlights of the SRS include:

-State-of-the-art, production proven multi-layer design

-Ability to rapidly and easily scale from low to high volume as a TLD grows

-Fully redundant architecture at two sites

-Support for IDN registrations in compliance with all standards

-Use by over 300 Registrars

-EPP connectivity over IPv6

-Performance being measured using 100% of all production transactions (not sampling).

24.2.2 SRS Systems, Software, Hardware, and Interoperability

The systems and software that the registry operates on are a critical element to providing a high quality of service. If the systems are of poor quality, if they are difficult to maintain and operate, or if the registry personnel are unfamiliar with them, the registry will be prone to outages. Neustar has a decade of experience operating registry infrastructure to extremely high service level requirements. The infrastructure is designed using best of breed systems and software. Much of the application software that performs registry-specific operations was developed by the current engineering team and a result the team is intimately familiar with its operations.

The architecture is highly scalable and provides the same high level of availability and performance as volumes increase. It combines load balancing technology with scalable server technology to provide a cost effective and efficient method for scaling.

The Registry is able to limit the ability of any one registrar from adversely impacting other registrars by consuming too many resources due to excessive EPP transactions. The system uses network layer 2 level packet shaping to limit the number of simultaneous connections registrars can open to the protocol layer.

All interaction with the Registry is recorded in log files. Log files are generated at each layer of the system. These log files record at a minimum:

-The IP address of the client

-Timestamp

-Transaction Details

-Processing Time.

In addition to logging of each and every transaction with the SRS Neustar maintains audit records, in the database, of all transformational transactions. These audit records allow the Registry, in support of the applicant, to produce a complete history of changes for any domain name.

24.2.3 SRS Design

The SRS incorporates a multi-layer architecture that is designed to mitigate risks and easily scale as volumes increase. The three layers of the SRS are:

-Protocol Layer

-Business Policy Layer

-Database.

Each of the layers is described below.

24.2.4 Protocol Layer

The first layer is the protocol layer, which includes the EPP interface to registrars. It consists of a high availability farm of load-balanced EPP servers. The servers are designed to be fast processors of transactions. The servers perform basic validations and then feed information to the business policy engines as described below. The protocol layer is horizontally scalable as dictated by volume.

The EPP servers authenticate against a series of security controls before granting service, as follows:

-The registrarʹs host exchanges keys to initiates a TLS handshake session with the EPP server.

-The registrarʹs host must provide credentials to determine proper access levels.

-The registrarʹs IP address must be preregistered in the network firewalls and traffic-shapers.

24.2.5 Business Policy Layer 

The Business Policy Layer is the ʺbrainʺ of the registry system. Within this layer, the policy engine servers perform rules-based processing as defined through configurable attributes. This process takes individual transactions, applies various validation and policy rules, persists data and dispatches notification through the central database in order to publish to various external systems. External systems fed by the Business Policy Layer include backend processes such as dynamic update of DNS, WHOIS and Billing.

Similar to the EPP protocol farm, the SRS consists of a farm of application servers within this layer. This design ensures that there is sufficient capacity to process every transaction in a manner that meets or exceeds all service level requirements. Some registries couple the business logic layer directly in the protocol layer or within the database. This architecture limits the ability to scale the registry. Using a decoupled architecture enables the load to be distributed among farms of inexpensive servers that can be scaled up or down as demand changes.

The SRS today processes over 30 million EPP transactions daily.

24.2.6 Database

The database is the third core components of the SRS. The primary function of the SRS database is to provide highly reliable, persistent storage for all registry information required for domain registration services. The database is highly secure, with access limited to transactions from authenticated registrars, trusted application-server processes, and highly restricted access by the registry database administrators. A full description of the database can be found in response to Question 33.

Figure 24-1 attached depicts the overall SRS architecture including network components.

24.2.7 Number of Servers

As depicted in the SRS architecture diagram above Neustar operates a high availability architecture where at each level of the stack there are no single points of failures. Each of the network level devices run with dual pairs as do the databases. For the .BLOG registry, the SRS will operate with 8 protocol servers and 6 policy engine servers. These expand horizontally as volume increases due to additional TLDs, increased load, and through organic growth. In addition to the SRS servers described above, there are multiple backend servers for services such as DNS and WHOIS. These are discussed in detail within those respective response sections.

24.2.8 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems

The core SRS service interfaces with other external systems via Neustarʹs external systems layer. The services that the SRS interfaces with include:

-WHOIS

-DNS

-Billing

-Data Warehouse (Reporting and Data Escrow).

Other external interfaces may be deployed to meet the unique needs of a TLD. At this time there are no additional interfaces planned for .BLOG.

The SRS includes an ʺexternal notifierʺ concept in its business policy engine as a message dispatcher. This design allows time-consuming backend processing to be decoupled from critical online registrar transactions. Using an external notifier solution, the registry can utilize ʺcontrol leversʺ that allow it to tune or to disable processes to ensure optimal performance at all times. For example, during the early minutes of a TLD launch, when unusually high volumes of transactions are expected, the registry can elect to suspend processing of one or more back end systems in order to ensure that greater processing power is available to handle the increased load requirements. This proven architecture has been used with numerous TLD launches, some of which have involved the processing of over tens of millions of transactions in the opening hours. The following are the standard three external notifiers used the SRS:

24.2.9 WHOIS External Notifier

The WHOIS external notifier dispatches a work item for any EPP transaction that may potentially have an impact on WHOIS. It is important to note that, while the WHOIS external notifier feeds the WHOIS system, it intentionally does not have visibility into the actual contents of the WHOIS system. The WHOIS external notifier serves just as a tool to send a signal to the WHOIS system that a change is ready to occur. The WHOIS system possesses the intelligence and data visibility to know exactly what needs to change in WHOIS. See response to Question 26 for greater detail.

24.2.10 DNS External Notifier

The DNS external notifier dispatches a work item for any EPP transaction that may potentially have an impact on DNS. Like the WHOIS external notifier, the DNS external notifier does not have visibility into the actual contents of the DNS zones. The work items that are generated by the notifier indicate to the dynamic DNS update sub-system that a change occurred that may impact DNS. That DNS system has the ability to decide what actual changes must be propagated out to the DNS constellation. See response to Question 35 for greater detail.

24.2.11 Billing External Notifier

The billing external notifier is responsible for sending all billable transactions to the downstream financial systems for billing and collection. This external notifier contains the necessary logic to determine what types of transactions are billable. The financial systems use this information to apply appropriate debits and credits based on registrar.

24.2.12 Data Warehouse

The data warehouse is responsible for managing reporting services, including registrar reports, business intelligence dashboards, and the processing of data escrow files. The Reporting Database is used to create both internal and external reports, primarily to support registrar billing and contractual reporting requirement. The data warehouse databases are updated on a daily basis with full copies of the production SRS data.

24.2.13 Frequency of Synchronization between Servers

The external notifiers discussed above perform updates in near real-time, well within the prescribed service level requirements. As transactions from registrars update the core SRS, update notifications are pushed to the external systems such as DNS and WHOIS. These updates are typically live in the external system within 2-3 minutes.

24.2.14 Synchronization Scheme (e.g., hot standby, cold standby)

Neustar operates two hot databases within the data center that is operating in primary mode. These two databases are kept in sync via synchronous replication. Additionally, there are two databases in the secondary data center. These databases are updated real time through asynchronous replication. This model allows for high performance while also ensuring protection of data. See response to Question 33 for greater detail.

24.2.15 Compliance with Specification 6 Section 1.2

The SRS implementation for .BLOG is fully compliant with Specification 6, including section 1.2. EPP Standards are described and embodied in a number of IETF RFCs, ICANN contracts and practices, and registry-registrar agreements. Extensible Provisioning Protocol or EPP is defined by a core set of RFCs that standardize the interface that make up the registry-registrar model. The SRS interface supports EPP 1.0 as defined in the following RFCs shown in Table 24-1 attached.

Additional information on the EPP implementation and compliance with RFCs can be found in the response to Question 25.

24.2.16 Compliance with Specification 10

Specification 10 of the New TLD Agreement defines the performance specifications of the TLD, including service level requirements related to DNS, RDDS (WHOIS), and EPP. The requirements include both availability and transaction response time measurements. As an experienced registry operator, Neustar has a long and verifiable track record of providing registry services that consistently exceed the performance specifications stipulated in ICANN agreements. This same high level of service will be provided for the .BLOG Registry. The following section describes Neustarʹs experience and its capabilities to meet the requirements in the new agreement.

To properly measure the technical performance and progress of TLDs, Neustar collects data on key essential operating metrics. These measurements are key indicators of the performance and health of the registry. Neustarʹs current .biz SLA commitments are among the most stringent in the industry today, and exceed the requirements for new TLDs. Table 24-2 compares the current SRS performance levels compared to the requirements for new TLDs, and clearly demonstrates the ability of the SRS to exceed those requirements.

Their ability to commit and meet such high performance standards is a direct result of their philosophy towards operational excellence. See response to Question 31 for a full description of their philosophy for building and managing for performance.

24.3 Resourcing Plans

The development, customization, and on-going support of the SRS are the responsibility of a combination of technical and operational teams, including:

-Development⁄Engineering

-Database Administration

-Systems Administration

-Network Engineering.

Additionally, if customization or modifications are required, the Product Management and Quality Assurance teams will be involved in the design and testing. Finally, the Network Operations and Information Security play an important role in ensuring the systems involved are operating securely and reliably.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of operational resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. Neustarʹs SRS implementation is very mature, and has been in production for over 10 years. As such, very little new development related to the SRS will be required for the implementation of the .BLOG registry. The following resources are available from those teams:

-Development⁄Engineering - 19 employees

-Database Administration- 10 employees

-Systems Administration - 24 employees

-Network Engineering - 5 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the SRS needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .BLOG registry.

25.1 Introduction

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd.ʹs back-end registry operator, Neustar, has over 10 years of experience operating EPP based registries. They deployed one of the first EPP registries in 2001 with the launch of .biz. In 2004, they were the first gTLD to implement EPP 1.0. Over the last ten years Neustar has implemented numerous extensions to meet various unique TLD requirements. Neustar will leverage its extensive experience to ensure Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. is provided with an unparalleled EPP based registry. The following discussion explains the EPP interface which will be used for the .BLOG registry. This interface exists within the protocol farm layer as described in Question 24 and is depicted in Figure 25-1 attached.

25.2 EPP Interface

Registrars are provided with two different interfaces for interacting with the registry. Both are EPP based, and both contain all the functionality necessary to provision and manage domain names. The primary mechanism is an EPP interface to connect directly with the registry. This is the interface registrars will use for most of their interactions with the registry.

However, an alternative web GUI (Registry Administration Tool) that can also be used to perform EPP transactions will be provided. The primary use of the Registry Administration Tool is for performing administrative or customer support tasks.

The main features of the EPP implementation are:

-Standards Compliance: The EPP XML interface is compliant to the EPP RFCs. As future EPP RFCs are published or existing RFCs are updated, Neustar makes changes to the implementation keeping in mind of any backward compatibility issues.

-Scalability: The system is deployed keeping in mind that it may be required to grow and shrink the footprint of the Registry system for a particular TLD.

-Fault-tolerance: The EPP servers are deployed in two geographically separate data centers to provide for quick failover capability in case of a major outage in a particular data center. The EPP servers adhere to strict availability requirements defined in the SLAs.

-Configurability: The EPP extensions are built in a way that they can be easily configured to turn on or off for a particular TLD.

-Extensibility: The software is built ground up using object oriented design. This allows for easy extensibility of the software without risking the possibility of the change rippling through the whole application.

-Auditable: The system stores detailed information about EPP transactions from provisioning to DNS and WHOIS publishing. In case of a dispute regarding a name registration, the Registry can provide comprehensive audit information on EPP transactions.

-Security: The system provides IP address based access control, client credential-based authorization test, digital certificate exchange, and connection limiting to the protocol layer.

25.3 Compliance with RFCs and Specifications

The registry-registrar model is described and embodied in a number of IETF RFCs, ICANN contracts and practices, and registry-registrar agreements. As shown in Table 25-1 attached, EPP is defined by the core set of RFCs that standardize the interface that registrars use to provision domains with the SRS. As a core component of the SRS architecture, the implementation is fully compliant with all EPP RFCs.

Neustar ensures compliance with all RFCs through a variety of processes and procedures. Members from the engineering and standards teams actively monitor and participate in the development of RFCs that impact the registry services, including those related to EPP. When new RFCs are introduced or existing ones are updated, the team performs a full compliance review of each system impacted by the change. Furthermore, all code releases include a full regression test that includes specific test cases to verify RFC compliance.

Neustar has a long history of providing exceptional service that exceeds all performance specifications. The SRS and EPP interface have been designed to exceed the EPP specifications defined in Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement and profiled in Table 25-2 attached. Evidence of Neustarʹs ability to perform at these levels can be found in the .biz monthly progress reports found on the ICANN website.

25.3.1 EPP Toolkits

Toolkits, under open source licensing, are freely provided to registrars for interfacing with the SRS. Both Java and C++ toolkits will be provided, along with the accompanying documentation. The Registrar Tool Kit (RTK) is a software development kit (SDK) that supports the development of a registrar software system for registering domain names in the registry using EPP. The SDK consists of software and documentation as described below.

The software consists of working Java and C++ EPP common APIs and samples that implement the EPP core functions and EPP extensions used to communicate between the registry and registrar. The RTK illustrates how XML requests (registration events) can be assembled and forwarded to the registry for processing. The software provides the registrar with the basis for a reference implementation that conforms to the EPP registry-registrar protocol. The software component of the SDK also includes XML schema definition files for all Registry EPP objects and EPP object extensions. The RTK also includes a ʺdummyʺ server to aid in the testing of EPP clients.

The accompanying documentation describes the EPP software package hierarchy, the object data model, and the defined objects and methods (including calling parameter lists and expected response behavior). New versions of the RTK are made available from time to time to provide support for additional features as they become available and support for other platforms and languages.

25.4 Proprietary EPP Extensions

The .BLOG registry will not include proprietary EPP extensions. Neustar has implemented various EPP extensions for both internal and external use in other TLD registries. These extensions use the standard EPP extension framework described in RFC 5730. Table 25-3 attached provides a list of extensions developed for other TLDs. Should the .BLOG registry require an EPP extension at some point in the future, the extension will be implemented in compliance with all RFC specifications including RFC 3735.

The full EPP schema to be used in the .BLOG registry is attached in the document titled ʺEPP Schema Files.ʺ

25.5 Resourcing Plans

The development and support of EPP is largely the responsibility of the Development⁄Engineering and Quality Assurance teams. As an experience registry operator with a fully developed EPP solution, on-going support is largely limited to periodic updates to the standard and the implementation of TLD specific extensions.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:

-Development⁄Engineering - 19 employees

-Quality Assurance - 7 employees.

These resources are more than adequate to support any EPP modification needs of the .BLOG registry.

26.1 Introduction

.BLOG recognizes the importance of an accurate, reliable, and up-to-date WHOIS database to governments, law enforcement, intellectual property holders and the public as a whole and is firmly committed to complying with all of the applicable WHOIS specifications for data objects, bulk access, and lookups as defined in Specifications 4 and 10 to the Registry Agreement. .BLOG’s back-end registry services provider, Neustar, has extensive experience providing ICANN and RFC-compliant WHOIS services for each of the TLDs that it operates both as a Registry Operator for gTLDs, ccTLDs and back-end registry services provider. As one of the first ʺthickʺ registry operators in the gTLD space, Neustarʹs WHOIS service has been designed from the ground up to display as much information as required by a TLD and respond to a very stringent availability and performance requirement.

Some of the key features of .BLOG’s solution include:

-Fully compliant with all relevant RFCs including 3912

-Production proven, highly flexible, and scalable with a track record of 100% availability over the past 10 years

-Exceeds current and proposed performance specifications

-Supports dynamic updates with the capability of doing bulk updates

-Geographically distributed sites to provide greater stability and performance

-In addition, . BLOG’s thick-WHOIS solution also provides for additional search capabilities and mechanisms to mitigate potential forms of abuse as discussed below. (e.g., IDN, registrant data).

26.2 Software Components

The WHOIS architecture comprises the following components:

-An in-memory database local to each WHOIS node: To provide for the performance needs, the WHOIS data is served from an in-memory database indexed by searchable keys.

-Redundant servers: To provide for redundancy, the WHOIS updates are propagated to a cluster of WHOIS servers that maintain an independent copy of the database.

-Attack resistant: To ensure that the WHOIS system cannot be abused using malicious queries or DOS attacks, the WHOIS server is only allowed to query the local database and rate limits on queries based on IPs and IP ranges can be readily applied.

-Accuracy auditor: To ensure the accuracy of the information served by the WHOIS servers, a daily audit is done between the SRS information and the WHOIS responses for the domain names which are updated during the last 24-hour period. Any discrepancies are resolved proactively.

-Modular design: The WHOIS system allows for filtering and translation of data elements between the SRS and the WHOIS database to allow for customizations.

-Scalable architecture: The WHOIS system is scalable and has a very small footprint. Depending on the query volume, the deployment size can grow and shrink quickly.

-Flexible: It is flexible enough to accommodate thin, thick, or modified thick models and can accommodate any future ICANN policy, such as different information display levels based on user categorization.

-SRS master database: The SRS database is the main persistent store of the Registry information. The Update Agent computes what WHOIS updates need to be pushed out. A publish-subscribe mechanism then takes these incremental updates and pushes to all the WHOIS slaves that answer queries.

26.3 Compliance with RFC and Specifications 4 and 10

Neustar has been running thick-WHOIS Services for over 10+ years in full compliance with RFC 3912 and with Specifications 4 and 10 of the Registry Agreement.RFC 3912 is a simple text based protocol over TCP that describes the interaction between the server and client on port 43. Neustar built a home-grown solution for this service. It processes millions of WHOIS queries per day.

Table 26-1 attached describes Neustarʹs compliance with Specifications 4 and 10.

Neustar ensures compliance with all RFCs through a variety of processes and procedures. Members from the engineering and standards teams actively monitor and participate in the development of RFCs that impact the registry services, including those related to WHOIS. When new RFCs are introduced or existing ones are updated, the team performs a full compliance review of each system impacted by the change. Furthermore, all code releases include a full regression test that includes specific test cases to verify RFC compliance.

26.4 High-level WHOIS System Description

26.4.1 WHOIS Service (port 43)

The WHOIS service is responsible for handling port 43 queries. Our WHOIS is optimized for speed using an in-memory database and master-slave architecture between the SRS and WHOIS slaves.

The WHOIS service also has built-in support for IDN. If the domain name being queried is an IDN, the returned results include the language of the domain name, the domain nameʹs UTF-8 encoded representation along with the Unicode code page.

26.4.2 Web Page for WHOIS queries

In addition to the WHOIS Service on port 43, Neustar provides a web based WHOIS application (www.whois.blog). It is an intuitive and easy to use application for the general public to use. WHOIS web application provides all of the features available in the port 43 WHOIS. This includes full and partial search on:

-Domain names

-Nameservers

-Registrant, Technical and Administrative Contacts

-Registrars

It also provides features not available on the port 43 service. These include:

1. Redemption Grace Period calculation: Based on the registryʹs policy, domains in pendingDelete can be restorable or scheduled for release depending on the date⁄time the domain went into pendingDelete. For these domains, the web based WHOIS displays ʺRestorableʺ or ʺScheduled for Releaseʺ to clearly show this additional status to the user.

2. Extensive support for international domain names (IDN)

3. Ability to perform WHOIS lookups on the actual Unicode IDN

4. Display of the actual Unicode IDN in addition to the ACE-encoded name

5. A Unicode to Punycode and Punycode to Unicode translator

6. An extensive FAQ

7. A list of upcoming domain deletions

26.5 IT and Infrastructure Resources

As described above the WHOIS architecture uses a workflow that decouples the update process from the SRS. This ensures SRS performance is not adversely affected by the load requirements of dynamic updates. It is also decoupled from the WHOIS lookup agent to ensure the WHOIS service is always available and performing well for users. Each of Neustarʹs geographically diverse WHOIS sites use:

-Firewalls, to protect this sensitive data

-Dedicated servers for MQ Series, to ensure guaranteed delivery of WHOIS updates

-Packetshaper for source IP address-based bandwidth limiting

-Load balancers to distribute query load

-Multiple WHOIS servers for maximizing the performance of WHOIS service.

The WHOIS service uses HP BL 460C servers, each with 2 X Quad Core CPU and a 64GB of RAM. The existing infrastructure has 6 servers, but is designed to be easily scaled with additional servers should it be needed.

Figure 26-1 attached depicts the different components of the WHOIS architecture.

26.6 Interconnectivity with Other Registry System

As described in Question 24 about the SRS and further in response to Question 31, ʺTechnical Overviewʺ, when an update is made by a registrar that impacts WHOIS data, a trigger is sent to the WHOIS system by the external notifier layer. The update agent processes these updates, transforms the data if necessary and then uses messaging oriented middleware to publish all updates to each WHOIS slave. The local update agent accepts the update and applies it to the local in-memory database. A separate auditor compares the data in WHOIS and the SRS daily and monthly to ensure accuracy of the published data.

26.7 Frequency of Synchronization between Servers

Updates from the SRS, through the external notifiers, to the constellation of independent WHOIS slaves happens in real-time via an asynchronous publish⁄subscribe messaging architecture. The updates are guaranteed to be updated in each slave within the required SLA of 95%, less than or equal to 60 minutes. Please note that Neustarʹs current architecture is built towards the stricter SLAs (95%, less than or equal to 15 minutes) of .BIZ. The vast majority of updates tend to happen within 2-3 minutes.

26.8 Provision for Searchable WHOIS Capabilities

Neustar will create a new web-based service to address the new search features based on requirements specified in Specification 4 Section 1.8. The application will enable users to search the WHOIS directory using any one or more of the following fields:

-Domain name

-Registrar ID

-Contacts and registrantʹs name

-Contact and registrantʹs postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state or province, etc.)

-Name server name and name server IP address

-The system will also allow search using non-Latin character sets which are compliant with IDNA specification.

The user will choose one or more search criteria, combine them by Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and provide partial or exact match regular expressions for each of the criterion name-value pairs. The domain names matching the search criteria will be returned to the user.

Figure 26-2 attached shows an architectural depiction of the new service.

To mitigate the risk of this powerful search service being abused by unscrupulous data miners, a layer of security will be built around the query engine which will allow the registry to identify rogue activities and then take appropriate measures. Potential abuses include, but are not limited to:

-Data Mining

-Unauthorized Access

-Excessive Querying

-Denial of Service Attacks

To mitigate the abuses noted above, Neustar will implement any or all of these mechanisms as appropriate:

-Username-password based authentication

-Certificate based authentication

-Data encryption

-CAPTCHA mechanism to prevent robo invocation of Web query

-Fee-based advanced query capabilities for premium customers.

The searchable WHOIS application will adhere to all privacy laws and policies of the .BLOG registry.

26.9 Resourcing Plans

As with the SRS, the development, customization, and on-going support of the WHOIS service is the responsibility of a combination of technical and operational teams.The primary groups responsible for managing the service include:

-Development⁄Engineering - 19 employees

-Database Administration - 10 employees

-Systems Administration - 24 employees

-Network Engineering - 5 employees

Additionally, if customization or modifications are required, the Product Management and Quality Assurance teams will also be involved.Finally, the Network Operations and Information Security play an important role in ensuring the systems involved are operating securely and reliably. The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31.Neustarʹs WHOIS implementation is very mature, and has been in production for over 10 years.As such, very little new development will be required to support the implementation of the .BLOG registry. The resources are more than adequate to support the WHOIS needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .BLOG registry.

27.1 Registration Life Cycle

27.1.1 Introduction

.BLOG will follow the lifecycle and business rules found in the majority of gTLDs today. Our back-end operator, Neustar, has over ten years of experience managing numerous TLDs that utilize standard and unique business rules and lifecycles. This section describes the business rules, registration states, and the overall domain lifecycle that will be use for .BLOG.

27.1.2 Domain Lifecycle - Description

The registry will use the EPP 1.0 standard for provisioning domain names, contacts and hosts. Each domain record is comprised of three registry object types: domain, contacts, and hosts.

Domains, contacts and hosts may be assigned various EPP defined statuses indicating either a particular state or restriction placed on the object. Some statuses may be applied by the Registrar; other statuses may only be applied by the Registry. Statuses are an integral part of the domain lifecycle and serve the dual purpose of indicating the particular state of the domain and indicating any restrictions placed on the domain. The EPP standard defines 17 statuses, however only 14 of these statuses will be used in the .BLOG registry per the defined .BLOG business rules.

The following is a brief description of each of the statuses. Server statuses may only be applied by the Registry, and client statuses may be applied by the Registrar.

-OK - Default status applied by the Registry.

-Inactive - Default status applied by the Registry if the domain has less than 2 nameservers.

-PendingCreate - Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Create command, and indicates further action is pending. This status will not be used in the .BLOG registry.

-PendingTransfer - Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Transfer request command, and indicates further action is pending.

-PendingDelete - Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Delete command that does not result in the immediate deletion of the domain, and indicates further action is pending.

-PendingRenew - Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Renew command that does not result in the immediate renewal of the domain, and indicates further action is pending. This status will not be used in the .BLOG registry.

-PendingUpdate - Status applied by the Registry if an additional action is expected to complete the update, and indicates further action is pending. This status will not be used in the .BLOG registry.

-Hold - Removes the domain from the DNS zone.

-UpdateProhibted - Prevents the object from being modified by an Update command.

-TransferProhibted - Prevents the object from being transferred to another Registrar by the Transfer command.

-RenewProhibted - Prevents a domain from being renewed by a Renew command.

-DeleteProhibted - Prevents the object from being deleted by a Delete command.

The lifecycle of a domain begins with the registration of the domain. All registrations must follow the EPP standard, as well as the specific business rules described in the response to Question 18 above. Upon registration a domain will either be in an active or inactive state. Domains in an active state are delegated and have their delegation information published to the zone. Inactive domains either have no delegation information or their delegation information in not published in the zone. Following the initial registration of a domain, one of five actions may occur during its lifecycle:

-Domain may be updated

-Domain may be deleted, either within or after the add-grace period

-Domain may be renewed at anytime during the term

-Domain may be auto-renewed by the Registry

-Domain may be transferred to another registrar.

Each of these actions may result in a change in domain state. This is described in more detail in the following section. Every domain must eventually be renewed, auto-renewed, transferred, or deleted. A registrar may apply EPP statuses described above to prevent specific actions such as updates, renewals, transfers, or deletions.

27.2 Registration States

27.2.1 Domain Lifecycle - Registration States

As described above the .BLOG registry will implement a standard domain lifecycle found in most gTLD registries today. There are five possible domain states:

-Active

-Inactive

-Locked

-Pending Transfer

-Pending Delete.

All domains are always in either an Active or Inactive state, and throughout the course of the lifecycle may also be in a Locked, Pending Transfer, and Pending Delete state. Specific conditions such as applied EPP policies and registry business rules will determine whether a domain can be transitioned between states. Additionally, within each state, domains may be subject to various timed events such as grace periods, and notification periods.

27.2.2 Active State

The active state is the normal state of a domain and indicates that delegation data has been provided and the delegation information is published in the zone. A domain in an Active state may also be in the Locked or Pending Transfer states.

27.2.3 Inactive State

The Inactive state indicates that a domain has not been delegated or that the delegation data has not been published to the zone. A domain in an Inactive state may also be in the Locked or Pending Transfer states. By default all domain in the Pending Delete state are also in the Inactive state.

27.2.4 Locked State

The Locked state indicates that certain specified EPP transactions may not be performed to the domain. A domain is considered to be in a Locked state if at least one restriction has been placed on the domain; however up to eight restrictions may be applied simultaneously. Domains in the Locked state will also be in the Active or Inactive, and under certain conditions may also be in the Pending Transfer or Pending Delete states.

27.2.5 Pending Transfer State

The Pending Transfer state indicates a condition in which there has been a request to transfer the domain from one registrar to another. The domain is placed in the Pending Transfer state for a period of time to allow the current (losing) registrar to approve (ack) or reject (nack) the transfer request. Registrars may only nack requests for reasons specified in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

27.2.6 Pending Delete State

The Pending Delete State occurs when a Delete command has been sent to the Registry after the first 5 days (120 hours) of registration. The Pending Delete period is 35-days during which the first 30-days the name enters the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) and the last 5-days guarantee that the domain will be purged from the Registry Database and available to public pool for registration on a first come, first serve basis.

27.3 Typical Registration Lifecycle Activities

27.3.1 Domain Creation Process

The creation (registration) of domain names is the fundamental registry operation. All other operations are designed to support or compliment a domain creation. The following steps occur when a domain is created.

1. Contact objects are created in the SRS database. The same contact object may be used for each contact type, or they may all be different. If the contacts already exist in the database this step may be skipped.

2. Nameservers are created in the SRS database. Nameservers are not required to complete the registration process; however any domain with less than 2 name servers will not be resolvable.

3. The domain is created using the each of the objects created in the previous steps. In addition, the term and any client statuses may be assigned at the time of creation.

The actual number of EPP transactions needed to complete the registration of a domain name can be as few as one and as many as 40. The latter assumes seven distinct contacts and 13 nameservers, with Check and Create commands submitted for each object.

27.3.2 Update Process

Registry objects may be updated (modified) using the EPP Modify operation. The Update transaction updates the attributes of the object.

For example, the Update operation on a domain name will only allow the following attributes to be updated:

-Domain statuses

-Registrant ID

-Administrative Contact ID

-Billing Contact ID

-Technical Contact ID

-Nameservers

-AuthInfo

-Additional Registrar provided fields.

The Update operation will not modify the details of the contacts. Rather it may be used to associate a different contact object (using the Contact ID) to the domain name. To update the details of the contact object the Update transaction must be applied to the contact itself. For example, if an existing registrant wished to update the postal address, the Registrar would use the Update command to modify the contact object, and not the domain object.

27.3.4 Renew Process

The term of a domain may be extended using the EPP Renew operation. ICANN policy general establishes the maximum term of a domain name to be 10 years, and Neustar recommends not deviating from this policy. A domain may be renewed⁄extended at any point time, even immediately following the initial registration. The only stipulation is that the overall term of the domain name may not exceed 10 years. If a Renew operation is performed with a term value will extend the domain beyond the 10 year limit, the Registry will reject the transaction entirely.

27.3.5 Transfer Process

The EPP Transfer command is used for several domain transfer related operations:

-Initiate a domain transfer

-Cancel a domain transfer

-Approve a domain transfer

- Reject a domain transfer.

To transfer a domain from one Registrar to another the following process is followed:

1. The gaining (new) Registrar submits a Transfer command, which includes the AuthInfo code of the domain name.

2. If the AuthInfo code is valid and the domain is not in a status that does not allow transfers the domain is placed into pendingTransfer status

3. A poll message notifying the losing Registrar of the pending transfer is sent to the Registrarʹs message queue

4. The domain remains in pendingTransfer status for up to 120 hours, or until the losing (current) Registrar Acks (approves) or Nack (rejects) the transfer request

5. If the losing Registrar has not Acked or Nacked the transfer request within the 120 hour timeframe, the Registry auto-approves the transfer

6. The requesting Registrar may cancel the original request up until the transfer has been completed.

A transfer adds an additional year to the term of the domain. In the event that a transfer will cause the domain to exceed the 10 year maximum term, the Registry will add a partial term up to the 10 year limit. Unlike with the Renew operation, the Registry will not reject a transfer operation.

27.3.6 Deletion Process

A domain may be deleted from the SRS using the EPP Delete operation. The Delete operation will result in either the domain being immediately removed from the database or the domain being placed in pendingDelete status. The outcome is dependent on when the domain is deleted. If the domain is deleted within the first five days (120 hours) of registration, the domain is immediately removed from the database. A deletion at any other time will result in the domain being placed in pendingDelete status and entering the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). Additionally, domains that are deleted within five days (120) hours of any billable (add, renew, transfer) transaction may be deleted for credit.

27.4 Applicable Time Elements

The following section explains the time elements that are involved.

27.4.1 Grace Periods

There are six grace periods:

-Add-Delete Grace Period (AGP)

-Renew-Delete Grace Period

-Transfer-Delete Grace Period

-Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period

-Auto-Renew Grace Period

-Redemption Grace Period (RGP).

The first four grace periods listed above are designed to provide the Registrar with the ability to cancel a revenue transaction (add, renew, or transfer) within a certain period of time and receive a credit for the original transaction.

The following describes each of these grace periods in detail.

27.4.2 Add-Delete Grace Period

The APG is associated with the date the Domain was registered. Domains may be deleted for credit during the initial 120 hours of a registration, and the Registrar will receive a billing credit for the original registration. If the domain is deleted during the Add Grace Period, the domain is dropped from the database immediately and a credit is applied to the Registrarʹs billing account.

27.4.3 Renew-Delete Grace Period

The Renew-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was renewed. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after a renewal. The grace period is intended to allow Registrars to correct domains that were mistakenly renewed. It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP (see below).

27.4.4 Transfer-Delete Grace Period

The Transfer-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was transferred to another Registrar. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after a transfer. It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP. A deletion of domain after a transfer is not the method used to correct a transfer mistake. Domains that have been erroneously transferred or hijacked by another party can be transferred back to the original registrar through various means including contacting the Registry.

27.4.5 Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period

The Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was auto-renewed. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after an auto-renewal. The grace period is intended to allow Registrars to correct domains that were mistakenly auto-renewed. It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the auto-renew delete grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP.

27.4.6 Auto-Renew Grace Period

The Auto-Renew Grace Period is a special grace period intended to provide registrants with an extra amount of time, beyond the expiration date, to renew their domain name. The grace period lasts for 45 days from the expiration date of the domain name. Registrars are not required to provide registrants with the full 45 days of the period.

27.4.7 Redemption Grace Period

The RGP is a special grace period that enables Registrars to restore domains that have been inadvertently deleted but are still in pendingDelete status within the Redemption Grace Period. All domains enter the RGP except those deleted during the AGP.

The RGP period is 30 days, during which time the domain may be restored using the EPP RenewDomain command as described below. Following the 30day RGP period the domain will remain in pendingDelete status for an additional five days, during which time the domain may NOT be restored. The domain is released from the SRS, at the end of the 5 day non-restore period. A restore fee applies and is detailed in the Billing Section. A renewal fee will be automatically applied for any domain past expiration.

Neustar has created a unique restoration process that uses the EPP Renew transaction to restore the domain and fulfill all the reporting obligations required under ICANN policy. The following describes the restoration process.

27.5 State Diagram

Figure 27-1 attached provides a description of the registration lifecycle.

The different states of the lifecycle are active, inactive, locked, pending transfer, and pending delete.Please refer to section 27.2 for detailed descriptions of each of these states. The lines between the states represent triggers that transition a domain from one state to another.

The details of each trigger are described below:

-Create:Registry receives a create domain EPP command.

-WithNS:The domain has met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.

-WithOutNS:The domain has not met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy. The domain will not be in the DNS zone.

-Remove Nameservers: Domainʹs nameserver(s) is removed as part of an update domain EPP command. The total nameserver is below the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.

-Add Nameservers: Nameserver(s) has been added to domain as part of an update domain EPP command.The total number of nameservers has met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.

-Delete: Registry receives a delete domain EPP command.

-DeleteAfterGrace: Domain deletion does not fall within the add grace period.

-DeleteWithinAddGrace:Domain deletion falls within add grace period.

-Restore: Domain is restored.Domain goes back to its original state prior to the delete command.

-Transfer: Transfer request EPP command is received.

-Transfer Approve⁄Cancel⁄Reject:Transfer requested is approved or cancel or rejected.

-TransferProhibited: The domain is in clientTransferProhibited and⁄or serverTranferProhibited status. This will cause the transfer request to fail.The domain goes back to its original state.

-DeleteProhibited: The domain is in clientDeleteProhibited and⁄or serverDeleteProhibited status.This will cause the delete command to fail.The domain goes back to its original state.

Note: the locked state is not represented as a distinct state on the diagram as a domain may be in a locked state in combination with any of the other states: inactive, active, pending transfer, or pending delete.

27.5.1 EPP RFC Consistency

As described above, the domain lifecycle is determined by ICANN policy and the EPP RFCs. Neustar has been operating ICANN TLDs for the past 10 years consistent and compliant with all the ICANN policies and related EPP RFCs.

27.6 Resources

The registration lifecycle and associated business rules are largely determined by policy and business requirements; as such the Product Management and Policy teams will play a critical role in working Applicant to determine the precise rules that meet the requirements of the TLD. Implementation of the lifecycle rules will be the responsibility of Development⁄Engineering team, with testing performed by the Quality Assurance team.Neustarʹs SRS implementation is very flexible and configurable, and in many case development is not required to support business rule changes.

The .BLOG registry will be using standard lifecycle rules, and as such no customization is anticipated .However should modifications be required in the future, the necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31.The following resources are available from those teams:

-Development⁄Engineering - 19 employees

-Registry Product Management - 4 employees

These resources are more than adequate to support the development needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .BLOG registry.

28.1 --ABUSE POINT OF CONTACT--
Strong abuse prevention is an important benefit to the Internet community. .BLOG and its registry services provider agree that a registry must not only aim for the highest standards of technical and operational competence but must also act as a steward on behalf of the Internet community in promoting the public interest. One of those public interest functions for a responsible domain name registry includes working towards the eradication of abusive domain name registrations, including, but not limited to, those resulting from:
 * illegal or fraudulent actions
 * spam
 * phishing
 * pharming
 * distribution of malware
 * fast flux hosting
 * botnets
 * distribution of child pornography
 * online sale or distribution of illegal pharmaceuticals

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO MINIMIZE ABUSIVE REGISTRATIONS
A Registry must have the policies, resources, personnel, and expertise in place to combat such abusive DNS practices. As .BLOG’s registry provider, Neustar is at the forefront of the prevention of such abusive practices and is one of the few registry operators to have actually developed and implemented an active “domain takedown” policy. We also believe that a strong program is essential given that registrants have a reasonable expectation that they are in control of the data associated with their domains, especially its presence in the DNS zone. Because domain names are sometimes used as a mechanism to enable various illegitimate activities on the Internet often the best preventative measure to thwart these attacks is to remove the names completely from the DNS before they can impart harm, not only to the domain name registrant, but also to millions of unsuspecting Internet users.

Removing the domain name from the zone has the effect of shutting down all activity associated with the domain name, including the use of all websites and email. The use of this technique should not be entered into lightly. .BLOG has an extensive, defined, and documented process for taking the necessary action of removing a domain from the zone when its presence in the zone poses a threat to the security and stability of the infrastructure of the Internet or the registry.

ABUSE POINT OF CONTACT
As required by the Registry Agreement, .BLOG will establish and publish on its website a single abuse point of contact responsible for addressing inquiries from law enforcement and the public related to malicious and abusive conduct. .BLOG will also provide such information to ICANN prior to the delegation of any domain names in the TLD. This information shall consist of, at a minimum, a valid e-mail address dedicated solely to the handling of malicious conduct complaints, and a telephone number and mailing address for the primary contact. We will ensure that this information will be kept accurate and up to date and will be provided to ICANN if and when changes are made. In addition, with respect to inquiries from ICANN-Accredited registrars, our registry services provider, Neustar, shall have an additional point of contact, as it does today, handling requests by registrars related to abusive domain name practices.

28.2 --ABUSE PREVENTATION AND MITIGATION PROGRAM--
The abuse prevention and mitigation program (the “Program”) is based on best practice policy recommendations developed by the Council of Country Code Administrators (CoCCA), on lessons learned from previous new gTLD launches, on the operating experience of TLDs such as .COM, and on participation in policy working groups and debate at ICANN. All policies are consistent with and conform to ICANN consensus policies where applicable. Twenty‐five ccTLDs use the CoCCA policy framework to ensure protection of the registry, and to minimize abusive registrations and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. We have updated the best parts of these policies to the new gTLD environment to protect the specific needs of the registry and the registrants, and the rights and needs of third parties. Wherever applicable, we follow the recommendations of NIST SP 800-83 Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling.

The Program is comprised of policies, procedures and resource allocation that aim to prevent and mitigate abusive practices at all levels of registry operations and domain name use.

The Program aims to: (i) prevent the registration of names that violate policies; (ii) provide efficient procedures for the reporting and removal of names that violate policies if they are registered; (iii) provide efficient procedures for the reporting and removal of domains which engage in abusive or unlawful practices; and (iv) secure and protect domain name ownership and Whois information.

The Program is designed to provide for the transparent and non-discriminatory registration of domain names; to protect Whois data and privacy; to ensure adherence by registrars and registrants to the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP); to protect trademarks and prevent registration of blocked and reserved names; to prevent the registration of illegal terms and inappropriate names; to prevent violations of the law; to combat abuse of the DNS; to address cybercrime; to protect intellectual property, and to align use of the registry with the applicable regulatory and legislative environments. We note that while as a registry operator we cannot remove prohibited or unlawful content from the Internet, we can and will seek to ensure that the network is not part of the abuse or publication chain.

The Program is balanced between the need to prevent abusive registrations and uses, the need to properly implement ICANN policies and follow applicable laws, and the need to respect the legal rights of registrants and others. The goal is to encourage legitimate use while discouraging abusive or illegal use. We recognize the importance for the overall health and reputation of the registry that we handle abusive registrations and use quickly, fairly and impartially.

The Program will be administered to (i) ensure that registrars adhere to registration policies; (ii) enforce the policies with registrars and registrants; and (iii) prevent any violations as effectively and efficiently as possible. The means for enforcing policies and procedures will be the comprehensive contract, which sets out penalties for non-compliance; and the registry software, through which some regulations and procedures will be enforced (likefor instance, blocking reserved names and displaying Trademark Clearinghouse notices and warnings).

The Program employs a model that includes registry-level suspensions for AUP and other policy violations; and also provides that the use of a domain is subject at all times to the AUP’s provisions concerning cybercrime, prohibited content, intellectual property abuses and other issues of importance to the Internet, security, intellectual property, legal and law enforcement communities.

Below we describe various agreements and policies, each of which will be a part of the Program:

 (1) REGISTRANT AGREEMENT - The Registrant Agreement, which must be presented to the registrant for agreement by the registrar as a condition of registration, binds the registrant to ICANN-mandated rights protection mechanisms, including the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), AUP, Privacy Policy, Whois Policy, and the Complaint Resolution Service. At the time of registration, registrars will be contractually required, pursuant to the Registry-Registrar Agreement, to bind registrants to these agreements. The Registrant Agreement specifies the eligibility of registrants in this restricted TLD.

 (2) REGISTRY-REGISTRAR AGREEMENT (RRA) - The primary mechanism for ensuring that registrars adhere to registration guidelines, meet the obligations set forth in the policies and pass them on to registrants will be through the RRA we will sign with registrars. The terms of the RRA adhere to ICANN policies and contain additional abuse safeguards. The RRA includes provisions that must also be included in the contract between registrars and registrants. Registrars may include additional provisions, but those provisions may not conflict with the language provided by us, and registrars must include the terms and conditions in their entirety, and legally bind registrants to them. It is by this mechanism that registration and use policies, regulations and procedures will be passed on to registrants. The RRA contains provisions to combat abusive registrations or use as required by ICANN policies, applicable laws, and the registryʹs Acceptable Use Policy.

 (3) ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AUP) - The AUP is incorporated by reference into the Registrant Agreement. It defines the acceptable use of second-level domains, and is designed to ensure that the registry is used for appropriate and legal purposes. It specifically bans, among other practices, the use of a domain name for abusive or illegal activities, including (i) illegal, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive actions or behavior; (ii) spamming (the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, including email spam, instant messaging spam, mobile messaging spam, the spamming of Web sites and Internet forums, and use of email in a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack); (iii) phishing (the use of counterfeit Web pages that are designed to trick recipients into divulging sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, or financial data); (iv) pharming (the redirecting of unknowing users to fraudulent sites or services, typically through DNS hijacking or poisoning); (v) willful distribution of malware (the dissemination of software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner’s consent--e.g. computer viruses, worms, keyloggers and Trojan horses); (vi) fast-flux hosting (use of fast-flux techniques to disguise the location of Web sites or other Internet services, or to avoid detection and mitigation efforts, or to host illegal activities); (vii) botnet command and control (services run on a domain name that are used to control a collection of compromised computers or “zombies,” or to direct DDoS attacks); (viii) distribution of obscene material, including but not limited to child pornography, bestiality, excessive violence; (ix) illegal or unauthorized access to computer networks or data (illegally accessing computers, accounts, or networks belonging to another party, or attempting to penetrate security measures of another party’s system, often referred to as “hacking,” or any activity that may be used as a precursor to an attempted system penetration, such as port scanning, stealth scanning, probing, surveillance or other information gathering activity); (x) deceptive or confusing uses of the domain or any content provided thereon with respect to any third party’s rights; (xi) disrupting the registry network or the provision of any content capable of disruption of computer or systems or data networks; (xii) providing circumvention technologies, technical information or other data that violates export control laws; (xiii) spoofing (forging email network headers or other identifying information); and (xiv) distribution of any other illegal or offensive material including hate speech, harassment, defamation, abusive or threatening content, or any other illegal material that violates the legal rights of others including but not limited to rights of privacy or intellectual property protections.

 (4) PRIVACY AND WHOIS POLICY - The Privacy & Whois Policy is incorporated into the terms and conditions presented to potential registrants. It is designed to prevent abuse by: (i) requiring that registrants provide us with accurate information to be included in their “thick” Whois listing; (ii) by requiring that registrars proactively require registrants to verify and⁄or modify their Whois information to ensure its accuracy on an ongoing basis as per ICANN policy; and (iii) making the failure to provide or maintain complete and accurate Whois information a material breach of the Registrant Agreement, which will allow us to cancel any registration for which the Whois information is not accurate or complete.

 (5) EXPIRED DOMAIN DELETION POLICY – As per ICANN policy, the Expired Domain Deletion Policy sets out how a domain name is registered and renewed, and includes policies and procedures for redemption and grace periods.

 (6) NAMING POLICY - The Naming Policy sets out policies governing prohibited, blocked, and reserved names and eligibility criteria for registrants. It also provides registrants with information regarding trademark and third party rights in names, and offers guidance on choosing a domain name that comports with the policies, regulatory and legal policies, and the rights of third parties. This Policy will provide registrants with the list of blocked and reserved names; explain the rights of trademark holders and the role of the Trademark Clearing House in the registration process; and explain the policies concerning “typosquatting” - misspellings, “typos” or other names that give false or misleading impressions.

A plain language version of the policies will be made available to registrars and potential registrants. Registrants will be required to give their informed consent to be bound by the policies during the registration process, but we recognize that registrants may not fully understand what they are agreeing to when they register a domain name, because the contractual language can be difficult, particularly for a non- native reader of English. As an example, registrars will present the terms and conditions to the registrants and secure their agreement prior to registration. The terms and conditions are many pages long and contain words and concepts that may not be familiar to an average Internet user. Since registrants cannot adhere to policies if they cannot understand them, we will also require registrars to provide a prominent link to a “plain-language” overview of the policies posted on the website. This link will set forth the major terms and conditions in non-legal terms in order to make them understandable to the average registrant. While contracts will be the official and legally binding agreements, we believe the plain-language overview will be very useful for conveying to registrants the major points of their obligations with regard to their domain name itself and their use of that domain name.

The policies and the plain language overview will be prominently available on the website together with explanations and links to the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Service, the UDRP, and the Complaint Resolution Service, with instructions and facilities for reporting alleged abuses to us directly.

28.3 --ANTI-ABUSE MEASURES PRIOR TO REGISTRATION--

The Program will include policies and procedures designed to prevent abusive registrations and use from the start by providing users with guidelines for choosing names, informing them of the proper and improper use of those names, and the consequences of abuse. The anti-abuse measures prior to registration include:

 (1) Implementation of the Trademark Claims Service (TCS): In the case where a potential registration is an exact match to an applicable trademark in the Trademark Clearing House, the TCS automated notification service will inform registrants that the name they may be about to register may be a violation of the trademark rights of a third party, and that their registration may be subject to challenge and possible cancelation. We will not, however, reserve or block domain name registration of terms, or confusingly similar terms, which might infringe intellectual property or other rights. The Naming Policy will however advise registrants that prior to registering the name, it is the registrants’ responsibility to determine whether or not any particular term might infringe the intellectual property or other legal rights of an entity or individual. The Policy will also encourage registrants to perform a trademark search with respect to the term comprising the domain name prior to registration, and inform the registrant that it is solely liable in the event that the name constitutes an infringement or other violation of a third party’s rights, which may include criminal liability for willful, fraudulent conduct.

 (2) Prohibition of a duplicate application for registration of a domain name with another registrar: The policies prohibit a registrant from submitting an application for a domain name if the registrant has previously submitted an application for registration of a domain name for the same term with another registrar where the registrant is relying on the same eligibility criteria for both domain name applications, and the name has previously been rejected by a registrar or by the registry.

 (3) Preventing numerous attempts to register reserved or blocked names: The policies provide that registrants who repeatedly try to register reserved or blocked names, or names that infringe the rights of others, will be banned from registering domain names. Further, any domain names registered to them will be cancelled or transferred, as provided for in the Registrant Agreement and AUP. We specifically inform such users that we reserve the right to refer them to appropriate legal authorities.

 (4) Blocking⁄flagging certain names: We will be able to enforce many of the registration policies at the point of registration through the registry Espresso platform. For example, the registry Espresso platform can block certain prohibited names from registration. In addition, domain names that are doubtful--for instance names that contain within them blocked or reserved names--or portions thereof--may be flagged for further review before they are delegated. We believe that a robust implementation of registration policies through the registry software is the best first line of defense against certain types of violations. The registry Espresso platform is easily programmed to disallow any registrations set forth on the list of blocked or reserved names.
28.4 --POST-REGISTRATION ANTI-ABUSE MEASURES--
Even with policy implementation, oversight, and automated anti-abuse features, abuse registration and use may occur. In addition, innocuous domain names may be used for abusive purposes, such as phishing or spamming. Therefore, post-registration policies and procedures are designed to effectively and efficiently prevent and mitigate abuses with respect to registered domain names themselves and also their use.

 (1) Suspension⁄Cancellation: The policy framework allows us to suspend or cancel registrations that violate certain terms of the Registrant Agreement and related policies. We reserve the right to cancel or suspend any name that in our sole judgment is in violation of the terms of service. With cancelation, to the extent permitted by applicable law, we may publish notice of the cancelation, along with a rationale for the decision.

We believe that this step is important for several reasons: (i) It will help us keep the trust of Internet users, who will see that our actions are not arbitrary; (ii) it will act as a deterrent, as violators’ names will be published; and (iii) it will provide valuable additional information to users about which names are considered violations, by providing examples of names that have been canceled because they are offending terms.

In the case of clear-cut violations of the policies, we will take immediate action without refund of the registration fee.

 (2) Putting domain names in a “pending” status: In certain cases where we determine that a registration may be in breach of the policies, we may put a registration in “pending” status, in which the registration itself is not affected, but in which the domain name will not resolve. Names in a “pending” state can be restored to operational status. In this case, we will inform the registrant of the initial determination and provide the registrant with a speedy mechanism, such as the Complaint Resolution Service, to assist us in resolving the issue, or to appeal the decision.

 (3) Infringement of trademarks: With respect to registrations that infringe trademarks, ICANN has policies and procedures in place that provide a wide net of protections. These policies provide for very quick cancelation of obvious infringements via the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), and for less obvious violations, the UDRP. These policies are the result of many years’ experience and extensive negotiations with the trademark community. Additionally, these mechanisms are reasonably well understood by both trademark holders and registrants. We believe that abiding by ICANN’s established policies for dealing with alleged trademark infringing registrations provides the best level of protections for both trademark owners and applicants. We will make the URS and UDRP mandatory procedures for handling such disputes through contracts with the registrars.

A more detailed discussion of the rights protection mechanisms may be found in Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms.

 (4) Complaint Resolution Service (CRS): While ICANN has a number of procedures in place to prevent abusive registrations, especially with regard to violations of intellectual property rights, we will in addition implement a CRS. The CRS is a formal process that provides a low-cost, efficient, neutral, and clear-cut mechanism for complaints from the public concerning alleged illegal content, abusive or disruptive use of a domain name (e.g. phishing or spam) or other inappropriate conduct to be fairly adjudicated. The policies provide that the CRS is available to anyone, including rights holders. The CRS is a multi-step process designed to ensure fairness and is analogous to an ombudsperson process. It provides an easy method for lodging complaints while protecting registrants from arbitrary, harassing, or repetitive meritless claims. The CRS is described in detail in Question 29.

 (5) Trademark Claims Service (TCS): In addition to warning potential registrants prior to registration that their choice of domain name may infringe the rights of others, the TCS will inform trademark holders that a potential infringement of their mark has been registered. This will provide the trademark holder with the opportunity to challenge the registration, via the URS, UDRP, or court action. The TCS will provide means to inform trademark holders who have successfully deposited their trademarks in the Trademark Clearing House that a domain name has been registered that exactly matches their trademark.

28.5 --PROMOTION OF WHOIS ACCURACY--
As set forth in the Registrant Agreement, Whois Privacy Policy and related agreements we will take significant steps to collect and maintain complete and accurate Whois information.

To ensure Whois accuracy, the Registration Agreement requires that a registrant provide us with (i) true, current, complete, accurate, and reliable registration information; and requires (ii) that the registrant will maintain, update, and keep their registrant information true, current, complete, accurate, and reliable by notifying their registrar of a change to any such information in a timely manner. The Registration Agreement makes clear that providing true, current, complete, and accurate contact information is an absolute condition of registration of a domain name. Registrants are required to acknowledge that a breach of these provisions will constitute a material breach of the Registration Agreement, and that if any registration information provided during registration or subsequent modification to that information is false, inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, or conceals or omits pertinent information, we may in our sole discretion terminate, suspend or place on hold the domain name of any Registrant without notification and without refund to the Registrant.

Whois accuracy verification at the point of registration as well as over the life of a registration will be carried out by the ICANN-accredited registrars pursuant to the terms of ICANN policy as embodied in the RRA.

Registrants are required to provide the following information to an accredited registrar, who will then provide it to us: (i) Legally recognized first and last name of the contact person for the registrant (this contact person may be the registrant itself), and if the Registrant is an organization, association, corporation, Limited Liability Company, Proprietary Limited Company, or other legally recognized entity, we require that the contact person must be a person authorized under the applicable law in the applicable territory to legally bind the entity; (ii) valid postal address of the Registrant; (iii) working e-mail address of the Registrant, and (iv) working telephone number for the Registrant, including country code, area code, and proper extension, if applicable. Attempted registrations lacking any of these fields will be automatically rejected by the system.

The Registration Agreement provides that the registrant is responsible for keeping the registrant information up to date and responding in a timely fashion to communications from registrars regarding their registered domain names.

Validation of Whois information prior to registration has not met with success among top-level domains. Historically, in many country-code top-level domains, pre-validation has been abandoned due to depressed user adoption and criticism from end users and industry businesses, such as web hosting companies, ISPs, and domain name registrars. With few exceptions, major registries validate Whois information after the domain name is delegated, if at all. This reduces cost, which keeps prices down and allows for the near-instant registration of domain names by ordinary registrants.

We will not use pre-delegation validation of registrant data. The strong policies against abusive registrations, combined with the easy-to-use CRS and active enforcement response, will better balance the needs of consumers and law enforcement or other users of Whois information than pre-verification, and in addition will result in higher customer satisfaction.

We will discourage illegitimate or abusive registrations by pricing our domain names above the price of .COM or .BIZ, which we believe will discourage various forms of noxious behaviors, as cybercriminals typically register large numbers of domains for their schemes and will therefore face a larger cost of doing business if they attempt to use the registry for their schemes. We therefore propose to price domain names at a wholesale cost higher than existing gTLDs as a way to discourage malicious use of second-level domain names. With fewer illegitimate registrations, we expect that Whois accuracy will be higher.

28.6 --ADEQUATE CONTROLS TO ENSURE PROPER ACCESS TO DOMAIN FUNCTIONS—
The RRA provides that a registrar must ensure that access to registrant accounts are adequately protected, at a minimum, by secure log-in process that requires username and password authentication, and comport with other security related ICANN registrar accreditation requirements. Registrars must ensure that its connection to the Shared Registry System (SRS) is secure and that all data exchanged between registrar’s system and the SRS is protected against unintended disclosure. Registrars are required to use multi-factor authentication and encryption methods for each EPP session with the SRS using both a server certificate identified by the Registry and the registrar password, which is disclosed only on a need to know basis.

To protect unauthorized transfers of domain names, the registry generates a Unique Domain Authentication ID, or UDAI (also known as an “authorization code” or “auth code”), and provides the UDAI only to the registrant, in a secure manner. A UDAI is a randomly generated unique identifier used to authenticate requests to transfer domain names from one registrar to another. A UDAI is generated when a domain name is registered. Registrars will be obliged to promptly support domain transfers from qualified registrants upon request and may not withhold them to prevent a domain name from being transferred, nor may they require burdensome manual steps (such as requiring a signature) as a condition of transferring a domain name to a new registrar.

Registrars will further be required to identify a duly authorized officer (or similar senior manager) to handle cases where a company or organization wants to make changes but where the original registration was performed by an individual working for the company in his or her own name. For example, a company might hire a web developer to design a web site, and ask the developer to register a domain name, which they may do, but in his or her own name. The purpose of this policy is to prevent mistakes in the case of a transfer of ownership. The instructions on the change of registrant form must ensure (i) that the current authorized registrant is authorizing the changes; (ii) that the prospective registrant is identified and that all relevant contact information has been provided; (iii) that the prospective registrant acknowledges the changes and agrees to be bound by all of agreements and policies; (iv) that the process utilized by the registrar for the change of registrant process is clearly identified to registrants; and (v) that all documentation and correspondence relating to the transfer is retained. Registrars may request a statutory declaration where they have concerns about the authority to effect the change in registrant details if the registrars have concerns about the authority to effect a change in registration or any detail thereof and include an indemnity clause for any costs, losses, or liabilities incurred in the reasonable performance of their duties in processing the registrantʹs request, or in dealing with claims arising from the allocation or use of the name.

The registry service provider will be responsible for ensuring that the ICANN-accredited registrars are implementing security protocols to provide adequate controls regarding access to registrants’ registration information. The RRA will provide that we may audit the registrant account access policies and procedures of the ICANN-accredited registrars to ensure their compliance with the policies. These audits will be carried out by the registry on a random basis or in response to a report or a complaint that a registrar is not complying with the account access policies. Failure to correct deficiencies identified in any audit may be considered a material breach of the RRA.

28.7 --ORPHAN GLUE RECORDS--
The registry policies and Shared Registration System (SRS) rules do not allow for orphan glue records in the zone. All glue records are automatically removed from the zone when the parent domain is deleted by the registry platform SRS. This automated registry software process prevents what are known as “fast-flux” phishing attacks.

28.8 --RESOURCE ALLOCATION--
Responsibility for abuse mitigation rests with a variety of functional groups. The Abuse Monitoring team is primarily responsible for providing analysis and conducting investigations of reports of abuse. The customer service team also plays an important role in assisting with the investigations, responded to customers, and notifying registrars of abusive domains. Finally, the Policy⁄Legal team is responsible for developing the relevant policies and procedures. The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:
 - Customer Support – 12 employees
 - Policy⁄Legal – 2 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the abuse mitigation procedures of the .BLOG registry.

--PROTECTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS: A CORE OBJECTIVE--
Ensuring the protection of the legal rights of others is a core objective. We believe that protecting third- party rights enhances the reputation of the registry and encourages registrants. We are therefore committed to the protection of legal rights and have developed a series of mechanisms, including but not limited to, those minimum requirements for rights protection mechanisms as detailed in Specification 7. These mechanisms are intended to prevent infringing or abusive registrations and to identify and address the abusive use of registered names on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner. As part of this commitment, we have developed and will maintain and implement a series of related policies and practices specifically designed to prevent infringing and abusive registrations and uses of domains that affect the legal rights of others. We will take reasonable steps to investigate and respond to any reports from law enforcement and governmental and quasi- governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD.

--OVERVIEW--
As well as implementing all ICANN rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), we will introduce other additional RPMs that go beyond the current ICANN protections.

In order to do so, we have developed a detailed policy framework based on best practices from the ccTLD .NZ, from the Council of Country Code Administrators (CoCCA), and from existing gTLDs. This tapestry of policies provides rules and procedures regarding registrant eligibility; sets out which type of names can be registered and which cannot; defines abusive registration and usage and provides for penalties for non- compliance; describes and implements ICANN-mandated RPMs; and binds registrars and registrants to the major policies.

The major policies are the Naming Policy, which defines which names can be registered, and by whom; the Acceptable Use Policy, which describes permitted and non-permitted uses of registered names; the Whois and Privacy Policy, which helps registrants understand what we can and cannot do with their personal data; and the Complaint Resolution Services (CRS).

Registrants are bound to these four policies as a condition of registration through their contracts with their registrars, who are in turn compelled by us to get registrant consent to the policies as a condition of registration.

The Naming Policy first of all defines blocked and reserved names, which include geographical names at the second level, thereby adhering to ICANN rules and protecting the rights of governments. Secondly, it prohibits the registration of infringing names and specifically binds registrants to ICANN RPMs. It contains provisions beyond ICANN RPMs, such as prohibiting multiple attempts at blocked names, either through the same or by using different registrars. The Naming Policy further provides that we may sanction registrants who do not abide by its provisions by revoking names (with or without refund) and in appropriate cases informing law enforcement.

The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) addresses abusive use of second-level domain names, prohibiting spam, phishing, pharming, malware, illegal content and other abusive uses of second-level domain, including abusive registrations, particularly registrations that infringe the rights of third parties. Many best practices concerning infringing registrations that were developed in the ccTLD world have in the gTLD world been superseded by Consensus Policies developed at ICANN. Where ICANN has procedures and policies, we follow them. Therefore, the AUP requires that registrants abide by the terms of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Uniform Rapid Suspension service (URS), and the Trademark Claims Services (TCS). Another ICANN-mandated rights protection mechanisms (RPM), the Sunrise Period, will be implemented as described later in this response.

Above and beyond the ICANN-mandated RPMs, the AUP contains provisions that exceed ICANN policy minimums to provide a higher standard of protection for the legal rights of others. The AUP allows us to suspend or cancel names, or multiple names by the same registrant, if an egregious use or pattern of abusive or infringing use is engaged in by a registrant. In addition, the Complaint Resolution Service (CRS) provides means for Internet users to alert us to abusive or infringing registrations.

Additional prevention or mitigation of abusive or infringing registrations include rapid takedown procedures; cancelation or suspension of multiple domain names registered to the same flagrant abuser; higher prices to discourage mass registrants of abusive names; and protection of second-level geographic names.

We first describe the implementation of ICANN-mandated mechanisms, then follow that with a description of the additional policies we plan to implement to prevent registration abuse and rights infringement.

--SUNRISE--
The Sunrise Period is mandated by ICANN, as per Section 6.2 of the Trade Mark Clearinghouse module of the registry agreement. It is a process by which owners of legal rights have the opportunity to register domain names before the process opens to the public or others. Specifically, rights holders may use the Sunrise Service to assert a priority right to register a second-level domain which matches their eligible word mark, as defined in paragraph 7.2 of the Trade Mark Clearinghouse module of the registry agreement. An identical match (as defined in paragraph 6.1.5 ofthe Trade Mark Clearinghouse module of the registry agreement) is required between the eligible word registered in the Trademark Clearing House (“TCH”) and the domain applied for as a condition of participation in the Sunrise Period. All Sunrise applications will be validated by a third-party verification agent through the ICANN-mandated TCH to check the eligibility of the legal right claimed.

We will offer the Sunrise period for a minimum of 30 days during the pre-launch phase, and according to the terms of the Sunrise Policy. Applications received within that period are treated as filed at the same time. Where there is a contest between valid claimants, allocation will be determined by auction.

The Sunrise policy will provide for a Sunrise Dispute Resolution policy, which will allow a challenge under the four grounds required in paragraph 6.2.4 of the Trade Mark Clearinghouse module of the registry agreement. Other grounds may be added as experience reveals their advantages.

Policy oversight of the Sunrise Service will be provided by the legal and policy personnel of the registry service provider. The registry service provider will provide all necessary infrastructure and sufficient resources to support the Sunrise Period.

--TRADEMARK CLAIMS SERVICE--
We will provide a TCS during an initial launch period for eligible marks as defined in para 7.1 of the Trade Mark Clearinghouse module of the registry agreement. This launch period will last at least the first 60 days of general registration, and will be operated according to the terms of Trademark Claims Policy.

The TCS allows a trademark owner to register a claim asserting trademark rights by putting potential registrants on notice of its possible legal claim of the domain name being considered for registration. We will provide notice in the approved format to all prospective registrants of domains that match trademarks in the TCH that their registration may infringe a trademark right. The mandatory form requires a prospective registrant to specifically warrant that: (i) the prospective registrant has received notification that the mark(s) is included in the TCH; (ii) the prospective registrant has received and understood the notice; and (iii) to the best of the prospective registrant’s knowledge, the registration and use of the requested domain name will not infringe on the rights that are the subject of the notice.

Additionally, the Trademark Claims Notice will provide the prospective registrant with access to the Trademark Clearinghouse Database information referenced in the Trademark Claims Notice to enhance understanding of the trademark rights being claimed by the trademark holder. These links (or other sources) will be provided in real time without cost to the prospective registrant. The Trademark Claims Notice will be provided in the language used for the rest of the interaction with the registrar or registry, and will be provided in the most appropriate UN-sponsored language as specified by the prospective registrant or registrar⁄registry.

Oversight of TCS will also rest with the policy officer of the registry service provider, who will provide the necessary infrastructure and sufficient resources to support the VPP in this role, including adequate computers, connectivity, telephones including cell phones and administrative support.

Responsibility for implementing the customer-facing (registrar) aspects of the Trademark Sunrise Service and TCS will rest with the Registrar Liaison as part of their on-going responsibilities. Responsibility for the technical implementation of the Trademark Sunrise and TCS will rest with the Registry under the contract to provide registry services. Staff of the registry service provider will maintain the functionality of the automated Trademark Clearinghouse system. No additional resourcing is required to support these functions. Registry will pay fees to the TCH for Sunrise and TCS services. At the present time no fees details are available, but we assume that the higher fees we propose to charge Sunrise applicants during the 60-day TCS period will be sufficient to cover the fees likely to be charged by the TCH.

--PHISHING AND PHARMING--
Phishing and pharming are a kind of rights infringement in which the malefactor pretends to be a trusted trademark, brand look-and-feel, or other protected property in order to lure some action that benefits the perpetrator. These practices are prohibited by the AUP and will result in cancelation of any second-level domain name involved, and possibly in cancelation of additional names registered to the abuser.

--POST DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY--
In the Registry Agreement with ICANN, we will agree to participate in all post-delegation procedures and to be bound by the resulting determinations. Because we are fully committed to combating abusive use and abusive registration of second-level registrations, we do not expect to have occasion to be involved in any proceedings stemming from ICANN’s Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy (PDDRP), which deals with registries who knowingly engage in trademark infringement or abet those who do. We will comply with all Consensus Policies adopted by ICANN, including the PDDRP.

--ADDITIONAL ANTI-ABUSE POLICES--
We will be implementing RPMs and anti-abuse measures that go beyond the UDRP, URS, Sunrise, TCS and other ICANN-mandated mechanisms and procedures. These additional measures are detailed below.

--COMPLAINT RESOLUTION SERVICE--
The Complaint Resolution Service (CRS) is an alternative to litigation for resolution of complaints between the registrant of a domain name and a complainant who alleges a registrant or a domain name is in violation of the AUP. The CRS provides a transparent, efficient, and cost effective way for the public, law enforcement agencies, regulatory bodies, and intellectual property owners to address concerns regarding abuse on the system.

The CRS provides a reliable and simple way for the public to inform us if they think there is a problem.

Submissions of suspected infringement or abuse are monitored by Registrar Customer Service personnel and escalated according to severity. Upon escalation, we may take immediate action to protect registry system or the public interest or refer the matter to law enforcement if we suspect criminal activity. In the case of a non-critical complaint, the CRS also provides an amicable complaint resolution and adjudication service conducted by an Ombudsperson hired by the registry service provider. The CRS is a service intended to supplement parties’ existing legal rights to resolve a dispute in a court of law. Any proceeding brought under the CRS will be suspended upon any pleading to a court, decision-making body, or tribunal, and only re-started if directed to do so by one of those bodies.

The Ombudsperson is a neutral third-party specialist with respect to conflict resolution who will provide informal arms-length mediation and adjudication of any complaints of alleged registrant abuses and violations of the AUP. The Ombudsperson shall have the power to direct that a domain name should be cancelled, suspended, transferred, modified or otherwise amended.

If the Ombudsperson takes a decision that a domain name registration should be cancelled, suspended, transferred, modified, or otherwise amended, the Ombudsperson will implement that decision by requesting the Registry to make the necessary changes to the Register. The CRS provides for a right of appeal by registrants if they believe the AUP has been enforced in error. We will comply with the decisions of the Ombudsperson and the Appeal Panel under the direction of the policy officer.

--PROVISIONS OF THE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY--
The AUP defines a set of unacceptable behaviors by domain name registrants in relation to the use of their domain names. It is incorporated by reference into the Registrant Agreement. It defines the acceptable use of second-level domains, and is designed to ensure that the registry is used for appropriate and legal purposes.

The AUP specifically bans, among other practices, the use of a domain name for abusive or illegal activities, including:

 (i) illegal, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive actions or behavior;
 (ii) spamming (the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages, including email spam, instant messaging spam, mobile messaging spam, the spamming of Web sites and Internet forums, and use of email in a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack);
 (iii) phishing (the use of counterfeit Web pages that are designed to trick recipients into divulging sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, or financial data);
 (iv) pharming (the redirecting of unknowing users to fraudulent sites or services, typically through DNS hijacking or poisoning);
 (v) willful distribution of malware (the dissemination of software designed to infiltrate or damage a computer system without the owner’s consent--e.g. computer viruses, worms, keyloggers and Trojan horses);
 (vi) fast-flux hosting (use of fast-flux techniques to disguise the location of Web sites or other Internet services, or to avoid detection and mitigation efforts, or to host illegal activities);
 (vii) botnet command and control (services run on a domain name that are used to control a collection of compromised computers or “zombies,” or to direct DDoS attacks);
 (viii) distribution of obscene material, including but not limited to child pornography, bestiality, excessive violence;
 (ix) illegal or unauthorized access to computer networks or data (illegally accessing computers, accounts, or networks belonging to another party, or attempting to penetrate security measures of another party’s system, often referred to as “hacking,” or any activity that may be used as a precursor to an attempted system penetration, such as port scanning, stealth scanning, probing, surveillance or other information gathering activity);
 (x) deceptive or confusing uses of the domain or any content provided thereon with respect to any third party’s rights;
 (xi) disrupting the registry network or the provision of any content capable of disruption of computer or systems or data networks;
 (xii) providing circumvention technologies, technical information or other data that violates export control laws;
 (xiii) spoofing (forging email network headers or other identifying information); and
 (xiv) distribution of any other illegal or offensive material including hate speech, harassment, defamation, abusive or threatening content, or any other illegal material that violates the legal rights of others including but not limited to rights of privacy or intellectual property protections.

--MALWARE--
The AUP prohibits the use of the second-level domains to spread or install malware. Malware is software that is installed without the knowledge of the end user, or without the full understanding by the user of the software’s effects, which are often deleterious or dangerous. It should be noted that malware cannot be spread by the registration of a domain name. Where applicable, we will adhere to and implement the recommendations of NIST SP 800-83, “Guide to Malware Incident Prevention and Handling.” We have documented polices, processes, and procedures to mitigate operating system and application vulnerabilities that malware might exploit, as explained in further detail in our answers to Question 30: Security and Question 32: Architecture. We will implement a malware awareness program that includes guidance to users on malware incident prevention, detection and how to report suspect infections.

As recommended in NIST Special Publication 800-61, “Computer Security Incident Handling Guide,” we have instituted a robust incident response process to address malware, which has four main phases: preparation, detection and analysis, containment⁄eradication⁄recovery, and post-incident activity. In order to be prepared, we will implement malware-specific incident handling policies and procedures. As part of our detection objective, we will review malware incident data from primary sources and monitor malware advisories and alerts to identify likely impending malware incidents. We understand that we can play a critical role in the containment and eradication process of malware, and we will develop strategies and implement procedures, reflecting the appropriate level of risk, to contain and mitigate malware threats. The policies will clearly define who has the authority to make major containment decisions and under what circumstances various actions are appropriate. We reserve the right in contracts, and will not hesitate to use that right, to shut down or block services, such as email, that are used as vectors by malware producers. We also reserve the right and are prepared to place additional temporary restrictions on network connectivity to contain a malware incident, such as suspending Internet access or physically disconnecting systems from network, even while we recognize the impact such restrictions might have on organizational functions. Our strategy for the recovery phase from malware incidents is to restore the functionality and data of infected systems and to lift temporary containment measures. Our strategy for handling malware incidents in the final phase includes conducting a robust assessment of lessons learned after major malware incidents to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Additionally, we will work with the Anti-Phishing Working Group and other industry leaders, including ICANN working groups on phishing and pharming, to ensure that our practices allow parties to act quickly when a registrant is in violation of the policies. Finally, we reserve the right to immediately terminate any activity deemed, in our sole judgment, to be abusive, in violation of the AUP or related policies, or against the public interest.

--RAPID TAKE-DOWN PROCEDURES--
The AUP and related policies provide for a rapid take-down of abusive domains that are in violation of the policies, including mass domain shutdowns to act against DDoS, phishing abuse, and Botnet exploitation of domain names. Experience has shown that aggressive policy enforcement, combined with user-accessible complaint procedures to shut down obviously abusive names discourages malefactors, who have the option of registering in more loosely administered TLDs, such as .COM or .INFO.

--PROTECTION OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES--
We will enact measures for the protection of country and territory names. The geographical names contained in the lists described in Specification 5 of the registry agreement will be added to the registry software system “prohibited word” function. Any attempt to register a domain containing those geographical names will be automatically denied, as they were similarly blocked in the .INFO TLD. See our answer to Question 22: Protection of Geographic Names for a more complete description of polices to protect geographic names.

--COMMUNITY FLAGGING--
We will use the common practice of community flagging of abusive uses of domains in order to rapidly detect a possible abuse so that a rapid response may be provided, including a rapid take-down of an abusive domain. Community members can easily flag a domain name as potentially abusive by filing notice through the Complaint Resolution Service. The CRS provides a “community flagging” mechanism that allows Internet users to report suspected violations and has proven to be an effective and speedy policy to prevent unwanted behavior. Internet web sites such as Craigslist, OK Cupid and many others use community flagging as their primary means of combating illegal and abusive behavior, and we will implement it in the registry.

--SUSPENDING MULTIPLE DOMAINS FOR FLAGRANT ABUSE--
The Registry reserves the right to suspend all domain names registered to or associated with any user for flagrant or repetitive abuse of any domain name as a means of preventing and curtailing abuse of the systems.

--TRANSFER FEES TO MITIGATE ABUSE--
To create a deterrent to abuse in the registry, we will charge registrants with a processing fee for transferring domains to another registrar or registrant. The transfer processing fee assessed will not be high, but will act as a deterrent by those who register multiple domain names for their schemes.

--QUALIFICATION OF REGISTRANTS--
We will have no general eligibility requirements for registration as pre-qualification of registrations is not applicable to our business model. Validation of Whois information prior to registration has been met with widespread user non-adoption among top-level domains historically. In country-code top-level domains such as .FR (France), .ES (Spain), .PT (Portugal), and .SE (Sweden), pre-validation has been abandoned due to depressed user adoption and criticism from end users and industry businesses, such as web hosting companies, ISPs, and domain name registrars. With few exceptions, major registries validate Whois information after the domain name is delegated, if at all. This reduces cost, which keeps prices down and allows for the near- instant registration of domain names by ordinary registrants.

We will not use pre-delegation validation of registrant data. Our strong policies against abusive registrations, combined with the easy-to-use CRS and active enforcement response, will better balance the needs of consumers and law enforcement or other users of Whois information than pre-verification, and in addition will result in higher customer satisfaction.

We will discourage illegitimate or abusive registrations by pricing our domain names above the price of .COM or .BIZ, which we believe will discourage various forms of noxious behaviors, as cybercriminals typically register large numbers of domains for their schemes and will therefore face a larger cost of doing business if they attempt to use the registry for their schemes. We therefore will price domain names at a wholesale cost higher than existing gTLDs as a way to discourage malicious use of second-level domain names. With fewer illegitimate registrations, we expect that Whois accuracy will be higher.

--IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY--
The Vice-President of Policy will oversee the management and maintenance of all policies and coordinate their implementation with the registry service provider’s CTO and other technical staff and any third-party service provider partners. The VP of Policy will also be responsible for assuring that the policies are complied with by both registrars and registrants. We are committed to providing sufficient resources to ensure full functioning and effective implementation of these policies, as described below.

We will implement all decisions rendered under the URS and UDRP and courts of law in an ongoing and timely manner. We have designated the Vice-President of Policy as the URS Point of Contact (URSPOC) for proceedings brought under the URS against registrations in the Registry. The URSPOC will monitor the receipt of emails from URS providers informing that a URS complaint has passed Administrative Review, and will, on receipt of such an email, immediately arrange to lock the relevant domain name. Resolution services shall not be affected. The USPOC will also monitor emails from URS providers for determinations in URS cases, and will act on them according to their terms. In those cases where the complainant has succeeded in the URS complaint, the domain name status will be moved from “locked” to “suspended”, and will not longer resolve. Where a complainant has been unsuccessful, the domain name will be unlocked, with full control being restored to the registrant. If an appeal is filed, the URSPOC will monitor emails for any change of status resulting from such appeals. The software will designate the status of names during URS proceedings and provide for monitoring to ensure deadlines are met. In order to be able to monitor emails or phone calls and respond quickly, the VPP will be aided by one or more of the Registrar Customer Service representatives.

In the event that the rate of complaints is too high for existing personnel to handle, we will work to automate what can be automated, and hire additional staff as necessary. If a high percentage of complaints are nuisance complaints, or harassing complaints, we may institute a small fee for the Complaint Resolution service in order to prevent capricious use of the service.

Responsibility for maintaining and implementing technical protection mechanisms via the Registry software and hardware rests with the CTO. The CTO will be aided by developers, architect, and technicians in the NOC.

--RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS--
The Vice-President of Policy will oversee the management and maintenance of all the policies and coordinate their implementation with the registry service provider’s CTO and other technical staff and any third-party service provider partners. The VP of Policy, in co-ordination with the Compliance Administrator, will also be responsible for assuring that the policies are complied with by both registrars and registrants. We are committed to providing sufficient resources to ensure full functioning and effective implementation of these policies, as described below.

In the event that the rate of complaints is too high for existing personnel to handle, we will work to automate what can be automated, and hire additional staff as necessary. If a high percentage of complaints are nuisance complaints, or harassing complaints, we may institute a small fee for the Complaint Resolution service in order to prevent capricious use of the service.

Responsibility for maintaining and implementing technical protection mechanisms via the Registry software and hardware rests with the registry service provider’s CTO, who has worked extensively with enforcing Rights Protections in registries through software applications. The CTO will direct the technical team as necessary. The technical team will implement the trademark clearinghouse and sunrise services at the application level, including connecting to the TMCH, and managing the API for sunrise auction tools.

--Resourcing--
The rights protection mechanisms described in the response above involve a wide range of tasks, procedures, and systems. The responsibility for each mechanism varies based on the specific requirements. In general the development of applications such as sunrise and IP claims is the responsibility of the Engineering team, with guidance from the Product Management team. Customer Support and Legal play a critical role in enforcing certain policies such as the rapid suspension process. These teams have years of experience implementing these or similar processes.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:
 - Development⁄Engineering: 19 employees
 - Product Management: 4 employees
 - Customer Support: 12 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the rights protection mechanisms of the .BLOG registry.

30.(a).1 Security Policies

Top Level Domain Holdings, Ltd. and our back-end operator, Neustar recognize the vital need to secure the systems and the integrity of the data in commercial solutions. The .BLOG registry solution will leverage industry-best security practices including the consideration of physical, network, server, and application elements.

Neustarʹs approach to information security starts with comprehensive information security policies. These are based on the industry best practices for security including SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), and CIS (Center for Internet Security). Policies are reviewed annually by Neustarʹs information security team.

The following is a summary of the security policies that will be used in the .BLOG registry, including:

1. Summary of the security policies used in the registry operations

2. Description of independent security assessments

3. Description of security features that are appropriate for .BLOG

4. List of commitments made to registrants regarding security levels

All of the security policies and levels described in this section are appropriate for the .BLOG registry.

30.(a).2 Summary of Security Policies

Neustar has developed a comprehensive Information Security Program in order to create effective administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of its information assets, and to comply with Neustarʹs obligations under applicable law, regulations, and contracts. This Program establishes Neustarʹs policies for accessing, collecting, storing, using, transmitting, and protecting electronic, paper, and other records containing sensitive information.

-The policies for internal users and our clients to ensure the safe, organized and fair use of information resources.

-The rights that can be expected with that use.

-The standards that must be met to effectively comply with policy.

-The responsibilities of the owners, maintainers, and users of Neustarʹs information resources.

-Rules and principles used at Neustar to approach information security issues

The following policies are included in the Program:

1. Acceptable Use Policy

The Acceptable Use Policy provides the ʺrules of behaviorʺ covering all Neustar Associates for using Neustar resources or accessing sensitive information.

2. Information Risk Management Policy

The Information Risk Management Policy describes the requirements for the on-going information security risk management program, including defining roles and responsibilities for conducting and evaluating risk assessments, assessments of technologies used to provide information security and monitoring procedures used to measure policy compliance.

3. Data Protection Policy

The Data Protection Policy provides the requirements for creating, storing, transmitting, disclosing, and disposing of sensitive information, including data classification and labeling requirements, the requirements for data retention. Encryption and related technologies such as digital certificates are also covered under this policy.

4. Third Party Policy

The Third Party Policy provides the requirements for handling service provider contracts, including specifically the vetting process, required contract reviews, and on-going monitoring of service providers for policy compliance.

5. Security Awareness and Training Policy

The Security Awareness and Training Policy provide the requirements for managing the on-going awareness and training program at Neustar. This includes awareness and training activities provided to all Neustar Associates.

6. Incident Response Policy

The Incident Response Policy provides the requirements for reacting to reports of potential security policy violations. This policy defines the necessary steps for identifying and reporting security incidents, remediation of problems, and conducting ʺlessons learnedʺ post-mortem reviews in order to provide feedback on the effectiveness of this Program. Additionally, this policy contains the requirement for reporting data security breaches to the appropriate authorities and to the public, as required by law, contractual requirements, or regulatory bodies.

7. Physical and Environmental Controls Policy

The Physical and Environment Controls Policy provides the requirements for securely storing sensitive information and the supporting information technology equipment and infrastructure. This policy includes details on the storage of paper records as well as access to computer systems and equipment locations by authorized personnel and visitors.

8. Privacy Policy

Neustar supports the right to privacy, including the rights of individuals to control the dissemination and use of personal data that describes them, their personal choices, or life experiences. Neustar supports domestic and international laws and regulations that seek to protect the privacy rights of such individuals.

9. Identity and Access Management Policy

The Identity and Access Management Policy covers user accounts (login ID naming convention, assignment, authoritative source) as well as ID lifecycle (request, approval, creation, use, suspension, deletion, review), including provisions for system⁄application accounts, shared⁄group accounts, guest⁄public accounts, temporary⁄emergency accounts, administrative access, and remote access. This policy also includes the user password policy requirements.

10. Network Security Policy

The Network Security Policy covers aspects of Neustar network infrastructure and the technical controls in place to prevent and detect security policy violations.

11. Platform Security Policy

The Platform Security Policy covers the requirements for configuration management of servers, shared systems, applications, databases, middle-ware, and desktops and laptops owned or operated by Neustar Associates.

12. Mobile Device Security Policy

The Mobile Device Policy covers the requirements specific to mobile devices with information storage or processing capabilities. This policy includes laptop standards, as well as requirements for PDAs, mobile phones, digital cameras and music players, and any other removable device capable of transmitting, processing or storing information.

13. Vulnerability and Threat Management Policy

The Vulnerability and Threat Management Policy provides the requirements for patch management, vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, threat management (modeling and monitoring) and the appropriate ties to the Risk Management Policy.

14. Monitoring and Audit Policy

The Monitoring and Audit Policy covers the details regarding which types of computer events to record, how to maintain the logs, and the roles and responsibilities for how to review, monitor, and respond to log information. This policy also includes the requirements for backup, archival, reporting, forensics use, and retention of audit logs.

15. Project and System Development and Maintenance Policy

The System Development and Maintenance Policy covers the minimum security requirements for all software, application, and system development performed by or on behalf of Neustar and the minimum security requirements for maintaining information systems.

30.(a).3 Independent Assessment Reports

Neustar IT Operations is subject to yearly Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), Statement on Auditing Standards #70 (SAS70) and ISO audits. Testing of controls implemented by Neustar management in the areas of access to programs and data, change management and IT Operations are subject to testing by both internal and external SOX and SAS70 audit groups. Audit Findings are communicated to process owners, Quality Management Group and Executive Management. Actions are taken to make process adjustments where required and remediation of issues is monitored by internal audit and QM groups.

External Penetration Test is conducted by a third party on a yearly basis. As authorized by Neustar, the third party performs an external Penetration Test to review potential security weaknesses of network devices and hosts and demonstrate the impact to the environment. The assessment is conducted remotely from the Internet with testing divided into four phases:

-A network survey is performed in order to gain a better knowledge of the network that was being tested

-Vulnerability scanning is initiated with all the hosts that are discovered in the previous phase

-Identification of key systems for further exploitation is conducted

-Exploitation of the identified systems is attempted.

Each phase of the audit is supported by detailed documentation of audit procedures and results. Identified vulnerabilities are classified as high, medium and low risk to facilitate managementʹs prioritization of remediation efforts. Tactical and strategic recommendations are provided to management supported by reference to industry best practices.

30.(a).4 Augmented Security Levels and Capabilities

There are no increased security levels specific for .BLOG. However, Neustar will provide the same high level of security provided across all of the registries it manages.

A key to Neustarʹs Operational success is Neustarʹs highly structured operations practices. The standards and governance of these processes:

-Include annual independent review of information security practices

-Include annual external penetration tests by a third party

-Conform to the ISO 9001 standard (Part of Neustarʹs ISO-based Quality Management System)

-Are aligned to Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and CoBIT best practices

-Are aligned with all aspects of ISO IEC 17799

-Are in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) requirements (audited annually)

-Are focused on continuous process improvement (metrics driven with product scorecards reviewed monthly).

A summary view to Neustarʹs security policy in alignment with ISO 17799 can be found in section 30.(a).5 below.

30.(a).5 Commitments and Security Levels

The .BLOG registry commits to high security levels that are consistent with the needs of the TLD. These commitments include:

Compliance with High Security Standards

-Security procedures and practices that are in alignment with ISO 17799

-Annual SOC 2 Audits on all critical registry systems

-Annual 3rd Party Penetration Tests

-Annual Sarbanes Oxley Audits

Highly Developed and Document Security Policies

-Compliance with all provisions described in section 30.(b) and in the attached security policy document.

-Resources necessary for providing information security

-Fully documented security policies

-Annual security training for all operations personnel

High Levels of Registry Security

-Multiple redundant data centers

-High Availability Design

-Architecture that includes multiple layers of security

-Diversified firewall and networking hardware vendors

-Multi-factor authentication for accessing registry systems

-Physical security access controls

-A 24x7 manned Network Operations Center that monitors all systems and applications

-A 24x7 manned Security Operations Center that monitors and mitigates DDoS attacks

-DDoS mitigation using traffic scrubbing technologies