ICANN New gTLD Application

We anticipate that domains in the .SHELL registry will only be registered to Shell group companies or their employees.
However, the TLD will benefit a range of groups:
• Users outside the Shell group may be allowed to use (but not register) second level domains within the .SHELL gTLD, but under strict control and regulation set out in their registration agreement and separate licence documents.
• All internet users – who will regard a .SHELL domain as a sign of authenticity that can be trusted.
• As the registration and use of .SHELL domains will be strictly controlled, it is intended that they be recognised as reliable signposts to authorised information and communication.
• The ICANN community. Shell will be members of the Registry Operators constituency and, along with other Dot Brand owners, is hoping to provide a fresh perspective that may enhance ICANN’s policy development in areas such as the protection of IP rights.
• Shell’s global workforce, for whom a new gTLD will be a statement of innovation and brand reinforcement, as well as providing the peace of mind derived from a more secure communication channel.

What is the goal of your proposed gTLD in terms of areas of speciality, service levels or reputation?
Shell prides itself on the integrity of its brand and this will extend to its new gTLD. The goal will be to protect and enhance the reputation of Shell on the internet. Its service levels will reflect this goal.
Over time, Shell may decide to offer IDNs in the scripts listed in its answer to Question 44, where this will increase the usability of its domain names to its worldwide market.

What do you anticipate your proposed gTLD will add to the current space in terms of competition, differentiation or innovation?
Shell wishes to lessen its dependency upon third party domain registries to support effective internet communication. The .SHELL registry will be managed to standards designed to enhance stability and reduce risks.

Shell anticipates taking advantage of and leveraging the freedom of choice of second level domains it will have available for its use by virtue of controlling its own top level domain.

Currently there are no gTLD registries dedicated to brand owners. Shell looks forward to being amongst the first to apply.

What goals does your proposed gTLD have in terms of user experience?
We hope that all our stakeholders and anyone else seeing information on Shell via the .SHELL gTLD with will recognise the efforts that we are making to communicate clearly and authentically by operating a .SHELL TLD and in doing so the efforts we are making to ensure that they can communicate securely with us across the internet, using various device formats – including mobile, fixed line devices.

Enquiries from ICANN representatives or from third parties in regard to domains in our registry or our policies will be managed in a timely fashion according to ICANN rules.

Provide a complete description of the applicant’s intended registration policies in support of the goals above
The .SHELL registry would be a “Dot Brand” single entity registry established by and for the use of Shell. Only companies within the Shell group would be allowed to register second level domains within the .SHELL TLD.

A specified project team made up of IP, IT and communications professionals is responsible for the development, maintenance and enforcement of policies on the use and development of the .SHELL gTLD and the registration and use of second level domains in it. The policies will, amongst other things, define the rules associated with eligibility, acceptable use, the allocation of domains and dispute resolution. This policies will be updated and revised from time to time, to reflect Shell’s commercial and strategic interests and evolution of ICANN policies. Registration of a .SHELL domain name will be undertaken in four steps: eligibility confirmation; naming convention check; acceptable use review; and registration.

Each registrant must be recognised as a member of the Shell group or one of its employees. It is unforeseeable that domains in the .SHELL registry will be assigned or registered to third parties. It is foreseeable, though, that third parties may be allowed use domain names in .SHELL, but under a strict IP licence regime.

At any time, SITI Inc may instigate an eligibility reconsideration process, which could result in the cancellation of a domain in the .SHELL registry – this will be contained in the registration agreement for second level domains in .SHELL.

All domains in the .SHELL registry will remain the property of Shell.

Checks will be undertaken to ensure that applied-for character strings conform to a set of .SHELL naming conventions that will be defined to reflect ICANN’s consensus policies.

Internationalized domain names may be supported in the .SHELL registry at the second level.

.SHELL domains may not be used in ways that knowingly infringe third party intellectual property rights.

.SHELL will not knowingly give rise to any moral or public order questions or in any way damage the strategic or commercial interests or reputation of Shell, .SHELL, ICANN or the Internet.

Registrants may not assign their registration agreements for domain names in the .SHELL gTLD to external organizations, institutions, or individuals.

All .SHELL domains will carry accurate and up to date registration records. And will comply with all ICANN WHOIS standards and requirements for the new gTLDs.

Will your proposed gTLD impose any measures for protecting the privacy of confidential information of registrants or users?
Shell will use its best endeavours to comply with all data protection and privacy laws and regulations relevant to operating a .SHELL gTLD.

Describe whether and in what ways outreach and communications will help to achieve your projected benefits?
The .SHELL registry will be a Standard registry, closed to third party registrants, for use only by Shell companies and their employees and specified licensees. Nonetheless, outreach and communication will be undertaken to ensure that .SHELL domains are used in accordance with Shell’s objectives. For example, guidelines will be produced and published on the Shell intranet defining who can apply for a .SHELL domain and how it can be used.

To assist internet users beyond Shell to understand that .SHELL domains are genuine and can be trusted as signposts to authentic information or services, we intend to create a home page for the registry with clear messaging and an enquiry form.

1 CUSTOMARY REGISTRY SERVICES
As Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”) Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, Verisign provides a comprehensive system and physical security solution that is designed to ensure a TLD is protected from unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertion, or destruction of registry data. Verisign’s system addresses all areas of security including information and policies, security procedures, the systems development lifecycle, physical security, system hacks, break-ins, data tampering, and other disruptions to operations. Verisign’s operational environments not only meet the security criteria specified in its customer contractual agreements, thereby preventing unauthorized access to or disclosure of information or resources on the Internet by systems operating in accordance with applicable standards, but also are subject to multiple independent assessments as detailed in the response to Question 30, Security Policy. Verisign’s physical and system security methodology follows a mature, ongoing lifecycle that was developed and implemented many years before the development of the industry standards with which Verisign currently complies. Please see the response to Question 30, Security Policy, for details of the security features of Verisign’s registry services.
Verisign’s registry services fully comply with relevant standards and best current practice RFCs published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), including all successor standards, modifications, or additions relating to the DNS and name server operations including without limitation RFCs 1034, 1035, 1982, 2181, 2182, 2671, 3226, 3596, 3597, 3901, 4343, and 4472. Moreover, Verisign’s Shared Registration System (SRS) supports the following IETF Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) specifications, where the Extensible Markup Language (XML) templates and XML schemas are defined in RFC 3915, 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, and 5734. By strictly adhering to these RFCs, Verisign helps to ensure its registry services do not create a condition that adversely affects the throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet servers or end systems. Besides its leadership in authoring RFCs for EPP, Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC), and other DNS services, Verisign has created and contributed to several now well-established IETF standards and is a regular and long-standing participant in key Internet standards forums.
Figure 23 1 summarizes the technical and business components of those registry services, customarily offered by a registry operator (i.e., Verisign), that support this application. These services are currently operational and support both large and small Verisign-managed registries. Customary registry services are provided in the same manner as Verisign provides these services for its existing gTLDs.
Through these established registry services, Verisign has proven its ability to operate a reliable and low-risk registry that supports millions of transactions per day. Verisign is unaware of any potential security or stability concern related to any of these services.
Registry services defined by this application are not intended to be offered in a manner unique to the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) nor are any proposed services unique to this application’s registry.

As further evidence of Verisign’s compliance with ICANN mandated security and stability requirements, Verisign allocates the applicable RFCs to each of the five customary registry services (items A – E above). For each registry service, Verisign also provides evidence in Figure 23 2 of Verisign’s RFC compliance and includes relevant ICANN prior-service approval actions.
1.1 Critical Operations of the Registry
i. Receipt of Data from Registrars Concerning Registration of Domain Names and Name Servers
See Item A in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.
ii. Provision to Registrars Status Information Relating to the Zone Servers
Verisign is SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services. Verisign registry services provisions to registrars status information relating to zone servers for the TLD. The services also allow a domain name to be updated with clientHold, serverHold status, which removes the domain name server details from zone files. This ensures that DNS queries of the domain name are not resolved temporarily. When these hold statuses are removed, the name server details are written back to zone files and DNS queries are again resolved. Figure 23 3 describes the domain name status information and zone insertion indicator provided to registrars. The zone insertion indicator determines whether the name server details of the domain name exist in the zone file for a given domain name status. Verisign also has the capability to withdraw domain names from the zone file in near-real time by changing the domain name statuses upon request by customers, courts, or legal authorities as required.
iii. Dissemination of TLD Zone Files
See Item B in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.
iv. Operation of the Registry Zone Servers
Verisign is SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services. Verisign, as a company, operates zone servers and serves DNS resolution from 76 geographically distributed resolution sites located in North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Currently, 17 DNS locations are designated primary sites, offering greater capacity than smaller sites comprising the remainder of the Verisign constellation. Verisign also uses Anycast techniques and regional Internet resolution sites to expand coverage, accommodate emergency or surge capacity, and support system availability during maintenance procedures. Verisign operatesSITI Inc’s gTLD from a minimum of eight of its primary sites (two on the East Coast of the United States, two on the West Coast of the United States, two in Europe, and two in Asia) and expands resolution sites based on traffic volume and patterns. Further details of the geographic diversity of Verisign’s zone servers are provided in the response to Question 34, Geographic Diversity. Moreover, additional details of Verisign’s zone servers are provided in the response to Question 32, Architecture and the response to Question 35, DNS Service.
v. Dissemination of Contact and Other Information Concerning Domain Name Server Registrations
See Item C in Figure 23 1 and Figure 23 2.
2 OTHER PRODUCTS OR SERVICES THE REGISTRY OPERATOR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE BECAUSE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONSENSUS POLICY
Verisign, SITI Inc ’s selected provider of backend registry services, is a proven supporter of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process whereby community members identify a problem, initiate policy discussions, and generate a solution that produces effective and sustained results. Verisign currently provides all of the products or services (collectively referred to as services) that the registry operator is required to provide because of the establishment of a Consensus Policy. For the . .SHELL gTLD, Verisign implements these services using the same proven processes and procedures currently in-place for all registries under Verisign’s management. Furthermore, Verisign executes these services on computing platforms comparable to those of other registries under Verisign’s management. Verisign’s extensive experience with consensus policy required services and its proven processes to implement these services greatly minimize any potential risk to Internet security or stability. Details of these services are provided in the following subsections. It shall be noted that consensus policy services required of registrars (e.g., Whois Reminder, Expired Domain) are not included in this response. This exclusion is in accordance with the direction provided in the question’s Notes column to address registry operator services.
2.1 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)
Technical Component: In compliance with the IRTP consensus policy, Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, has designed its registration systems to systematically restrict the transfer of domain names within 60 days of the initial create date. In addition, Verisign has implemented EPP and “AuthInfo” code functionality, which is used to further authenticate transfer requests. The registration system has been designed to enable compliance with the five-day Transfer grace period and includes the following functionality:
• Allows the losing registrar to proactively ‘ACK’ or acknowledge a transfer prior to the expiration of the five-day Transfer grace period
• Allows the losing registrar to proactively ‘NACK’ or not acknowledge a transfer prior to the expiration of the five-day Transfer grace period
• Allows the system to automatically ACK the transfer request once the five-day Transfer grace period has passed if the losing registrar has not proactively ACK’d or NACK’d the transfer request.
Business Component: All requests to transfer a domain name to a new registrar are handled according to the procedures detailed in the IRTP. Dispute proceedings arising from a registrarʹs alleged failure to abide by this policy may be initiated by any ICANN-accredited registrar under the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. SITI Inc compliance office serves as the first-level dispute resolution provider pursuant to the associated Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. As needed Verisign is available to offer policy guidance as issues arise.
Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the service, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems. By implementing the IRTP in accordance with ICANN policy, security is enhanced as all transfer commands are authenticated using the AuthInfo code prior to processing.
ICANN Prior Approval: Verisign has been in compliance with the IRTP since November 2004 and is available to support SITI Inc in a consulting capacity as needed.
Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the . .SHELL TLD.
2.2 Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy
Technical Component: Verisign’s registry system monitors registrars’ Add grace period deletion activity and provides reporting that permits SITI Inc to assess registration fees upon registrars that have exceeded the AGP thresholds stipulated in the AGP Limits Policy. Further, SITI Inc accepts and evaluates all exemption requests received from registrars and determines whether the exemption request meets the exemption criteria. SITI Inc maintains all AGP Limits Policy exemption request activity so that this material may be included within SITI Inc ’s Monthly Registry Operator Report to ICANN.
Registrars that exceed the limits established by the policy may submit exemption requests toSITI Inc for consideration. SITI Inc ’s compliance office reviews these exemption requests in accordance with the AGP Limits Policy and renders a decision. Upon request, SITI Inc submits associated reporting on exemption request activity to support reporting in accordance with established ICANN requirements.
Business Component: The Add grace period (AGP) is restricted for any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP. Specifically, for each operator:
• During any given month, an operator may not offer any refund to an ICANN-accredited registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrarʹs net new registrations (calculated as the total number of net adds of one-year through ten-year registrations as defined in the monthly reporting requirement of Operator Agreements) in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater, unless an exemption has been granted by an operator.
• Upon the documented demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, a registrar may seek from an operator an exemption from such restrictions in a specific month. The registrar must confirm in writing to the operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside the registrarʹs control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole and reasonable discretion of the operator; however ʺextraordinary circumstancesʺ that reoccur regularly for the same registrar will not be deemed extraordinary.
In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN,SITI Inc identifies each registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief description of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action, approval, or denial that the operator took.
Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the policy, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems.
ICANN Prior Approval: Verisign, SITI Inc ’s backend registry services provider, has had experience with this policy since its implementation in April 2009 and is available to support SITI Inc in a consulting capacity as needed.
Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the , .SHELL TLD.
2.3 Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP)
Technical Component: Verisign,SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, adheres to all RSEP submission requirements. Verisign has followed the process many times and is fully aware of the submission procedures, the type of documentation required, and the evaluation process that ICANN adheres to.
Business Component: In accordance with ICANN procedures detailed on the ICANN RSEP website (http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄registries⁄rsep⁄), all gTLD registry operators are required to follow this policy when submitting a request for new registry services.
Security and Stability Concerns: As part of the RSEP submission process, Verisign, SITI Inc’s backend registry services provider, identifies any potential security and stability concerns in accordance with RSEP stability and security requirements. Verisign never launches services without satisfactory completion of the RSEP process and resulting approval.
ICANN Prior Approval: Not applicable.
Unique to the TLD: gTLD RSEP procedures are not implemented in a manner unique to the .SHELL. TLD.
3 PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ONLY A REGISTRY OPERATOR IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING BY REASON OF ITS DESIGNATION AS THE REGISTRY OPERATOR
Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, has developed a Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service that complements traditional registration and resolution registry services. In accordance with direction provided in Question 23, Verisign details below the technical and business components of the service, identifies any potential threat to registry security or stability, and lists previous interactions with ICANN to approve the operation of the service. The Two-Factor Authentication Service is currently operational, supporting multiple registries under ICANN’s purview.
SITI Inc is unaware of any competition issue that may require the registry service(s) listed in this response to be referred to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with applicable jurisdiction. ICANN previously approved the service(s), at which time it was determined that either the service(s) raised no competitive concerns or any applicable concerns related to competition were satisfactorily addressed.
3.1 Two-Factor Authentication Service
Technical Component: The Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service is designed to improve domain name security and assist registrars in protecting the accounts they manage. As part of the service, dynamic one-time passwords augment the user names and passwords currently used to process update, transfer, and⁄or deletion requests. These one-time passwords enable transaction processing to be based on requests that are validated both by “what users know” (i.e., their user name and password) and “what users have” (i.e., a two-factor authentication credential with a one-time-password).
Registrars can use the one-time-password when communicating directly with Verisign’s Customer Service department as well as when using the registrar portal to make manual updates, transfers, and⁄or deletion transactions. The Two-Factor Authentication Service is an optional service offered to registrars that execute the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service Agreement.
Business Component: There is no charge for the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service. It is enabled only for registrars that wish to take advantage of the added security provided by the service.
Security and Stability Concerns: Verisign is unaware of any impact, caused by the service, on throughput, response time, consistency, or coherence of the responses to Internet servers or end-user systems. The service is intended to enhance domain name security, resulting in increased confidence and trust by registrants.
ICANN Prior Approval: ICANN approved the same Two-Factor Authentication Service for Verisign’s use on .com and .net on 10 July 2009 (RSEP Proposal 2009004) and for .name on 16 February 2011 (RSEP Proposal 2011001).
Unique to the TLD: This service is not provided in a manner unique to the .SHELL. TLD.

NOTE: The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this document the expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ and ʺShell Groupʺ are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Group companies in general. Likewise, the words ʺweʺ, ʺusʺ and ʺourʺ are also used to refer to Group companies in general or those who work for them. The expression ʺShell ITʺ is a trading style used by a community of separate companies and other organisational entities within the Shell Group. The expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ, ʺShell Groupʺ and ʺShell ITʺ are also used where there is no purpose in identifying specific companies. Where the expression ʺSITI Inc.ʺ is used the purpose is to identify the specific company.

1 ROBUST PLAN FOR OPERATING A RELIABLE SRS
1.1 High-Level Shared Registration System (SRS) System Description
Verisign, Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”) Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, provides and operates a robust and reliable SRS that enables multiple registrars to provide domain name registration services in the top-level domain (TLD). Verisign’s proven reliable SRS serves approximately 915 registrars, and Verisign, as a company, has averaged more than 140 million registration transactions per day. The SRS provides a scalable, fault-tolerant platform for the delivery of gTLDs through the use of a central customer database, a web interface, a standard provisioning protocol (i.e., Extensible Provisioning Protocol, EPP), and a transport protocol (i.e., Secure Sockets Layer, SSL).
The SRS components include:
• Web Interface: Allows customers to access the authoritative database for accounts, contacts, users, authorization groups, product catalog, product subscriptions, and customer notification messages.
• EPP Interface: Provides an interface to the SRS that enables registrars to use EPP to register and manage domains, hosts, and contacts.
• Authentication Provider: A Verisign developed application, specific to the SRS, that authenticates a user based on a login name, password, and the SSL certificate common name and client IP address.

The SRS is designed to be scalable and fault tolerant by incorporating clustering in multiple tiers of the platform. New nodes can be added to a cluster within a single tier to scale a specific tier, and if one node fails within a single tier, the services will still be available. The SRS allows registrars to manage the .SHELL 〉 gTLD domain names in a single architecture.
To flexibly accommodate the scale of its transaction volumes, as well as new technologies, Verisign employs the following design practices:
• Scale for Growth: Scale to handle current volumes and projected growth.
• Scale for Peaks: Scale to twice base capacity to withstand “registration add attacks” from a compromised registrar system.
• Limit Database CPU Utilization: Limit utilization to no more than 50 percent during peak loads.
• Limit Database Memory Utilization: Each user’s login process that connects to the database allocates a small segment of memory to perform connection overhead, sorting, and data caching. Verisign’s standards mandate that no more than 40 percent of the total available physical memory on the database server will be allocated for these functions.

Verisign’s SRS is built upon a three-tier architecture as illustrated in Figure 24 1 and detailed here:
• Gateway Layer: The first tier, the gateway servers, uses EPP to communicate with registrars. These gateway servers then interact with application servers, which comprise the second tier.
• Application Layer: The application servers contain business logic for managing and maintaining the registry business. The business logic is particular to each TLD’s business rules and requirements. The flexible internal design of the application servers allows Verisign to easily leverage existing business rules to apply to the .SHELL gTLD. The application servers store SITI Inc’s data in the registry database, which comprises the third and final tier. This simple, industry-standard design has been highly effective with other customers for whom Verisign provides backend registry services.
• Database Layer: The database is the heart of this architecture. It stores all the essential information provisioned from registrars through the gateway servers. Separate servers query the database, extract updated zone and Whois information, validate that information, and distribute it around the clock to Verisign’s worldwide domain name resolution sites.

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

Besides improving scalability and reliability, local SRS redundancy enables Verisign to take down individual system components for maintenance and upgrades, with little to no performance impact. With Verisign’s redundant design, Verisign can perform routine maintenance while the remainder of the system remains online and unaffected. For the .SHELL gTLD registry, this flexibility minimizes unplanned downtime and provides a more consistent end-user experience.
1.2 Representative Network Diagrams
Figure 24 3 provides a summary network diagram of SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) SRS. This configuration at both the primary and alternate-primary Verisign data centers provides a highly reliable backup capability. Data is continuously replicated between both sites to ensure failover to the alternate-primary site can be implemented expeditiously to support both planned and unplanned outages.
1.3 Number of Servers
As SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, Verisign continually reviews its server deployments for all aspects of its registry service. Verisign evaluates usage based on peak performance objectives as well as current transaction volumes, which drive the quantity of servers in its implementations. Verisign’s scaling is based on the following factors:
• Server configuration is based on CPU, memory, disk IO, total disk, and network throughput projections.
• Server quantity is determined through statistical modeling to fulfill overall performance objectives as defined by both the service availability and the server configuration.
• To ensure continuity of operations for the ,shell gTLD, Verisign uses a minimum of 100 dedicated servers per SRS site. These servers are virtualized to meet demand.

1.4 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems
Figure 24 4 provides a technical overview of the SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) SRS, showing how the SRS component fits into this larger system and interconnects with other system components.
1.5 Frequency of Synchronization Between Servers
As SITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, Verisign uses synchronous replication to keep the Verisign SRS continuously in sync between the two data centers. This synchronization is performed in near-real time, thereby supporting rapid failover should a failure occur or a planned maintenance outage be required.
1.6 Synchronization Scheme
Verisign uses synchronous replication to keep the Verisign SRS continuously in sync between the two data centers. Because the alternate-primary site is continuously up, and built using an identical design to the primary data center, it is classified as a “hot standby.”
2 SCALABILITY AND PERFORMANCE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH AND PLANNED SIZE OF THE REGISTRY
Verisign is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.
Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .SHELL gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to SITI Inc fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.
3 TECHNICAL PLAN THAT IS ADEQUATELY RESOURCED IN THE PLANNED COSTS DETAILED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTION
Verisign, theSITI Inc’s selected provider of backend registry services, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services provided to SITI Inc fully accounts for this personnel-related cost, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .com, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.
Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support SRS performance:
• Application Engineers: 19
• Database Administrators: 8
• Database Engineers: 3
• Network Administrators: 11
• Network Architects: 4
• Project Managers: 25
• Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
• SRS System Administrators: 13
• Storage Administrators: 4
• Systems Architects: 9

To implement and manage the .SHELL gTLD as described in this application, Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, scales, as needed, the size of each technical area now supporting its portfolio of TLDs. Consistent with its resource modeling, Verisign periodically reviews the level of work to be performed and adjusts staff levels for each technical area.
When usage projections indicate a need for additional staff, Verisign’s internal staffing group uses an in-place staffing process to identify qualified candidates. These candidates are then interviewed by the lead of the relevant technical area. By scaling one common team across all its TLDs instead of creating a new entity to manage only this proposed gTLD, Verisign realizes significant economies of scale and ensures its TLD best practices are followed consistently. This consistent application of best practices helps ensure the security and stability of both the Internet and this proposed gTLD, as Verisign holds all contributing staff members accountable to the same procedures that guide its execution of the Internet’s largest TLDs (i.e., .com and .net). Moreover, by augmenting existing teams, Verisign affords new employees the opportunity to be mentored by existing senior staff. This mentoring minimizes start-up learning curves and helps ensure that new staff members properly execute their duties.
4 EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATION 6 AND 10 TO THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT
Section 1.2 (EPP) of Specification 6, Registry Interoperability and Continuity Specifications. VerisignSITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, provides these services using its SRS, which complies fully with Specification 6, Section 1.2 of the Registry Agreement. In using its SRS to provide backend registry services, Verisign implements and complies with relevant existing RFCs (i.e., 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733, 5734, and 5910) and intends to comply with RFCs that may be published in the future by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), including successor standards, modifications, or additions thereto relating to the provisioning and management of domain names that use EPP. In addition, Verisign’s SRS includes a Registry Grace Period (RGP) and thus complies with RFC 3915 and its successors. Details of the Verisign SRS’ compliance with RFC SRS⁄EPP are provided in the response to Question 25, Extensible Provisioning Protocol. Verisign does not use functionality outside the base EPP RFCs, although proprietary EPP extensions are documented in Internet-Draft format following the guidelines described in RFC 3735 within the response to Question 25. Moreover, prior to deployment, SITI Inc will provide to ICANN updated documentation of all the EPP objects and extensions supported in accordance with Specification 6, Section 1.2.
Specification 10, EPP Registry Performance Specifications. Verisign’s SRS meets all EPP Registry Performance Specifications detailed in Specification 10, Section 2. Evidence of this performance can be verified by a review of the .com and .net Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports, which Verisign files with ICANN. These reports detail Verisign’s operational status of the .com and .net registries, which use an SRS design and approach comparable to the one proposed for the .SHELL gTLD. These reports provide evidence of Verisign’s ability to meet registry operation service level agreements (SLAs) comparable to those detailed in Specification 10. The reports are accessible at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.
In accordance with EPP Registry Performance Specifications detailed in Specification 10, Verisignʹs SRS meets the following performance attributes:
• EPP service availability: ≤ 864 minutes of downtime (≈98%)
• EPP session-command round trip time (RTT): ≤4000 milliseconds (ms), for at least 90 percent of the commands
• EPP query-command RTT: ≤2000 ms, for at least 90 percent of the commands
• EPP transform-command RTT: ≤4000 ms, for at least 90 percent of the commands

1	COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ASPECT OF REGISTRY TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

Verisign,  Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”) Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, has used Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) since its inception and possesses complete knowledge and understanding of EPP registry systems. Its first EPP implementation— for a thick registry for the .name generic top-level domain (gTLD)—was in 2002. Since then Verisign has continued its RFC-compliant use of EPP in multiple TLDs, as detailed in Figure 25 1. 

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

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

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

1.1	EPP Interface with Registrars
1.2	
Verisign,SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider,  fully supports the features defined in the EPP specifications and provides a set of software development kits (SDK) and tools to help registrars build secure and stable interfaces. Verisign’s SDKs give registrars the option of either fully writing their own EPP client software to integrate with the Shared Registration System (SRS), or using the Verisign-provided SDKs to aid them in the integration effort. Registrars can download the Verisign EPP SDKs and tools from the registrar website (http:⁄⁄www.Verisign.com⁄domain-name-services⁄current-registrars⁄epp-sdk⁄index.html). 

The EPP SDKs provide a host of features including connection pooling, Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), and a test server (stub server) to run EPP tests against. One tool—the EPP tool—provides a web interface for creating EPP Extensible Markup Language (XML) commands and sending them to a configurable set of target servers. This helps registrars in creating the template XML and testing a variety of test cases against the EPP servers. An Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) environment, which runs the same software as the production system so approved registrars can integrate and test their software before moving into a live production environment, is also available. 

2	TECHNICAL PLAN SCOPE⁄SCALE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH AND PLANNED SIZE OF THE REGISTRY

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

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

3	TECHNICAL PLAN THAT IS ADEQUATELY RESOURCED IN THE PLANNED COSTS DETAILED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTION

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

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

Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support the provisioning of EPP services:

•	Application Engineers: 19 
•	Database Engineers: 3 
•	Quality Assurance Engineers: 11 

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

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

4	ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT RFCS 

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

For the .SHELL gTLD, the Shared Registration System (SRS) complies with the following IETF EPP specifications, where the XML templates and XML schemas are defined in the following specifications:

•	EPP RGP 3915 (http:⁄⁄www.apps.ietf.org⁄rfc⁄rfc3915.html): EPP Redemption Grace Period (RGP) Mapping specification for support of RGP statuses and support of Restore Request and Restore Report (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP 5730 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5730): Base EPP specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP Domain 5731 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5731): EPP Domain Name Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP Host 5732 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5732): EPP Host Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP Contact 5733 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5733): EPP Contact Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP TCP 5734 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5734): EPP Transport over Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) specification (authored by Verisign’s Scott Hollenbeck)
•	EPP DNSSEC 5910 (http:⁄⁄tools.ietf.org⁄html⁄rfc5910): EPP Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Mapping specification (authored by Verisign’s James Gould and Scott Hollenbeck)
5	PROPRIETARY EPP EXTENSIONS

Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, uses its SRS to provide registry services. The SRS supports the following EPP specifications, which Verisign developed following the guidelines in RFC 3735, where the XML templates and XML schemas are defined in the specifications:

•	IDN Language Tag (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄idn-language-tag.pdf): EPP internationalized domain names (IDN) language tag extension used for IDN domain name registrations
•	
•	RGP Poll Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄whois-info-extension.pdf): EPP mapping for an EPP poll message in support of Restore Request and Restore Report
•	
•	Whois Info Extension (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄whois-info-extension.pdf): EPP extension for returning additional information needed for transfers
•	
•	EPP ConsoliDate Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄consolidate-mapping.txt): EPP mapping to support a Domain Sync operation for synchronizing domain name expiration dates
•	
•	NameStore Extension (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄namestore-extension.pdf): EPP extension for routing with an EPP intelligent gateway to a pluggable set of backend products and services
•	
•	Low Balance Mapping (http:⁄⁄www.verisigninc.com⁄assets⁄low-balance-mapping.pdf): EPP mapping to support low balance poll messages that proactively notify registrars of a low balance (available credit) condition
•	
As part of the 2006 implementation report to bring the EPP RFC documents from Proposed Standard status to Draft Standard status, an implementation test matrix was completed. Two independently developed EPP client implementations based on the RFCs were tested against the Verisign EPP server for the domain, host, and contact transactions. No compliance-related issues were identified during this test, providing evidence that these extensions comply with RFC 3735 guidelines and further demonstrating Verisign’s ability to design, test, and deploy an RFC-compliant EPP implementation.

5.1	EPP Templates and Schemas
5.2	
The EPP XML schemas are formal descriptions of the EPP XML templates. They are used to express the set of rules to which the EPP templates must conform in order to be considered valid by the schema. The EPP schemas define the building blocks of the EPP templates, describing the format of the data and the different EPP commands’ request and response formats. The current EPP implementations managed by Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, use these EPP templates and schemas, as will the proposed TLD. For each proprietary XML template⁄schema Verisign provides a reference to the applicable template and includes the schema.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

〈⁄schema〉


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

〈!-- End of schema. --〉
〈⁄schema〉


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

〈!-- End of schema.--〉
〈⁄schema〉


6	PROPRIETARY EPP EXTENSION CONSISTENCY WITH REGISTRATION LIFECYCLE 
SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) proprietary EPP extensions, defined in Section 5 above, are consistent with the registration lifecycle documented in the response to Question 27, Registration Lifecycle.  Details of the registration lifecycle are presented in that response. As new registry features are required, Verisign develops proprietary EPP extensions to address new operational requirements. Consistent with ICANN procedures Verisign adheres to all applicable Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) procedures. 

NOTE: The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this document the expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ and ʺShell Groupʺ are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Group companies in general. Likewise, the words ʺweʺ, ʺusʺ and ʺourʺ are also used to refer to Group companies in general or those who work for them. The expression ʺShell ITʺ is a trading style used by a community of separate companies and other organisational entities within the Shell Group. The expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ, ʺShell Groupʺ and ʺShell ITʺ are also used where there is no purpose in identifying specific companies. Where the expression ʺSITI Inc.ʺ is used the purpose is to identify the specific company.

1 COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ASPECT OF REGISTRY TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

Verisign, Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”) Inc ’s selected backend registry services provider, has operated the Whois lookup service for the gTLDs and ccTLDs it manages since 1991, and will provide these proven services for the .SHELL gTLD registry. In addition, it continues to work with the Internet community to improve the utility of Whois data, while thwarting its application for abusive uses.

1.1 High-Level Whois System Description
Like all other components of SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registry service, Verisign’s Whois system is designed and built for both reliability and performance in full compliance with applicable RFCs. Verisign’s current Whois implementation has answered more than five billion Whois queries per month for the TLDs it manages, and has experienced more than 250,000 queries per minute in peak conditions. The proposed gTLD uses a Whois system design and approach that is comparable to the current implementation. Independent quality control testing ensures Verisign’s Whois service is RFC-compliant through all phases of its lifecycle.

Verisignʹs redundant Whois databases further contribute to overall system availability and reliability. The hardware and software for its Whois service is architected to scale both horizontally (by adding more servers) and vertically (by adding more CPUs and memory to existing servers) to meet future need.

Verisign can fine-tune access to its Whois database on an individual Internet Protocol (IP) address basis, and it works with registrars to help ensure their services are not limited by any restriction placed on Whois. Verisign provides near real-time updates for Whois services for the TLDs under its management. As information is updated in the registration database, it is propagated to the Whois servers for quick publication. These updates align with the near real-time publication of Domain Name System (DNS) information as it is updated in the registration database. This capability is important for the .SHELL gTLD registry as it is Verisign’s experience that when DNS data is updated in near real time, so should Whois data be updated to reflect the registration specifics of those domain names.

Verisign’s Whois response time has been less than 500 milliseconds for 95 percent of all Whois queries in .com, .net, .tv, and .cc. The response time in these TLDs, combined with Verisign’s capacity, enables the Whois system to respond to up to 30,000 searches (or queries) per second for a total capacity of 2.6 billion queries per day.

The Whois software written by Verisign complies with RFC 3912. Verisign uses an advanced in-memory database technology to provide exceptional overall system performance and security. In accordance with RFC 3912, Verisign provides a website at whois.nic.〈TLD〉 that provides free public query-based access to the registration data.

Verisign currently operates both thin and thick Whois systems.

Verisign commits to implementing a RESTful Whois service upon finalization of agreements with the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force).

Provided Functionalities for User Interface
To use the Whois service via port 43, the user enters the applicable parameter on the command line as illustrated here:

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

To use the Whois service via the web-based directory service search interface:
• Go to http:⁄⁄whois.nic.〈TLD〉
• Click on the appropriate button (Domain, Registrar, or Name Server)
• Enter the applicable parameter:
o Domain name, including the TLD (e.g., EXAMPLE.TLD)
o Full name of the registrar, including punctuation (e.g., Example Registrar, Inc.)
o Full host name or the IP address (e.g., NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD or 198.41.3.39)
• Click on the Submit button.
•
Provisions to Ensure That Access Is Limited to Legitimate Authorized Users and Is in Compliance with Applicable Privacy Laws or Policies
To further promote reliable and secure Whois operations, Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, has implemented rate-limiting characteristics within the Whois service software. For example, to prevent data mining or other abusive behavior, the service can throttle a specific requestor if the query rate exceeds a configurable threshold. In addition, QoS technology enables rate limiting of queries before they reach the servers, which helps protect against denial of service (DoS) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.
Verisign’s software also permits restrictions on search capabilities. For example, wild card searches can be disabled. If needed, it is possible to temporarily restrict and⁄or block requests coming from specific IP addresses for a configurable amount of time. Additional features that are configurable in the Whois software include help files, headers and footers for Whois query responses, statistics, and methods to memory map the database. Furthermore, Verisign is European Union (EU) Safe Harbor certified and has worked with European data protection authorities to address applicable privacy laws by developing a tiered Whois access structure that requires users who require access to more extensive data to (i) identify themselves, (ii) confirm that their use is for a specified purpose and (iii) enter into an agreement governing their use of the more extensive Whois data.

1.2 Relevant Network Diagrams
Figure ‎26 1 provides a summary network diagram of the Whois service provided by Verisign,SITI Inc ’s selected backend registry services provider. The figure details the configuration with one resolution⁄Whois site. For the .SHELL gTLD Verisign provides Whois service from 6 of its 17 primary sites based on the proposed gTLD’s traffic volume and patterns. A functionally equivalent resolution architecture configuration exists at each Whois site.

1.3 IT and Infrastructure Resources
Figure ‎26 2 summarizes the IT and infrastructure resources that Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, uses to provision Whois services from Verisign primary resolution sites. As needed, virtual machines are created based on actual and projected demand.

1.4 Description of Interconnectivity with Other Registry Systems
Figure ‎26 3 provides a technical overview of the registry system provided by Verisign,SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, and shows how the Whois service component fits into this larger system and interconnects with other system components.

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

2 TECHNICAL PLAN SCOPE⁄SCALE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH AND PLANNED SIZE OF THE REGISTRY

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

3 TECHNICAL PLAN THAT IS ADEQUATELY RESOURCED IN THE PLANNED COSTS DETAILED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTION

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

• Application Engineers: 19
• Database Engineers: 3
• Quality Assurance Engineers: 11

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

4 COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT RFC

SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) Whois service complies with the data formats defined in Specification 4 of the Registry Agreement. Verisign will provision Whois services for registered domain names and associated data in the top-level domain (TLD). Verisign’s Whois services are accessible over Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) and Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), via both Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) port 43 and a web-based directory service at whois.nic.〈TLD〉, which in accordance with RFC 3912, provides free public query-based access to domain name, registrar, and name server lookups. Verisign’s proposed Whois system meets all requirements as defined by ICANN for each registry under Verisign management. Evidence of this successful implementation, and thus compliance with the applicable RFCs, can be verified by a review of the .com and .net Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports that Verisign files with ICANN. These reports provide evidence of Verisign’s ability to meet registry operation service level agreements (SLAs) comparable to those detailed in Specification 10. The reports are accessible at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.

5 COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS 4 AND 10 OF REGISTRY AGREEMENT

In accordance with Specification 4, Verisign,SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, provides a Whois service that is available via both port 43 in accordance with RFC 3912, and a web-based directory service at whois.nic.〈TLD〉 also in accordance with RFC 3912, thereby providing free public query-based access. Verisign acknowledges that ICANN reserves the right to specify alternative formats and protocols, and upon such specification, Verisign will implement such alternative specification as soon as reasonably practicable.

The format of the following data fields conforms to the mappings specified in Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) RFCs 5730 – 5734 so the display of this information (or values returned in Whois responses) can be uniformly processed and understood: domain name status, individual and organizational names, address, street, city, state⁄province, postal code, country, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses, date, and times.

Specifications for data objects, bulk access, and lookups comply with Specification 4 and are detailed in the following subsections, provided in both bulk access and lookup modes.

Bulk Access Mode. This data is provided on a daily schedule to a party designated from time to time in writing by ICANN. The specification of the content and format of this data, and the procedures for providing access, shall be as stated below, until revised in the ICANN Registry Agreement.

The data is provided in three files:

• Domain Name File: For each domain name, the file provides the domain name, server name for each name server, registrar ID, and updated date.
• Name Server File: For each registered name server, the file provides the server name, each IP address, registrar ID, and updated date.
• Registrar File: For each registrar, the following data elements are provided: registrar ID, registrar address, registrar telephone number, registrar email address, Whois server, referral URL, updated date, and the name, telephone number, and email address of all the registrarʹs administrative, billing, and technical contacts.

Lookup Mode. Figures ‎26 4 through Figure ‎26 6 provide the query and response format for domain name, registrar, and name server data objects.

5.1 Specification 10, RDDS Registry Performance Specifications
The Whois service meets all registration data directory services (RDDS) registry performance specifications detailed in Specification 10, Section 2. Evidence of this performance can be verified by a review of the .com and .net Registry Operator’s Monthly Reports that Verisign files monthly with ICANN. These reports are accessible from the ICANN website at the following URL: http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄tlds⁄monthly-reports⁄.

In accordance with RDDS registry performance specifications detailed in Specification 10, Verisignʹs Whois service meets the following proven performance attributes:
• RDDS availability: 〈=864 min of downtime (approx. 98%)
• RDDS query RTT: 〈=2000 ms, for at least 95% of the queries
• RDDS update time: 〈=60 min, for at least 95% of the probes

6 SEARCHABLE WHOIS

Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, provides a searchable Whois service for the .SHELL gTLD. Verisign has experience in providing tiered access to Whois for the .name registry, and uses these methods and control structures to help reduce potential malicious use of the function. The searchable Whois system currently uses Apache’s Lucene full text search engine to index relevant Whois content with near-real time incremental updates from the provisioning system.

Features of the Verisign searchable Whois function include:

• Provision of a web-based searchable directory service
• Ability to perform partial match, at least, for the following data fields: domain name, contacts and registrant’s name, and contact and registrant’s postal address, including all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state, or province)
• Ability to perform exact match, at least, on the following fields: registrar ID, name server name, and name server’s IP address (only applies to IP addresses stored by the registry, i.e., glue records)
• Ability to perform Boolean search supporting, at least, the following logical operators to join a set of search criteria: AND, OR, NOT
• Search results that include domain names that match the selected search criteria

Verisign’s implementation of searchable Whois is EU Safe Harbor certified and includes appropriate access control measures that help ensure that only legitimate authorized users can use the service. Furthermore, Verisign’s compliance office monitors current ICANN policy and applicable privacy laws or policies to help ensure the solution is maintained within compliance of applicable regulations. Features of these access control measures include:

• All unauthenticated searches are returned as thin results.
• Registry system authentication is used to grant access to appropriate users for thick Whois data search results.
• Account access is granted by SITI Inc’s defined .SHELL gTLD admin user.

Potential Forms of Abuse and Related Risk Mitigation. Leveraging its experience providing tiered access to Whois for the .name registry and interacting with ICANN, data protection authorities, and applicable industry groups, Verisign,SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, is knowledgeable of the likely data mining forms of abuse associated with a searchable Whois service. Figure ‎26 7 summarizes these potential forms of abuse and Verisign’s approach to mitigate the identified risk.

1 COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING OF REGISTRATION LIFECYCLES AND STATES

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

1.1 Registration Lifecycle of Create⁄Update⁄Delete
1.2
The following section details the create⁄update⁄delete processes and the related renewal process that Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, follows. For each process, this response defines the process function and its characterization, and as appropriate provides a process flow chart.

Create Process. The domain name lifecycle begins with a registration or what is referred to as a Domain Name Create operation in EPP. The system fully supports the EPP Domain Name Mapping as defined by RFC 5731, where the associated objects (e.g., hosts and contacts) are created independent of the domain name.

Process Characterization. The Domain Name Create command is received, validated, run through a set of business rules, persisted to the database, and committed in the database if all business rules pass. The domain name is included with the data flow to the DNS and Whois resolution services. If no name servers are supplied, the domain name is not included with the data flow to the DNS. A successfully created domain name has the created date and expiration date set in the database. Creates are subject to grace periods as described in Section 1.3 of this response, Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers.

The Domain Name Create operation is detailed in Figure 27 3 and requires the following attributes:

• A domain name that meets the string restrictions.
• A domain name that does not already exist.
• The registrar is authorized to create a domain name in .SHELL
• The registrar has available credit.
• A valid Authorization Information (Auth-Info) value.
• Required contacts (e.g., registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact) are specified and exist.
• The specified name servers (hosts) exist, and there is a maximum of 13 name servers.
• A period in units of years with a maximum value of 10 (default period is one year).

Renewal Process. The domain name can be renewed unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Renew Prohibited.

A request for renewal that sets the expiry date to more than ten years in the future is denied. The registrar must pass the current expiration date (without the timestamp) to support the idempotent features of EPP, where sending the same command a second time does not cause unexpected side effects.

Automatic renewal occurs when a domain name expires. On the expiration date, the registry extends the registration period one year and debits the registrar account balance. In the case of an auto-renewal of the domain name, a separate Auto-Renew grace period applies. Renewals are subject to grace periods as described in Section 1.3 of this response, Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers.

Process Characterization. The Domain Name Renew command is received, validated, authorized, and run through a set of business rules. The data is updated and committed in the database if it passes all business rules. The updated domain name’s expiration date is included in the flow to the Whois resolution service.

The Domain Name Renew operation is detailed in Figure 27 4 and requires the following attributes:

• A domain name that exists and is sponsored by the requesting registrar.
• The registrar is authorized to renew a domain name in .SHELL
• The registrar has available credit.
• The passed current expiration date matches the domain name’s expiration date.
• A period in units of years with a maximum value of 10 (default period is one year). A domain name expiry past ten years is not allowed.

Registrar Transfer Procedures. A registrant may transfer his⁄her domain name from his⁄her current registrar to another registrar. The database system allows a transfer as long as the transfer is not within the initial 60 days, per industry standard, of the original registration date.

The registrar transfer process goes through many process states, which are described in detail below, unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Transfer Prohibited.

A transfer can only be initiated when the appropriate Auth-Info is supplied. The Auth-Info for transfer is only available to the current registrar. Any other registrar requesting to initiate a transfer on behalf of a registrant must obtain the Auth-Info from the registrant.

The Auth-Info is made available to the registrant upon request. The registrant is the only party other than the current registrar that has access to the Auth-Info. Registrar transfer entails a specified extension of the expiry date for the object. The registrar transfer is a billable operation and is charged identically to a renewal for the same extension of the period. This period can be from one to ten years, in one-year increments.

Because registrar transfer involves an extension of the registration period, the rules and policies applying to how the resulting expiry date is set after transfer are based on the renewal policies on extension.

Per industry standard, a domain name cannot be transferred to another registrar within the first 60 days after registration. This restriction continues to apply if the domain name is renewed during the first 60 days. Transfer of the domain name changes the sponsoring registrar of the domain name, and also changes the child hosts (ns1.sample.xyz) of the domain name (sample .xyz).

The domain name transfer consists of five separate operations:

• Transfer Request (Figure 27 5): Executed by a non-sponsoring registrar with the valid Auth-Info provided by the registrant. The Transfer Request holds funds of the requesting registrar but does not bill the registrar until the transfer is completed. The sponsoring registrar receives a Transfer Request poll message.
• Transfer Cancel (Figure 27 6): Executed by the requesting registrar to cancel the pending transfer. The held funds of the requesting registrar are reversed. The sponsoring registrar receives a Transfer Cancel poll message.
• Transfer Approve (Figure 27 7): Executed by the sponsoring registrar to approve the Transfer Request. The requesting registrar is billed for the Transfer Request and the sponsoring registrar is credited for an applicable Auto-Renew grace period. The requesting registrar receives a Transfer Approve poll message.
• Transfer Reject (Figure 27 8): Executed by the sponsoring registrar to reject the pending transfer. The held funds of the requesting registrar are reversed. The requesting registrar receives a Transfer Reject poll message.
• Transfer Query (Figure 27 9): Executed by either the requesting registrar or the sponsoring registrar of the last transfer.

The registry auto-approves a transfer if the sponsoring registrar takes no action. The requesting registrar is billed for the Transfer Request and the sponsoring registrar is credited for an applicable Auto-Renew grace period. The requesting registrar and the sponsoring registrar receive a Transfer Auto-Approve poll message.

Delete Process. A registrar may choose to delete the domain name at any time.

Process Characterization. The domain name can be deleted, unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Delete Prohibited.

A domain name is also prohibited from deletion if it has any in-zone child hosts that are name servers for domain names. For example, the domain name “sample.xyz” cannot be deleted if an in-zone host “ns.sample.xyz” exists and is a name server for “sample2.xyz.”

If the Domain Name Delete occurs within the Add grace period, the domain name is immediately deleted and the sponsoring registrar is credited for the Domain Name Create. If the Domain Name Delete occurs outside the Add grace period, it follows the Redemption grace period (RGP) lifecycle.

Update Process. The sponsoring registrar can update the following attributes of a domain name:

• Auth-Info
• Name servers
• Contacts (i.e., registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing contact)
• Statuses (e.g., Client Delete Prohibited, Client Hold, Client Renew Prohibited, Client Transfer Prohibited, Client Update Prohibited)

Process Characterization. Updates are allowed provided that the update includes the removal of any Update Prohibited status. The Domain Name Update operation is detailed in Figure 27 10.

A domain name can be updated unless it has any form of Pending Delete, Pending Transfer, or Update Prohibited.

1.3 Pending, Locked, Expired, and Transferred
1.4
VerisignSITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, handles pending, locked, expired, and transferred domain names as described here. When the domain name is deleted after the five-day Add grace period, it enters into the Pending Delete state. The registrant can return its domain name to active any time within the five-day Pending Delete grace period. After the five-day Pending Delete grace period expires, the domain name enters the Redemption Pending state and then is deleted by the system. The registrant can restore the domain name at any time during the Redemption Pending state.

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

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

Verisign’s registry service supports the following client (registrar) and server (registry) status codes:

• clientHold
• clientRenewProhibited
• clientTransferProhibited
• clientUpdateProhibited
• clientDeleteProhibited
• serverHold
• serverRenewProhibited
• serverTransferProhibited
• serverUpdateProhibited
• serverDeleteProhibited
1.5 Add Grace Period, Redemption Grace Period, and Notice Periods for Renewals or Transfers
1.6
Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, handles Add grace periods, Redemption grace periods, and notice periods for renewals or transfers as described here.

• Add Grace Period: The Add grace period is a specified number of days following the initial registration of the domain name. The current value of the Add grace period for all registrars is five days.
• Redemption Grace Period: If the domain name is deleted after the five-day grace period expires, it enters the Redemption grace period and then is deleted by the system. The registrant has an option to use the Restore Request command to restore the domain name within the Redemption grace period. In this scenario, the domain name goes to Pending Restore state if there is a Restore Request command within 30 days of the Redemption grace period. From the Pending Restore state, it goes either to the OK state, if there is a Restore Report Submission command within seven days of the Restore Request grace period, or a Redemption Period state if there is no Restore Report Submission command within seven days of the Restore Request grace period.
• Renew Grace Period: The Renew⁄Extend grace period is a specified number of days following the renewal⁄extension of the domain name’s registration period. The current value of the Renew⁄Extend grace period is five days.
• Auto-Renew Grace Period: All auto-renewed domain names have a grace period of 45 days.
• Transfer Grace Period: Domain names have a five-day Transfer grace period.
1.7 Aspects of the Registration Lifecycle Not Covered by Standard EPP RFCs
1.8
SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registration lifecycle processes and code implementations adhere to the standard EPP RFCs related to the registration lifecycle. By adhering to the RFCs, Verisign’s registration lifecycle is complete and addresses each registration-related task comprising the lifecycle. No aspect of Verisign’s registration lifecycle is not covered by one of the standard EPP RFCs and thus no additional definitions are provided in this response.

2 CONSISTENCY WITH ANY SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS MADE TO REGISTRANTS AS ADAPTED TO THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH FOR THE PROPOSED gTLD

The registration lifecycle described above applies to the .SHELL gTLD as well as other TLDs managed by Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider; thus Verisign remains consistent with commitments made to its registrants. No unique or specific registration lifecycle modifications or adaptations are required to support the overall business approach for the .SHELL gTLD.

To accommodate a range of registries, Verisign’s registry implementation is capable of offering both a thin and thick Whois implementation, which is also built upon Verisign’s award-winning ATLAS infrastructure.

3 COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT RFCs

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

In addition, in accordance with RFCs 5732 and 5733, the Verisign registration system enforces the following domain name registration constraints:

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

4 DEMONSTRATES THAT TECHNICAL RESOURCES REQUIRED TO CARRY THROUGH THE PLANS FOR THIS ELEMENT ARE ALREADY ON HAND OR READILY AVAILABLE

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

• Application Engineers: 19
• Customer Support Personnel: 36
• Database Administrators: 8
• Database Engineers: 3
• Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
• SRS System Administrators: 13

1. COMPREHENSIVE ABUSE POLICIES, WHICH INCLUDE CLEAR DEFINITIONS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES ABUSE IN THE TLD, AND PROCEDURES THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IN THE TLD

Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”) Inc is fully aware that a solid abuse prevention and mitigation plan of a new gTLD is essential to guarantee the stability and security of the Internet space. SITI, Inc. and its registry services provider believe that a registry must achieve all the technical standards established by ICANN, which will ultimately benefit the entire Internet community. Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s registry services provider, brings extensive experience on minimizing malicious and abusive behaviors within the domain name space. For this reason, .SHELL will be fully prepared and supported by Verisign to combat any kind of threat or malicious activity in its new gTLD.

Abusive or malicious activities cover a wide range of threats, including but not limited to:
• Illegal or fraudulent actions
• Spam
• Phishing
• Pharming
• Distribution of malware
• Botnets command and control
• Misuse of trademarks and other IPR
• Unauthorized distribution of copyright material
• Distribution of child pornography

SITI, Inc. and its registry services provider will undertake the required measures to eliminate or minimise domain name abuse, including the implementation of an abuse prevention policy, providing Whois accuracy services and other monitoring activities to maintain the security of SHELL registry.

SITI, Inc. confirms that the abuse prevention policy will be implemented according to ICANN’s requirements for the benefit of the entire Internet community. The following paragraphs intend to explain the abuse prevention policies and procedures that SHELL will implement with the support and expertise of Verisign.

1.1 SHELL Abuse Prevention and Mitigation Implementation Plan
The abuse prevention will combat malicious or abusive use activities that could harm not only SITI, Inc., but also Internet users. Because SITI, Inc. intends to run a private brand TLD registry; abusive or malicious behavior will be far less likely to occur. Requests for domains will be made only by members of SITI, Inc., its parent company and affiliates to SITI, Inc. and will only be processed if the domain name complies with a strict internal naming policy.

No names will be registered that will be harmful to the reputation of SHELL or the wider Internet: there will be no cybersquatting, typosquatting, phishing or misuse of trademarks and other IPR.

Furthermore the content associated with registrations in SITI, Inc. registry will not be involved in the distribution of illegal and⁄or offensive material, spam, malware, or other harmful behavior such as botnets and harassment. There will be no unauthorized distribution of copyright material. Name servers and other systems for the delegated names will be configured and operated in line with best practices and corporate IT policies featuring documented change management procedures, controls to restrict access to authorized personnel (using two-factor authentication), monitoring and security audits. Careful oversight by experts will ensure that there will be no operational problems to the DNS such as fax flux, orphaned glue and lame delegations.

.SHELL will operate with a single “gateway” registrar. In addition to the provisions of the standard Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA), the registrar will have a contract with SITI, Inc., which defines mutual roles and responsibilities. This contract will define how the registrar carries out its duties: preventing unauthorized access and⁄or updates, change control and audit procedures, a documented registration procedure which requires the registrar to act only on the instructions of authorized personnel when registering, updating or removing domain names

As this is a single entity registry, all Whois data will be accurate and up to date, reflecting the ownership of the appropriate entity within the Shell Group.

Although the above measures should be sufficient to prevent abuse in SHELL, further steps will be taken. The applicant and its registry partner will put in place an abuse prevention policy for .SHELL as described in Section 1.2. This will be subject to regular review and updated to take account of new threats or abusive conduct and revised examples of best practice like those published at http:⁄⁄stopbadware.org.

1.2 Policies for Handling Complaints Regarding Abuse
.SHELL will establish and publish a unique abuse point of contact, which will include a role e-mail address (e.g. contact@abuseprevention.shell). This role address will allow the designated staff to receive and promptly respond to reports of or complaints about abuse and⁄or malicious activity under .SHELL.

The .SHELL Abuse Point of Contact will evaluate complaints and reports and produce abuse reports when necessary. All reports and complaints will be analyzed by abuse prevention staff and experts to assess the threat posed by the reported abusive or malicious behavior. Action in response to reported and confirmed abusive or malicious behavior will be commensurate with the assessed threat level. Such action may include rapid takedown, suspension, or cancellation and sharing of information regarding abusive or malicious behavior with other organizations and entities with which SITI, Inc. cooperates in combating abusive and malicious behavior.

SITI, Inc. intends to cooperate with appropriate law enforcement entities and investigations in connection with and in furtherance of abuse prevention in .SHELL.

1.3 Proposed Measures for Removal of Orphan Glue Records
Although orphan glue records often support correct and ordinary operation of the Domain Name System (DNS), registry operators will be required to remove orphan glue records (as defined at http:⁄⁄www.icann.org⁄en⁄committees⁄security⁄sac048.pdf) when provided with evidence in written form that such records are present in connection with malicious conduct. SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider’s (Verisign’s) registration system is specifically designed to not allow orphan glue records. Registrars are required to delete⁄move all dependent DNS records before they are allowed to delete the parent domain.
To prevent orphan glue records, Verisign performs the following checks before removing a domain or name server:

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

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

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

1.4 Resourcing Plans
Details related to resourcing plans for the initial implementation and ongoing maintenance of SITI, Inc.’s abuse prevention plan are provided in Section 2 of this response.
1.5 Measures to Promote Whois Accuracy
The registry operator manages a safe, solid and searchable Whois accurate service, and will offer this exact service for the .SHELL registry.

Whois service for SITI, Inc. will operate as follows: all basic contact details for each domain name will be kept in a unique internal system by the registry, which facilitates access to the domain information. In addition, SITI, Inc. will arrange for the implementation of monitoring checks and procedures which will only allow accurate Whois information and remove outdated data.

1.5.1 Authentication of Registrant Information
All registrant information will be authenticated as complete and accurate at the time of registration through verification of all contact information mentioned in registration data. As all domains will be registered to a template defined by the .SHELL registry , 100% accuracy is expected. In addition, the.SHELL registry will regularly monitor registration data for accuracy and completeness, employ authentication methods, and establish policies and procedures to address domain names with inaccurate or incomplete Whois data
1.5.2 Regular Monitoring of Registration Data for Accuracy and Completeness

Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, has implemented specific policies and procedures to require registrars to comply with ICANN’s Whois requirements. SITI, Inc. will regularly remind its registrar of its obligation to comply with ICANN’s Whois Data Reminder Policy, which includes accuracy in dealing with the Whois information provided, to evaluate claims of fraudulent Whois data and to cancel domain name registrations with outdated Whois details.

1.5.3 Use of Registrars
As stated previously in other answers, only SITI, Inc.and its affiliates will be permitted to register .SHELL domain names. Accordingly, the duties of the SITI, Inc. registrar will be very limited and closely defined. However, as part of the RRA (Registry Registrar Agreement), SITI, Inc. will require the its registrar to take all steps necessary to ensure Whois data is complete and accurate and to implement the . SITI, Inc. registration policies.

1.6 Malicious or Abusive Behavior Definitions, Metrics, and Service Level Requirements for Resolution
SITI, Inc. defines malicious or abusive behavior as including, without limitation, the following:

• Illegal or fraudulent actions;
• Spam:
• Phishing:
• Pharming:
• Willful distribution of malware:
• Botnet command and control:
• Misuse of trademarks and other IPR:
• Unauthorized distribution of copyright material:
• Distribution of child pornography;

1.7 Controls to Ensure Proper Access to Domain Functions

SITI, Inc. takes very seriously a registry operator’s responsibility of ensuring a secure and stable access to domain functions. SITI, Inc. believes that its decision to restrict registration and use of . SITI, Inc. domains to itself and its affiliates will decrease the likelihood of abusive or malicious domain activity in .SHELL. However, SITI, Inc.’s registry services provider will employ a multi-factor authentication process (as be explained below) to minimize potential threats to SITI, Inc., the registry services provider and Internet users.

1.7.1 Multi-Factor Authentication
To ensure proper access to domain functions, SITI, Inc. incorporates Verisign’s Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service into its full-service registry operations. The service is designed to improve domain name security and assist registrars in protecting the accounts they manage by providing another level of assurance that only authorized personnel can communicate with the registry. As part of the service, dynamic one-time passwords (OTPs) augment the user names and passwords currently used to process update, transfer, and⁄or deletion requests. These one-time passwords enable transaction processing to be based on requests that are validated both by “what users know” (i.e., their user name and password) and “what users have” (i.e., a two-factor authentication credential with a one-time-password).
Registrars can use the one-time-password when communicating directly with Verisign’s Customer Service department as well as when using the registrar portal to make manual updates, transfers, and⁄or deletion transactions. The Two-Factor Authentication Service is an optional service offered to registrars that execute the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service Agreement. As shown in Figure 28-1, the registrars’ authorized contacts use the OTP to enable strong authentication when they contact the registry. There is no charge for the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service. It is enabled only for registrars that wish to take advantage of the added security provided by the service.

Figure 28-1: Verisign Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service

2. TECHNICAL PLAN THAT IS ADEQUATELY RESOURCED IN THE PLANNED COSTS DETAILED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTION
Resource Planning

The Shell Group dedicates significant financial and personnel resources to combating malicious and abusive behavior in the DNS for its current online presence. These resources will be extended to encompass the designation and maintenance of an abuse point of contact, regular monitoring of potential abusive and malicious activities with support from dedicated technical staff, analysis of reported abuse and malicious activity, and action to address such reported activity.

The abuse prevention resources will comprise both internal staff and external abuse prevention experts who would give extra advice and support when necessary.
SITI, Inc.’s registrar will also assist in abuse prevention. Information and best practice will be shared to ensure that opportunities for malicious and abusive behavior are minimized.
Resource Planning Specific to Backend Registry Activities
Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance.
Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to SITI, Inc. fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .com, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.
Verisign projects it will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support abuse prevention and mitigation:
Application Engineers: 19
Business Continuity Personnel: 3
Customer Affairs Organization: 9
Customer Support Personnel: 36
Information Security Engineers: 11
Network Administrators: 11
Network Architects: 4
Network Operations Center (NOC) Engineers: 33
Project Managers: 25
Quality Assurance Engineers: 11
Systems Architects: 9

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

3. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS THE ABUSIVE USE OF REGISTERED NAMES AT STARTUP AND ON AN ONGOING BASIS
3.1 Start-Up Anti-Abuse Policies and Procedures
Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, provides the following domain name abuse prevention services, which SITI, Inc. is planning to incorporate into its full-service registry operations. These services are available at the time of domain name registration.
Registry Lock. The Registry Lock Service allows registrars to offer server-level protection for their registrants’ domain names. A registry lock can be applied during the initial standup of the domain name or at any time that the registry is operational.
Specific Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) status codes are set on the domain name to prevent malicious or inadvertent modifications, deletions, and transfers. Typically, these ‘server’ level status codes can only be updated by the registry. The registrar only has ‘client’ level codes and cannot alter ‘server’ level status codes. The registrant must provide a pass phrase to the registry before any updates are made to the domain name. However, with Registry Lock, provided via Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s subcontractor, registrars can also take advantage of server status codes.
The following EPP server status codes are applicable for domain names: (i) serverUpdateProhibited, (ii) serverDeleteProhibited, and (iii) serverTransferProhibited. These statuses may be applied individually or in combination.
The EPP also enables setting host (i.e., name server) status codes to prevent deleting or renaming a host or modifying its IP addresses. Setting host status codes at the registry reduces the risk of inadvertent disruption of DNS resolution for domain names.
The Registry Lock Service is used in conjunction with a registrar’s proprietary security measures to bring a greater level of security to registrants’ domain names and help mitigate potential for unintended deletions, transfers, and⁄or updates.
Two components comprise the Registry Lock Service:
SITI, Inc. and⁄or its registrars provides Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected provider of backend registry services, with a list of the domain names to be placed on the server status codes. During the term of the service agreement, the registrar can add domain names to be placed on the server status codes and⁄or remove domain names currently placed on the server status codes. Verisign then manually authenticates that the registrar submitting the list of domain names is the registrar-of-record for such domain names.
If SITI, Inc. and⁄or its registrars requires changes (including updates, deletes, and transfers) to a domain name placed on a server status code, Verisign follows a secure, authenticated process to perform the change. This process includes a request from a SITI, Inc. authorized representative for Verisign to remove the specific registry status code, validation of the authorized individual by Verisign, removal of the specified server status code, registrar completion of the desired change, and a request from the SITI, Inc. authorized individual to reinstate the server status code on the domain name. This process is designed to complement automated transaction processing through the Shared Registration System (SRS) by using independent authentication by trusted registry experts.

3.2 Ongoing Anti-Abuse Policies and Procedures
3.1 Policies and Procedures That Identify Malicious or Abusive Behavior
Verisign,SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, provides the following service to SITI, Inc. for incorporation into its full-service registry operations.
Malware scanning service. Registrants are often unknowing victims of malware exploits. Verisign has developed proprietary code to help identify malware in the zones it manages, which in turn helps registrars by identifying malicious code hidden in their domain names.
Verisign’s malware scanning service helps prevent websites from infecting other websites by scanning web pages for embedded malicious content that will infect visitors’ websites. Verisign’s malware scanning technology uses a combination of in-depth malware behavioral analysis, anti-virus results, detailed malware patterns, and network analysis to discover known exploits for the particular scanned zone. If malware is detected, the service sends the registrar a report that contains the number of malicious domains found and details about malicious content within its TLD zones. Reports with remediation instructions are provided to help registrars and registrants eliminate the identified malware from the registrant’s website.
3.2 Policies and Procedures That Address the Abusive Use of Registered Names
Suspension processes based on Court Orders or investigations. Because domain names can be used to engage in malicious and abusive activity on the Internet, including malware, pharming, and phishing, the most efficient measure to combat such activity may, under certain circumstances, be to deactivate the domain. SITI, Inc. will implement a rapid takedown process based on, for example, court orders, appropriate and documented requests from law enforcement, and the results of its own internal threat analyses and assessment. The fact that SITI, Inc. registry will be a single entity registry hopefully minimizes the chance of this ever happening.
Suspension processes conducted by backend registry services provider. In the unlikely case of domain name abuse in what is a private dot brand registry, SITI, Inc. will determine whether to take down the subject domain name. Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, will then adopt the following auditable processes to comply with the suspension request – though it should be emphasized that as a single entity registry, the likelihood of this is viewed by SITI, Inc. as very remote:

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

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

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

Upon request from SITI, Inc. or one of its affiliates, Verisign can provide a process for registrants to protest the suspension.
Domain Suspension. Verisign places the domain to be suspended on the following statuses:
serverUpdateProhibited
serverDeleteProhibited
serverTransferProhibited
serverHold

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

4. WHEN EXECUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT, PLANS WILL RESULT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
SITI, Inc. is confident that its registry service provider’s very considerable expertise in combating malicious and abusive activity on the Internet, its extensive and detailed attention to the potential issue of abuse will enable it to comply with all its contractual requirements in the Registry Agreement.

5. TECHNICAL PLAN SCOPE⁄SCALE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH AND PLANNED SIZE OF THE REGISTRY
No more than 10,000 second level domains will be registered in .SHELL in its first three years of operation (and in fact will almost certainly be much fewer than that). SITI, Inc. is confident that the plans and processes outlined in this answer are more than robust enough to counter abuse in a registry of its projected size and purpose.

Scope⁄Scale Consistency Specific to Backend Registry Activities
Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed and uses proprietary system scaling models to guide the growth of its TLD supporting infrastructure. These models direct Verisign’s infrastructure scaling to include, but not be limited to, server capacity, data storage volume, and network throughput that are aligned to projected demand and usage patterns. Verisign periodically updates these models to account for the adoption of more capable and cost-effective technologies.
Verisign’s scaling models are proven predictors of needed capacity and related cost. As such, they provide the means to link the projected infrastructure needs of the .SHELL gTLD with necessary implementation and sustainment cost. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most likely) as an input to its scaling models, Verisign derived the necessary infrastructure required to implement and sustain this gTLD. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to SITI, Inc. fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Other Operating Cost” (Template 1, Line I.L) within the Question 46 financial projections response.

Note: The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this document the expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ and ʺShell Groupʺ are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Group companies in general. Likewise, the words ʺweʺ, ʺusʺ and ʺourʺ are also used to refer to Group companies in general or those who work for them. The expression ʺShell ITʺ is a trading style used by a community of separate companies and other organisational entities within the Shell Group. The expressions ʺShellʺ, ʺGroupʺ, ʺShell Groupʺ and ʺShell ITʺ are also used where there is no purpose in identifying specific companies. Where the expression ʺSITI Inc.ʺ is used the purpose is to identify the specific company.

1 MECHANISMS DESIGNED TO PREVENT ABUSIVE REGISTRATIONS

Rights protection is a core objective of Shell Information Technology International (“SITI”), Inc. SITI Inc will ensure that .SHELL implements and adheres to any rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) that may be mandated from time to time by ICANN, including each mandatory RPM set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse model contained in the Registry Agreement, specifically Specification 7. SITI, Inc. acknowledges that, at a minimum, ICANN requires a Sunrise period, a Trademark Claims period, and interaction with the Trademark Clearinghouse with respect to the registration of domain names for the .SHELL gTLD. It should be noted that because ICANN, as of the time of this application submission, has not issued final guidance with respect to the Trademark Clearinghouse, SITI, Inc. cannot fully detail the specific implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse within this application. SITI, Inc. will ensure that all processes and procedures to comply with ICANN guidance once this guidance is finalized will be adhered to in the .SHELL registry.
As described in this response, SITI, Inc. will implement a Sunrise period and Trademark Claims service with respect to the registration of domain names within the SHELL gTLD. Certain aspects of the Sunrise period and⁄or Trademark Claims service may be administered on behalf of SITI, Inc. by SITI, Inc.-approved registrars or by subcontractors of SITI, Inc., such as its selected backend registry services provider, Verisign.
As this will be a private brand registry with domains registered solely to entities within the Shell group, it is not anticipated that any third parties will be eligible for .SHELL domains but, nonetheless, SITI, Inc. will offer the full range of ICANN mandated RPM, as set out below.
Sunrise Period. As provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, the Sunrise service pre-registration procedure for domain names continues for at least 30 days prior to the launch of the general registration of domain names in the gTLD (unless SITI, Inc. decides to offer a longer Sunrise period).
During the Sunrise period, holders of marks that have been previously validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse receive notice of domain names that are an identical match (as defined in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook) to their mark(s). Such notice is in accordance with ICANN’s requirements and is provided by SITI, Inc. or its affiliates directly or through SITI, Inc. approved registrars.
SITI, Inc. requires all registrants, through SITI, Inc.-approved registrars, to i) affirm that said registrants meet the Sunrise Eligibility Requirements (SER) and ii) submit to the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) consistent with Section 6 of the Trademark Clearinghouse model. At a minimum SITI, Inc. recognizes and honors all word marks for which a proof of use was submitted and validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse as well as any additional eligibility requirements as specified in Question 18, provided they meet the eligibility requirements and rules of registration.
During the Sunrise period, SITI, Inc.’s approved registrar is responsible for determining whether each domain name is eligible to be registered (including in accordance with the SERs).
All domains in .SHELL will be registered to entities with the Shell group and a Shell group . Notwithstanding that, SITI, Inc. will reserve the right to reject a registration request, or delete, revoke, suspend, cancel or transfer the licence to use SHELL domain name at any time without notice at its sole discretion.

According to the registration policy of .SHELL, the domain names will have to be used in specified manner and SITI Inc or its affiliates will undertake checks to ensure that the intended use of each domain conforms to a registration policy. The registration policy will make binding that:
• Domain names must not be used in a way that knowingly infringes any third party intellectual property rights.
• A domain name registration must be an acceptable term that will not give rise to any moral or public order questions
• Domains may not be delegated or assigned to external organisations, institutions, or individuals.
• If the registrant ceases to be a member of the Shell group, then the registrant’s domain name registration agreement will automatically terminate.

Trademark Claims Service. As provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook, all new gTLDs will have to provide a Trademark Claims service for a minimum of 60 days after the launch of the general registration of domain names in the gTLD (Trademark Claims period).
During the Trademark Claims period, in accordance with ICANN’s requirements, SITI, Inc. or the SITI, Inc. -approved registrar will send a Trademark Claims Notice to any prospective registrant of a domain name that is an identical match (as defined in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook) to any mark that is validated in the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Trademark Claims Notice will include links to the Trademark Claims as listed in the Trademark Clearinghouse and will be provided at no cost.
Prior to registration of said domain name, SITI, Inc. or the SITI, Inc.-approved registrar will require each prospective registrant to provide the warranties dictated in the Trademark Clearinghouse model set forth in the ICANN Applicant Guidebook. Those warranties will include receipt and understanding of the Trademark Claims Notice and confirmation that registration and use of said domain name will not infringe on the trademark rights of the mark holders listed. Without receipt of said warranties, the SITI, Inc. or the SITI, Inc. -approved registrar will not process the domain name registration.
Following the registration of a domain name, the SITI, Inc.-approved registrar will provide a notice of domain name registration to the holders of marks that have been previously validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse and are an identical match. This notice will be as dictated by ICANN. At a minimum SITI, Inc. will recognize and honor all word marks validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse.
2 MECHANISMS DESIGNED TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS THE ABUSIVE USE OF REGISTERED NAMES ON AN ONGOING BASIS
In addition to the Sunrise and Trademark Claims services described in Section 1 of this response, SITI, Inc. will ensure that the .SHELL registry will implement and adhere to RPMs post-launch as mandated by ICANN, and confirms that registrars accredited for the .SHELL gTLD are in compliance with these mechanisms. Certain aspects of these post-launch RPMs may be administered on behalf of SITI, Inc. by SITI, Inc. -approved registrars or by subcontractors of SITI, Inc. or its affiliates, such as its selected backend registry services provider, Verisign.
These post-launch RPMs include the established Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), as well as the newer Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). Where applicable, SITI, Inc. will implement all determinations and decisions issued under the corresponding RPM.

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

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

• UDRP: The UDRP will be part of the registration agreement for domain names in .SHELL. Domain names in .SHELL subject to UDRP decision cannot be transferred to entities outside the Shell group. If the continued registration and use of a .SHELL domain by a entity within the Shell group is contrary to a UDRP decision by an arbitration panel recognised by ICANN, SITI Inc will ensure that the relevant domain name is cancelled.

In order to achieve this SITI, Inc. will closely monitor UDRP complaints involving .SHELL domain names and will ensure that its registrar appropriately implements the decisions.

• URS: As provided in the Applicant Guidebook, all registries are required to implement the URS. Similar to the UDRP, a complainant files its objection with a URS provider. The URS provider conducts an administrative review for compliance with filing requirements. If the complaint passes review, the URS provider notifies the registry operator and locks the domain. A lock means that the registry restricts all changes to the registration data, but the name will continue to resolve. After the domain is locked, the complaint is served to the domain name registrant, who has an opportunity to respond. If the complainant is successful, the registry operator is informed and the domain name is suspended for the balance of the registration period; the domain name will not resolve to the original website, but to an informational web page provided by the URS provider. If the complainant is not successful, the URS is terminated and full control of the domain name registration is returned to the domain name registrant. Similar to the existing UDRP, SITI, Inc. and entities operating on its behalf adhere to decisions rendered by the URS providers.

The .SHELL TLD registry will deal with and handle URS complaints. Its designated team will receive official Notice of Complaint through an internal system and upon receiving a Notice of Complaint, the team will implement a lock within 24 hours and a Notice of Lock will be generated and sent to the URS provider via email. The team will also enforce URS decisions, which may include unlocking the domain name or suspension of domain name and ensuring that the domain: i) remains suspended for the duration of registration period; ii) is non-resolving; iii) is redirected to an informational page provided by the URS provider; and iv) that the WHOIS maintains all original registrant details except for the redirection of name servers, and contains a message to the effect that the domain name will not be able to be transferred, deleted or modified for the life of the registration.

• PDDRP: As provided in the Applicant Guidebook, all registries are required to implement the PDDRP. The PDDRP provides a mechanism for a complainant to object to the registry operator’s manner of operation or use of the gTLD. The complainant files its objection with a PDDRP provider, who performs a threshold review. The registry operator has the opportunity to respond and the provider issues its determination based on the papers filed, although there may be opportunity for further discovery and a hearing. SITI, Inc. participates in the PDDRP process as specified in the Applicant Guidebook.

• The .SHELL registry will deal with and handle PDDRP complaints. Its designated team will file responses to complaints, negotiate and seek to settle the dispute without incurring in unnecessary costs for both parties, and enforce the decisions made by the PDDRP provider.

Additional Measures Specific to Rights Protection.
.SHELL will be a single entity registry which will solely be owned and controlled by SITI, Inc. and its affiliates. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that third parties will find the opportunity to engage in abusive activities such as phishing, pharming or other types of behaviour, which violate the rights of others. However, in the unlikely event that .SHELL domains are attacked by third parties, SITI, Inc. through its registry service provider and its affiliates provides additional measures against potentially abusive registrations. These measures help mitigate phishing, pharming, and other Internet security threats. The measures exceed the minimum requirements for RPMs defined by Specification 7 of the Registry Agreement and are available at the time of registration. These measures include:

• Abuse Point of Contact: SITI, Inc. will establish and publish a abuse point of contact. This contact will be a role e-mail address such as abuse@registry.shell. This role address will allow the designated staff to regularly monitor abuse and⁄or malicious activities in .SHELL. The registry’s designated staff will then evaluate complaints and produce abuse reports when necessary. Following the evaluation, they must decide whether the abuse report is a serious matter of concern and take a decision whether to dismiss the report or proceed to the next step. Since any decision regarding abuse reports implies serious consequences, abuse prevention staff and experts will accurately and responsibly deal with the abuse report. After the adequate evaluation procedure by the registry operator, SITI, Inc. can determine whether or not to take any action against such alleged abusive or malicious activity. In particular circumstances, SITI, Inc. can allow Verisign to suspend or cancel a domain name on its behalf. SITI, Inc. will also take steps to investigate and respond to any reports from law enforcement, governmental and quasi-governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD.

• Rapid Takedown or Suspension Based on Court Orders: SITI, Inc. complies promptly with any order from a court of competent jurisdiction that directs it to take any action on a domain name that is within its technical capabilities as a TLD registry. These orders may be issued when abusive content, such as child pornography, counterfeit goods, or illegal pharmaceuticals, is associated with the domain name.
• Anti-Abuse Process: SITI, Inc. implements an anti-abuse process that is executed based on the type of domain name takedown requested. The anti-abuse process is for malicious exploitation of the DNS infrastructure, such as phishing, botnets, and malware.
• Authentication Procedures: Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, uses two-factor authentication to augment security protocols for telephone, email, and chat communications.
• Malware Code Identification: This safeguard reduces opportunities for abusive behaviors that use registered domain names in the gTLD. Registrants are often unknowing victims of malware exploits. As SITI, Inc.’s backend registry services provider, Verisign has developed proprietary code to help identify malware in the zones it manages, which in turn helps registrars by identifying malicious code hidden in their domain names.
• DNSSEC Signing Service: Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) helps mitigate pharming attacks that use cache poisoning to redirect unsuspecting users to fraudulent websites or addresses. It uses public key cryptography to digitally sign DNS data when it comes into the system and then validate it at its destination. The SHELL gTLD is DNSSEC-enabled as part of Verisign’s core backend registry services.
3. RESOURCING PLANS
Resource Planning
Implementation and administration of SITI, Inc.’s program to provide RPMs will be executed by SITI, Inc.’s outsourced registrar, which has an extensive in-house experience in domain name management. The technical operation of the registry is also fully outsourced. Therefore, no integration is required between SITI, Inc.’s own systems and those of the Registry Service Provider, Verisign. Nevertheless, minimal technical labour expense has been designated for the creation and maintenance of a registry website at which SITI, Inc.’s policies, contact details, whois abuse point of contact and other technical support for domain management such as directing customers will be made available. Additionally, SITI, Inc. currently has an experienced workforce of IT employees, who can be called upon at any time to manage and ensure the success of the registry website.

Resource Planning Specific to Backend Registry Activities
Verisign, SITI, Inc.’s selected backend registry services provider, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to SITI, Inc. fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as Line IIb.G, Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows, within the Question 46 financial projections response.
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .com, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.
Verisign projects will use the following personnel roles, which are described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support the implementation of RPMs:
• Customer Affairs Organization: 9
• Customer Support Personnel: 36
• Information Security Engineers: 11

1 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES AND SOLUTIONS DEPLOYED TO MANAGE LOGICAL SECURITY ACROSS INFRASTRUCTURE AND SYSTEMS, MONITORING AND DETECTING THREATS AND SECURITY VULNERABILITIES AND TAKING APPROPRIATE STEPS TO RESOLVE THEM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security processes and solutions for the .SHELLTLD are based on the standards defined above, each of which is derived from Verisign’s experience and industry best practice. These standards comprise the framework for the overall security solution and applicable processes implemented across all products under Verisign’s management. The security solution and applicable processes include, but are not limited to:

• System and network access control (e.g., monitoring, logging, and backup)
• Independent assessment and periodic independent assessment reports
• Denial of service (DoS) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack mitigation
• Computer and network incident response policies, plans, and processes
• Minimization of risk of unauthorized access to systems or tampering with registry data
• Intrusion detection mechanisms, threat analysis, defenses, and updates
• Auditing of network access
• Physical security

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

1.1 Security Policy and Procedures for the Proposed Registry

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

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

Augmented Security Levels or Capabilities. See Section 5 of this response.
Commitments Made to Registrants Concerning Security Levels. See Section 4 of this response.

2 SECURITY CAPABILITIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL BUSINESS APPROACH AND PLANNED SIZE OF THE REGISTRY

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

3 TECHNICAL PLAN ADEQUATELY RESOURCED IN THE PLANNED COSTS DETAILED IN THE FINANCIAL SECTION

Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, is an experienced backend registry provider that has developed a set of proprietary resourcing models to project the number and type of personnel resources necessary to operate a TLD. Verisign routinely adjusts these staffing models to account for new tools and process innovations. These models enable Verisign to continually right-size its staff to accommodate projected demand and meet service level agreements as well as Internet security and stability requirements. Using the projected usage volume for the most likely scenario (defined in Question 46, Template 1 – Financial Projections: Most Likely) as an input to its staffing models, Verisign derived the necessary personnel levels required for this gTLD’s initial implementation and ongoing maintenance. Verisign’s pricing for the backend registry services it provides to SITI Inc fully accounts for cost related to this infrastructure, which is provided as “Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows” (Template 1, Line IIb.G) within the Question 46 financial projections response.
Verisign employs more than 1,040 individuals of which more than 775 comprise its technical work force. (Current statistics are publicly available in Verisign’s quarterly filings.) Drawing from this pool of on-hand and fully committed technical resources, Verisign has maintained DNS operational accuracy and stability 100 percent of the time for more than 13 years for .com, proving Verisign’s ability to align personnel resource growth to the scale increases of Verisign’s TLD service offerings.
Verisign projects it will use the following personnel role, which is described in Section 5 of the response to Question 31, Technical Overview of Proposed Registry, to support its security policy:

• Information Security Engineers: 11

4 SECURITY MEASURES ARE CONSISTENT WITH ANY COMMITMENTS MADE TO REGISTRANTS REGARDING SECURITY LEVELS

Verisign is SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider. For the .SHELL gTLD, no unique security measures or commitments must be made by Verisign or SITI Inc to any registrant.

5 SECURITY MEASURES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPLIED-FOR gTLD STRING (FOR EXAMPLE, APPLICATIONS FOR STRINGS WITH UNIQUE TRUST IMPLICATIONS, SUCH AS FINANCIAL SERVICES-ORIENTED STRINGS, WOULD BE EXPECTED TO PROVIDE A COMMENSURATE LEVEL OF SECURITY)

No unique security measures are necessary to implement the .SHELL gTLD. As defined in Section 1 of this response, Verisign, SITI Inc’s selected backend registry services provider, commits to providing backend registry services in accordance with the following international and relevant security standards:

• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) SAS 70
• WebTrust⁄SysTrust for Certification Authorities (CA)

Cynthia Ann Pollock Deere	Vice President (Finance), Shell Information Technology International Inc
Erik Thomas Betz	President, Shell Information Technology International Inc

Cynthia Ann Pollock Deere	Vice President (Finance), Shell Information Technology International Inc
Erik Thomas Betz	President, Shell Information Technology International Inc

New gTLD Application Submitted to ICANN by: Shell Information Technology International Inc

String: SHELL

Originally Posted: 13 June 2012

Application ID: 1-1090-40748

Applicant Information

1. Full legal name

2. Address of the principal place of business

3. Phone number

4. Fax number

5. If applicable, website or URL

Primary Contact

6(a). Name

6(b). Title

6(c). Address

6(d). Phone Number

6(e). Fax Number

6(f). Email Address

Secondary Contact

7(a). Name

7(b). Title

7(c). Address

7(d). Phone Number

7(e). Fax Number

7(f). Email Address

Proof of Legal Establishment

8(a). Legal form of the Applicant

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

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

9(a). If applying company is publicly traded, provide the exchange and symbol.

9(b). If the applying entity is a subsidiary, provide the parent company.

9(c). If the applying entity is a joint venture, list all joint venture partners.

Applicant Background

11(a). Name(s) and position(s) of all directors

11(b). Name(s) and position(s) of all officers and partners

11(c). Name(s) and position(s) of all shareholders holding at least 15% of shares

11(d). For an applying entity that does not have directors, officers, partners, or shareholders: Name(s) and position(s) of all individuals having legal or executive responsibility

Applied-for gTLD string

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

14(a). If an IDN, provide the A-label (beginning with "xn--").

14(b). If an IDN, provide the meaning or restatement of the string in English, that is, a description of the literal meaning of the string in the opinion of the applicant.

14(c). If an IDN, provide the language of the label (in English).

14(c). If an IDN, provide the language of the label (as referenced by ISO-639-1).

14(d). If an IDN, provide the script of the label (in English).

14(d). If an IDN, provide the script of the label (as referenced by ISO 15924).

14(e). If an IDN, list all code points contained in the U-label according to Unicode form.

15(a). If an IDN, Attach IDN Tables for the proposed registry.

15(b). Describe the process used for development of the IDN tables submitted, including consultations and sources used.

15(c). List any variant strings to the applied-for gTLD string according to the relevant IDN tables.

16. Describe the applicant's efforts to ensure that there are no known operational or rendering problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string. If such issues are known, describe steps that will be taken to mitigate these issues in software and other applications.

17. (OPTIONAL) Provide a representation of the label according to the International Phonetic Alphabet (http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/).

Mission/Purpose

18(a). Describe the mission/purpose of your proposed gTLD.

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

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

Community-based Designation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geographic Names

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

Protection of Geographic Names

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

Registry Services

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

Demonstration of Technical & Operational Capability

24. Shared Registration System (SRS) Performance

25. Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)

26. Whois

27. Registration Life Cycle

28. Abuse Prevention and Mitigation

29. Rights Protection Mechanisms

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

© Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers.