Application Preview

Application number: 1-1167-1880 for FOX Registry, LLC

Generated on 11 06 2012


Applicant Information


1. Full legal name

FOX Registry, LLC

2. Address of the principal place of business

1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York NY 10036
US

3. Phone number

+1 212 852 7000

4. Fax number

+1 212 852 7217

5. If applicable, website or URL


Primary Contact


6(a). Name

Mr. David William Taylor

6(b). Title

Partner, Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP

6(c). Address


6(d). Phone Number

+33153674747

6(e). Fax Number


6(f). Email Address

[email protected]

Secondary Contact


7(a). Name

Mr. James West Marcovitz

7(b). Title

Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, News America Incorporated

7(c). Address


7(d). Phone Number

+1 212 852 7625

7(e). Fax Number


7(f). Email Address

[email protected]

Proof of Legal Establishment


8(a). Legal form of the Applicant

Limited Liability Company

8(b). State the specific national or other jursidiction that defines the type of entity identified in 8(a).

State of Delaware

8(c). Attach evidence of the applicant's establishment.

Not Available

9(a). If applying company is publicly traded, provide the exchange and symbol.


9(b). If the applying entity is a subsidiary, provide the parent company.

News Corporation

9(c). If the applying entity is a joint venture, list all joint venture partners.


Applicant Background


11(a). Name(s) and position(s) of all directors


11(b). Name(s) and position(s) of all officers and partners


11(c). Name(s) and position(s) of all shareholders holding at least 15% of shares

News CorporationNot Applicable

11(d). For an applying entity that does not have directors, officers, partners, or shareholders: Name(s) and position(s) of all individuals having legal or executive responsibility

James W. MarcovitzSenior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, News America Incorporated
Jorge EspinelExecutive Vice President of News Corp Digital Media Group, a division of News America Incorporated

Applied-for gTLD string


13. Provide the applied-for gTLD string. If an IDN, provide the U-label.

FOX

14(a). If an IDN, provide the A-label (beginning with "xn--").


14(b). If an IDN, provide the meaning or restatement of the string in English, that is, a description of the literal meaning of the string in the opinion of the applicant.


14(c). If an IDN, provide the language of the label (in English).


14(c). If an IDN, provide the language of the label (as referenced by ISO-639-1).


14(d). If an IDN, provide the script of the label (in English).


14(d). If an IDN, provide the script of the label (as referenced by ISO 15924).


14(e). If an IDN, list all code points contained in the U-label according to Unicode form.


15(a). If an IDN, Attach IDN Tables for the proposed registry.

Not Available

15(b). Describe the process used for development of the IDN tables submitted, including consultations and sources used.


15(c). List any variant strings to the applied-for gTLD string according to the relevant IDN tables.


16. Describe the applicant's efforts to ensure that there are no known operational or rendering problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string. If such issues are known, describe steps that will be taken to mitigate these issues in software and other applications.

Fox Registry, LLC (ʺApplicantʺ) has consulted with its registry service provider, Neustar, Inc, (ʺNeustarʺ), regarding any potential rendering or operational problems with the applied-for gTLD.  Because the applied-for TLD uses standard characters under The American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) standard, and because three letter TLDs have been common since the start of the Internet and are universally accepted, Neustart has ensured Applicant that there are no known or likely operational or rendering problems.

In addition, the string .FOX is compliant with the following technical standards: 

DOD Internet Host Table Specification (RFC 952)
Domain Names: Implementation and Specification (RFC 1035)
Requirements for Internet Hosts — Application and Support (RFC 1123)
Clarifications to the DNS Specification (RFC 2181)
Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names (RFC 3696)

17. (OPTIONAL) Provide a representation of the label according to the International Phonetic Alphabet (http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/).


Mission/Purpose


18(a). Describe the mission/purpose of your proposed gTLD.

Fox Registry, LLC (ʺApplicantʺ) is a wholly owned subsidiary of News Corporation and is part of the News Corporation group of companies. News Corporation is a publicly traded, diversified, global media company. Affiliates (as defined in the draft Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11) of Applicant within the News Corporation group provide a wide range of services under the world-famous FOX brand, including filmed entertainment, television entertainment, home entertainment, music publishing, international entertainment, digital entertainment, consumer products and other related products and services (collectively, the “FOX Businesses”).

The intended mission and purpose of the .FOX TLD is to serve as a trusted, specialized, hierarchical and intuitive namespace for the iconic and world-famous FOX brand and associated goods and services.

1. The FOX Businesses
The FOX Businesses have a major impact on billions of consumers across the globe and include the following:

I. Feature Film Entertainment: The Twentieth Century Fox, Fox 2000, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios film banners produce, distribute, and license some of the most commercially successful and iconic films in history, including the two highest grossing films of all time—Avatar and Titanic, which together grossed over $4.6 billion in worldwide box office receipts—as well as thousands of classics such as All About Eve, The Seven Year Itch, Miracle on 34th Street, and franchises such as Alien, X-Men and Die Hard.

II. Television Entertainment: The FOX Businesses offer a wide array of television-related services, such as:

- Television Production: Twentieth Century Fox Television, Twentieth Television, Fox 21 and Fox Television Studios have produced a vast library of world-famous and award-winning series, including M*A*S*H, X-Files, The Wonder Years, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Glee, 24, The Simpsons and Modern Family.
- Broadcast Television: The FOX Broadcasting Network reaches circa 99% of all U.S. TV households via 200 affiliated stations. Its prime-time programming features some of the most-watched series on television, such as House, X-Factor, American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance.
- Television Stations: FOX Television Stations owns and operates 27 full-power U.S. broadcast TV stations, including stations in nine of the top ten largest U.S. markets.
- Sports: FOX Sports offers a wide array of sports-related television programming worldwide. It is the exclusive home of the Daytona 500, the World Series and coverage of the Ultimate Fighting Championship. FOX Sports operates 19 regional sports networks as well as cable channels such as Fox Soccer Channel, Speed Channel, Fuel TV and FOX Deportes. FOX Sports also licenses several direct-to-consumer experiences, such as FOX Sports restaurants.
- Cable Network Programming: Fox Cable Networks is one of the largest and most diverse cable TV programming groups with 43 programming services reaching more than 550,000,000 subscribing television homes. Fox Cable Networks’ channels include FOX News Channel, which has been the most-watched cable news network in the United States for over 10 years, with an average of 1.865 million primetime viewers in 2011. Fox Cable Networks’ other well-known channels include FX, National Geographic Channel, Fox Movie Channel and Fox Business Channel.

III. Home Entertainment & Music Publishing: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment and Fox Music distribute film and television content via a wide variety of media formats, such as DVDs, Blu-Ray Disc, Digital Download, CDs and others. Fox Music has been responsible for the worldwide sales of over 60 million albums, producing 3 Platinum, 6 Multi-Platinum and 6 Gold records. Fox Music alone has won 4 Academy Awards, 4 Golden Globe Awards, 11 Emmy Awards, and 12 Grammy Awards.

IV. International Entertainment: FOX International Channels develops, produces and distributes over 350 pay-TV channels in 35 languages across Latin America, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, reaching over 1.1 billion viewing subscribers worldwide. FOX International Channels also owns and operates the .FOX Networks, a global online ad sales house.

V. Digital: The FOX Businesses’ digital properties include the FoxShop.com, Fox.com, FoxSports.com, FoxNews.com and FoxMovies.com websites. These and other websites are visited by hundreds of millions of consumers from countries all around the world. In addition, Fox Digital Entertainment develops original mobile applications and made-for-web original video content that is consumed by a large audience of Internet and mobile device users.

