Application number: 1-901-9391 for Interlink Co., Ltd.

Interlink Co., Ltd.

Sunshine 60 Bldg. 37th Fl. 3-1-1 Sunshine 60 Bldg. 37th Fl. 3-1-1
Higashi Ikebukuro
Toshima Tokyo 170-6037
JP

+81 3 3983 9422

+81 3 3895 3826

http:⁄⁄www.interlink.or.jp⁄

Mr. Jacob Williams

Senior Consultant, UrbanBrain Company

+81 3 3983 9422

+81 3 3895 3826

applications@urbanbrain.com

Mr. Kosaku Saimon

UrbanBrain Company President

+81 3 3983 9422

+81 3 3895 3826

tld@urbanbrain.com

Incorporated (Corporation)

Japan

Not Available

Satoshi Yamashita
Director
Tadashi Yokoyama
President
Takayuki Tao
Director
Yasuo Noda
Director

Hiroshi Nakajima
Chief Technology Officer
Masahiro Kubo
Chie Financial Officer
Tadashi Yokoyama
President

Satoshi Yamashita
Director
Tadashi Yokoyama
President

osaka

Not Available

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink) foresees no known rendering issues in connection with the applied-for string, “.osaka”. This answer is based upon consultation with Interlink’s backend technical provider, Neustar, which has successfully launched a number of new gTLDs over the last decade. In reaching this determination, the following data points were analyzed:
　• ICANN’s Security Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) entitled Alternative TLD Name Systems and Roots:
　　Conflict, Control and Consequences (SAC009);
　• IAB - RFC3696 “Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names”
　• Known software issues which Neustar has encountered during the last decade launching new gTLDs;
　• Character type and length;
　• ICANN supplemental notes to Question 16; and
　• ICANN’s presentation during its Costa Rica regional meeting held in March 2012 on TLD Universal Acceptance;

Interlink has received the endorsement of the Osaka Prefectural Government for its application to ICANN to operate and manage the “.osaka” top-level domain (TLD). In its proposal to the government authority, Interlink made a sufficiently strong case suggesting that the registry operator for the TLD must offer the highest standards in technical and operational capabilities, and that it is imperative that the operator act as a steward on behalf of the local Internet community to promote the public interest. 

Interlink strongly believes that a TLD for Osaka will play an important function in expanding the Internet, fostering communications, improving commerce, and growing the online communities of Osaka. Furthermore, Interlink is confident that its proposed structure, policies, technical solution, and operational capabilities will enable “.osaka” to become a viable geographic TLD that serves the needs of the Osaka community. 

Over the past few years Interlink has held several discussions with officials from the Osaka Prefectural Government about the potential “.osaka” presents to the Osaka community. In preparation to operate the “.osaka” TLD, Interlink has received a letter of endorsement from the relevant government authority and has received several of letters of support from key organizations within the Osaka community. Interlink has established an office in Osaka and joined several community organizations in order to better serve the Osaka community. (Letters of support can be found as an attachment to Question 20). 

The creation of the “.osaka” namespace is anticipated to facilitate numerous opportunities for development of new business models and methods for engagement among local online communities, individual users, businesses, organizations, and government bodies. The overall aim of “.osaka” is to provide a solid and secure platform for the Osaka community that inspires an environment where the Osaka brand can thrive. Interlink believes the following points are key factors in successfully achieving its mission.

　1. Operating a Safe, Stable, and Secure TLD for the Osaka Community 
　2. Seek Convergence Among Geographic TLDs
　3. Create a Fair and Competitive Market


1. Operate a Safe, Stable TLD for the Osaka Community.

Interlink has closely evaluated existing policies in gTLDs and ccTLDs to determine the success factors in running a safe, stable, and highly secure TLD. In its analysis Interlink drew upon a report compiled by McAfee. The report, Mapping the Mal Web in 2010, shows that Internet criminals choose to register domain names in a TLD based on registration fees, registration regulations, and the overall ease of registration. This makes generic top-level domains and non-regulated, inexpensive country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) prime targets for cyber criminals. (The full report can be located at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.mcafee.com⁄cf⁄about⁄news⁄2010⁄q4⁄20101026-02.aspx).

Both .JP and .CAT were rated as the safest TLDs in the world. According to JPRS, the .JP ccTLD manager, this is due to its strict eligibility requirements. In addition, Interlink believes that .JPs higher price point, compared with other ccTLDs, is another factor that deters abusive registrations. 

During its analysis, Interlink found that proper implementation of registry policies is also a key factor in enabling a secure, community driven TLD. Interlink believes that the creation of a Nexus Requirement and promoting strict adherence to such a policy will play a key role in maintaining the stability of the operation as well as the utility it provides to the Osaka community. The Nexus Requirement is described in part B. 

Finally, another key factor in running a safe TLD deals with the infrastructure the registry system is operated on. Interlink selected Neustar as the technical provider for “.osaka” based on the company’s strong 13-year track record of providing solutions for demanding global businesses as well as its proven ability to run registry operations. With Neustar running the technical infrastructure, the Osaka community can be fully confident that when users access names under “.osaka” they will be accessing a safe, stable, and secure namespace.

The foundation of running a registry operation from a technical aspect should be grounded in long-term industry best practices using proven infrastructure and registry software. The “.osaka” TLD will stand for stability and longevity with a mission to serve the community of Osaka residents, individuals, businesses, organizations, and government bodies who choose to build an identity under the ʺ.osakaʺ brand.


2. Seek Convergence Among Geographic TLDs

Interlink anticipates that many geographic TLDs will be applied for in the first round of new gTLD applications. While the launch of geographic TLDs present many benefits to Internet users, Interlink believes that these benefits can only be fully achieved by overcoming several major challenges in the implementation stage, prior to launch. 

In Japan alone, it appears that there will be applications for heavily populated areas such as Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama, Kyoto, and less populous areas like Okinawa. Interlink believes that in serving the Osaka community it also has a duty to serve the entire Japanese Internet community. Therefore, Interlink proposes that it is necessary to implement important similarities related to the structure of certain key names across geographic TLDs. This is especially true in Japan due to the close proximity of major cities and the propensity for community members to move in and out of certain areas. 

Interlink is a strong advocate of the creation of a geographic TLD group within the ICANN community, and believes that such a group will provide invaluable information to help geographic TLD mangers better serve their communities. Interlink’s staff has previously participated in a similar working group in 2008 and 2009 and actively endorsed a petition to start a geographic (city) TLD constituency. 

Interlink will continue to seek to achieve convergence with other geographic TLDs in Japan to ensure user confusion is minimized, thereby enabling Japan to have a strong network of geographic TLDs that work in tandem for the benefit of the public.


3. Create a Fair and Competitive Market

Interlink envisions managing the “.osaka” TLD in a manner that strongly serves the public interest of the community. Interlink proposes the implementation of advisory committee to oversee registry operations and ensure that policies and regulations meet the needs of the community. Additional details regarding Osaka’s community structure and the advisory committee can be found in response to Question 20.

Interlink proposes that customers who wish to register a domain name will directly deal with ICANN accredited registrars who have signed an agreement to sell “.osaka” names. Interlink will develop fair and non-discriminatory criteria for qualification to become a registrar. Some qualifications to become a registrar may include, but are not limited to, having a local presence (having an office in Osaka), provision of services in Japanese, and the passing of operational testing. 

All registrars will be required execute an agreement with the registry operator and abide by its terms. Additionally, Interlink is committed to fully complying with the Registry Operator Code of Conduct as described in Specification 9 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. 

ICANN has determined that the opening of the new gTLD program is unified with its mission to increase competition and innovation in the namespace. Interlink proposes that “.osaka” will play a vital role in expanding online communities in Osaka as well as promoting the Osaka brand. One of Interlink’s overall goals is to ensure that the ʺ.osakaʺ top-level domain becomes a trusted, secure, and stable operation that benefits the Osaka community as described in the response to Question 18A. Running an operation that achieves this goal will allow Internet users in the Osaka community to take advantage of the benefits a geographic TLD can offer.

For example, “.osaka” will enable users to derive high value from easily identifiable websites for sharing information, collaborating in local communities and forums, promoting goods and services, and other innovative platforms. Names under the “.osaka” top-level will become the standard for finding local, relevant content. As local search and location based services become more and more prevalent “.osaka” will help usher in a new era of user behavior on the web in terms of finding goods, services, and relevant content aimed at the community.

The Osaka brand will benefit substantially by having its own specialized top-level domain name. Each time an Internet user searches for travel or sightseeing information about Osaka, the user will find a trusted “.osaka” domain name to guide them to the most relevant websites. As usage grows within the TLD, the Osaka brand will experience greater reinforcement locally, within Japan, as well as on an international scale. 

In order to accomplish the goals of maintaining a strong platform for building strong branding opportunities, Interlink has been developing policies that will ensure that the name is used appropriately, and as part of its policies, intends to implement a Nexus Requirement for registrants in the “osaka” TLD. The Nexus Requirement is expected to minimize purely speculative registrations from non-community members and will prove to be a key in creating a highly useful, community-centered geographic top-level domain. 

Interlink will run the “.osaka” TLD using a “community-first” philosophy as described in response to Question 20. The creative and structured implementation of the TLD in tandem with a community structure that works in the public interest will help build “.osaka” into a preferred platform among Osaka Internet users. As more and more governments move toward providing online services for citizens, the Osaka Government will have access to a new and intuitive platform for providing unrivaled online services for its citizens. Furthermore, citizens will be able to leverage the platform to find local information more easily, and visitors to Osaka will have the luxury of having the entire digital world of Osaka at their fingertips.


i. What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of specialty, service levels, or reputation?

The “.osaka” top-level domain will be a safe and secure TLD for all Internet users connected to Osaka. By implementing a Nexus Requirement and enforcing registry policy and eligibility requirements, the TLD will be driven by the Osaka community. In planning for the “.osaka” top-level domain, Interlink proposes that it is important to build a roadmap and ensure that key names are allocated to users with the highest likelihood to maintain ongoing operations of those names in a consistent matter. Interlink will work with the Osaka Prefectural Government as well as the Osaka community in a highly transparent manner to map out a well-organized namespace that breeds trust among its users.

According to research and analysis that Interlink performed in building its business case for Osaka, it is not uncommon for generic or “open” TLDs to contain a lot of so-called “junk sites.” As referenced in the response to Question 18A, relatively low price points and lack of clear rules creates an atmosphere for cyber criminals, squatters, and speculators. Interlink will work with the community to ensure that the TLD specializes in being a utility for the Osaka community.

Interlink has teamed up with Neustar, a world-class registry services provider and Iron Mountain, the industry’s most trusted Registry Data Escrow provider in order to provide high service levels, and build and maintain a reputation as a safe and secure TLD. These providers are highly reputable, and together with their high quality services, Interlink can be confident that “.osaka” meets or exceeds all service level requirements. Teaming up with the best in the business allows Interlink to more fully focus its resources on building a sound structure that benefits the entire Osaka community. 


ii. What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space, in terms of competition, differentiation, or innovation?

The “.osaka” TLD is designed to serve the Osaka community. Out of the current 22 gTLDs in use on the Internet today, there are only two TLDs that have a similar purpose; .CAT and .ASIA, both of which have strict policy enforcement policies and have been successful in their respective communities. Likewise, the aim of “.osaka” is to help build a community-driven namespace that benefits Internet users. Interlink is committed to producing a high quality namespace over creating a registration volume-centered registry, which is reflected in Interlinkʹs business case presented in response to Questions 45-50. 

The current geographic naming scheme in the .JP zone is overly complex; consisting of four distinct labels. For example, individual users can currently register a name such as ʺUSER.taisho.osaka.jpʺ. The manager of the JP zone, Japan Registry Services (JPRS) has worked to remedy this problem and is currently planning to launch third-level geographic names as part of its offering under the .JP zone. Thus, registrants will be able to own names such as ʺUSER.osaka.jpʺ. It is anticipated that these names will be introduced to the public in the first quarter of 2012.

While this new program may be good for smaller cities and⁄or prefectures, these names are less intuitive for the average Internet user. A name directly under the “.osaka” top-level is intuitive, easy to remember, and will surely become the default name for users seeking information related to Osaka. A TLD for Osaka will allow registrants to connect with targeted audiences as well as be part of a new movement to grow online communities.

Interlink has a solid relationship with JPRS and intends to work together to ensure that minimal consumer confusion occurs with the introduction of “.osaka”.


iii. What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience?

Interlink has carefully considered various factors that will likely play a role in creating a successful TLD and a great user experience for the Osaka Community. In its research Interlink identified that the structure of the TLD before its launch is important to its long-term success. 

The structure of “.osaka” will enable the community to proactively participate in programs to strengthen online communications and services, as well as other programs that will benefit the community. Interlink intends to implement a launch schedule that includes a timeframe for a founders program. 

The founders program will be announced in the early stages after the delegation of the TLD in order to appeal to the community. Interlink plans to allocate a strong set of base registrations in the zone that are fully operational and contain useful content prior to the public launch of the TLD. These base registrations will be intricately planned with the assistance of government planning authorities, and the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee. Having a base of active registrations upon launch will enable users enjoy instant access to the relevant local information. 

Interlink has worked closely with its backend provider, Neustar, devise a viable plan to launch a successful registry which works to achieve Interlink’s intended goals as described in Question 18A. Several factors were taken into account and have been implemented in Interlinkʹs business approach as described in Questions 45-50.


iv. Provide a complete description of the applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals listed above.

Registration policies are a very important step in building up to a successful launch. Interlink has spend a considerable amount of time researching existing registry polices and believes that the construction and implementation of policies requires careful planning that will ultimately assist the registry in accomplishing its goals. 

The primary objective of the launch policies and inclusion of a Nexus Requirement in the “.osaka” TLD is to maximize the user experience and utility for the Osaka community while minimizing any social costs. Interlink proposes the implementation of the following registration policies for “.osaka”: 

　1. Osaka Domain Name Eligibility Requirements
　2. Acceptable Use Policy
　3. Reserved Names
　4. Founders Program
　5. Sunrise Period
　6. Landrush Period
　7. ICANN Consensus Policies and Rights Protection Mechanisms


1. Osaka Domain Name Eligibility Requirements

The Osaka Domain Eligibility Requirements policy defines who or what entities can register a domain name, the types of names that may be registered, as well as the technical requirements for allowable labels in the “.osaka” top-level domain.

1a Eligible Registrants

All registrants will be required to abide by a Nexus Requirement. The Nexus Requirement will require registrants to be in compliance with the registration agreement and the Nexus Requirement at all times. The Registry will conduct scans of registration request information from time to time in order to ensure compliance with the registration requirements. Any failure of a registration request to satisfy the Nexus Requirement will result in the name being placed on a hold for an initial period of at least 30 days. The sponsoring registrar will be notified of such a hold and be given the opportunity to correct any information. If the registrant does not comply during the hold time frame, the domain name may be subject to deletion. Additional details about registration requirements can also be found in answer to Question 20C. 

1b Eligible Domain Names

 An acceptable domain name that is valid for registration is one that:

　• has not already been registered
　• has not been blocked or reserved
　• meets the technical requirements
　• does not construe an abusive or obscene meaning in Japanese
　• does not construe an abusive or obscene meaning in English or other languages

2b. Technical Requirements

The standard technical requirements of the domain name are described below:

　• Labels containing the letters a - z in the standard US ASCII character set. 
　　Domain names may include the numbers 0 (zero) through 9 (nine) as well as a hyphen. (-).
　• The string my not begin with a hyphen (-)
　• The string my not contain a hyphen in both the third and forth positions unless it is a 
　　valid Internationalized Domain Name (in their ASCII encoding)
　• The string may be a maximum of 63 characters in length


2. Acceptable Use Policy

The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is one of central policies of the “.osaka” registry and will be implemented to ensure that the registry maintains the rights to protect the integrity of its registry and achieve its goal of maintaining a safe and stable operation for the community. The policy further describes the process for applying for and registering, renewing, and transferring a domain name in the “.osaka” zone as well as any restrictions, and how the registry can enforce its policies. (The AUP is more fully described in the response to Question 28).


3. Reserved names

The registry will reserve names as required by the new gTLD Registry Agreement. These names will include:

　• The label ʺEXAMPLEʺ as required by ICANN
　• All two character labels will be initially reserved. Provisions for the release of these names 
　　is further described in relation to question 22: Protection of Geographic Names.
　• Tagged domain names (labels with a hyphen (ʺ-ʺ) in the third or fourth positions will 
　　only be allowed if they represent a valid internationalized domain name (IDN) in their ASCII encoding.
　• Second level names for registry operations, defined by ICANN as: NIC, WWW, IRIS, and WHOIS.
　• Country and territory names listed the following internationally recognized lists will be initially reserved:
　　　1. the ISO 3166-1 list including the short form and long form English versions,
　　　2. 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
　　　3. The list of United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages prepared by the 
　　　　 Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names

The registry plans to create a list of reserved names based on its work with the community and local governments to ensure that names that serve the public interest are allocated in the most efficient and beneficial way. 


4. Founders Program

Interlink is dedicated to the long-term expansion and development of the “.osaka” top-level domain and plans to implement a founders program to encourage usage of the TLD. 

Interlink is currently in the process of selecting names (singular names and groups of names) to be part of the Osaka Domain Name Allocation Program. Interlink will take necessary steps to ensure that generic terms or trademarked terms are not included. Interlink will work with the Osaka government as well as the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee to produce a list of names that will maximize public utility. Additional details regarding the implementation a founders program can be found in response to Question 20C. 


5. Sunrise Period

Interlink is committed to implementing methods of rights protection in accordance with Specification 7 of the ICANN gTLD Agreement. As part of its compliance with this criteria, Interlink will offer a Sunrise period for a minimum of 30 days to allow trademark holders the opportunity to secure trademarked names under the “.osaka” TLD before the public launch. Interlink will employ the Trademark clearinghouse for this phase and will utilize the Trademark Notification Service for the life of the registry (A full description of the registry’s compliance with specification 7 can be found in response to Question 29.)

At the time of application submission during the sunrise phase, requested domains are checked against registrations in the ICANN-mandated Trademark Clearing House (TMCH). (As of the submission date of this application the Trademark Clearinghouse is still in the early stages of development and the protocol is not yet known.)


6. Landrush Period

Interlink will offer a landrush period in which any interested party will be permitted to submit one or more applications to purchase high value domains at reasonable costs. Only domain names that have not been reserved, restricted, registered and follow all registration rules and policies will be available during this launch period. Applications in the landrush period will be accepted throughout the period and will be considered as accepted at the same time.

At the end of the landrush period domain names for applications that do not have any competing applications will be approved and the domain name will be allocated to the registrant. Applications for domain names having one or more competing applications will be auctioned at prescribed date and time. 

7. ICANN Consensus Policies and Proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms

Interlink is aware of, and understands, all current ICANN consensus policies listed at http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄general⁄consensus-policies.htm. As the registry operator for “.osaka”, Interlink will ensure continuing compliance with all existing and future consensus policies.

Interlink understands that “.osaka” will be an important public resource for the Osaka community and has committed to ensuring that all rights holders have adequate protections for their intellectual property assets under the “.osaka” TLD and therefore, Interlink will implement all mandated rights protection mechanism as described below in Part C. 


v. Will your proposed gTLD impose any measures for protecting the privacy or confidential information of registrants or users? If so, please describe any such measures.

All registrant data as required by the WHOIS policy and ICANN standards will be publicly available where the registrant does not use privacy registration services at their registrar of choice. Registrars will be responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the payment information used in conjunction with a domain name registration.

The Registry operator will notify each ICANN-accredited registrar of their requirement to adhere to specific consensus policies. Additionally Interlink is aware of the current work being done to analyze the current WHOIS model as well as the movement to improve it. Interlink’s partners are involved deeply in the ICANN community and Interlink commits to implementing any and all new procedures as approved by ICANN.


vi. Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits.

Interlink will promote a strategy for creating a strong brand, consumer awareness, sales, and use of the TLD by influential companies and people. While still under development, Interlink intends to:

　1. Create stronger awareness of domain names and the “.osaka” TLD
　2. Work with local registrars in marketing programs to grow the TLD.
　3. Strengthen the brand by promoting the usage of names by companies and influential community members

The first phase of the communications and outreach program will primarily be web-based with focus on engaging with the Osaka community through online social activities. This phase will last throughout the application evaluation process.
 
Interlink plans to gain the attention of Internet users by integrating Osakaʹs top companies in its communications strategies. The communications for the Founders Program will occur months before public launch, to gain awareness and convey the requirements to companies, and other organizations. The idea is to gain enough traction in the community to announce the public launch phase of the registry that already has useful registrations and websites already up and running. Interlink is confident that a strong base of active registrations at the public launch will help boost user confidence and awareness of the “.osaka” TLD.

The third phase in the communications plan will be to create awareness of the names registered under the founders program as they go live. This will help the registry build momentum as it progresses towards the public launch.

Interlink believes that a focused marketing strategy within the community will help the “.osaka” TLD become the center of the online community in Osaka. 

Interlink has constructed a sound financial plan that correlates with marketing and operational plans to reach its goal of running a financially fit operation and ensure profitability within 5 years of operation. 

Interlink believes having a strong financial plan is key to minimizing social costs. Interlink has committed to putting in place a financial instrument to ensure continued operations for three years in order to better protect its users. Interlink has fully issued a letter of credit that allows for fluctuations in registration volumes that exceed its projections. In addition, Interlink has deposited an equal amount into a separate account to further show its commitment in protecting registrants from a failed registry. 

Interlink fully expects to be able to provide customers with top-notch services though its registrars. With the synergy created by working together with its registrar partners Interlink is certain to that “.osaka” will become an innovative domain name space that benefits the Osaka community. 

According to the most recent JPRS Registry Report, for 12⁄31⁄2010 (last accessed Feb.2011), approximately 9.6% of all organizational⁄geographic names in the .JP zone originate in Osaka. Furthermore domain name registrants are responsible for 13% of general use ASCII names and 4.8% of IDN names registered in the .JP ccTLD. This is second to only Tokyo. (See http:⁄⁄jprs.co.jp⁄doc⁄report⁄registry-report-2010-e.pdf for the full report).

Based on information gathered by Interlink, the “.osaka” domain market is viable and Interlink as based its financial planning to support the TLD in a conservative matter. Addition details regarding Interlinks market projections and financial planning can be found in response to Questions 45 through 50 of this application.


Protection of Rights

Numerous parties have expressed concerns over the introduction of the new gTLD program with the belief that new TLDs could harm consumer welfare due to consumer confusion. Trademark holders have also brought up the issue of new TLDs imposing additional costs due to the necessity of participating in “defensive” registrations.

Interlink believes these concerns will be sufficiently addressed by its full implementation of ICANN’s new Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) and rules for new TLDs. Listed below is each policy that Interlink will implement, followed by a brief description, to minimize social costs:

　1. Trademark Clearinghouse
　2. Sunrise and Trademark Claims Process
　3. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
　4. Uniform Rapid Suspension URS
　5. Other Rights Protection Mechanisms


1. Trademark Clearinghouse

The trademark clearinghouse is a mandatory RPM that has been developed in order to serve as a central repository for information to facilitate other RPMs such as the Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims process. Though this RPM is still under development, Interlink’s partners, including its back-end registry services provider, Neustar, are actively playing a role on the IAG to ensure that protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable. Further information regarding the implementation of this mechanism can be found in reference to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms.


2. Sunrise and Trademark Claims Process

The Sunrise Period is a mandatory launch phase that a registry is required to implement for a minimum of 30 days. Interlink’s back-end registry service provider, Neustar, has extensive experience in implementing sunrise registration periods, most recently under the .CO TLD. 

The Trademark Claims process is tied into both the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Sunrise Period and is also a mandatory RPM that is intended to provide ʺclear noticeʺ to a potential registrant(s) if he⁄she attempts to secure a domain name that matches a trademark that is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse. Though only required by ICANN to implement for 60 days during open registrations, Interlink believes that implementing the service over the life of the registry will prove to be an effective tool in reducing the number of bad-faith registrations and other cases of abuse in the “.osaka” TLD. Interlink’s back-end provider, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service with the launch of the .BIZ TLD in 2001 and Interlink plans to work closely with Neustar to ensure the service is run smoothly.

The sunrise implementation process is described in more detail above, and in response to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms. More information about the implementation of the Trademark Claims process can be found in answer to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms.


3. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)

The UDRP is an ICANN Consensus Policy instituted by ICANN in 1998. The UDRP provides trademark holders an alternative method to resolve domain name disputes. Interlink will monitor UDPR decisions regarding domains in the “.osaka” TLD and take the necessary steps to ensure that decisions rendered by ICANN approved service providers, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), are correctly implemented by its registrars. In the event that the registry is notified by a trademark owner that a registrar failed to implement a decision Interlink will investigate the claim and take action by either notifying the registrar of its obligations or by proactively implementing the decision itself.


4. Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

During the planning and policy discussion that took place in the past few years regarding the New gTLD Program, trademark owners identified that the UDRP may not be the most cost effective means to protect trademark owners marks when there are hundreds of new TLDs in operation. Furthermore, the majority of UDRP cases were clearly cases of cybersquatting, however, the UDRP did not produce immediate results. The URS is the result of many discussions with rights holders and offers a more cost effective and speedy mechanism for trademark owners to enforce their rights.

The URS requires a greater deal of participation from the registry than the UDRP and Interlink is fully aware of the requirements involved in the URS. 
According to the current draft procedures, Interlink will lock the name within 24 hours or receipt of the complaint from the URS provider in order to ensure the name is not transferred or deleted and to restrict all changes to the registration data. The name will continue to resolve as normal at this point.

Once a determination has been made, and the URS provider has received notification of such a decision, Interlink will act accordingly to implement the determination. Therefore, in the event of a decision for the complainant (trademark owner), Interlink will immediately suspend the name in accordance with the policy, which is currently for the balance of the registration period. Additionally, the name will no longer be allowed to resolve to the original website, thus the registry will change the nameservers to redirect to an informational page provided by the URS provider.

Finally, Interlink will take steps to ensure that the WHOIS information appropriately reflects the current status of the domain name. In doing so, Interlink will leave all the original registration data, except for the nameservers, in place, and clearly reflect that the domain name cannot be transferred, deleted, or modified for the remainder of the registration period.

The current draft policy states that there shall be an option for a successful complainant to the extent the registration period for one additional year at commercial rates.

Additional details regarding the implementation of the URS can be found in response to Question 29: Rights Protection Mechanisms


5. Other Rights Protection Mechanisms

Interlink will fully comply with the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) adopted by ICANN as described in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook and Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement and other rights mechanisms approved and implemented by ICANN. 


i. How will multiple applications for a particular domain name be resolved?

Multiple applications for names under the Founders Program will be handled by objectively reviewing the application against the criteria set forth in the RFP. At which time, the Registry shall make a final selection based on how well each applicant fulfilled the evaluation criteria.

Multiple applications for the same domain name in both the Sunrise and Landrush will respectively be resolved by an auction as described in section (iv) related to domain registration policies. The use of an auction to allocate names with multiple legitimate applications will benefit sunrise applicants because they will not have to rush in order to be the first to submit such an application. This also reduces the load to the systems as in past first-come, first-served launches, applicants have been known to place registration requests with several other registrars in order to optimize their chances of being the first in line.

Settling competing applications though an auction mechanism is more desirable than a first-come, first-served method. This is due to a number of factors; for example, sunrise applicants (trademark holders) should not have to rush to submit an application for a domain name. If an applicant is forced to try to be first in line, the applicant is likely to submit a registration request through multiple registrars. This causes a sub-optimal use of energy on behalf of the applicant, and causes unnecessary work on behalf of the registrars and registry. Another important factor in Interlink’s decision to settle competing applications through an auction mechanism is due to the assumption that the highest bidder has more desire for the name, therefore, the winning applicant is likely provide more utility to Internet users.


ii. Explain any cost benefits for registrants you intend to implement.

The registry will allow local governments of protected geographic names (both local and international) the ability to register their names during a period of no less than a year. This will ensure that they have first rights to register their names for a minimal cost from an ICANN accredited registrar rather than have to dabble in the speculative markets.

As stated above, the registry will handle competing applications in the Sunrise and Landrush periods by implementing an auction mechanism. The auction mechanism is a fair way to solve the issue of competing applications. A traditional first-come first served mechanism will create more load for registrars as one prospective registrant may choose to place the same application for a domain name through several registrars. Additional issues with the first-come, first-served model in that there may be disputes of which registrar’s connection hits the registry first for a certain name.

An auction at the early stages of a registry will benefit registrants by allowing them to purchase the domain name for much less that the cost that they would incur in the domain aftermarket. Furthermore, an auction will allow the users to place a value on the domain name. It can be assumed that the bidder who places the higher bid places a higher value on the domain name, and therefore will be more likely to develop the domain name to be beneficial for Internet users.


iii. Do you intend to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price escalation?

As stated in draft Registry Agreement in the New gTLD Applicant guidebook, the “.osaka” registry will commit to only adjusting prices based on market conditions and staying consistent with the current inflation rate. The issue of price increases will be adequately reviewed on a biannual basis. Interlink will provide advanced written notice regarding any price adjustments in accordance with the new gTLD Registry Agreement.

Yes

Interlink Co., Ltd., is submitting its application for the “.osaka” top-level domain as a Community TLD application for the Osaka Community as required by the Osaka Prefectural Government. Interlink received an endorsement letter from the Osaka Prefectural Government on February 21, 2012 based on the successful evaluation of its comprehensive proposal to create a namespace dedicated to serve the Osaka community. In its proposal, Interlink made a strong case for the selection of a registry operator capable of running a TLD with the highest technical standards. In addition, Interlink conveyed the importance of selecting a registry operator that is able to act as a steward on behalf of the Osaka community.
The “.osaka” TLD will be established to serve the needs of the Osaka Community, hereafter referred to as the “community”. The following is a description of the community in which Interlink intends to serve.
Description and Formation of the Osaka Community
The Osaka community has been in existence for thousands of years, and is known as Japan’s oldest capital. Osaka has been an economic and cultural center of the Japan for over a long span of time, though formally, the geographic area that defines the community, Osaka Prefecture, was formally established in 1868. Osaka’s culture is grounded in its long history of being a center for traditional performing arts known as the ʺkamigata culture”. The community enjoys festivals and other customs that have been passed on from generation to generation.
The community is best defined by its geographic boundaries. The Osaka Prefecture is currently the 3rd most populous area in Japan with a community of over 8.8 million people. Most community members speak the Osaka dialect of Japanese called known as “Osaka-ben” and have a distinct language style compared to other parts of Japan. Additional details regarding the history and culture of Osaka can be found that the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.pref.osaka.jp⁄en⁄introduction⁄index.html
Community Structure
As described above, the Osaka Community is largely defined by its prefectural borders and has a total population in excess of 8.8 million living in approximately 50 cities, towns, and villages. The capital city, Osaka city, and is a major city in the Kansai region and the largest city in the Osaka prefecture. The Osaka Prefectural government is the authoritative entity that has issued support to implement the “.osaka” name for the benefit of the entire Osaka community.
Currently, there is a movement to drastically reform geographic borders with in Osaka. The Mayor of Osaka City (the former Governor of the Osaka Prefecture) and the current Governor of the Osaka Prefecture are leading a political party known as the Osaka Restoration Association (In Japanese: 大阪維新の会), which is behind the movement known as the “Osaka Metropolitan Movement.” This movement is aimed combining 24 districts in Osaka city, 7 districts in Sakai city and 9 other cities to form a new Osaka Metropolis. The new metropolis will then be divided into 20 new districts. The unification of Osaka City and Osaka Prefecture will bring administrative efficiency to local government institutions thereby facilitating the provision of higher quality services to the Osaka community. Interlink believes that the “.osaka” TLD will be prove to be a vital tool for the community during the restructuring and re-branding of Osaka to help create a more unified community. Additional details about the Osaka Restoration Association can be found at the following URL: http:⁄⁄oneosaka.jp⁄
The establishment of the “.osaka” TLD will allow members of the community to effectively express themselves in their own online space.
Delineation of the Osaka Community
Members of the community are defined as those who are within the Osaka geographical area as well as those who self identify as having a tie to Osaka, or the culture of Osaka.
Major participants of the community include, but are not limited to the following:
　• Legal entities
　• Citizens
　• Governments and public sectors
　• Entities, including natural persons who have a legitimate purpose in addressing the community.
Structure and Constituency Parts
Interlink proposes the implementation of advisory committee to oversee registry operations in the “.osaka” TLD. The advisory will be called the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee and will be part of a transparent structure in the management of “.osaka”. The role of the committee will be to ensure that policies and regulations meet the needs of the community, and established policies are enforced. Currently there are three constituent parts to the advisory committee; a Government Constituency, a Business Constituency, and a User⁄Non-Profit Constituency.
The Osaka Prefectural Government has provided an endorsement to Interlink for the provision of registry services under the “.osaka” TLD in order to the benefit of the Osaka community. Interlink is confident that its policies will be inclusive of the entire Osaka community and will be key in building a foundation to strengthen online communications within the community. As outlined in the attached endorsement letter, the government and Interlink will enter into a separate agreement pending the results of the new gTLD application evaluation period. Below is a brief description of the proposed constituency parts.
Government Constituency
The Government Constituency representative member(s) will be appointed by the Osaka government (pending final negotiations of Interlink’s contract with the government after the delegation of the TLD).
Business Constituency
The Business Constituency will be open to all businesses and associations that have a presence within the Osaka community.
User⁄Non-Profit Constituency
The User and Non-Profit Constituency will be open to any individuals, non-profit organizations and educational institutions that have a presence within the Osaka community
Interlink has began laying the foundation for the implementation of “.osaka” in a manner that fully supports and benefits the entire Osaka community. In its preparations for applying and managing the “.osaka” TLD, Interlink has taken the following steps:
　• submitted a proposal to the Osaka Prefectural Government, which was well received, and given subsequent approval;
　• developed policies and a comprehensive plan that benefits the community;
　• set up a physical presence in Osaka (which can be seen on Interlinkʹs business registration certificate);
　• presented its plan to key members of the Osaka community to gain additional support.
Interlink’s plan for “.osaka” was very well received by community members as evidenced by the additional support and endorsements provided by the following entities:
New Business Conference Kansai（社団法人関西ニュービジネス協議会）- Established in 1987 with the support of Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Osaka Prefectural Government, City of Osaka, Osaka Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and others. Currently consists of 200 local companies and organizations from various industries. Relevant URL: http:⁄⁄www.nb-net.or.jp⁄
Manufacturing Technology Association (社団法人生産技術振興協会) - Established in 1949 in collaboration with Osaka University and Local Industrial Companies to promote the development of Industrial Technology through the research of innovation in Science and Technology. Relevant URL: http:⁄⁄www6.ocn.ne.jp⁄~seisan⁄
Association of Encouraging Osaka（特定非営利活動法人大阪を元気にする会）- A non-profit organization established in November 2011 by Yusuke Saraya (Chairman of the Business Leaders group in the Osaka Restoration Association.) URL: http:⁄⁄www.sankeibiz.jp⁄macro⁄news⁄120318⁄mca1203180701000-n1.htm
Machizukuri-net Kumatori (NPO法人まちづくりネット熊取) - A non-profit organization based in Osaka whose mission is help move Osaka towards being a biotope city. URL: http:⁄⁄kumatori.osakazine.net⁄

Interlink is enthusiastic about the prospect “.osaka” presents for the Osaka Community and believes that a community structure for the TLD will maximize the benefits to Internet users in the community. Since the announcement of the new gTLD program, Interlink has engaged the Osaka Prefectural Government in discussions about the potential of a community driven TLD. The Government shares the vision of a community TLD for Osaka and has provided Interlink with the requisite support for its application and has clearly stated its intention for the TLD to be applied for and operated as a community TLD.
Interlink is committed to implementing “.osaka” in a manner that benefits the interest of the community and has taken some important steps to ensure that community stakeholders are involved in the finalization of policies and launch plans for the “.osaka” TLD.
As part of the Osaka community, Interlink will act as the Registry Operator for the “.osaka” TLD through its Osaka branch office registered in Kyobashi, Osaka. Interlink has began proactively laying the foundation for the establishment of a transparent accountability mechanism that ensures Interlinks accountability to the community for its actions in managing and operating the TLD. The accountability mechanisms are further described below.
Interlink’s plan to operate the TLD has been well received by the Osaka Government and by key members of the Osaka community as described in Part A above.
Accountability Mechanisms
Interlink has been working with community members in order to develop an strong accountability structure and had determined that the implementation of an overseeing committee within its structure will play a very positive role in accomplishing the overall mission of the “.osaka” TLD as described in detail in response to Question 18.
The overseeing committee will be known as the “Osaka Domain Advisory Committee,” and will play a crucial role in ensuring the “.osaka” domain is operated in a manner that maximizes the benefits and public interest of the Osaka Community. Interlink has earned the support from several community organizations, and is making a continual effort to increase awareness of its application.
The Osaka Domain Advisory Committee will be a transparent organization that includes a wide range of members as described above in Part A. As Interlink’s application moves forward in the New gTLD application process it anticipates that participation in this community will broaden and after the delegation of the TLD Interlink will publish an open call for participation in policy development and launch procedures. Information regarding the “.osaka” TLD as well as the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee will be available on the following website: http:⁄⁄dotosaka.jp.
As part of being accountable to the community and ensuring that the community reaps the benefits of “.osaka”, Interlink has committed to providing donations to the community from revenues derived from operations. This is further described below in answer to Part C. In addition, Interlink is committed to:
　• Abide by its contract with the Osaka Government (to be completed upon delegation of the TLD)
　• Maintain separate books of account specifically for “.osaka”
　• Transparency in its financial dealing with regards to “.osaka”
Interlink will operate “.osaka” registry from its Osaka office, and will maintain separate books of account from its other business with regards to the operation of “.osaka”. and will publish financial information to make sure that not only Osaka Domain Advisory Committee, but also each one of Osaka Community members will be able to audit our activities.
After recovering the accumulative loss from the initial investment in starting operations for “.osaka”, Interlink is committed to donating 50% of its net-profit after tax for the benefit of the community. The fund will be spent for social benefit of Osaka community such as the supporting of local Internet-related events and policing of the “.Osaka” name space etc. Osaka Domain Advisory Committee, which will be consisted by the representatives of the local communities, will decide the allocation of the donation to make sure that the donation will not be made by Interlink’s sole discretion, but with the consent of entire community.

Interlink is confident that the creation of the “.osaka” namespace will create new and exciting opportunities for the development of new business models and methods for engagement among local online communities such as individual users, businesses, organizations, and government bodies. Interlink believes that a community-centered TLD will maximize the potential benefits from a “.osaka” TLD. In its proposal to the Osaka Prefectural Government, Interlink clearly showed its desire to operate “.osaka” on behalf of the community and received a letter of support to do so.
As described in above in Part A, the “.osaka” TLD will be established to serve the needs of the Osaka Community and further extend community engagement online. Osaka has a population of approximately 8.8 million people, and Interlink expects to be able to engage is a comprehensive communication strategy to help more of the community participate in online communities. The intended registrants, without being exhaustive are:
　• Osaka municipalities and local governments
　• Public and private institutions in Osaka
　• Organizations, companies, and other businesses in Osaka
　• Residents of Osaka
　• Others community members who have a legitimate purpose for registering and using a “.osaka” domain
The intended end-users for “.osaka” include the entire Osaka Community and those seeking information about Osaka. In collaboration with the government and the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee, users will be able to create a more intuitive online presence and participate in online communities on a much larger scale.
Interlink will play an active role in the Osaka community though engagement in activities that strengthen the use of the Internet and technology. As described above in response to Part B, Interlink is committed to making contributions from registration revenues to be specifically allocated for programs to help benefit the Osaka community. It is anticipated that the funds will help in supporting of local Internet-related events, socio-technological initiatives, advancement of technology in education, community building events, research and development efforts that benefit the community, and similar activities that benefit the Osaka community. The Osaka Domain Advisory Committee will be fully developed to include a wide range of representatives from the community and will play a significant role in deciding how to allocate the funds.
The overall aim of “.osaka” is to provide a solid and secure platform for the Osaka community that inspires an environment where the Osaka brand can thrive. Interlink strongly believes that a geographic TLD should belong to the community and the registry operator should be a steward to that community. Interlink’s intent in including a domain name advisory committee in the management structure of the “.osaka” TLD is to create an environment where the TLD can be successful in the event that the registry operator changes. In order to fully engage the community Interlink will invite interested parties to join one of the constituencies in the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee to proactively contribute to the development of “.osaka”.
Interlink anticipates on entering negotiations for the “.osaka” contract with the Osaka government once the TLD passes though the evaluation process. As outlined in the attached support letter, the Osaka government will be able go through the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure or other applicable legal avenues to ensure compliance with its terms.
Interlink is confident that its proposed structure for “.osaka” ensures that the TLD always belongs to the community, and is of lasting nature, even in the event that Interlink is no longer able to provide registry functions, for whatever reason. 

The string, “.osaka”, directly represents the Osaka community, and has been fully approved by the Osaka Prefectural Government as the proper representation of the Osaka community on the Internet. “Osaka” has no connotation beyond the Osaka geographical are and its related community. 

In order to maintain a safe, stable, and reliable environment for registrants and users of the Osaka domain space, Interlink proposes the implementation of clearly defined registration and eligibility requirements. In addition, Interlink will also implement a strict Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) to protect the community from abusive registrations. Furthermore, Interlink believes that registrants in the “.osaka” TLD should have nexus with the community and proposes compliance with a nexus requirement.
Below is a description of each registry policies as they relate to the community.
1. Eligibility Requirements
An eligible registrant of a “.osaka” domain name, is defined by the nexus policy. Draft language of Interlinkʹs nexus policy is shown below:
Draft Language of the Osaka Nexus Requirement:
The “.osaka” Nexus Requirement is designed to maintain an Internet namespace that is for persons, or entities that have a substantive connection to the Osaka community. Only those who fulfill the Nexus Requirement will be allowed to register and operate a domain name in the “.osaka” top-level domain (TLD).
All registrants of an “.osaka” name must satisfy at least one the following:
　• Osaka municipalities and local governments
　• Public and private institutions in Osaka
　• Organizations, companies, and other businesses in Osaka
　• Residents of Osaka
　• Others community members who have a bona fide purpose for registering and using a “.osaka” domain
Registrants who purchase “.osaka” names will be required to certify that meet one of the categories above. Meeting these requirements is on a continual basis, and therefore the registrant re-certifies compliance with the above during each subsequent renewal term. In other words, registrants must ensure they remain in compliance with the Nexus Requirement.
The Registry will:
　• Require that registrars enforce the Nexus requirement upon registration and each subsequent renewal of a “.osaka” domain name.
　• Conduct scans from time to time of registration request information to verify compliance with applicable registration policies.
　• Conduct random checks on registrant information to verify compliance with applicable registration policies.
Any failure of a registration to satisfy the Nexus Requirement will result tin the name being placed on a hold for an initial period of 30 days. The sponsoring registrar will be notified of such a hold and be given the opportunity to correct any information. If the registrant does not comply during the hold time frame of 30 days, the domain name will be subject to deletion and returned to the pull of available domain names. No refund of registration fees will be granted in such cases. Compliance with the information correction request will result in the name being registered or re-activated immediately.
* This document is in draft form and is subject to approval of the Osaka Domain Advisory Committee.
Acceptable Domains
Acceptable Domain Registration Applications are defined as the types of names that maybe registered within the “.osaka” top-level domain. An acceptable domain name that is valid for registration is one that:
　• has not already been registered
　• has not been blocked or reserved
　• meets the technical requirements
　• does not construe an abusive or obscene meaning in Japanese
　• does not construe an abusive or obscene meaning in English or other languages
Interlink will reserve names as required by the new gTLD Registry Agreement and, in addition, plans to create a list of reserved names based on its work with the community and local governments to ensure that names that serve the public interest are allocated in the most efficient and beneficial way.
Processing Applications for Registration
All registrations requests must be submitted through an ICANN accredited registrar that has entered into an agreement with Interlink, the registry operator. All accredited registrars will be required to ensure that the registrant warrants that all information provided is true and accurate; the registration is in good faith and does not infringe on the rights of any third party, the registrant meets the eligibility requirements (nexus requirement), and the registrant understands, accepts, and will abide by all registry policies.
Registrations in both the sunrise and landrush phases, as described in response to Questions18 and 29.
Acceptable Content
Interlink is in agreement with the Osaka Prefectural Government’s desire that pornographic, vulgar and highly objectionable content is adequately monitored and removed from the namespace. This type of content will be strictly prohibited in the “.osaka” TLD. In order to strictly enforce this registration policy, Interlink will implement an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) as well as include an Abuse Point of Contact on its website as a means to provide a method for users to submit complaints of abuse to Interlink.
Interlink believes that a strong abuse prevention policy in the “.osaka” TLD is a very important benefit to the Osaka Community and will ensure that contracted parties adhere to its policies. The AUP will be incorporated into the Registry-Registrar Agreement and give the registry the right to take any appropriate actions needed to remedy a particular type of abuse. All ICANN accredited registrars which enter into an agreement with the registry will be required to pass through the Acceptable Use Policy to its Resellers (if applicable) and finally, to all registrants. The AUP, and Interlinks implementation of an Abuse Point of Contact are further described in the response to Question 28.
Registry’s Right to Enforce Policies
It is the responsibility of each accredited registrar to ensure that registrants understand and acknowledge that Interlink, as the registry operator, has the right to accept and reject requests for domain registrations, monitor the name space for names that do not meet the criteria for acceptable domains, and monitor domain names containing prohibited content as described above.
Interlink will be accountable to the community for proper enforcement of its policies to ensure that it works to maintain a safe, secure, and stable domain space for the Osaka Community.
Interlink is confident that is proposed policies will be further developed and enhanced to fully meet the needs of the Osaka community.

Not Available

Yes

Interlink Co., Ltd, (Interlink) will implement strict policy restrictions concerning the registration and use of geographic names under the “.osaka” top-level domain and will work closely with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and ccTLD managers to ensure that geographic names are adequately protected.


Two-Letter Domain Names

Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) are two letter strings on the right side of the dot that correspond to the two-letter country codes for each country listed on the ISO 3166-1 list. The registry will, at no cost of governments or public authorities, initially reserve all two-letter characters strings, inclusive of the country code names as defined on ISO 3166-1 and mandated by the New gTLD Registry Agreement (see Specification 5).

Use of two-letter strings as second level registrations in the “.osaka” TLD will be permitted after the Registry reaches an agreement with relevant government or country-code TLD managers.

At its discretion, the Registry will propose usage of a limited number of two-letter strings for domain names that include, but are not limited to; company names, brand names, meaningful words, partial phrases, or local abbreviations. The Registry will inform each ccTLD manager and⁄or applicable government of its proposal to use such a name and reach an agreement with the ccTLD manager and⁄or applicable government before such a name is registered for use.


Country and Territory Domain Names
In addition to the initial reservation of two-letter country codes pursuant to the ISO-3166-1 list, the Registry will initially reserve country and territory names contained on the following internationally recognized lists:

 • ISO 3166-1 lists (including country, territory name, and its short form name in English)
 • 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
 • The List United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages 
 prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of 
 Geographical Names

The Registry will cooperate with ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to expand such a list of reserved⁄protected geographic names at the second level should this be required. Additionally, the list will expand according to updates in any of the lists listed above.

The release of names will not occur until after a minimum of one full year of operations. The release of geographic names will only occur upon reaching an agreement with applicable government.


Procedure for Registration of Geographic Names by Relevant Authorities

During the reservation period, the Registry will allow the relevant government authorities to register their country name, or short form English name under the “.osaka” TLD as a second level registration. The opportunity for such registrations will not be shorter that one year and will be available for governments until the Registry reaches an agreement with the GAC, relevant governments and⁄or ccTLD managers for the release of such names. Upon reaching such an agreement, the Registry will notify governments of the registration deadline 3 months prior to the release of geographic names.

The process for registering a country name or its English short form equivalent as a second level domain name in the “.osaka” TLD for a relevant government authority is as follows:

 1. The Government or relevant authority contacts the GAC Secretariat with the requested 
　　domain name and beneficiary information
 2. The GAC Secretariat will ensure the authenticity of such a request and forward the request 
　　to the Registry.
 3. The Registry will verify the availability of the requested domain name, notify ICANN of the 
　　registration request, and issue approval after the validity of the request has been approved.
 4. The registrant government or beneficiary will then be able to register the name through an ICANN-Accredited Registrar that has executed the 
　　Registry-Registrar Agreement with the Registry.


Names of Japanese Prefectures

The Registry will reserve, at not cost to local governments, the subdivision name (prefecture name) listed on the ISO 3166-2:JP list. Furthermore, the Registry will work in conjunction with the Japanese Ministry of Communications and the Government of Osaka to reserve any additional names as deemed necessary to protect geographic names for Japan.

The release of such names will occur after reaching an agreement with the local and national governments and the release of names will occur no earlier than one full year of operations.


Abuse of Geographic Names

After the release of geographic names governments can submit a complaint directly to the registry for a domain name that is not in compliance with the nexus requirements. The registry will review the complaint, evaluate the usage of the name, and follow all procedures and timeframes notated in the Nexus Requirement Policy.

23.1 Introduction 

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink) has elected to partner with Neustar, Inc to provide back-end services for the “.osaka” registry. In making this decision, Interlink 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 “.osaka” 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. Interlink will use Neustar’s Registry Services platform to deploy the “.osaka” registry, by providing the following Registry Services (none of these services are offered in a manner that is unique to “.osaka”: 

　• 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) (in Japanese)

The following is a description of each of the services. 

SRS 

Neustar’s 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. 

EPP

The “.osaka” 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.
DNS

Interlink will leverage Neustar’s world-class DNS network of geographically distributed nameserver sites to provide the highest level of DNS service. The service utilizes “Anycast” 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.
WHOIS

Neustar’s existing standard WHOIS solution will be used for the “.osaka”. 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)

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.

Data Escrow

Data escrow will be performed in compliance with all ICANN requirements in conjunction with Iron Mountain. Iron Mountain was the first company ever selected to protect domain name registry data via escrow agreements and currently provides Registry Data Escrow for the majority of gTLDs in operation today.

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.

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.

Access to Bulk Zone Files

Interlink 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.

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.

IPv6 Support

The “.osaka” 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.
Required Rights Protection Mechanisms

Interlink, 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.


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 

Interlink will not be offering services that are unique to “.osaka”.


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

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink), has partnered with Neustar, Inc, an experienced TLD registry operator, for the operation of the “.osaka” Registry. Interlink 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. Neustar’s 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

High-level SRS System Description

The SRS to be used for “.osaka” 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, Interlink 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).
 
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.

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. 

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 registrar’s host exchanges keys to initiates a TLS handshake session with the EPP server.
　• The registrar’s host must provide credentials to determine proper access levels.
　• The registrar’s IP address must be preregistered in the network firewalls and traffic-shapers.

Business Policy Layer 

The Business Policy Layer is the “brain” 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. 

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 depicts the overall SRS architecture including network components.
 
Figure 24-1. This multi-layer architecture is EPP compliant, meets all applicable RFCs, and its development follows industry best practices.
 
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 “.osaka” 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. 

Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems

The core SRS service interfaces with other external systems via Neustar’s 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 “.osaka”.

The SRS includes an “external notifier” 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 “control levers” 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: 

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

Compliance with Specification 6 Section 1.2

The SRS implementation for “.osaka” 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. 
 
Additional information on the EPP implementation and compliance with RFCs can be found in the response to Question 25.

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 “.osaka” Registry. The following section describes Neustar’s 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. Neustar’s 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. Neustar’s 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 “.osaka” 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 “.osaka” registry. 

25.1 Introduction

Interlink Co, Ltd. (Interlink), has selected Neustar as its back-end registry operator. Neustar, has over 10 years of experience operating EPP based registries and have 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 Interlink is provided with an unparalleled EPP based registry. The following discussion explains the EPP interface which will be used for the “.osaka” registry. This interface exists within the protocol farm layer as described in Question 24 and is depicted in Figure 25-1.


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, 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. Evidence of Neustar’s ability to perform at these levels can be found in the .biz monthly progress reports found on the ICANN website.

 
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 “dummy” 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 “.osaka” 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 provides a list of extensions developed for other TLDs. Should the “.osaka” 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.


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 “.osaka” registry.

26.1 Introduction

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink), 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. Interlink’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 “thick” registry operators in the gTLD space, Neustar’s 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 Interlink’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, the thick-WHOIS solution for “.osaka” 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 describes Neustar’s 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 a 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 name’s 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.osaka). 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 registry’s 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 “Restorable” or “Scheduled for Release” 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 Neustar’s 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.

Additional hardware details can be found in the response to Question 32.

Figure 26-1 depicts the different components of the WHOIS architecture. The WHOIS is decoupled from the architecture to protect production databases and increased overall systems security. 


26.6 Interconnectivity with Other Registry System

As described in Question 24 about the SRS and further in response to Question 31, “Technical Overview”, 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% ≤ 60 minutes. Please note that Neustar’s current architecture is built towards the stricter SLAs (95% ≤ 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
　• Contacts and registrant’s name
　• Contact and registrant’s postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP 
　　(e.g., street, city, state or province, etc.)
　• Name server name and 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 shows an architectural depiction of the new service. Neustar’s web-based service provides new search features based on requirements specified in Specification 4 Section 1.8.
 
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 “.osaka” 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. Neustar’s 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 “.osaka” registry. The resources are more than adequate to support the WHOIS needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the “.osaka” registry. 

27.1 Registration Life Cycle

Introduction

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink) 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 “.osaka”.

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 “.osaka” registry per the defined “.osaka” 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 “.osaka” 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. his status will not be used 
　　in the “.osaka” 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 “.osaka” 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


27.1.1 Registration States

Domain Lifecycle – Registration States

As described above the “.osaka” 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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


27.1.2 Typical Registration Lifecycle Activities

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. 

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. 

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.

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 Registrar’s 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.

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.


27.1.3 Applicable Time Elements

The following section explains the time elements that are involved. 

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.

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 Registrar’s billing account. 

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). 

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.

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. 

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.

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.


27.2 State Diagram

Figure 27-1 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 27.1.1 for detail description 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.


27.2.1 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. 


27.3 Resources

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

The “.osaka” 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 “.osaka” registry. 

28.1 Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

Strong abuse prevention of a new gTLD is an important benefit to the Internet community. As such, Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink), and back-end registry services provider, Neustar, agree that a registry must not only aim for the highest standards of technical and operational competence, but also needs to act as a steward of the space on behalf of the Internet community and ICANN in promoting the public interest. Neustar brings extensive experience establishing and implementing registration policies. This experience will be leveraged to help Interlink combat abusive and malicious domain activity within the new gTLD space.

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.

More specifically, although traditionally botnets have used Internet Relay Chat (IRC) servers to control registry and the compromised PCs, or bots, for DDoS attacks and the theft of personal information, an increasingly popular technique, known as fast-flux DNS, allows botnets to use a multitude of servers to hide a key host or to create a highly-available control network. This ability to shift the attacker’s infrastructure over a multitude of servers in various countries creates an obstacle for law enforcement and security researchers to mitigate the effects of these botnets. But a point of weakness in this scheme is its dependence on DNS for its translation services. By taking an active role in researching and monitoring these sorts of botnets, Interlink’s partner, Neustar, has developed the ability to efficiently work with various law enforcement and security communities to begin a new phase of mitigation of these types of threats.

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 the 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 e-mail. The use of this technique should not be entered into lightly. Interlink, in conjunction with Neustar, 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, Interlink 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. Interlink 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 Policies Regarding Abuse Complaints

One of the key policies each new gTLD registry will need to have is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration. In addition, the policy will be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take the appropriate actions based on the type of abuse. This will include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and nameserver information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name “on hold” rendering the domain name non-resolvable, transferring to the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation. 

Interlink will adopt an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly defines the types of activities that will not be permitted in the TLD and reserves the right to lock, cancel, transfer or otherwise suspend or take down domain names violating the Acceptable Use Policy and allow the Registry where and when appropriate to share information with law enforcement. Each ICANN-Accredited Registrar must agree to pass through the Acceptable Use Policy to its Resellers (if applicable) and ultimately to the TLD registrants. Below is the Registry’s initial Acceptable Use Policy that we will use in connection with “.osaka”.


“.osaka” Acceptable Use Policy Draft Language

This Acceptable Use Policy gives the Registry the ability to quickly lock, cancel, transfer or take ownership of any “.osaka” domain name, either temporarily or permanently, if the domain name is being used in a manner that appears to threaten the stability, integrity or security of the Registry, or any of its registrar partners – and⁄or that may put the safety and security of any registrant or user at risk. The process also allows the Registry to take preventive measures to avoid any such criminal or security threats.

The Acceptable Use Policy may be triggered through a variety of channels, including, among other things, private complaint, public alert, government or enforcement agency outreach, and the on-going monitoring by the Registry or its partners. In all cases, the Registry or its designees will alert Registry’s registrar partners about any identified threats, and will work closely with them to bring offending sites into compliance.

The following are some (but not all) activities that may be subject to rapid domain compliance:

　• Phishing: the attempt to acquire personally identifiable information by masquerading as a website other than its own.
　• Pharming: the redirection of Internet users to websites other than those the user intends to visit, usually through unauthorized 
　　changes to the Hosts file on a victim’s computer or DNS records in DNS servers.
　• Dissemination of Malware: the intentional creation and distribution of ʺmaliciousʺ software designed to infiltrate a computer system 
　　without the owner’s consent, including, without limitation, computer viruses, worms, key loggers, and Trojans.
　• Fast Flux Hosting: a technique used to shelter Phishing, Pharming and Malware sites and networks from detection and to frustrate 
　　methods employed to defend against such practices, whereby the IP address associated with fraudulent websites are changed rapidly 
　　so as to make the true location of the sites difficult to find.
　• Botnetting: the development and use of a command, agent, motor, service, or software which is implemented: (1) to remotely control the 
　　computer or computer system of an Internet user without their knowledge or consent, (2) to generate direct denial of service (DDOS) attacks.
　• Malicious Hacking: the attempt to gain unauthorized access (or exceed the level of authorized access) to a computer, information system, 
　　user account or profile, database, or security system.
　• Child Pornography: the storage, publication, display and⁄or dissemination of pornographic materials depicting individuals under the age of 
　　majority in the relevant jurisdiction.

The Registry reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any administrative and operational actions necessary, including the use of computer forensics and information security technological services, among other things, in order to implement the Acceptable Use Policy. In addition, the Registry reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Registry as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by the Registry or any Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Registry also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 

Taking Action Against Abusive and⁄or Malicious Activity

The Registry is committed to ensuring that those domain names associated with abuse or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are dealt with in a timely and decisive manner. These include taking action against those domain names that are being used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement. 

Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by the Registry, the Registry will use commercially reasonable efforts to verify the information in the complaint. If that information can be verified to the best of the ability of the Registry, the sponsoring registrar will be notified and be given a predetermined amount of time defined in the Registry-Registrar Agreement to investigate the activity and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the Registry to keep the name in the zone. If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the timeframe expires (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on “ServerHold”. Although this action removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain name record still appears in the TLD WHOIS database so that the name and entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire to get involved.

Coordination with Law Enforcement

With the assistance of Neustar as its back-end registry services provider, the Registry can meet its obligations under Section 2.8 of the Registry Agreement where required to take reasonable steps to investigate and respond to reports from law enforcement and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of its TLD. The Registry will respond to legitimate law enforcement inquiries within one business day from receiving the request. Such response shall include, at a minimum, an acknowledgement of receipt of the request, questions or comments concerning the request, and an outline of the next steps to be taken by the Registry for rapid resolution of the request. 

In the event such request involves any of the activities which can be validated by the Registry and involves the type of activity set forth in the Acceptable Use Policy, the sponsoring registrar is then given a predetermined amount of time defined in the Registry-Registrar Agreement to investigate the activity further and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the registry to keep the name in the zone. If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the timeframe expires (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on “serverHold”. 


28.3 Measures for Removal of Orphan Glue Records

As the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN (SSAC) rightly acknowledges, although orphaned glue records may be used for abusive or malicious purposes, the “dominant use of orphaned glue supports the correct and ordinary operation of the DNS.” See http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄committees⁄security⁄sac048.pdf. 

While orphan glue often support correct and ordinary operation of the DNS, we understand that such glue records can be used maliciously to point to name servers that host domains used in illegal phishing, bot-nets, malware, and other abusive behaviors. Problems occur when the parent domain of the glue record is deleted but its children glue records still remain in DNS. Therefore, when the Registry has written evidence of actual abuse of orphaned glue, the Registry will take action to remove those records from the zone to mitigate such malicious conduct. 

Neustar run a daily audit of entries in its DNS systems and compares those with its provisioning system. This serves as an umbrella protection to make sure that items in the DNS zone are valid. Any DNS record that shows up in the DNS zone but not in the provisioning system will be flagged for investigation and removed if necessary. This daily DNS audit serves to not only prevent orphaned hosts but also other records that should not be in the zone. 

In addition, if either Interlink or Neustar become aware of actual abuse on orphaned glue after receiving written notification by a third party through its Abuse Contact or through its customer support, such glue records will be removed from the zone. 


28.4 Measures to Promote WHOIS Accuracy 

Interlink acknowledges that ICANN has developed a number of mechanisms over the past decade that are intended to address the issue of inaccurate WHOIS information. Such measures alone have not proven to be sufficient and Interlink will offer a mechanism whereby third parties can submit complaints directly to the registry (as opposed to ICANN or the sponsoring Registrar) about inaccurate or incomplete WHOIS data. Such information shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Registrar, who shall be required to address those complaints with their registrants. Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, Interlink will examine the current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to be inaccurate to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other disposition. If the Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to correct the inaccuracies, Interlink reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the Registrant is able to cure the deficiencies.

In addition, Interlink shall on its own initiative, no less than twice per year, perform a manual review of a random sampling of “.osaka” domain names to test the accuracy of the WHOIS information. Although this will not include verifying the actual information in the WHOIS record, Interlink will be examining the WHOIS data for prima facie evidence of inaccuracies. In the event that such evidence exists, it shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Registrar, who shall be required to address those complaints with their registrants. Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the registry will examine the current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to be inaccurate to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other disposition. If the Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to correct the inaccuracies, Interlink reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the Registrant is able to cure the deficiencies.


28.4.1 Authentication of Registrant Information (Option)

Authentication of registrant information as complete and accurate at time of registration. Measures to accomplish this could include performing background checks, verifying all contact information of principals mentioned in registration data, reviewing proof of establishment documentation, and other means.


28.4.2 Monitoring of Registration Data (Option)

Regular monitoring of registration data for accuracy and completeness, employing authentication methods, and establishing policies and procedures to address domain names with inaccurate or incomplete WHOIS data.


28.4.3 Policies and Procedures Ensuring Compliance (Option)

If relying on registrars to enforce measures, establishing policies and procedures to ensure compliance, which may include audits, financial incentives, penalties, or other means. Note that the requirements of the RAA will continue to apply to all ICANN-accredited registrars.


28.5 Resourcing Plans 

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 “.osaka” registry. 

29.1. Rights Protection Mechanisms

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink), is firmly committed to the protection of Intellectual Property rights and to implementing the mandatory rights protection mechanisms contained in the Applicant Guidebook and detailed in Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement. Interlink recognizes that although the New gTLD program includes significant protections beyond those that were mandatory for a number of the current TLDs, a key motivator for Interlink’s selection of Neustar as its registry services provider is Neustar’s experience in successfully launching a number of TLDs with diverse rights protection mechanisms, including many the ones required in the Applicant Guidebook. More specifically, Interlink will implement the following rights protection mechanisms in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook as further described below:

　• Trademark Clearinghouse: a one-stop shop so that trademark holders can protect their trademarks 
　　with a single registration.
　• Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes for the TLD.
　• Implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to address domain names that have been 
　　registered and used in bad faith in the TLD.
　• Uniform Rapid Suspension: A quicker, more efficient and cheaper alternative to the Uniform Dispute 
　　Resolution Policy to deal with clear cut cases of cybersquatting.
　• Implementation of a Thick WHOIS making it easier for rights holders to identify and locate infringing parties


A. Trademark Clearinghouse Including Sunrise and Trademark Claims

The first mandatory rights protection mechanism (“RPM”) required to be implemented by each new gTLD Registry is support for, and interaction with, the trademark clearinghouse. The trademark clearinghouse is intended to serve as a central repository for information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated pertaining to the rights of trademark holders. The data maintained in the clearinghouse will support and facilitate other RPMs, including the mandatory Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims service. Although many of the details of how the trademark clearinghouse will interact with each registry operator and registrars, Interlink is actively monitoring the developments of the Implementation Assistance Group (“IAG”) designed to assist ICANN staff in firming up the rules and procedures associated with the policies and technical requirements for the trademark clearinghouse. In addition, Interlink’s back-end registry services provider is actively participating in the IAG to ensure that the protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable.

Utilizing the trademark clearinghouse, all operators of new gTLDs must offer: (i) a sunrise registration service for at least 30 days during the pre-launch phase giving eligible trademark owners an early opportunity to register second-level domains in new gTLDs; and (ii) a trademark claims service for at least the first 60 days that second-level registrations are open. The trademark claim service is intended to provide clear noticeʺ to a potential registrant of the rights of a trademark owner whose trademark is registered in the clearinghouse.

Interlink’s registry service provider for “.osaka”, Neustar, has already implemented Sunrise and⁄or Trademark Claims programs for numerous TLDs including .biz, .us, .travel, .tel and .co and will implement the both of these services for “.osaka”. 

Neustar’s Experience in Implementing Sunrise and Trademark Claims Processes

In early 2002, Neustar became the first registry operator to launch a successful authenticated Sunrise process. This process permitted qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the .us TLD space prior to the opening of the space to the general public. Unlike any other “Sunrise” plans implemented (or proposed before that time), Neustar validated the authenticity of Trademark applications and registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 

Subsequently, as the back-end registry operator for the .tel gTLD and the .co ccTLD, Neustar launched validated Sunrise programs employing processes. These programs are very similar to those that are to be employed by the Trademark Clearinghouse for new gTLDs. 

Below is a high level overview of the implementation of the .co Sunrise period that demonstrates Neustar’s experience and ability to provide a Sunrise service and an overview of Neustar’s experience in implementing a Trademark Claims program to trademark owners for the launch of .BIZ. Neustar’s experience in each of these rights protection mechanisms will enable it to seamlessly provide these services for “.osaka” on behalf of Interlink as required by ICANN. 

a) Sunrise and .co

The Sunrise process for .co was divided into two sub-phases: 

　• Local Sunrise giving holders of eligible trademarks that have obtained registered status from the 
　　Colombian trademark office the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks 
　• Global Sunrise program giving holders of eligible registered trademarks of national effect, that have obtained 
　　a registered status in any country of the world the opportunity apply for the .CO domain names corresponding 
　　with their marks for a period of time before registration is open to the public at large. 

Like the new gTLD process set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, trademark owners had to have their rights validated by a Clearinghouse provider prior to the registration being accepted by the Registry. The Clearinghouse used a defined process for checking the eligibility of the legal rights claimed as the basis of each Sunrise application using official national trademark databases and submitted documentary evidence. 

Applicants and⁄or their designated agents had the option of interacting directly with the Clearinghouse to ensure their applications were accurate and complete prior to submitting them to the Registry pursuant to an optional “Pre-validation Process”. Whether or not an applicant was “pre-validated”, the applicant had to submit its corresponding domain name application through an accredited registrar. When the Applicant was pre-validated through the Clearinghouse, each was given an associated approval number that it had to supply the registry. If they were not pre-validated, applicants were required to submit the required trademark information through their registrar to the Registry.

As the registry level, Neustar, subsequently either delivered the: 

　• Approval number and domain name registration information to the Clearinghouse
　• When there was no approval number, trademark information and the domain name registration 
　　information was provided to the Clearinghouse through EPP (as is currently required under the 
　　Applicant Guidebook). 

Information was then used by the Clearinghouse as either further validation of those pre-validated applications, or initial validation of those that did not go through pre-validation. If the applicant was validated and their trademark matched the domain name applied-for, the Clearinghouse communicated that fact to the Registry via EPP. 

When there was only one validated sunrise application, the application proceeded to registration when the .co launched. If there were multiple validated applications (recognizing that there could be multiple trademark owners sharing the same trademark), those were included in the .co Sunrise auction process. Neustar tracked all of the information it received and the status of each application and posted that status on a secure Website to enable trademark owners to view the status of its Sunrise application. 

Although the exact process for the Sunrise program and its interaction between the trademark owner, Registry, Registrar, and IP Clearinghouse is not completely defined in the Applicant Guidebook and is dependent on the current RFI issued by ICANN in its selection of a Trademark Clearinghouse provider, Neustar’s expertise in launching multiple Sunrise processes and its established software will implement a smooth and compliant Sunrise process for the new gTLDs.


b) Trademark Claims Service Experience

With Neustar’s biz TLD launched in 2001, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service. Neustar developed the Trademark Claim Service by enabling companies to stake claims to domain names prior to the commencement of live .biz domain registrations. 

During the Trademark Claim process, Neustar received over 80,000 Trademark Claims from entities around the world. Recognizing that multiple intellectual property owners could have trademark rights in a particular mark, multiple Trademark Claims for the same string were accepted. All applications were logged into a Trademark Claims database managed by Neustar. 

The Trademark Claimant was required to provide various information about their trademark rights, including the:

　• Particular trademark or service mark relied on for the trademark Claim
　• Date a trademark application on the mark was filed, if any, on the string of the domain name
　• Country where the mark was filed, if applicable
　• Registration date, if applicable
　• Class or classes of goods and services for which the trademark or service mark was registered
　• Name of a contact person with whom to discuss the claimed trademark rights. 

Once all Trademark Claims and domain name applications were collected, Neustar then compared the claims contained within the Trademark Claims database with its database of collected domain name applications (DNAs). In the event of a match between a Trademark Claim and a domain name application, an e-mail message was sent to the domain name applicant notifying the applicant of the existing Trademark Claim. The e-mail also stressed that if the applicant chose to continue the application process and was ultimately selected as the registrant, the applicant would be subject to Neustar’s dispute proceedings if challenged by the Trademark Claimant for that particular domain name. 

The domain name applicant had the option to proceed with the application or cancel the application. Proceeding on an application meant that the applicant wanted to go forward and have the application proceed to registration despite having been notified of an existing Trademark Claim. By choosing to “cancel,” the applicant made a decision in light of an existing Trademark Claim notification to not proceed. 

If the applicant did not respond to the e-mail notification from Neustar, or elected to cancel the application, the application was not processed. This resulted in making the applicant ineligible to register the actual domain name. If the applicant affirmatively elected to continue the application process after being notified of the claimant’s (or claimants’) alleged trademark rights to the desired domain name, Neustar processed the application. 

This process is very similar to the one ultimately adopted by ICANN and incorporated in the latest version of the Applicant Guidebook. Although the collection of Trademark Claims for new gTLDs will be by the Trademark Clearinghouse, many of the aspects of Neustar’s Trademark Claims process in 2001 are similar to those in the Applicant Guidebook. This makes Neustar uniquely qualified to implement the new gTLD Trademark Claims process.


B. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)

UDRP

Prior to joining Neustar, Mr. Neuman was a key contributor to the development of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) in 1998. This became the first “Consensus Policy” of ICANN and has been required to be implemented by all domain name registries since that time. The UDRP is intended as an alternative dispute resolution process to transfer domain names from those that have registered and used domain names in bad faith. Although there is not much of an active role that the domain name registry plays in the implementation of the UDRP, Neustar has closely monitored UDRP decisions that have involved the TLDs for which it supports and ensures that the decisions are implemented by the registrars supporting its TLDs. When alerted by trademark owners of failures to implement UDRP decisions by its registrars, Neustar either proactively implements the decisions itself or reminds the offending registrar of its obligations to implement the decision. 

URS
In response to complaints by trademark owners that the UDRP was too cost prohibitive and slow, and the fact that more than 70 percent of UDRP cases were “clear cut” cases of cybersquatting, ICANN adopted the IRT’s recommendation that all new gTLD registries be required, pursuant to their contracts with ICANN, to take part in a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”). The purpose of the URS is to provide a more cost effective and timely mechanism for brand owners than the UDRP to protect their trademarks and to promote consumer protection on the Internet. 

The URS is not meant to address Questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in a generic sense) or for anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringement and abuse that is taking place. 

Unlike the UDRP which requires little involvement of gTLD registries, the URS envisages much more of an active role at the registry-level. For example, rather than requiring the registrar to lock down a domain name subject to a UDRP dispute, it is the registry under the URS that must lock the domain within 24hours of receipt of the complaint from the URS Provider to restrict all changes to the registration data, including transfer and deletion of the domain names. 

In addition, in the event of a determination in favor of the complainant, the registry is required to suspend the domain name. This suspension remains for the balance of the registration period and would not resolve the original website. Rather, the nameservers would be redirected to an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS. 
Additionally, the WHOIS reflects that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the registration. Finally, there is an option for a successful complainant to extend the registration period for one additional year at commercial rates. 

Interlink is fully aware of each of these requirements and will have the capability to implement these requirements for new gTLDs. In fact, during the IRT’s development of f the URS, Neustar began examining the implications of the URS on its registry operations and provided the IRT with feedback on whether the recommendations from the IRT would be feasible for registries to implement. 
Although there have been a few changes to the URS since the IRT recommendations, Neustar continued to participate in the development of the URS by providing comments to ICANN, many of which were adopted. As a result, Neustar is committed to supporting the URS for all of the registries that it provides back-end registry services.


C. Implementation of Thick WHOIS

The “.osaka” registry will include a thick WHOIS database as required in Specification 4 of the Registry agreement. A thick WHOIS provides numerous advantages including a centralized location of registrant information, the ability to more easily manage and control the accuracy of data, and a consistent user experience. 


D. Policies Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse

In addition the Rights Protection mechanisms addressed above, Interlink will implement a number of measures to handle complaints regarding the abusive registration of domain names in its TLD as described in response to Question 28.

Registry Acceptable Use Policy

One of the key policies each new gTLD registry is the need to have is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration. The policy must be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take the appropriate actions based on the type of abuse. This may include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and nameserver information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name “on hold” rendering the domain name non-resolvable, transferring to the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation. Interlink’s Acceptable Use Policy, set forth in our response to Question 28, will include prohibitions on phishing, pharming, dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting, hacking, and child pornography. In addition, the policy will include the right of the registry to take action necessary to deny, cancel, suspend, lock, or transfer any registration in violation of the policy.

Monitoring for Malicious Activity 

Interlink is committed to ensuring that those domain names associated with abuse or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are dealt with in a timely and decisive manner. These include taking action against those domain names that are being used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement. 

Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by the Registry, the Registry will use commercially reasonable efforts to verify the information in the complaint. If that information can be verified to the best of the ability of the Registry, the sponsoring registrar will be notified and be given 12 hours to investigate the activity and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the Registry to keep the name in the zone. If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour period (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on “ServerHold”. Although this action removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain name record still appears in the TLD WHOIS database so that the name and entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire to get involved.


29.2 Safeguards against Unqualified Registrations

Interlink has developed a Nexus policy with regards to registrations for “.osaka” domain names. A draft of the Nexus policy can be found as an attachment to this application. 
In order to safeguard against unqualified registrations, the registry will engage in periodic scanning of registrations to ensure compliance. Additionally, the registry will conduct random checks on domain registration information to and review compliance with the Nexus policy. In the event of non-compliance the registry will take the appropriate action as outlined in the Nexus policy. 


29.3 Resourcing Plans

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 “.osaka” registry. 

Interlink Co., Ltd. (Interlink), and its back-end operator, Neustar, recognize the vital need to secure the systems and the integrity of the data in commercial solutions. The “.osaka” registry solution will leverage industry-best security practices including the consideration of physical, network, server, and application elements. 

Neustar’s 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 Center for Internet Security (CIS). Policies are reviewed annually by Neustar’s information security team.

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

　1. Description of independent security assessments
　2. Description of security features that are appropriate for “.osaka”
　3. List of commitments made to registrants regarding security levels
　4. Summary of the security policies used in the registry operations

All of the security policies and levels described in this section are appropriate for “.osaka”.


30.(a).1 Summary of Security Policies 

Neustar, Inc. 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 Program defines:

　• 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 Neustar’s information resources.
　• Rules and principles used at Neustar to approach information security issues

A full copy of Neustarʹs Information Security Charter and Policy has been attached to Question 30b.

The following policies are included in the Program:

1. Acceptable Use Policy

The Acceptable Use Policy provides the “rules of behavior” 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 “lessons learned” 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).2 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 management’s prioritization of remediation efforts. Tactical and strategic recommendations are provided to management supported by reference to industry best practices.
Please reference the confidential individual assessment reports attached to Question 30b. 


30.(a).3 Augmented Security Levels and Capabilities

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

A key to Neustar’s Operational success is Neustar’s 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 Neustar’s 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 Neustar’s security policy in alignment with ISO 17799 can be found in section 30.(a).4 below.


30.(a).4 Commitments and Security Levels 

Interlink 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.(a).4 below 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