• The Application for the .nyc TLD as susubmitted to ICANN

last modified February 14, 2014 by tomlowenhaupt

The below was posted on the ICANN website June 13, 2012.


 

 

New gTLD Application Submitted to ICANN by: The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications

String: nyc

Originally Posted: 13 June 2012

Application ID: 1-1715-21938


Applicant Information


1. Full legal name

The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications

2. Address of the principal place of business

75 Park Place, 9th Floor
New York NY 10007
US

3. Phone number

+1 212 788 6600

4. Fax number

+1 212 788 8309

5. If applicable, website or URL

http:⁄⁄www.nyc.gov

Primary Contact


6(a). Name

Mr. Kenneth Hansen

6(b). Title

Sr. Director, Business Development, Neustar, Inc.

6(c). Address


6(d). Phone Number

+1 571 434 5361

6(e). Fax Number

+1 571 434 5361

6(f). Email Address

tldapps@neustar.biz

Secondary Contact


7(a). Name

Rachel Sterne

7(b). Title

Chief Digital Officer

7(c). Address


7(d). Phone Number

212 669 8951

7(e). Fax Number

212 669 8448

7(f). Email Address

rsterne@media.nyc.gov

Proof of Legal Establishment


8(a). Legal form of the Applicant

Municipality⁄City Government  The City of New York is established pursuant to the Charter of the City of New York
which has the force and effect of State law.  A consolidated Charter was enacted by State law under chapter 378 of the laws of 1897

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

The City of New York, New York State, United States of America.

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

Attachments are not displayed on this form.

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


    
Rachel Sterne Chief Digital Officer

Applied-for gTLD string


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

nyc

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.

Attachments are not displayed on this form.

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.

The City of New York (”the City”) foresees no know rendering issues in connection with the proposed  .NYC string which it
is seeking to apply for as a gTLD. To date, ASCII TLD strings that are three characters long, like “.nyc”, have not encountered
the types of issues that some of the other longer ASCII TLD strings have historically had.  Unfortunately, as the City is aware,
there are still certain Internet and software applications that “hard code” TLD lists rather than referring to the IANA list of
TLDs. To the extent that the City becomes aware of applications that do in fact hard code, it is committed to working with the
application developers to rectifying such issues and with the ICANN community’s outreach effort to address the Universal Acceptance
of TLDs. This answer is based upon consultation with NYC’s preferred backend provider, Neustar, which has successful launched a
number of new gTLDs over the last decade. In reaching this determination, the following data points were analyzed:

-              ICANN’s Security Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) entitled Alternative TLD Name Systems and Roots: Conflict,
               Control and Consequences (SAC009);
-              IAB - RFC3696 “Application Techniques for Checking and Transformation of Names”
-              Known software issues which Neustar has encountered during the last decade launching new gTLDs;
-              Character type and length;
-              ICANN supplemental notes to Question 16; and
-              ICANN’s presentation during its Costa Rica regional meeting on TLD Universal Acceptance.


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.

New York City is one of the world’s leading digital metropolises.  New York City has long been a foundation for innovation,
enabling entrepreneurs to grow, cultivating generations of students, creating world-class infrastructure, and providing an
unparalleled quality of life.

New York City government engages over 25 million people a year through more than 250 digital channels including nyc.gov,
mobile applications, and social media.  As a pioneer in Open Government, New York City government has unlocked thousands
of public records, enabling technologists to build tools that help New Yorkers every day, from finding parking spaces to
listening to audio tours of Central Park.  One of the nation’s most connected municipalities, New York City’s digital
sector growth propelled it to rank second in venture capital funding in 2010.  By every digital index, the City of New York
is thriving.

In the spring of 2011, Mayor Bloomberg and the Mayor’s Office of Media and Entertainment published the, “Road Map for the
Digital City, Achieving New York City’s Digital Future.”  The Road Map for the Digital City outlines a path to build on New York
City’s successes and establish it as the world’s top-ranked Digital City, through commitments to Internet access, Open Government,
citizen engagement, and digital industry growth.

The following excerpt from the Road Map expressed New York City’s intention to apply to ICANN for the .nyc gTLD.

The City of New York is currently pursuing the introduction of the .nyc top-level domain, a global milestone that will enable
innovation and digital services for residents, and economic advantages for businesses. New York City could be one of the world’s
first cities to operate its own top-level domain, presenting enormous opportunities. The .nyc domain will be administered by a
private vendor to be selected by DoITT. The City is currently reviewing vendor candidates that responded to the City’s initial
Request for Proposals (RFP), and plans to submit its application for the .nyc top-level domain when the International Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opens the application process. ICANN’s timeline is expected to be finalized after its
official June 21, 2011 meeting, and the City of New York plans to apply when the application period opens. Only the vendor
selected by New York City government will have the legal right to administer the .nyc domain.

The Road Map for the Digital City further describes how New York City Government, led by the New York City Economic Development
Corporation will, in part through a DoITT led pursuit of the .nyc gTLD, continue to support a vibrant digital media sector through
a wide array of programs, including workforce development, the establishment of a new engineering institution, and a more
streamlined path to do business.

In summary, the City of New York views the .nyc gTLD as an important enabler to achieve the vision and mission described in the
Road Map for the Digital City.   Below you will find more details concerning how the .nyc gTLD will be operated in a manner that
is aimed at serving the needs of New York City organizations, businesses and residents.

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

The City of New York (“the City”) believes that the proposed .nyc gTLD is consistent with the vision and mission described in its
Road Map for the Digital City, and has the potential to enable a variety of benefits to the government, organizations, businesses,
and residents. These potential benefits include, but are not limited to:  a  source of New York City-specific information and
online e-commerce for the millions of people who visit the City; business opportunities, leisure activities, or services for City
residents; short and memorable Internet addresses and the increased ability to identify authentic New York City resources,
businesses and information.  The City also views the .nyc  gTLD as a means to:  enhance City resident, business and visitor access
to government services; enable community communications and collaboration; help local businesses to market and thrive; and promote
New York City overall.

18.2.1    What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of specialty, service levels, or reputation?

The goal of the .nyc gTLD to is provide New York City government, organizations, businesses and residents an online identity that
intuitively associates them with The City of New York.   The City also views the .nyc gTLD as an enabler of community organization,
collaboration and communications.

The City, through its selected registry services provider, Neustar, intends to provide a high level of service, and an approach
that preserves the integrity of the .nyc gTLD (e.g. nexus requirements and pricing that discourages malicious use).

18.2.2  What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space, in terms of competition, differentiation, or
innovation?

The City of New York anticipates that the .nyc gTLD will enable a new level of integrity to the current space, providing benefits
to New York City-based business, organizations, communities and individuals seeking to exchange information, services and goods
specific to the City of New York. Through requirements, regulation and enforcement, the .nyc gTLD will help to identify the local
New York City origin of information, services and goods to web consumers.

For local businesses and organizations seeking ways to effectively reach local customers,   the .nyc gTLD, as supported by the
planned Nexus policy, will provide organizations and businesses a means to identify themselves as being associated with The City
of New York.

In addition, in collaboration with community-based organizations, the City of New York will reserve selected .nyc community-related
names to provide a framework for authentic, local civic engagement. These reserved names will provide a structured, trusted,
scalable means for finding and sharing community-related information, events, activities and services across the five boroughs of
the City of New York.

The current domain name system has shown that it is vulnerable to malicious abuses due to registration of domain names which seek
to exploit consumer confusion.  The City will address some of these vulnerabilities by maintaining an active domain name abuse
monitoring program that will include the takedown of abusive domain names, the enforcement of a meaningful Nexus policy and
measures to promote Whois accuracy as further described in the City’s response to Question 28.  In addition, since those involved
in malicious behavior often seek domain names in gTLDs with low pricing, the City believes its pricing strategy will help to
discourage such use.

18.2.3    What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience?
The .nyc gTLD will enhance user navigation by providing an identifier that closely identifies a website with The City of New York. In
addition, short memorable .nyc domain names will enable users (including, but not limited to, tourists planning a trip to the City,
citizens seeking government information or services, businesses seeking suppliers or partners, researchers looking for information
related to the City) to more easily remember the Internet address or intuitively navigate to a relevant website.

18.2.4    Provide a complete description of the applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals listed above.

The City intends for registrations in the .nyc gTLD to be limited to individuals, businesses, or organizations with a substantive
and lawful connection to the City and with a primary residence or genuine physical presence in New York City.  In furtherance of
this policy, the City, through its selected registry services provider, shall implement the following registration policies:

1. .nyc Nexus Policy
2. Acceptable Use Policy
3. Reserved Names
4. Rights Protection Mechanisms
5. ICANN Consensus Policies

1.  .nyc Nexus Policy

The City desires to have only those individuals or entities having a substantive and lawful connection to the City be permitted to
register for .nyc domain names (“Nexus Policy”).  Nexus compliance is a critical element in ensuring the integrity and reliability
of the .nyc gTLD.  Each registrant will be required to certify compliance with at least one of the Nexus categories before the domain
is ever registered.

All .nyc Registrants must either be:

(i) a natural person whose primary place of domicile is in the City of New York; or
(ii) an entity or organization that has a bona fide presence in the City of New York. Factors that will be considered in determining
whether an entity or organization has  bona fide presence in the City will include, without limitation, whether such prospective
registrant:
       (A) regularly performs lawful activities within the City related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is
           constituted (e.g. selling goods or providing services to customers, conducting regular training activities, attending
           conferences), provided such activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain
           name;
       (B) maintains an office or other facility in the City for a lawful business, noncommercial, educational or governmental
           purpose, and not solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain name; and
       (C) regularly performs lawful activities outside of the City; provided that such activities relate to, or are primarily
           directed towards residents, tourists, businesses and organizations within the City (e.g. online content related to the
           City).

In addition, the City will conduct random spot checks of .nyc domain names to determine whether their owners satisfy the applicable
Nexus Category.

Domains will be manually reviewed for accuracy of the WHOIS information, and any domain found to contain patently inaccurate information
or where there is a high likelihood of a nexus violation will be flagged for further investigation.  The sponsoring Registrars of these
domain names will be notified of the investigation and the registrants will be required to provide additional evidence that they meet
the Nexus requirements.

The City will also provide a mechanism through which the public can submit complaints of abusive .nyc ownership.

Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to be inaccurate
will be examined to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other disposition.
If the Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to correct the
inaccuracies, the City will have the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the registrant is able to
cure the deficiencies.

2.  nyc Acceptable Use Policy

The City will adopt an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly defines the types of activities that will not be permitted in the .nyc TLD
and will reserve the right of the to lock, cancel, transfer or otherwise suspend or take down domain names violating the Acceptable Use
Policy.  Each ICANN-accredited registrar must agree to pass through the Acceptable Use Policy to its resellers (if applicable) and
ultimately to the gTLD registrants.  The Acceptable Use Policy, which is further set out in the City’s response to Question 28,
prohibits malicious and abusive domain name activities such as phishing, pharming, dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting,
hacking, botnetting, child pornography and other fraudulent and illegal activities.

3. Reserved names

The City will have a “reserved names” program aimed at ensuring the value of specific names are realized in terms of utility and
revenue generation.  The reserved names list will include names that the City believes will: assist residents in locating City
government information and services; help businesses and organizations to thrive; facilitate community organization, collaboration
and communication; promote tourism and economic development; and prevent user confusion.  The City, with the assistance of Neustar,
will conduct community outreach to assist with the creation of the final list prior to entering into the agreement with ICANN.

The types of names the City will reserve fall into four distinct categories:

A) names reserved by ICANN for the stability and security of the Internet;
B) names permanently reserved for use by the City or related entities;
C) names reserved for marketing and business development; and
D) names that match, contain misspellings of or are recognizable variations of any of the seven words identified in
   Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978).

 A. Names Reserved by ICANN. The City will comply with Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement requiring it to reserve
    (i.e., not register, delegate, use of otherwise make available such labels to any third party, but may register such labels in
     its own name in order to withhold them from delegation or use) certain names.  These include:

* The label ʺEXAMPLEʺ
* All two character labels will be initially reserved.  Provisions for the release of these names is further described in relation
  to Question 22: Protection of Geographic Names.
* Tagged domain names (labels with a hyphen (ʺ-ʺ) in the third or fourth positions), which will only be allowed if they represent a
  valid internationalized domain name (IDN) in their ASCII encoding.
* Second level names for registry operations, defined by ICANN as: NIC, WWW, IRIS, and WHOIS.
* Country and territory names listed on the following internationally recognized lists will be initially reserved:
1. the ISO 3166-1 list including the short form and long form English versions;
2. United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names,
   Part III Names of Countries of the World; and
3. the list of United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of
   the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names

B. Names permanently reserved for use by the City or related entities.  Prior to the launch of .nyc, the City will establish a list
   of reserved second-level domain names to reserve for its own use or disposal.  These include names corresponding to: (i) City,
   State and Federal Government agencies and institutions located within the City; (ii) geographic names and neighborhood names within
   the City (e.g., Queens.nyc, Brooklyn.nyc, Manhattan.nyc, Staten Island.nyc and, Bronx.nyc); (iii) City trademarks, logos and slogans;
   and (iv) certain generic domains for use by the City for the benefit of its residents, local businesses and organizations as well as
   the millions of tourists and vacationers that visit the City each year (e.g., buses.nyc, trains.nyc, subway.nyc, taxi.nyc and
   weather.nyc).  Some of these names will be set aside with the intention of developing them into websites for the benefit of
   the .nyc local Internet community.

C. Names reserved for marketing and business development.  The City will reserve a number of domain names that are to be used by the
   City and its registry service provider to provide services to domain name registrars and registrants. These will include, but will
   not be limited to such names as getmy.nyc, about.nyc and buy.nyc.  Premium, higher value names, may also be reserved for allocation
   to registrants using direct brokerage of names to registrants, an RFP process,  auction(s) or other means.  In each case, per ICANN
   policy, each of the reserved names that become registered will be registered through an ICANN-accredited registrar.

D. Restricted Names.  Names that match, contain misspellings of, or are recognizable variations of, any of the seven words identified
   in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). This is discussed further in the City’s response
   to Question 28.

4. Rights Protection Mechanisms

The City is committed to following all ICANN rules regarding protecting third party intellectual property rights within the .nyc gTLD.
The City plans to implement all Rights Protection Mechanisms (“RPMs”) as required by ICANN.  These RPMs include the following, which
are further explained in the answers to Question 18 Part C and Question 29.

* Trademark Clearinghouse;
* Sunrise and Trademark Claims Processes;
* Implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy; and
* Implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension mechanism.

5. ICANN Consensus Policies

The City is aware of and understands all current ICANN consensus policies listed at
http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄general⁄consensus-policies.htm, and is committed to comply with all policies during its time as the registry
operator for .nyc.

18.2.5  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.

The City recognizes firsthand that this is an evolving area of law in which there is no single international standard.  However, the
City has a vested interest in ensuring that accurate and current domain name information is readily available in connection with
each .nyc domain name.  .nyc will employ a variety of physical, electronic, contractual, and managerial safeguards to protect personal
and confidential information within its premises and on its websites.  The City will take similar precautions to protect registrant and
user data associated with the .nyc gTLD.

The City will ensure that the operation of the .nyc gTLD will be consistent with the City’s privacy policy found at
http:⁄⁄www.nyc.gov⁄privacy.

In addition, the City intends to incorporate contractual language in its Registry-Registrar Agreement modeled afte
r language which has
been included in the template Registry Agreement and which has been successfully utilized by existing ICANN gTLD Registry
Operators.

The template Registry Agreement states “Registry Operator shall (i) notify each ICANN-accredited registrar that is a party to the
registry-registrar agreement for the TLD of the purposes for which data about any identified or identifiable natural person
(“Personal Data”) submitted to Registry Operator by such registrar is collected and used under this Agreement or otherwise and the
intended recipients (or categories of recipients) of such Personal Data, and (ii) require such registrar to obtain the consent of each
registrant in the TLD for such collection and use of Personal Data. Registry Operator shall take reasonable steps to protect Personal
Data collected from such registrar from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration or destruction. Registry Operator shall not
use or authorize the use of Personal Data in a way that is incompatible with the notice provided to registrars.ʺ

18.2.6    Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits.

To achieve the desired benefits, the City of New York will engage local community groups and organizations to to raise awareness,
solicit input and collaboratively develop a plan for community use of reserved .nyc gTLD names. Extensive marketing and
communications will take place to ensure widespread awareness of .nyc and the associated benefits.  The program may include, but
will not be limited to, press releases, direct mail, email, online and traditional media advertising, and events.

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

As further detailed in its response to Questions 28 and 29 of the Applicant Guidebook, The City of New York (“City”) believes that
the best way to minimize negative consequences⁄costs imposed on consumer is having a strong prevention and mitigation strategy
against abusive and malicious domain name registration program as well as ample useful rights protection mechanisms. The City and
its Registry Service Provider, Neustar, are in full agreement that a registry must not only aim for the highest standards of
technical and operational competence, but also must act as a steward of the space on behalf of the constituents of the City
residents, local businesses, organizations, visitors) as well as ICANN and the broader Internet community in promoting the public
interest. More specifically, the following safeguards, which have previously been referenced, include but are not limited to:  the
existing UDRP; enhanced rights protection mechanisms (i.e., trademark clearinghouse, sunrise and trademark claims processes, the
Uniform Rapid Suspension Policy); an abuse point of contact; WHOIS inaccuracy reporting portal; periodic sampling of WHOIS data
for nexus⁄accuracy compliance; nexus requirements and enforcement; and nexus administrative dispute processes. 

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

The City and its selected registry services provider, Neustar, have given extensive thought and consideration to the launch of
the .nyc gTLD and currently anticipate launching the nyc gTLD through a three-phased process as described below:

Phase 1

The City anticipates commencing Phase 1 within sixty (60) days after delegation of the .nyc domain by IANA.  Phase 1, which shall
last approximately forty-five (45) days, shall be open to the following types of registrants:

* Government (City, State and Federal offices providing services in the City);
* City-based non-profits (entities that provide services within the City and that are registered with the State of New York as
   not-for-profit corporations);
* City concessionaires (private entities using City-owned property under contract with a City agency);
* City franchisees (private entities using inalienable City-owned property to provide a public service under contract with a City
  agency);
* retail service licensees (private retail establishments licensed by a City agency to conduct such business);
* food service licensees (private establishments licensed by the Cityʹs Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to provide food
  service);
* NYC & Co. Members (members of NYC & Company (a not-for-profit membership organization that serves as the Cityʹs promotional arm
  and which operates under a concession agreement with the City));
* Business Improvement Districts (entities formed by local property owners and tenants to promote business development and quality
  of life and which operate pursuant to the New York State General Municipal Law and local laws authorizing private not-for-profit
  corporations to provide supplemental services to particular geographic areas of the City and which operate under contract with
  the Cityʹs Department of Small Business Services for such purpose);
* City digital startups (private entities satisfying the following criteria: (a) their primary business objective is to bring to
  market products or services that are built from or whose functionalities are fulfilled using digital technology; (b) they have a
  physical presence in the City; and (c) they have registered with NYC Digital as a New York City digital company); and
* City vendors (private entities from whom the City procures goods and⁄or services and are registered with the City’s Mayorʹs
  Office of Contract Services).

All registrations during Phase 1 will be conducted on a first-come-first-served basis.  In addition, each registrant during Phase 1
shall be authenticated to ensure that it meets the eligibility criteria.

Phase 2

Shortly after the end of Phase 1, the City shall commence the acceptance of Phase 2 domain name registrations.  Phase 2 shall be
limited to businesses, organizations or legal entities that: (a) have a physical address in the City; and (b) have paid City taxes
within its most recent fiscal year.  Registrants during this phase will be required to self-certify as to their eligibility to
meeting the Phase 2 as well as nexus requirements (described in the City’s response to Questions 18(b) and 28).

Phase 2 will begin with a sunrise period for Phase 2 entities that hold a qualifying trademark registered in the Trademark
Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements set forth in the final ICANN Applicant Guidebook (“Sunrise Period”).  The
Sunrise Period will last a minimum of thirty (30) days and will be limited to second-level .nyc domain names that exactly match
applicable trademark registrations. In the event that there are multiple applicants for the same domain name during the Sunrise
Period, the City may conduct directly, or through a third party, an auction to determine the registrant of such domain name.

Following the Sunrise Period, the City will accept domain name registrations from any City-based businesses, organizations or
legal entities through a ʺLandrush Process.”  During the Landrush Process, the City reserves the right to charge higher wholesale
fees to accredited registrars than it will during Phase 3 (general availability, described below).  It is currently anticipated
that the City shall administer the Landrush Process in the manner set forth below; provided that such process may be amended by
the City.

If only one application is received for a specific domain name, at the conclusion of the Landrush Process, such name shall be
allocated to the associated registrant through their designated registrar.  If more than one application is received for a specific
domain name, an auction shall be conducted, and the highest qualified bidder shall be allocated the domain name upon payment of
the applicable fees. Such names shall be allocated to the associated registrant through their designated registrar.

Phase 3

Phase 3 will be the final launch phase that commences normal first-come, first-serve operations for all prospective registrants
who fulfill the applicable nexus policy.  All registrations during Phase 3 will be conducted on a first-come, first-served basis.

Premium Names

In addition to the phased launch process described above, the City shall implement a “premium name” program that may commence
during Phase 3.  The premium name program will consist of:  (a) live or online domain name auctions; and⁄or (b) business
development activities that result in the allocation of premium names to registrants in exchange for a negotiated payment, or in
exchange for use of the premium names in a manner that that raises awareness of the .nyc gTLD such as advertising- and
marketing-related activities. Similar programs have been launched in .biz, .co, .tel, .info, .pro, .asia, .name, .xxx and a number
of other gTLDs and ccTLDs. Each registrant of a premium name must comply with the nexus requirements.

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

Promotional programs involving discounting or co-marketing dollars will be implemented in order to drive increased volumes of
registrations.  Promotions typically involve registrars and may be in exchange for volume commitments or promotional consideration.
Promotional activities and associated discounts may also involve third party partnerships.  In each case, domain name registration
will take place through ICANN-accredited registrars.  Bulk discounting of domain registrations is also likely to be implemented.

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

The City is committed to providing domain name registrations in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Registry Agreement.
This means that the City will offer domain name registrations for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar
selected by the domain name registrant.  In addition, the City, through its selected registry services provider, shall provide a
minimum of thirty (30) days notice prior to increasing the price of a new domain name registration and no less than 180 days
notice prior to changing the price of a domain name renewal in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Registry Agreement.  The City’s
registry services provider, Neustar, has been operating top level domain name registries for well over a decade and fully
understands the market dynamics associated with both increases as well as decreases of domain name registration and renewal
pricing.  Although no additional contractual commitments will be made to registrants regarding the magnitude of price increases
or decreases, all pricing changes are controlled to a large extent by market conditions.  The City is also aware of the negative
impact that would be associated with very large increases that would impact renewals for registrants who may invested in website
development and branding since the initial registration, and will not engage in what might be construed as price gauging.

Community-based Designation


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

No

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


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


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


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


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


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

Attachments are not displayed on this form.

Geographic Names


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

Yes

Protection of Geographic Names


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

22.1 NYC’s Commitment to the Protection of Geographic Names at the Second Level

As one of the most well-known city governments in the world, the City of New York (“the City”) is keenly aware of the struggles that
many local, city, state and national governments face in seeking to protect their geographic identifiers from misappropriation and⁄or
misuse by third parties. The City, which vigorously enforces a broad range of intellectual property rights, including but not limited
to trademarks, service marks, logos, and trade names of the city (collectively the Marks), understands firsthand the economic benefit
that the licensing of these rights can bring, and the ability of government to invest these resources back into the community.

In preparation for answering this question, the City (in connection with its selected back registry services provider, Neustar) reviewed
the following relevant background material regarding the protection of geographic names in the DNS, including:

-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,ʺ

Section 6, Geographical 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 (GNSO) Reserved Names Working Group – Final Report
 (see http:⁄⁄gnso.icann.org⁄issues⁄new-gtlds⁄final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm).

22.2 	 Initial Reservation of Country and Territory Names

The City is committed to initially reserving the country and territory names contained in the internationally recognized lists described
in Specification 5 of the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement contained in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook at the second level and at
all other levels within the .NYC gTLD at which domain name registrations will be provided.  More specifically, the City 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 Geographical Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical 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 Geographical Names.

22.3 	Protection of Regional and Local Geographic Names for Misleading Use

In addition to ICANN-required geographic names, the City also intends on reserving certain regional and local geographic names to
ensure that such names are used for the benefit of the regional and local internet communities .  Although the City’s reserved names
list has not yet been finalized due to the City’s continued outreach efforts on this subject, the City does intend to reserve the names
of each of its five boroughs, including Brooklyn.nyc, Bronx.nyc, Manhattan.nyc, Queens.nyc and Statenisland.nyc.

22.4 	Potential Future Release of Initially Reserved Country and Two Character Names

As stated above, the City shall initially reserve (i.e., it shall not register, delegate, use or otherwise make available) all
two-character strings and Country and Territory Names at the second level within .nyc.  Although the City does not have immediate plans
to make use of these initially reserved names at the second level within .nyc, the City recognizes that there have been numerous
successful and non-misleading use of two character second level names in gTLDs.  These names, including ge.com, ck.com, ie.com and ua.com,
to name a few, are used by legitimate businesses that cannot be said cause confusion with corresponding country codes.  In fact, many of
these businesses have prominent locations within New York City.  Therefore, in the event that the City, as a geographic top-level domain,
wishes to use the two character strings for businesses or organizations located within the City, the City shall propose the release of
such strings in a manner designed to avoid confusion with the corresponding country code.

Registry Services


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

23.1 Introduction

The City of New York (“the City”) has selected Neustar, Inc to provide registry services for the .nyc registry. In making this decision,
the City recognized that Neustar already possesses a production-proven registry system that can be quickly deployed and smoothly
operated over its robust, flexible, and scalable world-class infrastructure The existing registry services will be leveraged for
the .nyc registry. The following section describes the registry services to be provided.

23.2 Standard Technical and Business Components

Neustar will provide the highest level of service while delivering a secure, stable and comprehensive registry platform.  The City will
use Neustar’s Registry Services platform to deploy the .nyc registry, by providing the following Registry Services (none of these
services are offered in a manner that is unique to .nyc:

* Registry-Registrar Shared Registration Service (SRS)
* Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
* Domain Name System (DNS)
* WHOIS
* DNSSEC
* Data Escrow
* Dissemination of Zone Files using Dynamic Updates
* Access to Bulk Zone Files
* Dynamic WHOIS Updates
* IPv6 Support
* Rights Protection Mechanisms
* Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).

The following is a description of each element of the Registry Services.

SRS
Neustar’s secure and stable SRS is a production-proven, standards-based, highly reliable and high-performance domain name registration
and management system.  The SRS includes an EPP interface for receiving data from registrars for the purpose of provisioning and
managing domain names and name servers.  The response to Question 24 provides specific SRS information.

EPP
The .nyc registry will use the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) for the provisioning of domain names.  The EPP implementation will
be fully compliant with all IETF RFCs. Registrars are provided with access via an EPP API and an EPP based Web GUI.  Having implemented
more than ten TLD (gTLD, ccTLD, and private TLDs), Neustar has extensive experience building EPP-based registries.  Additional discussion
on the EPP approach is presented in the response to Question 25.

DNS
The City will leverage Neustar’s world-class DNS network of geographically distributed nameserver sites to provide the highest level of
DNS service.  The service utilizes “Anycast” routing technology and supports both IPv4 and IPv6.   The DNS network is highly proven,
and currently provides service to over 20 TLDs and thousands of enterprise companies.  Additional information on the DNS solution
utilized by Neustar is presented in the response to Questions 35.

WHOIS
Neustar’s existing standard WHOIS solution will be used for the .nyc registry.  The service supports near real-time dynamic updates.
The design and construction is agnostic with regard to data display policy is flexible enough to accommodate any data model. In addition,
a searchable WHOIS service that complies with all ICANN requirements will be provided. The following WHOIS options will be provided:
Standard WHOIS (Port 43)
Standard WHOIS (Web)
Searchable WHOIS (Web)

DNSSEC
An RFC-compliant DNSSEC implementation will be provided using existing DNSSEC capabilities.  Neustar is an experienced provider of
DNSSEC services, and currently manages signed zones for three large top level domains: .biz, .us and .co. Registrars are provided with
the ability to submit and manage DS records using EPP, or through a web GUI.  Additional information on DNSSEC, including the management
of security extensions is found in the response to Question 43.

Data Escrow
Data escrow will be performed in compliance with all ICANN requirements in conjunction with an approved data escrow provider.
The data escrow service will:

* Protect against data loss
* Follow industry best practices
* Ensure easy, accurate, and timely retrieval and restore capability in the event of a hardware failure
* Minimize the impact of software or business failure.

Additional information on the Data Escrow service is provided in the response to Question 38.

Dissemination of Zone Files using Dynamic Updates
Dissemination of zone files will be provided through a dynamic, near real-time process.  Updates will be performed within the specified
performance levels.

The proven technology ensures that updates are pushed to all nodes within a few minutes of the changes being received by the SRS.
Additional information on the DNS updates may be found in the response to Question 35.

Access to Bulk Zone Files
The City will provide third party access to the bulk zone file in accordance with specification 4, Section 2 of the ICANN Registry
Agreement contained in the final Applicant Guidebook.  Credentialing and dissemination of the zone files will be facilitated through the
Central Zone Data Access Provider.

Dynamic WHOIS Updates
Updates to records in the WHOIS database will be provided via dynamic, near real-time updates.  Guaranteed delivery message oriented
middleware is used to ensure each individual WHOIS server is refreshed with dynamic updates.  This component ensures that all WHOIS
servers are kept current as changes occur in the SRS, while also decoupling WHOIS from the SRS.  Additional information on WHOIS updates
is presented in response to Question 26.

IPv6 Support
The .nyc registry will provide IPv6 support in the following registry services:  SRS, WHOIS, and DNS⁄DNSSEC.  In addition, the registry
supports the provisioning of IPv6 AAAA records.  A detailed description on IPv6 is presented in the response to Question 36.

Required Rights Protection Mechanisms


The City, through Neustar, will provide all ICANN required Rights Mechanisms, including:
* Trademark Claims Service
* Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
* Registration Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)
* UDRP
* URS
* Sunrise service.

More information is presented in the response to Question 29.

Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)

IDN registrations are provided in full compliance with the IDNA protocol.  Neustar possesses extensive experience offering IDN
registrations in numerous TLDs, and its IDN implementation uses advanced technology to accommodate the unique bundling needs of certain
languages. Character mappings are easily constructed to block out characters that may be deemed as confusing to users.  A detailed
description of the IDN implementation is presented in response to Question 44.

23.3 Unique Services

Registrar Accreditation Fee

The City is evaluating the imposition of a fee to accredit and authorize registrars that will be providing domain name registration
services in the .nyc gTLD. Accreditation would be in addition to the formal ICANN accreditation and would be provided in a
non-discriminatory fashion. Initial authorization and accreditation would occur prior to the registrar offering registration services
in the .nyc gTLD, and annually thereafter.  This process may include validation of Registrar Whois data and other business requirements,
e.g. minimum insurance requirements, etc. 

Requests For Proposals and Auction Services

The City will make use of request for proposals and auctions to determine string allocation in appropriate circumstances as further
described in the City’s response to Question 18. This has become a common allocation process within the domain name industry and has
previously been the subject of numerous ICANN Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests. The City will follow industry best
practices in allocating any domain names in accordance with these processes. Moreover, the use of these equitable allocation processes
will provide potential registrant predictability regarding pricing and renewal terms should there be any deviation from the standard
registry terms.

23.4 Security or Stability Concerns

All services offered are standard registry services that have no known security or stability concerns. Neustar has demonstrated a strong
track record of security and stability within the industry.  

Demonstration of Technical & Operational Capability


24. Shared Registration System (SRS) Performance

24.1 Introduction

The City of New York (ʺthe Cityʺ) has selected NeuStar, Inc (“Neustar”) to provide back-end services for the .nyc registry.
The applicant is confident that the plan in place for the operation of a robust and reliable Shared Registration System (SRS) as
currently provided by Neustar will satisfy the criterion established by ICANN.

Neustar built its SRS from the ground up as an EPP based platform and has been operating it reliably and at scale since 2001. The
software currently provides registry services to five TLDs (.BIZ, .US, TEL, .CO and .TRAVEL) and is used to provide gateway services to
the .CN and .TW registries. Neustarʹs state of the art registry has a proven track record of being secure, stable, and robust. It manages
more than 6 million domains, and has over 300 registrars connected today.

The following describes a detailed plan for a robust and reliable SRS that meets all ICANN requirements including compliance with
Specifications 6 and 10.

24.2 The Plan for Operation of a Robust and Reliable SRS

24.2.1 High-level SRS System Description

The SRS to be used for .nyc will leverage a production-proven, standards-based, highly reliable and high-performance domain name
registration and management system that fully meets or exceeds the requirements as identified in the new gTLD Application Guidebook.

The SRS is the central component of any registry implementation and its quality, reliability and capabilities are essential to the
overall stability of the TLD. Neustar has a documented history of deploying SRS implementations with proven and verifiable performance,
reliability and availability. The SRS adheres to all industry standards and protocols. By leveraging an existing SRS platform, the City
is mitigating the significant risks and costs associated with the development of a new system. Highlights of the SRS include:

-State-of-the-art, production proven multi-layer design
-Ability to rapidly and easily scale from low to high volume as a TLD grows
-Fully redundant architecture at two sites
-Support for IDN registrations in compliance with all standards
-Use by over 300 Registrars
-EPP connectivity over IPv6
-Performance being measured using 100% of all production transactions (not sampling).

24.2.2 SRS Systems, Software, Hardware, and Interoperability

The systems and software that the registry operates on are a critical element to providing a high quality of service. If the systems are
of poor quality, if they are difficult to maintain and operate, or if the registry personnel are unfamiliar with them, the registry will
be prone to outages. Neustar has a decade of experience operating registry infrastructure to extremely high service level requirements.
The infrastructure is designed using best of breed systems and software. Much of the application software that performs registry-specific
operations was developed by the current engineering team and a result the team is intimately familiar with its operations.

The architecture is highly scalable and provides the same high level of availability and performance as volumes increase. It combines
load balancing technology with scalable server technology to provide a cost effective and efficient method for scaling.

The Registry is able to limit the ability of any one registrar from adversely impacting other registrars by consuming too many resources
due to excessive EPP transactions. The system uses network layer 2 level packet shaping to limit the number of simultaneous connections
registrars can open to the protocol layer.

All interaction with the Registry is recorded in log files. Log files are generated at each layer of the system. These log files record
at a minimum:

-The IP address of the client
-Timestamp
-Transaction Details
-Processing Time.

In addition to logging of each and every transaction with the SRS Neustar maintains audit records, in the database, of all transformational
transactions. These audit records allow the Registry, in support of the applicant, to produce a complete history of changes for any domain
name.

24.2.3 SRS Design

The SRS incorporates a multi-layer architecture that is designed to mitigate risks and easily scale as volumes increase. The three layers
of the SRS are:

-Protocol Layer
-Business Policy Layer
-Database.

Each of the layers is described below.

24.2.4 Protocol Layer

The first layer is the protocol layer, which includes the EPP interface to registrars. It consists of a high availability farm of
load-balanced EPP servers. The servers are designed to be fast processors of transactions. The servers perform basic validations and then
feed information to the business policy engines as described below. The protocol layer is horizontally scalable as dictated by volume.

The EPP servers authenticate against a series of security controls before granting service, as follows:

-The registrarʹs host exchanges keys to initiates a TLS handshake session with the EPP server.
-The registrarʹs host must provide credentials to determine proper access levels.
-The registrarʹs IP address must be preregistered in the network firewalls and traffic-shapers.

24.2.5 Business Policy Layer	

The Business Policy Layer is the brain of the registry system. Within this layer, the policy engine servers perform rules-based processing
as defined through configurable attributes. This process takes individual transactions, applies various validation and policy rules,
persists data and dispatches notification through the central database in order to publish to various external systems. External systems
fed by the Business Policy Layer include backend processes such as dynamic update of DNS, WHOIS and Billing.

Similar to the EPP protocol farm, the SRS consists of a farm of application servers within this layer. This design ensures that there is
sufficient capacity to process every transaction in a manner that meets or exceeds all service level requirements. Some registries couple
the business logic layer directly in the protocol layer or within the database. This architecture limits the ability to scale the registry.
Using a decoupled architecture enables the load to be distributed among farms of inexpensive servers that can be scaled up or down as
demand changes.

The SRS today processes over 30 million EPP transactions daily.

24.2.6 Database

The database is the third core components of the SRS. The primary function of the SRS database is to provide highly reliable, persistent
storage for all registry information required for domain registration services. The database is highly secure, with access limited to
transactions from authenticated registrars, trusted application-server processes, and highly restricted access by the registry database
administrators. A full description of the database can be found in response to Question 33.

Figure 24-1 attached depicts the overall SRS architecture including network components.

24.2.7 Number of Servers

As depicted in the SRS architecture diagram above Neustar operates a high availability architecture where at each level of the stack there
are no single points of failures. Each of the network level devices run with dual pairs as do the databases. For the .nyc registry, the
SRS will operate with 8 protocol servers and 6 policy engine servers. These expand horizontally as volume increases due to additional
 TLDs, increased load, and through organic growth. In addition to the SRS servers described above, there are multiple backend servers for
services such as DNS and WHOIS. These are discussed in detail within those respective response sections.

24.2.8 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems

The core SRS service interfaces with other external systems via Neustarʹs external systems layer. The services that the SRS interfaces
with include:

-WHOIS
-DNS
-Billing
-Data Warehouse (Reporting and Data Escrow).

Other external interfaces may be deployed to meet the unique needs of a TLD. At this time there are no additional interfaces planned for
.nyc.

The SRS includes an external notifier concept in its business policy engine as a message dispatcher. This design allows time-consuming
backend processing to be decoupled from critical online registrar transactions. Using an external notifier solution, the registry can
utilize control levers that allow it to tune or to disable processes to ensure optimal performance at all times. For example, during the
early minutes of a TLD launch, when unusually high volumes of transactions are expected, the registry can elect to suspend processing of
one or more back end systems in order to ensure that greater processing power is available to handle the increased load requirements.
This proven architecture has been used with numerous TLD launches, some of which have involved the processing of over tens of millions of
transactions in the opening hours. The following are the standard three external notifiers used the SRS:

24.2.9 WHOIS External Notifier

The WHOIS external notifier dispatches a work item for any EPP transaction that may potentially have an impact on WHOIS. It is important
to note that, while the WHOIS external notifier feeds the WHOIS system, it intentionally does not have visibility into the actual contents
of the WHOIS system. The WHOIS external notifier serves just as a tool to send a signal to the WHOIS system that a change is ready to
occur. The WHOIS system possesses the intelligence and data visibility to know exactly what needs to change in WHOIS. See response to
Question 26 for greater detail.

24.2.10 DNS External Notifier

The DNS external notifier dispatches a work item for any EPP transaction that may potentially have an impact on DNS. Like the WHOIS
external notifier, the DNS external notifier does not have visibility into the actual contents of the DNS zones. The work items that are
generated by the notifier indicate to the dynamic DNS update sub-system that a change occurred that may impact DNS. That DNS system has
the ability to decide what actual changes must be propagated out to the DNS constellation. See response to Question 35 for greater detail.

24.2.11 Billing External Notifier

The billing external notifier is responsible for sending all billable transactions to the downstream financial systems for billing and
collection. This external notifier contains the necessary logic to determine what types of transactions are billable. The financial
systems use this information to apply appropriate debits and credits based on registrar.

24.2.12 Data Warehouse

The data warehouse is responsible for managing reporting services, including registrar reports, business intelligence dashboards, and the
processing of data escrow files. The Reporting Database is used to create both internal and external reports, primarily to support
registrar billing and contractual reporting requirement. The data warehouse databases are updated on a daily basis with full copies of
the production SRS data.

24.2.13 Frequency of Synchronization between Servers

The external notifiers discussed above perform updates in near real-time, well within the prescribed service level requirements. As
transactions from registrars update the core SRS, update notifications are pushed to the external systems such as DNS and WHOIS. These
updates are typically live in the external system within 2-3 minutes.

24.2.14 Synchronization Scheme (e.g., hot standby, cold standby)

Neustar operates two hot databases within the data center that are operating in primary mode. These two databases are kept in sync via
synchronous replication. Additionally, there are two databases in the secondary data center. These databases are updated real time through
asynchronous replication. This model allows for high performance while also ensuring protection of data. See response to Question 33 for
greater detail.

24.2.15 Compliance with Specification 6 Section 1.2

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

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

24.2.16 Compliance with Specification 10

Specification 10 of the New TLD Agreement defines the performance specifications of the TLD, including service level requirements related
to DNS, RDDS (WHOIS), and EPP. The requirements include both availability and transaction response time measurements. As an experienced
registry operator, Neustar has a long and verifiable track record of providing registry services that consistently exceed the performance
specifications stipulated in ICANN agreements. This same high level of service will be provided for the .nyc Registry. The following
section describes Neustarʹs experience and its capabilities to meet the requirements in the new agreement.

To properly measure the technical performance and progress of TLDs, Neustar collects data on key essential operating metrics. These
measurements are key indicators of the performance and health of the registry. Neustarʹs current .biz SLA commitments are among the most
stringent in the industry today, and exceed the requirements for new TLDs. Table 24-2 compares the current SRS performance levels
compared to the requirements for new TLDs, and clearly demonstrates the ability of the SRS to exceed those requirements.

The ability to commit and meet such high performance standards is a direct result of their philosophy towards operational excellence. See
response to Question 31 for a full description of their philosophy for building and managing for performance.

24.3 Resourcing Plans

The development, customization, and on-going support of the SRS are the responsibility of a combination of technical and operational
teams, including:

-Development⁄Engineering
-Database Administration
-Systems Administration
-Network Engineering.

Additionally, if customization or modifications are required, the Product Management and Quality Assurance teams will be involved in the
design and testing. Finally, the Network Operations and Information Security teams play an important role in ensuring the systems
involved are operating securely and reliably.

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of operational resources described in detail in the response to Question 31.
Neustarʹs SRS implementation is very mature, and has been in production for over 10 years. As such, very little new development related
to the SRS will be required for the implementation of the .nyc registry. The following resources are available from those teams:

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

The resources are more than adequate to support the SRS needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .nyc registry.

25. Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

25.1 Introduction

The City of New York (ʺthe Cityʺ) has selected NeuStar, Inc (“Neustar”) to provide registry services for the .nyc gTLD. The Cityʹs registry operator, Neustar, has over 10 years of experience operating EPP based registries. They deployed one of the first EPP registries in 2001 with the launch of .biz.  In 2004, they were the first gTLD to implement EPP 1.0. Over the last ten years Neustar has implemented numerous extensions to meet various unique TLD requirements. Neustar will leverage its extensive experience to ensure the City is provided with an unparalleled EPP based registry. The following discussion explains the EPP interface which will be used for the .nyc registry. This interface exists within the protocol farm layer as described in Question 24 and is depicted in Figure 25-1 attached.

25.2 EPP Interface

Registrars are provided with two different interfaces for interacting with the registry. Both are EPP based, and both contain all the functionality necessary to provision and manage domain names. The primary mechanism is an EPP interface to connect directly with the registry. This is the interface registrars will use for most of their interactions with the registry.

However, an alternative web GUI (Registry Administration Tool) that can also be used to perform EPP transactions will be provided. The primary use of the Registry Administration Tool is for performing administrative or customer support tasks.
The main features of the EPP implementation are:

-Standards Compliance: The EPP XML interface is compliant to the EPP RFCs. As future EPP RFCs are published or existing RFCs are updated, Neustar makes changes to the implementation keeping in mind of any backward compatibility issues.

-Scalability: The system is deployed keeping in mind that it may be required to grow and shrink the footprint of the Registry system for a particular TLD.

-Fault-tolerance: The EPP servers are deployed in two geographically separate data centers to provide for quick failover capability in case of a major outage in a particular data center. The EPP servers adhere to strict availability requirements defined in the SLAs.

-Configurability: The EPP extensions are built in a way that they can be easily configured to turn on or off for a particular TLD.

-Extensibility: The software is built ground up using object oriented design. This allows for easy extensibility of the software without risking the possibility of the change rippling through the whole application.

-Auditable: The system stores detailed information about EPP transactions from provisioning to DNS and WHOIS publishing. In case of a dispute regarding a name registration, the Registry can provide comprehensive audit information on EPP transactions.

-Security: The system provides IP address based access control, client credential-based authorization test, digital certificate exchange, and connection limiting to the protocol layer.

25.3 Compliance with RFCs and Specifications

The registry-registrar model is described and embodied in a number of IETF RFCs, ICANN contracts and practices, and registry-registrar agreements. As shown in Table 25-1 attached, EPP is defined by the core set of RFCs that standardize the interface that registrars use to provision domains with the SRS. As a core component of the SRS architecture, the implementation is fully compliant with all EPP RFCs.

Neustar ensures compliance with all RFCs through a variety of processes and procedures. Members from the engineering and standards teams actively monitor and participate in the development of RFCs that impact the registry services, including those related to EPP. When new RFCs are introduced or existing ones are updated, the team performs a full compliance review of each system impacted by the change. Furthermore, all code releases include a full regression test that includes specific test cases to verify RFC compliance.

Neustar has a long history of providing exceptional service that exceeds all performance specifications. The SRS and EPP interface have been designed to exceed the EPP specifications defined in Specification 10 of the Registry Agreement and profiled in Table 25-2 attached.  Evidence of Neustarʹs ability to perform at these levels can be found in the .biz monthly progress reports found on the ICANN website.

25.3.1 EPP Toolkits

Toolkits, under open source licensing, are freely provided to registrars for interfacing with the SRS. Both Java and C++ toolkits will be provided, along with the accompanying documentation. The Registrar Tool Kit (RTK) is a software development kit (SDK) that supports the development of a registrar software system for registering domain names in the registry using EPP. The SDK consists of software and documentation as described below.

The software consists of working Java and C++ EPP common APIs and samples that implement the EPP core functions and EPP extensions used to communicate between the registry and registrar. The RTK illustrates how XML requests (registration events) can be assembled and forwarded to the registry for processing. The software provides the registrar with the basis for a reference implementation that conforms to the EPP registry-registrar protocol. The software component of the SDK also includes XML schema definition files for all Registry EPP objects and EPP object extensions. The RTK also includes a dummy server to aid in the testing of EPP clients.

The accompanying documentation describes the EPP software package hierarchy, the object data model, and the defined objects and methods (including calling parameter lists and expected response behavior). New versions of the RTK are made available from time to time to provide support for additional features as they become available and support for other platforms and languages.

25.4 Proprietary EPP Extensions

 The .nyc registry will not include proprietary EPP extensions. Neustar has implemented various EPP extensions for both internal and external use in other TLD registries. These extensions use the standard EPP extension framework described in RFC 5730. Table 25-3 attached provides a list of extensions developed for other TLDs. Should the .nyc registry require an EPP extension at some point in the future, the extension will be implemented in compliance with all RFC specifications including RFC 3735.

The full EPP schema to be used in the .nyc registry is attached in the document titled EPP Schema Files.

25.5 Resourcing Plans

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

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:

-Development⁄Engineering  19 employees
-Quality Assurance - 7 employees.

These resources are more than adequate to support any EPP modification needs of the .nyc registry.


26. Whois

26.1 Introduction

The City of New York (ʺthe Cityʺ) has selected NeuStar, Inc (“Neustar”) to provide back-end services for the .nyc registry. .nyc recognizes the importance of an accurate, reliable, and up-to-date WHOIS database to governments, law enforcement, intellectual property holders and the public as a whole and is firmly committed to complying with all of the applicable WHOIS specifications for data objects, bulk access, and lookups as defined in Specifications 4 and 10 to the Registry Agreement.  .nycʹs back-end registry services provider, Neustar, has extensive experience providing ICANN and RFC-compliant WHOIS services for each of the TLDs that it operates both as a Registry Operator for gTLDs, ccTLDs and back-end registry services provider. As one of the first thick registry operators in the gTLD space, Neustarʹs WHOIS service has been designed from the ground up to display as much information as required by a TLD and respond to a very stringent availability and performance requirement.

Some of the key features of .nycʹs solution include:

-Fully compliant with all relevant RFCs including 3912

-Production proven, highly flexible, and scalable with a track record of 100% availability over the past 10 years

-Exceeds current and proposed performance specifications

-Supports  dynamic updates with the capability of doing bulk updates

-Geographically distributed sites to provide greater stability and performance

-In addition, .nycʹs thick-WHOIS solution also provides for additional search capabilities and mechanisms to mitigate potential forms of abuse as discussed below. (e.g., IDN, registrant data).

26.2 Software Components

The WHOIS architecture comprises the following components:

-An in-memory database local to each WHOIS node: To provide for the performance needs, the WHOIS data is served from an in-memory database indexed by searchable keys.

-Redundant servers: To provide for redundancy, the WHOIS updates are propagated to a cluster of WHOIS servers that maintain an independent copy of the database.

-Attack resistant: To ensure that the WHOIS system cannot be abused using malicious queries or DOS attacks, the WHOIS server is only allowed to query the local database and rate limits on queries based on IPs and IP ranges can be readily applied.

-Accuracy auditor: To ensure the accuracy of the information served by the WHOIS servers, a daily audit is done between the SRS information and the WHOIS responses for the domain names which are updated during the last 24-hour period. Any discrepancies are resolved proactively.

-Modular design: The WHOIS system allows for filtering and translation of data elements between the SRS and the WHOIS database to allow for customizations.

-Scalable architecture: The WHOIS system is scalable and has a very small footprint. Depending on the query volume, the deployment size can grow and shrink quickly.

-Flexible: It is flexible enough to accommodate thin, thick, or modified thick models and can accommodate any future ICANN policy, such as different information display levels based on user categorization.

-SRS master database: The SRS database is the main persistent store of the Registry information. The Update Agent computes what WHOIS updates need to be pushed out. A publish-subscribe mechanism then takes these incremental updates and pushes to all the WHOIS slaves that answer queries.

26.3 Compliance with RFC and Specifications 4 and 10

Neustar has been running thick-WHOIS Services for over 10+ years in full compliance with RFC 3912 and with Specifications 4 and 10 of the Registry Agreement.RFC 3912 is a simple text based protocol over TCP that describes the interaction between the server and client on port 43. Neustar built a home-grown solution for this service. It processes millions of WHOIS queries per day.

Table 26-1 attached describes Neustarʹs compliance with Specifications 4 and 10.

Neustar ensures compliance with all RFCs through a variety of processes and procedures. Members from the engineering and standards teams actively monitor and participate in the development of RFCs that impact the registry services, including those related to WHOIS. When new RFCs are introduced or existing ones are updated, the team performs a full compliance review of each system impacted by the change. Furthermore, all code releases include a full regression test that includes specific test cases to verify RFC compliance.

26.4 High-level WHOIS System Description

26.4.1 WHOIS Service (port 43)

The WHOIS service is responsible for handling port 43 queries. Our WHOIS is optimized for speed using an in-memory database and master-slave architecture between the SRS and WHOIS slaves.

The WHOIS service also has built-in support for IDN. If the domain name being queried is an IDN, the returned results include the language of the domain name, the domain nameʹs UTF-8 encoded representation along with the Unicode code page.

26.4.2 Web Page for WHOIS queries

In addition to the WHOIS Service on port 43, Neustar provides a web based WHOIS application (www.whois..nyc). It is an intuitive and easy to use application for the general public to use. WHOIS web application provides all of the features available in the port 43 WHOIS. This includes full and partial search on:

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

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

1. Redemption Grace Period calculation:  Based on the registryʹs policy, domains in pendingDelete can be restorable or scheduled for release depending on the date⁄time the domain went into pendingDelete. For these domains, the web based WHOIS displays Restorable or Scheduled for Release to clearly show this additional status to the user.

2. Extensive support for international domain names (IDN)

3. Ability to perform WHOIS lookups on the actual Unicode IDN

4. Display of the actual Unicode IDN in addition to the ACE-encoded name

5. A Unicode to Punycode and Punycode to Unicode translator

6. An extensive FAQ

7. A list of upcoming domain deletions

26.5 IT and Infrastructure Resources

As described above the WHOIS architecture uses a workflow that decouples the update process from the SRS. This ensures SRS performance is not adversely affected by the load requirements of dynamic updates. It is also decoupled from the WHOIS lookup agent to ensure the WHOIS service is always available and performing well for users. Each of Neustarʹs geographically diverse WHOIS sites use:

-Firewalls, to protect this sensitive data
-Dedicated servers for MQ Series, to ensure guaranteed delivery of WHOIS updates
-Packetshaper for source IP address-based bandwidth limiting
-Load balancers to distribute query load
-Multiple WHOIS servers for maximizing the performance of WHOIS service.

The WHOIS service uses HP BL 460C servers, each with 2 X Quad Core CPU and a 64GB of RAM.  The existing infrastructure has 6 servers, but is designed to be easily scaled with additional servers should it be needed.
Figure 26-1 attached depicts the different components of the WHOIS architecture.

26.6 Interconnectivity with Other Registry System

As described in Question 24 about the SRS and further in response to Question 31, Technical Overview, when an update is made by a registrar that impacts WHOIS data, a trigger is sent to the WHOIS system by the external notifier layer. The update agent processes these updates, transforms the data if necessary and then uses messaging oriented middleware to publish all updates to each WHOIS slave. The local update agent accepts the update and applies it to the local in-memory database. A separate auditor compares the data in WHOIS and the SRS daily and monthly to ensure accuracy of the published data.

26.7 Frequency of Synchronization between Servers

Updates from the SRS, through the external notifiers, to the constellation of independent WHOIS slaves happens in real-time via an asynchronous publish⁄subscribe messaging architecture. The updates are guaranteed to be updated in each slave within the required SLA of 95%, less than or equal to 60 minutes. Please note that Neustarʹs current architecture is built towards the stricter SLAs (95%, less than or equal to 15 minutes) of .BIZ. The vast majority of updates tend to happen within 2-3 minutes.

26.8 Provision for Searchable WHOIS Capabilities

Neustar will create a new web-based service to address the new search features based on requirements specified in Specification 4 Section 1.8. The application will enable users to search the WHOIS directory using any one or more of the following fields:

-Domain name

-Registrar ID

-Contacts and registrantʹs name

-Contact and registrantʹs postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state or province, etc.)

-Name server name and name server IP address

-The system will also allow search using non-Latin character sets which are compliant with IDNA specification.
The user will choose one or more search criteria, combine them by Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and provide partial or exact match regular expressions for each of the criterion name-value pairs. The domain names matching the search criteria will be returned to the user.

Figure 26-2 attached shows an architectural depiction of the new service.

To mitigate the risk of this powerful search service being abused by unscrupulous data miners, a layer of security will be built around the query engine which will allow the registry to identify rogue activities and then take appropriate measures. Potential abuses include, but are not limited to:

-Data Mining
-Unauthorized Access
-Excessive Querying
-Denial of Service Attacks

To mitigate the abuses noted above, Neustar will implement any or all of these mechanisms as appropriate:

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

The searchable WHOIS application will adhere to all privacy laws and policies of the .nyc registry.

26.9 Resourcing Plans

As with the SRS, the development, customization, and on-going support of the WHOIS service is the responsibility of a combination of technical and operational teams.The primary groups responsible for managing the service include:

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

Additionally, if customization or modifications are required, the Product Management and Quality Assurance teams will also be involved.Finally, the Network Operations and Information Security play an important role in ensuring the systems involved are operating securely and reliably. The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31.Neustarʹs WHOIS implementation is very mature, and has been in production for over 10 years.As such, very little new development will be required to support the implementation of the .nyc registry. The resources are more than adequate to support the WHOIS needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .nyc registry.


27. Registration Life Cycle

27.1 Registration Life Cycle
Introduction
The .nyc registry will follow the lifecycle and business rules found in the majority of gTLDs today. Our registry operator, Neustar, has over ten years of experience managing numerous TLDs that utilize standard and unique business rules and lifecycles. This section describes the business rules, registration states, and the overall domain lifecycle that will be use for .nyc.

Domain Lifecycle - Description
The registry will use the EPP 1.0 standard for provisioning domain names, contacts and hosts. Each domain record is comprised of three registry object types:  domain, contacts, and hosts.

Domains, contacts and hosts may be assigned various EPP defined statuses indicating either a particular state or restriction placed on the object.  Some statuses may be applied by the Registrar; other statuses may only be applied by the Registry. Statuses are an integral part of the domain lifecycle and serve the dual purpose of indicating the particular state of the domain and indicating any restrictions placed on the domain. The EPP standard defines 17 statuses, however only 14 of these statuses will be used in the .nyc registry per the defined .nyc business rules.

The following is a brief description of each of the statuses.  Server statuses may only be applied by the Registry, and client statuses may be applied by the Registrar.
- OK – Default status applied by the Registry.
- Inactive – Default status applied by the Registry if the domain has less than 2 nameservers.
- PendingCreate – Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Create command, and indicates further action is pending. This status  will only be used in the initial launch phases of .nyc
- PendingTransfer – Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Transfer request command, and indicates further action is pending.
- PendingDelete – Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Delete command that does not result in the immediate deletion of the domain, and indicates further action is pending.
- PendingRenew – Status applied by the Registry upon processing a successful Renew command that does not result in the immediate renewal of the domain, and indicates further action is pending. This status will not be used in the .nyc registry.
- PendingUpdate – Status applied by the Registry if an additional action is expected to complete the update, and indicates further action is pending.  This status will not be used in the .nyc registry.
- Hold – Removes the domain from the DNS zone.
- UpdateProhibited – Prevents the object from being modified by an Update command.
- TransferProhibited – Prevents the object from being transferred to another Registrar by the Transfer command.
- RenewProhibited – Prevents a domain from being renewed by a Renew command.
- DeleteProhibited – Prevents the object from being deleted by a Delete command.

The lifecycle of a domain begins with the registration of the domain.  All registrations must follow the EPP standard, as well as the specific business rules described in the response to Question 18 above. Upon registration a domain will either be in an active or inactive state.  Domains in an active state are delegated and have their delegation information published to the zone.  Inactive domains either have no delegation information or their delegation information in not published in the zone.  Following the initial registration of a domain, one of five actions may occur during its lifecycle:
- Domain may be updated
- Domain may be deleted, either within or after the add-grace period
- Domain may be renewed at anytime during the term
- Domain may be auto-renewed by the Registry
- Domain may be transferred to another registrar.

Each of these actions may result in a change in domain state.  This is described in more detail in the following section.  Every domain must eventually be renewed, auto-renewed, transferred, or deleted.   A registrar may apply EPP statuses described above to prevent specific actions such as updates, renewals, transfers, or deletions.

27.1.1 Registration States
Domain Lifecycle – Registration States
- As described above the .nyc registry will implement a standard domain lifecycle found in most gTLD registries today.  There are five possible domain states:
- Active
- Inactive
- Locked
- Pending Transfer
- Pending Delete
- Pending Create

All domains are always in either an Active or Inactive state, and throughout the course of the lifecycle may also be in a Locked, Pending Transfer, and Pending Delete state.  Specific conditions such as applied EPP policies and registry business rules will determine whether a domain can be transitioned between states. Additionally, within each state, domains may be subject to various timed events such as grace periods, and notification periods.

Active State
The active state is the normal state of a domain and indicates that delegation data has been provided and the delegation information is published in the zone.  A domain in an Active state may also be in the Locked or Pending Transfer states.

Inactive State
The Inactive state indicates that a domain has not been delegated or that the delegation data has not been published to the zone.  A domain in an Inactive state may also be in the Locked or Pending Transfer states.  By default all domain in the Pending Delete state are also in the Inactive state.

Locked State
The Locked state indicates that certain specified EPP transactions may not be performed to the domain.  A domain is considered to be in a Locked state if at least one restriction has been placed on the domain; however up to eight restrictions may be applied simultaneously.  Domains in the Locked state will also be in the Active or Inactive, and under certain conditions may also be in the Pending Transfer or Pending Delete states.

Pending Transfer State
The Pending Transfer state indicates a condition in which there has been a request to transfer the domain from one registrar to another.  The domain is placed in the Pending Transfer state for a period of time to allow the current (losing) registrar to approve (ack) or reject (nack) the transfer request.  Registrars may only nack requests for reasons specified in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.

Pending Delete State
The Pending Delete State occurs when a Delete command has been sent to the Registry after the first 5 days (120 hours) of registration.  The Pending Delete period is 35-days during which the first 30-days the name enters the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) and the last 5-days guarantee that the domain will be purged from the Registry Database and available to public pool for registration on a first come, first serve basis.

Pending Create
Pending create is another EPP registration state recognized by the EPP standard which is not part of the normal domain name lifecycle in .nyc.  However, the City proposes to use this EPP registration state during the initial launch of the .nyc registry.  Specifically during Phase 1 when a limited sub-set of registrants (e.g. government, NYC & Co Members, city base non-profits, city concessionaires, city franchisees, retail service licensee, etc.) are permitted to register on a first come first serve basis.  During this Phase all domain name registrations will be placed in a pending create state, until the City authenticates the registrant, after which the domain name will be activated in accordance with industry standards.

27.1.2 Typical Registration Lifecycle Activities
Domain Creation Process
The creation (registration) of domain names is the fundamental registry operation.  All other operations are designed to support or compliment a domain creation.  The following steps occur when a domain is created.

1. Contact objects are created in the SRS database.   The same contact object may be used for each contact type, or they may all be different.  If the contacts already exist in the database this step may be skipped.
2. Nameservers are created in the SRS database.   Nameservers are not required to complete the registration process; however any domain with less than 2 name servers will not be resolvable.
3. The domain is created using the each of the objects created in the previous steps.  In addition, the term and any client statuses may be assigned at the time of creation.

The actual number of EPP transactions needed to complete the registration of a domain name can be as few as one and as many as 40.  The latter assumes seven distinct contacts and 13 nameservers, with Check and Create commands submitted for each object.

Update Process
Registry objects may be updated (modified) using the EPP Modify operation. The Update transaction updates the attributes of the object.

For example, the Update operation on a domain name will only allow the following attributes to be updated:
- Domain statuses
- Registrant ID
- Administrative Contact ID
- Billing Contact ID
- Technical Contact ID
- Nameservers
- AuthInfo
- Additional Registrar provided fields.

The Update operation will not modify the details of the contacts.  Rather it may be used to associate a different contact object (using the Contact ID) to the domain name.  To update the details of the contact object the Update transaction must be applied to the contact itself.  For example, if an existing registrant wished to update the postal address, the Registrar would use the Update command to modify the contact object, and not the domain object.

Renew Process
The term of a domain may be extended using the EPP Renew operation.  ICANN policy general establishes the maximum term of a domain name to be 10 years, and Neustar recommends not deviating from this policy.  A domain may be renewed⁄extended at any point time, even immediately following the initial registration.  The only stipulation is that the overall term of the domain name may not exceed 10 years.  If a Renew operation is performed with a term value will extend the domain beyond the 10 year limit, the Registry will reject the transaction entirely.

Transfer Process
The EPP Transfer command is used for several domain transfer related operations:
- Initiate a domain transfer
- Cancel a domain transfer
- Approve a domain transfer
- Reject a domain transfer.

To transfer a domain from one Registrar to another the following process is followed:
1. The gaining (new) Registrar submits a Transfer command, which includes the AuthInfo code of the domain name.
2. If the AuthInfo code is  valid and the domain is not in a status that does not allow transfers the domain is placed into pendingTransfer status
3. A poll message notifying the losing Registrar of the pending transfer is sent to the Registrar’s message queue
4. The domain remains in pendingTransfer status for up to 120 hours, or until the losing (current) Registrar Acks (approves) or Nack (rejects) the transfer request
5. If the losing Registrar has not Acked or Nacked the transfer request within the 120 hour timeframe, the Registry auto-approves the transfer
6. The requesting Registrar may cancel the original request up until the transfer has been completed.
A transfer adds an additional year to the term of the domain.  In the event that a transfer will cause the domain to exceed the 10 year maximum term, the Registry will add a partial term up to the 10 year limit.   Unlike with the Renew operation, the Registry will not reject a transfer operation.

Deletion Process
A domain may be deleted from the SRS using the EPP Delete operation.   The Delete operation will result in either the domain being immediately removed from the database or the domain being placed in pendingDelete status.   The outcome is dependent on when the domain is deleted.  If the domain is deleted within the first five days (120 hours) of registration, the domain is immediately removed from the database.  A deletion at any other time will result in the domain being placed in pendingDelete status and entering the Redemption Grace Period (RGP).   Additionally, domains that are deleted within five days (120) hours of any billable (add, renew, transfer) transaction may be deleted for credit.

27.1.3 Applicable Time Elements
The following section explains the time elements that are involved.

Grace Periods
There are six grace periods:
- Add-Delete Grace Period (AGP)
- Renew-Delete Grace Period
- Transfer-Delete Grace Period
- Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period
- Auto-Renew Grace Period
- Redemption Grace Period (RGP).

The first four grace periods listed above are designed to provide the Registrar with the ability to cancel a revenue transaction (add, renew, or transfer) within a certain period of time and receive a credit for the original transaction.
The following describes each of these grace periods in detail.

Add-Delete Grace Period
The AGP is associated with the date the Domain was registered.  Domains may be deleted for credit during the initial 120 hours of a registration, and the Registrar will receive a billing credit for the original registration.  If the domain is deleted during the Add Grace Period, the domain is dropped from the database immediately and a credit is applied to the Registrar’s billing account.

Renew-Delete Grace Period
The Renew-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was renewed. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after a renewal.  The grace period is intended to allow Registrars to correct domains that were mistakenly renewed.  It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP (see below).

Transfer-Delete Grace Period
The Transfer-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was transferred to another Registrar. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after a transfer.  It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the renew grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP.   A deletion of domain after a transfer is not the method used to correct a transfer mistake.  Domains that have been erroneously transferred or hijacked by another party can be transferred back to the original registrar through various means including contacting the Registry.

Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period
The Auto-Renew-Delete Grace Period is associated with the date the Domain was auto-renewed. Domains may be deleted for credit during the 120 hours after an auto-renewal.  The grace period is intended to allow Registrars to correct domains that were mistakenly auto-renewed.  It should be noted that domains that are deleted during the auto-renew delete grace period will be placed into pendingDelete and will enter the RGP.

Auto-Renew Grace Period
The Auto-Renew Grace Period is a special grace period intended to provide registrants with an extra amount of time, beyond the expiration date, to renew their domain name.   The grace period lasts for 45 days from the expiration date of the domain name.  Registrars are not required to provide registrants with the full 45 days of the period.

Redemption Grace Period
The RGP is a special grace period that enables Registrars to restore domains that have been inadvertently deleted but are still in pendingDelete status within the Redemption Grace Period.  All domains enter the RGP except those deleted during the AGP. The RGP period is 30 days, during which time the domain may be restored using the EPP RenewDomain command.  Following the 30day RGP period the domain will remain in pendingDelete status for an additional five days, during which time the domain may NOT be restored.  The domain is released from the SRS, at the end of the 5 day non-restore period.  A restore fee applies and is detailed in the Billing Section.  A renewal fee will be automatically applied for any domain past expiration.

Neustar has created a unique restoration process that uses the EPP Renew transaction to restore the domain and fulfill all the reporting obligations required under ICANN policy.  The following describes the restoration process.

27.2 State Diagram
Figure 27-1 provides a description of the registration lifecycle.

The different states of the lifecycle are active, inactive, locked, pending transfer, and pending delete.  Please refer to section 27.1.1 for detail description of each of these states.  The lines between the states represent triggers that transition a domain from one state to another. 

The details of each trigger are described below:
- Create:  Registry receives a create domain EPP command.
- WithNS:  The domain has met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.
- WithOutNS:  The domain has not met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy.  The domain will not be in the DNS zone.
- Remove Nameservers: Domainʹs nameserver(s) is removed as part of an update domain EPP command.  The total nameserver is below the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.
- Add Nameservers: Nameserver(s) has been added to domain as part of an update domain EPP command.  The total number of nameservers has met the minimum number of nameservers required by registry policy in order to be published in the DNS zone.
- Delete: Registry receives a delete domain EPP command.
- DeleteAfterGrace: Domain deletion does not fall within the add grace period.
- DeleteWithinAddGrace:  Domain deletion falls within add grace period.
- Restore:  Domain is restored.  Domain goes back to its original state prior to the delete command.
- Transfer:  Transfer request EPP command is received.
- Transfer Approve⁄Cancel⁄Reject:  Transfer requested is approved or cancel or rejected.
- TransferProhibited: The domain is in clientTransferProhibited and⁄or serverTranferProhibited status.  This will cause the transfer request to fail.  The domain goes back to its original state.
- DeleteProhibited: The domain is in clientDeleteProhibited and⁄or serverDeleteProhibited status.  This will cause the delete command to fail.  The domain goes back to its original state.

Note: the locked state is not represented as a distinct state on the diagram as a domain may be in a locked state in combination with any of the other states: inactive, active, pending transfer, or pending delete.

27.2.1 EPP RFC Consistency
As described above, the domain lifecycle is determined by ICANN policy and the EPP RFCs.  Neustar has been operating ICANN TLDs for the past 10 years consistent and compliant with all the ICANN policies and related EPP RFCs.

27.3 Resources
The registration lifecycle and associated business rules are largely determined by policy and business requirements; as such the Product Management and Policy teams will play a critical role in working to determine the precise rules that meet the requirements of the TLD. Implementation of the lifecycle rules will be the responsibility of Development⁄Engineering team, with testing performed by the Quality Assurance team. Neustar’s SRS implementation is very flexible and configurable, and in many case development is not required to support business rule changes. 

The .nyc registry will be using standard lifecycle rules, and as such no customization is anticipated.  However should modifications be required in the future, the necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The following resources are available from those teams:
Development⁄Engineering – 19 employees
Registry Product Management – 4 employees
These resources are more than adequate to support the development needs of all the TLDs operated by Neustar, including the .nyc registry.

28. Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

28.1 Abuse Prevention and Mitigation
Strong prevention and mitigation of abusive and malicious domain name registration and use within a gTLD is an important benefit
to the Internet community. The City of New York (”the City”) and its back-end registry services provider, Neustar, are in full
agreement that a registry must not only aim for the highest standards of technical and operational competence, but also needs to
act as a steward of the space on behalf of the constituents of the City (both residents and businesses) as well as ICANN and the
broader Internet community in promoting the public interest.  The City’s registry services provider, Neustar, brings extensive
experience establishing and implementing anti-abuse registration policies.  This experience will be leveraged to help the City
combat abusive and malicious domain activity within .nyc, including, but not limited to, those resulting from:

* Illegal or fraudulent actions
* Spam
* Phishing
* Pharming
* Distribution of malware
* Fast flux hosting
* Botnets
* Distribution of child pornography
* Online sale or distribution of illegal pharmaceuticals.

Neustar will work to identify and mitigate certain abuse or malicious activity.  For example, although traditionally botnets have used
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) servers to control compromised PCs, or bots, for the purpose of launching DDoS attacks and the theft of
personal information, an increasingly popular technique, known as fast-flux DNS, allows botnets to use a multitude of servers to hide
a key host or to create a highly-available control network. This ability to shift the attacker’s infrastructure over a multitude of
servers in various countries creates an obstacle for law enforcement and security researchers to mitigate the effects of these botnets.
But a point of weakness in this scheme is its dependence on DNS for its translation services. By taking an active role in researching and
monitoring these sorts of botnets, Neustar, has developed the ability to efficiently work with various law enforcement and security
communities to begin a new phase of mitigation of these types of threats.

The City recognizes that it is essential for each gTLD Registry to have the policies, resources, personnel, and expertise in place to
combat abusive DNS practices.  The City’s registry services provider, Neustar, is well known within the Internet community for being
at the forefront of the prevention of abusive practices.  In fact, it is one of the few registry operators to have actually developed
and implemented an active “domain takedown” policy.  The City also believes that a strong program is essential given that registrants
have a reasonable expectation that they are in control of the data associated with their domains, especially its presence in the DNS zone.
Because domain names are sometimes used as a mechanism to enable various illegitimate activities on the Internet often the best
preventative measure to thwart these attacks is to remove the names completely from the DNS before they can impart harm, not
only to the domain name registrant, but also to millions of unsuspecting Internet users.

Removing the domain name from the zone has the effect of shutting down all activity associated with the domain name, including the use
of all websites and e-mail.  The use of this technique should not be entered into lightly. As described below, the City, in consultation
with Neustar, has proposed an extensive, defined, and documented process for taking the necessary action of removing a domain from the
zone when its presence in the zone poses a threat to the security and stability of the infrastructure of the Internet or the registry.

Abuse Point of Contact
As required by the Registry Agreement, the City will establish and publish on its website dedicated to the .nyc gTLD, a single abuse
point of contact responsible for addressing inquiries from law enforcement and the public related to malicious and abusive conduct.
The City will also provide such information to ICANN prior to the delegation of any domain names in the TLD.  This information shall
consist of, at a minimum, a valid e-mail address dedicated solely to the handling of malicious conduct complaints, and a telephone
number and mailing address for the primary contact. We will ensure that this information will be kept accurate and up to date and will
be provided to ICANN if and when changes are made.  In addition, with respect to inquiries from ICANN-Accredited registrars, our registry
services provider, Neustar, shall have an additional point of contact, as it does today, handling requests by registrars related to
abusive domain name practices.

28.2 Policies Regarding Abuse Complaints
One of the key policies each new gTLD registry will need to have is an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the types of
activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration.  In addition, the policy
will be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take the appropriate
actions based on the type of abuse.  This will include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and nameserver
information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name “on hold” rendering the domain name non-resolvable, transferring to
the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law enforcement
investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation.

The City will adopt an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly defines the types of activities that will not be permitted in the TLD and
reserves the right of the Applicant to lock, cancel, transfer or otherwise suspend or take down domain names violating the Acceptable
Use Policy and allow the Registry where and when appropriate to share information with law enforcement.  Each ICANN-Accredited Registrar
must agree to pass through the Acceptable Use Policy to its Resellers (if applicable) and ultimately to the TLD registrants.  Below is
the Registry’s initial Acceptable Use Policy that we will use in connection with .nyc.

A. nyc Acceptable Use Policy
This Acceptable Use Policy gives the Registry the ability to quickly lock, cancel, transfer or take ownership of any .nyc domain name,
either temporarily or permanently, if the domain name is being used in a manner that appears to threaten the stability, integrity or
security of the Registry, or any of its registrar partners – and⁄or that may put the safety and security of any registrant or user at
risk. The process also allows the Registry to take preventive measures to avoid any such criminal or security threats.

The Acceptable Use Policy may be triggered through a variety of channels, including, among other things, private complaint, public alert,
government or enforcement agency outreach, and the on-going monitoring by the Registry or its partners. In all cases, the Registry or its
designees will alert Registry’s registrar partners about any identified threats, and will work closely with them to bring offending sites
into compliance.

The following are some (but not all) activities that may be subject to rapid domain compliance:
* Phishing: the attempt to acquire personally identifiable information by masquerading as a website other than your own.
* Pharming:  the redirection of Internet users to websites other than those the user intends to visit, usually through unauthorized
changes to the Hosts file on a victim’s computer or DNS records in DNS servers.
* Dissemination of Malware: the intentional creation and distribution of ʺmaliciousʺ software designed to infiltrate a computer system
without the owner’s consent, including, without limitation, computer viruses, worms, key loggers, and Trojans.
* Fast Flux Hosting:  a technique used to shelter Phishing, Pharming and Malware sites and networks from detection and to frustrate
methods employed to defend against such practices, whereby the IP address associated with fraudulent websites are changed rapidly so as
to make the true location of the sites difficult to find.
* Botnetting:  the development and use of a command, agent, motor, service, or software which is implemented: (1) to remotely control
the computer or computer system of an Internet user without their knowledge or consent, (2) to generate direct denial of service (DDOS)
attacks.
* Malicious Hacking:  the attempt to gain unauthorized access (or exceed the level of authorized access) to a computer, information
system, user account or profile, database, or security system.
* Child Pornography:  the storage, publication, display and⁄or dissemination of pornographic materials depicting individuals under the
age, or appearing to be under the age, of majority in the relevant jurisdiction.

The Registry reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any administrative and operational actions necessary, including the use
of computer forensics and information security technological services, among other things, in order to implement the Acceptable Use
Policy.
In addition, the Registry reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration or transaction, or place any domain name(s) on
registry lock, hold or similar status, that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the integrity and stability of the
registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any dispute resolution
process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of Registry as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers,
directors, and employees; (4) per the terms of the registration agreement or (5) to correct mistakes made by the Registry or any
Registrar in connection with a domain name registration. Registry also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar
status a domain name during resolution of a dispute.

B. Monitoring for Malicious Activity
The City’s registry services provider, Neustar is at the forefront of the prevention of abusive DNS practices.  Neustar is one of only a
few registry operators to have actually developed and implemented an active “domain takedown” policy in which the registry itself takes
down abusive domain names.

Neustar’s approach is quite different from a number of other gTLD Registries and the results have been unmatched.  Neustar targets
verified abusive domain names and removes them within 12 hours regardless of whether or not there is cooperation from the domain name
registrar.  This is because Neustar has determined that the interest in removing such threats from the consumer outweighs any potential
damage to the registrar⁄registrant relationship.

Neustar’s active prevention policies stem from the notion that registrants in the TLD have a reasonable expectation that they are in
control of the data associated with their domains, especially its presence in the DNS zone.   Because domain names are sometimes used as
a mechanism to enable various illegitimate activities on the Internet, including malware, bot command and control, pharming, and phishing,
the best preventative measure to thwart these attacks is often to remove the names completely from the DNS before they can impart harm,
not only to the domain name registrant, but also to millions of unsuspecting Internet users.

Since implementing the program, Neustar has developed two basic variations of the process.  The more common process variation is a
light-weight process that is triggered by “typical” notices.  The less-common variation is the full process that is triggered by unusual
notices.  These notices tend to involve the need for accelerated action by the registry in the event that a complaint is received by
Neustar which alleges that a domain name is being used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time
investigation by law enforcement or security researchers. These processes are described below:

i. Lightweight Process
In addition to having an active Information Security group that, on its own initiatives, seeks out abusive practices in the TLD, Neustar
is an active member in a number of security organizations that have the expertise and experience in receiving and investigating reports
of abusive DNS practices, including but not limited to, the Anti-Phishing Working Group, Castle Cops, NSP-SEC, the Registration
Infrastructure Safety Group and others.  Each of these sources are well-known security organizations that have developed a reputation for
the prevention of harmful agents affecting the Internet.  Aside
from these organizations, Neustar also actively participates in privately run security associations whose basis of trust and anonymity
makes it much easier to obtain information regarding abusive DNS activity.

Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by Neustar’s internal security group, information about the
abusive practice is forwarded to an internal mail distribution list that includes members of the operations, legal, support, engineering,
and security teams for immediate response (“CERT Team”).   Although the impacted URL is included in the notification e-mail, the CERT
Team is trained not to investigate the URLs
themselves since often times the URLs in Question have scripts, bugs, etc. that can compromise the individual’s own computer and the
network safety. Rather, the investigation is done by a few members of the CERT team that are able to access the URLs in a laboratory
environment so as to not compromise the Neustar network.  The lab environment is designed specifically for these types of tests and is
scrubbed on a regular basis to ensure that none of Neustar’s internal or external network elements are harmed in any fashion.

Once the complaint has been reviewed and the alleged abusive domain name activity is verified to the best of the ability of the CERT Team,
the sponsoring registrar is given 12 hours to investigate the activity and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name
on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the registry to keep the name in the zone.

If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour Neustar’s period (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses
to take action), Neustar places the domain on “ServerHold”.  Although this action removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain
name record still appears in the WHOIS database so that the name and entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire
to get involved.

ii Full Process
In the event that Neustar receives a complaint which claims that a domain name is being used to threaten the stability and security of
the TLD or is a part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement or security researchers, Neustar follows a slightly different course
of action.

Upon initiation of this process, members of the CERT Team are paged and a teleconference bridge is immediately opened up for the CERT
Team to assess whether the activity warrants immediate action.  If the CERT Team determines the incident is not an immediate threat to
the security and the stability of critical internet infrastructure, they provide documentation to the Neustar Network Operations Center
to clearly capture the rationale for the decision and either refers the incident to the Lightweight process set forth above. If no
abusive practice is discovered, the incident is closed.

However, if the CERT Team determines there is a reasonable likelihood that the incident warrants immediate action as described above, a
determination is made to immediately remove the domain from the zone.  As such, Customer Support contacts the responsible registrar
immediately to communicate that there is a domain involved in a security and stability issue.  The registrar is provided only the domain
name in Question and the broadly stated type of incident.  Given the sensitivity of the associated security concerns, it may be important
that the registrar not be given explicit or descriptive information in regards to data that has been collected (evidence) or the source
of the complaint.  The need for security is to fully protect the chain of custody for evidence and the source of the data that originated
the complaint.

Coordination with Law Enforcement & Industry Groups
The City of New York has at its disposal some of the most experienced and prominent law enforcement agencies in the world.  In fact,
New
York City has the highest concentration of law enforcement agencies in the United States.  Core amongst its mission, the City’s law
enforcement agencies not only aim to enforce the criminal statutes of New York City, but also to provide crime deterrent services and
programs to the citizen and businesses within the City of New York.  The City also has a vast network of connections with state, national
and international law enforcement agencies when the circumstances call for collaboration between agencies.

The City’s registry services provider, Neustar, also has developed a close working relationship with a number of law enforcement agencies,
both in the United States and  internationally.  For example, in the United States, Neustar is in constant communication with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, US CERT, Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children.

With respect to the protection of critical Internet infrastructure, both at the TLD level as well as through its provision of managed DNS
and a variety of security services, Neustar is also a participant in a number of industry groups aimed at sharing information amongst key
 industry players about the abusive registration and use of domain names.  These groups include the Anti-Phishing Working Group and the
Registration Infrastructure Safety Group (where Neustar served for several years as on the Board of Directors).  Through these
organizations and others, Neustar shares information with other registries, registrars, ccTLDs, law enforcement, security professionals,
etc. not only on abusive domain name registrations within its own TLDs, but also provides information uncovered with respect to domain
names in other registries’ TLDs. Neustar has often found that rarely are abuses found only in the TLDs for which it manages, but also
within other TLDs, such as .com and .info.  Neustar routinely provides this information to the other registries so that it can take the
appropriate action.

Given the vast experience of the City and Neustar the City will meet its obligations under Section 2.8 of the Registry Agreement which
requires gTLD registries to take reasonable steps to investigate and respond to reports from law enforcement and governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of its TLD.  The City itself, or through Neustar will respond
to legitimate law enforcement inquiries within one (1) business day from receiving the request.  Such response shall include, at a minimum,
an acknowledgement of receipt of the request, Questions or comments concerning the request, and an outline of the next steps to be taken
by the City and⁄or Neustar for rapid resolution of the request.  In the event such request involves any of the activities which can be
validated by the City and⁄or Neustar and involves the type of activity set forth in the Acceptable Use Policy, the sponsoring registrar
is then given 12 hours to investigate the activity further and either take down the domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by
deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to the registry to keep the name in the zone.  If the
registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour period (i.e., is unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action),
Neustar places the domain on “serverHold”.

28.3 Measures for Removal of Orphan Glue Records
As the Security and Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN (SSAC) rightly acknowledges, although orphaned glue records may be used for
abusive or malicious purposes, the “dominant use of orphaned glue supports the correct and ordinary operation of the DNS.”  See
http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄committees⁄security⁄sac048.pdf.

While orphan glue often support correct and ordinary operation of the DNS, we understand that such glue records can be used maliciously
to point to name servers that host domains used in illegal phishing, bot-nets, malware, and other abusive behaviors. Problems occur when
the parent domain of the glue record is deleted but its children glue records still remain in DNS.   Therefore, when the Registry  has
written evidence of actual abuse of orphaned glue, the Registry will take action to remove those records from the zone to mitigate such
malicious conduct.

Neustar run a daily audit of entries in its DNS systems and compares those with its provisioning system. This serves as an umbrella
protection to make sure that items in the DNS zone are valid. Any DNS record that shows up in the DNS zone but not in the provisioning
system will be flagged for investigation and removed if necessary. This daily DNS audit serves to not only prevent orphaned hosts but also
other records that should not be in the zone.

In addition, if either .nyc or Neustar become aware of actual abuse on orphaned glue after receiving written notification by a third party
through its Abuse Contact or through its customer support, such glue records will be removed from the zone.

28.4 Measures to Promote WHOIS Accuracy
The City believes that ICANN has taken a number of positive steps towards developing a number of mechanisms over the past decade that are
intended to address the issue of inaccurate WHOIS information.  However, the City believes that more can be done and therefore it will
not only offer what is required by ICANN, but it will also offer a mechanism whereby third parties can submit complaints directly to the
Registry (as opposed to ICANN or the sponsoring Registrar) about inaccurate, unreliable or incomplete WHOIS data.  The City will ensure
that such information is not only forwarded to the sponsoring

Registrar, but that those complaints are addressed.  Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the City, through its
registry services provider, will examine the current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to be inaccurate to determine if the
information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other disposition.  If the Registrar has failed to take any
action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to correct the inaccuracies, the City reserves the right to
suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the Registrant is able to cure the deficiencies.

This mechanism that will be used by the City for the .nyc TLD will be similar to the one utilized by Neustar in connection with its
operation and administration of the .us country-code TLD on behalf of the United States Department of Commerce.  That reporting mechanism
can be found at http:⁄⁄www.neustar.us⁄whoiscompliance⁄ComplaintMain.jsp. This reporting mechanism also incorporates suitable safeguards
to ensure that third party complaints are not frivolously or arbitrarily submitted to avoid burdening the City or Registrars.

28.5 Registrant Nexus Requirements, Monitoring and Enforcement
In addition to the measures to promote WHOIS accuracy described above, the City believes that requiring each domain name registrant in
.nyc to meet its unique system of Nexus requirements will also prevent and⁄or mitigate the tendency to have abusive registrations in the
.nyc gTLD.

The City believes that Nexus compliance is a critical element in ensuring the integrity and reliability of the .nyc gTLD, and has enlisted
Neustar as its registry services provider, who has developed, implemented and continues to enforce the Nexus requirements for the .us
ccTLD.  Like .us, in the .nyc gTLD, each registrant will be required to certify compliance with at least one of the Nexus categories
before the domain is ever registered.  The certification is passed through the applicable accredited Registrar to Neustar via Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP) during the registration transaction〉  This allows Neustar to retain the documented certification in its
Shared Registration System database, which as discussed elsewhere in this response, is backed up on a regular basis and is also one of
the elements transmitted to the third-party domain name data escrow provider.

The .nyc Nexus Policy is based on the notion that only those individuals, businesses, organizations or other entities having a substantial
and lawful connection to the City be permitted to register for .nyc domain names (“Nexus Policy”). Therefore .nyc Registrants must either
be:
(i) a natural person whose primary place of domicile is in the City of New York (“Nexus Category 1”); or

(ii) an entity or organization that has a bona fide presence in the City of New York (“Nexus Category 2”). Factors that should be
considered in determining whether an entity or organization has  bona fide presence in the City shall include, without limitation
whether such prospective registrant:
(A) regularly performs lawful activities within the City related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is constituted
(e.g. selling goods or providing services to customers, conducting regular training activities, attending conferences), provided such
activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain name; and
(B)  maintains an office or other facility in the City for a lawful business, noncommercial, educational or governmental purpose, and not
solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain name; and;
(C) regularly performs lawful activities outside of the City; provided that such activities relate to, or are primarily directed towards
residents, tourists, businesses and organizations within the City (e.g. online content related to the City).

In addition, the City will conduct random spot checks of .nyc domain names to determine whether their owners satify the applicable Nexus
Category.

Domains will be manually reviewed for accuracy of the WHOIS information, and any domain found to contain patently inaccurate information
or where there is a high likelihood of a nexus violation will be flagged for further investigation.  The sponsoring Registrars of these
domain names will be notified of the investigation and the registrants will be required to provide additional evidence that they meet the
Nexus requirements.

Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the City will examine the current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to
be inaccurate to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other disposition.  If the
Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to correct the inaccuracies,
.nyc reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the Registrant is able to cure the deficiencies.

28.5.2 Administrative Procedures
In addition to the monitoring of WHOIS and Nexus information described above, the City also intends on having a Nexus Administrative
Dispute Policy whereby a third-party complainant can bring a challenge against a domain name registrant alleging that the domain name
registrant is not in compliance with the Nexus requirements.  This administrative dispute policy will be modeled after the one which has
been implemented in the .us ccTLD.  In addition to the deletion of domain names violating the .us Nexus Policy, the .nyc administrative
process may also include a mechanism whereby the complainant can require the transfer of the offending domain name if the complainant
can show that it has legitimate rights to the name and that it also complies with the Nexus requirements.

28.6 Prohibition of Domain Name Warehousing
The City shall abide by any ICANN-adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in
domain
names by registrars.

28.7 Restricted Names Policy
In order to preserve and enhance the value of the .nyc Internet address to all users, the City will prevent the registration of domain
names that match, contain misspellings of or are recognizable variations of any of the seven words identified in Federal Communications
Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) (collectively, the “Seven Words”)).  In addition, the City will review, for
possible deletion by the Registry, all registered second-level
domain names that contain, within the characters of the domain name registration, any of the Seven Words.  At least one a month,  the
City’s registry services provider, Neustar, will scan all domain names in the .nyc namespace to determine whether they contain any of the
“Seven Words.” Should Neustar locate any such domain names, Neustar shall take the site offline and prevent the domain name from being
registered again in the future.

28.8 Resourcing Plans
Responsibility for abuse mitigation rests with a variety of functional groups.  The Abuse Monitoring team is primarily responsible for
providing analysis and conducting investigations of reports of abuse.  The customer service team also plays an important role in assisting
with the investigations, responded to customers, and notifying registrars of abusive domains.  Finally, the Policy⁄Legal team is
responsible for developing the relevant policies and procedures. 

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. The
following resources are available from those teams:

Customer Support – 12 employees
Policy⁄Legal – 2 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the abuse mitigation procedures of the .nyc  registry.  

29. Rights Protection Mechanisms

29.1. Rights Protection Mechanisms
The City of New York (the City) is firmly committed to the protection of Intellectual Property rights and to implementing the
mandatory rights protection mechanisms contained in the Applicant Guidebook and detailed in Specification 7 of the Registry
Agreement.  The City recognizes that although the New gTLD program includes significant protections beyond those that were
mandatory for a number of the current TLDs, a key motivator for .nyc’s selection of Neustar as its registry services provider
is Neustar’s experience in successfully launching a number of TLDs with diverse rights protection mechanisms, including many
the ones required in the Applicant Guidebook.  More specifically, Neustar will implement the following rights protection
mechanisms in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook as further described below:
* Trademark Clearinghouse: a one-stop shop so that trademark holders can protect their trademarks with a single registration;
* Sunrise and Trademark Claims processes for the TLD;
* Implementation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to address domain names that have been registered and used in bad faith
in the TLD;
* Uniform Rapid Suspension: A quicker, more efficient and cheaper alternative to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to deal
with clear cut cases of cybersquatting;
* Implementation of a Thick WHOIS making it easier for rights holders to identify and locate infringing parties;
* Implementation of a Whois complaint portal by which third parties can submit claims of false or inaccurate Whois data for domain
 names within the TLD; and
* Implementation of Nexus requirements with both active and passive post registration safeguards to ensure contractual compliance.

A. Trademark Clearinghouse Including Sunrise and Trademark Claims
The first mandatory rights protection mechanism (“RPM”) required to be implemented by each new gTLD Registry is support for, and
interaction with, the trademark clearinghouse.  The trademark clearinghouse is intended to serve as a central repository for
information to be authenticated, stored and disseminated pertaining to the rights of trademark holders. The data maintained in the
clearinghouse will support and facilitate other RPMs, including the mandatory Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims service. Although
many of the details of how the trademark clearinghouse will interact with each registry operator and registrars has not yet been
finalized at the time of this submission, The City actively monitored the developments of the Implementation Assistance Group
(“IAG”) designed to assist ICANN staff in firming up the rules and procedures associated with the policies and technical
requirements for the trademark clearinghouse.  In addition, the City’s Registry Services Provider actively participated in the
IAG to ensure that the protections afforded by the clearinghouse and associated RPMs are feasible and implementable.

Utilizing the trademark clearinghouse, all operators of new gTLDs must offer: (i) a sunrise registration service for at least 30
days during the pre-launch phase giving eligible trademark owners an early opportunity to register second-level domains in new
gTLDs; and (ii) a trademark claims service for at least the first 60 days that second-level registrations are open. The trademark
claim service is intended to provide clear notice to a potential registrant of the rights of a trademark owner whose trademark is
registered in the clearinghouse.

As discussed in the City’s response to Question 18, the City will implement the launch of .nyc through a three-phased process.
Phase 1 is strictly reserved for governmental entities, City-based non-profits, concessionaries, franchisees and licensees.  Each
of these entities will be authenticated and validated by the City prior to registration.  Phase 2 is reserved for businesses,
organizations and legal entities that have a physical address in the City and have paid City taxes within its most recent fiscal
year.  Finally, Phase 3 will be the final launch phase that commences normal first-come, first-serve operations for all
perspective registrants who fulfill the .nyc Nexus Policy.

The .nyc Sunrise Process will coincide with the launch of Phase 2 and will last a minimum of thirty days.  During this time period,
only those businesses, organizations and other entities qualifying under Phase 2 that hold a trademark registered in the Trademark
Clearinghouse in accordance with the final Applicant Guidebook will be allowed to register .nyc domain names.  In the event that
there are multiple applicants for the same domain name during the Sunrise Period, the City may conduct an auction to determine
the registrant of such domain name.

Following the Sunrise Period, the City shall accept all other Phase 2 registrants through a Landrush process described in the City’s
response to Question 18.  This is also when the City shall begin offering the mandatory Trademark Claims Service.  Although ICANN
only requires implementation of the Trademark Claims process for sixty-days, the City intends on offering the Trademark Claims
service throughout the remainder of Phase 2 as well as the first sixty days of Phase 3 at a minimum.  Thus, the City will implement
the Trademark Claims service for a minimum of seven or eight months (5-6 months longer than required by ICANN). The City also
reserves the right to implement the Trademark Claims process for a longer period of time.

The City’s registry service provider, Neustar, has already implemented Sunrise and⁄or Trademark Claims programs for numerous TLDs
including .biz, .us, .travel, .tel and .co and will implement both of these services on behalf of the City for .nyc.

Neustar’s Experience in Implementing Sunrise and Trademark Claims Processes
In early 2002, Neustar became the first registry operator to launch a successful authenticated Sunrise process.  This process
permitted qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the .us ccTLD prior to the opening of the
namespace to the general public.  Unlike any other “Sunrise” plans implemented (or proposed before that time), Neustar validated the
authenticity of Trademark applications and registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Subsequently, as the back-end registry operator for the .tel gTLD and the .co ccTLD, Neustar launched validated Sunrise programs
employing processes.  These programs are very similar to those that are to be employed by the Trademark Clearinghouse for new gTLDs.

Below is a high level overview of the implementation of the .co Sunrise period that demonstrates Neustar’s experience and ability
to provide a Sunrise service and an overview of Neustar’s experience in implementing a Trademark Claims program to trademark owners
for the launch of .BIZ.  Neustar’s experience in each of these rights protection mechanisms will enable it to seamlessly provide
these services on behalf of  the .nyc gTLD as required by ICANN.

a) Sunrise and .co
The Sunrise process for .co was divided into two sub-phases:
* Local Sunrise giving holders of eligible trademarks that had obtained registered status from the Colombian trademark office the
opportunity to apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks
* Global Sunrise program giving holders of eligible registered trademarks of national effect, that had obtained a registered status
in any country of the world the opportunity to apply for the .CO domain names corresponding with their marks for a period of time
before the registration was open to the public at large.

Like the new gTLD process set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, trademark owners had to have their rights validated by a
Clearinghouse provider prior to the registration being accepted by the Registry.  The Clearinghouse used a defined process for
checking the eligibility of the legal rights claimed as the basis of each Sunrise application using official national trademark
databases and submitted documentary evidence.

Applicants and⁄or their designated agents had the option of interacting directly with the Clearinghouse to ensure their
applications were accurate and complete prior to submitting them to the Registry pursuant to an optional “Pre-validation Process”.
Whether or not an applicant was “pre-validated”, the applicant had to submit its corresponding domain name application through an
accredited registrar.  When the Applicant was pre-validated through the Clearinghouse, each was given an associated approval number
that it had to supply the registry.  If they were not pre-validated, applicants were required to submit the required trademark
information through their registrar to the Registry.

As the registry level, Neustar, subsequently either delivered the:
* Approval number and domain name registration information to the Clearinghouse
* When there was no approval number, trademark information and the domain name registration information was provided to the
Clearinghouse through EPP (as is currently required under the Applicant Guidebook).

Information was then used by the Clearinghouse as either further validation of those pre-validated applications, or initial
validation of those that did not go through pre-validation.  If the applicant was validated and their trademark matched the domain
name applied-for, the Clearinghouse communicated that fact to the Registry via EPP.

When there was only one validated sunrise application, the application proceeded to registration when the .co launched.  If there
were multiple validated applications (recognizing that there could be multiple trademark owners sharing the same trademark), those
were included in the .co Sunrise auction process.  Neustar tracked all of the information it received and the status of each
application and posted that status on a secure Website to enable trademark owners to view the status of its Sunrise application.

Although the exact process for the Sunrise program and its interaction between the trademark owner, Registry, Registrar, and IP
Clearinghouse is not completely defined in the Applicant Guidebook and is dependent on the current RFI issued by ICANN in its
selection of a Trademark Clearinghouse provider, Neustar’s expertise in launching multiple Sunrise processes and its established
software will implement a smooth and compliant Sunrise process for the .nyc gTLD.

b) Trademark Claims Service Experience
With Neustar’s .biz TLD launched in 2001, Neustar became the first TLD with a Trademark Claims service. Neustar developed the
Trademark Claim Service by enabling companies to stake claims to domain names prior to the commencement of live .biz domain
registrations.

During the Trademark Claim process, Neustar received over 80,000 Trademark Claims from entities around the world. Recognizing that
multiple intellectual property owners could have trademark rights in a particular mark, multiple Trademark Claims for the same
string were accepted. All applications were logged into a Trademark Claims database managed by Neustar.

The Trademark Claimant was required to provide various pieces of information about their trademark rights, including the:
* Particular trademark or service mark relied on for the trademark Claim
* Date a trademark application on the mark was filed, if any, on the string of the domain name
* Country where the mark was filed, if applicable
* Registration date, if applicable
* Class or classes of goods and services for which the trademark or service mark was registered
* Name of a contact person with whom to discuss the claimed trademark rights.

Once all Trademark Claims and domain name applications were collected, Neustar then compared the claims contained within the
Trademark Claims database with its database of collected domain name applications (DNAs).  In the event of a match between a
Trademark Claim and a domain name application, an e-mail message was sent to the domain name applicant notifying the applicant of
the existing Trademark Claim.  The e-mail also stressed that if the applicant chose to continue the application process and was
ultimately selected as the registrant, the applicant would be subject to Neustar’s dispute proceedings if challenged by the
Trademark Claimant for that particular domain name.

The domain name applicant had the option to proceed with the application or cancel the application. Proceeding on an application
meant that the applicant wanted to go forward and have the application proceed to registration despite having been notified of an
existing Trademark Claim. By choosing to “cancel,” the applicant made a decision in light of an existing Trademark Claim
notification to not proceed.

If the applicant did not respond to the e-mail notification from Neustar, or elected to cancel the application, the application was
not processed.  This resulted in making the applicant ineligible to register the actual domain name. If the applicant affirmatively
elected to continue the application process after being notified of the claimant’s (or claimants’) alleged trademark rights to the
desired domain name, Neustar processed the application.

This process is very similar to the one ultimately adopted by ICANN and incorporated in the latest version of the Applicant
Guidebook.  Although the collection of Trademark Claims for new gTLDs will be by the Trademark Clearinghouse, many of the aspects
of Neustar’s Trademark Claims process in 2001 are similar to those in the Applicant Guidebook.  This makes Neustar uniquely
qualified to implement the new gTLD Trademark Claims process.

B. Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
1. UDRP
Prior to joining Neustar, Mr. Jeff Neuman (VP Business Affairs) was a key contributor to the development of the Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) in 1998.  This became the first “Consensus Policy” of ICANN and has been required to be implemented by
all domain name registries since that time.   The UDRP is intended as an alternative dispute resolution process to transfer domain
names from those that have registered and used domain names in bad faith.  Although there is not much of an active role that the
domain name registry plays in the implementation of the UDRP, Neustar has closely monitored UDRP decisions that have involved the
TLDs for which it supports and ensures that the decisions are implemented by the registrars supporting its TLDs.  When alerted by
trademark owners of failures to implement UDRP decisions by its registrars, Neustar either proactively implements the decisions
itself or reminds the offending registrar of its obligations to implement the decision.

2. URS
In response to complaints by trademark owners that the UDRP was too cost prohibitive and slow, and the fact that many UDRP cases
were “clear cut” cases of cybersquatting, ICANN adopted the IRT’s recommendation that all new gTLD registries be required, pursuant
to their contracts with ICANN, to take part in a Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”). The purpose of the URS is to provide a
more cost effective and timely mechanism for brand owners than the UDRP to protect their trademarks and to promote consumer
protection on the Internet.

The URS is not meant to address Questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in a generic sense) or for
anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to
the infringement and abuse that is taking place.

Unlike the UDRP which requires little involvement of gTLD registries, the URS envisages much more of an active role at the
registry-level.  For example, rather than requiring the registrar to lock down a domain name subject to a UDRP dispute, it is the
registry under the URS that must lock the domain within 24hours of receipt of the complaint from the URS Provider to restrict all
changes to the registration data, including transfer and deletion of the domain names.  In addition, in the event of a determination
in favor of the complainant, the registry is required to suspend the domain name.  This suspension remains for the balance of the
registration period and would not resolve the original website. Rather, the nameservers would be redirected to an informational web
page provided by the URS Provider about the URS.

Additionally, the WHOIS reflects that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted, or modified for the life of the
registration.  Finally, there is an option for a successful complainant to extend the registration period for one additional year at
commercial rates.  The City is fully aware of each of these requirements and will have the capability to implement these requirements
for the .nyc gTLD.  In fact, during the IRT’s development of  the URS, Neustar began examining the implications of the URS on its
registry operations and provided the IRT with feedback on whether the recommendations from the IRT would be feasible for registries
to implement.

Although there have been a few changes to the URS since the IRT recommendations, Neustar continued to participate in the
development of the URS by providing comments to ICANN, many of which were adopted.  As a result, Neustar is committed to supporting
the URS for all of the registries that it provides back-end registry services.

C. Implementation of Thick WHOIS
The .nyc registry will include a thick WHOIS database as required in Specification 4 of the Registry agreement.  A thick WHOIS
provides numerous advantages including a centralized location of registrant information, the ability to more easily manage and
control the accuracy of data, and a consistent user experience.

D. Policies for Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse
In addition the Rights Protection mechanisms addressed above, the City will implement a number of measures to handle complaints
regarding the abusive registration of domain names within the TLD.  Below is a summary of the measures that are more fully
described in the City’s response to Question 28.

Registry Acceptable Use Policy
One of the key policies each new gTLD registry requires is the need to have an Acceptable Use Policy that clearly delineates the
types of activities that constitute “abuse” and the repercussions associated with an abusive domain name registration.  The policy
must be incorporated into the applicable Registry-Registrar Agreement and reserve the right for the registry to take appropriate
actions based on the type of abuse.  This may include locking down the domain name preventing any changes to the contact and
nameserver information associated with the domain name, placing the domain name “on hold” rendering the domain name non-resolvable,
transferring the domain name to another registrar, and⁄or in cases in which the domain name is associated with an existing law
enforcement investigation, substituting name servers to collect information about the DNS queries to assist the investigation.
The City’s Acceptable Use Policy, set forth in our response to Question 28, will include prohibitions on phishing, pharming,
dissemination of malware, fast flux hosting, hacking, and child pornography.  In addition, the policy will include the right of the
registry to take action necessary to deny, cancel, suspend, lock, or transfer any registration in violation of the policy.

Monitoring for Malicious Activity
The City is committed to ensuring that those domain names associated with abuse or malicious conduct in violation of the Acceptable
Use Policy are dealt with in a timely and decisive manner.  These include taking action against those domain names that are being
used to threaten the stability and security of the TLD, or is part of a real-time investigation by law enforcement.

Once a complaint is received from a trusted source, third-party, or detected by the Registry, the Registry will use commercially
reasonable efforts to verify the information in the complaint.  If that information can be verified to the best of the ability of
the Registry, the sponsoring registrar will be notified and be given 12 hours to investigate the activity and either take down the
domain name by placing the domain name on hold or by deleting the domain name in its entirety or providing a compelling argument to
the Registry to keep the name in the zone.  If the registrar has not taken the requested action after the 12-hour period (i.e., is
unresponsive to the request or refuses to take action), the Registry will place the domain on “ServerHold”.  Although this action
removes the domain name from the TLD zone, the domain name record still appears in the TLD WHOIS database so that the name and
entities can be investigated by law enforcement should they desire to get involved.

29.2 Safeguards against Unqualified Registrations
A. Policies for Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse
1. Whois Accuracy
Neustar will maintain and operate on behalf of the .nyc gTLD a Whois compliance portal through which third parties can submit
allegations of accurate or incomplete Whois data.  Neustar has first-hand experience implementing a similar reporting mechanism in
connection with the .US ccTLD, see http:⁄⁄www.neustar.us⁄whoiscompliance⁄ComplaintMain.jsp. This reporting mechanism WILL
incorporate suitable safeguards to ensure that third party complaints are not frivolously submitted, therefore burdening the
registry or registrars.

Today most third parties with concerns about inaccurate or incomplete Whois data have only one option, the used of ICANN’s whois
report tool which forwards these complaints to the sponsoring registrar, with little or no involvement with the registry.  Neustar
is proposing to take a much more active role to promote the accuracy and completeness of the Whois data within the .nyc gTLD.
Specifically, Neustar itself will forward the information to the sponsoring Registrar, who shall be required to address those
complaints with their registrants.  Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the Registry will examine the
current WHOIS data for names that were alleged to be inaccurate to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was
deleted, or there was some other disposition.  If the Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant
was either unwilling or unable to correct the inaccuracies, Applicant reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s)
until such time as the Registrant is able to cure the deficiencies.

2. Nexus Requirements, Monitoring and Enforcement
In addition to the measures to the rights protection mechanisms described above, the City believes that requiring each domain name
registrant in .nyc to meet its unique system of Nexus requirements also serves as a rights protection mechanism which will prevent
and⁄or mitigate the tendency to have abusive registrations in the .nyc gTLD.  In fact, the City’s Nexus policy was developed
precisely with this goal in mind.  Below is a summary of the Nexus Policy as well as the City’s monitoring and enforcement efforts,
which are more fully described in the City’s response to Question 28.

The .nyc Nexus Policy is based on the notion that only those individuals, businesses, organizations or other entities having a
substantial and lawful connection to the City be permitted to register for .nyc domain names (“Nexus Policy”). Therefore .nyc
Registrants must either be:
(i) a natural person whose primary place of domicile is in the City of New York (“Nexus Category 1”); or
(ii) an entity or organization that has a bona fide presence in the City of New York (“Nexus Category 2”). Factors that should be
considered in determining whether an entity or organization has bona fide presence in the City shall include, without limitation
whether such prospective registrant:
(A) regularly performs lawful activities within the City related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is
constituted (e.g. selling goods or providing services to customers, conducting regular training activities, attending conferences),
provided such activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain name; and
(B)  maintains an office or other facility in the City for a lawful business, noncommercial, educational or governmental purpose,
and not solely or primarily to permit it to register for a .nyc domain name; and;
(C) regularly performs lawful activities outside of the City; provided that such activities relate to, or are primarily directed
towards residents, tourists, businesses and organizations within the City (e.g. online content related to the City).

The City will conduct random spot checks of .nyc domain names to determine whether their owners satisfy the applicable Nexus
Category. Domains will be manually reviewed for accuracy of the WHOIS information, and any domain found to contain patently
inaccurate information or where there is a high likelihood of a nexus violation will be flagged for further investigation.
The sponsoring Registrars of these domain names will be notified of the investigation and the registrants will be required to
provide additional evidence that they meet the Nexus requirements.

Thirty days after forwarding the complaint to the registrar, the .nyc registry will examine the current WHOIS data for names that
were alleged to be inaccurate to determine if the information was corrected, the domain name was deleted, or there was some other
disposition.  If the Registrar has failed to take any action, or it is clear that the Registrant was either unwilling or unable to
correct the inaccuracies, .nyc reserves the right to suspend the applicable domain name(s) until such time as the Registrant is
able to cure the deficiencies.

29.3 Resourcing Plans
The rights protection mechanisms described in the response above involve a wide range of tasks, procedures, and systems.  The
responsibility for each mechanism varies based on the specific requirements.  In general the development of applications such as
sunrise and IP claims is the responsibility of the Engineering team, with guidance from the Product Management team.  Customer
Support and Legal play a critical role in enforcing certain policies such as the rapid suspension process. These teams have years
of experience implementing these or similar processes.  

The necessary resources will be pulled from the pool of available resources described in detail in the response to Question 31. 
The following resources are available from those teams:
Development⁄Engineering – 19 employees
Product Management- 4 employees
Customer Support – 12 employees

The resources are more than adequate to support the rights protection mechanisms of the .nyc registry.  

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

30.(a).1 Security Policies

The City of New York (ʺthe Cityʺ) has selected NeuStar, Inc (“Neustar”) to provide registry services for the .nyc gTLD. the City and
our registry operator, Neustar recognize the vital need to secure the systems and the integrity of the data in commercial solutions. The
.nyc registry solution will leverage industry-best security practices including the consideration of physical, network, server, and
application elements.

Neustarʹs approach to information security starts with comprehensive information security policies. These are based on the industry
best practices for security including SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network, Security) Institute, NIST (National Institute of Standards and
Technology), and CIS (Center for Internet Security). Policies are reviewed annually by Neustarʹs information security team.

The following is a summary of the security policies that will be used in the .nyc registry, including:

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

All of the security policies and levels described in this section are appropriate for the .nyc registry.

30.(a).2 Summary of Security Policies

Neustar has developed a comprehensive Information Security Program in order to create effective administrative, technical, and
physical safeguards for the protection of its information assets, and to comply with Neustarʹs obligations under applicable law,
regulations, and contracts. This Program establishes Neustarʹs policies for accessing, collecting, storing, using, transmitting, and
protecting electronic, paper, and other records containing sensitive information.

-The policies for internal users and our clients to ensure the safe, organized and fair use of information resources.
-The rights that can be expected with that use.
-The standards that must be met to effectively comply with policy.
-The responsibilities of the owners, maintainers, and users of Neustarʹs information resources.
-Rules and principles used at Neustar to approach information security issues

The following policies are included in the Program:

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

2. Information Risk Management Policy
The Information Risk Management Policy describes the requirements for the on-going information security risk management program,
including defining roles and responsibilities for conducting and evaluating risk assessments, assessments of technologies used to
provide information security and monitoring procedures used to measure policy compliance.

3. Data Protection Policy
The Data Protection Policy provides the requirements for creating, storing, transmitting, disclosing, and disposing of sensitive
information, including data classification and labeling requirements, the requirements for data retention. Encryption and related
technologies such as digital certificates are also covered under this policy.

4. Third Party Policy
The Third Party Policy provides the requirements for handling service provider contracts, including specifically the vetting
process,
required contract reviews, and on-going monitoring of service providers for policy compliance.

5. Security Awareness and Training Policy
The Security Awareness and Training Policy provide the requirements for managing the on-going awareness and training program at Neustar.
This includes awareness and training activities provided to all Neustar Associates.

6. Incident Response Policy
The Incident Response Policy provides the requirements for reacting to reports of potential security policy violations. This policy
defines the necessary steps for identifying and reporting security incidents, remediation of problems, and conducting lessons learned
post-mortem reviews in order to provide feedback on the effectiveness of this Program. Additionally, this policy contains the requirement
for reporting data security breaches to the appropriate authorities and to the public, as required by law, contractual requirements, or
regulatory bodies.

7. Physical and Environmental Controls Policy
The Physical and Environment Controls Policy provides the requirements for securely storing sensitive information and the supporting
information technology equipment and infrastructure. This policy includes details on the storage of paper records as well as access to
computer systems and equipment locations by authorized personnel and visitors.

8. Privacy Policy
Neustar supports the right to privacy, including the rights of individuals to control the dissemination and use of personal data that
describes them, their personal choices, or life experiences. Neustar supports domestic and international laws and regulations that seek
to protect the privacy rights of such individuals.

9. Identity and Access Management Policy
The Identity and Access Management Policy covers user accounts (login ID naming convention, assignment, authoritative source) as well as
ID lifecycle (request, approval, creation, use, suspension, deletion, review), including provisions for system⁄application accounts,
shared⁄group accounts, guest⁄public accounts, temporary⁄emergency accounts, administrative access, and remote access. This policy also
includes the user password policy requirements.

10. Network Security Policy
The Network Security Policy covers aspects of Neustar network infrastructure and the technical controls in place to prevent and detect
security policy violations.

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

12. Mobile Device Security Policy
The Mobile Device Policy covers the requirements specific to mobile devices with information storage or processing capabilities. This
policy includes laptop standards, as well as requirements for PDAs, mobile phones, digital cameras and music players, and any other
removable device capable of transmitting, processing or storing information.

13. Vulnerability and Threat Management Policy
The Vulnerability and Threat Management Policy provides the requirements for patch management, vulnerability scanning, penetration
testing, threat management (modeling and monitoring) and the appropriate ties to the Risk Management Policy.

14. Monitoring and Audit Policy
The Monitoring and Audit Policy covers the details regarding which types of computer events to record, how to maintain the logs, and the
roles and responsibilities for how to review, monitor, and respond to log information. This policy also includes the requirements for
backup, archival, reporting, forensics use, and retention of audit logs.

15. Project and System Development and Maintenance Policy
The System Development and Maintenance Policy covers the minimum security requirements for all software, application, and system
development performed by or on behalf of Neustar and the minimum security requirements for maintaining information systems.

30.(a).3 Independent Assessment Reports

Neustar IT Operations is subject to yearly Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), Statement on Auditing Standards #70 (SAS70) and ISO audits. Testing of
controls implemented by Neustar management in the areas of access to programs and data, change management and IT Operations are subject
to testing by both internal and external SOX and SAS70 audit groups. Audit Findings are communicated to process owners, Quality
Management Group and Executive Management. Actions are taken to make process adjustments where required and remediation of issues is

monitored by internal audit and QM groups.
External Penetration Test is conducted by a third party on a yearly basis. As authorized by Neustar, the third party performs an
external Penetration Test to review potential security weaknesses of network devices and hosts and demonstrate the impact to the
environment. The assessment is conducted remotely from the Internet with testing divided into four phases:

-A network survey is performed in order to gain a better knowledge of the network that was being tested
-Vulnerability scanning is initiated with all the hosts that are discovered in the previous phase
-Identification of key systems for further exploitation is conducted
-Exploitation of the identified systems is attempted.

Each phase of the audit is supported by detailed documentation of audit procedures and results. Identified vulnerabilities are
classified as high, medium and low risk to facilitate managementʹs prioritization of remediation efforts. Tactical and strategic
recommendations are provided to management supported by reference to industry best practices.

30.(a).4 Augmented Security Levels and Capabilities

There are no increased security levels specific to .nyc. However, Neustar will provide the same high level of security provided across
all of the registries it manages.

A key to Neustarʹs Operational success is Neustarʹs highly structured operations practices. The standards and governance of these
processes:

-Include annual independent review of information security practices
-Include annual external penetration tests by a third party
-Conform to the ISO 9001 standard (Part of Neustarʹs ISO-based Quality Management System)
-Are aligned to Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and CoBIT best practices
-Are aligned with all aspects of ISO IEC 17799
-Are in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) requirements (audited annually)
-Are focused on continuous process improvement (metrics driven with product scorecards reviewed monthly).

A summary view to Neustarʹs security policy in alignment with ISO 17799 can be found in section 30.(a).5 below.

30.(a).5 Commitments and Security Levels

The .nyc registry commits to high security levels that are consistent with the needs of the TLD. These commitments include:

Compliance with High Security Standards

-Security procedures and practices that are in alignment with ISO 17799
-Annual SOC 2 Audits on all critical registry systems
-Annual 3rd Party Penetration Tests
-Annual Sarbanes Oxley Audits

Highly Developed and Document Security Policies

-Compliance with all provisions described in section 30.(b) and in the attached security policy document.
-Resources necessary for providing information security
-Fully documented security policies
-Annual security training for all operations personnel

High Levels of Registry Security

-Multiple redundant data centers
-High Availability Design
-Architecture that includes multiple layers of security
-Diversified firewall and networking hardware vendors
-Multi-factor authentication for accessing registry systems
-Physical security access controls
-A 24x7 manned Network Operations Center that monitors all systems and applications
-A 24x7 manned Security Operations Center that monitors and mitigates DDoS attacks
-DDoS mitigation using traffic scrubbing technologies

© Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers.

 

Key .nyc Pages