VI. Consumer Products: Fox Consumer Products sells millions of dollars of consumer products in a wide variety of categories, including interactive gaming, themed entertainment, literary publishing, toiletries, mobile applications, accessories, housewares, collectibles, clothing, games, toys, live entertainment, food and beverage, and many others.

2. Fox: Global Trademark and Domain Name Portfolio
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, an Affiliate of Applicant, owns over 3,500 FOX-formative trademark applications and registrations in 178 countries that reflect the full range of products and services provided by the FOX Businesses. In addition, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation owns over 5,000 FOX-formative domain names in nearly every available gTLD and ccTLD. These domain names and their associated websites are visited by hundreds of millions of consumers globally each year. The FOX brand, trademarks and domain names are invaluable assets and serve to identify the FOX Businesses as a trusted source of the highest quality goods and services globally.

3. Mission⁄Purpose for the .FOX TLD
Applicant intends to operate the .FOX TLD under the single registrant⁄single user registry model, permitting only Applicant and its Affiliates to control domain names in the second level. Applicant anticipates that it will use the .FOX TLD to create an internal resource for the FOX Businesses to share content, information, and provide services to each other; to create a destination for trusted online services and content provided by the FOX Businesses; to allow Applicant and its Affiliates to offer consumers a technologically secure and trusted environment in which to learn about and access their products, services, and content; and to enable the FOX Businesses to evolve to the host of ever-changing trends and opportunities in furnishing online content, products and services.

Applicant will initially conduct consumer marketing and technical research to determine the most effective and safest way for it and the Fox Businesses to use the .FOX TLD. During this initial period, Applicant anticipates that it will make limited use of the .FOX TLD.

Applicant has been and will continue to analyze specific potential uses of the .FOX TLD. Specific examples of such uses include allocating second level domain names that correspond with:

- Subject-matter areas of the FOX Businesses, e.g., MOVIES.FOX, NEWS.FOX, SPORTS.FOX.
- Television broadcast stations and analog channel numbers for the Fox stations, e.g., WOFL.FOX, WTXF.FOX, 11.FOX, 29.FOX.
- Entertainment properties⁄franchises owned by Fox, e.g., GLEE.FOX, SIMPSONS.FOX, XFACTOR.FOX, AVATAR.FOX.
- Characters, news anchors, or other individuals associated with the FOX Businesses, e.g., MARGESIMPSON.FOX, BILLOREILLY.FOX.
- Channel Names, e.g., NATGEO.FOX, FUEL.FOX, SPEED.FOX.
- Products sold through the FOX Businesses, e.g., DVDS.FOX, GAMES.FOX.
- Internal resources for FOX Businesses to share content and information amongst themselves, e.g., CONTENT.FOX, LEGAL.FOX.

These are a representative sampling of potential uses. Applicant will continue to analyze and explore consumer, business, technical and security issues, and has not yet committed to or excluded any potential uses.

18(b). How proposed gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users, and others

As a TLD dedicated to the Fox Businesses and the FOX brand, the primary driving factors of the .FOX TLD are differentiation and innovation. The success of the TLD will not be measured by the number of domain names registered, but by the level of consumer recognition and trust that is placed in the .FOX TLD. Using this benchmark, Applicant strives to build consumer recognition and trust that rise to the level of that found in the .EDU and .GOV TLDs.

Specifically, Applicant believes that a proposed .FOX TLD has the potential to offer the following benefits to Internet users, consumers, and the FOX Businesses:

• Establishes trusted online destinations for the billions of consumers who currently access FOX-branded content, products and services.
• Provides a platform for the secure access, purchase and distribution of copyrighted material.
• Protects the FOX Businesses’ valuable intellectual property from piracy on the Internet.
• Creates a namespace void of piracy, cybersquatting and other malicious activities.
• Provides short and memorable URLs that may incorporate the full, proper names of Fox’s intellectual property.
• Includes the capability of offering multiple IDNs, making the domain space more inclusive to global consumers.

18(b)(1): What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of specialty, service levels, or reputation?

1. .FOX Will Create Specialization

The .FOX TLD will create specialization by creating a segment of the Domain Name System dedicated solely to Applicant and the Fox Businesses.

At present there is no TLD dedicated to the full range of entertainment and related products and services provided by the FOX Businesses; there is no TLD dedicated to providing the FOX Businesses with a trusted namespace in which to share information, content, and provide services to each other; and there is no TLD dedicated to the famous FOX brand. The .FOX TLD could fill these voids.

This specialization will make it easier for FOX Businesses to share information and content and provide services to each other. In addition, it will make it easier for Internet users who are looking for legitimate and authorized information about the FOX Businesses to locate this information. The .FOX TLD will communicate to consumers that they will find the premiere content, products, and services offered by the FOX Businesses at a single, secure destination.

Another benefit is that second level domains utilized by the FOX Businesses will become shorter. One impact of a dearth of ‘good’ web addresses has been for them to get longer over time. Using the .FOX TLD not only means the FOX Businesses’ can benefit from having an important keyword in their web address, it will also be much faster for Internet users to type in the address, especially when using mobile devices. Built into a wider strategy of web optimization and marketing, the inclusion of the TLD as a keyword in every domain name will likely have positive implications for specialty, security, and global promotion purposes. This will increase traffic to these websites, promote competition, and facilitate use by consumers who prefer shorter URLs, and increase trust for consumers looking for legitimate products and services in an increasingly crowded online marketplace.

2. .FOX Will Provide High Levels of Service

Applicant is committed to providing the highest level of security, quality, and customer service in the .FOX TLD. Applicant is contracting with and will engage proven industry operators and experts to provide the highest possible quality in registry and registrar services so as not to compromise the security and quality of the .FOX TLD. Due to the widespread and severe level of online content piracy, many of the FOX Businesses have extensive experience in Internet security issues, and have a vested interest in maintaining the highest levels of online security. Operating the .FOX TLD, as a fully controlled single registrant⁄single user registry model TLD, would be yet another way for the FOX Businesses to accomplish the goal of the highest and most secure provision of services.

In operating the .FOX TLD, Applicant will provide a secure, reliable and trusted domain space, and will endeavor to prevent malicious conduct. The absence of corruption, spam, phishing, piracy, and false information will protect consumers and enhance the FOX Businesses’ ongoing efforts to become trusted providers of the highest quality online goods and services.

3. .FOX Will Protect and Enhance the Reputation of the FOX Businesses

The Fox Businesses have developed substantial goodwill in the FOX brand by virtue of continuous and significant worldwide use, investment and effort. A goal of the .FOX TLD will be to promote the FOX Businesses’ reputation for excellence, high quality of content, innovative user experiences in digital media, cutting-edge marketing initiatives, and advanced technical capabilities.

Applicant will ensure that all of the second level domain names are used for bona fide purposes of the FOX Businesses, that the WHOIS is thick and reliable, and that the Registry is responsive to legal rights owners. In addition, Applicant will offer high levels of service, security and compliance. Through these activities, Applicant will strive to be known as an exemplary cyber-citizen.

18(b)(2): What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space, in terms of competition, differentiation, or innovation?

1. .FOX Will Increase Competition

The .FOX TLD will enhance competition by providing Applicant with a cutting-edge resource to innovate and create new online products, services, and platforms. This will incentivize competitors to improve the security and quality of their own goods and services, to offer similar domain name innovations, and to accelerate the introduction of new goods and services in order to attract new customers. Thus, the entry of the .FOX TLD will benefit consumers by increasing the likelihood of the successful introduction of new and innovative online entertainment, media, news and information products and services.

In addition, the .FOX TLD will contribute to the growth of the Internet in general. By virtue of its efforts to market and promote the .FOX TLD, Applicant will acclimate consumers to a new, specialized Domain Name Space on the Internet, and help normalize the expansion of the Internet.

