ICANN New gTLD Application

The mission and purpose of the proposed .DWG Top Level Domain (TLD) is the creation and operation of a TLD dedicated to the Applicant, its DWG brand and products. As such the objective is that the .DWG TLD will serve as an official, trusted, secure and dedicated name space for the DWG brand and products. To this end the Applicant seeks to launch the .DWG TLD and to create and operate an innovative and secure platform in a manner which is consistent with its subject matter whilst committing to the promotion of consumer trust, consumer protection and integrity of the .DWG TLD and the associated Internet space.
The Applicant is committed to ensure that it fully complies with and meets or exceeds the requirements of ICANN in terms of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, and rights protection in relation to the expansion of the generic Top Level Domain name space by devising and implementing mechanisms in line with ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
The Applicant proposes to launch and operate the .DWG TLD to create a new Internet ecosystem dedicated to the Applicant and its Affiliates and to enable and facilitate potential innovations, creation and promotion of new initiatives from the Applicant. The domain name space associated with the .DWG TLD will create a new environment which will enhance diversity, choice and utility of the Domain Name System, based on a segmented approach, hence encouraging specialisation, differentiation, consumer recognition, and consumer choice in line with ICANN policy development.
In order to ensure the integrity, success and to build confidence in the .DWG TLD and the associated domain name space, the Applicant is dedicated to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are put in place with a view to protecting, among other things, public interest, customers, trade mark owners and other third party rights owners.
Operating and overseeing this new Internet space in a transparent, fair and efficient manner will be essential to create goodwill in the .DWG TLD and to develop confidence and trust in the .DWG TLD.
The fact that the Applicant intends to operate the .DWG TLD as a restricted registrant registry model will allow the Applicant and its Affiliates to control the operations of the .DWG TLD and prevent violation of public interest, trade mark infringement and other types of malicious conducts. The .DWG TLD will thus create an environment where opportunities for abuse and malevolent conduct will be virtually eliminated.
Furthermore, the Applicant is dedicated to ensuring that the creation and operation of the .DWG TLD will not have an adverse or negative affect on the operational security and stability of the Internet and the Domain Name System.
The Applicant intends to initially limit registration and use of domain names within the .DWG gTLD for corporate use and to qualified subsidiaries, affiliates and business units. This initial limited use will allow The Applicant to establish .DWGʹs operations and achieve full sustainability. This limited distribution coupled with the other requirements set forth in Specification 9 of the template Registry Agreement is intended to exempt The Applicant from its annual Code of Conduct Compliance requirements.
The Applicant currently plans a four-stage rollout for the .DWG gTLD:
1. Stage 1
The initial stage of implementation of the gTLD will involve the Applicant registering a limited number of .DWG second-level domain names. This initial use will provide the Applicant’s IT and security personnel the time to run a number of tests to ensure sustainable operation and will also allow the appropriate internal staff to coordinate with the internal and external staff responsible for the application, delegation, and setup phases of the .DWG gTLD to ensure a proper transition from delegation to full operation.
2. Stage 2
It is intended that the Applicant will then begin allocating domain names in the .DWG gTLD for more widespread corporate use. It is in Stage 2 that the Applicant may evaluate expanding the operations of the .DWG gTLD to permit registration by other registrants, such as select licensees or strategic partners. However, any expansion would be conditioned upon a review of Specification 9 (Registry Code of Conduct) set forth in the template Registry Agreement to ensure compliance with The Applicant’s business model.
3. Stage 3
Depending on the analysis of the evaluations undertaken in Stage 2, the Applicant may implement it’s decision to extend registration rights to licensees or strategic partners, depending upon compliance with Specification 9, as noted above. The dates of such expansion are subject to change depending upon business, strategic, and industry factors at the time.
4. Stage 4
Based on its experiences with any expansion implemented in Stage 3, the Applicant will assess whether the business plan and expansion strategy should be augmented by extending registration rights to a broader class of licensees, including potential customers of the Applicant. It is anticipated that changes to the domain name industry will take at least five years to be realized and assessed. Any decision to expand the gTLDs beyond corporate, qualified subsidiary⁄affiliate⁄business unit, and licensee⁄partner use will take into account this experience as well as the technical analysis of potential expansion.

The Applicant
The Applicant is Autodesk, Inc. a publicly traded (NASDAQ: ADSK) multinational corporation with its worldwide headquarters at 111 McInnis Parkway, San Rafael, California, 94903 USA.
Autodesk, Inc., is a leader in 3D design, engineering and entertainment software. Customers across the manufacturing, architecture, building, construction, and media and entertainment industries—including the last 16 Academy Award winners for Best Visual Effects—use DWG software to design, visualize, and simulate their ideas before they’re ever built or created.

Through apps for iPhone, iPad, iPod, and Android, DWG is also making design technology accessible to professional designers as well as amateur designers, homeowners, students, and casual creators.

Since its introduction of AutoCAD software in 1982, DWG continues to develop the broadest portfolio of state-of-the-art 3D software for global markets.

1.1 The DWG brand
Since its formation in 1982, Autodesk, Inc. has acquired and constantly developed reputation and goodwill in its DWG brand and software worldwide through continuous and significant investment, use and effort.
DWG refers to two different, but related things. First, it is a powerful technology environment that the Applicant places in many of its popular software products. DWG technology contains the ability to mold, render, draw, annotate and measure, among others. Second, .dwg is the native file format for AutoCAD data files that contain all of the pieces of information a user enters, from designs and geometric data to maps, photos and beyond.
Autodesk created DWG in 1982 with the launch of its first version of AutoCAD. With .dwg files circulating throughout virtually every design industry, DWG technology has made the .dwg file format one of the most commonly used design data formats.
The Applicant owns numerous trade mark registrations in the term DWG in many jurisdictions (including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Russia, China, Japan and Germany) in several classes of goods and services, including class 9 (Computer aided design software; training and instructional manuals used therewith in electronic form), and class 16 (Printed matter relating to design software; training and instructional manuals relating to design software).
The DWG brand is an invaluable asset and serves to identify the DWG business as a trusted source of the highest quality products.

The main goals of the .DWG TLD are specialisation, visibility, differentiation, innovation and enhancement of consumer recognition and trust.  
Given the intended mission and purpose for the .DWG TLD, the volume of second level domain name registrations will not be a pertinent indicator to assess or measure its success.  The Applicant will rather focus and strive to achieve a high level of consumer recognition and trust in the .DWG TLD. 
Operating and overseeing this new dedicated Internet space in a transparent, fair and efficient manner will be a key factor in creating goodwill in the .DWG TLD that will match the reputation the Applicant has developed in its brand.  As a result Internet users and customers of DWG will come to have the same levels of confidence and trust in the .DWG TLD.
The creation of a dedicated Internet name space which is indelibly associated with the DWG brand assurance of quality, will create a clear benefit to Internet users and to the Applicant and its Affiliates as it will establish certainty and trust as to the source of the content.
2.1	18(b)(1):  What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of speciality, service levels, or reputation?
(a)	Goals in terms of speciality
The creation and operation of the .DWG TLD will create specialisation by creating a segment of the Domain Name System solely dedicated to the Applicant and its DWG brand and products.
Currently there is no Top Level Domain that specifically corresponds to the Applicant and to its DWG brand, trade marks, software and customers. Thus no existing Top Level Domain could conceivably deliver the level of specialisation which could potentially be achieved by the .DWG TLD.
Based on the significant goodwill and consumer recognition that the Applicant has acquired and developed in the term DWG, it is anticipated that the .DWG TLD will, by association, clearly and visibly demonstrate the specialised nature of the .DWG TLD resulting in consumer recognition and trust.  Internet users will know that they are getting genuine information and be able to access content, information and products relating to the Applicant by virtue of the .DWG TLD.
Specialisation is a key element for the Applicant and for the proposed creation and operation of the .DWG TLD.  It is anticipated that this drive for specialisation will in the future become the standard for Internet users, customers and other third parties.  As such the .DWG TLD will provide a defined, unique and clear indication to Internet users that the .DWG domain name space is one that is dedicated to the Applicant.
Therefore, the .DWG TLD will be designed as a single source dedicated segment of the Internet and the Domain Name System where it will be possible to locate and access data in an efficient manner relating to the products of the Applicant and its Affiliates with the same level of trust which the Applicantʹs customers place in the Applicantʹs brand, all within a secure environment.
(b)	Goals in terms of service levels
The Applicant is fully committed to providing the highest levels of service in the course of the operation of the .DWG TLD.
Given the Applicantʹs commitments in terms of service levels associated with the .DWG TLD, the Applicant has entered into contractual agreements for the provision of services by third party service providers who are all leaders in their respective fields of activity. Thus the Applicant is seeking to ensure that both its internal resources and third party service providers have the capacity to achieve the highest levels of service performance in the course of the operation of the .DWG TLD. 
A key goal of the Applicant in the operation of the .DWG TLD will be to provide content in a highly secure environment so as to significantly reduce opportunities for malicious conduct. As the Applicant intends to operate the .DWG TLD following the restricted registrant user registry model, the Applicant will be able to fully control operation of the .DWG TLD and to ensure that content will be provided through the DWG TLD in a secured, reliable and trusted manner.   
(c)	Goals in terms of reputation
The Applicant will use best endeavours to ensure that it operates the .DWG TLD in a manner that furthers its excellent reputation in terms of quality of content and service, security and compliance.
Since its formation in 1982, the Applicant has acquired and constantly developed reputation and goodwill in its DWG brand and products through continuous and significant investment, use and effort.
Thus, the creation, delegation and operation of the .DWG TLD will be consistent with the Applicantʹs continuously increasing use of its DWG brand and will allow the Applicant to further promote the Applicant and its Affiliates’ reputation for excellence, technological advancement, innovation and specialisation.  
Given that the Internet is a central part of the Applicantʹs business, operating a dedicated segment of the Internet is of utmost importance to the Applicant, its Affiliates and their credibility and reputation.
As the Applicant intends to operate the .DWG TLD following the restricted registrant registry model, the Applicant will be able to fully control and oversee operation of the .DWG TLD. As a result, the .DWG TLD will by its very nature be associated with trusted and genuine content which will help the Applicant furthering the development of its reputation and consumer recognition in its DWG brand. Whilst the very nature of the .DWG TLD will help avoiding abuse and infringements, the Applicant is fully committed to address potential abuses and infringements in a timely and efficient manner if and when they occur. 
2.2	18(b)(2):  What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space, in terms of competition, differentiation, or innovation?
(a)	Goals in terms of competition
The .DWG TLD will contribute to the creation of a more competitive Domain Name System by operating a Top Level Domain dedicated to a particular commercial entity and thus incentivising competitors to position themselves on this new market in order not to lose ground to the Applicant and its Affiliates and to potentially provide new products or content or existing products or content in new ways. 
Thus the Applicant will contribute by its .DWG TLD initiative to the development of dedicated and specialised segments of the domain name space and the diversification of content and products available on the Internet.
The .DWG TLD initiative, the specialisation, innovation and high level of consumer recognition and trust that the Applicant and its Affiliates anticipate to achieve through the .DWG TLD will likely trigger a reaction from other economic agents and thus indirectly lead to the creation and availability of new and improved resources, products and contents on the Internet.  
Thus, the creation and operation of the .DWG TLD will benefit consumers by fostering innovation, competition, diversity of content and availability of specialised choices for consumers.
(b)	Goals in terms of differentiation
The .DWG TLD will be operated on a restricted registrant registry model and second level domain names will be initially reserved for exclusive registration by the Applicant for the exclusive use of the Applicant and its Affiliates. 
The .DWG TLD will, by its very nature, be highly distinctive and differentiated from all other Top Level Domains currently available and likely to be available in the future because it will be comprised of the Applicantʹs renowned and distinctive DWG brand.
Thus the .DWG TLD will clearly and officially indicate to users the source of the TLD. 
The .DWG TLD and all second level domain name registrations under it will act as a clear corporate identifier of the source of the dedicated products or contents. 
Therefore, differentiation will be achieved in three ways:
•	At the Top Level
•	At the second level
•	Through dedicated content
(c)	Goals in terms of innovation
The Applicant and its Affiliates have established a reputation as a leading company in the field of technological innovation and the Applicantʹs purpose in applying for the .DWG TLD is to pursue further innovation and technological advancement through a new dedicated platform based on the creation of the .DWG TLD. 
The .DWG TLD will be a new technological ecosystem for the Applicant to take its mission of innovation further.
2.3	18(b)(3):  What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience?
Given that the Applicant will operate and oversee the .DWG TLD on a restricted registrant registry model, user experience will in this context refer to two types of use:
(a)	Initial Exclusive use by the Applicant and its Affiliates
The Applicant will design a platform within the .DWG TLD which will allow the Applicant and its Affiliates to use this dedicated segment of the Internet in rationalised and unprecedented ways and allow access, experience, exchange, provision and updating of content and information.
During the first stages of operation, only the Applicant and its Affiliates will have the possibility to alter content with respect to domain names, to manage domain names and to take other actions necessary for the maintenance of domain names under the .DWG TLD.
(b)	Passive use by third parties
Whilst the exclusive use of the .DWG TLD will be initially reserved for the Applicant and its Affiliates, other users such as customers will be able to access content, information and services within the .DWG TLD. 
The .DWG TLD will provide a single, genuine, secure and trusted ecosystem where users worldwide will be able to experience and access content, information and services relating to the Applicant and its Affiliates. The specialisation and visibility of the .DWG TLD as the dedicated Top Level Domain of the Applicant and its Affiliates will provide considerable legitimacy and recognition to the .DWG TLD and thus be an online landmark for users worldwide. 
By virtue of operating its own dedicated TLD registry this will enable the Applicant to ensure a high degree of content quality and integrity which should result in an optimal user experience within the new .DWG dedicated segment of the Internet name space.
2.4	18(b)(4):  Provide a complete description of the Applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals listed above.
The Applicant intends to create and operate the .DWG TLD as a restricted registrant registry and will reserve domain names under the .DWG TLD for exclusive registration by the Applicant to the exclusion of other parties. During the initial stages of operation it will not be possible for individuals or entities who are not the Applicant to register domain names under the .DWG TLD. 
The Applicant does not intend to sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any second level domain name registrations in the .DWG TLD to any party that is not an Affiliate of the Applicant as defined in the Draft New gTLD Registry Agreement in section 2.9 (c) version 2012-01-11. 
As a result, rules and regulations aiming at protecting the public interest in the event of the opening of a TLD to general registration will not be relevant.
Accordingly the intended initial registration policies in support of the goals set out in the Applicantʹs .DWG TLD application will not contain provisions relating to registration by parties that are not the Applicant who will solely and wholly control and maintain registrations under the .DWG TLD. 
Such policies will be consistent with all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies and the Applicant is committed to ensure that said policies are strictly complied with.
2.5	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.
Given that the Applicant will initially operate the .DWG TLD on a restricted registrant registry model, confidential information relating to the sole intended registrant (the Applicant) and exclusive users (the Applicant and its Affiliates) will be the responsibility of the Applicant and its Affiliates and will be addressed by existing internal policies implemented within the Applicantʹs organisation. 
In relation to third party users who will visit the websites associated with domain names under .DWG, the Applicant will implement policies and procedures in line with its current policies contained in Autodesk, Inc.ʹs website privacy policy available at the following URL http:⁄⁄usa.autodesk.com⁄privacy⁄.  The Applicant will ensure that the operation of the .DWG TLD is at all times consistent with the Applicantʹs privacy policies as well as applicable laws and regulations.

2.6	18(b)(6):  Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits.
It is anticipated that the use made of the .DWG TLD will continuously evolve so as to ensure adaptation and innovation mirroring market trends, consumer demand and fostering technological advancement. 
As the Applicant identifies new demands, needs, innovative and beneficial types of uses, the Applicant may implement new types of use of the .DWG TLD.
Communication on the .DWG TLD and the products that it will offer will be crucial and the Applicant and its Affiliates will make extensive use of their in-house capabilities and experience.  In addition, the Applicant and its Affiliates will use preferred third party service providers if necessary to ensure efficient and visible communication, promotion and public information on the .DWG TLD and on the content, information and products available within this dedicated segment of the Internet.

22	Autodesk Has Properly Researched This Topic 

Autodesk S.A. (“Autodesk”) is keenly aware of the sensitivity of national governments in connection with protecting country and territory identifiers in the Domain Name System (DNS). In preparation for answering this question, Autodesk reviewed the following relevant background material regarding the protection of geographic names in the DNS:

-ICANN Board Resolution 01-92 regarding the methodology developed for the reservation and release of country names in the .INFO top-level domain, see http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄minutes⁄minutes-10sep01.htm;

-ICANN’s Proposed Action Plan on .INFO Country Names, see http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄meetings⁄montevideo⁄action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm;

-Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process: The Recognition and Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System, Chapter 6, Geographic Identifiers, see http:⁄⁄www.wipo.int⁄amc⁄en⁄processes⁄process2⁄report⁄html⁄report.html;

-ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles Regarding New gTLDs, see https:⁄⁄gacweb.icann.org⁄download⁄attachments⁄1540128⁄gTLD_principles_0.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312358178000; and

-ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization Reserved Names Working Group – Final Report, see http:⁄⁄gnso.icann.org⁄issues⁄new-gtlds⁄final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm.

22.1	Initial Reservation of Country and Territory Names

Autodesk is committed to initially reserving the country and territory names contained in the internationally recognized lists described in Article 5 of Specification 5 attached to the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at the second level and at all other levels within the .DWG generic top-level domain (gTLD), within which Autodesk will provide for registrations. Specifically, Autodesk will reserve:

-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, see http:⁄⁄www.iso.org⁄iso⁄support⁄country_codes⁄iso_3166_code_lists⁄iso-3166- 1_decoding_table.htm - EU;

-The United Nations Group of Experts on Geographic Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographic Names, Part III Names of Countries of the World; and

-The list of United Nations member states in six official United Nations languages prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographic Names.

22.2	Fair & Non-Misleading Use of Geographic Identifiers

Autodesk, Inc. a publicly traded (NASDAQ: ADSK) multinational corporation with its worldwide headquarters at 111 McInnis Parkway, San Rafael, California, 94903 USA.

Autodesk, Inc., is a leader in 3D design, engineering and entertainment software. Customers across the manufacturing, architecture, building, construction, and media and entertainment industries—including the last 16 Academy Award winners for Best Visual Effects—use DWG software to design, visualize, and simulate their ideas before they’re ever built or created.

Since its introduction of AutoCAD software in 1982, DWG continues to develop the broadest portfolio of state-of-the-art 3D software for global markets.

Autodesk intends to explore the option of providing a hierarchical and intuitive framework for the .DWG namespace by using geographic identifiers as second-level domain names. Autodesk believes that the use of geographic identifiers to the left of the TLD and as part of the domain name itself has a direct and material impact on search engine algorithms and their corresponding query results. In addition, such naming conventions are intuitive and practiced by direct navigation Internet users (those who type their intended destination into address bars as opposed to search engines). Autodesk would like to evaluate if this type of hierarchical and intuitive use of second-level domain names within a gTLD provides increased consumer functionality and innovation, as premised by ICANN.

Autodesk believes that the .DWG gTLD can provide an online, single-source identifying function for Internet users around the world navigating to the .DWG namespace.

22.3	The Legal Protection of Geographic Identifiers

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) authored an authoritative resource on the current state of the law in connection with the protection of geographic identifiers: ʺ2001 Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process: The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name Systemʺ (“WIPO Report”). Chapter six of the WIPO Report was devoted exclusively to the protection of geographic identifiers.

From its analysis of the well-established framework against the misuse of geographic identifiers at the international, regional, and national levels, WIPO identified the following two elements for the protection of geographic identifiers: (i) a prohibition of false descriptions of the geographic source of goods; and (ii) a more extensive set of rules prohibiting the misuse of one class of geographic source indicators, known as geographic indications. See WIPO Report (Paragraphs 206 and 210). Neither false descriptions of the geographical source of goods, nor misuse of geographical indications, is present in LʹOrealʹs current or proposed use of geographical identifiers.

Notwithstanding WIPO’s observation that the protection of geographic identifiers is “a difficult area on which views are not only divided, but also ardently held” (Paragraph 237), national governments within the GAC and other international fora have continued to advocate for increased safeguards to protect against the misuse of geographic identifiers within the DNS.

Autodesk, acting as a responsible global business, seeks to avoid business practices that could potentially mislead consumers. Autodesk believes, however, that it is important to be able to use geographic identifiers in a fair and non-misleading manner, if such use can benefit Internet users and consumers as proposed in Autodesk’s business model.

22.4	Fair & Non-Misleading Use of Geographic Identifiers

In undertaking thorough research of this subject matter prior to filing this application, Autodesk uncovered the following examples of fair and non-misleading use of geographic identifiers used in the existing gTLD domain name space:

Fair Use of National Geographic Identifiers

〈AUSTRALIA.COOP〉 – Is operated by Co-operatives Australia, the national body for State Co-operative Federations, and provides a valuable resource about cooperatives within Australia.

〈UK.COOP〉 – Is operated by Co-operatives UK, the national trade body that campaigns for cooperation and works to promote, develop, and unite cooperative enterprises within the United Kingdom. 

〈NZ.COOP〉 – Is operated by the New Zealand Cooperatives Association, which brings together the country’s cooperative mutual businesses in a not-for-profit incorporated society.

〈USA.JOBS〉 – Is operated by DirectEmployers Association (ʺDEʺ). While Employ Media, the Registry Operator of the .JOBS gTLD, is currently in a dispute with ICANN regarding the allocation of this and other domain names, DE has a series of partnerships and programs with the United States Department of Labor, the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, and Facebook to help unemployed workers find jobs. 

〈MALDIVIAN.AERO〉 – Is the dominant domestic air carrier in Maldives, and provides a range of commercial and leisure air transport services. 

Fair Use of Regional⁄Local Geographic Identifiers

〈TEXAS.JOBS〉 – Is operated through a joint effort between DE, Texas Workforce Commission, and the National Labor Exchange to connect job seekers with approximately 96,000 job openings. An additional domain name operated by this joint effort was 〈WORKINTEXAS-VETERANS.JOBS〉, a resource devoted to helping Texas veterans translate their military skills to jobs in the civil marketplace.

〈BOISE.COOP〉 – Is operated by Boise Co-op, a member-owned cooperative founded in 1973 by a few dozen individuals who shared a mutual interest in buying healthful and organic food at reasonable prices.

〈BROOKLYN.COOP〉 – Is operated by Brooklyn Cooperative Federal Credit Union, which began as a modest storefront business in 2001, but is now New York City’s fastest growing credit union and a model for community development credit unions nationwide. 

〈HYDERABAD.AERO〉 – Is operated by the Hyderabad International Airport and provides a range of interactive services and information for both business and leisure travelers. 

〈SACRAMENTO.AERO〉 – Is a portal website operated by Sacramento County to provide links to each of the airports serving the Sacramento area: Sacramento International Airport (SMF), Mather Airport (MHR), Executive Airport (SAC), and Franklin Field (F72).

22.5	Protection of Regional and Local Geographic Names for Non-Misleading Use

Autodesk has stated its intention to consider using non-reserved geographic identifiers as part of a hierarchical and intuitive framework in a fair and non-misleading manner to help consumers navigate the .DWG namespace. Autodesk is committed to operating the .DWG namespace in a manner that minimizes potential consumer confusion, and will actively work with others in the ICANN community regarding any future policy development in this area. 

22.6	Potential Future Release of Initially Reserved Names

As a global company, Autodesk looks forward to collaborating with other new gTLD Registry Operators in potentially working with the GAC to explore processes that could permit the release of initially reserved country names (including ISO-3166 two characters). Specifically, Autodesk is interested in exploring other Registry Service Evaluation Processes (RSEPs) that have been filed by existing gTLD Registry Operators to release previously reserved domain names. 

22.7	Dispute Resolution

Autodesk does not envision any potential disputes from governments or public authorities in connection with the registration and use of geographic names within the .DWG gTLD based upon its proposed use set forth in Answer 18 above. 

However, Autodesk is committed to working with governments, public authorities, or IGOs that may have a concern regarding the registration of names with national or geographic significance at the second level within .DWG. Therefore, should there arise any potential disputes, Autodesk will take immediate steps to undertake a policy development process as described below.

22.8	Creation and Updating the Policies

Should the need arise in the future for the creation or updating of the policies regarding this class of domain names, Autodesk will act in an open and transparent manner to develop such a policy and⁄or recommendation.

Autodesk is also committed to the ongoing review and updating of these lists to prevent misleading use of geographic identifiers. Consistent with this commitment, Autodesk intends to participate in any ongoing ICANN policy discussion regarding the protection of geographic names within the DNS.

23.1 Customary Registry Services

As Autodesk’s selected provider of backend registry services, Verisign provides a comprehensive system and physical security solution that is designed to ensure a TLD is protected from unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertion, or destruction of registry data. Verisign’s system addresses all areas of security, including information and policies, security procedures, the systems development lifecycle, physical security, system hacks, break-ins, data tampering, and other disruptions to operations. Verisign’s operational environments not only meet the security criteria specified in its customer contractual agreements, thereby preventing unauthorized access to or disclosure of information or resources on the Internet by systems operating in accordance with applicable standards, but also are subject to multiple independent assessments as detailed in the response to Question 30, Security Policy. Verisign’s physical and system security methodology follows a mature, ongoing lifecycle that was developed and implemented many years before the development of the industry standards with which Verisign currently complies. Please see the response to Question 30, Security Policy, for details of the security features of Verisign’s registry services.

Verisign’s registry services fully comply with relevant standards and best current practice RFCs published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), including all successor standards, modifications, or additions relating to the DNS and name server operations including without limitation RFCs 1034, 1035, 1982, 2181, 2182, 2671, 3226, 3596, 3597, 3901, 4343, and 4472. Moreover, Verisign’s Shared Registration System (SRS) supports the following IETF Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) specifications, where the Extensible Markup Language (XML) templates and XML schemas are defined in RFC 3915, 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, and 5734. By strictly adhering to these RFCs, Verisign helps to ensure its registry services do not create a condition that adversely affects the throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet servers or end systems. Besides its leadership in authoring RFCs for EPP, Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC), and other DNS services, Verisign has created and contributed to several now well-established IETF standards and is a regular and long-standing participant in key Internet standards forums.

Figure 23 1 summarizes the technical and business components of those registry services, customarily offered by a registry operator (i.e., Verisign), that support this application. These services are currently operational and support both large and small Verisign-managed registries. Customary registry services are provided in the same manner as Verisign provides these services for its existing gTLDs.

Through these established registry services, Verisign has proven its ability to operate a reliable and low-risk registry that supports millions of transactions per day. Verisign is unaware of any potential security or stability concern related to any of these services.

Registry services defined by this application are not intended to be offered in a manner unique to the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) nor are any proposed services unique to this application’s registry.

See Figure 0 1: Registry Services. Each proposed service has been previously approved by ICANN to ensure registry security and stability.

In addition the registry services found in Table 23-1, the Applicant is evaluating offering the following registry services:

1. Imposition of an annual cost recovery based fee to validate registrars that will be providing domain name registration services in the .DWG gTLD.

2. The use of RFPs (Request for Proposals) and Auctions to determine string allocation in appropriate circumstances.

As further evidence of Verisign’s compliance with ICANN mandated security and stability requirements, Verisign allocates the applicable RFCs to each of the five customary registry services (items A – E above). For each registry service, Verisign also provides evidence in Figure 23 2 of Verisign’s RFC compliance and includes relevant ICANN prior-service approval actions.

See: Figure 23 2: ICANN RFC Compliance. Verisign currently operates TLDs in full compliance with each registry service’s applicable RFC(s). Each listed Verisign service has been previously approved by ICANN and is now operational on registries under Verisign management.

23.1.1 Critical Operations of the Registry

i. Receipt of Data from Registrars Concerning Registration of Domain Names and Name Servers
See Item A in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.

ii. Provision to Registrars Status Information Relating to the Zone Servers
Verisign is the Applicant’s selected provider of backend registry services. Verisign registry services provisions to registrars status information relating to zone servers for the TLD. The services also allow a domain name to be updated with clientHold, serverHold status, which removes the domain name server details from zone files. This ensures that DNS queries of the domain name are not resolved temporarily. When these hold statuses are removed, the name server details are written back to zone files and DNS queries are again resolved. Figure 23 3 describes the domain name status information and zone insertion indicator provided to registrars. The zone insertion indicator determines whether the name server details of the domain name exist in the zone file for a given domain name status. Verisign also has the capability to withdraw domain names from the zone file in near-real time by changing the domain name statuses upon request by customers, courts, or legal authorities as required.
See: Figure 23 3: Zone Server Status Information. Verisign provisions to registrars status information related to the TLD.

iii. Dissemination of TLD Zone Files
See Item B in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.

iv. Operation of the Registry Zone Servers
Verisign is the Applicant’s selected provider of backend registry services. Verisign, as a company, operates zone servers and serves DNS resolution from 76 geographically distributed resolution sites located in North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Currently, 17 DNS locations are designated primary sites, offering greater capacity than smaller sites comprising the remainder of the Verisign constellation. Verisign also uses Anycast techniques and regional Internet resolution sites to expand coverage, accommodate emergency or surge capacity, and support system availability during maintenance procedures. Verisign operates the Applicant’s gTLD from a minimum of eight of its primary sites (two on the East Coast of the United States, two on the West Coast of the United States, two in Europe, and two in Asia) and expands resolution sites based on traffic volume and patterns. Further details of the geographic diversity of Verisign’s zone servers are provided in the response to Question 34, Geographic Diversity. Moreover, additional details of Verisign’s zone servers are provided in the response to Question 32, Architecture and the response to Question 35, DNS Service.
v. Dissemination of Contact and Other Information Concerning Domain Name Server Registrations
See Item C in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.

