dotPH

4 February 2000

MR. VIRGILIO PENA
Undersecretary
Department of Transportation and Communications
DOTC
16 Floor Columbia Towers
Ortigas Avenue

Dear Usec. Pena

As discussed during our meeting on 27 January 2004, attached please find comments on the draft guidelines for the NTC-AB.

It is encouraging to note that all interested parties have common goals, among others:

• An efficient, stable and robust Domain Name System
• The promotion and increased usage of the .PH domain
• Protection of the rights of registrants

As no specific problems in the operation of the registry were identified during the meeting, our comments will tackle general principles. Additional details can be ironed as discussions proceed.

These are not intended to be last word on the matter. DNS issues can be complex and have ramifications far beyond what we have discussed in such a short time. However, we hope these comments will stimulate ideas and be useful during the continuing discussions we agreed to conduct in the coming weeks.

We look forward to contributing our experience and expertise in DNS issues towards resolving these issues.

Thank you and best regards,

JOSE EMMANUEL DISINI
PH ccTLD Administrator

COMMENTS ON INITIAL DRAFT GUIDELINES

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Significant portions of the guidelines cover matters that are already addressed by the status quo, such as the existence of a Shared Registry System and multiple Registrars.

These comments were formulated in light of certain assumptions validated by 14 years of experience in Registry operations:

• The main responsibility of the registry is to provide fast, efficient, reliable and robust domain name service to the community.
• Policies should only be implemented for the purpose of acheiving this end. Too much bureaucracy and red tape will confuse potential registrants, hamper the delivery of efficient services and drive up prices. A lightweight policy model is ideal.
• The Domain market is incredibly competitive. Registrants have complete freedom of choice in determining which TLD best suits their needs. In such an environment, service levels and pricing are dictated by market forces.

COMMENTS

I. AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE

Clauses that require the administrator to do a "satisfactory" job or perform duties with "competence" (ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 1 and 2) are insufficient. These terms must be clearly defined so that government can measure performance and make informed decisions.

To ensure continuity and promote stability, the agency or department that is the "relevant government authority" (ARTICLE I) should also be specified. This will shield the registry and operation of the DNS from shifting political winds and turf battles.

Similarly, Internet Community (ARTICLE I) must be more clearly defined. "Internet users" is so broad a definition that it is neither realistic nor practical.

II. ISSUES OF CONTROL

We agree that the .ph domain is a resource that must be operated for the good of the local and global Internet community, which is what the guidelines seem to be asserting.

However, language which assert the ccTLD as "part of Philippine patrimony" subject to "sovereign right" of the State (WHEREAS, 1 and 3), or specify the Philippine Government as the ultimate authority on the ccTLD (ARTICLE III, SECTION 2) are problematic.

RFC 1591 states that "concerns about 'rights' and 'ownership' are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about 'responsibilities' and 'service' to the community."

ICANN itself has said that "no foreign government owns or controls its ccTLD, nor order the DOC or Congress to take action regarding the same", implying that the ccTLD is within the ambit of the US government.

As the registry has a contractual relationship with ICANN and RFC 1591 serves as the basis for proper delegation and management of the ccTLD, the language contained in the guidelines can raise legal issues which most registrants could care less about.

Such language is not appropriate until ITU has its hands on Root; and perhaps the language should be revisited when ITU has gained control of the Root. For now it's clear who controls the Root - it's the US Government. Technically speaking, the PH Domain is, unfortunately, a USG resource.

III. STRUCTURE AND MAKE-UP OF THE REGISTRY

The development of a strong partner channel is key to promoting the use of the PH domain.

But there may be better ways of doing so than separating the registry and registrar functions (ARTICLE 2, SECTION 1; ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 4)

Worldwide, separation is the exception rather than the rule. Only a handful of Registries have done so, all in the last couple of years. It is an untested model that is fraught with risk. In addition, in the few cases where separation did occur, the domain operated in mature markets wherein demand for the local ccTLD would be high regardless of whether the registry promoted the domain or not, or developed new services or not. Such is not the case in a small, underdeveloped market like the Philippines.

Also, in a small market like the Philippines, separation will hamper innovation. Our experience has shown that Registrars have little commercial incentive in investing in technology that will enhance the functionality of the PH domain since the market for PH domains is so small. Innovation is neccessary for the PH domain to be competitive -- the only way to survive against larger and more well-known TLDs is to offer better services.

Recent innovations to the DNS such as:

• internationalized domain names
• DNSSEC
• ipV6

all require changes at the Registry and at the Registrar level.

If dotPH were to implement these changes at the Registry level, our experience indicates that is unlikely that any Registrar will make use of the new Shared Registry XML calls needed to implement these. Nor is it likely that a Registrar will totally revamp their website and database schema to accept IPv6 addresses, multilingual characters such as "ñ", or support the security keys needed for DNSSEC.

Typically, it is the dotPH Registrar which takes the risk and the first one to invest in implementing new technology. In a small market like the Philippines, other Registrars do not do so until it the technology is proven and there is a clear commercial advantage in implementing it.

IV. DELEGATION/REDELEGATION

Attempts to redelegate must respect due process. As a trustee of the community, there is an obligation to ensure that any new delegee will perform its duties competently.

Redelegation (ARTICLE III, SECTION 1) is a last resort that will have severe consequences for everyone involved with the ccTLD -- registrars, registrants, and the local and global Internet community. Grounds for redelegation should reflect the language used in RFC1591, as follows:
In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly delegated to another designated manager.

V. TECHNICAL STANDARDS

The highest technical standards must be set for the operation of the DNS.

The paramount consideration must be having the best possible system -- the most efficient, robust, fail-safe and cost-effective that "reflect at least the state-of-the-art prevailing in the DNS globally" and "using the best available technology in prevailing use". However, requirements such as having the primary nameservers based in the Philippines (ARTICLE 4, SECTIONS 4 and 5) and limiting ability to sub-contract services (ARTICLE IV, SECTION 8) puts constraints on the ability of the Registry to ensure this.

The emerging trend seems to be to use unicast nameservers - generally located in the US and Europe wherein there is only 1 primary nameserver and no secondary servers. Such restrictions prevent us from utilizing new technologies to keep PH on the bleeding edge. (My understanding is that UK and DE are about to go unicast).

VI. PRIVACY CONCERNS

We agree that protecting the privacy of registrants is essential. This is the reason why registrant phone numbers and e-mail addresses are not publicly available (only their names and postal addresses are available on the Whois). Giving a public agency access to this data may raise fears similar to those aroused by the proposed national ID system.

We are all for law protection agencies having access to Registrant information (ARTICLE IV, SECTION 5; ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 2) in order to prevent crime, however we believe there are better ways to accomplish this.

We do not verify registrant information. No Registry does -- it delays the registration process and increases the cost of registration, making the domain less attractive. There are even "domains by proxy" services that make verification even harder. There is no way that the "accuracy of the database" can be determined. ICANN has tried in the past and failed. So the value of the database for law enforcement is questionable.

Should the government require information on particular domains, the Registry will provide it -- and has done so in the past. Periodic submission of the entire database only adds bureaucratic burdens for no clear purpose.

Also, Registrant information should be maintained even after he has ceased to be a Registrant. It may be neccessary, say in the event of a domain dispute, to trace the history of a particular domain.

VII. MANAGEMENT

An efficient feedback mechanism is essential in ensuring that the Registry operates at a high level at all times (ARTICLE V, SECTION 2).

Policies affecting the stability of the DNS, domain registration requirements, and privacy and dispute resolution issues shall be consulted with the Internet community. All such policies shall be posted on the Internet for public inspection.

Regarding government endorsement of these policies, what if there is no unanimity between government, the Internet community and the Registry? Does this mean the policy can not be implemented without government endorsement even if the community agrees with it?

VIII. PRICING

Regarding wholesale pricing for Registrars (ARTICLE 5, SECTION 3).

We are for healthy and profitable Registrars. We understand that if Registrars don't make money, they won't promote the PH Domain.

However, data shows that ISPs will sell PH domains at the same prices as COM domains, even if their wholesale price for COM is supposedly cheaper than PH.

Either
(a) PH wholesale prices are competitive with COM, or
(b) even if one lowers the wholesale price of PH, Registrars will keep the difference and not pass on the savings to the consumer.

We think there are good ways to build a healthy Registrar Channel, but giving Government control over wholesale prices will only make PH less able to respond quickly to changes in the market. As it is, PH is one of the TLDs with the lowest barriers to entry.

To become a COM Registrar, there is a $2,500.00 non-refundable application fee; a $4,000.00 a year accreditation fee, working capital of $70,000.00; a surety bond of $100,000.00; and a $10,000 fee to connect to the Verisign Registry. Becoming a PH Registrar requires only a minimum purchase of $525.00 -- all of which (unlike COM) can be applied towards domain registrations.

IX. REGISTRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

All requests for domain registration must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion and on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider.

PH is an open domain, available on a first-come first-served basis. Registrants are currently bound by a Dispute Resolution Policy (PH was one of the first worldwide to adopt one). In the absence of any specific problems arising from these policies, the status quo should be maintained in the interests of continuity and stability. (ARTICLE IX, SECTION 1; ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 1)

X. DATABASE OWNERSHIP

(ARTICLE XII, SECTIONS 1 and 2) Is Government taking the position that Globe and Smart have no "ownership" or "proprietary rights" to their lists of customers? Is the true the same of Meralco or Philippine Air Lines?

XI. OTHER GUIDELINES

Government reserves the right to draft separate guidelines in the future (ARTICLE III, SECTION 1; ARTICLE X, SECTION 4; ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 3; ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 2; ARTICLE XV, SECTION 6) . However, these should not be imposed unilaterally and must have the agreement of the Administrator before implementation.

XII. LIABILITY

Government plays a key role in the drafting of these guidelines and should bear responsibility for their implementation. Government must shield the Administrator from liability in the event that compliance with these guidelines results in a cause of action against the Administrator.