2. .FOX Will Offer Differentiation

The .FOX TLD will be differentiated from all other top-level domains currently available in the marketplace because it will be comprised of the world famous FOX brand, and will clearly indicate to users the source of the TLD. In terms of differentiated uses, customized second level domains could signify the service offered as well as the source of the service, and .FOX domains will offer dedicated content. Finally, unlike existing TLDs, the .FOX TLD will be operated as a single registrant⁄single user registry, and second level domains will be registered by Applicant and controlled and used by Applicant and its Affiliates (e.g., the FOX Businesses).

3. .FOX Will Inspire Innovation

The FOX Businesses are already recognized leaders in online innovation. Indeed, technology is at the forefront of their online presences. The .FOX TLD could allow Applicant and its Affiliates to offer unique proprietary user experiences that incorporate cutting-edge technologies and are accessible via the latest connected devices. It could also provide a secure platform for Affiliates to test new designs and concepts and encourage experimentation.

18(b)(3): What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience?

Applicant believes that the .FOX TLD could provide a single trusted ecosystem experience for the billions of consumers worldwide that enjoy the products and services provided by the FOX Businesses. In addition to providing consumers with short, memorable and intuitive domain names, Applicant will adopt best-in-class safeguards to minimize any infringing or pirated content within the .FOX TLD.

18(b)(4): Provide a complete description of Applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals listed above.

Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry. Second level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by, Applicant for the use by Applicant and its Affiliates. Applicant does not intend to sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any second level registrations in the .FOX TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Applicant. Accordingly, members of the general public will not be able to register domain names in the second level of the .FOX TLD. Since it will not be possible for unrelated third parties to register second level domains in the .FOX TLD, registration policies designed to protect the public interest in registering domains, which would be necessary in the case of an open registry model, are not relevant. Instead, pre-existing decision-making channels within the FOX Businesses will administer policies regarding the registration and use of second level domain names within the .FOX TLD by Applicant and its Affiliates. Such policies will be consistent with all applicable ICANN policies and the policies described elsewhere in this application.

18(b)(5): 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.

Keeping customer information secure and private is of crucial importance to News Corporation and the News Corporation group of companies, including Applicant and the Fox Businesses. Applicant will ensure that the operation of the .FOX TLD will be consistent with News Corporation’s Statement of Privacy Principles, available on its website at www.newscorp.com⁄privacy.html. The Statement of Privacy Principles describes the policies and procedures for the collection, use and dissemination of personal information. The Statement of Privacy Principles and corresponding commentary make clear that News Corporation is committed to providing strong, effective privacy protections; discloses its policies regarding cookies and similar technologies; and uses reasonable administrative, technical, personnel and physical measures to safeguard personal information in its possession against loss, theft and unauthorized use, disclosure or modification.

18(b)(6): Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits.

As stated above, Applicant will initially make limited use of the .FOX TLD so that it may conduct consumer marketing and technical research to determine the most effective and safest way to use the .FOX TLD. At such time as Applicant expands use of the .FOX TLD, Applicant intends to make use of its and its Affiliates’ substantial and world-class marketing capabilities and significant consumer promotion channels to inform the public about the TLD and the content and information available therein.

Applicant expects to engage in ongoing outreach and communication efforts with consumers, and to continuously receive feedback and learn about consumers’ needs and desires. This process will assist Applicant in developing new, beneficial uses of the .FOX TLD.

18(c). Describe operating rules to eliminate or minimize social costs or financial resource costs, various types of consumer vulnerabilities.

As stated above, Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, and members of the general public will not be able to register domain names in the .FOX TLD. Applicant believes that the proposed operation of the .FOX TLD has no known negative consequences or cost implications to consumers. To the contrary, the proposed operation of the .FOX TLD is likely to lead to direct and quantifiable benefits to consumers, such as those noted earlier in this answer. 

18(c)(1): How will multiple applications for a particular domain name be resolved, for example, by auction or on a first-come⁄first-serve basis?

As stated above, Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry. All registrations in the second level of the .FOX TLD will be registered to and by Applicant for the use by Applicant and its Affiliates, and members of the public will not be able to register domain names in the second level of .FOX TLD. Accordingly, given Applicant’s intended registration policies and proposed uses for the .FOX TLD, Applicant does not envision a scenario where multiple applications for a single second level domain name in the .FOX TLD could occur.

For the sake of completeness, should Applicant wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model after the delegation of the .FOX TLD, then Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to ensure resolution of multiple applications for a particular domain name a transparent and fair manner, and in accordance with all applicable ICANN policies.

18(c)(2): Explain any cost benefits for registrants you intend to implement (e.g., advantageous pricing, introductory discounts, bulk registration discounts).

As Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, all registrations in the second level of the .FOX TLD will be registered to and by Applicant, and members of the public will not be able to register domain names in the second level of .FOX TLD. Accordingly, given Applicant’s intended registration policies, it is not necessary to implement any cost benefits for registrants since all registrations in the second level of the .FOX TLD will be registered to and by Applicant.

For the sake of completeness, should Applicant wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model after the delegation of the .FOX TLD, then Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to achieve cost benefits for registrants in a transparent and fair manner, and in accordance with all applicable ICANN policies.

18(c)(3): Note that the registry agreement requires that registrars be offered the option to obtain initial domain name registrations for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years. Additionally, the Registry Agreement requires advance written notice of price increases. Do you intend to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price escalation? If so, please describe your plans.

As Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, all registrations in the second level of the .FOX TLD will be registered to and by Applicant, and members of the public will not be able to register domain names in the second level of .FOX TLD. Accordingly, given Applicant’s intended registration policies, it is not necessary to implement the types mechanisms contemplated by this Question 18(c)(3) since all registrations in the second level of the .FOX TLD will be registered to and by Applicant.

For the sake of completeness, should Applicant wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model after the delegation of the .FOX TLD, then Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms in order to comply with the Registry Agreement and all applicable ICANN policies.

Community-based Designation


19. Is the application for a community-based TLD?

No

20(a). Provide the name and full description of the community that the applicant is committing to serve.


20(b). Explain the applicant's relationship to the community identified in 20(a).


20(c). Provide a description of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD.


20(d). Explain the relationship between the applied-for gTLD string and the community identified in 20(a).


20(e). Provide a description of the applicant's intended registration policies in support of the community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD.


20(f). Attach any written endorsements from institutions/groups representative of the community identified in 20(a).

Not Available

Geographic Names


21(a). Is the application for a geographic name?

No

Protection of Geographic Names


22. Describe proposed measures for protection of geographic names at the second and other levels in the applied-for gTLD.

Introduction

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) is aware of the substantial amount of work and effort that has gone into developing policy to address the issue of the reservation and release of geographic names under new gTLDs with valuable input from ICANNʹs Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Generic Names Supporting Organization Reserved Names Working Group, Registry Operators and from elsewhere within the ICANN community.

Applicant is aware of the requirements set forth in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook and the GAC advice with regard to protection of geographic names at the second level (or other levels) in the .FOX TLD. Applicant will implement appropriate measures to ensure that it meets its responsibilities and complies with these requirements as a gTLD registry operator with regard to both the reservation and release of geographic names at the second level (or other levels).

Reservation of Geographic Names

Applicant has thoroughly reviewed Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, the Government Advisory Committee’s (GAC) “Principles regarding New gTLDs”, and the .INFO methodology for reservation and release of country names. Accordingly, Applicant will, in conjunction with its registry services operator and registrar, initially reserve from registration, delegation or use by any party names with national or geographic significance at the second level. In particular, the second-level names that will be initially reserved are those specified in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, namely:

1. all two-character labels;

2. the short form (in English) of all country and territory names contained on the ISO 3166-1 list, as updated from time to time, including the European Union, which is exceptionally reserved on the ISO 3166-1 list, and its scope extended in August 1999 to any application needing to represent the name European Union;

3. the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names, Part III Names of Countries of the World; and

4. 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.


