Applicant Information

Does or will this RSP have a publicly verifiable, third-party certification (e.g. ISO 27001) held directly by the organization and relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls to manage physical access to infrastructure and systems, including building access controls, security cameras and/or other sensors, physical environmental monitoring and safety equipment, and alarm systems related to the physical infrastructure?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls to manage non-physical access to infrastructure, including network access from both internal systems and external Internet systems, intrusion detection systems, security information and event management systems, network firewalls, network segmentation and isolation, user identification and authentication, and authorization schemes?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes and controls pertaining to the selection of vendors and equipment suppliers, management and maintenance of assets while in use, procurement of assets, and safe disposal of assets?

Yes

Does or will this RSP routinely renew and keep safe all cryptographic material necessary for the operation of the RSP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP secure (e.g. encryption, tamper detection, etc…) at-rest data relevant to the operation of the RSP, including but not limited to DNSSEC if applicable?

Yes

Does or will this RSP secure (e.g. encryption, tamper detection, etc…) in-transit data relevant to the operation of the RSP, including but not limited to DNSSEC if applicable?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP have security controls for data in virtualized environments, including controls relevant to both on-premises or private virtualization environments as well as public clouds, network isolation, memory isolation, process isolation, and hypervisor access controls?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have a senior executive primarily in charge of and responsible for security?

Yes

Does or will this RSP conduct background checks, both initial and on-going, of personnel and vendors relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement BCP 38?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement routing security of some nature, such as automated route filters, RPKI route origin validation, or other operational practices defined by the Internet Society and Global Cyber Alliance's Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS)?

Yes

Describe the processes and procedures to be used to practice and ensure a successful KSK rollover for both emergency and non-emergency situations, including coordination with the DNSSEC RSP and IANA.

Please see the attachment.

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the maintenance of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the maintenance, upgrading, and patching of software relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the lifecycle of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented, regular, and active practices for the secure development of software?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the maintenance of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the maintenance, upgrading, and patching of software relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the lifecycle of hardware relevant to the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented contingency plans for extraordinary scenarios regarding the development of software?

Yes

Does or will this RSP use Infrastructure-as-Code (IaC) to manage all systems relevant to operation of the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP use automated orchestration to manage all systems relevant to the operation of the registry services under application?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have at least two Tier III (as defined here: https://uptimeinstitute.com/tiers) or equivalent data centers having no inter-dependencies?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have on-site backups of registration data?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have off-site backups of registration data?

Yes

Does or will this RSP practice data retention policies with regard to backups of registration data?

Yes

Does or will this RSP practice documented standards regarding media and data backups for registration data?

Yes

Does or will this RSP practice regularly scheduled validation of registration data backups, separately from recovery practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP practice regularly scheduled recovery of registration data backups?

Yes

Does or will this RSP forbid the use of production data in testing and/or development environments?

Yes

Does or will this RSP encrypt registration data at-rest in the data store?

Yes

Does or will this RSP encrypt registration data in-transit to and from the data store?

Yes

Does or will this RSP regularly and frequently renew the cryptographic material used for the encryption of registration data both at-rest and in-transit with regard to the data store in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP keep safe the cryptographic material used for the encryption of registration data both at-rest and in-transit with regard to the data store in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP use modern and known-secure cryptographic algorithms for the encryption of registration data at-rest and in-transit with regard to the data store?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5730 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5731 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Domain Name Mapping”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5734 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 5910 (“Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 5732 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Host Mapping”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 5733 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Contact Mapping”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 8334 (“Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

If applicable, does or will this RSP implement RFC 8748 (“Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP forbid access to contacts via EPP to registrars other than the sponsoring registrar?

Yes

Provide a list of all EPP extensions to be used that are registered in the IANA EPP extensions registry, and an attestation that all EPP extensions to be used are registered with the IANA as per RFC 7451 (“Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol”).

The EPP extensions used in the ZDNS system are listed as follows(Extension, namespace): Registry Fee Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:fee-1.0 Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 Launch Phase Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:launch-1.0 Domain Name System (DNS) Security Extensions Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:secDNS-1.1 Internationalized Domain Name Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:idn-1.0 Allocation Token Extension for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP),urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:allocationToken-1.0 After comparison with (https://www.iana.org/assignments/epp-extensions/epp-extensions.xhtml), all EPP extensions have been registered here.

Does or will this RSP forgo the use of any EPP extensions which are not registered with the IANA as per RFC 7451 (“Extension Registry for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement and operate EPP according to the performance requirements defined in the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have controls to prevent EPP misuse and ensure all registrars have fair and equal access to EPP per the standards established in Specification 9 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9325 (“Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)”) notwithstanding RFC 5734 (“Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) Transport over TCP”)? Note: while RFC 9325 covers TLS and DTLS, EPP only uses TLS.

Yes

Does or will this RSP regularly and frequently renew the cryptographic material used to secure EPP communications in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP keep safe the cryptographic material used to secure EPP communication in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 3 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with respect to EPP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP compartmentalize (e.g. virtualization) the EPP service in such a manner that each compartment (e.g. containers, virtual machines, physical machines) is dedicated to EPP (excluding system services such as monitoring, remote access and NTP)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 7480 (“HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 7481 (“Security Services for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 8521 (“Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging”) for all currently operated gTLDs?

Yes

Does this RSP plan to continue to implement RFC 8521 (“Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Object Tagging”) for all gTLDs operated in the future?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9082 (“Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Query Format”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9083 (“JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9224 (“Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service”) for all currently operated gTLDs?

Yes

Will this RSP implement RFC 9224 (“Finding the Authoritative Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) Service”) for all gTLDs operated in the future?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement the ICANN gTLD RDAP Technical Implementation Guide?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement the ICANN gTLD RDAP Response Profile?

Yes

Provide a list of all RDAP extensions to be used.

The ZDNS RDAP query system is currently implemented in full accordance with the 2024 RDAP specification, and the RDAP extensions involved are: icann_rdap_response_profile_0 icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_0 icann_rdap_response_profile_1 icann_rdap_technical_implementation_guide_1 redacted In addition, no other RDAP extensions are used.

Does or will this RSP forgo the use of any RDAP extensions which are not registered with the IANA as per RFC 7480 (“HTTP Usage in the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP)”)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in the Service Level Agreements specified in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement methods to prevent mining of registration data via RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP implement RFC 9325 (“Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)”) with respect to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP regularly and frequently renew the cryptographic material used to secure RDAP communications in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP keep safe the cryptographic material used to secure RDAP communication in accordance with industry best common practices?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 3 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with respect to RDAP?

Yes

Does or will this RSP compartmentalize (e.g. virtualization) the RDAP service in such a manner that each compartment (e.g. containers, virtual machines, physical machines) is dedicated to RDAP (excluding system services such as monitoring, remote access and NTP)?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP and IPv4?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to EPP and IPv4?

Yes

Does or will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to RDAP and IPv6?

Yes

Will this RSP meet the standards established in Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024) with regard to EPP and IPv6 if requested by a registrar?

Yes

Will this RSP provide tools and mechanisms to Registry Operators for the purposes of automated processing and identification of abusive domain registrations.

Yes

Describe the EPP and RDAP status values as they relate to domain name registrations considered to be abusive registrations and those not considered to be abusive registrations.

The system provides automated tools to handle and identify abusive domain registrations. When identified as an abusive registration, the system adds a special status to the domain, which is reflected as an EPP serverHold status and an RDAP server hold status. In the domain registration process, domain registration supports real-name verification. Domains that have not passed real-name verification will be assigned the aforementioned status. After a domain has been successfully registered, if it is subsequently identified by the automated mechanism as an abusive domain, the system will also assign the aforementioned status to the domain. For domains that are not abusive registrations, the system generally does not add a serverHold status (RDAP status is server hold). However, this does not mean that when a domain is a serverHold status, it is an abusive domain.

Describe the EPP and RDAP status values and their applicability to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS).

URS Lock: A combination of statuses that prevents a domain name from being updated, transferred or deleted. A request to activate a URS Lock will come from the URS Provider to the Registry Operator as specified by the URS Rules. The Registry Operator MUST activate the following EPP-statuses when a domain name is in URS Lock:serverUpdateProhibited ,serverTransferProhibited ,serverDeleteProhibited The corresponding RDAP status is：server update prohibited,server transfer prohibited,server delete prohibited URS Suspension: A domain name MAY be suspended as part of the final decision of a URS Complaint (as defined in the URS Rules). A URS Suspended domain name will be redirected to a webpage that mentions that the domain name has been suspended because of a URS Complaint. In order to redirect a URS Suspended domain name to the suspension website, the URS Provider will specify the NS and dsData (including keyData) information (if the URS Provider does not support DNSSEC, the Registry Operator MUST remove the old DS records) to the Registry Operator in the email that instructs the Registry Operator to suspend the domain name. Non-URS State (URS Rollback): This is the state of a domain name that is not under either URS Lock or URS Suspension. If the domain name is in URS Lock or URS Suspension, and if the URS Provider requests that the domain name be transitioned to a Non-URS State, the Registry Operator MUST restore the original information of the domain name. The reversion of a domain name to a Non-URS State is referred to as a URS Rollback.

Does or will this RSP implement the Registry Operator-related elements of RFC9361

Yes

Describe all potential registration lifecycle(s) of domain names supported in the system.

The system has established the domain lifecycle based on ICANN's relevant RFC sDtandards and actual business needs, including: Available, Preaudit, Registered, Autorenew Period, Redemption Period, and Pending Delete. Among these, Preaudit is an optional lifecycle phase added to ensure that domain registration complies with local policies and regulations. After a domain is created, it first enters the Preaudit lifecycle phase (EPP status is pendingCreate, RGP status is N/A). Following a manual review by the registry, the domain officially takes effect and enters the Registered lifecycle phase (EPP status is serverTransferProhibited for the first 60 days, then changes to ok; RGP status is addPeriod for the first 5 days, then changes to N/A), with the review process taking no more than 5 working days. The diagram below illustrates the lifecycle transition process of a domain from creation, activation, expiration to its final deletion.

Describe the registration lifecycle(s) of domain names with respect to EPP status values and RDAP status values.

Please see the attachment.

Describe the nameserver host lifecycle, including relevance to EPP and RDAP status values, with respect to the lifecycle of domain names. This should include a description of nameservers as either attributes of domains or as host objects.

Please see the attachment.

If applicable, describe the contact lifecycle, including relevance to EPP and RDAP status values, with respect to the lifecycle of domain names and nameservers. Include a description of the deletion of orphaned contacts.

Please see the attachment.

Does or will this RSP be capable of removing orphaned glue in accordance with the standards established in Specification 6 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024)?

Yes

Describe how this RSP will meet the standards established in Specification 2 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024), and describe any other data escrow processes. This includes escrow extensions for data related additional registry services.

We implement Data Escrow in the following ways to meet the requirements of Specification 2 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024): Scope of Data Escrow: Data Escrow covers domain registration data within the platform. Categories of Data Escrow Performed: Data Escrow uses the Full category for data escrow, archiving data up to 23:59:59 UTC of the current day. Frequency of Data Escrow: A Full category data escrow is performed daily. Format Specifications for Data Escrow Files: Data Escrow files are generated in compliance with RFC 8909 and RFC 9022, using UTF-8 character encoding. Data Integrity and Confidentiality: Original files are compressed by tar files. GnuPG is used to encrypt the files and calculate signatures, ensuring the security and integrity of the escrowed data. Notification of Data Escrow: Along with the data escrow files, a rep file is uploaded to the escrow provider's SFTP server to report the details of the data included in the escrow. This report is submitted to ICANN by Data Escrow. Naming Conventions for Files: Data Escrow adheres to the "file naming rules" defined in Specification 2 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024). Verification and Troubleshooting of Data Escrow: The data escrow provider verifies the data escrow files uploaded by Data Escrow. Upon receiving the escrow notification from the escrow provider, if the data escrow process fails, Data Escrow will repeat the escrow process every 24 hours until the data escrow succeeds.

Does or will this RSP regularly exercise registry continuity actions?

Yes

Does or will this RSP be capable of transferring all applicable operations to another RSP as defined by the Material Subcontracting Arrangement Technical Questions?

Yes

Does or will this RSP participate in coordinated Emergency Back-end Registry Operator (EBERO) transitions, including but not limited to maintaining the DNSSEC chain of trust, of hosted gTLDs when the business relationship of this RSP and the Registry Operator is not in good standing?

Yes

Does or will this RSP monitor for faults inside its own network?

Yes

Does or will this RSP monitor for faults from a point outside any of its own networks?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented processes for aggregation and triage of faults?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have documented processes to mitigate faults once detected?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have processes to minimize faults during maintenance of systems, including both automated processes and manual change control processes?

Yes

Does or will this RSP have personnel capable of reacting to and mitigating faults 24 hours per day of every day of every year of service?

Yes

Provide documentation regarding any RSP functions currently being served for any gTLD, the domain names of the gTLDs, and all service disruptions for each gTLD in the past six months, where a service disruption is defined by Specification 10 of the ICANN Registry Agreement (version 2024).

The list of gTLD currently being served is as follow: xn--czru2d wang ren xn--ses554g xn--6qq986b3xl xn--fiq64b xn--3bst00m sohu xn--czr694b citic top xn--45q11c xn--hxt814e xn--9et52u xn--30rr7y xn--imr513n xn--efvy88h baidu xn--otu796d xn--8y0a063a unicom icbc redstone There have been no RDDS alerts in the past six months.