• This report was prepared by a consultant team from Development Alternatives, Inc. (DAI), the prime contractor of the Market Access Program (MAP). MAP is financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The objectives of MAP are to improve the competitiveness of Palestinian business; promote and support new commercial initiatives; and increase economic growth, exports, sales, and market share.
• This report is based upon extensive consultations with the local Internet community in the Palestinian Territories; the Director of the Government Computing Center of the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation; representatives of the information technology, university, and education sectors; and members of the legal profession.
• The MAP consultant team worked closely with an advisory board, held two public hearings, and organized numerous meetings with all parties in the public and private sectors involved in the Internet.
• The team also consulted with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and representatives of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which awarded the .ps top-level domain (TLD).
• The international regulations issued by ICANN and other international regulatory bodies provide the basic framework for the design of the organization and management of the TLD proposed in this report.
• The design is derived from the consensus of the local Internet community, as required by ICANN.
• The objective of this report is to identify and recommend options and actions the Palestinian team might implement to set up the Palestinian TLD using the best practices to achieve the highest level of Internet access, use, and content in the Palestinian Territories.

• The request for delegation of the .ps top-level domain for the Palestinian Territories was started in February 1997.
• At that time, the two-letter code for the Palestinian Territories was not inserted in the list of country codes, ISO 3166, which is the basis of assigning the country code top-level domains. Therefore, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) could not award the .ps domain to the Palestinian Territories.
• In October 1999, the code .ps was added to the ISO list and, following representation from r. Nabil Shaath, Minister of Planning and International Cooperation of the Palestinian Authority, IANA/ICANN concluded that the .ps top-level domain should be delegated as requested.
• The Government Computing Center was deemed the designated organization, with
• Dr. Ghassan Qadah as the designated administrative contact and
• Dr. Yaser Doleh as the designated technical contact for the .ps domain.
• USAID, through DAI, immediately responded to a request for support from the Government Computing Center to develop an action plan for the establishment of .ps domain management, based on sound business and marketing and financial plans for the initial three-year timeframe of .ps registry.
• To accomplish this task, two consultants were engaged:
• Dr. Robert Krause from the United States and
• Dr. Stefano Trumpy from Italy.
• They prepared the plan in cooperation with Denis Gallagher, the information technology (IT) portfolio manager of DAI/MAP.
• To assist the consultants in their work and to ensure a plan of interviews with the key representatives of the Internet community in the West Bank and Gaza, an ad hoc working committee was appointed:
• Dr. Ghassan Qadah, as the designated administrator of .ps designated by IANA/ICANN;
• Dr. Yaser Doleh, as the designated technical contact for .ps designated by IANA/ICANN;
• Omar Al-Sahili, IT Sector Coordinator, DAI;
• Sam Bahour, of Applied Information Management / Private Sector; and
• Dr. Najeh Jasrawi, of Birzeit University.
• An intensive series of meetings were organized so the consultants could hear opinions and receive guidance and feedback from the IT business community, universities, Internet service providers, and the government.
• Two workshops were organized with members of the Palestinian public and private sectors.
• The first workshop introduced the key issues to be addressed,
• and the second presented the findings and recommendations of the consultants.
• This consultation process produced the following recommendations:
• The target start-up date for the operations of .ps registry is October 1, 2000.
• §It is of the utmost urgency to legitimize a decision-making structure called the Naming Authority, which should include representatives of the main constituencies of the local Internet community.
• It has been suggested to Minister Shaath that he provide legitimacy to such a structure to meet the target date to start operations.
• The recommended structure to host the registry should be a not-for-profit organization.
• The Naming Authority could act as the Board of Directors of the not-for-profit organization that would host the registry.
• The other main component of the not-for-profit organization will be the Registration Service.
• The consultants made recommendations concerning the naming rules and policies so the registry can meet the targets established in the business plan.
• Those recommendations are based on best practices established by CENTR (European Center for Top-Level Naming Registries) for running ccTLDs and the experience of Dr. Trumpy in running the .it registry (Italy) and his deep knowledge of the situation in other countries.
• The .ps should be an open registry and promoted to attract those individuals and organizations throughout the world that are interested in Palestinian economic and cultural development.
• A business plan has been prepared that envisages setting up a Center of Excellence. The Center will provide the basic registry service and value-added services that will aid an ordered evolution of the Internet in the Palestinian Territories.
• A minimal plan also has been prepared by the consultants with no value-added services.
• Because there is no financial difference in the two plans-in both, cost recovery for the services is foreseen in the third year of operations-the consultants strongly advise the adoption of the Center of Excellence.
• To facilitate the start-up of operations, the consultants suggest simplified rules and procedures in a first phase and temporarily hosting the registry in an organization with adequate reliability, while waiting for the constitution of the not-for-profit organization.

• The Internet is rapidly transforming the ways in which companies throughout the world do business. The Gartner Group projects the business-to-business Internet market to grow from $145 billion in 1999 to $7.3 trillion in 2004.
• Companies worldwide are now reinventing themselves to stay competitive, and business functions are being transformed across the spectrum-from sales, marketing, and distribution channels to manufacturing and purchasing.
• The Palestinian Territories was recently awarded the Internet domain of .ps. This awarding of the top-level domain (TLD) is recognition that the Palestinian economy must be included on the "cyber map" of the world.
• Dr. Ghassan Qadah, Director of the Government Computing Center, and Dr. Yaser Doleh, a New York-based computer scientist, were assigned as the administrative and technical contacts to run the Palestinian TLD.
• Internet domain support is an initiative of USAID and DAI to help ensure that the .ps TLD manager is able to manage the .ps domain in a way that effectively increases Internet access and usage in the Palestinian Territories.
• Effective management of the .ps TLD requires financial sustainability through the establishment of sound business, marketing, and financial plans for the initial three-year timeframe.
• Achieving sustainability should be the overarching objective of support to the .ps TLD.

• An ad hoc working committee was established in May 2000 to assist the consultants by providing them information and materials concerning the situation of the Internet in the West Bank and Gaza.
• The primary objective of this committee was to provide guidance to the consultants, Dr. Stefano Trumpy and Dr. Robert Krause, and to facilitate consultation meetings with the principal constituencies of the local Internet community.
• The committee held a meeting prior to the arrival of the consultants to develop the work plan for the consultants while in the Palestinian Territories (June 4-22, 2000) and was in continuous contact with them during that period.
• The ad hoc working committee comprised:
• Dr. Ghassan Qadah, as the administrator of .ps designated by IANA/ICANN;
• Dr. Yaser Doleh, as the technical contact for .ps designated by IANA/ICANN;
• Omar Al-Sahili, IT Sector Coordinator, DAI;
• Sam Bahour, of Applied Information Management / Private Sector; and
• Dr. Najeh Jasrawi, of Birzeit University.
• In particular, Dr. Krause met Dr. Doleh in the United States before leaving for the West Bank and Gaza. Dr. Doleh was then kept informed of the work in progress via E-mail.
• The ad hoc working committee greatly assisted to the work of the mission.

• The consultations with the constituencies of the local Internet community included:
• Workshop 1, which was open to the public and described the objectives of the mission, introduced the main issues, and sought support from the local Internet community to make the plan to activate the .ps registry;
• Workshop 2, at the end of the mission, discussed the findings and the recommendations of the consultants;
• Meetings with representatives of the Palestinian Authority, in particular with
• Minister Nabil Shaath (MOPIC) and with
• Minister Imad Falouji (Minister of Post and Telecommunications);
• Meeting with the Palestinian Information Technology Association (PITA);
• Meeting with the Internet service providers in the West Bank and Gaza;
• Meeting with representatives of the universities; and
• Meeting with lawyers on intellectual property rights and dispute resolution.
• Thus, a strong effort was made to receive inputs from all the major players constituting the local Internet community. In particular, invitations to the workshops were sent to a broad cross-section of the local Internet community, resulting in good attendance (50-60 people) in each workshop.
• Furthermore, during the second workshop those present recognized that a great effort had been made in a short time to let all interested parties express their concerns and opinions. This fact constitutes a significant step in organizing the local Internet community.
• This precedent should help in future consensus building on different issues, in a democratic way and in the real spirit of the Internet.

• A business model that supports effective management of the .ps domain is a critical component for realizing the vision for the Internet and economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. Looking out over the next three to five years, our vision focuses on:
• Sharply increased Internet usage and access;
• Sharply expanded development of the Palestinian web content;
• Accelerated broadband utilization of the Internet; and
• Rapid growth of business-to-consumer and business-to-business E-commerce.
• The Center of Excellence at the core of the .ps domain is only one catalyst for realizing this vision, but its promotional and educational activities are extremely important to the growth of the Internet in the Palestinian Territories.
• With well-defined and market-driven activities, the .ps domain and its Center of Excellence become important elements of the overall strategic support plans for the growth strategy of the information technology sector.
• Specifically, the .ps domain becomes one leading vehicle in building utilization of the Internet.
• The vision and strategy help us set clear economic targets for Internet growth:
• 300,000 Internet users by 2005;
• 30,000 registered names by 2003; and
• 100,000 registered names by 2005.
• As the optimal business model for the .ps domain is based upon this vision, this strategy, and these economic targets, it provides for the establishment of a Center of Excellence.
• A minimal solution would exclude a Center of Excellence and its promotional and educational activities. Without those promotional activities, the economic targets would be slashed substantially.

• Before developing their recommendations, the consultants considered the following elements:
• The inputs received by the local Internet community;
• The reference documents attached to this report and, in particular, the best practices for running the ccTLDs prepared
• by CENTR (Annex 5),
• by WIPO (Annex 7), and
• by ICANN (Annexes 8 and 9) and ICANN/GAC (Annex 4).
• The best practice recommendations are also coming from de facto general orientations widely adopted by the ccTLDs;
• The intention of proposing a business model suited to contribute significantly to the growth of the Internet in the West Bank and Gaza; and
• The experience, knowledge, and judgment of Dr. Stefano Trumpy on the matters concerning "Internet governance," derived from his experience as:
• - Italy ccTLD former manager,
• Head of the International Relations for the .it registry,
• Italy representative in CENTR,
• Italian representative to Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN,
• Vice President for Policy in ISOC Advisory Council,
• President of ISOC chapter in Italy, and
• Member of the Internet Experts committee of the Italian Cabinet Presidency.

• Registrants-those individuals and organizations applying to register a domain name. After the registration, they become "domain name holders."
• Internet Service Providers (ISPs)-among them it is common practice to distinguish between the access providers and the content providers; both are eligible to become registrars.
• Registry-the organization responsible for developing and implementing the rules and procedures for the registration of domain names and for maintaining an up-to-date, accurate, and publicly available database of the names.
• Registrars-those Internet service providers having contract relations with the registry to collect and prepare information for data entry in the registry database.
• The functions of registrars are realized in different ways.
• The gTLD registrars have to comply with the rules established by ICANN, whereas in the ccTLDs environment the accreditation may be less formal.
• Furthermore, different approaches are in use, with the possibility for the registrar to enter directly on the database of the registry-in the latter case, the gTLDs.
• A technical solution for running a shared database has been realized by Network Solutions Inc. (and others), although in the case of .ps the consultants advise to defer to a later period the solution to register directly into a shared database.

• The volume of registered names and consequently the financial aspects of the ccTLDs depend on the following:
• Response Time. This is defined as the average time beginning with the receipt of correct information from the registrant and/or registrar and ending when the name is registered in the database (which implies being active for usage by the domain name holder);
• Simple Rules and Minimal Bureaucracy. The registrars who act on behalf of the registrants, providing data to register the requested name, have to become familiar with the rules and procedures of the ccTLDs they have in their portfolio. These rules and procedures differ by country, and the market understands that the ccTLD with simple rules and procedures will be preferred. If a registry is allowing direct registration by the registrants, this aspect gives it a greater competitive edge.
• Level of Service. The registrars will be attracted by those registries providing a superior level of service, including help desk via E-mail and telephone, a well designed and reachable web service, and efficient and rapid management of contracts. In addition, the most competitive ccTLDs are developing value-added services such as training courses and technical information available through the network, software packages to automate specific functions and services, and advice on technical and organizational matters;
• Fees. This aspect is important but, provided that a registry is not significantly different in price from other registries, is not as salient as the other factors; and
• Promotion. This aspect is important but will be relevant only if the other elements allow the development of a competitive registration service.
• Having in mind these parameters, the consultants are confident that the target of 30,000 names registered after the three-year period, with a sequence per year (3,000, 10,000, 17,000) will be met, and have based the business plan on this assumption.

• The consultants have considered the following organizations as options to host the registry functions:
• Government Computer Center, as envisaged in the IANA delegation;
• Internet service providers;
• Universities/research institutions; and
• Non-profit organizations.
• The consultants recommend, from best practice of ICANN, that the registry should be constituted as a not-for-profit entity (foundation, company limited by guarantee, or whatever is best suited for Palestinian laws and regulations), with running the registry as its main activity.
• The registry should perform two main functions:
• (1) Naming Authority, and
• (2) Registration Service.
• (1) The Naming Authority should be composed of experts in the field of DNS (Domain Names System of the Internet) to define the rules for naming and the annexed procedures.
• The Naming Authority should act as the board of directors, setting policy and providing direction for administration of the registry or designating a standing committee of the Naming Authority for the task.
• The chairman of the Naming Authority could act as the administrative contact with IANA/ICANN.
• The Naming Authority has important policy functions such as:
• Defining the rules and procedures for registering the names;
• Developing the contracts with the registrars and an eventual procedure for their accreditation;
• Defining instruments to ease the solution of disputes and limiting the cases that go to court; and
• Maintaining contact with the international organizations to conform to international best practices.
• 2. The Registration Service will:
• Maintain the database of the names in a secure way;
• Make available the information on the registered names (WHOIS service) in accordance with the norms adopted for privacy protection;
• Register the names on the database following the rules and procedures defined by the Naming Authority;
• Run a local area network, workstations, and input-output as needed to provide effective service and ensure a good connection with the Internet for worldwide access;
• Set up a web service, a help desk, and related activities to ensure a good level of service;
• Organize educational courses for the registrars and for the domain names holders;
• Manage the contracts, billing, and administrative matters of the registry; and
• Maintain contacts with the international organizations on the technical aspects.

• The Naming Authority should be composed of representatives of the main constituencies of the local Internet community.
• From best practices adopted by ICANN and considering the constituencies of the DNSO (Domain Names Supporting Organization), the consultants advise that the Naming Authority to be composed of representatives of:
• Business users;
• Non-commercial users (including universities, research institutions, and nongovernmental organizations);
• Internet service providers (registrars);
• Registration Service;
• Law / intellectual property rights;
• ICANN members at large (see www.icann.org); and
• Government.
• In the medium term, the structure and the representatives of the local Internet community should derive from a democratic expression of the constituencies (with a guarantee that the members appointed will have high professional profiles and be committed to the task).
• While the local Internet community consolidates its organization, the government should provide a formal legitimacy to the Naming Authority structure as proposed.
• The consultants recommend that the Naming Authority, as soon as legitimized and activated, establish working groups to prepare the necessary elements for rapid decision making; an initial set of working groups could be devoted to the following aspects:
• Structure;
• Technical aspects;
• Policy;
• Business model;
• Legal aspects; and
• Value-added services.

• Concerning this aspect, there are not best practices recommended by ICANN or CENTR for the ccTLDs.
• The relations between registrants, registrars, and registries have a high degree of variation and depend of the local situation of the market and on the agreements between the Internet service providers and the registry.
• The following considerations are derived from the experience of .it registry-Italy (Annex 10) and could serve as an operational example.
• Internet Service Provider to Become a Registrar
• To become a registrar, an Internet service provider has to sign a contract with the registry that should include:
• Forwarding to the registry all necessary technical data on behalf of the registrants;
• Updating the data concerning the domain name holders in the database of assigned names maintained by the registry;
• Transferring expertise related to the use of the domain name to the registrants to ensure correct usage; Keeping an archive of the letters of assumption of responsibility signed by the registrants; and
• Paying to the registry the agreed amount per name.
• In instances where the gTLD is in operation (Annex 9), a specific accreditation procedure is needed in order to become a registrar because the registrar must have adequate professional managerial skills and be financially sound.
• Some ccTLD have applied a similar procedure, but many others do not have such a procedure in operation.
• Responsibility of the Registrants
• The registrant has to sign a letter of assumption of responsibility taking full civil and criminal responsibility for the use of the domain name.
• Therefore, the letter of assumption of responsibility should include:
• Identification data on the registrant;
• Knowledge of the fundamental principles that rule the Internet resources;
• Knowledge of the naming authorities rules and procedures; and
• Knowledge and the respect of the principles of "netiquette."
• In the Palestinian Territories, the Internet service provider contracts for Internet services will allow the Internet service providers to include names registration under .ps as a value-added service.
• Thus, the price charged to the registrants will result in competition among the registrars.
• Not all the Internet service providers will have the ability or inclination to register names on behalf of their clients because of the administrative burden involved and the presumably low profitability of this service.
• The consultants advise that the .ps registry:
• Register names only through the registrars (no direct registrations for the registrants); and
• Establish a uniform contract scheme to be signed by the registrars with clauses that, when accepted, constitutes a de facto accreditation.
• The consultants also advise that:
• The Naming Authority issue a letter of assumption of responsibility to be signed by the registrants; and
• The registrars keep the archive of the letters of assumption of responsibility ready to be transferred, on request, to the registry.

• Definition
• A closed ccTLD is intended to assign domain names to registrants legally based only in the country or territory identified by the two letter ISO code (in this case, .ps).
• An open ccTLD is intended to assign names to a registrant from anywhere in the world.
• Between the two categories, there are variations applied by different ccTLDs, and ICANN recommends that those open ccTLD that explicitly advertise as gTLDs adopt the rules and recommendations established for the gTLDs.
• As far as the operations of the registry are concerned, the solution of open ccTLD implies a stronger structure for the following reasons:
• A larger user base, implying more workload for the registration service;
• Users from different countries will be attracted by simple and non-bureaucratic rules and procedures; therefore, the Naming Authority will have to consider that aspect in defining the rules and procedures;
• The necessity of considering having registrars in different countries (this may be valid also in case of a closed registry); and
• The necessity to address disputes coming from domain name holders and/or registrars based in different countries.
• After consultation with the constituencies of the local Internet community, the experts recommend that .ps should be "open" with a specific promotion campaign directed toward registrants from the "large or virtual Palestine," including expatriates from any country in the world.
• Promotion should encourage registering under .ps to all those organizations and individuals with an interest in Palestinian commerce, business, and culture. It will be a cornerstone of the three-year business plan of the Naming Authority.
• This will attract a larger user base, and the experts recommend avoiding as much as possible discrimination based on the nature or domicile of the registrants.
• This approach toward an "open .ps registry" will also avoid the need to follow the rules governing the administration of gTLDs as recommended by ICANN.

• Definition
• Flat is a registry that registers names only in the second level; in other words, it is a registry that does not distinguish any category of names in the database records.
• Second-level domains (SLDs) are in use by many registries that have second-level domain names to distinguish categories of users or type of activities. For example:
• Using as second-level domains the gTLD names more frequently (.gov, .mil, .org, .edu, and .com);
• Introducing second-level domains to indicate physical persons, professional orders, trademarks, etc. (France, for instance, has 46 second-level domains within its registry);
• Suggesting that registrants adopt the second-level domains they feel are suited for them;
• Allowing registration under second-level domains only after showing appropriate documentation that the registrant belongs to that category; and
• Deferring to an organization in charge of the category referred to in the second-level domain the responsibility for defining an appropriate naming structure and rendering this mandatory (chartered domains).
• In the practices adopted by the ccTLDs, there are variations and combinations of the cases mentioned above.
• The adoption of second-level domains should be limited as much as possible. If required by the local Internet community, only a limited number chartered second-level domains should be adopted because:
• Commercial and business users, which constitute the majority of domain name holders, prefer to have domain names as short as possible, and therefore prefer to see their names directly under the country code;
• The idea to define categories is theoretically a good one, leading to the extreme idea to build a yellow pages for the Internet with a large number of second-level domains. If registrants are able to choose the second-level domain, there is a risk of losing the rationality and integrity of the whole system. This is likely to result in the registry imposing on the registrants criteria to show appropriate documentation that demonstrates their right belong to that category. This is the window for bureaucracy and, if introduced, will stimulate a lot of contentious cases;
• The problem of trademarks is not solved by second-level domains, although in some cases a special second-level domain for trademarks has been introduced (as in France, for example). In real terms, however, nothing prevents the owner of the trademark from raising a dispute claim, if convinced that another holds the same name under another second-level domain is damaging him.
• Thus, the consultants conclude that introducing second-level domains in the Palestinian Territories to divide the domain name holders in categories will lead to complicated rules and likely would introduce procedures that act as obstacles to the business plan.
• Rather than providing any real commercial or competitive advantage, second-level domains, a concept that is increasingly being called into question in developed markets, may damage economic and business benefits expected of the Internet in the Palestinian Territories.
• The belief that many domain names holders who are accustomed to working within a gTLD structured as a second-level domain will demand the same arrangement is not particularly valid, because these domain names holders will soon be a minority with respect to the Palestinians registered under .ps.
• They could, in any case, maintain the two names in parallel until they feel appropriate to select one over the other.
• Concerning the possible Chartered Domains, a chartered second-level domain ".gov" might make sense under these conditions:
• A body of the government defines a naming scheme for all government institutions and communicates to them on how they should be named on the Internet. The same body could act as a registrar, thus implying that all the government institutions have to register through that body.
• An alternative hypothesis for managing the ".gov" second-level domain is that all the accredited registrars know the naming scheme prepared by the body of the government and act accordingly when approached by a registrant belonging to the government. Similar reasoning could be made for the universities and research institutions, but their small number should not justify a special second-level domain, and same reasoning applies for an eventual .mil.
• In any case, the Naming Authority will decide the possible organization and methodology of the chartered second-level domains. The consultants recommend that the Naming Authority consider and decide the second-level domain issue as a matter of urgency in order not to create a situation that later, if changed, will create problems with the already registered names in a completely flat environment.

• The extremes are:
• One name per registrant; and
• An indefinite number per registrant.
• The situation in the ccTLDs is very diverse; a large number of ccTLD allow only one name per registrant, and, in some cases, the more restrictive also impose that the registered name is coinciding with the trademark or the name of the organization involved.
• Other registries allow the organizations to register as many names as they want. In these cases, normally the registrant is warned to be careful not to infringe the rights of third parties. This situation existed in Italy since December 15, 1999, and has provoked phenomenon as:
• Cybersquatting-registering names equal or similar to famous names or de facto trademarks in order to sell them to interested parties or to damage their image, to prevent a registration by them, or to create confusion in the Internet community; and
• Warehousing-the massive registration of names potentially appealing to the public for speculation.
• After six months, the workload of the .it registry is still so high compared with the previous period to have caused a relevant degradation in the quality of the service, especially with regard to the response time. Only very recently has the response time returned normal.
• Different registries impose a limit, which may vary from a fixed number (10 is average) to special cases for companies holding trademarks or other forms of protected (and formally registered) names; in the latter case, normally there is no limit.
• Therefore, the consultants recommend adopting the limit of 10 for all organizations. Extending the number of names to the trademarks owned by a company is feasible, but defining other categories of protected names might imply bureaucratic burden that is better to avoid. The suggested number is clearly arbitrary and might be reviewed by the Naming Authority as demand evolves and the structure of the Registration Service is consolidated to absorb workload peaks.

• In using the term "physical persons," we mean individuals not holding a commercial or professional license nor any recognized individual independent activity under Palestinian civil administration. Regarding physical persons, the consultants advise to allow only one name per person. The approach in different ccTLDs is varied:
• Physical persons are not allowed to register any name (quite common);
• Physical persons are allowed to register only their name, as shown in a valid identification;
• Physical persons are allowed to register only one name not necessarily coinciding with their name; in those cases, there is a warning not to register another person's name; and
• Physical persons are allowed to register many or even an indefinite number of names.
• The consultants recommend adopting the second or the third hypothesis above.

• "Excluded names" are those that should be precluded from being available for registration under any circumstances.
• An ideal registry should be able to rely on lists of excluded names that might be searched in real time when entering the name requested.
• The following are some categories of the excluded names as applied by other registries:
• Trademarks. In some limited cases, the registries have access to a public updated database of trademarks. In such cases, if a requested name coincides with a trademark, the registry should verify whether the request came from the trademark owner. If not, the name is assigned only if the trademark owner has signed a letter delegating the registrant the right to register that name.
• Geographic Names. Many registries exclude the possibility of registering geographic names. If geographic names refer, for example, to the municipalities, it is relatively easy to build a database of excluded names that, in this case, could be registered only by the municipality itself. However, if we mean any type of geographic name, the question is more complex. In the West Bank and Gaza, for example, different names for the same location are in use. In addition, it would be difficult to decide which entity would be entitled to register the name of a mountain or of a river.
• Offensive or Obscene Names. It is almost impossible to make an exhaustive dictionary of such names. As a consequence, in the letter the registrant has to sign to assume the responsibility of his request, it should be stated that a name that is considered offensive or obscene by the registry itself or by complainants showing up later would not be registered or could be revoked at a later date.
• Famous Names. These names may be of various nature, and at least in an initial phase, and it seems difficult to create such a dictionary.
• Common Names. These kinds of names are forbidden in some registries and in others (especially those allowing registration of more names) are allowed. It is almost impossible to generate a database of those names. This raises a very fundamental question of whether names in the Internet are to be considered free expression or should be related to the activity of the registrant. The most experienced registries are insisting on the fact that the names in the Internet are only string of characters, but they also are aware that, because of the economic value of the names in E-commerce, legal implications should be prevented as much as possible. Common names in Italy, for example, are allowed.
• The consultants thus advise the .ps Naming Authority to compile lists of excluded names that may be easily verified at the moment of registration and clearly warn the registrants about their responsibility toward third parties in registering certain categories of names. Then, a procedure to resolve quickly the inevitable disputes should be in place as an ongoing core business issue of the Naming Authority.

• In this chapter, general recommendations are provided concerning the technical infrastructure to allow the proper running of the registry.
• In Annex 1, the IAT/CNR team responsible for the technical infrastructure provides more specific recommendations as a basis for a procurement process.

• The basic components of the hardware are:
• The computers to run the primary DNS and the secondary DNS service;
• A firewall;
• A server for running the services provided by the registry;
• A suitable number of workstations for the manager, for the system engineers, for input of data on the domain names database, and the other functions in the registry organization; and
• An adequate I/O equipment (printers, fax, etc.).
• All these components are standard and widely available.

• A local area network (LAN) has to be installed to connect all the working locations in the registry. If the organization that will host the registry is already equipped with a LAN, that part of the described components is not needed.
• Because of the requirement to protect the registry database from intrusions from the network, a firewall could be installed to separate the service machines from the "ordinary" work.
• This function might be performed by the router, which will be necessary in any case to connect the LAN to the Internet.
• A connection (leased line or frame relay) to the Internet is needed, possibly to a point where the Internet service providers are executing peering agreements; a router is then needed to access the Internet.
• All the components are standard to establish a 128Kbit/sec or 256 Kbit/sec link to the Internet, so the best offer of a local provider should be taken.

• The software components are:
• § The operating systems; § The software for running the DNS servers; § Application software to run the registry functions; and § Application software to be developed locally.

• The recommended staffing for the first year is the following:
• 1 General Manager-responsible for Center of Excellence activities and business development;
• 1 Systems Engineer-Internet networking (DNS, routing, and basic Internet services);
• 1 Systems Engineer-database management, data retrieval systems, and web interfaces;
• 1 Administrative/Legal Support;
• 2 Data Entry Support Personnel; and
• 1 Secretary.
• The selection of well-qualified and committed persons to fulfill these jobs will be a key element for the success of .ps registry, and therefore particular care should be given in the selection of the employees.
• The number of personnel will be increased in the second and third years, following the business plan.
• If the workload develops at a rate different than planned, the evolution of the personnel profile will be adapted accordingly.
• It is worth noting that the workload of the ccTLD registries normally grows quite fast and that the dedicated personnel do not increase proportionally. This is due to the introduction of more efficient automatic tools and to the capacity of the structure to absorb increased workload without having to make major changes in the organization.

• An initial training period (intense and short) will be essential if operations are to start by October 1.
• The training may be done through visits to the premises of other registries with the possibility of a hands-on experience or through organized courses to be held at the site of the new .ps registry.
• The consultants verified the availability and willingness to help in the training by CENTR (Oxford, United Kingdom) and by Israeli and Egyptian registries.
• Concerning the Italian registry, the workload of .it registry has increased so much that on-site, hands-on training is not available.
• Alternative forms of contribution like organizing special courses in the Palestinian Territories will be taken into consideration.

• The WIPO document for dispute resolution (Annex 7) was approved with the scope to be used by complainants having registered the names under generic TLDs.
• Furthermore, the procedure has been adopted by those ccTLDs being open and advertising as gTLDs; which are today:
• .ac (Ascension Island)
• .io (British Indian Ocean Territory)
• .nu (Niue) § .sh (St. Helena)
• .tt (Trinidad and Tobago)
• .tv (Tuvalu)
• .ws (Western Samoa)
• The .ps domain does not fall into this category, and therefore the WIPO procedure should not to be adopted.
• However, the consultants recommend adoption of basic principles, such as the definition of the cases of registration in bad faith.
• Looking at the practices in use by the ccTLDs for dispute resolution, one sees very different approaches are in place. It is good practice for an open ccTLDs to set up a mechanism for alternate dispute resolution in the country and then to establish links with international dispute resolution services such as the one established by WIPO to ask help in solving difficult cases involving foreign parties.
• The consultants indicate, as a good example, a procedure similar to the one adopted by Nominet (the .uk registry).

• The registry will seek to establish whether a mutually acceptable resolution to the dispute can be found by the impartial intervention of staff of the registry. In case the two parties agree to change the domain name holder, the registry, upon receiving a signed letter by both parties, will change the record in the database.

• Under the rules established by the Naming Authority, the registry may suspend delegation of an Internet domain name in circumstances such as a third party notification that, in their view, a domain name is being used in a manner likely to cause confusion to Internet users. If the suspension of the delegation is not accepted by one of the parties involved, the registry, at that party's request, can refer the suspension to an independent expert for a recommendation that the registry should confirm or revoke its decision.

• If either party is dissatisfied with the registry's final decision on suspension of delegation of the domain name, the registry will suggest that party refer to an accredited mediation service. If one of the parties refuses to enter into a mediation agreement (or mediation does not resolve the dispute), the dissatisfied party will remain in a position to seek advice from its lawyers about pursuing its case in the courts.

• Other aspects a registry should take into consideration in defining the rules and regulations and in running the registration service include:
• Conforming to the privacy regulations in the publication of the data contained in the database (service WHOIS);
• Ensuring the intellectual property rights;
• Conforming to the recommendations of ICANN in the management of the names database concerning keeping it up-to-date, opening it for public review, and following security standards; and
• Distributing guidance on recommended usage of the network and inappropriate behavior ("netiquette") and make this information known to the wider public.

• The consultants highly recommend that the .ps registry establish links to the following organizations and consider the costs involved as an integral part of the service provided to the holders of a contract with the registry.
• Participation in the listed below organizations will have the following benefits:
• Training technicians;
• Participating actively in the global / regional planning of the domain name system of the Internet;
• Establishing collaboration; and
• Dealing with international disputes arising in an open ccTLD as the .ps.
• Global Organizations
• Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
• ICANN was established in 1998 to take over the tasks fulfilled by IANA, which had previously been a U.S. government-funded structure in charge of "Internet Governance."
• Within ICANN, there are a number of activities of interest for the ccTLDs. These are conducted in the
• ccTLD constituency of the Domain Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) and in the
• Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
• Recently, ICANN launched a campaign to recruit the at-large members. The consultants advise the Naming Authority to encourage those persons (ideally professionals) interested in the Internet governance on a global scale to apply for membership in ICANN. In this initial phase, membership is free, thanks to a donation from a U.S. foundation. The at-large members of ICANN elect 9 of the 18 members of the Board of Directors of ICANN. The next election will take place at the end of September 2000.
• Internet Society
• The Internet Society (ISOC) is the umbrella organization of the
• Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF),
• Internet Architectural Board (IAB), Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF), and other bodies.
• Within ISOC, a number of chapters have been created on a geographic scale.
• The chapters have the scope to promote the association of individual and organizational members to ISOC, to help spread the Internet culture locally, and to consolidate opinions of the local Internet community.
• The consultants advise those involved in the activation of the .ps registry to consider promoting the creation of a Palestinian chapter of ISOC as an instrument to ease the organization of the local Internet community and to accelerate the diffusion of the Internet culture.
• In Europe
• Council of European TLD Registries
• The Council of European TLD Registries (CENTR), based in the United Kingdom, creates common views in an enlarged Europe for the establishment of best practices for the structure and organization of the registries, for the technical instruments, for dispute resolution, for legal issues, and for the delegation and re-delegation of the registries.
• The consultants recommend that the .ps registry (possibly through the administrative contact appointed by IANA/ICANN) join CENTR as soon as possible.
• The same organization has already communicated the wish to have .ps among its members and the intention to help the new registry.
• RIPE and RIPE/NCC (Roseau IP Europeens and Network Coordination Centre)
• RIPE is the organization where the principal Internet operators in Europe meet to discuss technical matters concerning the management of the Internet.
• The working groups that are presently active are:
• Anti-Spam Working Group-Fighting the problem of "spam" on the Internet;
• Database Working Group-The Database Working Group deals with all issues related to the RIPE NCC Database;
• EIX Working Group-European Internet Exchange's related issues and problems;
• European Operators Forum-European technical network operation related issues and problems;
• IPversion6 Working Group-IPv6 related issues and questions;
• DNS Working Group-Domain Name System questions and issues;
• Local IR Working Group-Issues and questions related to registration services and Local Internet Registries;
• Net News Working Group-NetNews related topics;
• Routing Working Group-Issues dealing with routing architecture for the European Internet; and
• Test-Traffic Working Group-Discussion of the Test Traffic project.
• The working groups on DNS and on the local IR are focused on the interests of a registry, but other working groups deserve to be followed by those interested in ensuring an ordered and self-regulating Internet environment.
• In particular, the DNS Working Group has developed and made available, for free, the software that fulfills the main functions of the registries.
• The consultants recommend that the .ps registry establish close links with the more relevant RIPE working groups. This activity may be followed in real meetings but also by participating in the working groups' mailing lists. Joining RIPE activities has no cost, apart from travel to the meetings.
• RIPE/NCC is an independent company that offers for a fee the allocation of Internet provider numbers to the European Internet service providers. The registries normally do not interact with RIPE/NCC, while the registrars of medium and large size normally establish contracts with such an organization.

• As an "open" domain, the .ps domain would compete with other ccTLDs for the registration of new names.
• Given that worldwide Internet users are now doubling every 100 days, and that one new domain name is generally associated with every 20 users, the .ps domain registration "product" has a tremendous growth potential if designed well and supported by a globally competitive business model.
• Moreover, the current growth trend is projected to rise even more steeply over the next several years, particularly as both wireless and broadband Internet usage grows.
• To take advantage of this market opportunity, the .ps domain business model has the following "product design" attributes:
• Quick response time (target-two days or less);
• Clear and simple rules (according to ICANN standards);
• Low bureaucracy in response and authentication;
• High level of service (help desk and contracts with registrars);
• Low costs;
• Competitive prices (fees to registrars);
• ICANN best practices to lower dispute resolution costs;
• Aggressive promotion to local and global markets; and
• Quality value added services through the Center of Excellence.
• The first four attributes (quick response, simple rules, low bureaucracy, and high service level) constitute the "core" design needs. These are the primary benefits sought by the registrants and registrars. If these attributes are applied, the fees may be value priced (competitive but not necessarily lower than other ccTLD fees). Also, aggressive promotion will only produce desired results if the four core attributes are in place.

• To provide quick response, registrations should be made only through the contracted registrars. (For the initial start-up period, it is recommended that the registrars collect and send registrant information to the registry for entry in the database, but the "product design" calls for direct entry on the database via the multiple registration software as soon as practicable.)
• This process, of course, requires clear and simple rules that can be understood and applied effectively by the registrars.
• We recommend an initial fee of $35 to be paid by the registrars to the registry for each name registered.
• This price is based upon a value pricing model (what the customers are likely to pay).
• The value pricing model, in turn, is based upon competitive factors (for example, Jordan's fee of $70 for the first year and $35 per year thereafter; UAE's annual fee of $55 plus a one-time registration fee of $14; and Network Solutions' fee of $35 per generic TLD name).
• For reasons of simplicity and to reduce billing costs, we recommend against applying both a one-time registration fee and an annual fee.
• The fee the registrars may charge to the registrants is left to the registrars themselves to set according to their own market calculations-those fees could be greater than, equal to, or less than the $35 fee to the registry, depending upon product bundling and other market considerations.
• The Naming Authority, of course, could review and amend the recommended fee at any time, but the following revenue projections are based upon the $35 figure.

• Revenues for each year include the annual fees for the new names as well as the annual fees for names previously registered.

• Fixed and operational costs include those for human resources, hardware and networking, software, site / space, training, Naming Authority support, travel, and Center of Excellence activities.
• The cost categories are scalable to respond to increasing demand. The total costs are projected to reach full cost recovery in Year 3.

 The projected costs for human resources in Year 1 include the following:

• 1 General Manager ($50,000)-responsible for Center of Excellence activities and business development;
• 1 Systems Engineer ($45,000)-Internet networking (DNS, routing, and basic Internet services);
• 1 Systems Engineer ($45,000)-database management, data retrieval systems, and web interfaces;
• 1 Administrative / Legal Support ($30,000);
• Data Entry Support ($40,000 total); and
• 1 Secretary ($15,000).

The projected costs for hardware and networking in Year 1 include the following:

• Primary and secondary DNS servers (~10K$); § 1 main server (~35K$); § Work stations (~16K$); § PCs (~9K$); § 1 Firewall (~20K$); § I/O equipment, fax (~20K$); § 1 router (~5K$); § LAN (~25K$); and § Internet connection (~20K$).

Notes:

• The projected costs for software in Year 1 include software licenses plus some application packages development.
• The projected costs for site/space in Year 1 are based upon a requirement for 100 square meters.
• The projected costs for training include both in-country training and training at other ccTLD sites (particularly for the systems engineers).
• The projected costs for Naming Authority support include expenses to support of the activities of the Working Groups (Structure, Technical, Policy, Business Model, Legal, Value-Added Services).
• The projected costs for travel include expenses for travel to ICANN, CENTR, and RIPE meetings.
• The projected costs for the Center of Excellence include expenses for promotional and educational activities. These costs are projected to increase each year as the Center becomes more involved in promoting Internet access, usage, and content in cooperation with the local Internet community.

• Funds will be needed to capitalize the start-up of the .ps domain. Projected Year 1 costs exceed projected Year 1 revenues by $440,000, and projected Year 2 costs exceed projected Year 2 revenues by $140,000. The combined two-year shortfall amounts to $580,000.
• We recommend that the non-profit organization (foundation) that is created for the registry be capitalized in the amount of the two-year shortfall ($580,000). As revenues are projected to exceed costs by $250,000 in Year 3, further capital funding is not projected.
• We recommend that USAID and possibly other donors invest in the foundation for the start-up of the registry (including both the Naming Authority and the Registration Service). Foundation members coming from the local Internet community might also invest by cash and/or in-kind contributions. The latter might include an in-kind provision of space.
• Although the initial capitalization should amount to $580,000, the immediate start-up funding requirements are approximately $410,000 (first nine months of Year 1 costs).
• Given the Year 3 income projections (revenues less costs), the initial capitalization investments could be returned after Year 3 or re-invested for expanded activities on behalf of the local Internet community through the Center of Excellence. Reinvestment would bolster efforts to realize the vision and meet strategic objectives for Internet growth.

• A minimal solution would entail no Center of Excellence. We do not recommend it because the Center of Excellence is key reaching the vision, strategic objectives, and economic targets.
• If implemented, a minimal solution would have marginally lower costs (primarily the elimination costs for the General Manager and the Center's activities) and markedly lower revenues (through the lack of aggressive promotion). Without aggressive promotion, the projected number of registered names would be at least 50 percent less than those achieved under the optimal solution. Projected revenues and costs for a minimal solution are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Under a minimal solution, the projected shortfalls would be $382,500 in Year 1 and $202,500 in Year 2. Full-cost recovery in Year 3 could be attained only by fully constraining all cost categories, allowing only for a minimal increase in human resources to help meet increased demand. The combined shortfall for Years 1 and 2 would amount to $585,00 (about the same of the optimal solution).

Because of the negative revenue effects of a .ps domain without a Center of Excellence, the minimal solution is not cost effective.

• Given the tight timeline for establishing the registry as a foundation that can have a Registration Service open for business by October 1, 2000, it might be necessary for the Naming Authority to commence registration services through a term-limited contract (nine months). If so, contract provisions should be made according to the optimal revenue and cost projections of Year 1.
• Total income projections should not change from those of the optimal solution, as the General Manager should still be implementing the activities of a Center of Excellence.

• It is of the utmost urgency to activate the Naming Authority as the body representing the local Internet community, which, in the first phase, will monitor the activation of the registry as planned. The Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC) is expected to legitimize the Naming Authority, based on the IANA delegation of .ps domain. The composition of the Naming Authority was presented by the consultants in the second workshop, and a broad consensus was achieved on the following structure of the Naming Authority:

• The consultants suggest that the MOPIC legitimize with a decree of any other formal act the composition of the Naming Authority, asking to this body to do all is needed to be ready to start operations by October 1, 2000. The nomination of the individual members of the Naming Authority should be left to the mentioned constituencies.

• Concerning the government representation in the Naming Authority, the consultants feel that a status of observers of the representatives of the interested administrations should be more appropriate than having governmental voting members inside the Naming Authority. The consultants have no specific recommendation on the form of representation of the government, other than that the number of representatives should be low.

• To have a smooth take-off of the registry activity, some measures have to be taken before the structure to run the registry consolidates. The consultants then suggest that the Naming Authority should approve initial rules and procedures envisaging:
• The registry to be initially closed (accept registrations only by residents in the West Bank and Gaza);
• The registry to be flat (no second-level domains with possible exception for few chartered second-level domain);
• Only one name per registrant;
• No registration for physical persons;
• Broad exclusion of protected names; and
• Contracts with the registrars should be established but billing deferred.
• These initial restrictions should be progressively relaxed as the Naming Authority develops and the target rules are established.
• Rule changes should be transparent, open to public review, and communicated to ICANN.

• The interested parties should do their best to have the not-for-profit organization in place by October 1, 2000. If this target is met, the not-for-profit organization should be able to start the registration service.
• If this will not be possible, the Naming Authority should establish the start-up Registration Service under a term-limited contract (9 months).

• The consultants recommend that the Naming Authority:
• Have a contract in place by October 1, 2000, according to ICANN best practices;
• Limit to Palestinian licensed Internet service providers in the first instance; and
• Instruct registrars in how to collect data and prepare information to be sent to the registry for entry on the database.

• The time from now to the target date of October 1, 2000, is very short and therefore a very tight timeline is proposed:
• August 15, 2000 Naming Authority legitimized
• August 15- Initial rules and contract with the registrars October 1, 2000 are established
• October 1, 2000 Registration Service launched
• October 15, 2000 Foundation created
• In order to meet this timeline, it is essential that the MOPIC begin the process to legitimize the Naming Authority as soon as possible. In tandem, the local Internet community should begin nominating its representatives to the Naming Authority and initiate the work of the working groups on the critical issues of structure, technical matters, policy, business plan/model legal affairs, and value-added services.
• Once legitimized, the Naming Authority should be in a position, through DAI, to discuss possible funding support with investors such as USAID to reach the objectives outlined in this report.