In order to satisfy Specification 5, Applicant will ensure that it reviews the aforementioned lists. Applicant will reserve all labels that match the above requirements to prevent their delegation and use.

Release of Reserved Geographic Names

Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement also contains provisions for the release of country and territory names if agreement is reached with “the applicable government(s), provided, further, that registry operator may also propose release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN”. In addition, Applicant has reviewed the .INFO methodology for reservation and release of country names.

As specified throughout this application and as defined in the registration policies, Applicant plans to operate the .FOX TLD as a single registrant⁄single user registry with domain names in the second-level of the .FOX TLD allocated only to Applicant. As such, Applicant will not permit any third party to register any second-level domain names within the .FOX TLD.

Applicant anticipates that it will explore with ICANN and the GAC the possibility of releasing reserved geographic names for the exclusive use by Applicant and⁄or its Affiliates (as defined in the draft Registry Agreement contained in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11) for promoting, providing information about and⁄or offering Applicant’s and its Affiliates’ goods and services directly to the customers or potential customers from the relevant country or territory indicated by the domain name.

In the event geographic names are released, Applicant will ensure that reasonable efforts will be made to reduce user confusion regarding the source or affiliation of the geographic domain name, and that security measures will be taken to protect confidential third-party information in accordance with that geographic area’s data and financial privacy laws.

Registry Services


23. Provide name and full description of all the Registry Services to be provided.

23.1 Introduction 

Fox Registry, LLC (ʺApplicantʺ) has elected to partner with Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) to provide back-end services for the .FOX TLD. In making this decision, Applicant recognizes 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. Neustar’s existing registry services will be leveraged for the .FOX TLD. 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. Applicant will use Neustar’s registry rervices platform to deploy the .FOX TLD, by providing the following registry services (none of these services are offered in a manner that is unique to Applicant):

• 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 (RPMs)
• Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).

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. Applicant’s response to Question 24 provides specific SRS information for the .FOX TLD

EPP
The .FOX TLD will use the 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 TLD implementations, Neustar has extensive experience building EPP-based registries. Additional information about the EPP approach for the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 25.

DNS
Applicant will leverage Neustar’s world-class DNS network of geographically distributed nameserver sites to provide the highest level of DNS service. The service utilizes “IP 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 about the DNS solution for the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 35.

WHOIS
Neustar’s existing standard WHOIS solution will be used for the .FOX TLD. The service provides supports for near real-time dynamic updates. The design and construction is agnostic with regard to data display policy and 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 about DNSSEC in the .FOX TLD, including the management of security extensions, is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 43.

Data Escrow
Data escrow will be performed in compliance with all ICANN requirements and in conjunction with an approved data escrow provider. The data escrow service will:
• Protect against data loss
• Follow industry best practices
• Ensure easy, accurate, and timely retrieval and restore capability in the event of a hardware failure
• Minimize the impact of software or business failure.
Additional information about the data escrow service for the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s 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 are pushed to all nodes within a few minutes of receipt of the changes by the SRS. Additional information about the DNS updates in the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 35.

Access to Bulk Zone Files
Applicant will provide third party access to the bulk zone file in accordance with Specification 4, Section 2 of the Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft 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 about WHOIS updates in the .FOX TLD is presented in Applicant’s response to Question 26.

IPv6 Support
The .FOX TLD will provide IPv6 support in the following registry services: SRS, WHOIS, and DNS⁄DNSSEC. In addition, Neustar supports the provisioning of IPv6 AAAA records. A detailed description of IPv6 and the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 36.

RPMs
Applicant will provide all ICANN-required RPMs, including:
• Trademark Claims Service
• Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
• Registration Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)
• UDRP
• URS
• Sunrise service.
More information about RPMs and the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 29.

IDNs
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 characters that may be deemed confusing to users. A detailed description of the IDN implementation in the .FOX TLD is provided in Applicant’s response to Question 44.

23.3 Unique Services
Applicant will not offer unique services.

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.

Demonstration of Technical & Operational Capability


24. Shared Registration System (SRS) Performance

24.1 Introduction

Fox Registry, LLC (ʺApplicantʺ) has partnered with Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”), an experienced TLD registry operator, for the operation of the .FOX TLD. Applicant is confident that the plan in place for the operation of a robust and reliable Shared Registration System (SRS) as currently provided by Neustar will satisfy the criterion established by ICANN.

Neustar built its SRS from the ground up as an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (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 of the Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft Registry Agreement”).

24.2 The Plan for Operation of a Robust and Reliable SRS

High-level SRS System Description
The SRS to be used for the .FOX TLD 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, Applicant 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 metrics based on 100% of all production transactions (not sampling).

SRS Systems, Software, Hardware, and Interoperability
The systems and software that a registry employs 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, as 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.

Neustar is able to limit any one registrar’s ability to adversely impact 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 Neustar 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 Neustar, in support of 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 initiate 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 “nerve center” 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 back-end processes such as dynamic update of DNS, WHOIS and Billing databases.

Similar to the EPP protocol farm, the SRS consists of a farm of load balanced application servers within this layer, configured with redundant network elements, to provide for a high availability environment. This design ensures that there is sufficient capacity to process every transaction in a manner that meets or exceeds all of Neustar’s aggressive service level requirements. Some registries couple the business logic layer directly onto 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 Business Policy Layer is protected by another set of firewalls that only permit access by authorized internal applications to Neustar. This “double set” of firewalls adds further protection of the core components from attack.

The SRS currently processes over 30 million EPP transactions daily. On average, more than 99.9 percent are processed within the specified EPP SLAs.

Database

The database is the third core component 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 to be used in the .FOX TLD can be found in Applicant’s response to Question 33.

Figure 24-1 (attached) depicts the overall SRS architecture including network components. 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 attached as Figure 24-1, Neustar operates a high availability architecture where there are no single points of failure at any individual level of the stack. Each of the network level devices run with dual pairs, as do the databases. For the .FOX TLD, the SRS will operate with 8 protocol servers and 6 policy engine servers. These servers expand horizontally as volume increases due to additional TLDs, increased load, and organic growth. In addition to the SRS servers described above, there are multiple back-end 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 the .FOX TLD.
The SRS includes an “external notifier” concept in its business policy engine as a message dispatcher. This design allows time-consuming back-end processing to be decoupled from critical online registrar transactions. Using an external notifier solution, Neustar 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, Neustar can elect to suspend processing of one or more back-end systems 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 tens of millions of transactions in the opening hours. The following are the standard three external notifiers used the SRS:

1. WHOIS External Notifier

The WHOIS external notifier dispatches a work item for any EPP transaction that may potentially have an impact on WHOIS. While the WHOIS external notifier feeds the WHOIS system, it intentionally does not have visibility into the actual contents of the WHOIS system. In this way, the WHOIS external notifier serves solely 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.
Additional information about the WHOIS system for the .FOX TLD is included in Applicant’s response to Question 26.

By allowing the peripheral services like WHOIS to intelligently interpret SRS information, Neustar can accommodate various customizations without impacting the core SRS implementation.

2. 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 then has the ability to decide what actual changes must be propagated out to the DNS constellation. Additional information about the DNS solution for the .FOX TLD is included in Applicant’s response to Question 35.

3. 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 rate cards.

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 in real-time through asynchronous replication. This model allows for high performance while also ensuring protection of data. See Applicant’s response to Question 33 for greater detail.