23.2 Other Products or Services the Registry Operator Is Required to Provide Because of the Establishment of a Consensus Policy

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected provider of backend registry services, is a proven supporter of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process whereby community members identify a problem, initiate policy discussions, and generate a solution that produces effective and sustained results. Verisign currently provides all of the products or services (collectively referred to as services) that the registry operator is required to provide because of the establishment of a Consensus Policy. For the .DWG gTLD, Verisign implements these services using the same proven processes and procedures currently in-place for all registries under Verisign’s management. Furthermore, Verisign executes these services on computing platforms comparable to those of other registries under Verisign’s management. Verisign’s extensive experience with consensus policy required services and its proven processes to implement these services greatly minimize any potential risk to Internet security or stability. Details of these services are provided in the following subsections. It shall be noted that consensus policy services required of registrars (e.g., WHOIS Reminder, Expired Domain) are not included in this response. This exclusion is in accordance with the direction provided in the question’s Notes column to address registry operator services.

23.2.1 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)
Technical Component: In compliance with the IRTP consensus policy, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected provider of backend registry services, has designed its registration systems to systematically restrict the transfer of domain names within 60 days of the initial create date. In addition, Verisign has implemented EPP and “AuthInfo” code functionality, which is used to further authenticate transfer requests. The registration system has been designed to enable compliance with the five-day Transfer grace period and includes the following functionality:
- Allows the losing registrar to proactively ‘ACK’ or acknowledge a transfer prior to the expiration of the five-day Transfer grace period
- Allows the losing registrar to proactively ‘NACK’ or not acknowledge a transfer prior to the expiration of the five-day Transfer grace period
- Allows the system to automatically ACK the transfer request once the five-day Transfer grace period has passed if the losing registrar has not proactively ACK’d or NACK’d the transfer request.

Business Component: All requests to transfer a domain name to a new registrar are handled according to the procedures detailed in the IRTP. Dispute proceedings arising from a registrarʹs alleged failure to abide by this policy may be initiated by any ICANN-accredited registrar under the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. the Applicant’s compliance office serves as the first-level dispute resolution provider pursuant to the associated Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. As needed, Verisign is available to offer policy guidance as issues arise.
Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the service, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems. By implementing the IRTP in accordance with ICANN policy, security is enhanced as all transfer commands are authenticated using the AuthInfo code prior to processing.

ICANN Prior Approval: Verisign has been in compliance with the IRTP since November 2004 and is available to support the Applicant in a consulting capacity as needed.
Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the .DWG gTLD.

23.2.2 Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy
Technical Component: Verisign’s registry system monitors registrars’ Add grace period deletion activity and provides reporting that permits the Applicant to assess registration fees upon registrars that have exceeded the AGP thresholds stipulated in the AGP Limits Policy. Further, the Applicant accepts and evaluates all exemption requests received from registrars and determines whether the exemption request meets the exemption criteria. the Applicant maintains all AGP Limits Policy exemption request activity so that this material may be included within the Applicant’s Monthly Registry Operator Report to ICANN.

Registrars that exceed the limits established by the policy may submit exemption requests to the Applicant for consideration. The Applicant’s compliance office reviews these exemption requests in accordance with the AGP Limits Policy and renders a decision. Upon request, the Applicant submits associated reporting on exemption request activity to support reporting in accordance with established ICANN requirements.

Business Component: The Add grace period (AGP) is restricted for any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP. Specifically, for each operator:
- During any given month, an operator may not offer any refund to an ICANN-accredited registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10 percent of that registrarʹs net new registrations (calculated as the total number of net adds of one-year through ten-year registrations as defined in the monthly reporting requirement of Operator Agreements) in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater, unless an exemption has been granted by an operator.
- Upon the documented demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, a registrar may seek from an operator an exemption from such restrictions in a specific month. The registrar must confirm in writing to the operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside the registrarʹs control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole and reasonable discretion of the operator; however ʺextraordinary circumstancesʺ that reoccur regularly for the same registrar will not be deemed extraordinary.

In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, the Applicant identifies each registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief description of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action, approval, or denial that the operator took.

Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the policy, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems.
ICANN Prior Approval: Verisign, the Applicant’s backend registry services provider, has had experience with this policy since its implementation in April 2009 and is available to support the Applicant in a consulting capacity as needed.
Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the .DWG gTLD.

23.2.3 Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP)
Technical Component: Verisign, the Applicant’s selected provider of backend registry services, adheres to all RSEP submission requirements. Verisign has followed the process many times and is fully aware of the submission procedures, the type of documentation required, and the evaluation process that ICANN adheres to.
Business Component: In accordance with ICANN procedures detailed on the ICANN RSEP website (http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄registries⁄rsep⁄), all gTLD registry operators are required to follow this policy when submitting a request for new registry services.
Security and Stability Concerns: As part of the RSEP submission process, Verisign, the Applicant’s backend registry services provider, identifies any potential security and stability concerns in accordance with RSEP stability and security requirements. Verisign never launches services without satisfactory completion of the RSEP process and resulting approval.
ICANN Prior Approval: Not applicable.
Unique to the TLD: gTLD RSEP procedures are not implemented in a manner unique to the .DWG gTLD.

23.3 Products or Services Only a Registry Operator Is Capable of Providing by Reason of Its Designation As the Registry Operator

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, has developed a Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service that complements traditional registration and resolution registry services. In accordance with direction provided in Question 23, Verisign details below the technical and business components of the service, identifies any potential threat to registry security or stability, and lists previous interactions with ICANN to approve the operation of the service. The Two-Factor Authentication Service is currently operational, supporting multiple registries under ICANN’s purview.

The Applicant is unaware of any competition issue that may require the registry service(s) listed in this response to be referred to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with applicable jurisdiction. ICANN previously approved the service(s), at which time it was determined that either the service(s) raised no competitive concerns or any applicable concerns related to competition were satisfactorily addressed.

23.3.1 Two-Factor Authentication Service
Technical Component: The Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service is designed to improve domain name security and assist registrars in protecting the accounts they manage. As part of the service, dynamic one-time passwords augment the user names and passwords currently used to process update, transfer, and⁄or deletion requests. These one-time passwords enable transaction processing to be based on requests that are validated both by “what users know” (i.e., their user name and password) and “what users have” (i.e., a two-factor authentication credential with a one-time-password).

Registrars can use the one-time-password when communicating directly with Verisign’s Customer Service department as well as when using the registrar portal to make manual updates, transfers, and⁄or deletion transactions. The Two-Factor Authentication Service is an optional service offered to registrars that execute the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service Agreement.

Business Component: There is no charge for the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service. It is enabled only for registrars that wish to take advantage of the added security provided by the service.
Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the service, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems. The service is intended to enhance domain name security, resulting in increased confidence and trust by registrants.
ICANN Prior Approval: ICANN approved the same Two-Factor Authentication Service for Verisign’s use on .COM and .NET on 10 July 2009 (RSEP Proposal 2009004) and for .NAME on 16 February 2011 (RSEP Proposal 2011001).

Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the .DWG gTLD.

24.1 Robust Plan for Operating a Reliable SRS

24.1.1 High-Level Shared Registration System (SRS) System Description

VeriSign, Inc. (ʺVerisignʺ), Autodesk’s selected provider of back-end registry services, provides and operates a robust and reliable SRS that enables multiple registrars to provide domain name registration services in the top-level domain (TLD). Verisign’s proven reliable SRS serves approximately 915 registrars, and Verisign, as a company, has averaged more than 140 million registration transactions per day. The SRS provides a scalable, fault-tolerant platform for the delivery of gTLDs through the use of a central customer database, a Web interface, a standard provisioning protocol (i.e., Extensible Provisioning Protocol, ʺEPPʺ), and a transport protocol (i.e., Secure Sockets Layer, ʺSSLʺ).

The SRS components include:

-Web Interface: Allows customers to access the authoritative database for accounts, contacts, users, authorization groups, product catalog, product subscriptions, and customer notification messages.

-EPP Interface: Provides an interface to the SRS that enables registrars to use EPP to register and manage domains, hosts, and contacts.

-Authentication Provider: A Verisign-developed application, specific to the SRS, that authenticates a user based on a login name, password, and the SSL certificate common name and client IP address.

The SRS is designed to be scalable and fault tolerant by incorporating clustering in multiple tiers of the platform. New nodes can be added to a cluster within a single tier to scale a specific tier, and if one node fails within a single tier, the services will still be available. The SRS allows registrars to manage the .DWG gTLD domain names in a single architecture.

To flexibly accommodate the scale of its transaction volumes, as well as new technologies, Verisign employs the following design practices:

-Scale for Growth: Scale to handle current volumes and projected growth.

-Scale for Peaks: Scale to twice base capacity to withstand “registration add attacks” from a compromised registrar system.

-Limit Database CPU Utilization: Limit utilization to no more than 50 percent during peak loads.

-Limit Database Memory Utilization: Each user’s login process that connects to the database allocates a small segment of memory to perform connection overhead, sorting, and data caching. Verisign’s standards mandate that no more than 40 percent of the total available physical memory on the database server will be allocated for these functions.

Verisign’s SRS is built upon a three-tier architecture as illustrated in Figure 24-1 and detailed here.

(See Figure 24-1, SRS Architecture: Verisign’s SRS is hierarchically designed to meet the forecasted registration volume of the .DWG gTLD, and it can be scaled to meet future registration volume increases.)

-Gateway Layer: The first tier, the gateway servers, uses EPP to communicate with registrars. These gateway servers then interact with application servers, which comprise the second tier.

-Application Layer: The application servers contain business logic for managing and maintaining the registry business. The business logic is particular to each TLD’s business rules and requirements. The flexible internal design of the application servers allows Verisign to easily leverage existing business rules to apply to the .DWG gTLD. The application servers store the Applicant’s data in the registry database, which comprises the third and final tier. This simple, industry-standard design has been highly effective with other customers for whom Verisign provides backend registry services.

-Database Layer: The database is the heart of this architecture. It stores all the essential information provisioned from registrars through the gateway servers. Separate servers query the database, extract updated zone and WHOIS information, validate that information, and distribute it around the clock to Verisign’s worldwide domain name resolution sites.

-Scalability and Performance: Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, implements its scalable SRS on a supportable infrastructure that achieves the availability requirements in Specification 10. Verisign employs the design patterns of simplicity and parallelism in both its software and systems, based on its experience that these factors contribute most significantly to scalability and reliable performance. Going counter to feature-rich development patterns, Verisign intentionally minimizes the number of lines of code between the end-user and the data delivered. The result is a network of restorable components that provide rapid, accurate updates. Figure 24-2 depicts EPP traffic flows and local redundancy in Verisign’s SRS provisioning architecture. As detailed in the figure, local redundancy is maintained for each layer as well as each piece of equipment. This built-in redundancy enhances operational performance while enabling the future system scaling necessary to meet additional demand created by this or future registry applications.

(See Figure 24-2, Built-in SRS Redundancy: Verisign’s SRS system is built upon multiple layers of redundancy to ensure the system remains highly available.)

Besides improving scalability and reliability, local SRS redundancy enables Verisign to take down individual system components for maintenance and upgrades, with little to no performance impact. With Verisign’s redundant design, Verisign can perform routine maintenance while the remainder of the system remains online and unaffected. For the .DWG gTLD registry, this flexibility minimizes unplanned downtime and provides a more consistent end-user experience.

24.1.2 Representative Network Diagrams

Figure 24-3 provides a summary network diagram of the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) SRS. This configuration at both the primary and alternate-primary Verisign data centers provides a highly reliable backup capability. Data is continuously replicated between both sites to ensure failover to the alternate-primary site can be implemented expeditiously to support both planned and unplanned outages.

(See Figure 24-3, SRS Network Diagram: Verisign’s fully redundant SRS design and geographically separated data centers help ensure service level availability requirements are met.)

24.1.3 Number of Servers

As the Applicant’s selected provider of back-end registry services, Verisign continually reviews its server deployments for all aspects of its registry service. Verisign evaluates usage based on peak performance objectives as well as current transaction volumes, which drive the quantity of servers in its implementations. Verisign’s scaling is based on the following factors:
Server configuration is based on CPU, memory, disk IO, total disk, and network throughput projections.

Server quantity is determined through statistical modeling to fulfill overall performance objectives as defined by both the service availability and the server configuration.

To ensure continuity of operations for the .DWG gTLD, Verisign uses a minimum of 100 dedicated servers per SRS site. These servers are virtualized to meet demand.

24.1.4 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems

Figure 24-4 provides a technical overview of the the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) SRS, showing how the SRS component fits into this larger system and interconnects with other system components.

(See Figure 24-4, Technical Overview: Verisign’s SRS provides the registrar-facing component of the system establishing the zone file needed to enable DNS and WHOIS services.)

24.1.5 Frequency of Synchronization Between Servers

As the Applicant’s selected provider of back-end registry services, Verisign uses synchronous replication to keep the Verisign SRS continuously in sync between the two data centers. This synchronization is performed in near-real time, thereby supporting rapid failover should a failure occur or a planned maintenance outage be required.

24.1.6 Synchronization Scheme

Verisign uses synchronous replication to keep the Verisign SRS continuously in sync between the two data centers. Because the alternate-primary site is continuously up, and built using an identical design to the primary data center, it is classified as a “hot standby.”

24.2 Scalability and Performance Are Consistent with the overall business approach and planned size of the registry

Verisign is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.

Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .DWG gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the ʺMost Likelyʺ scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response of this application.

24.3 Technical plan that is adequately resourced in the planned costs detailed in the financial section

Verisign, the the Applicant’s selected provider of back-end registry services, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the ʺMost Likelyʺ scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services provided to the Applicant fully accounts for this personnel-related cost, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response of this application.

Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .COM, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31 of this application, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support SRS performance:

-Application Engineers: 19
-Database Administrators: 8
-Database Engineers: 3
-Network Administrators: 11
-Network Architects: 4
-Project Managers: 25
-Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
-SRS System Administrators: 13
-Storage Administrators: 4
-Systems Architects: 9

To implement and manage the .DWG gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area.

When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes startup learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.

24.4 Evidence of Compliance with Specification 6 and 10 to the Registry Agreement

24.4.1 Section 1.2 (EPP) of Specification 6, Registry Interoperability and Continuity Specifications

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, provides these services using its SRS, which complies fully with Specification 6, Section 1.2 of the Registry Agreement. In using its SRS to provide back-end registry services, Verisign implements and complies with relevant existing RFCs (i.e., 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, 5734, and 5910) and intends to comply with RFCs that may be published in the future by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), including successor standards, modifications, or additions thereto relating to the provisioning and management of domain names that use EPP. In addition, Verisign’s SRS includes a Registry Grace Period (RGP) and thus complies with RFC 3915 and its successors. Details of the Verisign SRS’ compliance with RFC SRS⁄EPP are provided in the response to Question 25, Extensible Provisioning Protocol, of this application. Verisign does not use functionality outside the base EPP RFCs, although proprietary EPP extensions are documented in Internet-Draft format following the guidelines described in RFC 3735 within the response to Question 25 of this application. Moreover, prior to deployment, the Applicant will provide to ICANN updated documentation of all the EPP objects and extensions supported in accordance with Specification 6, Section 1.2.

24.4.2 Specification 10, EPP Registry Performance Specifications

Verisign’s SRS meets all EPP Registry Performance Specifications detailed in Specification 10, Section 2. Evidence of this performance can be verified by a review of the .COM and .NET Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports, which Verisign files with ICANN. These reports detail Verisign’s operational status of the .COM and .NET registries, which use an SRS design and approach comparable to the one proposed for the .DWG gTLD. These reports provide evidence of Verisign’s ability to meet registry operation service level agreements (SLAs) comparable to those detailed in Specification 10. The reports are accessible at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.

In accordance with EPP Registry Performance Specifications detailed in Specification 10, Verisignʹs SRS meets the following performance attributes:

-EPP service availability: ≤ 864 minutes of downtime (≈98%)
-EPP session-command round trip time (RTT): ≤4000 milliseconds (ms), for at least 90 percent of the commands
-EPP query-command RTT: ≤2000 ms, for at least 90 percent of the commands
-EPP transform-command RTT: ≤4000 ms, for at least 90 percent of the commands

25.1 Complete knowledge and understanding of this aspect of registry technical requirements
VeriSign, Inc. (“Verisign’), Autodesk’s selected back-end registry services provider, has used Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) since its inception and possesses complete knowledge and understanding of EPP registry systems. Its first EPP implementation – for a thick registry for the .NAME generic top-level domain (gTLD) – was in 2002. Since then Verisign has continued its RFC-compliant use of EPP in multiple TLDs. as detailed in Figure 25-1. 

(See: Figure 25 1: EPP Implementations. Verisign has repeatedly proven its ability to successfully implement EPP for both small and large registries.)

Verisign’s understanding of EPP and its ability to implement code that complies with the applicable RFCs is unparalleled. Mr. Scott Hollenbeck, Verisign’s director of software development, authored the Extensible Provisioning Protocol and continues to be fully engaged in its refinement and enhancement (U.S. Patent Number 7299299 – Shared registration system for registering domain names). Verisign has also developed numerous new object mappings and object extensions following the guidelines in RFC 3735 (Guidelines for Extending the Extensible Provisioning Protocol). Mr. James Gould, a principal engineer at Verisign, led and co-authored the most recent EPP Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) RFC effort (RFC 5910).

All registry systems for which Verisign is the registry operator or provides back-end registry services use EPP. Upon approval of this application, Verisign will use EPP to provide the back-end registry services for this gTLD. The .COM, .NET, and .NAME registries for which Verisign is the registry operator use an SRS design and approach comparable to the one proposed for this gTLD. Approximately 915 registrars use the Verisign EPP service, and the registry system performs more than 140 million EPP transactions daily without performance issues or restrictive maintenance windows. The processing time service level agreement (SLA) requirements for the Verisign-operated .NET gTLD are the strictest of the current Verisign managed gTLDs. All processing times for Verisign-operated gTLDs can be found in ICANN’s Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports at http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.

Verisign has also been active on the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg) working group and mailing list since work started on the EPP protocol in 2000. This working group provided a forum for members of the Internet community to comment on Mr. Scott Hollenbeck’s initial EPP drafts, which Mr. Hollenbeck refined based on input and discussions with representatives from registries, registrars, and other interested parties. The working group has since concluded, but the mailing list is still active to enable discussion of different aspects of EPP.

25.1.1 EPP Interface with Registrars

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, fully supports the features defined in the EPP specifications and provides a set of software development kits (SDK) and tools to help registrars build secure and stable interfaces. Verisign’s SDKs give registrars the option of either fully writing their own EPP client software to integrate with the Shared Registration System (SRS), or using the Verisign-provided SDKs to aid them in the integration effort. Registrars can download the Verisign EPP SDKs and tools from the registrar website (http:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄domain-name-services⁄current-registrars⁄epp-sdk⁄index.html).
The EPP SDKs provide a host of features including connection pooling, Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), and a test server (stub server) to run EPP tests against. One tool—the EPP tool—provides a web interface for creating EPP Extensible Markup Language (XML) commands and sending them to a configurable set of target servers. This helps registrars in creating the template XML and testing a variety of test cases against the EPP servers. An Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) environment, which runs the same software as the production system so approved registrars can integrate and test their software before moving into a live production environment, is also available.

25.2 Technical plan scope⁄scale consistent with the overall business approach and planned size of the registry

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.

Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .DWG gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as  “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

25.3 Technical plan that is adequately resourced in the planned costs detailed in the financial section

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance.

Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response. 
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .com, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support the provisioning of EPP services:
- Application Engineers: 19 
- Database Engineers: 3 
- Quality Assurance Engineers: 11 

To implement and manage the .DWG gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area.

When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes start-up learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.

25.4 Ability to comply with Relevant RFCs

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, incorporates design reviews, code reviews, and peer reviews into its software development lifecycle (SDLC) to ensure compliance with the relevant RFCs. Verisign’s dedicated QA team creates extensive test plans and issues internal certifications when it has confirmed the accuracy of the code in relation to the RFC requirements. Verisign’s QA organization is independent from the development team within engineering. This separation helps Verisign ensure adopted processes and procedures are followed, further ensuring that all software releases fully consider the security and stability of the TLD.

For the .DWG gTLD, the Shared Registration System (SRS) complies with the following IETF EPP specifications, where the XML templates and XML schemas are defined in the following specifications:
- EPP RGP 3915 (http:⁄⁄www.apps.ietf.org⁄rfc⁄rfc3915.html): EPP Redemption Grace Period (RGP) Mapping specification for support of RGP statuses and support of Restore Request and Restore Report (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP 5730 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5730): Base EPP specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP Domain 5731 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5731): EPP Domain Name Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP Host 5732 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5732): EPP Host Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP Contact 5733 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5733): EPP Contact Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP TCP 5734 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5734): EPP Transport over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
- EPP DNSSEC 5910 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5910): EPP Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s James Gould and Scott Hollenbeck)

25.5 Proprietary EPP Extensions

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, uses its SRS to provide registry services. The SRS supports the following EPP specifications, which Verisign developed following the guidelines in RFC 3735, where the XML templates and XML schemas are defined in the specifications:
- IDN Language Tag (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄idn-language-tag.pdf): EPP internationalized domain names (IDN) language tag extension used for IDN domain name registrations
- RGP Poll Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄whois-info-extension.pdf): EPP mapping for an EPP poll message in support of Restore Request and Restore Report
- WHOIS Info Extension (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄whois-info-extension.pdf): EPP extension for returning additional information needed for transfers
- EPP ConsoliDate Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄consolidate-mapping.txt): EPP mapping to support a Domain Sync operation for synchronizing domain name expiration dates
- NameStore Extension (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄namestore-extension.pdf): EPP extension for routing with an EPP intelligent gateway to a pluggable set of back-end products and services
- Low Balance Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄low-balance-mapping.pdf): EPP mapping to support low balance poll messages that proactively notify registrars of a low balance (available credit) condition

As part of the 2006 implementation report to bring the EPP RFC documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft Standard status, an implementation test matrix was completed. Two independently developed EPP client implementations based on the RFCs were tested against the Verisign EPP server for the domain, host, and contact transactions. No compliance-related issues were identified during this test, providing evidence that these extensions comply with RFC 3735 guidelines and further demonstrating Verisign’s ability to design, test, and deploy an RFC-compliant EPP implementation.

25.5.1 EPP Templates and Schemas

The EPP XML schemas are formal descriptions of the EPP XML templates. They are used to express the set of rules to which the EPP templates must conform in order to be considered valid by the schema. The EPP schemas define the building blocks of the EPP templates, describing the format of the data and the different EPP commands’ request and response formats. The current EPP implementations managed by Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, use these EPP templates and schemas, as will the proposed TLD. For each proprietary XML template⁄schema Verisign provides a reference to the applicable template and includes the schema.

25.5.1.1 XML templates⁄schema for idnLang-1.0
Template: The templates for idnLang-1.0 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄idn-language-tag.pdf.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for the IDN language tag. The mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features required for the provisioning of IDN domain name registrations.

〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄idnLang-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:idnLang=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄idnLang-1.0ʺ
  xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
  elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

〈annotation〉
  〈documentation〉
    Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 domain name
    extension schema for IDN Lang Tag.
  〈⁄documentation〉
〈⁄annotation〉

〈!--
Child elements found in EPP commands.
--〉
  〈element name=ʺtagʺ type=ʺlanguageʺ⁄〉

  〈!--
  End of schema.
  --〉
〈⁄schema〉

25.5.1.2 XML templates⁄schema for rgp-poll-1.0
Template: The templates for rgp-poll-1.0 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄rgp-poll-mapping.pdf.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for poll notifications. The mapping extends the EPP base mapping to provide additional features for registry grace period (RGP) poll notifications.

〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄rgp-poll-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:rgp-poll=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄rgp-poll-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:eppcom=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:rgp=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0ʺ
  xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
  elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

〈!--
Import common element types.
--〉
〈import namespace=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  schemaLocation=ʺeppcom-1.0.xsdʺ⁄〉
〈import namespace=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0ʺ
  schemaLocation=ʺrgp-1.0.xsdʺ⁄〉

〈annotation〉
  〈documentation〉
    Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
    Verisign poll notification specification for registry grace period
    poll notifications.
  〈⁄documentation〉
〈⁄annotation〉

〈!--
Child elements found in EPP commands.
--〉
〈element name=ʺpollDataʺ type=ʺrgp-poll:pollDataTypeʺ⁄〉

〈!--
Child elements of the 〈notifyData〉 element for the
redemption grace period.
--〉
〈complexType name=ʺpollDataTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈element name=ʺnameʺ type=ʺeppcom:labelTypeʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺrgpStatusʺ type=ʺrgp:statusTypeʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺreqDateʺ type=ʺdateTimeʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺreportDueDateʺ type=ʺdateTimeʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
〈⁄complexType〉
〈
!--
End of schema.
--〉
〈⁄schema〉

25.5.1.3 XML templates⁄schema for whoisInf-1.0
Template: The templates for whoisInf-1.0 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄whois-info-extension.pdf.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for the Whois Info extension. The mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide additional features for returning additional information needed for transfers.

〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄whoisInf-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:whoisInf=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄whoisInf-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:eppcom=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
  elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

〈import namespace=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  schemaLocation=ʺeppcom-1.0.xsdʺ⁄〉

〈annotation〉
  〈documentation〉
    Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
    extension schema for Whois Info
  〈⁄documentation〉
〈⁄annotation〉

〈!--
Possible Whois Info extension root elements.
--〉
〈element name=ʺwhoisInfʺ type=ʺwhoisInf:whoisInfTypeʺ⁄〉
〈element name=ʺwhoisInfDataʺ type=ʺwhoisInf:whoisInfDataTypeʺ⁄〉

〈!--
Child elements for the 〈whoisInf〉 extension which
is used as an extension to an info command.
--〉
〈complexType name=ʺwhoisInfTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈element name=ʺflagʺ type=ʺbooleanʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈!--
Child elements for the 〈whoisInfData〉 extension which
is used as an extension to the info response.
--〉
〈complexType name=ʺwhoisInfDataTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
  〈element name=ʺregistrarʺ type=ʺstringʺ⁄〉
  〈element name=ʺwhoisServerʺ type=ʺeppcom:labelTypeʺ
    minOccurs=ʺ0ʺ⁄〉
  〈element name=ʺurlʺ type=ʺtokenʺ minOccurs=ʺ0ʺ⁄〉
  〈element name=ʺirisServerʺ type=ʺeppcom:labelTypeʺ
    minOccurs=ʺ0ʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
  〈⁄complexType〉

〈⁄schema〉

25.5.1.4 XML templates⁄schema for sync-1.0 (consoliDate)
Template: The templates for sync-1.0 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄consolidate-mapping.txt.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for the synchronization of domain name registration period expiration dates. This service is known as ʺConsoliDate.ʺ The mapping extends the EPP domain name mapping to provide features that allow a protocol client to end a domain name registration period on a specific month and day.

 〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

   〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄sync-1.0ʺ
           xmlns:sync=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄sync-1.0ʺ
           xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
           elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

     〈annotation〉
       〈documentation〉
         Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 domain name
         extension schema for expiration date synchronization.
       〈⁄documentation〉
     〈⁄annotation〉

   〈!--
   Child elements found in EPP commands.
   --〉
     〈element name=ʺupdateʺ type=ʺsync:updateTypeʺ⁄〉

   〈!--
   Child elements of the 〈update〉 command.
   --〉
     〈complexType name=ʺupdateTypeʺ〉
       〈sequence〉
         〈element name=ʺexpMonthDayʺ type=ʺgMonthDayʺ⁄〉
       〈⁄sequence〉
     〈⁄complexType〉

   〈!--
   End of schema.
   --〉
   〈⁄schema〉

25.5.1.5 XML templates⁄schema for namestoreExt-1.1
Template: The templates for namestoreExt-1.1 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄namestore-extension.pdf.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for the routing with an EPP intelligent gateway to a pluggable set of back-end products and services. The mapping extends the EPP domain name and host mapping to provide a sub-product identifier to identify the target sub-product that the EPP operation is intended for.

〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign-grs.com⁄epp⁄namestoreExt-1.1ʺ
  xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
  xmlns:namestoreExt=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign-grs.com⁄epp⁄namestoreExt-1.1ʺ
  elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

〈annotation〉
  〈documentation〉
    Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0 Namestore extension schema
    for destination registry routing.
  〈⁄documentation〉
〈⁄annotation〉

〈!-- General Data types. --〉
〈simpleType name=ʺsubProductTypeʺ〉
  〈restriction base=ʺtokenʺ〉
    〈minLength value=ʺ1ʺ⁄〉
    〈maxLength value=ʺ64ʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄restriction〉
〈⁄simpleType〉

〈complexType name=ʺextAnyTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈any namespace=ʺ##otherʺ maxOccurs=ʺunboundedʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈!-- Child elements found in EPP commands and responses. --〉
〈element name=ʺnamestoreExtʺ type=ʺnamestoreExt:namestoreExtTypeʺ⁄〉

〈!-- Child elements of the 〈product〉 command. --〉
〈complexType name=ʺnamestoreExtTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈element name=ʺsubProductʺ
      type=ʺnamestoreExt:subProductTypeʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈!-- Child response elements. --〉
〈element name=ʺnsExtErrDataʺ type=ʺnamestoreExt:nsExtErrDataTypeʺ⁄〉

〈!-- 〈prdErrData〉 error response elements. --〉
〈complexType name=ʺnsExtErrDataTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈element name=ʺmsgʺ type=ʺnamestoreExt:msgTypeʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
  〈⁄complexType〉

〈!-- 〈prdErrData〉 〈msg〉 element. --〉
〈complexType name=ʺmsgTypeʺ〉
  〈simpleContent〉
    〈extension base=ʺnormalizedStringʺ〉
      〈attribute name=ʺcodeʺ
        type=ʺnamestoreExt:prdErrCodeTypeʺ use=ʺrequiredʺ⁄〉
      〈attribute name=ʺlangʺ type=ʺlanguageʺ default=ʺenʺ⁄〉
    〈⁄extension〉
  〈⁄simpleContent〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈!-- 〈prdErrData〉 error response codes. --〉
〈simpleType name=ʺprdErrCodeTypeʺ〉
  〈restriction base=ʺunsignedShortʺ〉
    〈enumeration value=ʺ1ʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄restriction〉
〈⁄simpleType〉

〈!-- End of schema. --〉
〈⁄schema〉

25.5.1.6 XML templates⁄schema for lowbalance-poll-1.0
Template: The templates for lowbalance-poll-1.0 can be found in Chapter 3, EPP Command Mapping of the relevant EPP documentation, http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄low-balance-mapping.pdf.
Schema: This schema describes the extension mapping for the account low balance notification. The mapping extends the EPP base mapping so an account holder can be notified via EPP poll messages whenever the available credit for an account reaches or goes below the credit threshold.

〈?xml version=ʺ1.0ʺ encoding=ʺUTF-8ʺ?〉

〈schema targetNamespace=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄lowbalance-poll-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:lowbalance-poll=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄epp⁄lowbalance-poll-1.0ʺ
  xmlns:eppcom=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  xmlns=ʺhttp:⁄⁄www.w3.org⁄2001⁄XMLSchemaʺ
  elementFormDefault=ʺqualifiedʺ〉

〈!-- Import common element types.--〉
〈import namespace=ʺurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:eppcom-1.0ʺ
  schemaLocation=ʺeppcom-1.0.xsdʺ⁄〉

〈annotation〉
  〈documentation〉
    Extensible Provisioning Protocol v1.0
    Verisign poll notification specification for low balance notifications.
  〈⁄documentation〉
〈⁄annotation〉

〈!--Child elements found in EPP commands.--〉
〈element name=ʺpollDataʺ type=ʺlowbalance-poll:pollDataTypeʺ⁄〉

〈!--Child elements of the 〈notifyData〉 element for the low balance.--〉
〈complexType name=ʺpollDataTypeʺ〉
  〈sequence〉
    〈element name=ʺregistrarNameʺ type=ʺeppcom:labelTypeʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺcreditLimitʺ type=ʺnormalizedStringʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺcreditThresholdʺ
      type=ʺlowbalance-poll:thresholdTypeʺ⁄〉
    〈element name=ʺavailableCreditʺ type=ʺnormalizedStringʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄sequence〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈complexType name=ʺthresholdTypeʺ〉
  〈simpleContent〉
    〈extension base=ʺnormalizedStringʺ〉
      〈attribute name=ʺtypeʺ
        type=ʺlowbalance-poll:thresholdValueTypeʺ
        use=ʺrequiredʺ⁄〉
    〈⁄extension〉
  〈⁄simpleContent〉
〈⁄complexType〉

〈simpleType name=ʺthresholdValueTypeʺ〉
  〈restriction base=ʺtokenʺ〉
    〈enumeration value=ʺFIXEDʺ⁄〉
    〈enumeration value=ʺPERCENTʺ⁄〉
  〈⁄restriction〉
〈⁄simpleType〉

〈!-- End of schema.--〉
〈⁄schema〉


25.6 Proprietary EPP Extension Consistency with Registration Lifecycle

The Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) proprietary EPP extensions, defined in Section 5 above, are consistent with the registration lifecycle documented in the response to Question 27, Registration Lifecycle. Details of the registration lifecycle are presented in that response. As new registry features are required, Verisign develops proprietary EPP extensions to address new operational requirements. Consistent with ICANN procedures Verisign adheres to all applicable Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) procedures.

26.1 Complete knowledge and understanding of this aspect of registry technical requirements
VeriSign, Inc. (ʺVerisignʺ) Autodesk’s selected back-end registry services provider, has operated the WHOIS lookup service for the gTLDs and ccTLDs it manages since 1991, and will provide these proven services for the .DWG gTLD registry. In addition, it continues to work with the Internet community to improve the utility of WHOIS data, while thwarting its application for abusive uses.

26.1.1 High-Level WHOIS System Description
Like all other components of the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registry service, Verisign’s WHOIS system is designed and built for both reliability and performance in full compliance with applicable RFCs. Verisign’s current WHOIS implementation has answered more than five billion WHOIS queries per month for the TLDs it manages, and has experienced more than 250,000 queries per minute in peak conditions. The proposed gTLD uses a WHOIS system design and approach that is comparable to the current implementation. Independent quality control testing ensures Verisign’s WHOIS service is RFC-compliant through all phases of its lifecycle. 
Verisignʹs redundant WHOIS databases further contribute to overall system availability and reliability. The hardware and software for its WHOIS service is architected to scale both horizontally (by adding more servers) and vertically (by adding more CPUs and memory to existing servers) to meet future need.
Verisign can fine-tune access to its WHOIS database on an individual Internet Protocol (IP) address basis, and it works with registrars to help ensure their services are not limited by any restriction placed on WHOIS. Verisign provides near real-time updates for WHOIS services for the TLDs under its management. As information is updated in the registration database, it is propagated to the WHOIS servers for quick publication. These updates align with the near real-time publication of Domain Name System (DNS) information as it is updated in the registration database. This capability is important for the .DWG gTLD registry as it is Verisign’s experience that when DNS data is updated in near real time, so should WHOIS data be updated to reflect the registration specifics of those domain names.
Verisign’s WHOIS response time has been less than 500 milliseconds for 95 percent of all WHOIS queries in .COM, .NET, .TV, and .CC. The response time in these TLDs, combined with Verisign’s capacity, enables the WHOIS system to respond to up to 30,000 searches (or queries) per second for a total capacity of 2.6 billion queries per day.

The WHOIS software written by Verisign complies with RFC 3912. Verisign uses an advanced in-memory database technology to provide exceptional overall system performance and security. In accordance with RFC 3912, Verisign provides a website at whois.nic.DWG that provides free public query-based access to the registration data.
Verisign currently operates both thin and thick WHOIS systems.

Verisign commits to implementing a RESTful WHOIS service upon finalization of agreements with the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force).
26.1.1a Provided Functionalities for User Interface

To use the WHOIS service via port 43, the user enters the applicable parameter on the command line as illustrated here:

-For domain name: whois EXAMPLE.TLD
-For registrar: whois ʺregistrar Example Registrar, Inc.ʺ
-For name server: whois ʺNS1.EXAMPLE.TLDʺ or whois ʺname server (IP address)ʺ

To use the WHOIS service via the Web-based directory service search interface:
-Go to http:⁄⁄whois.nic.DWG
-Click on the appropriate button (Domain, Registrar, or Name Server)
-Enter the applicable parameter:
--Domain name, including the TLD (e.g., EXAMPLE.TLD)
--Full name of the registrar, including punctuation (e.g., Example Registrar, Inc.)
--Full host name or the IP address (e.g., NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD or 198.41.3.39)
-Click on the Submit button.

26.1.1b Provisions to Ensure That Access Is Limited to Legitimate Authorized Users and Is in Compliance with Applicable Privacy Laws or Policies
To further promote reliable and secure WHOIS operations, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, has implemented rate-limiting characteristics within the WHOIS service software. For example, to prevent data mining or other abusive behavior, the service can throttle a specific requestor if the query rate exceeds a configurable threshold. In addition, QoS technology enables rate limiting of queries before they reach the servers, which helps protect against denial of service (DoS) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. 
Verisign’s software also permits restrictions on search capabilities. For example, wild card searches can be disabled. If needed, it is possible to temporarily restrict and⁄or block requests coming from specific IP addresses for a configurable amount of time. Additional features that are configurable in the WHOIS software include help files, headers and footers for WHOIS query responses, statistics, and methods to memory map the database. Furthermore, Verisign is European Union (EU) Safe Harbor certified and has worked with European data protection authorities to address applicable privacy laws by developing a tiered WHOIS access structure that requires users who require access to more extensive data to (i) identify themselves, (ii) confirm that their use is for a specified purpose and (iii) enter into an agreement governing their use of the more extensive WHOIS data.
26.1.2 Relevant Network Diagrams
Figure 26-1 provides a summary network diagram of the WHOIS service provided by Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider. The figure details the configuration with one resolution⁄WHOIS site. For the .DWG gTLD, Verisign provides WHOIS service from six of its 17 primary sites based on the proposed gTLD’s traffic volume and patterns. A functionally equivalent resolution architecture configuration exists at each WHOIS site.
26.1.3 IT and Infrastructure Resources
Figure 26-2 summarizes the IT and infrastructure resources that Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, uses to provision WHOIS services from Verisign primary resolution sites. As needed, virtual machines are created based on actual and projected demand.
See Figure 26-2
26.1.4 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems
Figure 26-3 provides a technical overview of the registry system provided by Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, and shows how the WHOIS service component fits into this larger system and interconnects with other system components. 

26.1.5 Frequency of Synchronization Between Servers
Synchronization between the SRS and the geographically distributed WHOIS resolution sites occurs approximately every three minutes. Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, uses a two-part WHOIS update process to ensure WHOIS data is accurate and available. Every 12 hours an initial file is distributed to each resolution site. This file is a complete copy of all WHOIS data fields associated with each domain name under management. As interactions with the SRS cause the WHOIS data to be changed, these incremental changes are distributed to the resolution sites as an incremental file update. This incremental update occurs approximately every three minutes. When the new 12-hour full update is distributed, this file includes all past incremental updates. Verisign’s approach to frequency of synchronization between servers meets the Performance Specifications defined in Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement for new gTLDs.

26.2 Technical plan scope⁄scale consistent with the overall business approach and planned size of the registry
Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.
Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .DWG gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the ʺMost Likelyʺ scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response of this application.

26.3 Technical plan that is adequately resourced in the planned costs detailed in the financial section
Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the ʺMost Likelyʺ scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response of this application.
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .COM, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings. 
Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, of this application to support WHOIS services:
-Application Engineers: 19
-Database Engineers: 3
-Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
To implement and manage the .DWG gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area. 
When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes startup learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.
26.4 Compliance with Relevant RFC
The Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) WHOIS service complies with the data formats defined in Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement. Verisign will provision WHOIS services for registered domain names and associated data in the top-level domain (TLD). Verisign’s WHOIS services are accessible over Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), via both Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) port 43 and a Web-based directory service at whois.nic..DWG, which, in accordance with RFC 3912, provides free public query-based access to domain name, registrar, and name server lookups. Verisign’s proposed WHOIS system meets all requirements as defined by ICANN for each registry under Verisign management. Evidence of this successful implementation, and thus compliance with the applicable RFCs, can be verified by a review of the .COM and .NET Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports that Verisign files with ICANN. These reports provide evidence of Verisign’s ability to meet registry operation service level agreements (SLAs) comparable to those detailed in Specification 10. The reports are accessible at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.
26.5 Compliance with Specifications 4 and 10 of Registry Agreement
In accordance with Specification 4, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, provides a WHOIS service that is available via both port 43 in accordance with RFC 3912, and a Web-based directory service at whois.nic..DWG also in accordance with RFC 3912, thereby providing free public query-based access. Verisign acknowledges that ICANN reserves the right to specify alternative formats and protocols, and upon such specification, Verisign will implement such alternative specification as soon as reasonably practicable.
The format of the following data fields conforms to the mappings specified in Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) RFCs 5730 – 5734 so the display of this information (or values returned in WHOIS responses) can be uniformly processed and understood: domain name status, individual and organizational names, address, street, city, state⁄province, postal code, country, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, date, and times.
Specifications for data objects, bulk access, and lookups comply with Specification 4 and are detailed in the following subsections, provided in both bulk access and lookup modes. 
Bulk Access Mode: This data is provided on a daily schedule to a party designated from time to time in writing by ICANN. The specification of the content and format of this data, and the procedures for providing access, shall be as stated below, until revised in the ICANN Registry Agreement.
The data is provided in three files:
-Domain Name File: For each domain name, the file provides the domain name, server name for each name server, registrar ID, and updated date.
-Name Server File: For each registered name server, the file provides the server name, each IP address, registrar ID, and updated date.
-Registrar File: For each registrar, the following data elements are provided: registrar ID, registrar address, registrar telephone number, registrar email address, WHOIS server, referral URL, updated date, and the name, telephone number, and email address of all the registrarʹs administrative, billing, and technical contacts.
Lookup Mode: Figures 26-4 through 26-6 provide the query and response format for domain name, registrar, and name server data objects. 
See Figure 26-4
See Figure 26-5
See Figure 26-6
26.5.1 Specification 10, RDDS Registry Performance Specifications
The WHOIS service meets all registration data directory services (RDDS) registry performance specifications detailed in Specification 10, Section 2. Evidence of this performance can be verified by a review of the .COM and .NET Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports that Verisign files monthly with ICANN. These reports are accessible from the ICANN website at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.
In accordance with RDDS registry performance specifications detailed in Specification 10, Verisignʹs WHOIS service meets the following proven performance attributes:
-RDDS availability: GBP864 min of downtime (greater than 98%)
-RDDS query RTT: GBP2000 ms, for at least 95% of the queries
-RDDS update time: GBP60 min, for at least 95% of the probes
26.6 Searchable WHOIS
Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, provides a searchable WHOIS service for the .DWG gTLD. Verisign has experience in providing tiered access to WHOIS for the .NAME registry, and uses these methods and control structures to help reduce potential malicious use of the function. The searchable WHOIS system currently uses Apache’s Lucene full text search engine to index relevant WHOIS content with near-real time incremental updates from the provisioning system.
Features of the Verisign searchable WHOIS function include:
-Provision of a Web-based searchable directory service
-Ability to perform partial match, at least, for the following data fields: domain name, contacts and registrant’s name, and contact and registrant’s postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state, or province)
-Ability to perform exact match, at least, on the following fields: registrar ID, name server name, and name server’s IP address (only applies to IP addresses stored by the registry, i.e., glue records)
-Ability to perform Boolean search supporting, at least, the following logical operators to join a set of search criteria: AND, OR, NOT 
-Search results that include domain names that match the selected search criteria

Verisign’s implementation of searchable WHOIS is EU Safe Harbor certified and includes appropriate access control measures that help ensure that only legitimate authorized users can use the service. Furthermore, Verisign’s compliance office monitors current ICANN policy and applicable privacy laws or policies to help ensure the solution is maintained within compliance of applicable regulations. Features of these access control measures include: 
-All unauthenticated searches are returned as thin results
-Registry system authentication is used to grant access to appropriate users for thick WHOIS data search results.
-Account access is granted by the Applicantʹs defined .DWG gTLD admin user.
Potential Forms of Abuse and Related Risk Mitigation: Leveraging its experience providing tiered access to WHOIS for the .NAME registry and interacting with ICANN, data protection authorities, and applicable industry groups, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is knowledgeable of the likely data mining forms of abuse associated with a searchable WHOIS service. Figure 26-7 summarizes these potential forms of abuse and Verisign’s approach to mitigate the identified risk.
See Figure 26-7.

27.1 Complete Knowledge and Understanding of Registration Lifecycles and States

Starting with domain name registration and continuing through domain name delete operations, Autodesk’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registry implements the full registration lifecycle for domain names supporting the operations in the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) specification. The registration lifecycle of the domain name starts with registration and traverses various states as specified in the following sections. The registry system provides options to update domain names with different server and client status codes that block operations based on the EPP specification. The system also provides different grace periods for different billable operations, where the price of the billable operation is credited back to the registrar if the billable operation is removed within the grace period. Together Figure 27 1 and Figure 27 2 define the registration states comprising the registration lifecycle and explain the trigger points that cause state-to-state transitions. States are represented as green rectangles within Figure 27 1.
See: Figure 27-1: Registration Lifecycle State Diagram
See: Figure 27-2: Registration States
27.1.1 Registration Lifecycle of Create⁄Update⁄Delete

The following section details the create⁄update⁄delete processes and the related renewal process that Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, follows. For each process, this response defines the process function and its characterization, and as appropriate provides a process flow chart.

Create Process: The domain name lifecycle begins with a registration or what is referred to as a Domain Name Create operation in EPP. The system fully supports the EPP Domain Name Mapping as defined by RFC 5731, where the associated objects (e.g., hosts and contacts) are created independent of the domain name.
Process Characterization: The Domain Name Create command is received, validated, run through a set of business rules, persisted to the database, and committed in the database if all business rules pass. The domain name is included with the data flow to the DNS and WHOIS resolution services. If no name servers are supplied, the domain name is not included with the data flow to the DNS. A successfully created domain name has the created date and expiration date set in the database. Creates are subject to grace periods as described in Section 1.3 of this response, Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers.
The Domain Name Create operation is detailed in Figure 27 3 and requires the following attributes:
- A domain name that meets the string restrictions.
- A domain name that does not already exist.
- The registrar is authorized to create a domain name in .DWG.
- The registrar has available credit.
- A valid Authorization Information (Auth-Info) value.
- Required contacts (e.g., registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact) are specified and exist.
- The specified name servers (hosts) exist, and there is a maximum of 13 name servers.
- A period in units of years with a maximum value of 10 (default period is one year).
See: Figure 27-3: Create Process Flow Chart
Renewal Process: The domain name can be renewed unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Renew Prohibited.

A request for renewal that sets the expiry date to more than ten years in the future is denied. The registrar must pass the current expiration date (without the timestamp) to support the idempotent features of EPP, where sending the same command a second time does not cause unexpected side effects.
Automatic renewal occurs when a domain name expires. On the expiration date, the registry extends the registration period one year and debits the registrar account balance. In the case of an auto-renewal of the domain name, a separate Auto-Renew grace period applies. Renewals are subject to grace periods as described in Section 1.3 of this response, Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers.
Process Characterization: The Domain Name Renew command is received, validated, authorized, and run through a set of business rules. The data is updated and committed in the database if it passes all business rules. The updated domain name’s expiration date is included in the flow to the WHOIS resolution service.
The Domain Name Renew operation is detailed in Figure 27 4 and requires the following attributes:
- A domain name that exists and is sponsored by the requesting registrar.
- The registrar is authorized to renew a domain name in .DWG.
- The registrar has available credit.
- The passed current expiration date matches the domain name’s expiration date.
- A period in units of years with a maximum value of 10 (default period is one year). A domain name expiry past ten years is not allowed.
See: Figure 27-4: Renewal Process Flow Chart
Registrar Transfer Procedures. A registrant may transfer his⁄her domain name from his⁄her current registrar to another registrar. The database system allows a transfer as long as the transfer is not within the initial 60 days, per industry standard, of the original registration date.
The registrar transfer process goes through many process states, which are described in detail below, unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Transfer Prohibited.
A transfer can only be initiated when the appropriate Auth-Info is supplied. The Auth-Info for transfer is only available to the current registrar. Any other registrar requesting to initiate a transfer on behalf of a registrant must obtain the Auth-Info from the registrant.
The Auth-Info is made available to the registrant upon request. The registrant is the only party other than the current registrar that has access to the Auth-Info. Registrar transfer entails a specified extension of the expiry date for the object. The registrar transfer is a billable operation and is charged identically to a renewal for the same extension of the period. This period can be from one to ten years, in one-year increments.

Because registrar transfer involves an extension of the registration period, the rules and policies applying to how the resulting expiry date is set after transfer are based on the renewal policies on extension.
Per industry standard, a domain name cannot be transferred to another registrar within the first 60 days after registration. This restriction continues to apply if the domain name is renewed during the first 60 days. Transfer of the domain name changes the sponsoring registrar of the domain name, and also changes the child hosts (ns1.sample.xyz) of the domain name (sample .xyz).
The domain name transfer consists of five separate operations:
- Transfer Request (Figure 27 5): Executed by a non-sponsoring registrar with the valid Auth-Info provided by the registrant. The Transfer Request holds funds of the requesting registrar but does not bill the registrar until the transfer is completed. The sponsoring registrar receives a Transfer Request poll message.
- Transfer Cancel (Figure 27 6): Executed by the requesting registrar to cancel the pending transfer. The held funds of the requesting registrar are reversed. The sponsoring registrar receives a Transfer Cancel poll message.
- Transfer Approve (Figure 27 7): Executed by the sponsoring registrar to approve the Transfer Request. The requesting registrar is billed for the Transfer Request and the sponsoring registrar is credited for an applicable Auto-Renew grace period. The requesting registrar receives a Transfer Approve poll message.
- Transfer Reject (Figure 27 8): Executed by the sponsoring registrar to reject the pending transfer. The held funds of the requesting registrar are reversed. The requesting registrar receives a Transfer Reject poll message.
- Transfer Query (Figure 27 9): Executed by either the requesting registrar or the sponsoring registrar of the last transfer.

The registry auto-approves a transfer if the sponsoring registrar takes no action. The requesting registrar is billed for the Transfer Request and the sponsoring registrar is credited for an applicable Auto-Renew grace period. The requesting registrar and the sponsoring registrar receive a Transfer Auto-Approve poll message.
See: Figure 27-5: Transfer Request Process
See: Figure 27-6: Transfer Cancel Process
See: Figure 27-7: Transfer Approve Process
See: Figure 27-8: Transfer Reject Process
See: Figure 27-9: Transfer Query Process
Delete Process: A registrar may choose to delete the domain name at any time.
Process Characterization: The domain name can be deleted, unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Delete Prohibited.
A domain name is also prohibited from deletion if it has any in-zone child hosts that are name servers for domain names. For example, the domain name “sample.xyz” cannot be deleted if an in-zone host “ns.sample.xyz” exists and is a name server for “sample2.xyz.”
If the Domain Name Delete occurs within the Add grace period, the domain name is immediately deleted and the sponsoring registrar is credited for the Domain Name Create. If the Domain Name Delete occurs outside the Add grace period, it follows the Redemption grace period (RGP) lifecycle.

Update Process: The sponsoring registrar can update the following attributes of a domain name:
- Auth-Info
- Name servers
- Contacts (i.e., registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact)
- Statuses (e.g., Client Delete Prohibited, Client Hold, Client Renew Prohibited, Client Transfer Prohibited, Client Update Prohibited)

Process Characterization: Updates are allowed provided that the update includes the removal of any Update Prohibited status. The Domain Name Update operation is detailed in Figure 27 10.
A domain name can be updated unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Update Prohibited.

See: Figure 27-10: Update Process Flow Chart
27.1.2 Pending, Locked, Expired, and Transferred
Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, handles pending, locked, expired, and transferred domain names as described here. When the domain name is deleted after the five-day Add grace period, it enters into the Pending Delete state. The registrant can return its domain name to active any time within the five-day Pending Delete grace period. After the five-day Pending Delete grace period expires, the domain name enters the Redemption Pending state and then is deleted by the system. The registrant can restore the domain name at any time during the Redemption Pending state.

When a non-sponsoring registrar initiates the domain name transfer request, the domain name enters Pending Transfer state and a notification is mailed to the sponsoring registrar for approvals. If the sponsoring registrar doesn’t respond within five days, the Pending Transfer expires and the transfer request is automatically approved.

EPP specifies both client (registrar) and server (registry) status codes that can be used to prevent registry changes that are not intended by the registrant. Currently, many registrars use the client status codes to protect against inadvertent modifications that would affect their customers’ high-profile or valuable domain names.

Verisign’s registry service supports the following client (registrar) and server (registry) status codes:
- clientHold
- clientRenewProhibited
- clientTransferProhibited
- clientUpdateProhibited
- clientDeleteProhibited
- serverHold
- serverRenewProhibited
- serverTransferProhibited
- serverUpdateProhibited
- serverDeleteProhibited

27.1.3 Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers
Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, handles Add grace periods, Redemption grace periods, and notice periods for renewals or transfers as described here.
- Add Grace Period: The Add grace period is a specified number of days following the initial registration of the domain name. The current value of the Add grace period for all registrars is five days.
- Redemption Grace Period: If the domain name is deleted after the five-day grace period expires, it enters the Redemption grace period and then is deleted by the system. The registrant has an option to use the Restore Request command to restore the domain name within the Redemption grace period. In this scenario, the domain name goes to Pending Restore state if there is a Restore Request command within 30 days of the Redemption grace period. From the Pending Restore state, it goes either to the OK state, if there is a Restore Report Submission command within seven days of the Restore Request grace period, or a Redemption Period state if there is no Restore Report Submission command within seven days of the Restore Request grace period.
- Renew Grace Period: The Renew⁄Extend grace period is a specified number of days following the renewal⁄extension of the domain name’s registration period. The current value of the Renew⁄Extend grace period is five days.
- Auto-Renew Grace Period: All auto-renewed domain names have a grace period of 45 days.
- Transfer Grace Period: Domain names have a five-day Transfer grace period.

27.1.4 Aspects of the Registration Lifecycle Not Covered by Standard EPP RFCs
The Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registration lifecycle processes and code implementations adhere to the standard EPP RFCs related to the registration lifecycle. By adhering to the RFCs, Verisign’s registration lifecycle is complete and addresses each registration-related task comprising the lifecycle. No aspect of Verisign’s registration lifecycle is not covered by one of the standard EPP RFCs and thus no additional definitions are provided in this response.

27.2 Consistency with any specific commitments made to registrants as adapted to the overall business approach for the proposed gTLD

The registration lifecycle described above applies to the .DWG gTLD as well as other TLDs managed by Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider; thus Verisign remains consistent with commitments made to its registrants. No unique or specific registration lifecycle modifications or adaptations are required to support the overall business approach for the .DWG gTLD.
To accommodate a range of registries, Verisign’s registry implementation is capable of offering both a thin and thick WHOIS implementation, which is also built upon Verisign’s award-winning ATLAS infrastructure.
27.3 Compliance with relevant RFCS

The Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registration lifecycle complies with applicable RFCs, specifically RFCs 5730 – 5734 and 3915. The system fully supports the EPP Domain Name Mapping as defined by RFC 5731, where the associated objects (e.g., hosts and contacts) are created independent of the domain name.

In addition, in accordance with RFCs 5732 and 5733, the Verisign registration system enforces the following domain name registration constraints:
- Uniqueness⁄Multiplicity: A second-level domain name is unique in the .DWG database. Two identical second-level domain names cannot simultaneously exist in .DWG. Further, a second-level domain name cannot be created if it conflicts with a reserved domain name.
- Point of Contact Associations: The domain name is associated with the following points of contact. Contacts are created and managed independently according to RFC 5733.
-- Registrant
-- Administrative contact
-- Technical contact
-- Billing contact
- Domain Name Associations: Each domain name is associated with:
-- A maximum of 13 hosts, which are created and managed independently according to RFC 5732
-- An Auth-Info, which is used to authorize certain operations on the object
-- Status(es), which are used to describe the domain name’s status in the registry
-- A created date, updated date, and expiry date

27.4 Demonstrates that technical resources required to carry through the plans for this element are already on hand or readily available

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .COM, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support the registration lifecycle:
- Application Engineers: 19
- Customer Support Personnel: 36
- Database Administrators: 8
- Database Engineers: 3
- Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
- SRS System Administrators: 13

To implement and manage the .DWG gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected backend registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area.
When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes start-up learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.

28.1 Abuse Prevention and Mitigation Implementation Plan

Autodesk’s primary safeguard against mitigating abusive and⁄or non-compliant registrations within the .DWG name space is the limited universe of registrants that will be permitted to register with the .DWG gTLD. As a .BRAND registry, registration will initially be limited to the Applicant. This built-in validation mechanism promotes uniform compliance and increase accuracy of WHOIS data. The Applicant is committed to providing best in class safeguards and will be closely monitoring other .BRAND applicants for suitable safeguards.

28.1.2 Policies for Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse

As required by the ICANN template Registry Agreement, the Applicant will establish, publish, and maintain on its website a single point of contact for handling abuse complaints. This contact will be a role account, e.g., abuse@registry.DWG. All email inquiries submitted to this email account will be responded to in a reasonably timely manner. The Applicant will employ an escalated complaint procedure. This procedure will place priority on complaints received from a trusted⁄verified source (e.g. law enforcement). If the complaint falls within the scope of the Applicant’s Abuse Policy Listed below, the Applicant reserves the right to suspend or cancel the non-compliant domain.

The role email account identified above will have multiple the Applicant staff recipients to allow for monitoring on a 24X7 basis. In addition the phone number provided for on the Registry website will be answered by the Applicant staff during normal working hours.

28.1.3 Proposed Measures for Removal of Orphan Glue Records

Although orphan glue records often support correct and ordinary operation of the Domain Name System (DNS), registry operators will be required to remove orphan glue records (as defined at http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄committees⁄security⁄sac048.pdf) when provided with evidence in written form that such records are present in connection with malicious conduct. The Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registration system is specifically designed to not allow orphan glue records. Registrars are required to delete⁄move all dependent DNS records before they are allowed to delete the parent domain.

To prevent orphan glue records, Verisign performs the following checks before removing a domain or name server:

Checks during domain delete:
- Parent domain delete is not allowed if any other domain in the zone refers to the child name server.
- If the parent domain is the only domain using the child name server, then both the domain and the glue record are removed from the zone.

Check during explicit name server delete:
Verisign confirms that the current name server is not referenced by any domain name (in-zone) before deleting the name server.

Zone-file impact:
If the parent domain references the child name server AND if other domains in the zone also reference it AND if the parent domain name is assigned a serverHold status, then the parent domain goes out of the zone but the name server glue record does not.
If no domains reference a name server, then the zone file removes the glue record.

28.1.4 Resourcing Plans

Details related to resourcing plans for the initial implementation and ongoing maintenance of the Applicant’s abuse plan are provided in Section 2 of this response.

28.1.5 Measures to Promote WHOIS Accuracy

Ensuring the accuracy of WHOIS information is of paramount importance to the Applicant in the operation of the .DWG gTLD. The Applicant will employ the following mechanism to promote WHOIS accuracy.

-Only the Applicant and will be permitted to register in the .DWG namespace.
-There will be a strict prohibition against the use of proxy registration services;
-The Applicant will maintain a web-based form for third parties to submit claims regarding false and or inaccurate WHOIS data.

28.1.5.1 Authentication of Registrant Information

Only the Applicant and will be permitted to register in the .DWG namespace, therefore registrant information will be uniform, authenticated, accurate, and complete.

28.1.5.2 Regular Monitoring of Registration Data for Accuracy and Completeness

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, has established policies and procedures to encourage registrar compliance with ICANN’s WHOIS accuracy requirements. Verisign provides the following service to the Applicant for incorporation into its full-service registry operations.

WHOIS data reminder process. Verisign regularly reminds registrars of their obligation to comply with ICANN’s WHOIS Data Reminder Policy, which was adopted by ICANN as a consensus policy on 27 March 2003 (http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄registrars⁄wdrp.htm). Verisign sends a notice to all registrars once a year reminding them of their obligation to be diligent in validating the WHOIS information provided during the registration process, to investigate claims of fraudulent WHOIS information, and to cancel domain name registrations for which WHOIS information is determined to be invalid.

28.1.5.3 Use of Registrars

The Applicant has not yet made any determinations regarding which registrar will be selected to provide domain name registration services in the gTLD. the Applicant currently uses one corporate domain name registrar. The likely registrar plan will be to use one corporate registrar, thus enabling the Applicant to maintain its entire domain name portfolio with one registrar. However, any final determination will depend upon the Applicant and the registrar of choice reaching an agreed-upon price for the specified services.

28.1.6 Malicious or Abusive Behavior Definitions, Metrics, and Service Level Requirements for Resolution

The Applicant will have an Authorized Usage Policy that will govern how a registrant may use its registered domain name(s). A draft framework of this policy is as follows:

By registering a name in this gTLD, the registrant agrees to be bound by the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). Registrant may not:
1. Use domain names for any purposes that are prohibited by the laws of the jurisdiction(s) in which registrant does business, or any other applicable law.
2. Use domain names for any purposes or in any manner that violates a statute, rule, or law governing use of the Internet and⁄or electronic commerce (specifically including “phishing,” ʺpharming,ʺ distributing Internet viruses and other destructive activities).
3. Use domain names for the following types of activity:
i. Violation of the privacy or publicity rights of any third party,
ii. Promotion of or engagement in hate speech; hate crime; terrorism; violence against people, animals, or property; or intolerance of or against any protected class;
iii. Promotion of or engagement in defamatory, harassing, abusive or otherwise objectionable behavior;
iv. Promotion of or engagement in child pornography or the exploitation of children;
v. Promotion of or engagement in any spam or other unsolicited bulk email, or computer or network hacking or cracking;
vi. Infringement on the intellectual property rights of another member of the .DWG gTLD community, or any other person or entity;
vii. Engagement in activities designed to impersonate any third party or create a likelihood of confusion in sponsorship;
viii. Interference with the operation of the .DWG gTLD or services offered by the Applicant;
ix. Installation of any viruses, worms, bugs, Trojan horses, or other code, files, or programs designed to, or capable of, disrupting, damaging, or limiting the functionality of any software or hardware; or distributing false or deceptive language, or unsubstantiated or comparative claims, regarding the Applicant;
x. Registration of .DWG domain names for the purpose of reselling or transferring those domain names.

28.1.7 Controls to Ensure Proper Access to Domain Functions

The Applicant will primarily be relying upon the safeguards incorporated at the registrar level to ensure proper access to domain names. Because the Applicant envisions working with a single corporate registrar, this will provide an important gate keeping functions.

28.1.7.2 Requiring Multiple, Unique Points of Contact and Means of Notification

The Applicant will likely assigned multiple unique point of contact. In connection with compliance, abuse, or malicious activity, an individual within the Applicant’s legal department will be identified. In connection with technical, security, and⁄or stability issues, an individual in the Applicant’s IT department will be identified. These unique POCs will have a corresponding unique email address that will auto-forward emails to these addresses to multiple individuals in each of the appropriate departments to ensure that there is no single point of failure in the communication chain.

28.2 Technical plan that is adequately resourced in the planned costs detailed in the financial section

28.2.1 Resource Planning

The Applicant is committed to operating the .DWG gTLD in a manner that protects the core brand of the Applicant. The Applicant has projected that a staff level XX FTE for legal compliance and oversight for the gTLD. In addition, the Applicant can rely upon existing in-house legal and other support staff should the need arise. The Applicant has strategically chosen Verisign as its registry services provider because of their excellent track record in operating some of the worldʹs most complex and critical top level domains. Verisignʹs support for the .DWG gTLD will help ensure its success.

28.2.2 Resource Planning Specific to Back-end Registry Activities

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a gTLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support abuse prevention and mitigation:
Application Engineers: 19
Business Continuity Personnel: 3
Customer Affairs Organization: 9
Customer Support Personnel: 36
Information Security Engineers: 11
Network Administrators: 11
Network Architects: 4
Network Operations Center (NOC) Engineers: 33
Project Managers: 25
Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
Systems Architects: 9

When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes start-up learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.

28.3.2 Ongoing Anti-Abuse Policies and Procedures

28.3.2.1 Policies and Procedures that Identify Malicious or Abusive Behavior

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, provides the following service to the Applicant for incorporation into its full-service registry operations.

Malware scanning service. Registrants are often unknowing victims of malware exploits. Verisign has developed proprietary code to help identify malware in the zones it manages, which in turn helps registrars by identifying malicious code hidden in their domain names.
Verisign’s malware scanning service helps prevent websites from infecting other websites by scanning web pages for embedded malicious content that will infect visitors’ websites. Verisign’s malware scanning technology uses a combination of in-depth malware behavioral analysis, anti-virus results, detailed malware patterns, and network analysis to discover known exploits for the particular scanned zone. If malware is detected, the service sends the registrar a report that contains the number of malicious domains found and details about malicious content within its TLD zones. Reports with remediation instructions are provided to help registrars and registrants eliminate the identified malware from the registrant’s website.

28.3.2.2 Policies and Procedures that Address the Abusive Use of Registered Names

Suspension processes: Any future registrant which ceases to have a qualified ongoing legal relationship with the Applicant will immediately have their domain name suspended and⁄or cancelled. In addition, any registrant that fails to timely respond to a WHOIS accuracy complaint is subject to having their domain name suspended and⁄or cancelled. Prior to taking any affirmation action in connection with an WHOIS accuracy compliant, the Applicant will attempt to contact registrant through various electronic means (email, telephone and fax).

Suspension processes conducted by back-end registry services provider: In the case of domain name abuse, the Applicant will determine whether to take down the subject domain name. Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, will follow the following auditable processes to comply with the suspension request.

Verisign Suspension Notification: the Applicant submits the suspension request to Verisign for processing, documented by:
Threat domain name
Registry incident number
Incident narrative, threat analytics, screen shots to depict abuse, and⁄or other evidence
Threat classification
Threat urgency description
Recommended timeframe for suspension⁄takedown
Technical details (e.g., WHOIS records, IP addresses, hash values, anti-virus detection results⁄nomenclature, name servers, domain name statuses that are relevant to the suspension)
Incident response, including surge capacity

Verisign Notification Verification: When Verisign receives a suspension request from the Applicant, it performs the following verification procedures:
Validate that all the required data appears in the notification.
Validate that the request for suspension is for a registered domain name.
Return a case number for tracking purposes.

Suspension Rejection: If required data is missing from the suspension request, or the domain name is not registered, the request will be rejected and returned to the Applicant with the following information:
Threat domain name
Registry incident number
Verisign case number
Error reason

Upon the Applicant request, Verisign can provide a process for registrants to protest the suspension.

Domain Suspension: Verisign places the domain to be suspended on the following statuses:
serverUpdateProhibited
serverDeleteProhibited
serverTransferProhibited
serverHold

Suspension Acknowledgement: Verisign notifies the Applicant that the suspension has been completed. Acknowledgement of the suspension includes the following information:
Threat domain name
Registry incident number
Verisign case number
Case number
Domain name
the Applicant abuse contact name and number, or registrar abuse contact name and number
Suspension status

28.4 When executed in accordance with the Registry Agreement, plans will result in compliance with contractual requirements

As noted in the Question 18 business plan, the purpose of this gTLD registry is to provide the Applicant with a secure and trusted namespace that is the representation of its brand online. Given the fact that the Applicant authored the contractual requirements, which have been incorporated into the Registrant Agreement, the Applicant intends to fully comply with these contractual requirements. Moreover, the Applicant has a vested interest to ensure that future registrants adhere to these legal requirements.

As noted, in the above referenced compliance section, failure for registrants to timely remedy any non-compliant activity will result in the suspension and⁄or deletion of the domain in question.

28.5 Technical plan scope⁄scale that is consistent with the overall business approach and planned size of the registry

28.5.1 Scope⁄Scale Consistency

As a .BRAND gTLD Registry, the allocated registry staff will ensure that all registrations are in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Registrant Agreement. As this staff member(s) is proposed to be sourced from the Applicant’s legal department, this will facilitate compliance of affiliates, partners, licensees or other third parties with whom the Applicant has a pre-existing legal relationship. Unlike other registries that must oversee numerous registrars and untold number of registrants, the .DWG gTLD will be a limited-universe of known entities with a pre-existing legal relationship with the Applicant that will likely be registered through one registrar.

28.5.2 Scope⁄Scale Consistency Specific to Back-End Registry Activities

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.

Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .DWG gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Other Operating Cost” (Template 1, Line I.L) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

29.1 Mechanisms Designed to Prevent Abusive Registrations

Rights protection is a core objective of Autodesk. The Applicant will implement and adhere to any rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) that may be mandated from time to time by ICANN, including each mandatory RPM set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse model contained in the Registry Agreement, specifically Specification 7. The Applicant acknowledges that, at a minimum, ICANN requires a Sunrise period, a Trademark Claims period, and interaction with the Trademark Clearinghouse with respect to the registration of domain names for the .DWG gTLD. It should be noted that because ICANN, as of the time of this application submission, has not issued final guidance with respect to the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Applicant cannot fully detail the specific implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse within this application. The Applicant will adhere to all processes and procedures to comply with ICANN guidance once this guidance is finalized.

As described in this response, the Applicant will implement a Sunrise period and Trademark Claims service with respect to the registration of domain names within the .DWG gTLD. Certain aspects of the Sunrise period and⁄or Trademark Claims service may be administered on behalf of the Applicant by the Applicant-approved registrars or by subcontractors of the Applicant, such as its selected back-end registry services provider, Verisign.

At the time of filing, ICANN has not yet released final details on the Trademark Clearinghouse service. However, the protection of intellectual property is of paramount importance to the Applicant. Given this and the fact that the initial proposed use of the registry is for the exclusive use of the Applicant, all initial domain name registrations in the .DWG namespace will be made by the Applicant. Therefore, while the Applicant will implement a Sunrise period and Trademark Claims process, depending upon the cost to access the Trademark Clearinghouse, the Applicant may elect to forego the minimum one-month Sunrise period and register names in the gTLD following this mandatory period.

Sunrise Period: As provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the Sunrise service pre-registration procedure for domain names continues for at least 30 days prior to the launch of the general registration of domain names in the gTLD (unless the Applicant decides to offer a longer Sunrise period).

During the Sunrise period, holders of marks that have been previously validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse receive notice of domain names that are an identical match (as defined in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook) to their mark(s). Such notice is in accordance with ICANN’s requirements and is provided by the Applicant either directly or through the Applicant-approved registrars.

The Applicant requires all registrants, either directly or through the Applicant-approved registrars, to i) affirm that said registrants meet the Sunrise Eligibility Requirements (SER), and ii) submit to the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) consistent with Section 6 of the Trademark Clearinghouse model. At a minimum the Applicant recognizes and honors all word marks for which a proof of use was submitted and validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse as well as any additional eligibility requirements as specified in Question 18.

During the Sunrise period, the Applicant and⁄or the Applicant-approved registrars, as applicable, are responsible for determining whether each domain name is eligible to be registered (including in accordance with the SERs).

Trademark Claims Service: As provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, all new gTLDs will have to provide a Trademark Claims service for a minimum of 60 days after the launch of the general registration of domain names in the gTLD (Trademark Claims period).

During the Trademark Claims period, in accordance with ICANN’s requirements, the Applicant or the Applicant-approved registrar will send a Trademark Claims Notice to any prospective registrant of a domain name that is an identical match (as defined in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook) to any mark that is validated in the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Trademark Claims Notice will include links to the Trademark Claims as listed in the Trademark Clearinghouse and will be provided at no cost.

Prior to registration of said domain name, the Applicant or the Applicant-approved registrar will require each prospective registrant to provide the warranties dictated in the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Those warranties will include receipt and understanding of the Trademark Claims Notice and confirmation that registration and use of said domain name will not infringe on the trademark rights of the mark holders listed. Without receipt of said warranties, the Applicant or the Applicant-approved registrar will not process the domain name registration.

Following the registration of a domain name, the Applicant-approved registrar will provide a notice of domain name registration to the holders of marks that have been previously validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse and are an identical match. This notice will be as dictated by ICANN. At a minimum the Applicant will recognize and honor all word marks validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse.

29.2 Mechanisms Designed to Identify and address the abusive use of registered names on an ongoing basis

In addition to the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services described in Section 1 of this response, the Applicant implements and adheres to RPMs post-launch as mandated by ICANN, and confirms that registrars accredited for the .DWG gTLD are in compliance with these mechanisms. Certain aspects of these post-launch RPMs may be administered on behalf of the Applicant by the Applicant-approved registrars or by subcontractors of the Applicant, such as its selected back-end registry services provider, Verisign.

These post-launch RPMs include the established Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), as well as the newer Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). Where applicable, the Applicant will implement all determinations and decisions issued under the corresponding RPM.

After a domain name is registered, trademark holders can object to the registration through the UDRP or URS. Objections to the operation of the gTLD can be made through the PDDRP.

The following descriptions provide implementation details of each post-launch RPM for the .DWG gTLD:

- UDRP: The UDRP provides a mechanism for complainants to object to domain name registrations. The complainant files its objection with a UDRP provider and the domain name registrant has an opportunity to respond. The UDRP provider makes a decision based on the papers filed. If the complainant is successful, ownership of the domain name registration is transferred to the complainant. If the complainant is not successful, ownership of the domain name remains with the domain name registrant. the Applicant and entities operating on its behalf adhere to all decisions rendered by UDRP providers.
- URS: As provided in the Applicant Guidebook, all registries are required to implement the URS. Similar to the UDRP, a complainant files its objection with a URS provider. The URS provider conducts an administrative review for compliance with filing requirements. If the complaint passes review, the URS provider notifies the registry operator and locks the domain. A lock means that the registry restricts all changes to the registration data, but the name will continue to resolve. After the domain is locked, the complaint is served to the domain name registrant, who has an opportunity to respond. If the complainant is successful, the registry operator is informed and the domain name is suspended for the balance of the registration period; the domain name will not resolve to the original website, but to an informational web page provided by the URS provider. If the complainant is not successful, the URS is terminated and full control of the domain name registration is returned to the domain name registrant. Similar to the existing UDRP, the Applicant and entities operating on its behalf adhere to decisions rendered by the URS providers.
- PDDRP: As provided in the Applicant Guidebook, all registries are required to implement the PDDRP. The PDDRP provides a mechanism for a complainant to object to the registry operator’s manner of operation or use of the gTLD. The complainant files its objection with a PDDRP provider, who performs a threshold review. The registry operator has the opportunity to respond and the provider issues its determination based on the papers filed, although there may be opportunity for further discovery and a hearing. The Applicant participates in the PDDRP process as specified in the Applicant Guidebook.

Additional Measures Specific to Rights Protection: the Applicant provides additional measures against potentially abusive registrations. These measures help mitigate phishing, pharming, and other Internet security threats. The measures exceed the minimum requirements for RPMs defined by Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement and are available at the time of registration. These measures include:

- Rapid Takedown or Suspension Based on Court Orders: the Applicant complies promptly with any order from a court of competent jurisdiction that directs it to take any action on a domain name that is within its technical capabilities as a gTLD registry. These orders may be issued when abusive content, such as child pornography, counterfeit goods, or illegal pharmaceuticals, is associated with the domain name.
- Anti-Abuse Process: the Applicant implements an anti-abuse process that is executed based on the type of domain name takedown requested. The anti-abuse process is for malicious exploitation of the DNS infrastructure, such as phishing, botnets, and malware.
- Authentication Procedures: Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, uses two-factor authentication to augment security protocols for telephone, email, and chat communications.
-Eligibility Requirements: As discussed above, the initial proposed use of the registry is for the exclusive use of the Applicant. Thus, all initial domain name registrations in the .DWG namespace will be made by the Applicant. This is expected to significantly reduce and⁄or eliminate the chance of any abusive registrations.

29.3 Resourcing Plans

29.3.1 Resource Planning

The Applicant has included in its business plan staffing sufficient to implement and oversee the aforementioned Rights Protection Mechanism procedures. As previously noted in the application, this staffing resource will most likely be sourced from within the Applicant’s legal department. Should additional subject matter expertise be required, the Applicant may engage the services of outside specialists on an as-needed basis.

29.3.2 Resource Planning Specific to Back-End Registry Activities

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a gTLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for the .DWG gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as Line IIb.G, Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows, within the Question 46 financial projections response of this application.

When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed .DWG gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes start-up learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.

30A.1 Detailed description of processes and solutions deployed to manage logical security across infrastructure and systems, monitoring and detecting threats and security vulnerabilities and taking appropriate steps to resolve them

Autodesk’s selected back-end registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) comprehensive security policy has evolved over the years as part of managing some of the world’s most critical TLDs. Verisign’s Information Security Policy is the primary guideline that sets the baseline for all other policies, procedures, and standards that Verisign follows. This security policy addresses all of the critical components for the management of back-end registry services, including architecture, engineering, and operations.

Verisign’s general security policies and standards with respect to these areas are provided as follows:

Architecture
- Information Security Architecture Standard: This standard establishes the Verisign standard for application and network architecture. The document explains the methods for segmenting application tiers, using authentication mechanisms, and implementing application functions.
- Information Security Secure Linux Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for all systems that run Linux throughout the Verisign organization.
- Information Security Secure Oracle Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for all systems that run Oracle throughout the Verisign organization.
- Information Security Remote Access Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for remote access to terminal services throughout the Verisign organization.
- Information Security SSH Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for the application of Secure Shell (SSH) on all systems throughout the Verisign organization.

Engineering
- Secure SSL⁄TLS Configuration Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for the configuration of Secure Sockets Layer⁄Transport Layer Security (SSL⁄TLS) for all systems throughout the Verisign organization.
- Information Security C++ Standards: These standards explain how to use and implement the functions and application programming interfaces (APIs) within C++. The document also describes how to perform logging, authentication, and database connectivity.
- Information Security Java Standards: These standards explain how to use and implement the functions and APIs within Java. The document also describes how to perform logging, authentication, and database connectivity.

Operations
- Information Security DNS Standard: This standard establishes the information security requirements for all systems that run DNS systems throughout the Verisign organization.
- Information Security Cryptographic Key Management Standard: This standard provides detailed information on both technology and processes for the use of encryption on Verisign information security systems.
- Secure Apache Standard: Verisign has a multitude of Apache web servers, which are used in both production and development environments on the Verisign intranet and on the Internet. They provide a centralized, dynamic, and extensible interface to various other systems that deliver information to the end user. Because of their exposure and the confidential nature of the data that these systems host, adequate security measures must be in place. The Secure Apache Standard establishes the information security requirements for all systems that run Apache web servers throughout the Verisign organization.
- Secure Sendmail Standard: Verisign uses sendmail servers in both the production and development environments on the Verisign intranet and on the Internet. Sendmail allows users to communicate with one another via email. The Secure Sendmail Standard establishes the information security requirements for all systems that run sendmail servers throughout the Verisign organization.
- Secure Logging Standard: This standard establishes the information security logging requirements for all systems and applications throughout the Verisign organization. Where specific standards documents have been created for operating systems or applications, the logging standards have been detailed. This document covers all technologies.
- Patch Management Standard: This standard establishes the information security patch and upgrade management requirements for all systems and applications throughout Verisign.

General
- Secure Password Standard: Because passwords are the most popular and, in many cases, the sole mechanism for authenticating a user to a system, great care must be taken to help ensure that passwords are “strong” and secure. The Secure Password Standard details requirements for the use and implementation of passwords.
- Secure Anti-Virus Standard: Verisign must be protected continuously from computer viruses and other forms of malicious code. These threats can cause significant damage to the overall operation and security of the Verisign network. The Secure Anti-Virus Standard describes the requirements for minimizing the occurrence and impact of these incidents.

Security processes and solutions for the .DWG gTLD are based on the standards defined above, each of which is derived from Verisign’s experience and industry best practice. These standards comprise the framework for the overall security solution and applicable processes implemented across all products under Verisign’s management. The security solution and applicable processes include, but are not limited to:
- System and network access control (e.g., monitoring, logging, and backup) 
- Independent assessment and periodic independent assessment reports
- Denial of service (DoS) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack mitigation
- Computer and network incident response policies, plans, and processes
- Minimization of risk of unauthorized access to systems or tampering with registry data
- Intrusion detection mechanisms, threat analysis, defenses, and updates 
- Auditing of network access
- Physical security

Further details of these processes and solutions are provided in Part B of this response.

30A.1.1 Security Policy and Procedures for the Proposed Registry

Specific security policy related details, requested as the bulleted items of Question 30 – Part A, are provided here.

Independent Assessment and Periodic Independent Assessment Reports.
To help ensure effective security controls are in place, the Applicant, through its selected back-end registry services provider, Verisign, conducts a yearly American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) SAS 70 audit on all of its data centers, hosted systems, and applications. During these SAS 70 audits, security controls at the operational, technical, and human level are rigorously tested. These audits are conducted by a certified and accredited third party and help ensure that Verisign’s in-place environments meet the security criteria specified in Verisign’s customer contractual agreements and are in accordance with commercially accepted security controls and practices. Verisign also performs numerous audits throughout the year to verify its security processes and activities. These audits cover many different environments and technologies and validate Verisign’s capability to protect its registry and DNS resolution environments. Figure 30A-1 lists a subset of the audits that Verisign conducts. For each audit program or certification listed in Figure 30A-1, Verisign has included, as attachments to the Part B component of this response, copies of the assessment reports conducted by the listed third-party auditor. From Verisign’s experience operating registries, it has determined that together these audit programs and certifications provide a reliable means to ensure effective security controls are in place and that these controls are sufficient to meet ICANN security requirements and therefore are commensurate with the guidelines defined by ISO 27001.

(See: Figure 30A-1: Verisign Independent Assessment Activities)

Augmented Security Levels or Capabilities: See Section 5 of this response.

Commitments Made to Registrants Concerning Security Levels: See Section 4 of this response.


30A.2 Security capabilities are consistent with the overall business approach and planned size of the registry

the Applicant does not foresee the need for any enhanced security mechanisms beyond those currently provided by Verisign based upon the following factors; existing the Applicant IT security protocols; the restrictive nature of the .DWG registrant universe; validation procedures that the Applicant will be undertaking prior to allocating names in the gTLD; security features imposed at the registrar level; and, the limited number of registrars (likely a single registrar) that will be connecting to the registry.  

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.

Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .DWG gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.


30A.3 Technical plan adequately resourced in the planned costs detailed in the financial section

30A.3.1 Resource Planning

It is anticipated that the Applicant’s existing IT personnel will provide security support services, as necessary, to operate the .DWG registry. In addition, the Applicant will engage the services of subject matter experts to provide consulting services on any DNS-specific matters that may be outside the skill set of its internal IT staff.

30A.3.2 Resource Planning Specific to Back-End Registry Activities

Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, is an experienced back-end registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a gTLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the back-end registry services it provides to the Applicant fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .COM, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel role, which is described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support its security policy:
Information Security Engineers: 11

To implement and manage the .DWG gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area.

When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .COM and .NET). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes startup learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.


30A.4 Security measures are consistent with any commitments made to registrants regarding security levels

Verisign is the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider. For the .DWG gTLD, no unique security measures or commitments must be made by Verisign or the Applicant to any registrant.

30A.5 Security measures are appropriate for the applied-for gTLD string 

No unique security measures are necessary to implement the .DWG gTLD. As defined in Section 1 of this response, Verisign, the Applicant’s selected back-end registry services provider, commits to providing back-end registry services in accordance with the following international and relevant security standards:
- American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) SAS 70 
- WebTrust⁄SysTrust for Certification Authorities (CA)

The Applicant does not foresee the need for any enhanced security mechanisms beyond those currently provided by Verisign based upon the following factors; existing the Applicant IT security protocols; the restrictive nature of the .DWG registrant universe; validation procedures that the Applicant will be undertaking prior to allocating names in the gTLD; security features imposed at the registrar level; and, the limited number of registrars (likely a single registrar) that will be connecting to the registry.

Carl Bass	President and Chief Executive Officer
Charles J. Robel	Director
Crawford W. Beveridge	Non-Executive Chair
J. Hallam Dawson	Director
Lorrie Marie Norrington	Director
Mary Therese McDowell	Director
Per-Kristian Halvorsen	Director
Stacy J. Smith	Director
Steven M. West	Director

Carl Bass	President and Chief Executive Officer
Jan Becker	Senior Vice President
Mark Hawkins	Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
Pascal Di Fronzo	General Counsel and Senior Vice President

New gTLD Application Submitted to ICANN by: Autodesk, Inc.

String: dwg

Originally Posted: 13 June 2012

Application ID: 1-1889-53120

Applicant Information

1. Full legal name

2. Address of the principal place of business

3. Phone number

4. Fax number

5. If applicable, website or URL

Primary Contact

6(a). Name

6(b). Title

6(c). Address

6(d). Phone Number

6(e). Fax Number

6(f). Email Address

Secondary Contact

7(a). Name

7(b). Title

7(c). Address

7(d). Phone Number

7(e). Fax Number

7(f). Email Address

Proof of Legal Establishment

8(a). Legal form of the Applicant

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

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

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.

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

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

Applied-for gTLD string

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

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.

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.

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.

18(b). How do you expect that your proposed gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users, and others?

18(c). What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs?

Community-based Designation

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

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).

Geographic Names

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

Protection of Geographic Names

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

Registry Services

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

Demonstration of Technical & Operational Capability

24. Shared Registration System (SRS) Performance

25. Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

26. Whois

27. Registration Life Cycle

28. Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

29. Rights Protection Mechanisms

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

© Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers.