The Management of Top Level Country Domain

Names

Derek Browne

Information Technology Specialist

6th CIF October 30, 2008

AGENDA

• Historical Context• Considerations for Management Models• Registry Models• Operational Policies• Legal Issues• Case Studies• Conclusions• Recommendations

Historical Context

• The management of these country’s ccTLDs started with the OAS RedHUCyT Project in 1991 and the CUNet Project

• Project involved nine Caribbean Countries: Jamaica; Trinidad & Tobago; Barbados; St. Lucia; Suriname; St. Vincent & Grenadines; Belize; Dominica Republic; and Grenada

• Initially the domain name server for the countries in the project was located at the University of Puerto Rico. (jm, .tt, .bb, lc, .sr, .bz, .gd, .do)

Considerations for Management Models

• International context – relationship with ICANN/IANA; National Laws; Involvement of Internet Societies in management; governance structures and financing

• Structural/Institutional arrangements – separation of various functions (General Administration, technical operations, financial management, customer support, research and development)

Additional Management Considerations

• Contracting out various components of administration

• Supporting physical infrastructure

• Ensuring involvement and accountability in governance structure

• Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities

• Choice of Registry models

Registry Models

The types of registry could be:

• A commercial enterprise

• Not For Profit entity

• Public-Private Joint venture

• Academic

• Individual

• Hybrid model

Choice of Model

• Dependent on: resources available; level of development of the sector; policy directives existing; and historical antecedents

• Model could have a management type focus; be a business strictly for profit orientation; provide only WhoIs services and can involve or not involve the marketing of the service

Operational Policies

• Managed either as a commercial enterprise or not for profit

• Registration could be closed to all external registration, open to all or have a mix

• The registry could be either thick or thin• Operations could be either fully automated

with Registry-Registrar protocol, manual or a mix

Policies for management

• Marketing could use resellers, retailers or have just a centralized registry with limited marketing

• The development could range from restricted to open; outsource; involve Public/Private sector cooperation or be mass marketing vs premium pricing

Legal Issues

• Legal issues are one of the more crucial aspects in the management of the resource

• Need for clear policies that meet international standards

• The legal aspects of copyright, brand security and intellectual property protection are paramount

Choice of Case Studies

• Four countries with different histories in ccTLD management with different approaches

• Montserrat using a local company to administer all aspects of management

• Grenada harnessing local resources to manage in a collaborative fashion

• Jamaica coming out of academia• St. Lucia started with an individual leading to the

management by a local company

Case Study # 1 Montserrat

• Since 2007 managed by MNI Network Ltd a Montserrat Company

• Contract with Government paying royalties• Open Registry with automation and online

payment• Both administrative and technical control• Challenge of branding .ms, sensitization of

public • Lesson in the use of local resources

Case Study # 2 Grenada

• NTRC under Telecommunications Act of 2000 has responsibility for management of top level country domain

• Grenada entered into contractual arrangement with AdamsNames for limited period

• Open registry non-automated registry• Lesson in mobilization of local resources by

collaborative broad based management committee

Case Study # 3 Jamaica

• Evolved form Academia• Centralized Regulatory Authority combining

administrative and technical functions of the registry

• Open (unrestricted) TLD with name server• Network Diversity - .jm name servers located in

different parts of the world (i.e. Jamaica, Europe and USA)

• Challenge – Having a central managing authority creates a monopoly and limits competition in the provision services

• Lesson in the evolution from public not for profit to a private commercial operation

Case Study # 4 St. Lucia

• Private sector management evolving from the “Puerto Rico Model” to fully automate open registry

• Challenge of Institutional legitimacy, involvement of local Internet community and sensitization on the issues of Internet governance

• The lesson is in a private sector management approach with the need to avoid legacies of historical accidents.

Interesting DNS Statistics

• DNS registration for Caribbean ccTLDs for the month of September 2008:– .bb - 1,052; .bz - 43,451; .do - 9,794; .gd –

1500; .gy – 1840; .tt – 2196. (Source: HosterStats.com)

• “At one point, .bz domains were being marketed by an American company as standing for "business", and that company took legal action against ICANN in an attempt to block the .biz domain as "unfair competition". Currently, the registry is in Belize, but is still marketing the domain outside the country as "meaning business". (Source: Wikipedia)

Conclusions• There are many models for the management of

ccTLDs • Local Internet Societies and the general public

should be involved in developing policies for the management

• There is no correct way to do it but there are tried and tested methods

• Policy development should be separated from technical administration

• Facilitating Regulatory framework is key

Recommendations• A regulatory framework for domain name management emphasizing the Internet Governance issues• All countries should ensure that the development of governing policy is in line with international best practice and broad popular involvement•The DNS policies should be in sync with the overall goals articulated in the national ICT Policy• There should be a regional approach in developing appropriate policies

<Insert title of presentation>

THANK YOU

Please visit our website

http://www.cif.tt

Email: derek.browne@crnm.org