Recommendations of the SU-ADM Expert Group
on development of the .SU Registry

The SU-ADM Expert Group (the EG) was organized on December 21, 2000 under the initiative of the Manager of .SU top-level domain of the Internet network (.SU TLD) and the Foundation for Internet Development for purposes of analysis and drafting of proposals for development of the .SU TLD Registry (the .SU Registry). Following a decision of the Supervising Council of the Foundation experts who participated in generation and forming of the .SU Registry, as well as experts of the Foundation and the Russian Institute for Public Networks (RIPN) were invited to take part in the work of the expert group. The expert group was made up of the following people:

Elena GERTSEVA <gertseva at ripn.net>
Galina KOVALENKO <galka at genesyslab.com>
Alexei LESNIKOV <lad at ripn.net>
Kira LITVINA <lkm at ripn.net>
Alexei PLATONOV <plat at ripn.net>
Andrei ROMANOV <rom at servocomp.ru>
Alexei SADCHIKOV <asadchik at mtu.ru>
Alexandr SCHERBAKOV <aes at parkline.ru>
Maria STEPANOVA <maria at nns.ru>
Konstantin VINOGRADOV <kvin at icsti.su>
Anatoly VORONOV <avoronov at online.ru>

The experts were presented with the draft of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Institute for Public Networks and the Foundation for Internet Development, aimed at development of the .SU Registry. Members of the expert group supported the objectives and goals, outlined in the draft Memorandum. With account of proposals made by the experts concerning the final version of the document, the Russian Institute for Public Networks and the Foundation for Internet Development signed the Memorandum of Understanding on development of the .SU Registry on 20^th January 2001.

In order to proceed with implementation of the provisions of the Memorandum members of the expert group agreed to make recommendations on preparation and adoption of further decisions by the Supervising Council of the Foundation.

Having analysed the processes connected with:

• forming of conditions for achievement of stability, competition, openness and representation in development of the Internet,
• ICANN efforts to create legitimate footings for such development,

the expert group worked out recommendations on development of the .SU Registry within the framework of the Foundation for Internet Development. The supplied Recommendations of the SU-ADM expert group have been elaborated during discussion of the following issues:

1. Principles for development of the .SU Registry
2. Contract with ICANN
3. Status of SU code in ISO 3166
4. Operation of the Registry DB
5. Partnership relationships between the Foundation, Registry DB Operator and Registrars
6. Price policy for domain name registration in the .SU Registry
7. The .SU Registry Committee of the Foundation
8. Participation of national ccTLD Managers
9. Consideration of the interests of the local Internet community
10. The Committee on Grants of the Foundation

Experts of the EG considered different variants of developing the .SU Registry, stipulating settlement of organizational, technological and economic issues. Similar to the fact of the .SU Registry being registered by independent professional organizations, further development of the .SU Registry cannot be associated with any political aspirations.

The presented recommendations on development of the .SU Registry reflect the opinions of the EG experts and shall be used for preparation and adoption of decisions by the Supervising Council of the Foundation for Internet Development. Personal opinions of the EG experts do not necessarily coincide with the official standpoint of the organization or company, with which these experts may have formal relationships.

1. Principles for development of the .SU Registry

During discussion of the current situation with the .SU Registry the experts agreed that closure of the Registry or maintenance of the present "status quo" is not commensurate with the potential interests of the local Internet-community. It is obvious that closure of the Registry, which contains around 1500 SOA DNS zones and over 22000 hosts is impossible in the immediate future because this may disrupt the stability of the network. Maintenance of the "status quo" of the Registry under the new realities of network development, on the one hand, fails to be economically viable, on the other - prohibits use of the the resource for development of Internet-based business and competition in the field of domain name registration.

The proposed variants of .SU Registry development concentrated on application of restrictions on newly registered domain names and the domain name dispute resolution policy. In the course of discussion the following variants had been considered:

• fixing of geographical, publicly accessible, prominent and active domains of the second level of the .SU Registry,

• employment of minimal restrictions in registration of second-level domains (SLD),
• application of domain names dispute resolution policy and rules,
• provision for conditions for protection of intellectual property.

With account of the results of the discussion the EG recommends the following.

SU-01. Development of the .SU Registry within the framework of the Foundation for Internet Development should be based on territorial and openness principles.

The principle of openness implies the following:

A. Openness of the Registry for all potential parties.
B. Employment of minimal necessary restrictions in domain name registration.

The territorial principles implies the following:

C. Creation of favourable and, possibly, preference conditions in order to attract as Registrars legal entities, operating and developing their business on any territory or in any state on the territory of the former USSR.
D. Involvement of interested national ccTLD Managers in the process of steering the .SU Registry development with account of interest of the local Internet-community.

2. Contract with ICANN

Currently ICANN is working out legitimate footings for interaction with ccTLD Managers. On February, 2, 2001 ICANN announced the possibility to sign trilateral ("Trilateral situation", with participation of a representative of the State), as well as bilateral ("Legacy situation") contracts. It is envisaged that during 2001 with participation of all interested parties ICANN will complete elaboration of its stand on the contracts issue.

SU-02. In developing the .SU Registry the EG considers it appropriate to reach agreement on the provisions of the bilateral contract ("Legacy") between ICANN and the .SU TLD Manager and use funds of the Foundation for Internet Development to meet the financial implications under the contract with ICANN.

3. Status of SU code in ISO 3166

The ICANN resolution of September, 25, 2000 stipulates correspondence between delegation of ccTLD codes and the ISO 3166 "International Country Code Standard".

"...RESOLVED [00.74] that the IANA staff is advised that alpha-2 codes not on the ISO 3166-1 list are delegable as ccTLD only in cases where the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation list, has issued a reservation of the code that covers any application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of the country, territory, or area involved;..."

In accordance with ISO 3166 the SU code has been reserved by ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency with the transition reservation status. For such a type of reservation there exists a formal possibility of re-assigning the SU code upon expiration of 5 years from the moment of reservation. In the interests of further development of the .SU Registry reservation with exceptional reservation status is preferable because it does not imply time limits and sets a correlation between the present delegation of .SU TLD, which started in 1990, and the ICANN resolution. Such code reservation in ISO 3166 can be implemented under a request "national ISO member bodies, governments and international organizations".

In February 2001 ISO 3166 MA and RFC 3071 recommendations concerning settlement of issues of using ISO 3166 codes as ccTLD had been published.

With account of the above:

SU-03. The EG recommends initiating amendment in ISO 3166 of the type of reservation for the SU code to be used in the Internet network in discussion of the contract with ICANN.

4. Operation of the Registry DB

Presently RIPN is the authorised .SU TLD organization with functions of .SU TLD Manager and Operator. Analysis of trends of development of the Registrar institution within the Internet testifies that the separation of administrative and technological functions in Registry DB operation is a prerequisite for fair competition between the Registrars. With this in view the EG considers it expedient to transfer administrative powers to organizational bodies of the Foundation, responsible for development of the .SU Registry.

SU-04. With the regard to the provisions of the agreement between the Russian Institute for Public Networks and the Foundation for Internet Development it is necessary to identify the authority of the Foundation and its organizational bodies in deciding issues of .SU Registry development, including the issue of appointing the .SU Registry DB Operator.

SU-05. In order to achieve stability of .SU TLD functioning the EG considers it necessary to keep technological functions reserved with RIPN, who will be operating as the .SU Registry DB Operator, authorised by the Foundation.

With reference to the agreement between the Foundation and RIPN it is necessary to set requirements for the Registry DB Operator, which are as follows:

• availability of adequate resources guaranteeing storage and transfer of big volumes of information 24 hours per day 7 day per week. The possibilities for extension during a short period of time;

• readiness to provide adequate financial and material support;
• guarantees of best possible level of automation and least possible time for processing of registration applications and regulating requests to the DB Operator;
• high level of reliability and security while ensuring efficiency and accuracy of transactions;
• management of processes, allowing to avoid even short-term system failure, guaranteeing its impartiality and equal rights to competing Registrars;
• effective interaction between the registration process and the accounting system for the Registrars;
• implementation of the Registry search service (Whois), which should provide updated information, stipulated in the Terms and conditions for registration of domain names, approved by the Foundation;
• appropriate global distribution of secondary name-servers, run by the Registry operator, and readily accessible from each part of the world and facilitation of efficient access to Whois, database and name server information;
• daily escrow of .SU Registry data bases with an independent agent (or agents) in accordance with the requirements of the Foundation;
• economic viability presuming the non-commercial nature of the Foundation activity, dedicated to the development of the Registry in the interests of the local Internet-community;
• provision for Registrant identification procedures if such should be requested by the Foundation;
• provision for verification procedures of registration applications to exclude cybersquatting.

5. Partnership relationships between the Foundation, Registry DB Operator and Registrars

It is recommended to build all relations between parties on the basis of bilateral contacts:

5.1. The contract between the Foundation and the Registry DB Operator

SU-06. The EG recommends organizing functioning of the Registry operation in the out-sourcing mode based on contract relationships with the Foundation. Key responsibilities of the DB Operator before the Foundation should stipulate provisions for regulated access to services of the .SU Registry for Registrars accredited by the Foundation.

SU-07. The EG recommends setting an annual fixed budget for the Registry DB Operator to be approved by the Foundation.

5.2. The contract between the Foundation and the Registrar

SU-08. The EG recommends building relationships between the Foundation and Registrars based on standard terms, which should ensure economic viability of the activities, implementation of commitments before the users and unconditional responsibility for implementation of the Terms and conditions for registration of domain names, approved by the Foundation.

SU-09. The EG recommends introducing a fee, payable by the Registrars to the Foundation. The fee should not exceed US$ 1,000 per annum at the initial stage of the Registrar institution development.

6. Price policy for domain name registration in the .SU Registry

The EG members have drafted financial schemes for .SU Registry development, which allow to calculate the price for registration in the Registry at the initial stage as well as at the successive stages of its progress. The proposed drafts include the following issues:

• commissioned reduction of the price for a Registry entry requested by the user;

• fixed reduction of the price for any Registry entry.

SU-10. The EG resolves, that the final selection of the financial scheme and its parameters, including the initial and final prices for registration, the order of price reduction, rules and procedure of registration renewal, as well as economic terms for interaction with the Registrars, should be finalised by the .SU Registry Committee and adopted by the Supervising Council proceeding from the strategic development goals of the Foundation.

7. The .SU Registry Committee of the Foundation

The EG members have drafted the "Terms and conditions for registration of domain names in the .SU domain". Taking into account the fact that the organizational basis for development of the Registry should be formed by Committees and working groups, organized within the framework of the Foundation for Internet Development, and in order to approve the Terms and Conditions, as well as decisions concerning further development of the .SU Registry, the EG recommends the following:

SU-11. In accordance with the Charter of the Foundation it is recommended to form a .SU Registry Committee as an organizational body of the Foundation, charged with the responsibility to resolve issues of the Registry development. Mr. A. P. Platonov, the present .SU TLD Manager, is appointed as chairman of the Committee.

SU-12. The Committee should prepare and reach agreement on the texts of documents, regulating further development of the .SU Registry, including study of the issue of the possibility to apply UDRP procedures in settling domain names disputes.

SU-13. It is resolved to offer interested national ccTLD Managers to partake in the work of the .SU Registry Committee.

8. Participation of national ccTLD Managers

In May 2000 ccTLD Managers of .AM, .GE, .KZ and .RU domains agreed upon the text of a Memorandum of Understanding, acknowledging as appropriate the future development of the .SU Registry, meeting the interests of the local Internet-community.

The EG considers it necessary to provide for conditions for participation of national ccTLD Managers in the activities of the Foundation. In order to achieve these goals:

SU-14. The EG recommends preparing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Foundation and the national ccTLD Managers and encourage co-operation with all working national ccTLD Managers, registered on any territory or state on the territory of the former USSR.

SU-15. The EG considers it advisable to form a Committee of national ccTLD Managers and draft the Statute of the Committee based on consultations with national ccTLD Managers, who have become parties to the Memorandum.

9. Consideration of the interests of the local Internet community

The EG believes, that in keeping with the principles of .SU Registry development, interests of the local Internet-community may be formed with participation of national ccTLD Managers, as well as Registrars, acting in accordance with respective contracts with the Foundation.

SU-16. The EG deems appropriate to organize a Committee of Registrars of the .SU Registry for the Registrars to partake in the processes of .SU Registry development and bringing into agreement the interests of the local Internet-community.

10. The Committee on grants of the Foundation

The EG has the opinion, that funds received through efforts of the Foundation to develop the .SU Registry and allocated to support its mandate objectives, should be distributed among Grants of the Foundation by means of an open procedure with successive publishing of reports. In order to meet this task:

SU-17. The EG recommends setting up a Committee on Grants of the Foundation.

SU-ADM Expert Group
23 ^rd March 2001