Compliance with Specification 6 Section 1.2

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

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

Compliance with Specification 10

Specification 10 of the Draft Registry 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 to Applicant for the .FOX TLD. The following section describes Neustar’s experience and its capabilities to meet the requirements for the .FOX TLD.

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. The attached Table 24-2 compares the current SRS performance levels with the requirements for new TLDs, and clearly demonstrates the ability of Neustar’s SRS to exceed those requirements.

Neustar’s ability to commit and meet such high performance standards is a direct result of its philosophy of operational excellence. Applicant’s response to Question 31 provides a full description of Neustar’s philosophy for building and managing for performance.

24.3 Resourcing Plans

The development, customization, and on-going support of Neustar’s SRS as deployed for the .FOX TLD are the responsibility of a combination of technical and operational teams, including:

• Development⁄Engineering – 19 employees
• Database Administration – 10 employees
• Systems Administration – 24 employees
• Network Engineering – 5 employees

Additionally, if customization or modifications are required, additional teams such as Neustar’s Product Management, Project Management and Quality Assurance teams may be involved. Finally, the Network Operations and Information Security play an important role in ensuring the systems involved are operating securely and reliably.

Neustar’s SRS implementation is proven, and has been in production for over 10 years. As such, very little—if any—new development related to the SRS will be required for the implementation of the .FOX TLD. The available resources are more than adequate to support the SRS needs of all TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .FOX TLD. Additional information about the available resources can be found in Applicant’s response to Question 31.

25. Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

25.1 Introduction

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) has selected Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) as Applicant’s back-end registry operator for the .FOX TLD. Neustar has over 10 years of experience operating Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) based registries. Neustar deployed one of the first EPP registries in 2001 with the launch of .biz. In 2004, .biz was 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 that Applicant is provided with an unparalleled EPP based registry. The following discussion explains the EPP interface that will be used for the .FOX TLD. This interface exists within the protocol farm layer as described in Applicant’s response to Question 24 and is depicted in the attached Figure 25-1. The protocol layer is responsible for ensuring transactions comply with the appropriate protocol

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 Neustar. This is the interface registrars will use for most of their interactions with Neustar.

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

The main features of the EPP implementation are:

• Standards Compliance: The EPP XML interface is compliant with the EPP RFCs. As future EPP RFCs are published or existing RFCs are updated, Neustar makes changes to the implementation, keeping in mind 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, Neustar 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 the attached 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 Neustar’s Engineering and Standards teams actively monitor and participate in the development of RFCs that impact Neustar’s 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 Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft Registry Agreement”) and profiled in the attached 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 relevant registry using EPP. The RTK 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 Neustar 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 RTK 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 .FOX TLD 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. The attached Table 25-3 provides a list of extensions developed for other TLDs. Should the .FOX TLD require an EPP extension at some point in the future, the extension will be implemented in compliance with all RFC specifications including RFC 3735.

The full EPP schema to be used in the .FOX TLD is attached in the document titled “Q25 EPP Schema.”

25.5 Resourcing Plans

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

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in Applicant’s 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 .FOX TLD.

26. Whois

26.1 Introduction

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) recognizes the importance of an accurate, reliable, and up-to-date WHOIS database for 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 Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft Registry Agreement”). Applicantʹs back-end registry services provider, Neustar, Inc. (“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 various TLDs, and as a 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 Neustarʹs thick-WHOIS solution that will be leveraged by Applicant for the .FOX TLD include:

• It is fully compliant with all relevant RFCs including 3912
• It is production proven, highly flexible, and scalable with a track record of 100% availability over the past 10 years
• It exceeds current and proposed performance specifications
• It supports dynamic updates with bulk update capability
• It features geographically distributed sites to provide greater stability and performance
• It provides for additional search capabilities and mechanisms to mitigate potential forms of abuse as discussed below (e.g., IDNs, registrant data).

26.2 Software Components

The WHOIS architecture comprises the following components:

• In-memory database local to each WHOIS node: To provide for 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 DDoS 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 domain names that are updated during the preceding 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 them 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 Draft 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 and it processes millions of WHOIS queries per day.
The attached 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 teams perform 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. Neustar’s WHOIS is optimized for speed using an in-memory database and master-slave architecture between the SRS and WHOIS slaves.

The WHOIS service also has built-in support for IDNs. 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 and 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.fox). It is an intuitive and easy-to-use application for the general public to access. The WHOIS web application provides all of the features available in the port 43 WHOIS. Subject to the security features described in Section 26.8 of this response, The WHOIS web application includes full and partial search of:

• Domain names
• Nameservers
• Registrant, Technical and Administrative Contacts
• Registrars

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

• 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.
• Extensive support for international domain names (IDNs)
• Ability to perform WHOIS lookups on the actual Unicode IDNs
• Display of actual Unicode IDNs in addition to the ACE-encoded name
• A Unicode to Punycode and Punycode to Unicode translator
• An extensive FAQ
• 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.

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

The attached Figure 26-1 depicts the different components of the WHOIS architecture. 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 Applicant’s response to Question 24 about the SRS and in Applicant’s “Technical Overview” in its response to Question 31, 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. Neustar’s current architecture is built towards the stricter SLAs (95% ≤ 15 minutes) of .biz. The vast majority of updates occur 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 of the Draft Registry Agreement. The application will enable authorized legitimate users to search the WHOIS directory using any one or more of the following fields:

• Domain name
• Registrar ID
• Contact and registrant name(s)
• Contact and registrant postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state or province, etc.)
• Nameserver name and IP address

In addition, the system will also allow search using non-Latin character sets that are compliant with IDNA specifications.

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

The attached 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 of the Draft Registry Agreement.

To mitigate the risk of abuse of this powerful search service, a layer of security will be built around this query engine that will allow Applicant and⁄or Neustar to identify rogue activities and 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, Applicant and Neustar will implement any or all of these mechanisms as appropriate for some or all of the features of the web application query engine:

• Username-password based authentication
• Certificate-based authentication
• Data encryption
• CAPTCHA mechanism to prevent robot invocation of Web query
• Fee-based advanced query capabilities for premium customers.

The searchable WHOIS application will be compliant with all policies implemented by Applicant and will ensure full compliance with all applicable privacy laws and policies.

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 important roles 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 Applicant’s 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 .FOX TLD. These resources are more than adequate to support the WHOIS needs of all TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .FOX TLD.

27. Registration Life Cycle

27.1 Registration Life Cycle

Introduction

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) will follow the lifecycle and business rules found in the majority of gTLDs today. Applicant’s back-end operator, Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) has over ten years of experience managing numerous TLDs that utilize standard and unique business rules and lifecycles. In this response, Applicant will describe the business rules, registration states, and the overall domain lifecycle that will be used for the .FOX TLD.

Domain Lifecycle - Description

Neustar 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 a registrar; other statuses may only be applied by Neustar. 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 .FOX TLD per the defined business rules.

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

• OK – Default status applied by Neustar.
• Inactive – Default status applied by Neustar if the domain has less than 2 nameservers.
• PendingCreate – Status applied by Neustar upon processing a successful Create command. This status indicates further action is pending and will not be used in the .FOX TLD.
• PendingTransfer – Status applied by Neustar upon processing a successful Transfer request command. This status indicates further action is pending.
• PendingDelete – Status applied by Neustar upon processing a successful Delete command that does not result in the immediate deletion of the domain. This status indicates further action is pending.
• PendingRenew – Status applied by Neustar upon processing a successful Renew command that does not result in the immediate renewal of the domain. This status indicates further action is pending and will not be used in the .FOX TLD.
• PendingUpdate – Status applied by Neustar if an additional action is expected to complete the update. This staus indicates further action is pending and will not be used in the .FOX TLD.
• Hold – Removes the domain from the DNS zone.
• UpdateProhibited – Prevents the object from being modified by an Update command.
• TransferProhibited – Prevents the object from being transferred to another registrar by the Transfer command.
• RenewProhibited – Prevents a domain from being renewed by a Renew command.
• DeleteProhibited – 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 Applicant’s response to Question 18. 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 is 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 Neustar
• 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 .FOX TLD 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 domains 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 on 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 state, 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 Neustar after the first 5 days (120 hours) of registration. The Pending Delete period is 35 days. During the first 30 days of this period, the name enters the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). The last 5 days guarantee that the domain will be purged from Neustarʹs database.

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 nameservers 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 establishes the maximum term of a domain name to be 10 years, and Neustar does not recommend 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 that will extend the domain beyond the 10 year limit, Neustar 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 employed:

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 Nacks (rejects) the transfer request
5. If the losing registrar has not Acked or Nacked the transfer request within the 120 hour timeframe, Neustar 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, Neustar will add a partial term up to the 10 year limit. Unlike with the Renew operation, Neustar 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 immediate removal of the domain from the database or the placement of the domain 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 placement of the domain in pendingDelete status. 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 a 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 AGP 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 AGP, 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. Domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete status and will enter the RGP.

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. Domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete status 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 Neustar.

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 status 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-day 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. 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 30-day RGP period, the domain will remain in pendingDelete status for an additional 5 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
The attached 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. See Section 27.1.1 of this response for a detailed 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: Neustar receives a create domain EPP command.
• WithNS: The domain has met the minimum number of nameservers required by Neustar policy to be published in the DNS zone.
• WithOutNS: The domain has not met the minimum number of nameservers required by Neustar policy. The domain will not be in the DNS zone.
• Remove Nameservers: The 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 Neustar policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.
• Add Nameservers: Nameserver(s) has been added to the domain as part of an update domain EPP command. The total number of nameservers has met the minimum number of nameservers required by Neustar policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.
• Delete: Neustar receives a delete domain EPP command.
• DeleteAfterGrace: Domain deletion does not fall within the AGP.
• DeleteWithinAddGrace: Domain deletion falls within AGP.
• Restore: The domain is restored and 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 cancelled 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 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 Product Management and Policy teams will play critical roles in working Applicant to determine the precise rules that meet the requirements of the .FOX TLD. 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 .FOX TLD will use standard lifecycle rules, and as such no customization is anticipated. Should modifications be required in the future, the necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in Applicant’s response to Question 31. The following resources are available from Neustar’s 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 .FOX TLD.

28. Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

28.1 Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

Strong abuse prevention in a new gTLD is an important benefit to the Internet community. Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) and its registry operator and back-end registry services provider, Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) understand that a registry must not only aim for the highest standards of technical and operational competence, but must also act as a steward of the namespace on behalf of the Internet community and ICANN in promoting the public interest. Neustar brings extensive experience establishing and implementing registration policies. Applicant will leverage this experience to combat abusive and malicious domain activity within the .FOX TLD, including, but not limited to, abuse resulting from:

• Illegal or fraudulent actions
• Spam
• Phishing
• Pharming
• Distribution of malware
• Fast flux hosting
• Botnets
• Illegal or fraudulent activity

One of Applicant’s primary abuse prevention and mitigation strategies is that Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry. Second level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant for the use by Applicant and its Affiliates (as defined in the Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft Registry Agreement”)). Applicant does not intend to sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any second level registrations in the .FOX TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Applicant. Accordingly, members of the general public will not be able to register or use second level domain names under the .FOX TLD. This operating model by its very nature will eliminate or at least significantly reduce potential abuse as envisaged by question 28.

Even though there is a minimal risk of abuse, Applicant, in conjunction with its partner, Neustar, will work to identify and mitigate certain abusive or malicious activity. For example, 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. 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, 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.

A registry operator must have the policies, resources, personnel, and expertise in place to combat potential abusive DNS practices. Applicant believes that a strong abuse prevention and mitigation program is essential and will implement all necessary policies and procedures needed to meet its obligations as a registry operator.

28.2 Policies Regarding Abuse Complaints

In order to prevent and mitigate abuse in the .FOX TLD, Applicant will adopt an Acceptable Use Policy (1) that clearly defines the types of activities that will not be permitted in the TLD; (2) that reserves Applicant’s right to lock, cancel, or otherwise suspend or take down domain names that violate the Acceptable Use Policy; and (3) that reserves Applicant’s right to share information with law enforcement when necessary. Applicant will implement through its internal policies and in its registrar and registration agreements a requirement that all registered domain names in the TLD will be subject to the Acceptable Use Policy. As Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, second-level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant. Therefore Applicant will agree to its own Acceptable Use Policy for each second-level domain name registered in the .FOX TLD.

The Acceptable Use Policy will be published at NIC.FOX and will provide Applicant with broad power to lock, suspend or cancel domain names that violate it. Actions Applicant may take against a domain name in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy include:

• Locking the domain name to prevent any changes to the contact and name server information associated with the domain name,
• Placing the domain name “on hold” to render the domain name non-resolvable,
• Transferring the domain name to another registrar,
• Removing the domain name from the DNS entirely,
• Substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist an existing law enforcement investigation related to the domain name.

Abuse Point of Contact

As required by the Draft Registry Agreement, Applicant will establish and publish on its website at NIC.FOX a single abuse point of contact (“Abuse Contact”) responsible for addressing inquiries that relate to malicious and abusive conduct and Applicant’s Acceptable Use Policy, including inquiries from law enforcement, the public, or any other party. Applicant will also provide its Abuse Contact information to ICANN prior to the delegation of any domain names in the .FOX 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 mailing address for the primary contact. Applicant will ensure that this information will be kept accurate and up to date and will provide ICANN with any updates to the information. In addition, with respect to inquiries from ICANN-Accredited registrars, Neustar shall have an additional point of contact, as it does today, handling requests by registrars related to abusive domain name practices.

Procedure for Taking Action Against Abusive and⁄or Malicious Activity

Applicant is committed to ensuring that complaints against domain names associated with abusive or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are addressed in a timely and decisive manner. Once a complaint is received by the Abuse Contact--whether from a third-party tip, from Applicant’s own monitoring, or from another source--Applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to review the complaint and verify the information therein.

Within a commercially reasonable period of time after receipt and review of the complaint, Applicant will provide a response to the complainant that (1) requests additional information about the complaint; (2) denies that a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy has occurred and explains why; or (3) confirms that a violation of a the Acceptable Use Policy has occurred and explains the actions taken by Applicant to remedy it.

If Applicant finds a violation of its Acceptable Use Policy, the Abuse Contact will alert the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to immediately suspend the resolution of the domain name. Applicant will then notify the registrant of the suspension of the domain name, the nature of the complaint, and provide the registrant with the option to respond within a timely fashion or the domain name will be canceled. If the registrant responds within a timely period, its response will be reviewed by Applicant. If Applicant is satisfied by the registrant’s response that the use is not abusive, Applicant will submit a timely request to the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to unsuspend the domain name. If the registrant does not respond within a timely fashion, the Abuse Contact will notify the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to cancel the abusive domain name.

In addition, 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. Applicant, 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. In conjunction with Neustar, Applicant will employ such removal of the domain name from the zone as circumstances dictate.

Coordination with Law Enforcement

With the assistance of Neustar as its back-end registry services provider, Applicant will meet its obligations under Section 2.8 of the Draft Registry Agreement 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 the .FOX TLD. Applicant will respond to legitimate law enforcement inquiries within a commercially reasonable period of time, and such responses 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 Applicant for rapid resolution of the request.

In the event such request involves any of the activities that can be validated by Applicant and involves the type of activity set forth in the Acceptable Use Policy, Applicant will promptly notify the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar and direct that the domain name be placed on hold or deleted from the DNS entirely. If Applicant determines that it is not an abusive activity, Applicant will provide the relevant law enforcement, governmental and⁄or quasi-governmental agency a compelling argument to keep the name in the zone within a commercially reasonable period of time.

.FOX TLD Acceptable Use Policy

Applicant will adopt, publish, and enforce the below Acceptable Use Policy, or a similar policy, to prevent and mitigate abuse in the .FOX TLD and to meet all other requirements of ICANN:

This Acceptable Use Policy gives the .FOX registry (the ʺRegistryʺ) the ability to quickly lock, cancel, transfer or take ownership of any .FOX 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 ongoing 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 use of counterfeit Web pages that are designed to trick recipients into divulging sensitive data such as usernames, passwords, or financial data.
• 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.
• Willful 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.
• Illegal or Fraudulent Actions: use of the Registry’s or Registrarʹs services to violate the laws or regulations of any country, state, or other applicable jurisdiction, or in a manner that adversely affects the legal rights of any other person;

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 and their respective 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.

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, Applicant understands 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 Applicant has written evidence of actual abuse of orphaned glue, Applicant will take action to remove those records from the zone to mitigate such malicious conduct.

Neustar will 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 not only prevents orphaned hosts but also identifies other records that should not be in the zone.

In addition, if either Applicant 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

As Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, second level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant. Therefore all domain names within the .FOX TLD will share the same WHOIS information, namely, that of Applicant. Therefore, there is a very low risk of inaccurate WHOIS data.

Nevertheless, Applicant acknowledges that ICANN has developed a number of mechanisms over the past decade intended to address the issue of inaccurate WHOIS information. In addition to those mechanisms and to ensure WHOIS accuracy, Applicant will offer a mechanism whereby third parties can submit complaints directly to Applicant (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 in a timely manner. Within a commercially reasonable period of time after forwarding the complaint to the sponsoring registrar, Applicant 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, Applicant reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) or take any other appropriate action necessary to effectuate accurate WHOIS information.

In addition, Applicant shall on its own initiative, no less than twice per year, perform a manual review of a random sampling of domain names within the .FOX TLD to test the accuracy of the WHOIS information, namely, that it reflects Applicant’s information as the single registrant⁄single user of the .FOX TLD. Although this manual review will not include verifying the actual information in the WHOIS record, Applicant will be examining the WHOIS data for 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. Within a commercially reasonable period of time after forwarding the complaint to the sponsoring registrar, Applicant 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, Applicant reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) or take any other appropriate action necessary to effectuate accurate WHOIS information.

28.4.1 Authentication of Registrant Information

As Applicant intends to operate a single registrant⁄single user registry, second-level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant. Therefore all domain names within the .FOX TLD will share the same WHOIS information, namely, that of Applicant. In order to ensure WHOIS data accuracy, Applicant will verify and provide confirmation to the sponsoring registrar in writing that its own contact information is accurate for purposes of the registration and should be included in the WHOIS record.

28.5 Resourcing Plans

Responsibility for abuse mitigation rests with a variety of functional groups. Applicant’s parent and other Affiliates have extensive pre-existing in-house resources dedicated to identifying and mitigating online abuse of its sites, and will leverage these resources in the operation of the .FOX TLD. Applicant’s full-time employee will help coordinate between Neustar’s and Affiliates’ resources. In addition, Neustar’s customer service team plays an important role in assisting with the investigations, responded to customers, and notifying registrars of abusive domains.

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:

• Neustar Customer Support – 12 employees
• Applicant Resource – 1 employee
• Applicant’s Affiliates’ Resources – 4 employees

These resources are more than adequate to support the abuse mitigation procedures of the .FOX TLD.

29. Rights Protection Mechanisms

29.1. Rights Protection Mechanisms

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) is firmly committed to the protection of intellectual property rights and to implementing the mandatory rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) contained in the Applicant Guidebook and detailed in Specification 7 of the Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the Applicant Guidebook dated 2012-01-11 (“Draft Registry Agreement”). A key motivator for Applicant’s selection of Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) as its registry services provider is Neustar’s experience in successfully launching a number of TLDs with diverse RPMs, including many required in the Applicant Guidebook. More specifically, and as will be more fully discussed below, Applicant will implement, when applicable, the following RPMs in the .FOX TLD in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook:

• Trademark Clearinghouse
• Sunrise Period
• Trademark Claims Service
• Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
• Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
• Thick-WHOIS

Importantly, Applicant intends to operate the .FOX TLD under the single registrant⁄single user registry model. Second-level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant for use by Applicant and its Affiliates. Accordingly, members of the general public will not be able to register or use second level domain names under the .FOX TLD. This operating model will by its very nature eliminate or at least significantly reduce possibilities for any abuse as envisaged by Question 29.

A. Trademark Clearinghouse Including Sunrise and Trademark Claims

The first 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 Trademark 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 have not yet been finalized, Applicant is actively monitoring the developments of the Implementation Assistance Group (“IAG”) designed to assist ICANN staff finalizing the rules and procedures associated with the policies and technical requirements for the Trademark Clearinghouse. In addition, Applicant’s back-end registry services provider, Neustar, is actively participating in the IAG to ensure that the protections afforded by the Trademark 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 Claims Service is intended to provide clear notice to a potential registrant of the rights of a trademark owner whose trademark is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.

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 on behalf of Applicant. Indeed, Applicant and Neustar have already agreed the Sunrise period and the Trademark Claims Service for the .FOX TLD will exceed the requirements set by ICANN for new gTLDs. Applicant’s Sunrise period for the .FOX TLD will last for up to 90 days, and Applicant’s Trademark Claims Service for the .FOX TLD will last for up to 120 days.

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 Service to trademark owners for the launch of .biz. Neustar’s experience with each of these RPMs will enable it to seamlessly provide these services on behalf of Applicant as required by ICANN.

a) Sunrise Experience 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 to 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 Neustar. 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 Neustar 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, it was given an associated approval number that it had to supply the registry. If not pre-validated, applicants were required to submit the required trademark information to Neustar through their registrar.

As the registry level, Neustar subsequently either delivered the:

• Approval number and domain name registration information to the clearinghouse, or
• Trademark information and the domain name registration information to the clearinghouse through EPP (as is currently required under the Applicant Guidebook) when there was no approval number.

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 its trademark matched the applied-for domain name, the clearinghouse communicated that fact to Neustar 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 their sunrise applications.

Although the exact process for the sunrise program and its interaction between a trademark owner, a registry operator, a registrar, and a 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 .FOX TLD.

b) Trademark Claims Service Experience and .biz

When Neustar’s .biz TLD launched in 2001, Neustar became the first registry with a TLD that employed a trademark claims service. Neustar developed the trademark claims 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 entities 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 its trademark rights, including the:

• Particular trademark or service mark relied on for the trademark claim
• Date a trademark application for the mark was filed, if any
• Country where the application was filed, if applicable
• Registration date, if applicable
• Class or classes of goods and services for which registration of the trademark or service mark was sought
• 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 to cancel the application. Proceeding with an application meant that the applicant wanted the application to proceed to registration despite having been notified of an existing trademark claim. By choosing to cancel, the applicant decided not to proceed with the application in light of the existing trademark claim notification.
If the applicant did not respond to the e-mail notification from Neustar, or elected to cancel the application, the application was not processed. As a result, applicant was 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 in 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 handled by the Trademark Clearinghouse, many of the aspects of Neustar’s trademark claims process in 2001 for .biz are similar to those in the Applicant Guidebook. This makes Neustar uniquely qualified to implement the new gTLD Trademark Claims Service.

B. UDRP and URS

1. UDRP

Prior to joining Neustar, Jeff Neuman, Neustar’s VP, Business Affairs, was a key contributor to the development of the 1998 UDRP. 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 or cancel domain names that have registered and used in bad faith. Although a registry does not generally play an active role in the implementation of the UDRP, Neustar has closely monitored UDRP decisions that have involved the TLDs it supports, and Neustar ensures that such 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.

2. URS

In response to complaints by trademark owners that the UDRP was 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 trademark 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 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.

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, it is the registry under the URS that must lock the domain within 24 hours 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 in place 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 cannot 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.

Applicant and Neustar are fully aware of each of these requirements and will have the capability to implement them in connection with the .FOX TLD. In fact, during the IRT’s development of the URS, Neustar began examining the implications of the URS on its registry operations and provided the IRT with feedback on whether the IRT’s recommendations would be feasible to implement.

There have been a few changes to the URS since the IRT recommendations, and Neustar has 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 to which it provides back-end registry services, including Applicant.

C. Implementation of Thick WHOIS

The .FOX TLD will include a thick-WHOIS database as required in Specification 4 of the Draft 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 For Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse

In addition to the RPMs addressed above, Applicant will implement a number of measures to handle complaints regarding the abusive registration of domain names in the .FOX TLD as described in Applicantʹs response to Question 28.

As stated above, given that Applicant intends to operate the .FOX TLD under the single registrant⁄single user registry model, it is highly unlikely that there will be complaints regarding abuse, since only Applicant will be registering TLDs. That being said, Applicant will implement the full suite of required policies and will promptly address any complaints regarding abuse.

Registry Acceptable Use Policy

One of the key policies each new gTLD registry needs to employ is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with such activities. The policy must be incorporated into the applicable registry-registrar agreement and must reserve the right for the registry to take appropriate actions based on the type of abuse. Such actions include:

• Locking the domain name to prevent any changes to the contact and nameserver information
• Placing the domain name “on hold” to render it non-resolvable
• Transferring to the domain name to another registrar
• Substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement investigation.

Applicant’s Acceptable Use Policy, set forth in its response to Question 28, will include prohibitions on phishing, pharming, dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting, hacking, and other malicious activities. In addition, Applicant’s Acceptable Use Policy will include its right to take action necessary to deny, cancel, suspend, lock, or transfer any registration in violation of the policy.

Monitoring for Malicious Activity

Applicant is committed to ensuring that complaints against domain names associated with abusive or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable Use Policy are addressed in a timely and decisive manner. Once a complaint is received by the Abuse Contact--whether from a third-party tip, from Applicant’s own monitoring, or from another source--Applicant will use commercially reasonable efforts to review the complaint and verify the information therein.

Within a commercially reasonable period of time after receipt and review of the complaint, Applicant will provide a response to the complainant that (1) requests additional information about the complaint; (2) denies that a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy has occurred and explains why; or (3) confirms that a violation of a the Acceptable Use Policy has occurred and explains the actions taken by Applicant to remedy it.

If Applicant finds a violation of its Acceptable Use Policy, the Abuse Contact will alert the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to immediately suspend the resolution of the domain name. Applicant will then notify the registrant of the suspension of the domain name, the nature of the complaint, and provide the registrant with the option to respond within a timely fashion or the domain name will be canceled. If the registrant responds within a timely period, its response will be reviewed by Applicant. If Applicant is satisfied by the registrant’s response that the use is not abusive, Applicant will submit a timely request to the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to unsuspend the domain name. If the registrant does not respond within a timely fashion, the Abuse Contact will notify the registry services provider and⁄or the sponsoring registrar to cancel the abusive domain name.

29.2 Safeguards against Unqualified Registrations

As mentioned above, Applicant intends to operate the .FOX TLD under the single registrant⁄single user registry model. Second-level domain names within the .FOX TLD will be registered to, and maintained by Applicant for use by Applicant and its Affiliates. Only a small number of people will have permission to register domain names. Nevertheless, Applicant will verify information supplied by its Affiliates for Applicant’s registrations to ensure that Affiliates are qualified as required by Applicant’s business policies described in its response to Question 18.

29.3 Resourcing Plans

The RPMs described in this response 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 a Sunrise period and a Trademark Claims Service is the responsibility of Neustar’s engineering team, with guidance from its Product Management team. Neustar and Applicant’s chosen registrar will provide customer support. Additional responsibilities will be handled by Applicant, through its FTE and through the pool of available resources described in response to Question 31. Collectively, these teams have years of experience implementing these or similar processes.

The following resources are available from Neustar:

• Development⁄Engineering – 19 employees
• Product Management- 4 employees
• Customer Support – 12 employees

These resources are more than adequate to support the RPMs of the .FOX TLD. In addition to Neustar’s resources, the RPMs for the .FOX TLD will be overseen and administered by Applicant’s employee, as well as via the internal resources of Applicant’s parent, News Corporation, and Applicant’s Affiliates.

30(a). Security Policy: Summary of the security policy for the proposed registry

Question 30(a)

Fox Registry, LLC (“Applicant”) and its back-end operator, Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”) recognize the vital need to secure the systems and the integrity of the data in commercial solutions. Neustar’s 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 .FOX TLD, including:

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

All of the security policies and levels described in this section are appropriate for the .FOX TLD.

30.(a).1 Summary of Security Policies

Neustar has developed a comprehensive Information Security Program (“IS Program”) 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 IS Program establishes Neustarʹs policies for accessing, collecting, storing, using, transmitting, and protecting electronic, paper, and other records containing sensitive information.

The IS 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

The following policies are included in the IS Program:

1. Acceptable Use Policy

The Acceptable Use Policy provides the “rules of behavior” covering all Neustar employees for using Neustar resources or accessing sensitive information.

2. Information Risk Management Policy

The Information Risk Management Policy describes the requirements for the ongoing 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 details the requirements for creating, storing, transmitting, disclosing, and disposing sensitive information, including data classification and labeling requirements, and 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 the vetting process, required contract reviews, and ongoing 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 ongoing awareness and training program at Neustar. This includes awareness and training activities provided to all Neustar employees.

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, remediating problems, and conducting “lessons learned” post-mortem reviews to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the IS Program. Additionally, this policy contains the requirement to report data security breaches to the appropriate authorities and to the public, as required by law, contract, 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 information about 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 provides information about aspects of Neustar’s network infrastructure and the technical controls in place to prevent and detect security policy violations.

11. Platform Security Policy

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

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, 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 provides 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 includes 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, the Quality Management (QM) groups and executive management. Neustar takes any actions necessary to adjust process, and remediation of issues is monitored by internal audit and QM groups.

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

• Performance of a network survey to gain better knowledge of the tested network
• Initiation of vulnerability scanning with all hosts discovered in the previous phase
• Identification of key systems for further exploitation
• Attempted exploitation of the identified systems

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.

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

There are no increased security levels for the .FOX TLD specifically; however, Neustar will provide the same high level of security to the .FOX TLD that it provides across all 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 SOX requirements (audited annually)
• Are focused on continuous process improvement (metrics driven with product scorecards reviewed monthly)

A summary of Neustar’s security policy in alignment with ISO 17799 is detailed in section 30.(a).4 below.

30.(a).4 Commitments and Security Levels

Applicant, in conjunction with Neustar, commits to high security levels that are consistent with the needs of the .FOX 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 documented security policies
• Compliance with all provisions described in the response to Question 30(b) and in the security policy document attached to that response.
• 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 manned Network Operations Center that monitors all systems and applications 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• A manned Security Operations Center that monitors and mitigates DDoS attacks 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
• DDoS mitigation using traffic scrubbing technologies



© 2012 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers.