Document:

Exhibit 10.4

 

	
  North American Numbering Plan Administration

  	
  

  

 

May 12, 2003

 

Mr. Mark Oakey

Contracting Officer

FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC  20554

 

RE:          Solicitation No.:
SOL03000001

North American Numbering Plan Administrator

 

Dear Mr. Oakey:

 

Please find enclosed an Original and five (5) copies
of NeuStar, Inc.’s Technical and Management Proposal, Volume 1, in response to
the above-referenced solicitation.  The
Proposal is compliant in all respects with the instructions to offerors set
forth in the Solicitation, and NeuStar, Inc. will fully comply with all
delivery requirements set forth in Sections C and G of the Solicitation and the
NANPA Technical Requirements Document (TRD) attached to the solicitation. In addition,
NeuStar, Inc. hereby acknowledges receipt of the Commission’s answers dated
April 17, 2003 in response to Bidders’ questions. For convenience of
evaluators, and as required, NeuStar has cross-referenced its proposal response
with the evaluation criteria and applicable requirements set forth in
Solicitation Sections L.5 and M and the TRD. This cross-reference is provided
within parentheses in the table of contents and in the sections themselves.

 

During the last five plus years, NeuStar, Inc. has
successfully served as the NANPA, providing consistently improved service to
the Commission and other stakeholders. 
Our solution epitomizes best value from: 1) unmatched NANP
administration experience, 2) outstanding past NANPA performance, 3) a new
state-of-the-art NANP Administration System, 4) a guaranteed seamless and
low-risk progression to the next NANPA term, and 5) a low fixed price.

 

We look forward to continuing our role as the
NANPA.  Should you have any questions, or
need any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at (571)
434-5580.  I am NeuStar’s authorized
negotiator for this proposal, and am authorized to bind NeuStar to any contract
resulting herefrom.

 

Very truly yours,

NeuStar, Inc.

 

 

Gregory J.A. Roberts

Vice President, Numbering Services

 

Enclosures

 

Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this
proposal.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

	
  PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.

  	
  TECHNICAL
  FACTORS

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1

  	
  NANP
  ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM TECHNICAL APPROACH (RFP L.5, M.2.A.1, TRD 7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1

  	
  NAS
  Functionality (TRD 7.2, 7.18)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1.1

  	
  Website (TRD 7.1.2, 7.7, 7.9, 7.11, 7.18, 7.19)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1.2

  	
  Numbering Resource Administration (TRD 7.1.3,
  7.4, 7.18.1-2, 7.18.6-7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1.3

  	
  Forecasting (TRD 7.4.3, 7.18.1, 7.18.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1.4

  	
  Notification (TRD 7.4.1, 7.7.9, 7.9.1, 7.11,
  7.18.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.1.5

  	
  Reporting (TRD 7.1.2, 7.9, 7.18)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.2

  	
  NAS
  Architecture (TRD 7.1.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.2.1

  	
  Hardware (TRD 7.6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.2.2

  	
  Software (TRD 7.1.2, 7.4, 7.12)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.2.3

  	
  Interfaces and Electronic Data Transmission
  (TRD 7.1, 7.2, 7.4.2-5, 7.7.1, 7.9.1, 7.10, 7.19.7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.3

  	
  NAS Architectural Robustness (TRD 7.19.4, 7.19.6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.3.1

  	
  Sizing and Scalability (TRD 7.1.3, 7.19.5)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.3.2

  	
  Availability (TRD 7.1.1, 7.19.5-6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.4

  	
  NAS Security Approach (TRD 2.13, 7.2, 7.4.2, 7.6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.4.1

  	
  Infrastructure Level (TRD 2.13)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.4.2

  	
  Web Application Interface (TRD 2.13.4, 7.1.2,
  7.7.8)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.4.3

  	
  EFT Interface (TRD 7.4.3-4, 7.7.8)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.5

  	
  NAS Infrastructure Management

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.5.1

  	
  Data Management, Integrity, Storage, and
  Retrieval (TRD 7.2, 7.4.1)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.5.2

  	
  Enterprise Management

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.5.3

  	
  Network Management

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  I.1.5.4

  	
  Backup and Recovery (TRD 7.13, 7.14)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.5.5

  	
  Maintenance Approach (TRD 7.1.1, 7.5, 7.19.7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.6

  	
  NAS Operational Capabilities

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.6.1

  	
  Facility Locations (TRD 7.3, 7.8)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.6.2

  	
  Help Desk (TRD 7.10)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.1.6.3

  	
  Technical Staff

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2

  	
  Implementation Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, entire
  TRD)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1

  	
  Overall Project Plan (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD 2.14,
  7.7.1)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.1

  	
  Automated NANP System Development and
  Implementation Phase

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.2

  	
  NANP Administration Systems and Service
  Implementation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.3

  	
  Transition to NANP Administration Phase

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.4

  	
  Reporting Phase

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.5

  	
  Industry Meetings (Travel Phase)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.6

  	
  Data Requirements-CDRLs Phase

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.1.7

  	
  Ongoing Operations Phase

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.2

  	
  Staff Management Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD
  2.5)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.3

  	
  Risk Management Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3,
  entire TRD)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.4

  	
  Change Control Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD 2,
  4, 7,10)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.4.1

  	
  Software Change Control Approach (RFP L.5,
  M.2.A.3, TRD 7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.4.2

  	
  Guidelines and Directives Change Control (RFP
  L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD 2.10, 4.1, 7, 10.6, 10.7)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.5

  	
  Quality Assurance Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD
  7, 9)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.5.1

  	
  Software Quality Assurance (L.5, TRD 7,
  M.2.A.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.5.2

  	
  Audits and Performance Monitoring (RFP M.2.A.3,
  TRD 9)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.6

  	
  Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (RFP
  M.2.A.3, TRD 10)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.2.7

  	
  Reporting (RFP M.2.A.3, TRD 7, 8)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3

  	
  NANPA Administrative Functions (RFP L5, M.2.A.2,
  TRD 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8)

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  I.3.1

  	
  Central Office Code Administration (RFP L.5,
  M.1.A.2, TRD 4,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.1

  	
  Client Services (RFP L.5, M.1.A.2, TRD 4.2.1)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.2

  	
  CO Code Processing (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD
  4.2.2)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.3

  	
  Communication and Notification Functions (RFP
  L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.4

  	
  Status Reporting (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.4,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.5

  	
  Tracking CO Code Utilization for NPA Relief
  (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.5,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.6

  	
  Management of Jeopardy Conditions (RFP M.2.A.2,
  TRD 4.2.6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.7

  	
  Management of Code Inventory (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD
  4.3,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.1.8

  	
  Resource Reclamation (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 4.4)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2

  	
  NPA Relief Planning (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.5,
  5.0, 8.3,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.1

  	
  Relief Timing (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.1,
  5.1.4,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.2

  	
  NPA Relief Planning (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD
  4.2.5, 5.1.2 to 5.1.10, 5.1.16, 8.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.3

  	
  Status Reporting (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.5,
  5.1.9, 8.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.4

  	
  NPA Code Assignment (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD
  5.1.11)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.5

  	
  Implementation (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.12)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.2.6

  	
  Meeting Other TRD Section 5 Requirements (RFP
  M.2.A.2, TRD 5, 5.1.16, 5.2)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3

  	
  Utilization and Forecasting (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2,
  TRD 6)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3.1

  	
  Data Request (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.1,
  6.12, 6.1.3, 6.1.7, 6.4)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3.2

  	
  Data Analysis (RFP L5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.3,
  6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.10, 6.1.11, 6.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3.3

  	
  Data Reporting (RFP L5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.5,
  6.1.6, 6.1.8, 6.1.9, 6.3.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3.4

  	
  Data Aggregation (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.8)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.3.5

  	
  Data Anomalies and Trends (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2,
  TRD 6.1.11, 6.2, 6.3.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I.3.4

  	
  NANP Administration (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 3,)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.

  	
  MANAGEMENT FACTORS (RFP L.5, M.2.B)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.1

  	
  Past Performance (RFP L.5, M.2.B.1)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.2

  	
  Key Personnel (RFP L.5, M.2.B.2, H.5, H.7)

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  II.3

  	
  Management Organization (RFP L.5, M.2.B.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.3.1

  	
  NANPA Functional Organization

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.3.2

  	
  How NANPA Fits in with Overall Corporate Goals
  (RFP L.5, M.2.B.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.3.3

  	
  How NeuStar will Guarantee Neutrality (RFP L.5,
  M.2.B.3, H.8.B.3)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II.4

  	
  Communication Approach and Escalation Procedures
  for Establishing and Maintaining Interfaces (RFP L.5, M.2.B.4, TRD 2.17)

  	
   

  

 

 

LIST OF EXHIBITS

 

	
  I-1

  	
  Transformation of NeuStar’s NANPA System
  Architecture

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-2

  	
  Standard Application Process Flow

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-3

  	
  NANP Administration System Architecture

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-4

  	
  NAS Application Architecture

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-5

  	
  Communications Facilities

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-6

  	
  Abridged Project Plan

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-7

  	
  Staff Category/Hour Chart

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-8

  	
  Change Control Process

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-9

  	
  Change Management Plan for
  Modification of Guidelines

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-10

  	
  NeuStar’s Quality Assurance Approach
  to Software Development

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-11

  	
  NeuStar Quality Management Approach

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-12

  	
  Central Office Code Processing
  Assignment Request

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-13

  	
  NeuStar’s NPA Relief Planning Process

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-14

  	
  NeuStar’s NRUF Reporting Process

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-1

  	
  NeuStar’s NANPA Organization

  	
   

  

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

	
  I-1

  	
  NAS Hardware (per site)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-2

  	
  Electronic Data Transmission Means Supported

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-3

  	
  System Availability

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-4

  	
  Relevant Facts About NeuStar’s NAS Location

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-5

  	
  Software Development Phases

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-6

  	
  Planning and Implementation Activities

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-7

  	
  NAS Implementation Assessment and Mitigation
  Approach

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-8

  	
  NeuStar’s 33 Performance Measurements and
  Related Metrics

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-9

  	
  NANPA Contract Data Requirements

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-10

  	
  NANPA Reports

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-11

  	
  Central Office Code Application Material
  Checklist

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-12

  	
  Central Office Code Application Evaluation
  Criteria

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-13

  	
  Data Elements Used in Forecasting NPA
  Exhaust

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-14

  	
  NPA Exhaust Report – Sorted by State

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-15

  	
  Error and Anomalies Detected During
  Submission Process

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  I-16

  	
  Key Points – Administering NANP Resources

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-1

  	
  Meeting the Criteria

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-2

  	
  NeuStar NANPA Organization Job Descriptions

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-3

  	
  Interfaces

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-4

  	
  Severity Definitions

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-5

  	
  Escalation Sequence

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  II-6

  	
  Escalation Contact List

  	
   

  

 

 

ACRONYMS

 

	
   

  	
  ANI II

  	
  Automated Number Identification Information
  Indicator

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ANSI

  	
  American National Standards Institute

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  AOCN

  	
  Administrative Operating Company Number

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ATIS

  	
  Alliance for
  Telecommunications Industry Solutions

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  B2B

  	
  Business-to-Business

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BIRRDS

  	
  Business Integrated Routing
  and Rating System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BPS

  	
  Bits Per Second

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CARE

  	
  Customer Account Record
  Exchange

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CAS

  	
  Code Administration System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CDRL

  	
  Contract Data Requirements
  List

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CIC

  	
  Carrier Identification Code

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CLEC

  	
  Competitive Local Exchange
  Carrier

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
  Contract Line Item Number

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CMM

  	
  Capability Maturity Model

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CMRS

  	
  Commercial Mobile Radio Service

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CSR

  	
  Customer Service Representative

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CA

  	
  Code Administrator

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CO

  	
  Central Office

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  COCUS

  	
  Central Office Code
  Utilization Survey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  COTR

  	
  Contract Officer’s Technical
  Representative

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CSR

  	
  Customer Service
  Representative

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  CVS

  	
  Concurrent Version System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  D/FR

  	
  Director, Federal Relations

  	
   

  

 

 

	
   

  	
  D/LA

  	
  Director, Legal Analysis

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  D/SR

  	
  Director, State Relations

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  D-SQM

  	
  Director, Software Quality
  Management

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DCAA

  	
  Defense Contract Audit
  Agency

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DBA

  	
  Database Administrator

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DBMS

  	
  Database Management System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DDS

  	
  Document Distribution Service

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DIR

  	
  Director

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EFT

  	
  Electronic File Transfer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EJB

  	
  Enterprise Java Beans

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  FAQ

  	
  Frequently Asked Questions

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  FCC

  	
  Federal Communication
  Commission

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  FTP

  	
  File Transfer Protocol

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  FRS

  	
  Functional Requirements
  Specification

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  GUI

  	
  Graphical User Interface

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  HA

  	
  High Availability

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  HP

  	
  Hewlett-Packard

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ICANN

  	
  Internet Corporation for
  Assigned Names and Numbers

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  IDS

  	
  Intrusion Detection System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  IETF

  	
  Internet Engineering Task
  Force

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INC

  	
  Industry Numbering Committee

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  IPD

  	
  Initial Planning Documents

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ITU

  	
  International Telecommunications Union

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  J2EE

  	
  Java 2 Enterprise Edition

  	
   

  

 

 

	
   

  	
  JDBC

  	
  Java Database Connectivity

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  JSP

  	
  Java Server Pages

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  LERG

  	
  Local Exchange Routing Guide

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  LNP(A)

  	
  Local Number Portability
  (Administration)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  M

  	
  Million

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  M/NIL

  	
  Manager, NRUF and Industry
  Liaison

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MSA

  	
  Metropolitan Statistical
  Area

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MTBF

  	
  Mean Time Between Failure

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MTTR

  	
  Mean Time to Repair

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NANC

  	
  North American Numbering Council

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NANP(A)

  	
  North American Numbering Plan (Administrator)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NAS

  	
  NANP Administration System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NENA

  	
  National Emergency Number Association

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NOC

  	
  Network Operations Center

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NOWG

  	
  Numbering Oversight Working Group

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NPA

  	
  National Pooling Administration

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NPAC

  	
  Number Portability
  Administration Center

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NPSM

  	
  Number Portability
  Subscription Manager

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NRM

  	
  NANP Resources Manager

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NRO

  	
  Number Resource Optimization

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NRUF

  	
  Numbering Resource Utilization Forecast

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NXX

  	
  Term used interchangeably with central office code
  and refers to the fourth, fifth, and sixth digits of a 10-digit telephone
  number (N = 2-9, X = 0-9)

  	
   

  

 

 

	
   

  	
  OBF

  	
  Ordering and Billing Forum

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OCN

  	
  Operating Company Number

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OLTP

  	
  Online Transaction Processing

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  OSS

  	
  Operation Support Systems

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PA

  	
  Pooling Administration

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PAS

  	
  Pooling Administration
  System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PDF

  	
  Portable Document Format

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PIP

  	
  Performance Improvement Plan

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PM

  	
  Program Manager

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PMBOK

  	
  Project Management Body of Knowledge

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  PMI

  	
  Project Management Institute

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  RAID

  	
  Redundant Array of Independent Disks

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  RBOCS

  	
  Regional Bell Operating Companies

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  RD-CA

  	
  Regional Director, Code Administration

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  RDBS/BRIDS

  	
  Routing DataBase System and Bellcore Rating Input
  Database

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  RFP

  	
  Request for Proposal

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SA

  	
  Systems Administrator

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SAA

  	
  Senior AOCN Administrator

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SCA-QA

  	
  Senior Code Administrator,
  Quality Assurance Manager

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SEI

  	
  Software Engineering Institute

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SM/DA

  	
  Senior Manager, Data Analysis

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SNMP

  	
  Simple Network Management Protocol

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SMS

  	
  Service Management System

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SNA

  	
  Senior NRUF Administrator

  	
   

  

 

 

	
   

  	
  SNRP

  	
  Senior NPA Relief Planner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SE

  	
  Systems Engineer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SP

  	
  Service Provider

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SPOF

  	
  Single Points of Failure

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SSE

  	
  Senior Systems Engineer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TCP/IP

  	
  Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TLD

  	
  Top-Level Domain

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  TRD

  	
  Technical Requirements Document

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  UML

  	
  Unified Modeling Language

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  UNP

  	
  Unassigned Number Porting

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  US

  	
  United States

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  USP

  	
  Uninterrupted Power Supply

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  VoIP

  	
  Voice Over Internet Protocol

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  VSC

  	
  Vertical Service Code

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  WiFi

  	
  Wireless Fidelity

  	
   

  

 

 

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

 

NeuStar’s “best value” NANPA offering will provide the Commission and
the industry with the highest quality and lowest risk solution, delivered by a
vendor with unmatched experience and unassailable neutrality.

 

During the past five-plus years, the U.S.
telecommunications market has been defined by change. The passage of the 1996
Telecommunications Act and subsequent increase in local competition, coupled
with the emergence of new telecommunications technologies and services, propelled
the demand for numbering resources to an all-time high during NeuStar’s first
term as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). These changes
necessitated new FCC rules governing the use of numbering resources. Under
these new rules, NeuStar managed the unprecedented demand for numbering
resources with impeccable performance. NeuStar’s proposal for the second
five-year NANPA term is built on this solid foundation. By continuing to serve
as the NANPA, NeuStar can be a key constant in this time of continuous change.
In the process, the Commission can be assured that NeuStar is determined to
surpass its own outstanding record of performance.

 

NeuStar offers the Commission and the industry two
factors that are simply unavailable from any other vendor: unmatched experience
and unassailable neutrality.  In addition
to these corporate qualities, NeuStar’s integrated operations and technology
solution offers the highest quality and lowest risk.  NeuStar further sets itself apart from the
competition by offering this high-quality, low-risk solution at a competitive
price, thus demonstrably providing “best value” to the Commission.

 

Unmatched Experience

 

NeuStar’s numerous accomplishments during the first NANPA term are the
foundation for the second term.

 

NeuStar’s administration of vital numbering resources
has been a steady and reliable beacon throughout this period of competitive
upheaval in telecommunications.  Since
its selection by the Commission in 1997 as the first and only impartial NANPA,
NeuStar has effectively and efficiently administered the NANP, working
cooperatively with the FCC to

 

 

rigorously implement the Commission’s numbering orders and rules
throughout this turbulent time.  NeuStar
served as the Commission’s instrument to enact the bold, innovative measures
needed to ensure the viability of the NANP. 
In the final analysis, NeuStar not only has managed numbering resources,
but has also managed the impact of dramatic industry changes on these critical
resources.  Some highlights of NeuStar’s
accomplishments during the first NANPA term include:

 

•                  Successfully
transitioning various numbering administration functions from several different
administrators and, soon thereafter, processing over three times the normal
demand for CO codes within the required 10 business days 99.3% of the time,
using new FCC rules;

 

•                  Designing,
developing, and deploying: (i) a comprehensive Document Distribution Service
(DDS) to deliver NPA relief planning and other documents to stakeholders and
(ii) three generations of the Code Administration System (CAS), an automated
central office code processing system, allowing online entry and tracking of
applications for codes;

 

•                  Planning eight
times the normal demand for Numbering Plan Area (NPA) relief projects in 42
states and completing 99% of the projects on time;

 

•                  Designing and
developing new and innovative methods and algorithms for forecasting NPA and
NANP exhaust and updating NANP exhaust studies annually, capturing the latest
usage trends and the impact of the Commission’s numbering resource optimization
strategies;

 

•                  Designing,
developing, deploying, and enhancing a new data utilization and reporting program
known as Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecast (NRUF) to monitor resource
usage and to provide insight into consumption trends; and

 

•                  Initiating the
reclamation of unused CO codes within six months of their effective date, resulting
in thousands of codes being returned to the available inventory of resources,
thus avoiding premature exhaust of the NANP.

 

As a result of its experience as NANPA and other
third-party administrative services, NeuStar fully understands that the NANPA
is a comprehensive service
solution, not merely a system solution.  Other vendors, who solely have a
technology-oriented focus, likely will neither understand all of the Commission’s
NANPA requirements, nor grasp how to provision the NANPA services with
unassailable neutrality and efficiency. Like technology-oriented vendors,

 

 

NeuStar builds and integrates sophisticated systems on aggressive
schedules, selects the best hardware and third-party software components,
develops custom-software applications, and supports these integrated systems 24
by 7 in our world-class data centers. However, unlike other vendors, NeuStar
recognizes that the systems it builds are tools that enable people to
administer resources in a neutral and evenhanded fashion, and are not solutions
unto themselves.

 

NeuStar’s experience will benefit both the Commission
and the industry during the upcoming years, for change is once again
accelerating.  The Commission’s numbering
policies are having a dramatic effect on resource utilization, as evidenced by
the recent drop in CO code assignments. 
The implosion of the CLEC industry has triggered the large-scale return
of CO codes, a situation further complicated by number portability.  Conversely, new services like VoIP, ENUM, and
WiFi are becoming more widely adopted and deployed, fueling the search for
additional resource optimization measures. This environment will have
significant impact on number administration and presents new challenges that
require an experienced, tested NANPA. 
NeuStar is that NANPA.

 

NeuStar’s experience is embodied in its existing NANPA
organization. Key personnel within this group, led by Mr. John Manning, have
over 130 years of combined industry and regulatory experience and over 40 years
of actual, direct NANPA experience. It is a veteran team, widely respected as
industry experts, working together cohesively and efficiently. NeuStar will
augment this team with experienced technical experts to deliver the new system
specified in the solicitation.  All
proposed “Key Personnel” are already on board and other personnel needed on Day
One have been named and are poised to commence work immediately under the next
term.

 

The NANPA organizational structure has been optimized
to continue to achieve high productivity and excellent service quality. In
addition, the NeuStar’s NANPA organization is dedicated solely to the
performance of NANPA functions, and reports directly to a company officer.  Any problems will be diagnosed quickly,
escalated through a short chain of command, and resolved expeditiously.

 

As the telecommunications industry continues to
undergo fundamental structural change, the Commission can be confident that
NeuStar possesses the unmatched NANPA experience and demonstrated track record of
performance to navigate the continuously changing industry

 

 

landscape, while avoiding the uncertainty surrounding the selection of
and transition to an inexperienced NANPA.

 

Unassailable Neutrality

 

At NeuStar, neutrality is not a platitude; it is our identity.  Our neutrality ensures timely, fair, and
even-handed NANP resource administration now and into the future.

 

The neutrality of the NANPA is critical to the
effective administration of NANP resources, and is an essential component of a
vendor’s value. Neutrality is vital because the Commission and service providers
must rely upon the NANPA to administer numbering resources strictly in
accordance with Commission rules and industry guidelines, and in an
even-handed, neutral manner ensuring that no particular industry segment or
technology is unduly advantaged or disadvantaged.

 

NeuStar understands that neutrality is not equal to
passivity.  Neutrality serves as the
platform upon which, as the NANPA, NeuStar provides proactive leadership to
ensure the long-term viability of the NANP. 
From the principled denial of an NPA code request to Missouri in 1998 to
the pioneering NPA Exhaust Analysis in 1999 to the proactive management of the
abandoned CO code crisis of 2000-2001, NeuStar has consistently taken
leadership positions with the dual goals of NANP viability and
telecommunications infrastructure stability.

 

NeuStar satisfies all of the Commission’s strict
criteria for being a neutral third party. 
Our neutrality is not sheltered, fenced-off, or confined to certain
groups and organizations; rather, it is deeply ingrained throughout the entire
company and fundamental to our existence and way of doing business. All NeuStar
employees follow a strict FCC-approved neutrality “Code of Conduct”. NeuStar
employs an independent FCC-approved auditor to verify that our services are
being provided in a neutral fashion and to confirm our ongoing adherence to the
neutrality Code of Conduct.  NeuStar has
passed all 11 quarterly audits to-date, a spotless record.

 

NeuStar’s neutrality goes beyond its Code of Conduct
and the day-to-day actions of its personnel and extends to the corporate
level.  For example, NeuStar has consciously
chosen to diversify its (and its subsidiaries’) customer base to avoid
receiving a majority of its revenue from a single service provider, industry
segment, or aligned bloc of service providers. 
This diversity assures the Commission of NeuStar’s neutrality
commitment.

 

 

Lowest Risk Deployment and Operations

 

NeuStar’s transition plan, combined with its position as the incumbent
NANPA, ensures a smooth, flawless migration to the NANP administration system
(NAS) followed by effective, reliable operations.

 

By retaining NeuStar as the NANPA, a risky and complex
transition of NANPA services to an inexperienced entity is avoided.  The NANPA role demands continuous, seamless,
and transparent service.  The assignment
of telephone number resources cannot be interrupted because of failed or
difficult transition between vendors.  As
the current NANPA, NeuStar is the only vendor that can provide a smooth,
risk-free evolution to the next term and avoid the uncertainties associated
with such an evolution.

 

NeuStar has developed a sound migration plan and will
concentrate on the development and deployment of the new NANPA system the
moment the contract is awarded. NeuStar can successfully transition NANPA
operations to the NAS after the development period without having to hire any
staff or conduct NANPA process and familiarization training.

 

Upon review of the NANPA system requirements and the
specified deployment schedule, NeuStar quickly determined that the timeline is
very aggressive.  However, NeuStar can
and will meet the schedule challenge by leveraging the business rules,
algorithms, and logic from the current NANPA systems and the application
framework of NeuStar’s National Pooling Administration System.  NeuStar believes that other suppliers lack
the detailed knowledge of the current NANPA systems and will have difficulty
satisfying the delivery schedule while maintaining the high level of quality
demanded by the FCC and industry.

 

As if the schedule challenge is not enough, the new
NANPA vendor must flawlessly migrate a tremendous volume of data (historical
and current) from the current NANPA systems to the new system.  To successfully complete this undertaking,
the selected vendor must possess detailed understanding of all current NANPA
systems, database schemas, and underlying logic.  The significance of this understanding, which
only NeuStar possesses, cannot be overstated. 
For example, there are over 120,000 CO codes assigned and, at any one
time, there are hundreds of CO code applications in various stages of
processing.  All must be migrated
flawlessly.  Just a one percent (1%)
error rate would result in the incorrect disposition of 1,200 CO codes;
creating

 

 

1,200 individual opportunities for code conflicts and errors and having
the potential to cause service disruptions for consumers.

 

After the technical task of system conversion is
completed, the new NANPA will face an even greater transition challenge:
assuming day-to-day operations of NANP administration.  The significant risks posed by this
operational challenge are fundamentally different than those posed by the
technical challenge of system transition. 
These risks are more directly related to the Commission’s staff and its
involvement in the day-to-day issues of NANP management.  NeuStar is uniquely qualified to mitigate
these risks.  NeuStar has a proven
ability to handle all NANPA decision-making responsibilities.  NeuStar’s experience will enable the
Commission’s limited resources to focus on its core policymaking mission, with
the assurance that NANP resource administration is in qualified hands.

 

In addition, in today’s environment, many state
regulatory agencies and, in particular, service providers, have significantly
downsized their organizations, requiring their numbering resource personnel to
do more with less.  As a result, they
simply cannot afford the time and effort to “train” a new NANPA, nor should
they have to endure the resulting disruptions of an inexperienced NANPA—during
transition or through a long learning curve performing day-to-day
responsibilities.

 

By retaining NeuStar as the NANPA, the Commission can
minimize overall program risk and be confident that a new NANPA system will be
successfully deployed, data will be accurately migrated, and high-quality NANPA
operations will continue without interruption.

 

Highest Quality Solution

 

NeuStar has formed its NANPA solution using the highest quality
combination of software, infrastructure, processes, and personnel.

 

As a vital tool for NANPA, the quality of the NAS
serves as the foundation of NeuStar’s solution. 
NeuStar’s current NANPA systems—CAS, DDS, and the NRUF—all operational
and error-free, along with the production-proven National PA System application
framework, will serve as the foundation for NAS.  NeuStar will leverage these quality software
components to deliver a stable, fully functional, integrated, productivity-enhancing
system on time.

 

 

Additionally, NeuStar’s NAS will offer tangible improvements over the
current NANPA technology suite, including an application portal with unified
logins and security, a redesigned web site, expanded automated resource management,
and integrated forecasting.

 

To meet the solicitation’s reliability, capacity,
throughput, and availability requirements, NeuStar proposes a PAS-like system
architecture that is easily and incrementally scalable, using high-quality
hardware from Dell, Cisco, and Sun. 
Although the technical requirements in the solicitation are virtually
identical to those for PAS, NeuStar has improved upon the PAS architecture in
the areas of security and performance. 
NeuStar has designed NAS to offer the high availability prescribed by
requirements.  At carefully selected
points in the architecture, redundancy has been added, either locally or
cross-site, guaranteeing high availability.

 

While the technical quality of the architecture is
impressive, it is surpassed only by the quality of NeuStar’s NANPA team.  For example, NeuStar’s NANPA team goes beyond
simple understanding of NANPA process flows. 
NeuStar’s team fully understands why processes flow the way they do, the
rationale for decisions leading to the process flows, and the comprehensive
impact of potential change on process stakeholders.  This level of quality and experience goes far
beyond any one or two “brand name” individuals; this experience is
organizational, institutional, and cultural.

 

The NANPA review process provides concrete evidence of
this quality.  The real-world performance
of the NeuStar NANPA team has been monitored continuously and undergone formal
yearly reviews by NANC-selected industry experts and has been found to
repeatedly exceed the stringent expectations of the industry.

 

Conclusion

 

NeuStar is the high-quality, low-risk choice to be the next-term NANPA;
its solution embodies “best value” as enabled by unmatched experience and
unassailable neutrality.

 

NeuStar was formed for the specific purpose of meeting
the needs of the U.S. Government and the telecommunications industry for a
neutral third party administrator of numbering resources.  Our commitment to this purpose has never
faltered.  The NANPA defines NeuStar and
is inherent to the very fabric of the company. 
By retaining NeuStar as the NANPA,

 

 

the Commission can have complete confidence that this critical
administrative function will continue on its success-oriented track.

 

NeuStar possesses unassailable neutrality and a dedicated,
knowledgeable NANPA organization with a demonstrated record of outstanding
performance.  As stated by the Numbering
Oversight Working Group of the NANC in NeuStar’s 2002 evaluation as the NANPA,
NeuStar “has displayed the leadership, initiative and expertise as the
custodian of numbering resource goals in every aspect of their involvement”
which is attributed to “the perseverance, outstanding professionalism and
expertise exhibited by NANPA personnel.” 
In this proposal, NeuStar has incorporated this wealth of knowledge and
experience to offer a “best value” solution for the next NANPA term.  NeuStar thanks the Commission for taking the
time to consider its proposal.

 

 

NeuStar’s technical factor highlights

 

•                  A fully integrated, state-of-the-art system:

•                  Expands upon
current functionality-fully compliant with new requirements

•                  Platforms
selected for best-value performance

•                  99.98%
availability-exceeding requirements

•                  Dual-site
infrastructure-virtually eliminates outages

•                  Greater security
throughout architecture

•                  Easy to use,
web-based user interface

•                  Website redesign
to optimize user experience

 

•                  Lowest
risk implementation approach:

•                  Experienced team
in place-Day One

•                  Comprehensive
WBS drafted-over 2,000 tasks/subtasks identified

•                  Risks identified,
quantified, and mitigated-ensures smooth transition

•                  Pre-award work
underway-FRS delivered within 10 business days of contract award

•                  Leverages
existing, proven algorithms and software

 

•                  Continuing
responsible and trusted performance of NANPA functions:

•                  Unassailable
neutrality of service delivery

•                  High customer
satisfaction ratings

•                  Unmatched,
in-depth knowledge of all NANP functions and stakeholders including associated
nuances

•                  Processes and
service delivery compliant with all regulatory directives and industry
guidelines

•                  Established and
effective processes in place for CO code administration, NPA relief planning,
NRUF, and other NANP resources

•                  Demonstrated
record of performance handling unprecedented volumes of work:

•                  Passed all 11
neutrality audits

•                  Initiated 132
relief projects

•                  Facilitated
nearly 1,000 NPA relief planning meetings

•                  Produced 1,500
NPA relief planning documents

•                  Filed 120 relief
petitions

•                  Processed over
150,000 CO Code applications with computer like efficiency

•                  Quickly
responded to over 80,000 telephone inquiries

•                  Managed more
than 100 area codes in jeopardy

•                  Recovered 1,900
CO Codes or 19 million numbers since 2000

 

 

I.              TECHNICAL FACTORS (RFP L.5, M.2.A)

 

NeuStar will combine a highly qualified staff with a new,
state-of-the-art NANP Administration System, and a proven “jump start”
implementation approach to ensure a seamless, low risk transition and
outstanding performance throughout the next term.

 

The successful next term NANPA must demonstrate through
directly relevant past performance its ability to: 1) develop and deploy a
comprehensive NANP Administration System (NAS) per the detailed technical and
functional requirements of the solicitation; 2) convert and migrate data
flawlessly from the current NANPA systems (CAS, DDS, and NRUF) into this new
NAS; and 3) administer all NANP resources in a fair, impartial, cost-effective,
and high quality manner.  NeuStar is that
vendor.

 

NeuStar proposes a highly functional, reliable, and
available NAS hardware and software solution that meets and, in several areas,
exceeds the requirements.  This solution
leverages the algorithms, business logic, and application framework, as appropriate,
from the current NANPA systems and the National Pooling Administration System
(PAS).  This approach greatly reduces
schedule risk, and provides the same look-and-feel of PAS, enabling end-users
to reduce training time and increase productivity.  NeuStar’s proposed NAS is detailed in
Proposal Section I.1.

 

NeuStar has outlined a sound implementation plan with
comprehensive approaches to staffing, risk management, change control, and
quality assurance.  It has already
commenced work on functional requirements definition of the new NAS, and is
prepared to deliver a Functional Requirements Specification (FRS) 10 business
days after contract award.  This approach
allows for increased development and test time, which translates into a higher
quality system and materially reduces schedule risk.  NeuStar’s proposed implementation approach is
described in Proposal Section I.2.

 

NeuStar’s expertise in the most important aspect of
the NANPA function—service to all stakeholders—is discussed in Proposal Section
I.3.  In this section, NeuStar
demonstrates its intimate knowledge and thorough understanding of rules and
procedures in the Commission’s Reports and Orders governing the NANPA, the
nuances of these orders and the requisite processes associated not only with
code administration, relief planning, and NRUF, but for the administration of
other resources as well.

 

 

I.1           NANP ADMINISTRATION
SYSTEM TECHNICAL APPROACH (RFP L.5,
M.2.A.1, TRD 7)

 

NeuStar’s state-of-the-art NAS will build on and evolve from the proven
business logic of our current CAS, DDS, and NRUF tools to support all existing
and newly required capabilities, while greatly improving the capacity,
availability, and security of the current solution.

 

NeuStar is privileged to offer a NAS, which represents
the evolution of its current solutions for NANPA.

 

NeuStar’s NANPA software currently consists of three
separate and distinct tools, each performing specialized tasks.  The Code Administration System (CAS) provides
functionality focused on facilitating CO code administration.  NeuStar’s Document Distribution Service (DDS)
provides a mechanism for users to electronically subscribe to and receive
notifications relating to NPA relief planning, which proved to be a highly
efficient and successful alternative to faxing documentation to hundreds of
interested parties.  Finally, the Number
Resource Utilization and Forecasting (NRUF) tools provide a mechanism through
which numbering resource utilization/forecasts can be submitted by service
providers and processed by NANPA personnel. 
Each of these tools has proven to be an effective mechanism, greatly
increasing the productivity of NeuStar’s NANPA team and NANPA customers alike.

 

Much of the capability provided by these tools was
conceived and defined by NeuStar NANPA personnel, on their own initiative,
without formal requirements or requests from the FCC or other clients.  NeuStar produced the tools to facilitate the
tasks related to the administration of the NANP, and implemented them with the
concurrence of the FCC.

 

The time has now arrived for a new NANPA term.  Understandably, the current NANPA tools’
capability, maintainability, and capacity should not only be preserved, but
also formalized, integrated, and augmented. 
Having conceived, designed, and implemented much of the functionality
associated with the current NANPA tools, NeuStar is uniquely qualified to
transform these and grow a state-of-the-art, next-generation integrated system,
while deriving maximum reuse of the business logic behind existing tools—a mark
of best value.  Not only will NeuStar
ensure that NAS will fully comply with the stringent requirements and
expectations set forth in the FCC’s solicitation, but NeuStar will also
introduce the following innovations as well:

 

 

•                  NeuStar’s NAS
architecture offers extraordinary
availability (>99.98%), less than three-minute recovery time from
failures, minimal scheduled downtime, real-time data replication, and a fully
capable backup site that will also serve as a development and test environment
for future enhancements—easily surpassing the solicitation requirements.

 

•                  NeuStar will
combine the three currently separate NANPA tools (DDS, CAS, and NRUF) into an, integrated system, increasing data security, enhancing data
integrity and facilitating information dissemination and availability.  Only NeuStar can completely ensure that none
of these tools’ current capabilities will be compromised in any way as these
functionalities are integrated into NAS.

 

•                  The NAS will
permit real-time access  to resource status reports, ensuring
up-to-the-minute information availability to both regulatory personnel and the
industry.

 

•                  The NAS will continue to provide state regulatory commissions with
data on applications for, and NANPA confirmations of, CO code
assignments allowing states to effectively monitor and, when necessary, take
appropriate action concerning the use of CO codes in their respective states.

 

•                  The NAS will automatically process applications for changes to
existing CO code assignments, significantly reducing
the number of applications requiring manual Code Administrator (CA)
review, thus expediting the processing
of such requests.  Specifically, requests
to change the Operating Company Number (OCN) associated with a CO code
assignment will be processed without CA involvement, provided both the old and
new OCNs are included in the applicant’s profile.  Further, in accordance with current INC
guidelines, the system will no longer require service providers to submit
changes involving the switch identification and tandem homing arrangements.

 

•                  The NAS will accept online submission of applications
for Feature Group B and D Carrier Identification Codes (CICs), 500 NXXs, 900
NXXs, 456 NXX codes, 800-885 and 555 line numbers, using new error checking capabilities to ensure accurate and
complete applications are submitted by service providers for prompt processing.

 

•                  In addition to
accepting online submissions of NRUF Form 502, the NAS will also permit service providers to update and/or correct
previously submitted data in real-time,

 

 

making it easier for service providers to ensure more
accurate data is collected, especially between reporting cycles.  Further, making this process easier for the
industry will encourage service providers to
update NRUF information more often, especially forecast data, which
will allow NANPA to continually assess forecast versus actual CO code
assignments and make appropriate adjustments to NPA and NANP exhaust projections,
minimizing the chances of NPA jeopardies and premature number exhaust.

 

•                  The NAS will
permit password-protected access by state regulatory commissions to service
provider submitted NRUF data for the NPAs within their states.  States will
now have online access to both current NRUF data and previously submitted
service provider data.  The
NRUF data provided via CD will also be available to those states that desire to
obtain this information on an as-needed basis.

 

•                  The updated
NANPA website will provide improved navigation tools to assist
visitors in finding information in a more
user-friendly manner.  Based
on NeuStar’s experience as the NANPA and understanding of the variety of
visitors that use the website, NeuStar will organize the site to address the
needs of regulatory personnel and industry for detailed data while providing
the general public easy access to topical numbering information like area code
maps.

 

Exhibit I-1, illustrates the
transformation of NeuStar’s NANPA tools into integrated NANPA system
architecture.  The following describes
NeuStar’s NAS, carefully examining its functionality, architecture, robustness,
security, as well as infrastructure management and operational capabilities.

 

[Exhibit I-1. NeuStar’s proposed NANPA System
Architecture represents a logical transformation of its current NANPA tool set
into an integrated state-of-the-art system. Graphic omitted: diagram of
Transformation of NeuStar’s NANPA System Architecture.]

 

 

I.1.1        NAS Functionality (TRD 7.2, 7.18)

 

The integrated NAS represents a transformation from
the systems that currently support the NANPA. 
It includes capabilities such as a redesigned website, a unified
resource management approach, integrated forecasting functionality, enhanced
document notification, and comprehensive reporting.  Taken individually and compared to the
capabilities provided by the current NANPA tools, the changes appear to be
incremental.  However, when viewed as a
whole, the result is a thorough overhaul that will improve the usability of
NANPA end user tools and position NeuStar as the NANPA of the future, while at
the same time maintaining the elements of the current NANPA software that have
made it so successful over the years.

 

I.1.1.1     Website (TRD 7.1.2, 7.7,
7.9, 7.11, 7.18, 7.19)

 

The current NANPA website is the single authoritative
source of internet-based NANP information for the members of the NANP
constituency.  During the past five
years, the NANP website has gradually evolved as the volume and complexity of
the information has grown.  The site also
has changed to reflect the changing standards of website design.

 

As part of the NAS deployment, NeuStar is proposing a
significant redesign of the NANPA website. 
This redesign will improve the organization and usability of the
existing website, provide an integrated portal for the NAS application, and
provide a solid foundation for the planned expansion of the website during the
upcoming NANPA term.  Through its many communication
mechanisms (email distribution lists, newsletters, NANC reports, etc.), NeuStar
will convey ongoing information and updates to educate users and ensure a
smooth transition to the new NANPA website

 

Website
organization and usability—In 1997, when the original NANPA
requirements were developed, the website was envisioned as a secondary source
for NANP information.  The primary source
was, of course, paper that was laboriously distributed by mail or fax to the
NANPA stakeholders.  NeuStar recognized
that the website could provide up-to-the-minute information in a form that
could be readily downloaded at the convenience of the site visitor. Over time,
more users began to recognize the utility and convenience of the website.  During April 2003, 70,000 users made 160,000
visits to the website.

 

 

To satisfy this growing need, NeuStar added more and
more information to the site, and, over the past five years, it became larger
and more complex.  Despite an abundance
of tutorial information, some, particularly those not familiar with numbering
concepts, found it difficult to find the data they were searching for.  Other than the NANPA website, there is very
little “official” numbering information available on the internet.  As a result, the website, originally designed
as a reference for numbering experts, came to be used by the general public,
who did not understand why so many new area codes were being introduced.

 

NeuStar is uniquely qualified to redesign the site for
two key reasons.  First, through software
that monitors access to the website, NeuStar designers know the pages that are
most frequently visited.  A clear objective
of the redesign is to make those pages as easy to reach as possible.  Secondly, NeuStar receives a significant
volume of user feedback from site visitors. 
Email response traffic varies, ranging from 25-100 emails per day.  Recurring questions in these emails provide
powerful insight into what users want to know about numbering issues.

 

NeuStar has begun identifying and cataloging ideas and
plans for site reorganization.  As
specific examples, NeuStar plans to design the architecture of the site around
whole pages, replacing the current frame-based architecture.  The use of integrated pages makes the site
easier for others to link to and to bookmark. 
It also provides a better user experience to those finding the NANPA
site via search engine and directory referrals, and should serve to facilitate
search engine listing of the site, making NANPA information more easily found
on the Web.  The design and development
work for the website redesign is currently underway and will be accomplished as
part of the overall NAS rollout.

 

As part of the site reorganization, the site will also
be reviewed to ensure accessibility, keyboard navigability, and other important
usability principles as described in the solicitation.  The website will also include search engine
functionality and will be updated within one business day of any document change
or release.  As with all of NeuStar’s
websites, the NANPA websites (NANPA and NANC Chair) will comply with the
industry’s evolving best practices for privacy, including, for example, the
Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 and other applicable legislation and guidelines.

 

Website
application  portal—The NAS will provide a single,
unified web-based system that incorporates the functions of numbering resource
management, forecasting, notifications,

 

 

and reporting.  This web-based
system will provide a single user sign-on and common “look-and-feel” for the
user interactions required by these operational functions.  NANPA personnel will also use the same
web-based interface, leveraging the role-based application security provided by
the NAS architecture.

 

The application portal will contain user profile
management functions.  These functions
will allow NANPA personnel to maintain comprehensive user contact
information.  Users will obtain a login
through a request form.  The request form
will be routed to a login administrator, who will process the application and
(if approved) assign a unique login ID, initial password, and appropriate
security level.  NANPA personnel will
administer all logins and will perform routine tasks such as account disabling,
resetting lost passwords, and resolving logon problems.

 

Of the three tools currently supporting NANPA, only
NRUF lacks a web-based interface.  The
NAS forecasting functions will provide the ability to submit forecasts via the
web interface in a way that NeuStar pioneered with its PAS software.  The other two tools (CAS and DDS) currently
provide a web-based interface; however, they are not integrated.  The NAS will accomplish this integration,
providing users with a single authentication mechanism for all system interactions.

 

During NeuStar’s current term as NANPA, the supporting
applications evolved significantly.  The
rationale for various changes came about gradually, but once consensus was
achieved among the stakeholders, the timelines for implementation were short.  By organizing NAS around an application
portal, NeuStar is taking tangible steps to “future-proof” NAS to be able to
adopt the management of additional resources. 
NeuStar’s unique understanding of the business processes which underlie
numbering resource management enables it to build an application portal
infrastructure which is capable of future growth while not compromising
near-term delivery and quality.

 

Directions
for website expansion—With the past as an indicator, NeuStar
recognizes that it is not possible to perfectly predict the ways in which web
technology will evolve throughout the upcoming NANPA term.  Consequently, NeuStar will undertake
technology-based site changes and leverage newly available technologies only
with a clearly defined payback and a clear understanding of the associated
risks.

 

 

NeuStar’s directions for site expansion are directly
targeted at increasing the volume, ease, and relevance of communication among
NANPA stakeholders.  Among the
possibilities that NeuStar is considering during the upcoming NANPA term are:
message boards for discussion among NAS users, the introduction of a “web log”
(a.k.a. “blog”) mechanism to allow NANPA personnel to post content dynamically,
and expansion of information targeted to consumers.  None of the areas for website expansion would
have any significant impact on the overall stability or performance of the
NANPA website.  NeuStar would undertake
activities in these areas after duly consulting with the NANPA stakeholders.

 

I.1.1.2     Numbering Resource
Administration (TRD 7.1.3, 7.4,
7.18.1-2, 7.18.6-7)

 

Numbering resource administration is the core
functional responsibility of NANPA.  As
the neutral authoritative administrator of telecommunications numbering
resources, the NANPA requires a robust, reliable, secure platform to facilitate
the efficient management of numbering resources.  In designing the NAS, NeuStar has conceived a
system that builds upon its best experience as a neutral, third-party
administrator during the past five years and prepares NeuStar for
administrative responsibilities that will evolve during the next administration
term.

 

The numbering resource administration functions will
use categories and formats that correspond to those currently used, enforcing
business rules as applicable.  They will
also evolve (as necessary) to comply with regulatory directives and industry
guidelines.

 

Flexible
framework—While the majority of the work currently conducted
by NeuStar as the NANPA involves administering NPAs and CO codes, NeuStar’s
responsibilities are much broader, requiring the management of resources as
varied as CICs, 555, and 900 NXXs.  Recognizing
this, NeuStar’s NAS solution provides a single, integrated point of contact for
all resource requests.  This solution
will eliminate the need for paper-based interchange of documents that currently
takes place for these low-volume resources being managed by NeuStar.

 

At the heart of NeuStar’s NAS is a flexible framework
for managing resource administration that revolves around the exchange of
documents between Service Providers (SPs) and NeuStar.  This system provides a generic framework for
an exchange of documents between the SP and NeuStar to request a change in
resource allocation.  This generic
framework allows NeuStar to provide resource-specific documents and interaction
protocols while maintaining the

 

 

integrity of the business processes that make each resource
unique.  Additionally, the framework will
allow for the addition of both new data elements, new NPAs, new resources, and,
if necessary, expansion of the NANP.

 

The basic allocation process during resource
management involves a three-part document exchange between the SP and
NeuStar.  First, the SP requests a
resource.  Then, typically, NeuStar
responds with the requested resource, after verifying the resource
request.  Finally, the SP replies to
NeuStar to indicate the resource has been put in service (See Exhibit
I-2).  The simplicity of the document
interchange belies the subtleties of the business rules that must be
implemented within the system.  For
example, if an NPA is considered to be in jeopardy, only a particular number of
resources can be allocated in a given month; the remaining requests may have to
be carried over to the next month.

 

[Exhibit I-2. While individual resource requirements
vary, most applications follow a standardized process. Graphic omitted: diagram
of Standard Application Process Flow.]

 

NeuStar’s NAS framework accommodates these kinds of
important differences in resource management processes and will capture, as
part of the system’s enforced business rules, NeuStar’s unique understanding of
the processes that must be seamlessly managed by NANPA.

 

Batch Processing (EFT)—In
addition to online web-based processing, the NAS framework also includes
Electronic File Transfer (EFT) via batch submission using XML-based file
formats.  Users initiate the batch
process by submitting a file to an EFT server. 
Then, periodically, a scheduled job runs on the batch application server
that sequentially processes all available files.  A file will generally contain multiple
transactions.  Each file is processed and
its transactions flow through the same edits and business rules as an online
transaction.  Subsequently, corresponding
updates are made to the database and (as appropriate) email notifications are
sent to users.  After the system
processes each file, it constructs a response file (also in XML) that is placed
on the EFT server, where it will be picked up by the user.

 

Workflow
management—In addition to the document exchange facilities
required for NANPA, NeuStar’s NAS will provide advanced workflow management
tools for both NANPA and SP personnel. 
These workflow management tools will be based upon the tools NeuStar

 

 

provides to the users of its PAS.  NeuStar will provide the same
productivity-enhancing functionality to NAS users as well.

 

NeuStar’s workflow tools provide a simple work list
for each user.  The work list contains
all of the work items assigned to that user. 
Each work item represents either a task that the user must complete, or
a notification that some activity has occurred. 
When the user selects the work item, the system shows the appropriate
form to the user and guides the user through the task completion process.  The workflow tools will provide many benefits
to NANPA users.  These benefits
specifically include:

 

•                  Request flow—Individual requests will move
smoothly through the process, meeting deadlines and receiving proper attention.

 

•                  Work prioritization—The work item list will
provide all NAS users with a simple, useful mechanism to prioritize work.

 

•                  Email notification—As deadlines approach,
the email notification mechanism will send reminders directly to end-user
accounts, a capability that will be especially useful to occasional users of
NANPA systems.

 

•                  Audit history—The workflow tools will
provide time-stamped logs of actions taken on resource requests.

 

All of these benefits are delivered in an application
that integrates smoothly with the day-to-day operational tasks of all NANPA
users.  Further, the generic nature of
the NAS resource management infrastructure, which includes mechanisms for
document exchange, flexible business rules, and workflow management tools,
means that NeuStar’s NAS is well-positioned to adapt to the necessary changes
that will emerge from the inevitable industry changes during the next NANPA
term.

 

I.1.1.3     Forecasting (TRD 7.4.3,
7.18.1, 7.18.3)

 

Of the core NANPA functions, forecasting numbering
usage and exhaust is both the most important and most difficult.  NeuStar has managed the most tumultuous
period in the history of the NANP—assigning over 54,000 CO codes and managing
over 130 NPA relief projects.  As

 

 

significantly impacting as these changes were to the public and the
industry, without NeuStar’s forecasting expertise, the situation could have
been even more disruptive.

 

FCC’s current basis for NANP exhaust forecasting, the
NRUF tool, broke new ground by forcing quantitative discipline into the NANP
growth process.  The activity of soliciting
input from each SP, combining those inputs, and adding forecasting algorithms
introduced the well-understood process of capacity planning to an area that had
previously not needed such rigor.

 

The NAS software will maintain the high-quality
forecasting algorithms that NeuStar pioneered as the NANPA while expanding upon
it in several key areas. First, forecasting functionality will be integrated
into NAS and provided under the unified NAS login. This will allow SPs to
submit forecasts via file transfer, improving the security and certainty of
delivery over the current email approach. Additionally, SPs will be able to
perform forecasting tasks using a web-based user interface. This represents a
significant step forward from the current approach, which only allows
file-based submissions. Lastly, the forecasting business rules and data storage
will be integrated into NAS.  This will
be an improvement from the current tool, which was developed as a needs-based,
add-on to the current NANPA tools. With these improvements, SPs will now be
able to benefit from the ability to submit CO code requests immediately after
the submission of their forecasts rather than waiting until the next business
day.

 

While NeuStar will place considerable effort into
improving the integration of forecasting within the sphere of NAS, it believes
the most critical part of software-based forecasting continues to be the
analytical algorithms used to accomplish the task.  NeuStar developed initial versions of these
algorithms in collaboration with the Commission and the industry.  They have a simple goal: to estimate the
exhaust of NANP resources. However, the algorithms embody considerable
complexity.  During the years of
operating the NRUF, NeuStar has made (and continues to make) refinements to the
algorithms. Additionally, the process of forecasting cannot be reduced solely
to quantitative mechanisms. As the current NANPA, NeuStar uses the NRUF
software, combined with local knowledge and the unmatched experience of the
NANPA staff, to produce forecasts that have been accepted by the Commission and
widely applauded by the industry for their ability to manage change in the
NANP.

 

 

I.1.1.4     Notification (TRD 7.4.1,
7.7.9, 7.9.1, 7.11, 7.18.3)

 

Reports and documents related to NANP resources represent
the key external view of NANPA activities. 
Interested parties expect NANPA to identify NANP changes as they
occur.  Notification functionality allows
those interested parties to register interest in various categories and/or
localities and to receive a customized notification when an NPA relief planning
document changes or is published on the NANPA website.

 

The notification functionality that NeuStar will
provide in its NAS has evolved from the groundbreaking DDS that NeuStar
developed during its current term as NANPA. 
DDS represented an acknowledgement that the internet had assumed a
permanent place in NANPA operations and that fax-oriented document distribution
technology had reached its end-of-life.

 

NeuStar’s NAS will maintain the functionality that
makes DDS so popular and useful, including locality-based topic selection,
repository-linked notifications, platform-independent documents, and a document
repository.  These features are ideally
suited to the task of distributing NANPA information.  The locality-oriented topic selection allows
users to limit the scope of notifications. 
The repository-linked notifications prevent large documents from
clogging email systems and Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) documents are a
platform-independent way of distributing immutable documents to an audience.

 

While DDS is an unqualified success, NeuStar’s NAS
will introduce significant and further improvements in the document
distribution area.  Foremost among these
is the integration of document distribution into the heart of the system,
providing the functionality under the unified NAS login.  Additionally, NeuStar will provide each
notification user with a personal page to manage current subscriptions.  NeuStar will also improve upon the current
DDS user interface, allowing the user to perform topic selection more quickly
and easily.  Finally, NeuStar will expand
the scope of the notification functionality to include other documents that are
within the purview of NANPA.  For
example, NAS will allow notifications to take place on documents related to CO
code administration.

 

I.1.1.5     Reporting (TRD 7.1.2,
7.9, 7.18)

 

The NAS solution will provide advanced reporting
capabilities that leverage NeuStar’s experience as the NANPA.  The reporting subsystem of NAS will encompass
three main areas:

 

 

real-time reports, periodic reports, and ad hoc reports.  Each of these areas of reporting has its own
nuances.  Each offers NeuStar an
opportunity to demonstrate the critical experience that uniquely qualifies it
to assume the responsibility of being the next term NANPA.

 

Reports will generally be distributed via the NANPA
website.  For each report, providing the
data is only part of the solution; the report must also present the data in a
logical, usable format.  Since each
report is unique and has a particular use, each report must have a carefully tailored
format and organization.  Consequently, a
cookie-cutter approach to reporting will short-change report users.  Only NeuStar has the experience required to
craft each report to fill its particular niche in the NANPA reporting
framework.

 

Real-time reports provide an “at this instant” view of
NANPA resources and processes, providing great improvement over today’s
next-business-day turnaround.  This area
of reports can be subdivided into two main groups:  external and internal.  The general public (including the media) uses
external reports.  Internal reports are
targeted to the users of NAS, SPs, regulatory, and NANPA personnel.

 

Periodic reports provide summary views of data.  They cover specific periods of time (e.g.,
monthly, quarterly, annual) and are generally used by regulatory and NANPA
personnel.  They provide information
needed by these groups to understand the impact of previous assignment
decisions, assess the current state of the NANP, and plan for the future.

 

Ad hoc reports answer day-to-day operational questions
that arise during NANP administration. 
NANPA personnel use these reports to assist in making allocation
decisions and to respond to requests from regulatory personnel and the
industry.  Of the three groups of
reports, the ad hoc reports are
the least well known to those not involved in the day-to-day work of the
NANPA.  For example, as the current
NANPA, NeuStar produces over two-dozen different internal ad hoc reports on a
regular basis.  These internal reports
are the backbone of successful NANP administration.

 

I.1.2        NAS Architecture (TRD 7.1.3)

 

With its NAS, NeuStar will provide the FCC with a system architecture
that suits the needs of the NANPA—both now and into the foreseeable future.

 

 

The proposed NAS architecture will be configured to
offer very high availability, surpassing the stringent requirements placed upon
it in the solicitation.  Where any single
component is unable to offer the required availability, redundancy has been
added, either locally or through the use of the backup site, which guarantees
the NAS exceeds the FCC’s requirements. The proposed NAS architecture, built on
highly scalable hardware platforms, is easily and inexpensively scalable,
capable of offering any amount of incremental capacity.  In addition, NAS will be capable of
self-monitoring its performance and efficiency, in order to enable the immediate
identification of a need for additional resources.

 

To achieve the best solution for the NAS, NeuStar has
leveraged its past experience in developing web-based applications with online
transaction processing (OLTP) and distribution of information capabilities
(such as NeuStar’s PAS).  Taking the TRD
into consideration, NeuStar evaluated several options and has carefully
selected the most logical, cost-effective architecture design to amply meet the
FCC’s NANP Administration System Requirements, while offering maximum
flexibility and scalability for the future.

 

I.1.2.1     Hardware (TRD 7.6)

 

NeuStar’s hardware configuration consists of two fully
duplicated and redundant environments. 
It provides ample capability to meet the many needs of the NAS.  These environments will reside in NeuStar’s
Sterling, VA (primary) and Charlotte, North Carolina (backup) data center
facilities respectively.  The hardware at
each facility, listed in Table I-1, will be capable of supporting the
production NAS application in its entirety.

 

Table I-1. NAS Hardware (per site)

 

	
  Component

  	
   

  	
  Qty/Make/Model

  	
   

  	
  Features

  
	
  Router

  	
   

  	
  1
  Cisco 3660

  	
   

  	
  High
  throughput, scalable in-box, includes configurable packet filtering and ACLs
  for security

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Intrusion
  detection

  	
   

  	
  1
  NFR Security NID Server

  	
   

  	
  Monitors
  network traffic content, uses knowledge-based vulnerability analysis (as opposed
  to simplistic pattern-based analysis), vendor is known for rapid response to
  attacks; includes network taps

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Switch

  	
   

  	
  1
  3Com Superstack II

  	
   

  	
  Connects
  intrusion detection server network taps to intrusion detection server

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Firewall

  	
   

  	
  1
  Nokia IP350

  	
   

  	
  Integrated
  Checkpoint Firewall-1 software, uses patented Stateful Inspection technology
  that stores traffic characteristics in a database (as opposed to “packet
  filtering” approaches that only examine data packets individually)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Load
  balancer

  	
   

  	
  1
  Cisco 11050

  Content Switch

  	
   

  	
  Configurable
  load distribution algorithms, detects failures and routes traffic around
  failed component; can perform network port translation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Switch

  	
   

  	
  1
  Cisco 3524

  	
   

  	
  High
  capacity; can restrict traffic flow through configurable virtual LANs; manageable
  

  

 

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  through
  standard protocols

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Web
  server

  	
   

  	
  2
  Dell 1650

  	
   

  	
  Scalable,
  reliable, data-center grade Intel machines, 1GB RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Application
  server

  	
   

  	
  2
  Dell 1650

  	
   

  	
  Scalable,
  reliable, data-center grade Intel machines, 2GB RAM (upgradeable to 4GB)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTP
  server

  	
   

  	
  1
  Dell 1550

  	
   

  	
  Scalable,
  reliable, data-center grade Intel machine, being reused from current NANPA
  architecture for cost-effectiveness

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Batch
  application server

  	
   

  	
  1
  Dell 1550

  	
   

  	
  Scalable,
  reliable, data-center grade Intel machine, being reused from current NANPA
  architecture for cost-effectiveness

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Database
  server

  	
   

  	
  1
  Sun Microsystems SunFire V880

  	
   

  	
  Highly
  scalable, extremely reliable UNIX-based platform, expandable to 8 CPUs, 64 GB
  RAM, and 876 GB internal disk. Includes RAID controller and 12GB DAT drive

  

 

Additionally, NeuStar proposes to derive optimal value
from the Charlotte backup environment by having it perform triple duty.  In addition to serving as a hot backup to the
primary production environment, this NAS environment will serve as the NAS
development environment for ongoing NAS development (as needed), and as the NAS
test environment for any future testing needs, ensuring that optimal use is
made of the hardware. This approach has proven effective in NeuStar’s PAS.

 

Exhibit I-3 illustrates the logical
view of the NAS hardware architecture. During the product selection process,
NeuStar leveraged its extensive experience in building and operating carrier-grade
architectures for both its telecommunications and internet infrastructure
services. During NeuStar’s architectural design process, it made several
decisions in two key categories that shaped the quality of the end
product—hardware quality and product support.

 

Hardware
quality—NeuStar considered both an enterprise-grade high
availability (HA) architecture (described above) and a departmental-grade
architecture (based on networked PCs and network appliances).  NeuStar selected its architecture due to the
increased reliability and scalability offered by the enterprise-grade
architecture.  Recent improvements in
hardware have allowed for solid HA configurations to be very achievable at a
reasonable cost.

 

The NANPA RFP states, “The NANPA website shall be operational
99.9% of the time over any 12-month period, excluding scheduled maintenance”.
Given that the NAS website capability is intrinsically linked to that of the
NAS web applications, NeuStar interprets that the NAS web applications, as a
whole, should have a minimum of 99.9% availability. This requirement is
attainable using either of the approaches considered, given the proper
configurations.  However, given how low
the cost of configuring an industrial strength HA system has become, NeuStar
believes it worthwhile to offer the Commission the benefit of a

 

 

system that surpasses the availability, recovery, and scheduled
maintenance requirements. NeuStar has chosen to offer a redundant architecture
that offers over 99.98% availability, rather than attempt to marginally save on
cost and offer a barely compliant solution. NeuStar’s proposed NAS architecture
is able to meet the solicitation’s availability requirement even with a single
stand-alone environment, let alone a duplicated, redundant one.  However, NeuStar has seized the opportunity
to significantly improve NAS’ availability, while also being able to provide a
development and testing environment (an unstated but intrinsic requirement for
the on-going viability of the NAS), all in a cost-effective manner.

 

[Exhibit I-3. NeuStar’s high-availability NAS
architecture features local and cross-site redundancy to provide exceptional
scalability performance and reliability with an emphasis on security. Graphic
omitted: diagram of NANP Administration System Architecture.]

 

Product
support—NeuStar considered a variety of sources for the
hardware components within the NAS architecture.  In all cases, NeuStar selected hardware from
stable, reliable vendors, representing low risk during the course of the
upcoming NANPA term.  One of the most
challenging decisions NeuStar faced was the database server selection.  NeuStar considered both Sun and
Hewlett-Packard (HP) hardware.  Both
vendors offer very high quality UNIX-based database platforms.  However, three key factors tipped the scales
in Sun’s favor.  First, Oracle (the
selected database platform) uses Sun as its native platform.  Second, Sun and Oracle offer integrated
product support packages.  Third, HP has
announced that its PA-RISC architecture is being discarded in favor of an
Intel-based architecture; NeuStar believes this presents a significant risk
considering the expected life of the new NANPA systems.

 

I.1.2.2     Software (TRD 7.1.2, 7.4,
7.12)

 

Each of the three NAS environments (production, test,
and development) uses a slightly different combination of software due to their
different purposes.  The following
section describes the key software components of each environment.

 

Production Environment

 

NeuStar’s NAS production environment software
includes: the server operating systems, database management system, the
application service, web service, and help desk software.

 

 

Server
operating systems—The Sun Fire V880 Server comes bundled with
Sun Solaris version 8, Sun’s own Unix-based operating system.  Solaris is a powerful operating system that
supports multi-threading and symmetric multi-processing.

 

For the Intel-based servers, although Windows 2000 or
another Unix-based operating system could be used, NeuStar has chosen Red Hat
Enterprise Linux AS for a number of reasons. 
First, Dell recommends and supports Red Hat Linux for use in building
high availability systems using their servers. 
Secondly, Linux is “open source” software.  “Open source” is a term used to describe
software which is freely available in source code form, and which does not have
standard commercial licensing restrictions limiting use, modification, or
redistribution.  As an open source
product, Linux is extremely cost-effective because there are no per-user or
per-CPU licenses to purchase.  Compared
to Windows-based technology, Linux is more reliable, more secure, and makes
more efficient use of hardware.  In
addition, choosing Linux means that, in the future, the NAS will not be
restricted to a commercial vendor’s proprietary tools, as would be the case
with Windows 2000.

 

While NeuStar could simply download all of the freely
available Linux software it might need, a better option is to purchase Red Hat
Linux.  What makes Red Hat worth
purchasing is the combination of documentation, quality control, and technical
support available from Red Hat.  Red Hat
leverages the best aspects of the “open source” movement while providing the
type of corporate support necessary to make Linux a safe choice for
mission-critical applications.  Overall,
the selection of Red Hat makes the most sense for NeuStar’s “best value” NAS.

 

Database
management system (DBMS)—The database will be a critical
component of the NAS’s success. In order to support NAS’s website capability
and availability requirements, the DBMS must also be available at least 99.9%
of the time throughout the year. 
Additionally, to ensure that data is never lost, it must be replicated
in real time.  To achieve all this within
a high-availability architecture, it must operate in a failsafe manner,
providing a switchover capability to a backup site.  In order to provide a switchover capability,
there must be a second database that remotely mirrors the primary database so
that the system does not become unavailable for a significant amount of time if
the primary database server experiences an outage.  The chosen database must support advanced
replication in order to eliminate the “single

 

 

point of failure” that would exist in a system with only one database
server.  In light of all of these
requirements, NeuStar has selected Oracle9i for the purposes of the NAS.

 

The Oracle9i database is both highly scalable and
available.  High scalability is primarily
achieved through the use of connection pooling and multiplexing, which allows
the database to support a large number of concurrent users, and table
partitioning, which allows the database to be split across multiple disk
devices, thus sharing the load. Oracle9i’s ability to perform online
maintenance and reorganization of the database while the data is being accessed
and updated by users dramatically reduces planned downtime.  These online maintenance capabilities improve
data availability, query performance, response time, and disk space utilization
all important to the 24x7 Enterprise operation, and thus make it well suited
for use in NeuStar’s NAS.

 

Application
service—NeuStar has chosen to put the NAS application service
on a Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) architecture.  J2EE is a vendor-neutral platform for
building high-performance web applications. 
The J2EE platform is designed to provide server-side and client-side
support for developing enterprise, multi-tier business applications.  An advantage of J2EE is that it defines
Enterprise Java Beans (EJB), a standard distributed component model that provides
support for handling distributed transactions, concurrency, object persistence,
and security, by means of an EJB Container. 
J2EE frees developers from system-level considerations, allowing them to
concentrate solely on the software application’s business logic, thereby
increasing productivity.  While there are
a number of vendors offering J2EE-enabled application servers, NeuStar has
chosen BEA Systems’ WebLogic Server as the platform for implementing the middle
tier (Presentation and Business Logic Layer — See Exhibit I-4) of the NAS for
the following reasons:

 

•                  BEA Systems is
one of the world’s leading e-business infrastructure software companies.

 

•                  BEA WebLogic
Server is designed to deliver scalability and high-availability to J2EE applications
in a manner that is completely transparent to application developers.

 

•                  WebLogic Server
is production-proven on large-scale, high-visibility projects for Fortune 500
companies and the Federal Government.

 

•                  BEA Systems has
received numerous Corporate and Product awards, which indicates recognized
stability and wide industry acceptance of its products.

 

 

Overall, the stability and capabilities of WebLogic
Server and BEA’s position as an industry leader make it an excellent choice for
the NAS.  NeuStar will augment the
WebLogic Server through the use of the open source STRUTS application
framework.

 

Web
service—NeuStar has chosen Red Hat’s Enterprise Linux AS to
be the web service software for the NAS. 
Red Hat’s Advanced Server includes Apache HTTP Server.  Apache HTTP Server is open source software
and has been the most popular web server on the internet since April 1996.  The April 2003 Netcraft Web Server Survey found
that over 62% of the websites on the internet are using Apache (or a derivative
thereof), thus making it more widely used than all other web servers
combined.  Apache’s security is relied
upon daily by leading providers of ecommerce infrastructure services. Apache
also offers extensive support for a wide variety of web-based services,
providing critical flexibility to be leveraged as web techniques evolve during
the upcoming NANPA term.

 

[Exhibit I-4. The modularity of NeuStar’s
application architecture will provide the required flexibility for the NAS to
easily accommodate future system enhancements, sucuh as additional reports,
interfaces, or resources. Graphic omitted: diagram of NAS Application
Architecture.]

 

Help
desk software—NeuStar has selected Applied Innovation
Management’s “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service” as the help desk and
knowledge-based software solution for the NAS. 
See Proposal Section I.1.6.2 for details on this product.

 

Testing Environment

 

NeuStar’s NAS testing environment will, of course,
share all of the software components specific to the production environment
(see below), as it is an exact replica of production.  In addition to this, NeuStar is proposing the
use of tools to ensure the proper tracking and management of testing cycles, as
well as to provide automated load testing capability.  The tools, described below, include Mercury
Interactive’s TestDirector® and LoadRunner®.

 

TestDirector®—NeuStar
has selected Mercury Interactive’s TestDirector® as the integrated management
tool for organizing and managing the testing process. By combining planning,
execution, and defect tracking, with an open architecture and a central
repository,

 

 

TestDirector consolidates and manages the testing process to determine
application readiness, as well as the following:

 

•                  Integrates
with best-of-breed testing and lifecycle tools to manage testing.

 

•                  Open
test architecture allows integration with existing or additional tools with
TestDirector’s database.

 

•                  Defect
tracking is capable of working remotely and provides complete data about tests
and defects, along with a structure for prioritizing critical defects for
repair.

 

•                  Sophisticated,
customizable graphs and reports allow for measurement of the quality level of
the application under test.

 

LoadRunner®—Mercury
Interactive’s LoadRunner® is a load testing tool that exercises an entire
enterprise infrastructure by emulating thousands of users to isolate problems,
optimize performance, and accelerate deployment.  Virtual User Generator lets you record both
two-tier and three-tier client/server traffic into a clear and readable
script.  Dynamic monitoring of all virtual
users allows for organization and control over how each tests individually and
how they interact during a scenario. Server Monitor allows for the observation
of the database or application server during the load test. This product is
also able to present summary statistics with clear graphs and reports that help
analyze load scenario results and pinpoint performance bottlenecks.  This tool will allow NeuStar to validate its
system sizing and performance estimates well before the NAS goes into
production.

 

Development Environment

 

NeuStar’s NAS development environment will feature IT
industry-accepted development tools. 
These products have been selected for their proven effectiveness and
stability.  They are all widely used,
both in the IT industry, as well as within NeuStar.

 

In order for a system to remain useful over time, the
tools used to build it need to be viable and widely used.  This will guarantee that the tools will
continue to meet NAS development needs over time, as well as allowing for
continuous availability of personnel skilled in their use.  With these factors in mind, NeuStar has
assembled a suite of tools that support all

 

 

aspects of software development, including configuration management,
design, modeling, and software, web, and database development.

 

Configuration
management—NeuStar’s configuration management tool of choice
is called the Concurrent Version System (CVS) Change Management Suite (version
1.11.5).  CVS is the most widely used
configuration management tool in the open source community.  Like other configuration management systems,
it allows multiple developers to work on the large-scale software development
projects.  CVS is open source software
and thus is free to use.

 

Design
and modeling tools—NeuStar will architect and design the NAS
application software in UML (Unified Modeling Language) using Together Edition
for JBuilder design tools from Borland. 
UML provides system architects working on object analysis and design
with one consistent industry standard language for specifying, visualizing,
constructing, and documenting the artifacts of software systems, as well as for
business modeling.

 

Application
development environment—Since NAS will run in J2EE production
environment software, it requires a J2EE-capable development environment.  J2EE software uses the ubiquitous Java
programming language.  Java has emerged
as the dominant language of high-capacity web-based systems.  Unlike older languages like C++, Java runs in
a “virtual machine.” The use of a virtual machine has two key benefits: it
provides complete platform portability and it frees developers from operating
system resource management, thus allowing code to be more reliable and
testable.

 

For the NAS development environment, NeuStar has
selected Borland’s JBuilder 8.  JBuilder
is a proven, leading development environment with key integrations for building
and deploying web-based J2EE applications. 
It also includes features for automatic documentation generation and
source-code management.

 

Database
development tools—NeuStar will design and build the NAS
logical and physical data models using ERwin from Computer Associates.  ERwin is the industry’s leading database
design tool.  It delivers productivity in
the design, generation, and maintenance of high-quality transactional and data
warehouse databases.

 

The database will be accessed from the J2EE
application software using Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) driver
software.  This portable database
connectivity mechanism prevents

 

 

proprietary database features from polluting the code, thus making
future database version upgrades simpler and less risky.

 

I.1.2.3     Interfaces and Electronic
Data Transmission (TRD 7.1, 7.2,
7.4.2-5, 7.7.1, 7.9.1, 7.10, 7.19.7)

 

NeuStar’s NAS, built on internet technologies, will
provide secure and reliable communications through open standards, and will
support various protocols, including SMTP, FTP, HTTP, and HTTPS.

 

The NANPA will support the diverse set of
communications facilities shown in 

Exhibit I-5, including those facilities for supporting verbal and automated
requests from service providers and several methods for distribution of
information and reports, such as faxes (both Group 3 and Group 4), email, and
regular mail.  The variety of interfaces
provided will ensure all users of the NANPA system/service can access it,
regardless of technological preference. 
As required, Table I-2 details the means of electronic data transmission
supported:

 

Table I-2. Electronic Data Transmission Means Supported

 

	
  Vehicle

  	
   

  	
  Comments

  
	
  Public
  web

  	
   

  	
  This
  interface will provide a means by which all public NANP information (e.g.
  public reports and documents) may be disseminated to the media and general
  public, and will be accessible via the internet. The website will contain an
  online help capability, search, FAQs, feedback capability, and contact
  information for pertinent staff.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Private
  web application

  	
   

  	
  This
  secure interface, accessible only through login with a valid user id and
  password, will allow registered users to access system application
  functionality. The website will contain an online help capability, search,
  stored data query, FAQ list, trouble ticket capability, reports, email link
  to the NANPA office, as well as contact information for pertinent staff.
  Applied Innovation Management’s “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service” will
  be used to provide the trouble ticket, help desk, and knowledge-based
  software solution.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Email

  	
   

  	
  The
  NAS will use this interface for automated report and notification
  distribution as well as for information exchange with NPAC, the Pooling
  Administrator, and registered NAS users. Notifications will include NANP
  activity advisories, NANP documentation availability, as well as NAS status,
  outage, and maintenance notifications. NAS will also accept email submissions
  of user documentation, including applications, forms, forecasts, and reports.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EFT

  	
   

  	
  The
  NAS will support the use of an FTP interface as an electronic method of
  exchanging information files (forms, data, reports, etc) with registered
  users. Each user configured for FTP use will be assigned exclusive inbound
  and outbound directories for file exchange. Access to these directories will
  be password-protected.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Fax

  	
   

  	
  The
  NANPA office will support the transmittal and receipt of user documentation
  (applications, forms, forecasts and reports) via fax.

  

 

The NAS will be implemented such that user-specific
data transmitted and received via any of the various supported interfaces will
remain confidential and not be accessible without the appropriate
privileges.  NAS will ensure that service
provider-specific data will only be available to authorized users.  Only aggregated data can be generally
distributed.

 

 

I.1.3        NAS
Architectural Robustness (TRD 7.19.4,
7.19.6)

 

NeuStar’s
NAS production environment provides a secure, right-sized, fully redundant
environment, offering both a primary site, located in Sterling, Virginia, as
well as a fully functional backup site in Charlotte, North Carolina.  NeuStar has both borrowed from and improved
upon its proven PAS architecture in order to fully satisfy the FCC’s
requirement for a robust, secure, and feature-rich NAS.

 

The
NAS will have the capacity to amply support its user community as specified in
the TRD, as well as to rapidly (less than three minutes) switchover the system
from the primary site to the backup site (or vice-versa) during any outage, and
run the NAS indefinitely, and in a fully functional manner, from the alternate
site.  This switchover will be facilitated
by the fact that a complete and up-to-date database will be kept at the backup
site, which will be made possible using Oracle’s Advanced Replication
capability.

 

[Exhibit I-5. The
multitude of communications facilities supported by NeuStar will provide
accessibility for users, regardless of technological preference. Graphic
omitted: diagram of Communications Facilities.]

 

I.1.3.1     Sizing and
Scalability (TRD 7.1.3, 7.19.5)

 

System—From a system sizing perspective, NeuStar considered the requirements
for the NAS capacity and response times from several possible viewpoints.  The stated requirement for supporting 500
simultaneous users with an average holding time of 0.5 hours has been interpreted
to mean that 500 active and simultaneous connections to the web servers and
application servers, supported appropriately by the database server must be
accommodated.

 

One
method of evaluating the proposed system’s compliance with this requirement is
to make use of a current, widely accepted web performance benchmarks evaluation
suite.  The SPECweb99 benchmark suite
provides a highly objective and representative benchmark for measuring a system’s
ability to be a web server.  It provides
an accurate measurement of expected simultaneous connections (rather than HTTP
operations), as defined and agreed to by major participants in the web
market.  The SPECweb99 result for our
proposed configuration yields a comfortable support level of over 1000
simultaneous connections.

 

 

Ultimately,
NeuStar has the luxury of real world experience, both with the existing NANPA
website as well as that of the National Pooling website.  Given that NeuStar’s PAS has capacity
requirements similar to NAS and has fully met those requirements, and that
NeuStar’s proposed NAS configuration is similar to the PAS configuration,
NeuStar is very confident that the proposed system will fully satisfy the
foreseeable NAS needs.

 

In the
event of any unforeseen and unexpected increases in demand for NAS workload
capacity, NeuStar’s proposed NAS solution is also characterized by
extraordinary scalability.  The web and
application server capacities can be increased incrementally by upgrading
existing servers and/or by adding additional low-cost servers.

 

Web—In accordance with the TRD, NeuStar’s NAS will monitor that it is able
to display the entire home page to the user with a 56 KBPS modem within 8
seconds, 95% of the time over any 12-month period. The NAS will utilize Keynote’s
“Consumer Perspective” service in order to monitor the performance of the
website.

 

The
results collected by this service will allow NeuStar to proactively make
adjustments to the website in order to offer its customers a consistently high
quality of service. This tool will also help to distinguish troubles with the
internet from those related to website performance by collecting an assortment
of statistics on website home page response times from 25 different areas
in the United States.  Variances in the
regional response times usually indicate internet congestion or link outages.

 

In
addition, the NAS will keep operational statistics including: availability
statistics; scheduled maintenance durations; instances and duration of
unavailability; simultaneous user measurement by hour; and user session
statistics.  These statistics will be
used for various management reports.  Any
measurements of home page response times of greater than 12 seconds will
trigger the opening of a trouble ticket, which will, in turn, initiate an
investigation.

 

Network—Access facilities into the NAS will be engineered in
conjunction with the needs of SPs to optimize their communications requirements
and minimize costs without sacrificing availability and security.

 

Initially,
a pair of T1 circuits (one per site) will be provisioned, linking both the
primary and the backup site to the internet via two different ISPs.  NeuStar’s research has indicated that

 

 

this will suit the initial needs of the system.  NeuStar has estimated the following peak
activity levels: 1) 500 simultaneous users; 2) Each user averages 1 NAS
transaction per minute (total = 9 transactions/sec); 3) 10 KB of data per
transaction (equivalent to 80,000 bits); and 4) 30% network overhead (average).
These levels produce the following bandwidth requirements:

 

	
  Bandwidth
  (bps)

  	
   

  	
  = 9
  trans/sec * 80,000 bits/trans * 1.3 (network overhead factor)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  =
  936, 000 bits/sec

  

 

This
calculation demonstrates that a T1 (at approximately 1.5 Mbit/sec) should
provide adequate capability, based on the stated peak usage levels.  NeuStar is confident that T1 links to the
internet at each site will provide satisfactory throughput for the users of the
NAS.  NeuStar will closely monitor the
performance (response time) of the NAS on an on-going basis, in an effort to
ensure a positive user experience on a consistent basis.  Should the communications facilities be found
to be, or even projected to become, insufficient at any point in time during
the term of the contract, NeuStar will incrementally increase the throughput capacity
to the internet not only to the primary site, but to the backup site, as well.

 

I.1.3.2              Availability
(TRD 7.1.1, 7.19.5-6)

 

Availability
is defined, from the end-user’s perspective, as the probability that a system
or sub-system will perform its intended function at a given instant of
time.  In accordance with the RFP,
NeuStar’s NAS is designed to meet and/or exceed the following availability guidelines:

 

•                  NAS availability: 24x7

 

•                  NAS will be seamlessly available during users’ normal business hours

 

•                  Availability will meet or exceed 99.9% (excluding scheduled
maintenance)

 

•                  Unscheduled downtime per any 12-month interval will be less than nine (9) hours.

 

•                  Scheduled maintenance will occur during non-core business hours and
will not exceed 4 hours in duration per incident (unless specifically approved
by the FCC)

 

NeuStar
has interpreted the requirement for seamless availability during business hours
as a requirement to keep downtime (both scheduled and unscheduled) to an
absolute minimum during NAS users’ normal business hours.  It logically follows that scheduled
maintenance must

 

 

be scheduled outside of these hours and that Mean Time to Repair
(MTTR), the time it takes to restore service during an unscheduled outage, must
be minimized.

 

The
proper technique for building a high availability system is to use redundancy
to minimize Single Points of Failure (SPOF) from the architecture and keep MTTR
to a minimum.  Both of these techniques
figure prominently in NeuStar’s NAS architecture.

 

A
system’s availability measurement is derived from MTTR figures (factored with
mean time between failures (MTBF), as MTTR basically represents the amount of
unavailable time per failure.  Table I-3
lists each of the main NAS components’ ratings:

 

Table I-3.  System Availability

 

	
  Component

  	
   

  	
  MTTR

  	
   

  	
  MTBF

  	
   

  	
  Availability

  	
   

  	
  Unavailability

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Router

  	
   

  	
  30 min

  	
   

  	
  189,000 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.9999

  	
  %

  	
  0.0001

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Firewall

  	
   

  	
  240 min

  	
   

  	
  118,660 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.99

  	
  %

  	
  0.01

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Load balancer

  	
   

  	
  48 min

  	
   

  	
  500,000 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.999

  	
  %

  	
  0.001

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Web server

  	
   

  	
  1800 min

  	
   

  	
  39,400 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.9999

  	
  % *

  	
  0.0001

  	
  % *

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  App server

  	
   

  	
  1800 min

  	
   

  	
  39,700 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.9999

  	
  % *

  	
  0.0001

  	
  % *

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  LAN switch

  	
   

  	
  12 min

  	
   

  	
  255,000 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.999

  	
  %

  	
  0.001

  	
  %

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  DB server

  	
   

  	
  15 min

  	
   

  	
  674,300 hours

  	
   

  	
  99.996

  	
  %

  	
  0.004

  	
  %

  

 

* Locally redundant
configuration

 

The
aggregate NAS single-site availability result, meaning the percentage of the
time that all of these items will be up simultaneously, can now be calculated
as the product of all of the availability ratings.  This results in an aggregate rating of
99.98%, thus surpassing the requirement of 99.9% availability.

 

Each
of these ratings was quoted to NeuStar by each respective vendor.  The figures represent ratings based on a
stand-alone configuration, except for the Web and App Servers, which, in
NeuStar’s NAS, are redundant within an environment in order to ensure
sufficient capacity, and would therefore require a simultaneous outage to
fail.  Their rating thereby represents
the likelihood of dual failure based on the stand-alone measurements.  For the purposes of this calculation, the
Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) unavailability is assumed to be
negligible, as they are both mirrored and therefore have a MTTR of virtually
zero.  Also, the FTP server and batch
application server are not included in the availability calculation because
they are not part of the web-based portion of the system.  NAS availability is further

 

 

improved by the presence of the hot backup site.  The backup site is always available, fully
functional, and can be put online in less than three minutes, satisfying the
requirement of providing seamless service during NAS users’ normal business
hours.  Thus, as a site, NAS, in
aggregate has an MTTR of 3 minutes.  The
low site-based MTTR further improves NAS availability beyond 99.98%.

 

The
process of three-minute fail-over is not theoretical.  NeuStar’s PAS uses this same rapid switchover
technique and achieves a fully functional switchover to the alternate site in
less than two and a half minutes.  The
rapid switchover time is achieved, by the network setup that is capable of
automatically pointing to a different network destination (the backup site)
when an outage is detected, as well as the use of advanced, real time data
replication, which ensures that an up-to-date copy of the database is always
ready and waiting at the backup site.

 

In
order to measure availability, NAS will “ping” its ISPs every 5 seconds to
confirm that round-trip latency is 10 milliseconds or less.  Greater latency will be considered as an out
of service condition with the ISP and will result in a trouble ticket being
opened.

 

I.1.4        NAS
Security Approach (TRD 2.13,
7.2, 7.4.2, 7.6)

 

NeuStar
is keenly aware of the importance of security in a system environment.  System availability, data integrity, and data
confidentiality must be preserved at all times. 
NeuStar has addressed each of these imperatives using a layered approach
to security.  The following sections
discuss security of the infrastructure, the web application interface, and the
EFT interface.

 

To
ensure availability of the system, NAS will provide an intrusion detection
server to recognize network-based attacks and a firewall to defend the
attacks.  From a physical access perspective,
physical security measures, restricting access to all but authorized NAS
personnel, will protect the system components.

 

From a
data perspective, integrity must be preserved. No unauthorized entity can be allowed
to view, submit, delete, or modify data on the system. To this end, NAS will
provide firewall protection, ensuring that access to the system is restricted
to those allowed to do so. User ids and passwords, as well as user profiles
(guarding access and modification privileges) will be used to guard access to
the system, as well as access to data.

 

 

NAS
will also enforce confidentiality of data. 
User profile privilege settings will ensure that NAS users only have
access to data that they are allowed to view or modify.  In addition, secure sockets (HTTPS) will be
used to ensure that a user’s NAS session cannot be monitored by outside
parties.

 

While
NAS will do all in its power to prevent and minimize any security issues, no system
is ever completely immune.  In
recognition of this, NAS will also be monitored for security breaches of
various kinds, including unauthorized client user system access.  In the event of the discovery of any security
breach, NeuStar will notify the FCC and applicable user(s) electronically and
conduct a full investigation of the actions and circumstances.  A report of all findings will be submitted to
the FCC for review and will contain suggested remedies in order to avoid future
occurrences of the breach.  NeuStar will
also report to NANC that a breach has occurred and that the effected party has
been notified.

 

I.1.4.1     Infrastructure
Level (TRD 2.13)

 

Physical—NeuStar proposes to house the NAS environments in its
data centers in Sterling, Virginia and Charlotte, North Carolina.  Within each secure environment, NAS hardware
will be placed in its own locked cabinet, sequestered and protected from
NeuStar’s other systems, and will be accessible only to authorized
personnel.  As discussed in Proposal Section I.1.6.1,
NeuStar’s data centers are well suited for systems such as these.

 

Network—NeuStar has carefully architected the NAS network in a layered fashion
to maintain overall security while meeting the access requirements within a
constrained infrastructure budget.  Two
key components form the backbone of the NAS security solution: the firewall and
the intrusion detection system (IDS). 
The firewall throttles all access to the network and the IDS observes
all traffic that crosses between the firewall and the internet.

 

The
firewall will contain rules that only allow web traffic to reach the web
servers and FTP traffic to reach the FTP server.  The firewall will prevent all external access to any other NAS
servers (e.g. application servers or database server), no matter what user is
requesting access.  Additionally, the
database server will only accept database client connections from the application
servers, not from the web servers.  This
layered approach lowers the risk of any single security breach from having
catastrophic effects upon the system.

 

 

Servers—Only authorized NeuStar users with valid user IDs and passwords will
be granted access to NAS servers, and the actions each user will be allowed to
perform will be restricted by roles and privilege protections as well as Unix
user and group file permissions.

 

In
order to minimize the risk of virus attacks on the NAS environments, only the
System Administrator (or parties specifically designated by the System
Administrator) will be granted the ability to import or install files from
outside of the environments.  Also, all
devices able to receive email will use virus protection software.

 

I.1.4.2     Web
Application Interface (TRD 2.13.4, 7.1.2,
7.7.8)

 

NAS
web application users (accessing the non-public site) will require a
login/password to access a user account. 
Each user account will have an associated profile with a set of associated
privileges and authorization levels, which will control access to applications
within the NAS, as well as access to specific functions/forms/data within the
applications.  The NAS Application
Administrator will manage user accounts and associated privileges.  Configurable parameters will be available to
disable accounts after a number of unsuccessful login attempts, as well as
after a certain number of days of account inactivity.  User sessions will be terminated after a
configurable number of minutes of inactivity. 
Passwords will be subject to certain validation rules in order to
lessen the risk of password attacks. 
Additionally, users will be required to change their passwords every 180
days.  Default values for these
parameters will be defined in NeuStar’s Security Plan, to be delivered 45 days
after contract award.

 

Application
security will restrict each user’s visible data, editable data, and accessible
forms in accordance with the user’s assigned role and affiliation.  Specifically, the user will only have access
to those applications, forms, forecasting information (and associated forms),
reports, and inventory which are permitted by the users established profile.

 

Web
access will also use digital certificates to encrypt the data that flows
between web browsers and the NAS web servers. 
Encryption makes any intercepted information virtually indecipherable.  NeuStar will use Red Hat’s Enterprise Linux
AS software to provide additional high quality SSL level security.  NeuStar’s familiarity with the product, as
well as its ubiquity and strong support, make it an excellent choice for NAS.

 

 

I.1.4.3     EFT
Interface (TRD 7.4.3-4, 7.7.8)

 

Like
other portions of NAS, the EFT interface will have multiple layers of security.
At the network layer, the firewall will be provisioned to only allow EFT
connections from designated machines. The EFT machine itself will have no
permissions to connect anywhere inside the network. It will be isolated from the
rest of the system and periodically polled for files. This prevents any
security compromise on the EFT server from possibly initiating interaction with
the system.

 

EFT
will use File Transfer Protocol (FTP) for file delivery.  Users will require a user ID and password in
order to exchange files with the NAS. 
Like the application level, users will be required to change passwords
every 180 days.  All file transfers will
be logged with date, time, and transfer information.

 

Additionally,
system administrators will strictly partition the file exchange area on the EFT
server, using permissioned directories and files to prevent users from
inspecting other users’ files, even preventing them from seeing if any files
are present.

 

As
individual EFT files are processed by NAS, the transactions contained within
each file will be subject to the same business rules imposed when human
users submit web-based transactions. For example, service provider data privacy
will be maintained and standard edits/validations will be applied.

 

I.1.5        NAS
Infrastructure Management

 

The
NAS will benefit from infrastructure management experience gained from NeuStar’s
many industry caliber systems.  This sub-section will
examine how the NAS will manage data, enterprise services, the NAS network,
backup, and recovery, as well as scheduled maintenance.

 

I.1.5.1     Data
Management, Integrity, Storage, and Retrieval
(TRD 7.2, 7.4.1)

 

Building
on the success and experience gained in building the PAS, a system of comparable
size and complexity to that of the proposed NAS, NeuStar proposes using the
same data management, storage, and retrieval mechanism.  This approach leverages NeuStar’s current and
ongoing familiarity and expertise in developing and maintaining the critical
database component of the NAS.  For
reasons discussed in Proposal Section I.1.2.2, NeuStar has selected
Oracle9i for the purposes of the NAS.

 

 

From a
data integrity perspective,
NeuStar will leverage the power of the Oracle9i, in combination with NAS
specific business logic, to ensure the integrity of submitted information using
three levels of validation:

 

•                  Field level—Validating that entered data is in the
proper format and, where verifiable, in the proper range.  In cases where the data entry is a choice
between a finite set of values, checkboxes or drop down selection boxes will be
employed.  Errors will result in the rejection
of the entry and an error message being displayed.

 

•                  Form level—(Also referred to as “cross-field”
validation), this validation, performed on both GUI and batch submitted forms,
consists of performing a cross-check of related fields according to a set of
business rules.  Two fields could
individually have valid entries, but when placed together in context, be
erroneous.  An example of this type of
business rule would be a form where an NPA and State must correspond with
each other.  An attempt to enter an NPA
of “202” with “New Jersey” as the State would be flagged as an error, and the
form would be rejected with an error message indicating the mismatch.

 

•                  Reference level—This validation is also business
rule-driven, but this time data entered is validated against reference data or
records already contained in the database. 
For instance, an attempt to request a previously assigned code will
result in an error and the rejection of the submitted form.

 

The
majority of these rule-driven validations already exist in the current NeuStar
NANPA tools, and will be reused and augmented for NeuStar’s new NAS.  These rules have been learned and
captured over the course of NeuStar’s current NANPA term.

 

I.1.5.2     Enterprise
Management

 

NeuStar
is leveraging multiple aspects of its enterprise management capabilities as
part of its NAS solution.  These include
the system management features provided as part of Concord’s SystemEDGE,
NeuStar’s chosen management platform. 
With SystemEDGE, system administrators can distribute tedious management
tasks away from staff and down to the host systems. SystemEDGE operates
autonomously on a server, continuously monitoring changing conditions and
providing detailed information about the host’s configuration, status,
performance, users, applications, file systems, and other critical
resources.  SystemEDGE 

 

 

information is reported back to NeuStar’s enterprise management aggregation
platform, Micromuse Netcool.  Netcool
collects and consolidates events and alarms network devices and management
environments onto one screen, providing an easy-to-read color-coded “dashboard”
view of the entire network.

 

I.1.5.3     Network
Management

 

NeuStar
uses a variety of tools for network management. 
Primary among these is HP OpenView. 
OpenView is a market-leading network management system that monitors the
entirety of NeuStar’s infrastructure using the standard Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMP).  Events
generated by devices are consolidated and correlated onto comprehensive network
topology maps and used by NeuStar’s Network Operations Center (NOC) personnel
for monitoring and troubleshooting.

 

I.1.5.4     Backup and
Recovery (TRD 7.13, 7.14)

 

For
backup and recovery purposes, a complete image of the entire NAS system will be
kept offsite to guard against a catastrophic site disaster.  In addition, each NAS database server will be
equipped with a 12 Gigabyte DAT tape drive for database backup purposes.  Database backups will take place nightly at
both the primary site and weekly at the backup site.  Under normal circumstances when both the
primary and backup sites are fully operational, these backups will be
identical, since Oracle’s Advanced Replication will automatically keep the NAS
data consistent between the two sites. 
The only times the two NAS environments might not have identical data is
when transactions have occurred while one of the sites is offline, and, consequently,
has not yet been synchronized.  NeuStar
has developed and documented a set of procedures for the database backups.  The backups taken from the active site will
also be stored off-premises in order to protect data in the event of a site
disaster.  These off-site backups will be
accessible within 1 business day at all times. 
Backups will be retained online for 2 years and archived for 5 years.

 

Procedures
will be provided documenting how full recovery (data and system) will be accomplished.  This will be included in NeuStar’s Disaster
Recovery/Continuity of Operations Plan. 
The plan will comply with, and in fact improve on, the 2-business day
requirement for re-establishment of service. 
It should be noted that NeuStar, as required, will bear all costs

 

 

associated with rebuilding and/or recovering the NAS system and its
data in the event of a site disaster.

 

Typically,
the loss of a site will simply result in a switchover to the alternate site
within 3 minutes.  NAS will be capable
of, in the event of a prolonged degradation, failure, or disaster at the
primary site, automatically switching the active production site over to the
backup site, thus quickly achieving recovery. 
Since the NAS backup environment is shared between development, testing,
and production backup, any development and/or testing taking place at the
backup site would immediately cease until the primary site is operational.

 

The
only way a total system failure (system outage) can occur is if two failures
occur simultaneously at the geographically separated and independent
sites.  While the odds of such an
occurrence are extremely remote, NeuStar will be prepared to reestablish
service, without loss of data, within the two-day timeframe stated in the NANPA
requirements.

 

NeuStar
will design and document recovery procedures for all foreseeable system failures.  In the event of the NAS becoming unavailable
for any reason, NeuStar’s NANPA personnel will initiate the notification of all
NAS users (by email where possible, by fax or phone call where not).  NeuStar will send this notification within
five minutes of the start of the “out-of-service” condition.  The notification will indicate the start time
of the outage and its estimated duration. 
NeuStar will also notify users once normal operations resume.  In addition, NeuStar will provide a report to
the FCC with a periodic report listing all instances of unavailability during
that period.  The report will include an
explanation of the unavailability incident along with its duration.

 

I.1.5.5     Maintenance
Approach (TRD 7.1.1, 7.5, 7.19.7)

 

Regular
maintenance will be performed on the NAS, as required.  NeuStar will take advantage of various NAS
capabilities, such as switchover to the backup environment, in order to
minimize the amount of scheduled NAS downtime. 
It is understood that all scheduled outages will occur during non-core
business hours, and that all scheduled maintenance will require FCC
pre-approval. Duration of the maintenance intervals will be kept under four
hours per incident (any requests for a window greater than four hours will be
accompanied by specific explanation

 

 

justifying the time required).  A
full description of the recommended system maintenance procedures will be
provided with NeuStar’s NANP Administration System Maintenance Plan.

 

I.1.6        NAS
Operational Capabilities

 

This section will
describe the specifics relating to NeuStar’s proposed NAS locations, its
associated help desk capability, and the technical staff responsible for
building the new NAS.

 

I.1.6.1     Facility
Locations (TRD 7.3, 7.8)

 

To
meet the seamless availability and system backup requirements, NeuStar will
deploy the NAS in its existing, fully redundant facilities located in Sterling,
VA, and Charlotte, NC.  Table I-4
summarizes relevant facts about each of these data centers, indicating how they
meet or exceed the NAS requirements. 
This configuration provides several advantages:

 

•                  The centers are currently fully operational, and thus have no startup
risk.

 

•                  The centers are fully redundant and independent, providing seamless
service at all times.

 

•                  The facilities are housed in the same locations as the FCC-certified
PAS, thus eliminating any question on FCC certification regarding NAS location.

 

•                  The location of the centers, particularly the Sterling facility is
convenient for any inspections that the Government may wish to perform.  The Sterling center is collocated with
NeuStar’s headquarters, and home to NAS programming and maintenance personnel.

 

Table I-4.  Relevant Facts about NeuStar’s NAS Facility
Locations

 

	
  Characteristics

  	
   

  	
  Primary
  location

  	
   

  	
  Backup
  location

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System
  location

  	
   

  	
  Sterling, VA

  	
   

  	
  Charlotte, NC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Distinguishable
  area

  	
   

  	
  10,000 square feet
  surrounded by solid walls

  	
   

  	
  5,000 square feet
  surrounded by solid walls

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Three secure access
  control points, all locked doors with 24-hour closed circuit TV surveillance
  video monitoring.

  	
   

  	
  Three secure access
  control points, all locked doors with 24-hour closed circuit TV surveillance
  video monitoring.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Data
  center secure access control points

  	
   

  	
  Two entrances have
  biometric readers to control access. The third entrance, for emergency use
  only, is permanently alarmed and can be opened only from inside.

  	
   

  	
  One entrance has a
  biometric reader to control access. The other entrances, for emergency use
  only, are permanently alarmed and can be opened only from inside.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Support
  personnel location

  	
   

  	
  The Network Operations
  Center, staffed 24x7x365 is located in contiguous space within the facility.

  	
   

  	
  The Network Operations
  Center, staffed 24x7x365 is located in contiguous space within the facility.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Backup
  power

  	
   

  	
  Uninterrupted Power
  Supply (UPS) supplemented by generator provides 50 hours of backup power.

  	
   

  	
  UPS supplemented by
  generator provides 36 hours of backup power.

  

 

 

I.1.6.2     Help Desk (TRD 7.10)

 

NeuStar
will offer a staffed help desk that will take calls and monitor for fax, email,
and web submissions of all customer questions, troubles, and issues during
NANPA’s regularly scheduled business hours. 
All issues/inquiries will be resolved and/or responded to within one
business day and, where appropriate, will include a referral to a NANPA subject
matter expert.  Contact information for
the help desk will continue to be posted on the website along with all other relevant
contact information.  In addition to
staffing the phones during regular business hours, NeuStar’s NANPA service will
also be available by alternative means (web, voicemail, email, and facsimile –
both G.3 and G.4) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

As a
supplement to the staffed help desk, the NAS will also provide access to an automated
help facility.  As a result of its
positive results in its use at the National Pooling Help Desk, NeuStar has
selected Applied Innovation Management’s “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service”
as the help desk and knowledge-based software solution for the NAS.  “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service” is a
web-based external help desk system designed specifically for hardware and
software product support.  Customers can
use the system 24 hours a day to get answers to frequently asked questions
(which will be updated at least once a month); search the knowledge base,
application notes or support news; submit a trouble ticket, or submit a service
request.  They can also upload error
messages or other text to the support desk for faster problem resolution.  Features and benefits of HelpDesk Expert for
Customer Service include:

 

•                  Web-based—Works like any other web page.

 

•                  No learning curve—Anyone who can use a browser can easily
learn to use HelpDesk.

 

•                  Searchable database—Customers can find out if a problem has
been previously submitted by using HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service’s
search function. Specific fields or combination of fields can be searched.

 

•                  Searchable knowledge database—Customers and NANPA personnel can use
free text queries to search the knowledgebase of support information.

 

•                  Uses relational databases (Oracle) to store all help desk
information.

 

With
the use of the Oracle database, all information submitted, whether directly by
the customer, or by NANPA personnel, will be replicated to the backup site as
well as backed up to

 

 

tape.  In addition, as with all
data on NeuStar’s NAS, the trouble tickets will be kept available online for
not less than 2 years, and will also subsequently be archived for not less than
5 years.  Each trouble ticket will be
time-stamped to the minute at both time of opening and closing.  The closing of a trouble ticket will also
trigger a notification of the disposition of the trouble ticket to its
originator, either via email, fax or call, depending on the contact information
submitted by the originator.  Trouble
ticket summary data will be included in the NANPA annual report, including the
quantity and type of trouble tickets opened and closed over the course of the year.

 

I.1.6.3     Technical
Staff

 

NeuStar’s
technical staff consists of highly qualified, competent experts, intimately familiar
with the platforms and development tools being proposed.  NeuStar’s key NAS development personnel also
played key roles in the development of PAS. 
Just as NeuStar’s existing NANPA personnel are the major factor in what
will make the NANPA service an on-going success, NeuStar’s development team is
the major factor in what will make NeuStar’s NANP Administration System a
success for the FCC, the telecommunications industry, and NeuStar.

 

Please
refer to Proposal Sections II.2, Key Personnel, I.2.2, Staff Management
Approach (for categories and hours), and II.3.1, Functional Organization for
further details regarding NeuStar’s technical staff.

 

 

I.2           Implementation
Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, entire TRD)

 

NeuStar’s implementation approach offers the lowest risk and
ensures no interruption in current or continuing NANP Administration
operations.

 

NeuStar
possesses a comprehensive understanding of the project’s requirements as well
as the underlying issues that drive them, resulting in innovative, effective
solutions. As the NANPA, National Pooling Administrator, and the Local Number
Portability Administrator, NeuStar has successfully developed and implemented
complex full-service solutions for the Commission and the telecommunications
industry.  As discussed in Proposal Section II.1,
Past Performance, NeuStar has the unique combination of capabilities,
experience, and proven management methodology required to develop, deploy, and
operate the new NANP administration system (NAS) and provide the ongoing NANPA
administrative functions.

 

Even
though NeuStar, as the current NANPA, offers the lowest risk approach, there is
still a need for a transition to the new system and enhanced
functionality.  NeuStar will use a
proven, structured approach to implement the NAS.  This approach was used to successfully develop
and deploy the National Pooling Administration System (PAS) on schedule and
under budget.  This approach requires
knowledge and extensive experience with project planning, staffing, risk
management, change management, and quality assurance.

 

Project Planning—Successful planning requires a thorough understanding
of the explicit and implicit project requirements, the experience to establish
a reasonable plan that meets all of those requirements, and development of a
work breakdown structure to implement the plan. 
The entire implementation approach is documented in a project plan,
which describes the major activities required to ensure that all requirements
and objectives, as envisioned by the RFP and the Commission, are met—on time
and with quality.

 

Staffing—Staffing is determined based on the extensive
experience of the team and a detailed analysis of work activities and
requirements. The NeuStar staff is already experienced and in place; this
minimizes risk and provides for a seamless transition to the new operations.

 

 

Risk Management—Risk management requires extensive understanding and
experience to be able to identify risks and proactively address them before
they impact the project.  NeuStar is the
only provider that offers the lowest risk option based on its current
experience and staff.

 

Change Management—NeuStar has in place existing change control processes
that effectively manage and control change throughout the contract life cycle.

 

Quality Assurance—NeuStar’s comprehensive quality management program has
resulted in the consistent development and deployment of high-quality systems
on schedule and within budget.  It
also ensures the ongoing delivery of high-quality services to the
customer.  NeuStar embodies sound, disciplined
project and program management principles to oversee and monitor all required
activities, deliverables, and milestones. 
It is NeuStar’s program management’s philosophy that the attainment and
measurement of quality is the responsibility of the entire NANPA
organization.  Strong quality assurance
is the central theme and focus of NeuStar’s NANPA management.

 

I.2.1        Overall
Project Plan (RFP L.5,
M.2.A.3, TRD 2.14, 7.7.1)

 

NeuStar’s comprehensive and detailed project plan explicitly
addresses critical tasks to ensure successful provisioning of the NANP
administrations system and its operation.

 

NeuStar
has already developed a detailed project plan consisting of over two thousand tasks and sub-tasks that
identify activities required for a successful implementation of the NAS.  In light of page count limitations for
the proposal, NeuStar has only shown an abridged project plan at the task level
for the base year.  However, the full
plan, including subtasks, is available and will be furnished to the FCC upon
request.  Within thirty (30) calendar
days after Contract Award, NeuStar will deliver an updated project plan to the
Commission, satisfying the Implementation Plan Contract Data Requirement (TRD
2.14).  NeuStar’s project monitoring and
control processes will be used to ensure that high performance standards are
met, and to rapidly identify and address any issues or concerns.  Through strong monitoring and control, schedule slippage and
cost over-run will be avoided.

 

The
abridged project plan shown in Exhibit I-6 outlines key phases and
high-level tasks required to successfully develop, implement, and transition to
the new NAS as well as perform NANPA operations in the base (First) year.

 

 

[Exhibit I-6.
NeuStar’s abridged project plan provides a high-level view of the detailed
project plan which includes over 2,000 tasks and subtasks. Graphic omitted: diagram of abridged project plan.]

 

I.2.1.1     Automated
NANP System Development and Implementation Phase

 

NeuStar’s
software methodology allows it to successfully deliver the new NAS six months from award (TRD 7.7.1).  When reviewing the requirements to develop
NAS, NeuStar quickly determined that the schedule is very aggressive, as
the current NANPA systems do not meet RFP TRD requirements.  However, because NeuStar is leveraging the
business rules, algorithms, and logic from the current NANPA systems, combined
with the application framework of its National PAS, NeuStar’s development
effort and schedule risk is significantly reduced.

 

Recognizing
the aggressive schedule, NeuStar has already commenced work (pre-award) on NAS
functional requirements definition and design.  Consequently, it is prepared to deliver a
Functional Requirements Specification (FRS) 10 business days after contract
award. This accelerated approach allows for increased development and test
time, which translates into a higher quality system and materially reduces schedule risk.
NeuStar employed this same approach in its development of the National PA
System. Table I-5 provides overview descriptions for the major software
development responsibilities/phases required to meet the Commission’s objectives.

 

Table I-5.  Software Development Phases

 

	
  Major

  Software

  Phases

  	
   

  	
  Descriptions

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Functional
  Requirements Document

  	
   

  	
  During the Functional
  Requirements Document phase, NeuStar finalizes the specifications for a complete
  requirements document that identifies the features necessary for the NAS.
  This provides a blueprint for the development team that will logically group
  functions within the system. All requirements mentioned in the document are
  capable of being tested and traced. Furthermore, each requirement clearly
  defines the business logic, and is detailed and defined in a set of
  system/segment design documents.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Design

  	
   

  	
  During the design
  stage, NeuStar’s experienced design team maximizes the utilization of
  existing application and database logic, components and architecture from
  CAS, NRUF, and the PAS to create the baseline for its Detailed Design
  Document. During this phase, NeuStar also revises external design screens,
  reformat reports, and converts tasks NeuStar is currently performing to the
  new NAS process.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Development

  	
   

  	
  The software
  development strategy is to maximize the reuse of proven, successful,
  time-tested production systems. The PAS architecture will form the foundation
  for the new NAS. Much of the embedded business rule logic from CAS and
  NRUF is also reusable. Using existing and proven software architectures,
  logic, and components greatly reduces the effort to develop the NAS. The NAS 

  

 

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  application software
  is coded, debugged, documented, and tested (Unit Code test). The NAS will be
  fully developed along with migration scripts for full integration between
  NeuStar’s current, functional CAS and NRUF applications and the new NAS.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System/Integration
  Testing

  	
   

  	
  Once the NAS is fully
  developed, integration testing begins. Test plans executed during this phase
  are derived from criteria found in the Functional Requirements documentation.
  All required production scenarios are executed. NeuStar tests against
  historical data provisioned by the current NANPA applications. Integration
  testing is comprised of all files, databases, system software, and other
  required links. NeuStar’s highly skilled quality assurance staff will conduct
  the following tests during this phase: regression; environment; data
  migration; load; and functional requirements.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Acceptance
  Testing

  	
   

  	
  This stage complies
  with the System Test Plan (CDRL). Functional and performance testing with selected
  participants is completed and results from the testing forwarded to the
  Commission. Upon Commission approval, the NAS will be accepted and CLIN 0001
  will be satisfied. System deployment commences.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Training

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar provides
  training to its employees to ensure their skills are current so they can
  continue to provide optimal customer service. NeuStar considers an effective
  Training Plan an essential component of its implementation and staffing
  plans. NeuStar has devised an internal plan that incorporates four key
  training areas: neutrality, position-specific, help-desk/customer service,
  and NAS operations. During this stage, NeuStar’s experienced NANPA team
  establishes training material requirements, develops necessary training
  manuals, and creates a schedule so NeuStar can train its personnel as
  they migrate to the new NAS and operations.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Implementation

  	
   

  	
  Upon FCC review and
  acceptance of the system deployment of the new NAS will occur.

  

 

I.2.1.2     NANP
Administration Systems and Service Implementation

 

This
phase includes planning and implementation activities required for the NANP Administration
System and operations.  Some select tasks
are highlighted in Table I-6.

 

Table I-6.  Planning and Implementation Activities

 

	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Description

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program Management and
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  This task covers
  NeuStar’s management and administration activities. Under this task, NeuStar’s
  program management monitors and ensures all deliverables are efficiently
  delivered on time and with the highest levels of quality. During this stage,
  all quality assurance tasks are also accomplished. A joint team effort
  between NeuStar’s NANPA team and the Commission ensures delivery of a
  high-quality application.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration
  Migration Plan

  	
   

  	
  The NANP
  Administration Migration plan will detail an extensive deployment plan for
  migrating NeuStar’s current NANPA applications to the new NAS.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Risk Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  The Risk Management
  Plan builds upon NeuStar’s risk management approach and will outline the
  systematic processes that are used to manage risks throughout the life of the
  contract.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Communications Plan

  	
   

  	
  The Communications
  Plan provides an overview of how the NANP Administration team will effectively
  communicate throughout the entire organization. It identifies the key
  personnel who impact communications between the Commission and the industry,
  and outlines the process required to ensure timely and appropriate
  generation, collection, dissemination, storage, and ultimate disposition of
  project information to them. It will be in compliance with the TRD.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility/Equipment
  Plan

  	
   

  	
  Every task required
  for providing necessary equipment and materials to effectively support the
  NAS and operations environment is included and outlined in this phase.
  NeuStar executes the tasks required for configuring the NANP Administration
  environments in Sterling, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Concord,
  California. Because NeuStar is currently the NANPA, most of these tasks are
  already completed. Further, as the current NANPA, all NeuStar’s facilities
  are ready and available. The activities associated with this phase are
  upgrading the facilities to support the new NAS and other new requirements.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Staffing Plan

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar is uniquely
  positioned to use its current experienced NANPA staff to continue to provide
  excellent service and support, to reduce the risks associated with such a
  major deployment, and to ensure a seamless transition. NeuStar’s Staffing
  Implementation Plan calls for a phased transition of its existing experienced
  staff from the current NANPA operations to the new NANPA operations.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Performance Metrics

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar’s final
  performance metrics, which are based on current performance metrics used by
  NeuStar as the NANPA, serves as a monitoring tool to determine how
  effectively 

  

 

 

	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Description

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar’s NANPA team
  performs. These metrics, which involve collecting and disseminating
  performance data so stakeholders know how resources are being used to achieve
  project objectives, will be provided to the Commission as required. This
  process includes: status reporting – describing where the project stands; and
  progress reporting – describing what the project team has accomplished.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Quality Assurance Plan

  	
   

  	
  A quality assurance
  plan specific to NANPA is developed consistent with NeuStar’s quality
  program. The plan describes quality assurance activities that will be
  performed throughout the software development life cycle for the NAS. In
  addition, the plan will include performance monitoring activities required in
  TRD Section 9.

  

 

I.2.1.3     Transition
to NANP Administration Phase

 

As if
the aggressive 6-month timeframe was not enough of a challenge, the new NANPA
must flawlessly convert a tremendous amount of data (historical and current)
from the current NANPA Systems (CAS, NRUF, and DDS) to the new NAS.  In order to perform this job accurately, the
chosen vendor must possess detailed knowledge of all current NANPA systems,
data, database schemas, and underlying business rules.  The importance of this experience, which
NeuStar possesses solely and cannot be matched by other potential vendors on
any level, cannot be overstated.  For
example, there are over 120,000 CO codes assigned and, at any one time, there
are hundreds of CO code applications in various states of processing.  All must be flawlessly converted and
migrated.

 

If
there is just a one (1) percent error in the conversion, the disposition
of 1,200 CO codes will be incorrect; creating 1,200 opportunities for CO code
conflicts, which, in turn, can cause service outages for consumer businesses
and government users. These 120,000 CO codes and other resource information
comprise millions of data items in the current NANPA systems. Even a 99.9%
successful data migration could lead to thousands of data field errors, and, if
the vendor doesn’t recognize this until days or months after operations has
been transitioned to the new NAS, it could take months to discover and correct
the data; some data may never be corrected.

 

NeuStar
is able to deploy the system consistent with the March 28, 2003 Transition
Plan document which outlines a very reasonable transition strategy for most
other vendors.  However, NeuStar is in a
unique position as the incumbent NANP Administrator to offer the FCC an alternative
streamlined approach.  The new strategy
is a seamless, risk-free transition that will free up the FCC from all of the
kick-off and transition related activities. 
NeuStar will replace the multiple, complex steps that would be required
for other vendors with a one step transition to the

 

 

new system.  This transition will
be completed by the end of the seventh month from date of contract award.

 

Per
FCC requirements, NAS development and testing will be completed by the end of
the sixth month of the transition plan. 
NeuStar will then use the next thirty days to ensure the effective,
flawless migration of data from the existing system to the NAS.  Appropriate quality checks of system
capabilities will be conducted as the NAS is prepared for operation.  NeuStar fully appreciates the complexities
associated with such a large system migration and therefore plans appropriately
to ensure a smooth transition.  During
this timeframe, NeuStar will initiate the migration to the new system, to
include notification to the industry on its availability, while maintaining
current NANPA systems as backup until cutover, scheduled for the end of the seventh
month.

 

The
reduction in phases benefits the FCC and industry by simplifying their
interaction with the NANPA and reducing the overall transition time frame.  A prolonged, multiple-phased approach will
add risk, errors, and overall confusion regarding NANPA interactions.  NeuStar’s approach applies a focused,
dedicated effort by experienced staff to ensure a smooth transition of systems
and operations with significant benefits to the Commission.

 

•                  Eliminates the need for a “Kick-off Meeting” facilitated by the FCC in
order to coordinate transition activities, freeing the FCC to focus on their
important policy-making responsibilities.

 

•                  Required “training” as described in the Transition Plan is no longer
necessary since NeuStar is intimately familiar with all NANPA systems and
processes.

 

•                  Eliminates the potential for proposed last minute changes in transition
activities or the unforeseen issues that typically surface in a complex
transition of systems and services between two separate organizations.

 

I.2.1.4     Reporting
Phase

 

This
phase consists of all activities associated with the delivery of monthly,
quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports. 
These reports include status reporting during the development phase and all
NANPA reports required beyond deployment of the system.  These reports are described in detail in
Proposal Section I.2.7.

 

 

I.2.1.5     Industry
Meetings (Travel Phase)

 

This
task details functions associated with maintaining active participation in all industry
meetings affecting NANPA. NeuStar’s NANPA team will prepare for and regularly
attend industry fora such as INC, NANC, NPA relief planning meetings, etc., and
continue to provide strong support to the industry as required by the RFP.

 

I.2.1.6     Data Requirements-CDRLs
Phase

 

NeuStar’s
NANPA team will develop and submit all CDRLs required during this phase.  NeuStar will define the scope, perform
research analysis, and compile and write or update the systems and operations
elements for all data requirements identified in TRD Section 10.  The CDRLS are addressed in Proposal Section I.2.6.

 

I.2.1.7     Ongoing
Operations Phase

 

The
remainder of the project plan focuses on the activities associated with the
ongoing operations of the NANPA.  These
include automated system support (operation and maintenance), NANP
administration management, reporting, regulatory and industry support, and data
requirements.

 

I.2.2        Staff
Management Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD 2.5)

 

NeuStar is uniquely positioned to ensure that an experienced,
motivated, and knowledgeable staff is available for successful transition and
implementation.

 

NeuStar
will use its experience as the current NANPA and its extensive experience in
number administration to accurately identify staffing levels and categories
necessary to effectively manage and support the varied NANPA services. The
NANPA management team utilizes work breakdown structures, historical
information, and an in-depth, unmatched understanding of scope and resource
descriptions in determining resource needs. Appropriate staffing for implementation
will ensure that personnel are used effectively and efficiently. As required,
NeuStar has provided the staff/labor categories and hours per task (shown in Exhibit I-7)
to develop, implement, and transition to the new NAS as well as perform NANPA
operations in the base (First) year. 
Further, NeuStar will comply with the requirements set forth in TRD Section 2.5,
Staffing.

 

 

	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Program

  Director

  	
   

  	
  NPR

  Relief

  Planning

  	
   

  	
  NPR

  Relief

  Planning

  	
   

  	
  NRUF

  Admint

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  NRUF

  Admint

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  NRUF

  Admin

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  
	
  Automated System Development
  and Implementation (CLIN0001)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Functional Requirements Document

  	
   

  	
  34

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
   

  	
  13

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  79

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Design

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  High-Level Design Document

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Finalize Detail Design Document

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Development

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Coding of NAS Modules

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Unit Code Testing

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System\Integration Testing

  	
   

  	
  19

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  186

  	
   

  	
  178

  	
   

  	
  194

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
   

  	
  197

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Acceptance Testing

  	
   

  	
  38

  	
   

  	
  14

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  76

  	
   

  	
  39

  	
   

  	
  24

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  79

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Training

  	
   

  	
  23

  	
   

  	
  14

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
   

  	
  13

  	
   

  	
  29

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  48

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Implementation

  	
   

  	
  17

  	
   

  	
  14

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  35

  	
   

  	
  16

  	
   

  	
  16

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  31

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration System & Service
  Implementation (Internal Planning)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program Management and Administration

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration Migration Plan

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
   

  	
  3

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Risk Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Communication Plan

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Facility/Equipment Plan

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Staffing Plan

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Performance Metrica Plan

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Quality Assurance Plan

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Transition to NANP
  Administration (CLIN0002)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  941

  	
   

  	
  950

  	
   

  	
  878

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  
	
  Data Analysis\Reporting

  	
   

  	
  238

  	
   

  	
  85

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  180

  	
   

  	
  850

  	
   

  	
  786

  	
   

  	
  29

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
   

  	
  521

  	
   

  	
  706

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  External Affairs

  	
   

  	
  79

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Reporting (CLIN0003)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Management Reporting Plan Preparation &
  Support

  	
   

  	
  137

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  684

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  101

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Travel (CLIN0004)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Data Requirements (CDRLS)
  (CLIN0005)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Implementation Plan

  	
   

  	
  14

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Security Plan

  	
   

  	
  11

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  34

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Disaster\Continuity of Operations Plan

  	
   

  	
  45

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration System Transfer List

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  	
  Resource

  Admin

  	
   

  	
  Technical

  Manager

  	
   

  	
  Technical

  Support

  	
   

  	
  Technical

  Support

  	
   

  	
  Sr.

  Systems

  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  Sr.

  Systems

  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  Systems

  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  Systems

  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  Systems

  Engineering

  	
   

  
	
  Automated System Development
  and Implementation (CLIN0001)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Functional Requirements Document

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  78

  	
   

  	
  84

  	
   

  	
  64

  	
   

  	
  48

  	
   

  	
  48

  	
   

  	
  80

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Design

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  High-Level Design Document

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  109

  	
   

  	
  64

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  31

  	
   

  
	
  Finalize Detail Design Document

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  125

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  31

  	
   

  
	
  System Development

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Coding of NAS Modules

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  219

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  301

  	
   

  	
  301

  	
   

  	
  358

  	
   

  	
  358

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Unit Code Testing

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  201

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  292

  	
   

  	
  292

  	
   

  	
  347

  	
   

  	
  347

  	
   

  	
  122

  	
   

  
	
  System\Integration Testing

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  146

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
   

  	
  196

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  196

  	
   

  
	
  System Acceptance Testing

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
   

  	
  78

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  
	
  System Training

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  39

  	
   

  	
  9

  	
   

  	
  9

  	
   

  	
  9

  	
   

  	
  9

  	
   

  	
  12

  	
   

  
	
  System Implementation

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  100

  	
   

  	
  39

  	
   

  	
  64

  	
   

  	
  64

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  67

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration System & Service
  Implementation (Internal Planning)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program Management and Administration

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration Migration Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Risk Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Communication Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Facility/Equipment Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  28

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Staffing Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  28

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Performance Metrica Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  28

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Quality Assurance Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Transition to NANP
  Administration (CLIN0002)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  795

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Data Analysis\Reporting

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  796

  	
   

  	
  140

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  External Affairs

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Reporting (CLIN0003)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Management Reporting Plan Preparation &
  Support

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Travel (CLIN0004)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Data Requirements (CDRLS)
  (CLIN0005)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Implementation Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  38

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Security Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  34

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Disaster\Continuity of Operations Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  98

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration System Transfer List

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  23

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  System Test Plan

  	
   

  	
  27

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  68

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Change Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  36

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Contract Change Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  34

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Training Plan

  	
   

  	
  41

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  74

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Maintenance Plan

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Documentation Plan

  	
   

  	
  11

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0001 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  191

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  504

  	
   

  	
  262

  	
   

  	
  262

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  131

  	
   

  	
  437

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0002 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  396

  	
   

  	
  706

  	
   

  	
  706

  	
   

  	
  180

  	
   

  	
  650

  	
   

  	
  786

  	
   

  	
  970

  	
   

  	
  1000

  	
   

  	
  924

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0003 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  137

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  46

  	
   

  	
  684

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  48

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  101

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0004 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0005 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  GRAND TOTAL OF BASE YEAR HOURS

  	
   

  	
  949

  	
   

  	
  843

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  1368

  	
   

  	
  1094

  	
   

  	
  1094

  	
   

  	
  1061

  	
   

  	
  1232

  	
   

  	
  1677

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Test Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  98

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  88

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  270

  	
   

  
	
  Change Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  75

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Contract Change Management Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  38

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Training Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  105

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  74

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Maintenance Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  98

  	
   

  	
  40

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  System Documentation Plan

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  105

  	
   

  	
  52

  	
   

  	
  50

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0001 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  436

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  612

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0002 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  798

  	
   

  	
  935

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0003 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0004 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0005 – Total Hours

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  114

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  300

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  GRAND TOTAL OF BASE YEAR HOURS

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  1654

  	
   

  	
  1824

  	
   

  	
  1596

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  

 

 

I.2.3        Risk
Management Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3,
entire TRD)

 

NeuStar offers the lowest risk approach to ensure a seamless
transition and the continued effective administration of the NANP.

 

Risk
management is the act of being proactive to ensure project success, rather than
being reactive to solve problems after they have arisen.  Risk management generally seeks to identify
and manage the ‘known risks’ (managed via contingency planning and reserve),
while the ‘unknown risks’ are managed/addressed via management reserve.

 

NeuStar
is the lowest risk choice for NANPA not only due to its extensive experience as
the current NANPA but also due to its culture of rigorous implementation of
quality and risk management processes. These processes have consistently
demonstrated that NeuStar delivers high-quality solutions and services on schedule and
within budget—evidenced by the recent, successful development and deployment of
the National Pooling Administration System.

 

NeuStar’s
approach to risk management is disciplined, consistent, and iterative.  NeuStar anticipates and identifies risks and
takes mitigating action to ensure no discernible project impact will result
from the risk.  The elements of NeuStar’s
risk management process include risk identification, risk quantification, and
risk mitigation.

 

Risk Identification—In preparation, NeuStar has identified potential
system risks (provided in Table I-7). 
Throughout the contract lifecycle, including the development, implementation,
and transition to the new NAS, NeuStar will continue to evaluate the project
dependencies and issues to identify risks. 
As risks are identified, NeuStar quantifies them to develop a comprehensive
risk elimination or mitigation strategy.

 

Risk Quantification—Once NeuStar has identified a risk, it will evaluate
the risk and possible risk interactions to assess the range of possible
outcomes.  As part of the risk management
process, NeuStar will quickly quantify the risk to determine its severity and
evaluate its potential impact on the project. 
As soon as the potential risk is quantified, a risk avoidance or mitigation
strategy will be developed and put in place.

 

 

Risk Mitigation—Over the life of the contract, NeuStar will develop
and document contingency plans and alternative strategies to address risks as
they arise.  NeuStar will track all risk
management activities using a risk management report.  This report will list each risk and contain a
mitigation plan along with NeuStar personnel assigned to take actions, as
needed, to carry out the mitigation plan. 
The report will be issued regularly reflecting the status of all identified
risks.  Table I-7 summarizes the results
of NeuStar’s initial assessment of NAS implementation risks and
mitigations.  

 

Table I-7.  NAS Implementation Assessment and Mitigation
Approach

 

	
  Risk

  	
   

  	
  Implication

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar’s
  Mitigation Approach

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1.               Incorrectly
  estimating technical requirements in designing the NAS resulting in an
  under-designed/under-sized system

  	
   

  	
  An under-designed
  system might appear to save money (e.g., a lower evaluated price in the
  proposal), but in fact, could have a negative impact on the service
  providers, for instance resulting in less efficient use of service provider
  staff time. Alternatively, service providers might individually invest in
  automated support capabilities to help compensate for NAS deficiencies.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar has chosen a
  minimum-risk approach to system implementation. Its experienced NAS
  operations and technical personnel have carefully analyze each TRD
  requirement in comparison to the current NANP system’s capabilities to design
  and implement the new solution, ensuring the NAS is properly sized.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.               Conversion
  to the new NAS without full understanding of (1) current system and
  data, (2) TRD requirements, and (3) what it takes to implement an
  effective conversion.

  	
   

  	
  Danger of a late
  delivery – extending beyond the specified transition period, possibly by
  several months.

  

  Complete project failure – data conversion and migration actually fails, but
  the vendor does not recognize it until months after migration, having to
  spend months to correct the data and possibly never getting it right.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar has used
  current NANP Administration experts knowledgeable about the current
  applications throughout the planning and implementation process.

  

  NeuStar has a rigorous process of comparing every TRD requirement with every
  system capability and then mapping the difference into its newly designed
  system. Technical experts who developed the National Pooling Administration
  System – very similar to the new NAS – are being used to eliminate or
  minimize risks.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.               Inability
  to hire and retain knowledgeable systems personnel who understand the number
  administration environment.

  	
   

  	
  Potential significant
  system implementation schedule slippage.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar is fully
  staffed with knowledgeable technical personnel, who have extensive
  telecommunication industry backgrounds and more importantly, experience on
  all facets of NPA Relief Planning, CO Code Administration and NRUF reporting.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.               Schedule development
  not based on a rigorous process involving analysis of TRD requirements,
  competent system design reflecting those requirements, and use of a
  well-thought-out work breakdown structure as a precursor to schedule development

  	
   

  	
  High probability of
  significant system implementation schedule slippage, and resulting delay
  in providing NANPA services.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar has followed a
  rigorous process in developing its implementation schedule: breaking the
  implementation work components down into sufficient detail to develop fully
  understood implementation staffing requirements and a very-low-risk implementation
  schedule.

  

  As a sanity check, NeuStar has conducted a detailed comparison of NANPA
  implementation schedule with its recent on-time PAS implementation
  schedule.

  

 

 

Although
NeuStar’s current analysis reveals no significant risks associated with
operating and maintaining the NAS, NeuStar will be constantly vigilant
throughout the life of the contract and will manage identified risks as
described earlier in this section.

 

I.2.4        Change
Control Approach (RFP L.5,
M.2.A.3, TRD 2, 4, 7,10)

 

NeuStar’s change management processes ensure only authorized
changes are implemented to systems, guidelines, or procedures.

 

NeuStar
recognizes that business conditions, regulatory directives, and any number of
other decisions/drivers will initiate a need for change during the lifecycle of
the NANPA project. To ensure that NANPA processes and systems remain understood
and controlled at all times while still permitting change-related decisions to
be made, NeuStar’s change control process allows for orderly changes to the
scope of its operations and systems.  The
change control processes for software and industry guidelines are described
below.

 

I.2.4.1     Software
Change Control Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3,
TRD 7)

 

NeuStar’s
control processes allow for changes to be requested, approved (or rejected),
and executed when approved. NeuStar will follow the change control process
whenever a change is requested that could affect the functionality of the
NANPA, as defined in the TRD.  NeuStar’s standard change control process
follows logical steps in submitting, analyzing, approving, and implementing
requested changes. All change requests will be documented and logged into a
tracking system. Appropriate parties will be notified of the impact analysis
and of NeuStar’s recommended action. This process is currently in place at
NeuStar and is used to administer change control in a variety of systems,
including PAS and NPAC.  NeuStar’s change
control process, illustrated in Exhibit I-8 will apply throughout the NANP
Administration contract lifecycle—for implementation, operation, and
maintenance.

 

I.2.4.2     Guidelines
and Directives Change Control (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3,
TRD 2.10, 4.1, 7, 10.6, 10.7)

 

Over
the years, the FCC, the telecommunications industry, and the NANPA have faced
many challenges, which resulted in extensive change in the NANPA processes and
applications.  For example, the FCC’s NRO
Orders introduced dramatic changes to NANPA’s processes.  As a

 

 

result, NeuStar worked closely with the FCC and industry to efficiently
and effectively implement those changes in the NANPA applications and
processes.  NeuStar’s change management
process is described in detail in Exhibit I-9.

 

[Exhibit I-8. the
multiple checks and balances built into NeuStar’s change management process
ensures accuracy, reliability, and stability. Graphic omitted: diagram of
Change Control Process.]

 

NeuStar
will document the NAS change control process described in Proposal Section I.2.4.1
as part of a NeuStar Master NANPA Change Management Plan.  The plan will also include (as attachments)
the  [CO Code] Change Management Plan
required by TRD
Sections 4.1 and 10.6 and the Contract Change Management Plan required by TRD
Sections 2.10 and 10.7.  The Master
Change Management Plan will help ensure consistency and coherence in managing
all changes affecting NANPA performance.

 

[Exhibit I-9.
NeuStar’s unmatched experience in NANPA enables it to adopt and implement any
changes required. Graphic omitted: diagram regarding Change Management Plan for
Modification of Guidelines.]

 

I.2.5        Quality Assurance Approach (RFP L.5, M.2.A.3, TRD 7, 9)

 

NeuStar will ensure the highest levels of quality—from NANP
Administration System design, development, and deployment, to NANP
Administration.

 

NeuStar
understands that when the FCC selects a vendor, it must not only consider the
overall cost and ability to deliver a system, but also the overall quality of
its products and services.  A
state-of-the-art system that functions flawlessly but lacks a quality service
component is useless and will not meet the expectations of its clients.  NeuStar recognizes that quality requires an
ongoing and evolving process that embodies a commitment to continuous
improvement by meeting the dynamic demands of customers and the ever-changing
technology base.  The quality performance
measurement system attributes managed by NeuStar’s staff include: reliability,
interoperability, availability, responsiveness, effective communication,
accuracy, security, and one of NeuStar’s strongest value-added trademarks,
neutrality.

 

 

NeuStar’s
quality management program drives the delivery of all of its services. NeuStar’s
performance measurement system, the heart of its quality program, is managed
through strategic monthly operational reviews—meetings of senior and executive
management where progress and results are discussed—as well as through various
additional operational and tactical reviews. 
Additionally, our program is supported within NeuStar across all NANPA
functional groups including: service delivery, program management, software
engineering, systems quality assurance, and information technology, and is
subject to internal reviews consistent with IEEE standards.  In conjunction with its quality management
program, NeuStar is committed to constantly improving NANPA services while
ensuring high levels of responsiveness to customer requests and other
issues.  NeuStar continues to work with
its customers to identify the key processes required for problem resolution and
delivery of quality services, including measures to assess database
performance, accessibility, and staff responsiveness to customer issues.

 

I.2.5.1     Software
Quality Assurance (L.5, TRD 7,
M.2.A.3)

 

NeuStar’s
quality system applies many of the concepts and standards of IEEE, the Project
Management Institute’s (PMI) Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), and
the tenets of the Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Capability Maturity
Model (CMM).  NeuStar is currently
implementing many of the ISO 9000 certification requirements as part of our
comprehensive quality management program, including a commitment to documented
process control.  NeuStar’s standard
quality control approach, as shown in Exhibit I-10, is applied throughout
the software development lifecycle and was applied successfully to the National
Pooling Administration System.

 

In
addition, NeuStar will use various software tools to support the quality
assurance process for NAS. Some of these tools include CVS, which is used to
store all source code and documentation for configuration management and
TestDirector, which is used to store and run test cases and track defects.

 

[Exhibit I-10.
NeuStar’s software development quality assurance approach provides a structured
review methodology that improves software systems through incremental reviews.
Graphic omitted: diagram of NeuStar’s Quality Assurance Approach to Software
Development.]

 

 

I.2.5.2     Audits and
Performance Monitoring (RFP M.2.A.3, TRD 9)

 

NeuStar’s
quality assurance practices are not limited to the development of
software.  They are applied throughout
NANPA operations, which has resulted in a history of consistently high quality,
accurate processing results and excellent customer feedback.

 

Further,
NeuStar’s management embraces the importance of delivering high quality services
and is committed to setting performance objectives, as well as monitoring and
measuring its performance against those objectives.  NeuStar has developed a comprehensive
internal Quality Management Plan for NANPA that includes 33 performance
objectives and related metrics.  This
plan encompasses customer requirements and key service performance indicator
metrics based on those requirements and associated industry guidelines.  See Table I-8 for a listing of the
performance metrics in our quality management plan.  The consistent application of this plan and
the associated metrics, as well as frequent quality performance surveys, are
important tools to not only measure and report on performance, but to also
enable the early detection and correction of adverse trends. 

 

Table I-8.  NeuStar’s 33 Performance Measurements and
Related Metrics

 

	
  No.

  	
   

  	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Description
  of Performance Measurement

  	
   

  	
  Benefits

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of initial
  NPA relief planning meetings held at least 36 months prior to forecasted NPA
  exhaust.

  	
   

  	
  Provides sufficient
  time to avoid NPA exhaust prior to relief.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of meeting
  notices distributed at least eight weeks prior to the initial NPA relief
  planning meeting date.

  	
   

  	
  Provides correct
  amount of advance preparation and scheduling time.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Initial
  Planning Documents (IPD) distributed at least four weeks prior to the initial
  NPA relief planning meeting date.

  	
   

  	
  Provides ample prep
  time for participants.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of meeting
  minutes distributed within two weeks after the meeting date.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely
  distribution of meeting results.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of minutes
  review meetings conducted on or before date set by the industry at the
  meeting.

  	
   

  	
  Satisfies industry
  need for timely minutes review.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  6

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of
  industry-recommended NPA relief plans filed with state commission on or
  before date set by the industry.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely filing
  of NPA relief petition.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  7

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of NPA
  relief code assignment requests made within one week after state regulatory
  approval of a relief plan.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely request
  for NPA relief code assignment.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of press
  releases announcing details of NPA relief plan issued within two weeks after
  assignment of a new NPA relief code.

  	
   

  	
  Provides timely
  announcement of relief plan to the public.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of initial
  implementation meetings scheduled within 45 calendar days after NPA relief
  code has been assigned.

  	
   

  	
  Initiates industry’s
  implementation of approved relief plan.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Conduct customer
  surveys of meetings and conference calls and report results monthly.

  	
   

  	
  Assesses staff
  performance and identify areas for training and process improvements.

  

 

 

	
  No.

  	
   

  	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Description
  of Performance Measurement

  	
   

  	
  Benefits

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  11

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of jeopardy
  meetings scheduled within 30 calendar days after jeopardy status has been
  declared.

  	
   

  	
  Quickly identifies
  jeopardy processes.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  12

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Planning
  Letters of NPA relief plan details posted on NANPA website within three weeks
  after initial implementation meeting.

  	
   

  	
  Provides timely
  details of relief plan to the industry and the public.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Planning
  Letters posted on NANPA website within 10 business days after regulatory
  order changing a relief plan has been issued.

  	
   

  	
  Provides timely
  notices of relief plan changes.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  14

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of IPDs
  distributed within four weeks after jeopardy declaration, if NPA relief
  planning has not been initiated.

  	
   

  	
  Provides ample prep
  time for participants.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of initial
  NPA relief planning meetings conducted Provides ample within eight weeks
  after jeopardy declaration, if NPA relief planning has not been initiated.

  	
   

  	
  advance preparation
  and scheduling time.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16

  	
   

  	
  RP

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of NPA
  relief planning phone calls/e-mails returned with one business day.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures customer
  satisfaction with timely responses to relief planning inquiries.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  17

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of CO code
  applications processed within 10 business days.

  	
   

  	
  Triggers audits that
  ensure impartiality in assignments.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  18

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of CO codes
  assigned without code rejects.

  	
   

  	
  Assesses staff
  performance and ensures a low volume of code rejects.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  19

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of phone
  calls returned by the end of the next business day.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures customer
  satisfaction with timely responses to CO code inquiries.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  20

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Conduct quarterly
  customer surveys and report results.

  	
   

  	
  Assesses staff
  performance and identify areas for training and process improvements.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  21

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of
  reclamations begun on codes within six months of effective date.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely return
  of unused codes thereby extending NPA life.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  22

  	
   

  	
  CO

  	
   

  	
  Average days late in
  beginning reclamations.

  	
   

  	
  Assesses staff
  performance and identify areas for improving reclamations.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  23

  	
   

  	
  AO

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of AOCN
  RDBS/BRIDS entry requests filled within five business days.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely entry
  of critical routing and rating information into databases.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  24

  	
   

  	
  AO

  	
   

  	
  Average days late in
  entering AOCN data.

  	
   

  	
  Assesses staff
  performance and identify areas for improvement.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  25

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Form 502
  error notifications sent within five business days.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures erroneous NRUF
  data will be identified and corrections will be resubmitted in a timely
  manner.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  26

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Form 502
  confirmation notifications sent within five business days.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures customers
  receive timely confirmation that their submissions have been received.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  27

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Form 502s
  processed within ten days of submission date.

  	
   

  	
  Analyzes staff
  performance and identify areas for training and process improvements.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  28

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Form 502
  anomalous notifications sent within 45 days of submission date.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures timely
  identification of questionable data submitted by service providers and notification
  to the involved service provider that further explanation is needed.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  29

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of updates
  provided to state commissions with ten days of change to service providers
  NRUF (utilization).

  	
   

  	
  Ensures state
  commissions are provided with up-to-date utilization and forecast data.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  30

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Job Aid
  updates posted to NANPA website 60 days prior to NRUF submission deadlines.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures that information
  updated about NRUF submissions is available in a timely fashion.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  31

  	
   

  	
  UF

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of NRUF
  phone calls/emails returned with one business day.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures customer
  satisfaction with timely responses to NRUF inquiries.

  

 

 

	
  No.

  	
   

  	
  Task

  	
   

  	
  Description
  of Performance Measurement

  	
   

  	
  Benefits

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  32

  	
   

  	
  OR

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of Carrier
  Identification Code (CIC), 500 NXX, 900 NXX and 555 line number requests
  processed within ten business days.

  	
   

  	
  Provides timely
  response to requests.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  33

  	
   

  	
  OR

  	
   

  	
  Percentage of CIC/500/900/555
  phone calls/emails returned within one business day.

  	
   

  	
  Ensures customer
  satisfaction with timely responses to CIC/500/900/555 inquiries.

  

 

RP = NPA relief
planning, CO = CO Code administration, AO = AOCN administration, UF = NRUF
administration, OR = Other Resources — CIC, 500 NPA, 900 NPA and 555 line
number administration

 

NeuStar
goes above and beyond guidelines and customer expectations in monitoring its
performance in the administration of the NANP, always looking for ways to
improve operations.  By going this “extra
mile”, NeuStar earned a “More than Met” overall performance rating in both its
2001 and 2002 NANPA annual evaluation conducted by the NANC.  In addition, as required, NeuStar, as the
current NANPA, reports monthly to the NANC on all of its performance metrics
and will, based upon future feedback from the NANC, revise existing and/or
create new measurements in response to an ever-changing telecommunications
environment.  The following sections
address the requirements in TRD sections 9.1 through 9.5.

 

Audit by FCC—NeuStar will comply with all TRD 9.1
requirements.  NeuStar’s facilities have
ample space and supplies for Commission auditors.  In the event an audit shows the need for
corrective action, NeuStar will fully comply with TRD 9.1.4 requirements and
schedule.

 

Monitoring—NeuStar actively supports—and will continue to
participate in—annual customer surveys and operational reviews covering all
required topics, and will continue to develop, with the NANC, an annual
Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). 
Previously, NeuStar assisted the NANC in the distribution of the 2001
and 2002 NANPA annual survey that significantly improved the overall response
rate.  Furthermore, NeuStar continually
reports to the NANC on its progress addressing the items identified in the PIP
to ensure all performance issues are appropriately addressed and resolved.

 

Performance monitoring—NeuStar currently has in place an
internal quality management plan as shown in Exhibit I-11. Performance and
quality monitoring requirements are shown on the left side of the exhibit and
conform to TRD sections 9.2 - 9.5. 
NeuStar’s

 

 

Quality Management Plan (1) analyzes performance reports and
identifies corrective actions, (2) calls for additional training, as
appropriate, (3) develops items for the annual PIP, and (4) demonstrates
that guidelines and TRD requirements are being fully met.  The NANPA performance metrics that NeuStar
has developed, shown previously, relate to the industry guidelines and requirements.

 

NRUF-related measurements—NeuStar will participate fully in NRUF-related
reviews according to TRD 9.4, most of which are currently being measured and
tracked by NeuStar today.  From December 2001
to December 2002, NeuStar processed 11,000 NRUF submissions, all of which
were processed within 10 business days. 
In this case, the 10-business day performance measurement did not come
from industry guidelines, but rather was initiated by NeuStar.

 

[Exhibit I-11.
NeuStar uses a suite of standard performance metrics that ensures high service
levels and ultimate customer satisfaction. Graphic omitted: diagram of NeuStar
Quality Management Approach.]

 

Self-assessment and reporting—NeuStar will provide a self-assessment Quality Management
Plan similar to the one in place today, and will deliver reports to the NANC on
the required schedule.  NeuStar has
consistently delivered superior customer satisfaction—achieving an overall
performance rating of 4.84 out of 5.00 during 2002.  To identify instances of user dissatisfaction,
NeuStar will continue to offer a formal NANPA complaint process on the NANPA
website, a process initiated by NeuStar. 
Upon receipt, NeuStar investigates each complaint (averaging fewer than
10 per year), provides bi-weekly status reports to the NANC, and after conclusion,
prepares a written resolution statement including any necessary corrective
action.  NeuStar takes the few complaints
it receives each year very seriously, and all past complaints have been
expeditiously resolved.

 

 

I.2.6        Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) (RFP M.2.A.3, TRD 10)

 

NeuStar’s high quality, comprehensive, well-conceived,
value-based plans, which benefit from its previous work on similar projects,
focus on the Commission and industry needs and views.

 

Highlighted
in Table I-9, the plans NeuStar will deliver under the contract are characterized
by the following:

 

•                  Plan content and format will apply NeuStar’s current NANPA experience
and knowledge in preparing similar plans, to include: the Performance Improvement
Plan (TRD 9.2.3 and 10.11) in a format proven to facilitate NANC’s review
process, and a Transition Plan (TRD 2.15.4 and 10.12) that reflects NeuStar’s
knowledge of specific items the FCC expects in a transition plan.

 

•                  NeuStar’s plans will reflect its proven, minimum-risk processes—System
Test Plan (TRD 7.12 and 10.5) and Change Management Plan (TRD 4.1 and 10.6),
which have the added benefit of having received prior FCC acceptance under the
National PA contract.

 

•                  NeuStar will follow a standard internal plan development process
designed to ensure quality products in support of successful on-time contract
activities.

 

Table I-9.  NANPA Contract Data Requirements

 

	
  CDRL

  	
   

  	
  Description

  	
   

  	
  Submission
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Implementation Plan
  (TRD 2.14, 10.1)

  	
   

  	
  This document will
  provide the Commission with a rollout schedule for NeuStar’s NAS and
  operations. This plan is already drafted with over 2,000 tasks and subtasks.

  	
   

  	
  30th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award Updated 3 calendar days prior to start of
  NANP Administration.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Security Plan (TRD
  7.6, 10.2)

  	
   

  	
  This plan will
  describe in detail the measures implemented to secure each service provider’s
  confidential and proprietary information, prevent unauthorized access to our
  system and sites, and ensure the security of the NANPA operation.

  	
   

  	
  45th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award 

  

  Update 30 calendar days prior to start of NANP Administration

  

  Updated annually 45 calendar days prior to start of option year

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Disaster Recovery/Continuity
  Plan (TRD 7.13, 10.3)

  	
   

  	
  This plan will
  describe in detail how the NAS and operations will function in the event of a
  disaster. Information will be provided regarding key personnel; operational
  and system methods and procedures; and the continued support to the
  telecommunications industry in the event of a disaster.

  	
   

  	
  60th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award 

  

  Updated Annually 30 days prior to start of option year

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Administration
  System Transfer List (TRD 4.17, 10.4)

  	
   

  	
  This list will contain
  all of the required hardware and software property developed under this
  contract.

  	
   

  	
  At NAS acceptance

  

  Updated Annually

  

 

 

	
  CDRL

  	
   

  	
  Description

  	
   

  	
  Submission
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Test Plan (TRD
  7.12, 10.5)

  	
   

  	
  This plan will define
  the guidelines for testing the NAS.

  	
   

  	
  75th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award 

  

  Whenever significant changes or modifications are made to system

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Change Management Plan
  (TRD 4.1, 10.6)

  	
   

  	
  The Change Management
  Plan will be built upon NeuStar’s existing NANPA change management processes
  that manage changes to the CO code assignment practices based on modifications
  to the industry guidelines and regulatory directives.

  	
   

  	
  90th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Contract Change
  Management Plan (TRD 2.10, 10.7)

  	
   

  	
  The plan is based on
  NeuStar’s existing process that manages the changes that result in the
  development and modifications of guidelines or procedures that impact the
  performance of the NANPA functions.

  	
   

  	
  90th
  Calendar Day after start of first Option Year 

  

  Updated 60 calendar days prior to start of Option Year

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Training Plan (TRD
  4.1, 10.8)

  	
   

  	
  This plan will define
  the program to establish training materials and schedules for the training of
  the staff as they migrate to the new NAS and operations.

  	
   

  	
  105th
  Calendar Day Post Contract Award 

  

  Updated annually 30 Calendar Days prior to start of Option Year

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Maintenance
  Plan (TRD 7.5, 10.9)

  	
   

  	
  The Maintenance Plan
  will outline in detail NeuStar’s NANPA team maintenance schedule over
  the next four (4) years. It will include the tasks associated with
  maintaining the web site, uploading files, communicating with Internet
  service providers, daily back-ups, e-mail, and database administration in
  addition to all other key maintenance subjects relating to hardware and
  software.

  	
   

  	
  Prior to system
  acceptance 

  

  Updated annually 120 calendar days prior to start of option year

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Documentation
  Plan (TRD 2.15.3, 7.16, 10.10)

  	
   

  	
  The plan will define
  specific guidelines for the installation, operation, and management of the
  NAS as well as guidelines and procedures for maintaining and upgrading it.

  	
   

  	
  Updated annually prior
  to system acceptance

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Performance Improvement
  Plan (TRD 9.2.3, 7.17, 10.11)

  	
   

  	
  Following NANC’s
  annual NANPA performance review report, NeuStar will submit a Performance
  Improvement Plan addressing each area requiring attention.

  	
   

  	
  Annually

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Transition Plan (TRD
  2.15.4, 10.12)

  	
   

  	
  The plan will include
  all tasks associated with the transition of the NAS to a successor.

  	
   

  	
  180 Calendar Days
  prior to contract termination

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Source Code
  (TRD 10.13)

  	
   

  	
  All system source code
  will be provided to the FCC.

  	
   

  	
  180 Calendar Days
  prior to contract termination

  

 

I.2.7        Reporting (RFP M.2.A.3, TRD 7, 8)

 

NeuStar has designed and will continue to publish and enhance
NANPA reports that not only assist in managing numbering resources, but also
assist the regulatory authorities and industry personnel in performing their
related missions.

 

NeuStar
fully appreciates the need to provide timely and accurate reports on NANP numbering
resources to the Commission, state regulatory authorities, the NANC, and the
industry.  As the NANPA, NeuStar has
endeavored to fulfill the needs of regulatory authorities and the industry for
information and reports to properly manage the NANP.  NeuStar expects that any respondent to this
RFP will state that it will provide all the reports as defined in the

 

 

TRD.  However, only NeuStar has
demonstrated its innovation and ability to provide these reports.

 

In
fact, NeuStar proactively identified the need to provide the information
contained in these reports, provided timely and continuous updates, identified
any developing trends, and took appropriate action in a timely manner.  For example, NeuStar recently developed a new
NRUF report for the states that contains contact information for service
providers from NANPA’s code assignment records, LERG information, and
previously reported NRUF data, allowing state commissions to easily contact
service providers concerning their NRUF submissions.  In addition, NeuStar has developed over 40
specialized reports in response to regulators and industry needs.  Table I-10 summarizes the required reports,
and identifies those reports already provided by NeuStar.  TRD Section 8.9 catalogues the technical
report requirements from TRD Table 8-1. 
NeuStar will comply with all of the requirements in TRD Section 8.9
as well as the performance reports required in TRD Section 8.10.

 

Table I-10.  NANPA Reports

 

	
  TRD

  Section

  	
   

  	
  Report

  	
   

  	
  Frequency

  	
   

  	
  Remarks

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.0

  	
   

  	
  Numbering Resource
  Report

  	
   

  	
  March and September for
  all resources, and monthly for resources under “close watch”

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  provides resource status reports annually. See Note 1.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.0

  	
   

  	
  NANP Exhaust Report

  	
   

  	
  Semi-annual, updated
  as needed

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report on an annual basis.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.1, 7.15

  	
   

  	
  Annual Report

  	
   

  	
  First quarter of each
  year

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. Two items have been added to the content of this
  report by TRD 8.1: 1) list of reserved NPAs, and 2) summary of trouble
  tickets

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2

  	
   

  	
  NRUF Report

  	
   

  	
  Twice yearly
  consistent with NRUF reporting dates

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2

  	
   

  	
  State NRUF Overview
  Report

  	
   

  	
  Twice yearly
  consistent with NRUF reporting dates (if requested by a state)

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently publishes
  this NANPA report

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2

  	
   

  	
  State NRUF Detail
  Report

  	
   

  	
  Within 10 calendar
  days of request, provided that request is made at least 30 days after NRUF
  reporting deadline, but before next NRUF reporting date

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. Audience for this report is state regulatory agencies.
  Data is confidential and can be provided only to those states having required
  confidentiality assurances in place.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2.1

  	
   

  	
  Anomaly Report

  	
   

  	
  Generated when an
  anomaly is detected in data submitted by a service provider and provided to
  submitting service provider within 10 days of submission of their data

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. It assists service providers to correct or
  refine their data submissions.

  

 

 

	
  TRD

  Section

  	
   

  	
  Report

  	
   

  	
  Frequency

  	
   

  	
  Remarks

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2.2

  	
   

  	
  Standard Reports for
  Regulatory Authorities (10 currently available)

  	
   

  	
  Prepackaged with the
  State NRUF Detail Report, or can be run by NANPA on request

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. As required, NeuStar will meet with regulatory
  agencies annually to review report format and content.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.2.2

  	
   

  	
  Miscellaneous NRUF
  Effectiveness Reports (8 reports specified)

  	
   

  	
  April and September keyed
  to NRUF submission dates

  	
   

  	
  This is a new
  reporting requirement. NeuStar will create these reports and modify them as
  needed to meet the needs of state regulatory authorities or other authorized
  users.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.3

  	
   

  	
  NPA Relief Activity
  Status Report

  	
   

  	
  Monthly

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report, and will be revised to include the following: 1)
  jurisdiction, 2) date relief need identified, 3) declaration date, 4) exhaust
  date upon declaration, 5) initial relief planning meeting notice date, 6)
  requested implementation date, 7) requested relief type, 8) rationing date.
  See Note 2.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.4

  	
   

  	
  CO Code Activity
  Status Report

  	
   

  	
  Monthly

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. See Note 1.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.5

  	
   

  	
  NANP Resource Activity
  Status Report

  	
   

  	
  As needed

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report. See Notes 1 and 2.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.6

  	
   

  	
  Other Reports

  	
   

  	
  As needed

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  provides reports on other number resources as needed. As required, NeuStar
  will produce such reports as enterprise services, as stated in Section 8.6
  of the TRD.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.7

  	
   

  	
  Binder of Decisional
  Principles

  	
   

  	
  As needed

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.8

  	
   

  	
  CO Code Assignment
  Activity by NPA for State Commissions

  	
   

  	
  Weekly

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.8

  	
   

  	
  CO Code Assignment
  Activity Summary

  	
   

  	
  Monthly

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar currently
  publishes this NANPA report.

  

 

Note
1: 
Resource status reports are required monthly if the resource is near
exhaust and “being watched.”  The list of
resources “being watched” has not yet been identified.  Upon contract award, NANPA will meet with the
COTR or his/her representative to determine the content of the list.

 

Note
2: 
NANPA does central office code administration and relief planning only
in the US and its territories.  Some
reports require information known only by the administrators serving other NANP
countries.  To comply with the non-US
portion of the requirement, NeuStar, as NANPA, will request the relevant data
from those administrators along with their permission to include it in the
report.

 

 

I.3                                  NANPA Administrative
Functions (RFP L5,
M.2.A.2, TRD 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8)

 

As the current steward of the numbering resources, NeuStar
possesses the requisite neutrality, knowledge, and intimate familiarity with
regulatory directives and industry guidelines, processes and procedures, and
nuances to ensure the effective and efficient performance of all NANPA administrative
functions into the next term.

 

The
NANPA must be able to administer NANP resources in a fair, neutral, and
proficient manner.  The development and
deployment of a new NANP administration system (NAS) and migrating data from
the old NANPA systems to the new NAS presents formidable challenges; however,
these phases only comprise a small portion of the overall services of NANPA,
and are performed during the first months of the next term.  For the next 4 plus years, the value of the
NANPA will be measured on the basis of the services it provides.  In order to be the NANPA for the next term,
the chosen vendor must, among other things:

 

•                  Possess the institutional memory of
number administration—there are several numbering precedents that are not written down in the
guidelines (e.g., the practice of making “temporary assignments” in cases of
advertising misprints); only NeuStar has the
institutional memory to be the NANPA;

 

•                  Possess unassailable neutrality—otherwise, understandable human errors
can be called into question and misinterpreted as “possible” neutrality
violations, which can waste significant FCC resources to research; NeuStar has a comprehensive company-wide neutrality
compliance program whereby it has passed all 11 neutrality audits;

 

•                  Demonstrate the ability to handle
significant changes in NANP resource application volumes—otherwise, service will suffer and
carriers will be slow to receive numbering resources; NeuStar has demonstrated that it can “staff-up” to
handle levels 200% over expected volumes; and

 

•                  Demonstrate the ability to quickly
react and adapt to changes in FCC regulations—otherwise, FCC directives will not be enforced or FCC
objectives will not be realized in a timely fashion; NeuStar has demonstrated its ability to rapidly adapt to new FCC rules and

 

 

orders; for example, it completely revamped CO
code administration and reclamation procedures and implemented a new complex
NRUF system in two short months.

 

The
detail provided in the remainder of this section serves to demonstrate
NeuStar’s expertise in the most important aspects of the NANPA function—service
to all stakeholders—and ensure confidence by the FCC and the industry that
NeuStar is the vendor of choice to effectively and efficiently perform the NANP
administrative functions on an impartial and neutral basis. Further, this
detail seeks to demonstrate our intimate knowledge and thorough understanding
of the rules and procedures in FCC Reports and Orders governing the NANPA
activities, the nuances associated with these orders and the various
constituents, and the requisite processes associated not only with code
administration (I.3.1), relief planning (I.3.2), and NRUF (1.3.3), but for the
administration of other resources (I.3.4) as well.  If selected to continue serving the FCC and
the industry as the NANPA, NeuStar will comply with all requirements set forth
in the Technical Requirements Document, including its attachments.

 

I.3.1        Central Office Code Administration (RFP L.5, M.1.A.2, TRD 4,)

 

NeuStar has done an excellent job of administering CO codes even as the
demand for these resources rose to unprecedented levels and FCC’s numbering
resource optimization strategies were being implemented during the same
timeframe.

 

NeuStar
is intimately familiar with all regulatory directives and industry guidelines
and was able to adapt quickly to respond to fundamental changes in the
telecommunications environment.  Choice
of NeuStar as the next NANPA would ensure a seamless transition to a knowledgeable
body of experts: any other choice is fraught with dangers and pitfalls
associated with inexperience and lack of knowledge.

 

NeuStar
has an enormous reservoir of experience in administering CO codes on the basis
of all applicable FCC directives and industry guidelines and has unmatched
expertise in performing these functions in a timely, neutral, and professional
manner. NeuStar personnel continuously keep themselves abreast of new federal
and/or state requirements and changes to industry guidelines and modify its CO
code administration methods and procedures (M&Ps) to reflect latest
directives. For example, soon after the release of the Commission’s NRO orders,
NeuStar appropriately modified its CO code administration M&Ps to reflect
new requirements 

 

 

concerning additional documentation required for initial code
assignments and implementation of utilization thresholds for growth codes.
NeuStar has also modified CO code reclamation processes as discussed in greater
detail in Proposal Section I.1.3.8.

 

I.3.1.1              Client
Services (RFP L.5, M.1.A.2, TRD 4.2.1)

 

The administrators will continue to make informed, efficient
decisions that assist regulatory authorities to meet their numbering resource
optimization goals.

 

NeuStar
has a large “client” base insofar as the administration of the NANP is
concerned. As such, NeuStar will provide
information on CO code administration processes, guidelines, procedures,
interfaces, and services to all of its clients including, but not limited to,
the FCC, state regulatory commissions, the NANC, industry, and the general
public.  NeuStar will continue to provide,
on the NANPA website, all pertinent and current information regarding CO code
administration to ensure that users are aware of and have easy access to the information
they need to effectively and efficiently do their job. The website design will
be improved for greater ease of use but will continue to include information
such as reclamation and jeopardy procedures, current industry guidelines, code
assignment reports, job aids, tutorials, help desk and contact information, and
summaries of the FCC and State orders that specify parameters for code
assignments.

 

NeuStar will provide assistance to all clients who use
numbering resources and suggest alternatives, when possible, that may assist
clients with numbering resource optimization and utilization issues.  In practice, the assistance required is most often a
detailed explanation of the conditions that must be met to obtain numbering
resources, as specified in the NRO orders, or an explanation of the
alternatives available to an applicant that does not meet those
conditions.  Since mid-2000 when the FCC’s
first and subsequent NRO orders were released, NeuStar’s code administrators
have developed a detailed knowledge of these orders and their effects, enabling
them to be very effective in assisting clients.

 

NeuStar will maintain working knowledge of applicable state
regulations and local dialing plans.  Knowledge of
the local environment, including regulations, can be gained only through time
and experience—in fact, in combination with their previous experience, NeuStar’s
NANPA personnel have become scholars of NANP administrative regulations,
guidelines, local

 

 

information, and processes and procedures. NeuStar’s CO code
administrators maintain state binders containing all of the state and
area-specific orders and procedures.  In
addition, NeuStar’s code administrators and relief planners interact daily with
local service providers and state regulatory authorities, and have amassed
local knowledge that is often unobtainable from other sources.  It is also standard practice for code
administrators to participate in relief planning meetings, during which a
wealth of local information is presented and discussed.  Finally, code administrators have access to
information on 7-digit cross NPA boundary dialing arrangements.  This information has been collected to ensure
that the administrators assign central office codes that do not cause routing
or dialing conflicts.

 

NeuStar will continue to assist code applicants with
understanding and completing all forms and appendices associated with industry
guidelines.  Meeting this requirement is essential to
successfully serving as the NANPA, particularly given the current
telecommunications environment where more and more service providers are
requiring their employees to do more with less, and where many of the
applicants are new to code administration and numbering management. For some
code applicants, CO code administration is a small part of a long day and they
need to be able to submit forms easily and correctly—the first time. NeuStar
understands this, and has, through its tenure as the NANPA, responded to over
80,000 calls with very high customer satisfaction ratings.  In addition to personalized customer service,
applicants can also find assistance in the central office code section of
the NANPA website, which contains helpful information, including a multi-part job
aid, an explanation of the documentation required to demonstrate facilities
readiness, and a primer on the effects of the FCC’s NRO orders.  The introduction of NeuStar’s current Code
Administration System (CAS), which allows applicants to fill out templates on
line and submit requests, has made the process much simpler and more efficient.  Previously, applications had to be submitted
by fax or mail.  CAS helps the applicant
avoid errors.  For example, many of the
fields in CAS are drop-down menus that guide the applicant in making the
correct choices.  These helpful features
will be carried over into the new NANP administration system.

 

NeuStar will educate its clients.  NeuStar recognizes that training its clients will
result in more efficient and effective processing of CO code requests as well
as satisfied clients.  Each requirement
described above addresses one or more aspects of client education that NeuStar

 

 

provides.  Key to the success in
educating clients is the quality of the one-on-one interactions they have with
the administrators, and NeuStar has taken steps to increase and maintain the
expertise of its administrators.  Each
administrator has completed the Achieving
Extraordinary Customer Relations seminar, taught by Achieve
Global.  This seminar reinforces the
importance of high quality customer service and follow-through procedures.  In addition, the seminar explains how to
chart customer needs, wants, and expectations and how to meet those needs.  NeuStar also provides technical training for
the administrators.  Each month,
administrators are required to attend an interactive training session on a
technical topic related to numbering.

 

NeuStar will notify its clients and interested parties when
guidelines or applicable directives have changed.  As required, NeuStar will provide electronic
notification of such changes within five business days of change
identification.  In fact, a special
electronic distribution list (“code-admin”) has been established and used for
distributing notices and information of interest to code applicants.  Currently, the list has 220 subscribers, and
CO code applicants will be automatically added to the list if they provide an
email address.  The code-admin capability
will be merged into the new NAS.  More
detail on the management of changes associated with code administration
procedures can be found in Proposal Section I.2.4.2.  As required, a transition period will precede
the introduction of the change.  The
length of the transition period will be commensurate with the scope of the
change, but may be bounded by regulatory directives.

 

NeuStar will respond to client inquiries regarding available
and assigned central office codes. 
Up to the
minute information on assigned and available codes will be available on the
NANPA website.  NeuStar’s administrators
will answer questions about the availability of specific codes or will direct
clients to the website if they wish to research or browse among the assigned
and unassigned code lists.

 

I.3.1.2     CO
Code Processing (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.2)

 

NeuStar will leverage its experience derived from processing
more than 150,000 applications—99.3% within the required 10 working days—to
ensure that CO code processing is timely, accurate, and compliant with all
applicable regulatory directives and industry guidelines.

 

 

This section serves
to demonstrate NeuStar’s understanding and abilities to process code
applications efficiently and effectively by focusing on some of the
lesser-known but critical aspects of the application process that a successful
NANPA must be familiar with, along with steps that NeuStar has taken to improve
the process during its first tenure as NANPA. 
If selected to continue serving as the NANPA, NeuStar will continue to
ensure that all requirements set forth in TRD Section 4.2.2, as well as
all applicable federal and state directives, are stringently adhered to.

 

NeuStar
processes central office code applications according to documented methods and
procedures (M&Ps).  These M&Ps
must recognize and be consistent with 1) federal directives such as the FCC’s
NRO orders, 2) supplementary state directives, the scope of which may vary
depending on how much authority has been delegated to the state by the FCC, and
3) the industry consensus assignment guidelines.  The NANPA must have the experience to combine
these fundamental drivers with efficient business practices to create detailed
procedures to support daily code administration activities.  The procedures must be scrupulously neutral,
fair, and even-handed, and they must conform totally to the letter and intent
of regulatory directives.  This is
precisely how NeuStar has operated during the past five years and is committed
to continuing to do so during the next five.

 

Exhibit I-12 describes the code assignment process,
focusing on the application review, evaluation, and determination if an
assignment should be made.  The circled
numbers in the exhibit correlate with the text, which is indicated by a shaded
number.

 

[Exhibit I-12. NeuStar’s experience in code processing
ensures proper review and analysis of all applications. Graphic omitted:
diagram of Cenral Office Code Processing — Assignment Request.]

 

The
first step taken by the code administrator is to review the entire application
for completeness, scanning the submitted material for errors, inconsistencies,
or omissions 1.  This includes ensuring
that all required fields have been populated and that all required
documentation is attached; e.g., for initial code requests, evidence of
certification to operate in the specified rate center.  Table I-11 summarizes the required information
for various types of applications.

 

 

It is
NeuStar’s intention, consistent with the requirements, to assist those who
submit applications in good faith to get the numbering resources they need as
quickly as possible.  To that end,
NeuStar has defined and posted on the website specific conditions under which
it will suspend rather than deny applications containing errors or
omissions.  When an application is suspended,
the applicant has two days to work with the administrator to correct the
problems.  If the applicant cannot be
reached, or the problems cannot be fixed within the two-day window, the application
is denied.

 

It is
critical to maintaining an unassailable position of neutrality that conditions
for suspension be well defined and applied uniformly so as to preclude the
possibility of giving special treatment to any specific applicant or group of
applicants.  By defining and publishing
these conditions in advance, NeuStar has provided the industry with an
opportunity to ensure that these conditions are non-discriminatory.  No company has questioned the
non-discriminatory nature of NeuStar’s posted conditions.

 

Table I-11.  Central Office Code Application Material
Checklist    

 

	
  Type of

  App

  	
   

  	
  Materials
  Required

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Initial code

  	
   

  	
  Completed Part 1,
  documentation showing certification, documentation showing service readiness,
  NRUF on file

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Growth code

  	
   

  	
  Completed Part 1,
  MTE form, NRUF on file

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Change

  	
   

  	
  Completed Part 1,
  MTE form if change is to rate center, merger/acquisition documentation if
  name change

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Return

  	
   

  	
  Completed Part 1,
  NPAC report indicating whether or not returned code contains ported numbers
  (Optional, but inclusion of this report speeds processing of returns)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Reservation

  	
   

  	
  Completed Part 1,
  documentation required for initial or growth code, depending on type of
  reservation

  

 

The
code administrator then evaluates the information provided on the application
to determine whether or not the applicant’s request can be granted 2. 
The evaluation criteria are summarized in Table I-12.

 

 

Table I-12.  Central Office Code Application Evaluation
Criteria

 

	
  Type of

  App

  	
   

  	
  Evaluation
  Criteria

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Initial code

  	
   

  	
  Does the information
  provided meet the requirements of the Central Office Code Assignment
  Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, Sections 4.1.1, 4.2, and FCC order 00-104?

  

  Does the documentation provided show that service provider has state or
  federal certification to provide service in the area for which the code is
  requested?

  

  Does the evidence provided adequately document service readiness?

  

  Does the application meet State/NPA specific requirements (if any)?

  

  Does the applicant’s NRUF filing indicate a need for resources in the
  specified area?

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Growth code

  	
   

  	
  Does the information
  required meet the requirements of the Central Office Code Assignment
  Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, Section 4.1.1, 4.3, 5.2.3, 9.4.1, 9.6.1.4,
  FCC orders 00-104, FCC 01-362, and FCC 00 429 and 47 CFR, §52.13 (c) (7)?

  

  Does the Months to Exhaust (MTE) worksheet provided indicate the required
  utilization level for codes currently assigned?

  

  Does the application meet State/NPA specific requirements (if any)?

  

  Does the applicant’s NRUF filing indicate a need for resources in the
  specified area?

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Change

  	
   

  	
  Does the information
  provided meet the requirements of the Central Office Code Assignment
  Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, and Section 6.3.1?

  

  Does the MTE worksheet provided to support a change in rate center indicate
  the required utilization level for codes currently assigned?

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Return

  	
   

  	
  Does this meet the
  requirements of Central Office Code Assignment Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, Section 5.4.3,
  6.3.2, 6.3.3, 8 and FCC order 00-104?

  

  Does the returned code contain numbers ported to other carriers? (See below.
  In this case action is required to ensure that customers holding these
  numbers do not lose service.)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Reservation

  	
   

  	
  Does this meet the
  requirements of Central Office Code Assignment Guidelines, INC 95-0407-008, Section 4.5,and
  9.6.1.5?

  

  Does the request meet the requirements for an Initial or Growth code?

  

 

One
difficult challenge for NANPA arises in the return of central office codes
assigned to carriers that no longer provide service or plan to discontinue
service. In order to discontinue service, carriers must follow the
industry-defined process requiring them to file Part 1 return requests for
the affected codes 66 days prior to the date on which service will be
discontinued. During the 66-day period, NANPA processes the application, the
disconnect notice is published in the LERG, and carriers schedule and make
the required changes to their switches.

 

Local
number portability (LNP) has made the process significantly more complex. In areas
where LNP has been implemented, CO codes assigned to carriers discontinuing
service often contain numbers that have been ported to other service
providers.  If numbers have been ported
to other carriers, disconnecting the code disables the default routing path, causing
some calls to the ported numbers to fail. To avoid this possibility, NeuStar,
at its own initiative,

 

 

developed a new process that was reviewed by the FCC and subsequently
adopted by INC for inclusion in the guidelines.

 

In
2002, for example, 321 out of 3,433 central office codes submitted for return
were found to contain a total of 105,010 ported telephone numbers.  Using the new procedures to process these 321
disconnects, NANPA approached 247 service providers and successfully found new
LERG assignees for 305 of the returned codes—a 95% success rate.

 

Some
carriers have deactivated their networks without returning their assigned
codes.  When it is obvious that codes
have been abandoned, NeuStar contacts the affected state commissions for
direction.  In this capacity, in 2002,
NeuStar distributed 27 notices to states concerning 53 codes that had a total
of 37,035 ported telephone numbers.  As a
result of NeuStar’s efforts, only 16 codes, with a total of only 239 telephone
numbers, were disconnected.  The remaining
codes were successfully assigned to other carriers, preserving telephone
service for thousands of customers.

 

If an
NPA is in jeopardy, that is, the supply of existing resources may exhaust
before relief can be implemented, state-specific procedures limit the number of
codes that can be assigned each month and a lottery is used to determine which
qualified applicants will get assignments 3.  Lotteries are discussed in greater detail in
Proposal Section I.3.1.6.

 

If the
administrator approves the application, and the applicant is successful in the
lottery (if applicable), the administrator chooses a code to assign 4. 
This task appears to be no more complicated than choosing a code from
the available list, but in reality choosing a code that will work is arguably
the most difficult part of the assignment function.  The reason for this is the existence of
special cross-NPA boundary dialing arrangements ordered by state commissions or
voluntarily instituted by service providers. 
These arrangements may limit where specific codes can be assigned.  The administrator must ensure that any code
chosen is not already assigned, not only in the home area code, but also in the
area within the foreign area code to which seven-digit dialing is permitted, and
in the local calling area for any of the codes within the restricted area of
the foreign area code.  If an incorrect
code is assigned, the service provider will be unable to implement translations
in its switches, making it impossible to reach numbers within the assigned code
from some areas.  Often this is not
discovered until specific numbers have already been promised to customers, with
the consequent potential for financial damages. 
Given the

 

 

gravity of this issue, avoiding code rejects is and will remain one of
NeuStar’s key objectives as the NANPA.

 

To
avoid this problem, NeuStar has taken several steps.  First, since the complexity of the problem
makes it impossible for the administrator to manage, checking for code
conflicts has been built into CAS and will be included in the new NAS.  Next, data on existing non-standard dialing
arrangements is needed.  NeuStar has been
studiously collecting data on these dialing arrangements over the last five
years.  There is no single source in the
industry where the data can be found. NeuStar has used CCMI’s QTEL9000 tariff
database as a basis, augmenting the data with information received from local
telephone companies and other sources.

 

Once
an assignment is made, NeuStar must follow up to ensure that the code has been
implemented, and initiate reclamation if it has not 5.  This includes a
reminder to the code applicant of the need to submit a Part 4, indicating
the code has been placed into service. 
NeuStar also agrees to augment current procedures to produce a “Part 5”
form confirming receipt of a Part 4 form as required.  Further discussion of follow-up and reclamation
is provided in Proposal Section I.3.1.8.

 

I.3.1.3     Communication
and Notification Functions (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2,
TRD 4.2.3)

 

NeuStar will leverage established and effective communications
skills, tools, and interfaces to ensure NANPA communications and notifications
are clear, accurate, appropriate, and timely.

 

An
essential requirement that all successful NANPA administrators (whether Code or
NPA Relief Planning) must meet is effectively communicating with
clients—providing concise, clear, topical information in a timely and neutral
manner. During its tenure as the NANPA, NeuStar has established relationships
and methods and procedures to ensure that these communication and notification
requirements are met. Our experienced administrators employ customer service
and listening skills to issue clear and concise notifications, accommodate
differences, and resolve conflicts.  The
following discussion addresses how NeuStar will meet the requirements set forth
in TRD Section 4.2.3.  Additional
detail regarding program level communications is provided in Proposal Section II.4,
Communications Approach.

 

 

Surpassing
the requirement for daily updates, NeuStar will provide real time updates on
the central office codes (NXXs) assigned and available in each NPA.  Regulatory and industry personnel will access
the up-to-the-minute information on the status of all CO codes.

 

NeuStar will follow the industry guidelines for notification
of central office code assignments. 
NeuStar will issue notification of all NPA code jeopardy situations and
other pertinent activities to the appropriate regulatory agencies and affected
industry members.  It should be noted that NeuStar introduced an
electronic mailing list, “code-admin”, specifically for announcement of items
of interest relating to code administration. 
This notification mechanism will be incorporated into the new NAS.

 

NeuStar will have the capability to input rating and routing
data into BIRRDS.  NANPA will enter data
directly into BIRRDS.  NeuStar obtained this capability in 1997
and will continue to maintain and use it to enter data directly, as required
under the new contract.  Further, NeuStar
plans to continue to offer data entry as an enterprise service.

 

I.3.1.4     Status
Reporting (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.4,)

 

NeuStar will monitor and report the status of NXXs in each
NPA daily to ensure clients have the most up-to-date information required.

 

As
indicated earlier, NeuStar will provide real time updates on CO codes assigned
and available.  NeuStar also makes many
other useful CO code reports available on its NANPA website.  These reports include a code assignment
activity report—summarizing rationing amounts, codes assigned, codes returned,
and available and unavailable codes.  A
comprehensive description of reports provided is in Proposal Section I.2.7.

 

I.3.1.5     Tracking
CO Code Utilization for NPA Relief (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2,
TRD 4.2.5,)

 

NeuStar’s experienced forecasters, code administrators, and
relief planners will work together to track CO code utilization in preparation
for NPA relief.

 

NeuStar
will determine when to initiate NPA relief by continually monitoring central office
code growth and projecting exhaust as required in TRD Section 4.2.5.  To facilitate review and analysis of growth
data, NeuStar designed a report summarizing all data pertinent to central

 

 

office code growth activity, including the number of assignments,
returns, available codes, and rationing information.  The report is available on the NANPA website.

 

When
NeuStar identifies a potential NPA exhaust condition, it notifies the
appropriate state commission and affected parties in accordance with the
guidelines.  NeuStar will prepare and
organize a relief planning meeting for each NPA projected to exhaust within 36
months, obtain local industry consensus on a relief plan, and submit the plan
to the state for approval.  Comprehensive
information on relief planning can be found in Proposal Section I.3.2.

 

I.3.1.6     Management
of Jeopardy Conditions (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD
4.2.6)

 

NeuStar code administrators will faithfully develop and
follow jeopardy procedures— conducting lotteries and facilitating the
development of consensus relief plans in a scrupulously neutral manner.

 

NeuStar
declares a jeopardy condition in an NPA when forecasted or actual demand for CO
codes will exceed the supply before relief can be provided.  When a jeopardy condition is declared,
NeuStar first notifies the appropriate regulatory authority and then the industry.  NeuStar convenes the industry to develop NPA
or state-specific jeopardy procedures, which typically limit the number of CO
codes that can be assigned each month and establish lotteries to determine
which of the qualified applicants will receive assignments.  For the duration of the jeopardy condition,
NeuStar conducts the lottery each month and assigns codes according to the
outcome.  NeuStar, as NANPA, has managed
more than 100 NPA jeopardy conditions and facilitated more than 250 associated
meetings, all in accordance with regulatory orders and industry guidelines.  Fortunately, the FCC’s numbering optimization
initiatives and the return of CO codes attendant thereto have reduced the
number of jeopardy conditions from 73 in 1999 to 41 in 2002.  In 2002, NeuStar, on its own initiative,
recommended and received authority from the industry to rescind jeopardy under
certain conditions and has exercised this new authority in 9 NPAs.

 

After
a jeopardy condition is declared, NeuStar immediately invokes temporary
jeopardy procedures, allowing assignment of only three codes per month to
protect the remaining supply of codes. 
The industry, with NeuStar code administration assistance, develops
final jeopardy procedures in accordance with Section 9.0 of the central
office code assignment guidelines.  In

 

 

the past, these procedures have varied significantly from one state to
another.  State commissions may introduce
additional variances.  Delegated
authority allows some state commissions to direct NeuStar to implement
NPA-specific numbering conservation measures. 
For example, the California Public Utility Commission, pursuant to the
FCC’s delegation of authority, recently directed NeuStar to reduce the
allocation of codes to two NXXs per month in all rationed California NPAs.  In compliance with this directive, NeuStar
communicated these changes immediately to service providers in the state of
California.

 

During
a jeopardy condition, NeuStar monitors central office code assignment and
return activity continuously and assesses the impact on NPA exhaust.  This information is posted to the NANPA
website.  This process is performed in
conjunction with preparation for NPA relief. 
In most cases, rationing of central office code assignments ends
simultaneously with the effective date of NPA relief, although a few states
were granted delegated authority to continue rationing for up to six months
after relief is implemented.  In managing
jeopardy conditions, NeuStar rigorously complies with the regulatory
directives, industry guidelines, and requirements of TRD Section 4.2.6 and
will continue to do so during the next five years.

 

I.3.1.7     Management
of Code Inventory (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 4.3,)

 

During the past five years, NeuStar has taken a number of
initiatives to significantly improve the accuracy of CO code inventory records
received from previous RBOC code administrators and has augmented the supply of
NXXs through release of unavailable codes, thereby extending the lives of
several NPAs.

 

The
management of CO code inventory is a critical task.  If inventories are not managed properly,
substantial problems can ensue, most notably, the premature exhaust of an area
code.  NeuStar determines when to
initiate NPA relief by continually monitoring CO code assignments and projecting
exhaust.  As required in TRD Section 4.3,
NeuStar tracks and monitors MTE submissions, code forecasts, and utilization
reports to better understand forecast demand and anticipate the need for relief
to avoid premature exhaust of each NPA and the NANP.  A comprehensive discussion on forecasting and
utilization can be found in Proposal Section I.3.3.

 

Further,
NeuStar continually seeks to meet the spirit of the requirements—optimizing the
efficiency of number usage, in accordance with the FCC’s objectives. For
example, NeuStar, on

 

 

its own initiative, has taken positive, pro-active steps to increase
the number of CO codes available for assignment.  In 2002, NeuStar undertook an audit of all CO
codes identified in the assignment records as unavailable.  Working closely with previous administrators,
NeuStar investigated why these codes were so marked, and whether or not some of
those codes could now be made available for use.  Through this effort, NeuStar identified 1,815
potentially releasable codes and subsequently determined that 1,340 of those
codes could be released.  In a few instances,
the states and NeuStar worked together with the service providers to release
protected and unavailable codes in an NPA, resulting in another 171 codes being
made available for assignment.

 

NeuStar
also believes that this requirement entails an obligation to maintain the
quality of the code inventory data.  To
this end, NeuStar, on its own initiative, has undertaken an effort to compare
and resolve discrepancies among the three primary databases containing CO code
information:  NeuStar’s CAS and NRUF, and
Telcordia’s LERG.  Service providers
control the input to all three of these databases, but some have not made a
concerted effort to keep the data synchronized. 
Each month, NeuStar does a comparison of these databases and attempts to
resolve discrepancies by contacting the affected service providers. More than a
thousand discrepancies have been resolved to date. The CO code inventory is
more accurate than ever before.

 

I.3.1.8     Resource
Reclamation (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 4.4)

 

Since the first FCC NRO Order was released in July 2000,
NeuStar has worked cooperatively with regulatory authorities and the industry,
in the process recovering more than 1,900 central office codes, equivalent to
19 million telephone numbers.

 

When a
CO code is assigned, the code administrator and applicant establish an
effective date for the code, and that date is entered into BIRRDS, thus
informing carriers of the existence of, and the need to route calls to, numbers
in the new code.  The assignment
guidelines require that the code be in service no later than six months after
the original effective date entered in BIRRDS. 
The assignee confirms that the code is in service by completing and
filing a Part 4 form.  If five
months have elapsed since the effective date, and a Part 4 has not been
filed, NeuStar issues a reminder to the code holder.  If the Part 4 is not received by the end
of the sixth

 

 

month after the effective date, the code is considered delinquent, and
NeuStar will begin reclamation procedures by notifying the appropriate
regulatory authority, which makes the decision on whether or not the code is to
be reclaimed. The FCC’s NRO orders delegated reclamation authority to the
states, if they wished to exercise it, and more than 30 states have opted to do
so.  The FCC makes reclamation decisions
for delinquent codes in the remaining states. 
As the designated FCC and state regulatory agency personnel determine
whether or not each delinquent code should be reclaimed, NeuStar works closely
with them to carry out their directives. 
The NANPA website lists regulatory contacts along with summary
reclamation procedures for reference. 
Prior to the NRO orders, INC made reclamation decisions.  Since the regulatory authorities took on this
role, the number of codes reclaimed has increased substantially.  For example, in 2002, NeuStar reclaimed 1,286
codes.

 

NeuStar’s
current NANPA system accepts Part 4 forms and automates the reclamation
process by generating the reminder letters and maintaining the list of
delinquent codes.  These functions will
be incorporated into NAS.  It should be
noted that the new requirements introduce a Part 5 form into the
process.  When NeuStar receives a
completed Part 4 form from the service provider, indicating that an
assigned code has been placed into service, NAS will issue a Part 5 form
to confirm receipt of the Part 4.

 

I.3.2        NPA Relief Planning (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.5, 5.0, 8.3,)

 

NeuStar will continue the tradition of excellence it has
established in NPA relief planning to ensure the optimization of the NANP.

 

The
number of telephone numbers assigned to service providers in the United States
has increased dramatically over the past seven years.  The number of NPAs requiring relief, i.e.,
needing a new supply of numbers to forestall exhaust, grew from one or two per
year in the early 1990’s to more than 30 per year.  As NANPA, NeuStar has ably responded to this
unprecedented surge of NPA relief requirements, initiating and facilitating 132
NPA relief projects, thus ensuring the continued viability of our area code
system and the telephone industry’s ability to support the mushrooming service
demands of the public.  NeuStar has met
this challenge by combining unmatched expertise, unassailable neutrality,
innovation, and a comprehensive understanding of the guidelines set forth in
INC NPA Relief Planning and Notification

 

 

Guidelines and TRD Section 5.  If selected, NeuStar will continue to serve
the industry with the highest levels of dedication, quality, and neutrality.

 

The
people who participate in relief planning are a diverse group, including large
service providers whose business will be affected by NPA changes; small service
providers who often cannot afford or who lack the staff to attend NPA relief
planning meetings; and state regulatory agencies who are pulled in many
directions by elected state and local officials, by special interest groups,
and by special situations that may justify adjustment of NPA boundary
lines.  A key measure of NeuStar’s
success has been its ability to help achieve consensus among the diverse
participants across a range of issues, such as whether relief should be a
geographic split or an all-services overlay, which side of an NPA split boundary
line should a municipality be situated, in which NPA should a hospital or
school district be located, or how to educate the public on the new area
code.  NANPA’s NPA relief planning
responsibilities demand a wide range of local knowledge, an in-depth
understanding of the needs and motives of all parties including the public, and
the ability to effectively organize and facilitate meetings to achieve a
sometimes elusive consensus.  All of this
is reliant upon unassailable neutrality. 
Given the various participants and agendas, neutrality is what enables
NeuStar to successfully perform this function and NANPA’s service must continue
to be delivered with unquestioned neutrality and impartiality.

 

Evidence of relief planning capability—NeuStar’s NANPA NPA relief planning personnel
have initiated 132 relief projects, facilitated more than 1,000 industry
meetings, published nearly 1,500 documents, and filed 120 relief petitions with
state regulatory agencies.  NeuStar has
developed and refined a highly successful NPA relief planning process that has
earned NeuStar NPA relief planners the trust of state commissions and the
industry.

 

Surveys
completed by those attending relief planning meetings consistently rate NeuStar’s
NPA relief planning performance as “outstanding.” Overall satisfaction with the
conduct of conference calls in 2002 was rated at 4.89 out of a maximum of 5.00,
consistently high when compared to the overall satisfaction of 4.85/5.00
measured in 2001.  NeuStar’s success is
also demonstrated in its consistent record of triggering relief planning
actions at the appropriate time.

 

 

NeuStar
listens closely to customer feedback and acts accordingly to improve its processes,
for instance, making greater use of conference calls to reduce travel costs and
increase relief planning meeting participation. 
NeuStar’s dedication to neutrality and the fair and open conduct of the
industry meetings is unquestioned.  In
customer surveys, “impartiality” ranks near the very top in customer
satisfaction rankings.

 

NeuStar
has made the NPA relief planning process more effective and efficient in terms
of automated support and also in terms of process improvements.  When the volume of NPA relief projects
increased dramatically in 1999, NeuStar, on its own initiative (with FCC
approval), developed a new method to disseminate notifications and documents
more effectively—the widely acclaimed Document Distribution Service (DDS).  In 2000, NeuStar initiated the concept of a
pre-Initial Planning Document (IPD) conference call meeting before every new
NPA relief project that increased the quality of relief alternatives.

 

NPA Relief planning process summary—Exhibit I-13 illustrates NeuStar’s
NPA relief planning process, focusing on relief timing, relief planning, status
reporting, NPA code assignment, and implementation.  The shadings in the exhibit identify the
process components.  The circled numbers
in the exhibit correlate the text of the various sections with the exhibit.  For further clarification, process components
(blocks) in the exhibit also identify applicable TRD paragraphs in the lower
right hand corner.

 

I.3.2.1     Relief
Timing (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.1, 5.1.4,)

 

NeuStar will continue to utilize sophisticated forecasting
modeling and an industry-standard, 36-month timeframe to ensure continued
availability of resources for service providers.

 

In an
ever-changing telecommunications environment where factors such as the level of
competition, market forces, the state of the economy, and unique local
conditions (e.g., a large number of rate centers) impact numbering demand,
NeuStar has developed a sophisticated utilization and forecasting model
(described in more detail in Proposal Section I.3.3) that serves as the
starting point of NPA relief planning 1.

 

As
required, NeuStar initiates NPA relief planning 36 months in advance of NPA exhaust.
Timely initiation of NPA relief minimizes the possibility that numbers will
become scarce, or even run out, before the relief solution can be implemented.

 

 

[Exhibit I-13.
NeuStar has successfully planned 132 NPA relief projects continually refining
its fully compliant process. Graphic omitted: diagram of NeuStar’s NPA Relief
Planning Process.]

 

NeuStar
establishes a specific date (36 months before exhaust) when the initial industry
NPA relief planning meeting will be held 2.  Scheduling the initiation of relief 36-months
prior to exhaust has proven to be the most efficient amount of time for the
industry to reach consensus on a recommended relief plan and for the state
commission to conduct its own investigation prior to approving a relief
plan.  In fact, NeuStar considered the
option of initiating NPA relief planning earlier, e.g., 42 months prior to
exhaust, which would provide more time, but found such a change to be of little
value, since the state commissions continued to key their actions toward the
current projected lead-time of NPA exhaust.

 

I.3.2.2     NPA
Relief Planning (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 4.2.5, 5.1.2 to
5.1.10, 5.1.16, 8.3)

 

NeuStar will continue to innovate to maximize the quality and
number of relief alternatives available while enabling the state regulatory
commissions and the industry to make informed, effective decisions with regard
to relief planning.

 

The
industry guidelines dictate how NPA relief planning should be conducted, but
NPA relief planning involves much more than simply following these
guidelines.  The path to a consensus
solution involves potential pitfalls; e.g., for competitive reasons various
industry segments prefer splits or overlays, making consensus difficult in some
cases.  The successful NeuStar relief
planner knows that to reach consensus requires advance preparation, excellent
facilitation skills, a keen understanding of the consensus process and, above
all, total neutrality.

 

To
that end, in 2000, NeuStar proactively initiated the concept of holding a
pre-Initial Planning Document (IPD) meeting (conference call) prior to each new
NPA relief project start-up. This resulted in maximizing the quality and number
of relief alternatives and helping industry representatives better prepare for
the follow-on IPD review meeting and initial NPA relief planning meeting,
thereby increasing the likelihood and efficiency of gaining consensus for a
solution.

 

As
required, NeuStar establishes the date for the initial NPA relief planning
meeting and notifies the service providers, state commission, and other
affected parties 8 weeks in advance 3.

 

 

NeuStar advises the state commissions ahead of time since public and
media reaction can sometimes be quite strong when word of NPA relief planning
becomes general knowledge.  NeuStar takes
special steps to identify all parties in the NPA who should be invited to attend
the initial NPA relief planning meeting, such as independent telephone
companies, competitive local exchange carriers, cellular carriers, and paging
companies, by consulting a variety of information sources such the Local
Exchange Routing Guide (LERG), state commission websites, CO code assignees,
etc. and maintaining a database of all contact information.  Inadvertent omission of even one affected
party’s invitation to an initial relief planning meeting may invalidate the meeting’s
outcome, thereby wasting precious time and resources.

 

NeuStar
makes the extra effort to provide relief planning participants with rate center
information and an accompanying map early on in the process to increase the
likelihood of consensus on a relief recommendation at a broadly attended
initial relief planning meeting.

 

Experience
has shown that our 8-week invitation lead-time gives attendees ample time to schedule and
prepare for the meeting.  More time is
unnecessary and less time, e.g., 6 weeks advance notice, will not provide
enough time to conduct the NeuStar-initiated pre-IPD meeting and then
distribute the IPD at least 4 weeks prior to the initial NPA relief planning
meeting.

 

Prior
to 2001, almost all initial relief-planning meetings were conducted
face-to-face, at a location within the NPA undergoing relief.  In 2001, responding to customer feedback,
NeuStar began to combine high-quality conference calls with face-to-face
meetings, starting first with initial implementation meetings.  Initial concern in some quarters about the
effectiveness of conference calls proved unfounded and attendance at the
meetings has risen steadily.  NeuStar now
conducts all industry meetings, including initial and follow-up relief planning
meetings, via conference calls.  Benefits
of this approach include:

 

•                  Increased meeting attendance, despite industry downsizing and increased
workloads on the employees who remain.

 

•                  Improved quality and increased numbers of relief alternatives because a
broader cross-section of industry representation, e.g., rural service
providers, who now attend to provide their viewpoints.

 

•                  Reduced travel costs for all parties.

 

 

Key
factors in maintaining the quality of conference calls, sometimes in a
contentious environment, have been: (1) the effectiveness of NeuStar as a
skilled, experienced impartial facilitator, (2) thorough preparation in
advance of the meeting, and (3) high-quality planning documents delivered
well in advance of the meeting.  All
NeuStar relief planners receive training on neutrality and effective
facilitation techniques, with annual refresher training.  NeuStar considered augmenting conference
arrangements using a real-time, interactive, web-based service that participants
could log onto before the meeting.  But
experience has shown that the added expense and specialized training required
do not warrant such an approach at the present time.  Participants from small companies may not
have the requisite equipment and training to participate effectively, possibly
leading to a disparity in participation. 
NeuStar resolves any concerns about participation by providing all
relevant documents in advance of the meeting using the DDS, which has proven to
be very effective.  As evidence that this
approach works, NeuStar-conducted surveys in 2002 showed that 154 respondents
(50% of the attendees) rated our overall performance in the conduct of the
meetings an average of 4.89 out of a perfect 5.0, clearly a superior level of
satisfaction.

 

NeuStar
distributes the IPD four weeks prior to the initial industry meeting including
at least one split and one overlay 4.  NeuStar developed a model (accepted by the
industry) that quickly and consistently calculates the exhaust of the relief
alternatives.  With the use of this
model, analysis of new or modified relief alternatives suggested at the relief
meeting can be accomplished in real-time thereby saving considerable time and,
very importantly, virtually eliminates the need for an additional meeting.

 

NeuStar
conducts the initial relief planning meeting and any follow-on meetings needed
to achieve consensus on a relief plan 5.  NeuStar brings to these meetings expert
facilitation skills, a neutral stance (e.g., avoiding support for any one
relief alternative), and an in-depth understanding of the consensus process
that comes from conducting more than 1,000 meetings.  Under NeuStar’s leadership during its tenure,
it has become commonplace for the industry to reach consensus on a relief plan
recommendation after only one meeting. 
Previously, such an outcome was highly unlikely.

 

 

NeuStar
publishes draft minutes within two weeks after a meeting, conducts associated minutes review,
schedules any future meetings, and distributes appropriate notices to all
parties via NeuStar’s DDS 6.

 

After
the final industry meeting, NeuStar, on behalf of the industry, prepares a
petition describing the NPA relief recommendations and the alternatives
considered 7.  NeuStar then submits the petition, with all
associated documentation, to the state commission, typically within six weeks
after the initial industry meeting.  In
the course of submitting 120 NPA relief recommendations in 37 different states,
NeuStar has gained valuable experience on the importance of preparing petitions
in accordance with the unique state rules. 
Absent strict adherence, the petitions may either be rejected or not
acted upon in a timely manner thereby unnecessarily delaying needed NPA relief.

 

After
an NPA relief petition is filed, under normal circumstances state commissions
usually take an average of 10-12 months to approve the relief plan.  In the meantime, to keep all parties
informed, NeuStar posts, on the NANPA website a status report of all active
relief planning projects, with bi-weekly updates 8.  NeuStar will use
this same type of report as a basis for providing monthly status reports to the
FCC and NANC.

 

NeuStar
works proactively with state commissions to ensure they receive up-to-date information
(e.g., code assignment history, most recent exhaust forecast, testimony,
interrogatories, etc.) and participates in public hearings to assist the state
commission in arriving at a relief plan decision 9, 10.  To allow
sufficient time to implement an approved relief plan, NeuStar informs the state
commission no later than 16 months prior to NPA exhaust to remind them of the
latest forecasted NPA exhaust date and the need for relief plan approval.

 

In
accordance with individual state regulatory commission procedures, NeuStar will
provide testimony at public hearings and meetings sponsored by state
commissions, if requested or required to do so. 
NeuStar has participated in more than 200 state-sponsored hearings and
has often been called upon to provide expert testimony regarding NPA relief
planning.  NeuStar has become familiar
with the unique local jurisdictional rules, not obvious to the inexperienced,
that impact timely NPA relief. For instance, Mississippi requires that local
counsel represent NANPA at commission hearings. 
In California, NeuStar will continue the established practice of

 

 

scheduling all NPA relief-related public and local jurisdiction
meetings and providing court reporters to record the proceedings.

 

TRD Section 5.1.16
identifies additional relief planning responsibilities in circumstances where
the industry establishes a specific date by which the state commission has been
requested to approve the recommended NPA relief plan 15.  In point of fact,
the industry rarely sets a specific approval date, and prefers either to defer
to the state, or as an alternative, may recommend a minimum amount of time that
is necessary to implement relief; e.g., 19 months if a geographic split is
adopted.  In the event an approval date
is specified, however, NeuStar will work proactively with the state to obtain
approval of the relief plan by the requested date.

 

If the
relief plan has not been approved, NeuStar will notify the state commission and
NANC chair 85 days prior to the requested approval date.  This notification serves as a reminder of the
requested approval date and will include all relevant NPA status
information.  If the state commission has
still not approved the relief plan by the industry-requested date, NeuStar, not
later than five days after this date, will notify the FCC and NANC of the
relief status and provide a date by which an order is required to avoid
jeopardizing timely implementation of NPA relief.  Generally, this date will be 16-19 months
prior to exhaust based on industry estimates of minimal time needed to
implement a split or an overlay.

 

I.3.2.3     Status
Reporting (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.5, 5.1.9,
8.3)

 

As NANPA, NeuStar’s web-based relief planning status
reporting is already in place, and will be expanded to provide additional
information and updated even more frequently than required to better serve the
users.

 

NeuStar
will comply with NPA relief planning status reports called for in the TRD 8. 
For the past four years, NeuStar has been posting on the NANPA website,
on a bi-weekly basis, a status report very similar in content to the categories
listed in TRD Section 8.3.  This
report is the primary resource for industry and state commissions seeking the
most up-to-date status of active relief planning projects.  NeuStar’s NANPA website chart will continue
to serve as the primary NPA relief status report and additional information
categories will be added to bring the report into full compliance with TRD Section 8.3.  For example, the NeuStar NPA status report
was

 

 

recently updated to include additional factors such as “Number of
remaining NXXs” and “Number of NXXs unavailable” which are required under TRD Section 8.3.

 

NeuStar
will exceed the monthly update requirement specified in TRD Section 8.3 by
providing the status report on a bi-weekly basis.  NeuStar has learned from users that bi-weekly
updates better meet user needs than monthly updates.  No user has suggested a need for more
frequent updates than every two weeks. 
To help users keep track of changes, the web status chart will show the
date of the most recent version and the date of the previous version.

 

NeuStar
will provide a quarterly report to the NANC showing NeuStar’s performance in
scheduling initial relief planning meetings 36 months in advance of NPA
exhaust. Our performance monitoring process already includes the measurement
and monthly reporting of this requirement.

 

NeuStar
will meet the specific delivery requirement of TRD Section 5.1.9 for NANPA
to track and report monthly on the status of pending relief plans to the FCC
and NANC.  Essentially, the report will
be the same as the one described above (for TRD Section 8.3). It will be
delivered electronically and in hard copy form to the FCC and the NANC each month
just as NeuStar does today.

 

Additionally,
NeuStar will exceed the reporting requirements by continuing to post each month
to the NANPA website an addendum not mentioned in the TRD entitled “Status of
NPA Relief Projects with Specific Actions and Trigger Points.”  This addendum lists future NANPA actions to
be taken after a specified event takes place. 
For example, a state commission has ordered NANPA to alert it when NPAs
in their jurisdiction reach a point six months from exhaust so implementation of
a previously suspended relief plan could be resumed.  These trigger points serve as reminders so
that essential actions are taken in a timely manner.  NeuStar currently monitors over 20 trigger
points of this type.  Because industry
feedback has been so positive on this proactive approach, NeuStar will continue
to post this special report under the new contract, even though it is not
specifically required by the RFP.

 

 

I.3.2.4 NPA Code
Assignment (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.11)

 

Because
NPA code selection and assignment functions present significant challenges, NeuStar
will continue to have experienced NPA relief planners and code administrators
select relief NPA codes and the NANPA Director will make the assignments.

 

After a state commission
approves an NPA relief plan and issues a relief order, NeuStar requests the
assignment of an NPA code for assignment to the affected area 11.

 

•                  The
NPA relief planner submits a completed Part 1 form to the NANPA Director;

 

•                  The
NANPA Director assigns an NPA relief code if the approved relief plan meets the
NPA relief guidelines; or

 

•                  If
the state-approved relief plan violates the guidelines, the NANPA Director
denies the Part 1 relief code request, informally notifies the state
commission of the denial, including the reasons, and follows with the denial
with a letter to the state commission, a copy to the FCC.

 

On the surface these
tasks may appear as simple as selecting any available three-digit number from
the allowable range of 200-999.  The NPA
code assignment process, however, is laden with nuances and potential
technical, regulatory, and political pitfalls.

 

Most NPAs already have a
relief code reserved for future growth. 
Industry guidelines require NANPA to reserve a relief code for each NPA
that is forecasted to exhaust within the next 20 years. The criteria for
reserving an NPA relief code dictate that the code must not be the same as an
assigned NXX code (or prefix) in the existing area code to avoid dialing
conflicts, and that it must not be easily confused with dialing adjacent NPAs.
A few states have additional restrictions due to their 9-1-1 implementation
plans and procedures or other factors. 
Because the supply of available NPAs is dwindling, the number of
available relief codes to choose from for future relief has become increasingly
limited.

 

NeuStar assigns NPA
relief codes strictly in accordance with the industry’s guidelines, but
occasionally a sensitive situation arises when the relief plan, as approved by
the state commission, violates those guidelines.  In one situation, a state commission approved
a 3-way geographic split that resulted in a 27-year difference between
projected exhaust lives of the NPAs after the split.  In compliance with Section 5.0(g) of
the NPA Code Relief and Notification
Guidelines, NANPA denied the NPA relief code request because the
difference in the projected

 

 

lives of the NPAs after relief was greater than the allowable maximum
of 10 years. In this case, the NANPA relief planner informally advised the
state commission staff in advance that NANPA would have to deny the code
requests.  While a situation like this
does not occur often, NeuStar enforces industry guidelines, informs the regulatory
authorities of the applicable guidelines, and attempts to resolve the conflict
between the ordered relief plan and the guidelines.

 

I.3.2.5
Implementation (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 5.1.12)

 

NeuStar
will leverage its experience and earned trust and reliance by the industry to
continue to effectively coordinate and facilitate timely and successful NPA
relief implementations.

 

NeuStar’s primary role in
the relief implementation process is to organize and lead the industry
implementation team toward successful implementation of a new NPA relief
project in accordance with an approved relief plan.  Based on lessons learned facilitating over 90
initial implementation meetings, NeuStar developed and continually refines an
implementation checklist.  To assist service
providers in addressing critical items necessary for a successful implementation,
e.g., test numbers, customer education, network modifications, ANI digit
conversion dates, etc.  In addition,
NeuStar has responded to suggestions from the industry by instituting
conference call-only arrangements for implementation activities.  The switch to conference calls has proven
effective for conducting implementation activities, and NeuStar has been complimented
by the industry for its cost cutting measures.

 

Within two weeks after
the assignment of a new NPA relief code, NeuStar issues a press release
announcing the new NPA code 12, in
accordance with Section 5.7 of the NPA
Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines, which is distributed
via various media channels in addition to being posted on the NANPA
website.  Occasionally, the state
commission will opt to prepare and distribute the press release, in which case
NeuStar assists by suggesting content for inclusion in the press release.
During this period, diligence must be exercised when responding to increased
media requests for details concerning relief plans such as the identity of the
new NPA code before it is made public. 
NeuStar relief planners receive media relations training and have
learned through experience how to deal effectively with the media in these
circumstances.

 

 

NeuStar convenes an
initial implementation meeting within 45 calendar days after the assignment of
the new NPA 13. The agenda for the
initial implementation meeting follows the NeuStar-developed checklist of items
to be addressed by industry members, e.g., implementation timetable.

 

During the initial
implementation meeting, facilitated by NANPA, the industry discusses, and
usually reaches agreement on the particulars for implementation of a relief NPA
plan.  Minutes of the meeting are posted
to the NANPA website. NANPA publishes a planning letter within three weeks
after the initial implementation meeting and posts it to the NANPA website 14. 
The information contained in the planning letter reflects consensus
agreements at the initial implementation meeting.  The planning letter provides official
notification to the industry and the public that NPA relief is pending.  Since 1997, NeuStar has published 327
planning letters.

 

At times, a state
commission may issue a supplemental order modifying the original relief order,
which may impact an implementation schedule already underway.  For example, the state commission could delay
the effective date of the new NPA.  As
NANPA, NeuStar monitors state commission directives daily throughout the
implementation cycle and publishes planning letters announcing such changes
within 10 business days after the order.

 

During implementation, it
may become necessary to declare the NPA in jeopardy, which may involve
rationing of the remaining NXX resource. 
This becomes necessary when NANPA projects that the supply of available
central office codes in the NPA will exhaust before the implementation of the
relief NPA.  NeuStar’s NANPA jeopardy
processes are previously described in detail in Proposal Section I.3.1.7.

 

The completion of an NPA
relief plan signals the culmination of a planning and implementation process
that usually spans three years or more. 
NeuStar serves in a pivotal role of coordinating and facilitating the
various stages of the relief planning process leading up to, and including, the
timely and successful implementation of the new NPA.

 

I.3.2.6 Meeting
Other TRD Section 5 Requirements (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 5, 5.1.16, 5.2)

 

TRD
5 includes requirements that do not fit neatly into the NPA relief planning
areas of focus specified in RFP Section L.5 as described in the foregoing
sections.  NeuStar will comply

 

 

with all TRD Section 5 requirements including the introductory
paragraphs of TRD Section 5, TRD Section 5.1.16 Compliance, and TRD Section 5.2
User Notification as described below.

 

TRD
5. (Introductory paragraphs)—NeuStar will perform all area
code (NPA) relief functions specified in the INC NPA Relief Planning and Notification Guidelines [INC 97-0404-016].  NeuStar recognizes the importance of
identifying and maintaining a depth of knowledge of local/regional environments
and operating/certified service providers for every NPA relief-planning
project. But finding this information is no easy task.  NeuStar reviews the Local Exchange Routing
Guide (LERG), consult with state commissions and local telephone company
staffs, obtain recent census data, and carefully study local rate center lists
and maps.  Going even further, NeuStar
subscribes to an innovative tariff-based service called QTEL 9000 that
identifies strong communities-of-interest that should not be split in future
NPA relief plans.  This, combined with
direct input from users in the NeuStar-initiated pre-IPD meetings, has
significantly improved knowledge of the local environment that has led to
higher quality, more acceptable geographic split alternatives.

 

NeuStar’s relief planning
process described in Proposal Section I.3.2 complies with TRD Section 5
by identifying NPAs in need of relief and by providing effective management of
the relief effort through the successful implementation of a new area code.

 

TRD
5.1.16 Compliance—NeuStar will comply with all requirements
in the industry guidelines listed. 
NeuStar directly participated in the development and improvement of
these guidelines and is thoroughly familiar with the requirements contained
therein.  NeuStar will ensure the
continued availability of numbering resources by using: (a) a proven NPA
forecasting approach described in Section I.3.3, (b) comprehensive
performance monitoring and management processes described in Proposal Section I.2.5,
and (c) a timely and proven NPA relief planning process as described in Section I.3.2.  NeuStar will rely on its extensive experience
gained in numerous in-person meetings and discussions with virtually all state
commission authorities, and by applying NeuStar’s approach to assist state
commissions in making timely relief decisions if the industry seeks endorsement
of a relief plan by a requested date. 
NeuStar will comply with the last two paragraphs of TRD 5.1.16 related
to timely approval of relief plans by the industry-specified date.

 

 

TRD
5.2 User Notification—NeuStar keeps users fully informed
about the status of all active NPA relief planning projects, including any
potential delays, through electronic notifications generated currently by the
NeuStar-developed DDS, which will be integrated into the upgraded NANPA
Administration System. NeuStar, at its own initiative and expense, designed an
innovative, user-friendly service that it successfully deployed in September 1999
that greatly simplified notifications and significantly improved user access to
information, thereby enhancing overall participation in NPA relief planning.

 

Today, this web-based
service, with nearly 2700 registrants, allows users to sign up to receive
notifications by location and enables downloading documents, around the
clock.  Current documents are located on
an electronic bulletin board, sorted chronologically for quick reference and
downloading.  Documents in the DDS
library (since September 1999) can be searched by state and NPA and
quickly downloaded in a format compatible with all computer systems.  For example, those new to NPA relief planning
can bring themselves quickly up-to-speed with immediate access to background
documents in the DDS library.  Our
customers repeatedly compliment DDS and how it has measurably improved their
productivity.  The same rich feature set
and user-friendly access to relief planning notifications and documents will be
provided by NeuStar; who fully understands DDS and what it takes to make it
even better.

 

I.3.3  Utilization and Forecasting (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6)

 

NeuStar
will continue to ensure complete and accurate data recording and forecasting,
thereby providing regulatory authorities reliable and accurate information
needed to implement their optimization initiatives.

 

Utilization and forecast
data serve as a window to the current status of numbers and the future needs of
the telecommunications industry—carrying enormous implications for the FCC,
state commissions, the industry, and the public.  In 2000, the FCC recognized that the previous
process of collecting utilization and forecast data was inadequate for an
expanding and evolving telecommunications environment.  A new reporting process, known as NANP Number
Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) reporting, was launched.  Understanding the significant undertaking the
new NRUF process represented, the FCC entrusted to NANPA the task to implement
these sweeping changes.  As NANPA,
NeuStar responded with the following:

 

 

•                  In
45 days, NeuStar developed and delivered to the FCC a comprehensive reporting
form in Microsoft Excel, known as the Form 502, that was later approved by
the Office of Management and Budget.

 

•                  In
just a few short weeks, NeuStar built an efficient, economical database using
Microsoft ACCESS that is used today to collect, store, process and produce
utilization and forecast reports.  This
database accepts both the Form 502 provided as an email attachment as well
as electronic file transfer (EFT) using a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) file
format.

 

•                  NeuStar
implemented a process to compare NRUF-submitted data with code assignment records
and LERG data to identify those service providers that failed to report
utilization and forecast data.  This
information was then provided to federal and state regulatory authorities when
service providers failed to respond to NANPA’s inquiries about reporting this
data.

 

•                  NeuStar
introduced, in cooperation with the state commissions, tailored reports to
assist regulatory authorities with the analysis and interpretation of the
collected data.

 

Understanding the
importance of accurate and on-time data reporting by service providers in
accordance with the FCC’s number optimization initiatives, NeuStar delivered
the NRUF database reporting system on time despite a very ambitious schedule,
without a formal set of technical requirements, a defined change order or
amendment to the NANPA technical requirements, or a written agreement
concerning funding of this effort. 
NeuStar’s commitment to ensuring the NRUF reporting process continues to
operate effectively, as demonstrated by its October 2002 agreement with
the FCC to modify the NRUF reporting form and database to collect and validate
a new data element called the Federal Registration Number.  This effort was accomplished very
quickly.  Both Form 502 and FTP file
formats were modified and made available to service providers in time for the February 2003
reporting cycle.  In addition, the NRUF
database was modified to collect, validate and store this new data element, per
FCC requirements.  If selected to
continue serving as the NANPA, NeuStar will continue to focus on three areas:

 

•                  Ensuring
entities required to report utilization and forecast data submit complete and accurate
data and, in doing so, provide them special tools and aids to assist in their
efforts;

 

 

•                  Developing
and obtaining FCC and NANC approval for data collection and data analysis
processes and methodologies designed to ensure accurate forecasts with minimum
possibility of significant error; and

 

•                  Programming
automated support into the new NAS to the extent that is reasonable, that is,
to the extent the automated support helps service providers report their
information and data analysts do their jobs, without introducing risk or trying
to automate good judgment.

 

NeuStar recognizes the
significant responsibility of developing area code and NANP exhaust
forecasts.  The adverse consequences of
inaccurate projections can be sizeable, affecting service providers, state
commissions, the public, and the FCC’s preeminent status as a highly respected
federal agency.  Bad forecasts can lead
to emergency NPA jeopardy declaration and CO code rationing and degradation of
the integrity of the administration of the NANP.

 

Accordingly, NeuStar has
taken and will continue to take number utilization forecasting as an
extraordinary NANPA responsibility.  The
following section describes, in detail, NeuStar’s data analysis,
aggregation, reporting, and trending efforts highlighted in Exhibit I-14.  The viability of the NANP and the
availability of critical numbering resources needed to fuel the evolution of
the telecommunications industry require an in-depth, comprehensive discussion
of NeuStar’s approach to utilization and forecast reporting and analysis.

 

I.3.3.1  Data Request (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.1,
6.12, 6.1.3, 6.1.7, 6.4)

 

NeuStar
will continue to make it simple for service providers to respond with on-time,
properly completed semiannual utilization and forecast reports.

 

NeuStar recognized early
in the implementation of NRUF reporting that a significant amount of NANPA
support to the service providers and state regulatory authorities was necessary
to achieve the full value of this reporting requirement.  NeuStar’s commitment to the success of this
new reporting process is demonstrated by ongoing efforts to train service
providers, by use of job aids, by continuing to enhance the reporting
mechanisms used by service providers, and by delivering to the regulatory
authorities on a timely basis the information they must have to make important
decisions concerning number optimization.

 

 

As NANPA, NeuStar serves
as the point of contact for the collection of utilization and forecast data 1 and assists service providers in
submitting their data.  To this end,
NeuStar notifies all U.S. service providers of their obligation to report
utilization and forecast data semi-annually (February 1 and August 1)
by using the Office of Management and Budget’s Form 502, NANP Number
Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF), for all central office codes assigned
from the 500 NPA and 900 NPA and all central office codes and thousand-blocks
assigned from in-service geographic NPAs. 
This data request specifies that their February 1 submission
reflect utilization data as of December 31 and forecast data for each year
over the next five years.

 

[Exhibit I-14. Iterative by design, the NEUF
process – created by NeuStar to meet FCC objectives – maximizes the accuracy
and completeness of data, thereby enabling sound, higher quality forecasts.
Graphic omitted: diagram of NeuStar’ NRUF Reporting Process.]

 

For the August 1
submission, utilization data as of June 30 and a forecast for the remainder
of the present year and the next four years is required.  This data request also directs service providers
where to submit their information and advises them of any new FCC requirements
concerning the submission process.  In
those instances where a state commission has directed that utilization and
forecast data only be submitted annually, for example in Maine where rural
service providers report only once a year, NeuStar includes this information in
its data request along with any additional direction provided by that state.

 

NeuStar also requests
NANP member nation number administrators submit NPA utilization and forecast
data to NANPA so that it may be included in the development of the NANP exhaust
projection 1.  Other NANP member nations do not use the NRUF
reporting form to provide this data. 
Accordingly, NeuStar works directly with its counterparts in NANP member
countries to find the best way to obtain the data.  To maximize the data collection success rate
from NANP member nations, NeuStar (1) helps them see how their invested
time will benefit their industry and their public, and (2) coordinates to
determine mutually agreeable report formats and content.  An underlying factor in the success of its
data collection effort is that NeuStar continually strives to maintain open and
trusting relationships with its counterparts in other NANP nations.  In that regard, NeuStar has worked closely
with the Canadian Number Administrator to obtain timely utilization and
forecast data since Canada is second only to the

 

 

US in the number of area codes in use in the NANP area.  Other NANP countries typically have a single
area code that will meet their needs for the foreseeable future.

 

NANPA collects,
processes, stores, analyzes and distributes, as appropriate, all utilization
and forecast data submitted by service providers and NANP member countries.

 

As NANPA, NeuStar
maintains a contact list of individuals for each reporting entity 1. 
This list is updated with each NRUF submission, so that the list remains
current and accurate.  For those
submissions emailed to NANPA, NeuStar also records the email address of the individual
submitting the data.  Further, NeuStar
catalogs and archives contact information from previous submissions, permitting
later investigation of any possible discrepancies or issues that may arise as
to whether a service provider had previously submitted its data.  Additionally, NeuStar maintains an email
distribution list for service providers who express an interest in being
advised on NRUF-related matters.

 

To further simplify the
service provider experience, NeuStar publishes via the NANPA website an NRUF
job aid 2 to assist service
providers in completing and submitting Form 502.  NeuStar developed this job aid in September 2000,
during the implementation of the NRUF reporting process.  The job aid has proven to be an effective
tool to communicate with service providers, and it enables NeuStar to
proactively address the numerous issues and problems service providers could
encounter.  This job aid provides
detailed instructions for completing the individual worksheets contained in the
Form 502, details where and how to submit the completed form to NANPA,
lists how to correct any identified errors or anomalies, and provides contact
information for NeuStar personnel assigned to help service providers with the
NRUF reporting process.

 

NeuStar will accept and
process service provider utilization and forecast data submitted via the
following methods:  electronic file
transfer (EFT), spreadsheet attachment to an email, and online entry of
submissions 4.  NeuStar responds promptly to questions
pertaining to any aspect of the NRUF reporting process, including questions
regarding forms, instructions, analysis and data assumptions.  NeuStar has nearly three years of experience
in working cooperatively and proactively with service providers and in
assisting them in complying with their reporting requirements.  No matter how much information is contained
in the job aid, individuals responsible for filing utilization and forecast
data on behalf of a service provider sometimes need

 

 

to speak to someone who has an in-depth knowledge of the forms and
instructions, understands the entire reporting process including all the
nuances and particular state requirements, and can clearly communicate the
intricacies of the process.  NeuStar
believes it is NANPA’s responsibility to help service providers fill out the
required forms correctly—to the benefit of both NANPA and the service providers.  NeuStar allows only seasoned NRUF experts to
advise and assist on the topic of NRUF report preparation.  To improve the quality of customer service,
NeuStar’s NRUF experts receive formal training and annual refresher training in
such areas as interpersonal communications. 
Unless service providers get the help they need, the NRUF data will be
inaccurate or incomplete, and could potentially lead to inaccurate NPA and NANP
exhaust projections as well as sub-optimal decisions by the FCC concerning the
implementation of number optimization measures and the development of federal
policies.

 

I.3.3.2  Data Analysis (RFP L5, M.2.A.2,
TRD 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.7, 6.1.10, 6.1.11, 6.3)

 

NeuStar
has expanded and refined the NRUF data analysis process and prepares NPA and
NANP exhaust forecasts that are accurate to a high degree of confidence and
backed by a substantial amount of multi-source supporting data.

 

Using a variety of
numbering data information sources, NeuStar produces accurate NPA and NANP
exhaust projections. This process begins with the semi-annual collection and
analysis of the utilization and forecast data submitted by service providers
and NANP member nations.

 

During each submission
cycle, NeuStar first examines each data submission to identify any data errors
or anomalies, such as invalid rate center or NPA information 5. Proposal Section I.3.3.5 lists and
discusses data errors and anomalies.  If
no data errors or anomalies are discovered, NeuStar sends confirmation to the
service provider indicating that the submission has been accepted 6.

 

If data errors are found,
NeuStar notifies the service provider, indicating specifically what errors or
anomalies were found 5.  The service provider must respond within five
business days with either a corrected submission or an explanation of the
anomaly.  When the service provider resubmits
its data, NeuStar reexamines the submission to determine if the errors and
anomalies have been appropriately addressed. 
If so, NeuStar sends the service provider confirmation of acceptance 6. 
If not, then, in accordance with the FCC’s Number Optimization Order (FCC
00-104, paragraph 54)

 

 

and INC’s NANP Number Resources NRUF
Reporting Guidelines (INC 00-0619-026), NeuStar concludes that the
service provider’s data submission is insufficient and reports its conclusion
to the FCC and the pertinent state commission, along with an appropriate
explanation.7 NeuStar assigns no
further resources to that service provider until the appropriate state
commission has resolved all questions regarding the anomaly.  Further, as an enforcement mechanism and
numbering resource protective action, NeuStar withholds the assignment of additional
numbering resources to any service provider that fails to provide utilization
and forecast data for the NPA(s) or rate center(s) in which resources are
requested.

 

After receiving the NRUF
submissions, NeuStar begins the process of developing NPA exhaust
projections.  This process involves using
not only the forecast data provided by the service providers in the NRUF
submissions 8, but also requires
other data elements in order to develop more accurate NPA exhaust projections
such as block data information from the PA.9,
10.

 

NeuStar recognized early
on that, in a competitive telecommunications environment, service provider
forecasts alone would not be sufficient to produce NPA exhaust projections accurate
enough to meet exacting FCC and industry needs. 
The importance of these forecasts is such that every effort must be made
to minimize the risk associated with inaccurate projections. Accordingly, in
1999, NeuStar, on its own initiative, expanded its analysis to incorporate
additional data sources.  TRD paragraphs
6.3.1.1 through 6.3.1.8, which specify additional data sources be considered in
performing such analyses, reflect NANC’s acceptance of NeuStar’s use of these
data sources.  Table I-13 lists each data
element considered in forecasting NPA exhaust.

 

Table
I-13.  Data Elements Used in Forecasting NPA Exhaust

 

	
  Data

  	
   

  	
  Data Source

  	
   

  	
  Use

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF survey responses
  (new and previous NRUF submissions)

  	
   

  	
  Service provider NRUF submissions

  	
   

  	
  In combination with previous NRUF responses
  and previous NANPA NRUF reports to the FCC and the NANC (especially the most
  recent one), NeuStar uses the NRUF survey responses as the initial baseline
  for its analysis. NeuStar uses previous NRUF survey responses to help
  identify errors and anomalies when it receives the original (uncorrected)
  NRUF submission

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Results of previous
  NANPA NRUF data analyses

  	
   

  	
  NANPA NRUF archives

  	
   

  	
  One of the early steps in NeuStar’s analysis
  is to compare the new NRUF reports with previous NRUF analyses (especially
  the most recent one) as submitted to the FCC and the NANC.  This step, in combination with the above,
  provides a baseline for a more detailed analysis using the additional data
  listed in TRD paragraphs 6.3.1.2 through 6.3.1.8.

  

 

 

	
  Data

  	
   

  	
  Data Source

  	
   

  	
  Use

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Historical CO Code Assignment
  Data by industry segment (i.e., ILEC, CLEC, CMRS and Paging

  	
   

  	
  Monthly NANPA central office code assignment
  data from April 1998 to present.

  	
   

  	
  Historical data provides a summary of what has
  occurred in the NPA.  NeuStar uses this
  data to learn what influence the number of assignments in a particular
  month(s) has had on historical assignment rates.  Identification of one-time events or
  actions is critical to ensuring that such events are not allowed to distort
  NPA exhaust projections (e.g., the one-time expansion of a local competitor
  in a large number of rate centers).

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CO code rationing
  amounts (and length of time in rationing)

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO Code Administration

  	
   

  	
  Rationing amounts are typically lower than the
  assignment rate that would be expected if no rationing were in place. Through
  its NANPA experience, however, NeuStar knows that this is not always the case
  and that NPA exhaust needs to be based upon actual demand.  Furthermore, when NPA relief is
  implemented, a forecast must consider possible pent-up demand due to
  rationing.  The length of time
  rationing has been in place, as well as the rationing amount compared to
  service provider forecasts, must be considered when developing an exhaust
  projection.  In addition, as a
  supplement, NeuStar sometimes consults with the state or the service
  providers on pent-up demand.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CO Code Assignments as of the Data Collection
  Date

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO Code Administration

  	
   

  	
  With the number of service providers
  suspending service or declaring bankruptcy, understanding the quantity of
  resources held by these service providers gives insight into potential
  resources that may become available for assignment in the future.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total number of codes
  available for assignment in each NPA

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO Code Administration

  	
   

  	
  The number of available codes at the time of
  projection as well as the number of codes that may be returned by service providers
  must be factored into any NPA exhaust analysis.  This would also include codes currently
  unavailable for assignment in order to permit 7-digit dialing between
  adjacent area codes.  These codes are
  typically eliminated prior to implementing any form of NPA relief.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number of Rate Centers
  in each NPA

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO Code Administration

  	
   

  	
  Rate center consolidation can impact NPA
  exhaust.  Even more important to the
  accuracy of exhaust projections are the number of rate centers and the
  potential impact of carrier expansion into those rate centers.  NeuStar examines the number of carriers operating
  in each NPA as well as the number of rate centers in which the carriers have
  obtained resources.  By doing so,
  NeuStar gains insight into the level of local competition in the NPA.  A limited number of carriers indicates that
  the NPA has not seen the full impact of local competition and is therefore
  susceptible to increased CO code demand due to an expanding carrier
  community.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expanded Local Calling
  Areas

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO Code Administration

  	
   

  	
  Expanded local calling areas require that only
  certain codes can be assigned in a particular area to avoid code conflicts
  and dialing problems.  The result is
  that some available codes cannot be assigned in this area, resulting in
  earlier exhaust of the NPA.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Pooling data

  	
   

  	
  Pooling Administrator

  	
   

  	
  The implementation or planned implementation
  of number pooling will impact NPA exhaust. 
  Also impacting exhaust is voluntary pooling by service providers in
  areas where pooling is not mandated.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Actual CO code demand as
  compared to predicted demand from last NPA exhaust projection

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO code administrator

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar includes a comparison of actual CO
  code demand to projected demand and a thorough examination of any difference.
  This comparison also allows identification of any anomalies or developing
  trends in CO code assignments.  Further,
  this process allows analysis and improvement of the forecasting methodology.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Changes in the number of
  “unavailable” NXX codes

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO code administrator

  	
   

  	
  Often NeuStar, states, and/or service
  providers take steps to reduce or eliminate the number of codes that are
  designated, primarily by previous administrators, as not available for
  assignment. As NANPA, NeuStar has taken initiatives to address all
  unavailable codes to determine if they can be returned to available
  status.  Often, these actions have
  freed significant numbers of codes for assignment.  The impact of an increase in the quantity
  of available resources is factored into the exhaust analysis

  

 

 

	
  Data

  	
   

  	
  Data Source

  	
   

  	
  Use

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Overall utilization rate
  per NPA

  	
   

  	
  NANPA CO code administrator

  	
   

  	
  As NANPA, NeuStar determines the overall
  utilization rate in the NPA.  Lower
  utilization rates indicate that service providers have large inventories of
  numbers available for assignment and are, therefore, less likely to need
  significant numbers of new CO codes. 
  Higher utilization rates point to increased future demand for codes as
  service providers have smaller inventories of numbers to draw upon.

  

 

During its tenure as the
current NANPA, NeuStar identified the importance and influence of these data
elements on NPA exhaust and incorporated them into its NPA exhaust projection
methodology. NeuStar’s methodology, including associated assumptions, has been
reviewed extensively with and accepted by the FCC and the NANC. As NANPA,
NeuStar will continue to refine and test its methodology as the
telecommunications industry continues to undergo dynamic changes (e.g., the
maturation of the CLEC market and rollout of number pooling), as new numbering
optimization measures are introduced (e.g., unassigned number porting) and as
other data sources are identified that potentially impact number assignment and
usage. While doing so, NeuStar will continue to seek the advice and counsel of
both the FCC and the NANC as appropriate.

 

In projecting NPA
exhaust, NeuStar pays careful attention to the distinctive characteristics of
each NPA.  It would be easy to make the
mistake of grouping NPAs into general categories (e.g., pooling vs.
non-pooling, rural vs. non-rural) and then applying general assumptions
concerning code growth to each category and formulate an exhaust
projection.  This method however would
fail to recognize the uniqueness of each NPA and would risk inaccurate forecasts,
perhaps with significant adverse consequences. 
Each NPA is unique in terms of the data elements identified above and
therefore must be examined individually in order to fully understand the
specific ramifications of these elements on the life of the NPA and to
accurately estimate NPA exhaust.

 

Once initial NPA exhaust
projections are developed, NeuStar’s CO code administration and relief planning
staff members conduct an exhaustive review of the results for each NPA 11. 
This process permits those staff members, who possess knowledge of local
events and conditions, to contribute their insights and expertise to these
exhaust projections.  Also, NeuStar included
in this process a comparison of the current NPA exhaust projection, including
those NPAs that actually reach exhaust; with the past five exhaust forecasts to
help confirm the

 

 

accuracy of the projection methodology. 
This process includes the identification of the factors that contributed
to the change in the NPA exhaust time frame, and the impact of these factors in
terms of the number of quarters by which the projection changed.  Further, NeuStar will determine what
modifications, if any, need to be made to its NPA exhaust methodology and what
the potential outcome may be if such changes are not implemented.  If modifications are necessary, a full
description of the proposed changes to the NPA exhaust methodology will be
presented to the FCC and the NANC for review and approval prior to modifying
the analysis process.

 

The development of NPA
exhaust projections is both an objective and subjective exercise.  One should be wary of any claim that some
mathematical algorithm or computer software program, of, and by itself, can
accurately estimate an NPA exhaust date. 
Such a claim would reflect a lack of understanding of the complexities
and nuances of NRUF data analysis. 
Accurate projections require a thorough review of a variety of data from
multiple data sources.  Only NeuStar
possesses these skill sets.

 

Upon completion of the
NPA exhaust analysis, NeuStar initiates NANP exhaust analysis 12. 
NeuStar’s NANP exhaust model is based on a set of assumptions that have
been thoroughly reviewed by senior FCC personnel and vetted with the
telecommunications industry. To avoid any potential confusion or disagreement
with the study results, NeuStar will continue to approach this effort as it has
in the past.  Prior to the analysis,
NeuStar submits to the FCC, the NANC, and other NANP member nations’ regulatory
authorities for review and approval, a set of assumptions to be incorporated
into the NANP exhaust study.  Further,
NeuStar will conduct appropriate sensitivity analyses of these assumptions,
identifying those assumptions with the most impact on the results and varying
them to determine their effect on the NANP exhaust.  The NANP exhaust analysis results, including
the sensitivity analysis conducted and the results will be reviewed with the
appropriate regulatory bodies in the NANP member countries and revised, if
necessary, prior to publication 13.  This partnership between NeuStar, as NANPA,
the FCC, and the regulatory authorities of the NANP member nations, permits
NeuStar to receive valuable insight and advice. 
In addition, such cooperative consultations ensure a full and complete
understanding of the NANP analysis and permit the FCC and other regulatory
authorities to provide additional direction, if required, before the study
results are made public.

 

 

I.3.3.3 Data
Reporting (RFP L5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.5, 6.1.6, 6.1.8, 6.1.9, 6.3.3)

 

NeuStar
will produce accurate, analytical data reports that will inform the necessary
parties of any developing trends or changes that may require industry or
regulatory action.

 

After a review of the NPA
and NANP exhaust analysis with the FCC and other appropriate NANP member
country regulatory authorities, NeuStar reports the results of this analysis 14. 
The report will be posted to the NANPA website no later than the last
business day of April (for the February 1 submission cycle) and October (for
the August 1 submission cycle), unless otherwise directed by the FCC.  Included with these projections is a complete
description of the methodology employed.

 

NeuStar’s NPA Exhaust
Report (Table I-14 provides a sample excerpt from this report) consists of the
state, NPA, the projected exhaust date and the previous forecast.  The report highlights any significant
anomalies that impacted the exhaust time frame and provides a brief explanation
of the change.  For example, the
implementation of pooling, the return of a large number of codes, or the
introduction of CO code rationing are certain anomalies that NeuStar currently
identifies in its reporting of NPA exhaust projections.

 

Table I-14.  NPA Exhaust Report – Sorted by
State

 

	
  State

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  April 2002

  Forecast

  	
   

  	
  Previous

  Forecast

  	
   

  	
  Quarter

  +/-

  	
   

  	
  Notes

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Alabama

  	
   

  	
  205

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2004

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  (+12)

  	
   

  	
  NPA relief rescinded; decrease in code demand;
  forecast reflects impact of pooling planned for 8/02

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Alabama

  	
   

  	
  251

  	
   

  	
  2023

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  (+51)

  	
   

  	
  Decrease in code demand; forecast reflects
  impact of pooling planned for 7/02

  

 

The NANP exhaust analysis
results include the description of the assumptions used in the study, the
results based upon those assumptions, and the results of sensitivity analyses
conducted.  This analysis also highlights
any anomalies and trends influencing NANP exhaust.  If selected as NANPA, NeuStar commits that
this report, as well as the NPA Exhaust Analysis Report, will continue to be
consistent in content and format with each other, and that NeuStar will
continue to produce these reports and present them to the FCC and to the NANC
as has been done in the past.

 

 

In addition to conducting
the NPA and NANP exhaust analysis, NeuStar, in accordance with FCC Numbering
Resource Optimization Order (FCC 00-104) and INC guidelines, provides
state-specific, disaggregated service provider utilization and forecast data to
those state commissions with appropriate confidentiality protections in
place.  This data is available 30 days
after the February 1 and August 1 NRUF submission deadlines.  NeuStar provides the data in response to
state commission requests or in accordance with a requested delivery schedule specified
by the state.  Some states have requested
a copy of the data on a monthly basis while other states prefer to receive a
revised copy of the information whenever there have been additional submissions
accepted by NeuStar between reporting cycles.

 

NeuStar currently
provides this data, contained in individual state-specific Microsoft Access
databases, in order to facilitate state commission examination of the
information.  In developing automated
support for the NRUF process, NeuStar recognized that an enormous amount of
data is collected over a six-month time period. 
NeuStar, therefore, devised an economical solution whereby individual
states, with the use of readily available, commercial off-the-shelf software,
could access and make immediate use of the data.  Included in the database of information
distributed to the states are a variety of tables, queries, and pre-programmed
reports that NeuStar developed in cooperation with the states to assist them in
their analysis of the data.  NeuStar will
continue to provide this data in this format since the states are familiar with
this format and know how to use Microsoft ACCESS database tools.

 

Additionally, this
cost-efficient method permits states to easily create their own database
queries and reports that address their individual needs and allows NeuStar to
develop additional generic capabilities that may be used by all state
commissions.

 

To further enhance state
commission access to this important data, NeuStar will also make this same
information available to the states via password protected access on the secure
NANPA website.  Information will be
updated on a weekly basis so that states can obtain access to up-to-date
information as they desire.

 

 

I.3.3.4 Data
Aggregation (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.8)

 

Service
providers update, revise, or amend their NRUF data frequently.  NeuStar monitors the data continuously in
order to estimate the potential impact on NPA and NANP exhaust on an ongoing
basis.

 

NeuStar collects, stores,
examines, and analyzes utilization and forecast data submitted by service
providers between reporting cycles 15.  NeuStar has found that service providers often
update or modify their forecast data provided in their original NRUF
submissions.  For example, a service
provider will update its submission when, because of changes to its deployment
plans, it now requires resources in an NPA or rate center that it did not
include in its previous NRUF submissions.

 

To determine whether NRUF
submissions provided between reporting cycles may impact NPA exhaust, NeuStar
will, on a monthly basis, compare the aggregated service provider utilization
and forecast for an NPA as updated between cycle submissions with the base
aggregated service provider forecast from NRUF data used as input to the
development of the NPA exhaust.  For
example, if the data used for performing the NPA exhaust data contained all
forecast data submitted as of February 15, then NeuStar will take a
snapshot of the aggregated service provider forecast data as of March 15, April 15,
and June 15 and compare it to the February 15 data.  A change of plus or minus 20% or more will
trigger a full analysis of the NPA 16,
to include all data elements as described in Proposal Section 3.3.3 and
used in the development of the original exhaust projection.  A 20% change in forecasted demand is a strong
indicator that further analysis is needed to determine if a revised NPA exhaust
projection is required.  If NeuStar
determines that a new NPA forecast is necessary 8, it will forward the results of its analysis to the involved
state and post the results on the NANPA website.

 

In addition to monitoring
NRUF submissions provided between reporting cycles, NeuStar will also monitor
assignment rates in every NPA code on a month-by-month basis and continuously
compare actual versus projected monthly assignments.  NeuStar currently performs this monitoring
and has found it essential to proper forecasting of exhaust and timely
initiation of NPA relief activities. 
Although NeuStar has found that changes in service provider forecasts
submitted between cycles have not impacted NPA or NANP exhaust to any
significant degree, other items may result in significant changes to exhaust
time frames.  Examples of items that

 

 

may result in these types of changes are the return or reclamation of a
large number of codes, the implementation of CO code rationing or changes in
rationing amounts, or changes in demand. 
Failure to monitor each NPA on a monthly basis may result in premature
NPA exhaust due to the inability to react quickly and effectively to changing
conditions or the unnecessary initiation of relief activities.  If an NPA exhaust projection requires
revision, NeuStar publishes a report commonly known as the “Delta NRUF”
report.  The “Delta NRUF” report is
published on the NANPA website after proper notification of the involved state
commission.  Notification is also sent to
the FCC and the NANC.  Further, NeuStar
conducts an assessment of the circumstances that led to the change in the
exhaust date and determines what, if any, potential modifications are necessary
to its models for projecting NPA exhaust. 
NeuStar shares its analysis with the FCC and the NANC, including any
proposed revisions to account for these types of circumstances.

 

I.3.3.5 Data
Anomalies and Trends (RFP L.5, M.2.A.2, TRD 6.1.11, 6.2, 6.3.3)

 

To
ensure data integrity, NeuStar employs rigorous error detection mechanisms that
search each submission for errors or anomalies.

 

During the processing of
each service provider’s NRUF submission 4,
NeuStar examines the submission for any data errors or anomalies 5. 
If any errors, inconsistencies, or anomalies in the service provider’s
submission are discovered, NeuStar informs the service provider of its
findings, including a specific description of the item(s) in question, and
gives the service provider five business days to address the issue and resubmit
the data.

 

NeuStar has developed a
list of errors and anomalies, shown in Table I-15, that it detects during the
submission process—critical errors, minor errors, and missing data. Also
included in the table is a description of NeuStar’s methodology for determining
data errors and anomalies and the action taken to allow the service provider an
opportunity to address the problem.

 

NeuStar also compares
reported assignment and utilization data with the CO Code assignment records
and LERG data to identify those codes where no utilization data was provided or
such data was provided by a service provider that is not the one shown in the
NANPA assignment records or the LERG. 
NANPA, the FCC, and the state regulatory authorities use this data to
identify and follow-up with service providers that have failed to meet the FCC
requirement for reporting number utilization and forecast data.

 

 

Table
1-15.  Error and Anomalies Detected During
Submission Process

 

	
  Error/Anomaly

  	
   

  	
  Methodology

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Action

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Critical
  Errors

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider fails to populate any of the
  following fields on the Company Information Page:

  	
   

  	
  System checks “Company Information” form and
  finds the field empty or still contains original prompt text

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar rejects the submission and asks the
  service provider to resubmit NRUF with completed information within 5 business
  days.

  
	
  •     Service
  Provider Name or Type

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •     Company
  Address Information

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •     Contact
  Name or Telephone Number

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •     Service
  provider Operating Company Number (OCN)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •     Federal
  Registration Number (FRN)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider fails to provide valid
  service provider OCN

  	
   

  	
  System checks “Company Information” form and
  finds contents of the “Service Provider OCN” does not match an OCN listed in
  LERG 1 table.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar rejects the submission and asks the
  service provider to resubmit NRUF with completed information within 5 business
  days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider fails to provide recognizable
  NPA information in any of the utilization and/or forecast forms

  	
   

  	
  System checks the utilization and forecast
  form and does not find a single valid NPA appearing in the NPA field.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar rejects the submission and asks the
  service provider to resubmit NRUF with completed information within 5 business
  days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider alters or deletes workbooks
  within excel spreadsheet (including deleting forms, removing cells or
  modifying calculations).

  	
   

  	
  System expects certain forms and data fields
  to be based upon the Excel workbooks contained in the Form 502 or to
  follow the published FTP file format. 
  System checks the submission and does not recognize its format.

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar rejects the submission and asks the
  service provider to resubmit NRUF with completed information within 5 business
  days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Minor
  Errors

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider reports forecast for more
  than one initial NXX or initial NXX-X on the Form 502 Forecast Forms F1a
  and F2a (Forecast Reporting Forms for Initial Thousand Blocks and Initial
  Codes).

  	
   

  	
  System checks the F1a and F2a forms and
  identifies that the service provider has forecasted more than one initial
  code or initial thousands block in a single NPA or rate center.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider reports utilization that adds
  up to more than 1,000 for an NXX-X or more than 10,000 for an NXX.

  	
   

  	
  System sums the values in the assigned,
  reserved, aging, administrative and available numbers. The total must equal
  1,000 for an NXX-X or 10,000 for an NXX.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider reports utilization of more
  telephone numbers (TNs) than received on the Form 502 Utilization
  Form U3 or U4 (Utilization Reporting for Intermediate Carriers).

  	
   

  	
  System sums the values in the assigned,
  reserved, aging, administrative and available numbers on each completed row
  of the U3 and U4 worksheets and compares to the quantity of numbers reported
  as received.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider fails to enter carrier/entity
  information in the Notes/Assignee field on the Form 502 Utilization
  Form U1 or U2 (Utilization Reporting for Primary Carriers) when the
  carrier reports intermediate numbers or the U3 or U4 forms when the carrier
  is an intermediate carrier.

  	
   

  	
  System checks and sees the intermediate number
  field on the U1 and U2 forms is populated with a number greater than zero,
  yet there is no indication provided in the Notes/Assignee field as to which
  service provider was assigned these numbers.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  

 

 

	
  Error/Anomaly

  	
   

  	
  Methodology

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Action

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider forecasts significantly large
  quantity of additional NXXs or NXX-Xs in a single forecast year.

  	
   

  	
  System checks to see if the service provider
  forecasted more than 33 thousand blocks or codes in a single rate center or
  more than 100 codes in a single NPA in any of the five forecast years.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar
  contacts the service provider to determine if the forecast is indeed correct.  NeuStar will consider this an error until
  the service provider confirms the forecast.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider provides invalid rate center
  or state name abbreviation on utilization and/or forecast forms

  	
   

  	
  System checks all rate center names and
  abbreviations provided on all utilization and forecast forms and finds the
  information does not match the rate center name as listed in LERG 6 or LERG
  8.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider reports utilization on
  donated blocks with greater than 10% contamination

  	
   

  	
  System checks field “Donated to Pool” found on
  the U1 and U2 forms and finds it is marked, yet the sum of the numbers in the
  assigned, reserved, aging, and administrative categories is greater than 100.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to resubmit its NRUF submission with completed
  information within 5 business days.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Missing
  Data

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service provider fails to include utilization
  data for those resources that are assigned to that service provider.

  	
   

  	
  System compares NANPA code assignment as well
  as LERG data for a specific service provider with that service provider’s
  NRUF submission and identifies codes where the service provider failed to
  provide utilization information.

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar asks
  the service provider to either supply missing utilization data or provide
  adequate explanation on why data was not reported.  Service provider must respond to NeuStar
  within 5 business days or NeuStar will withhold future resources and refer
  matter to appropriate regulatory authority.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Multiple service providers report utilization
  on the same NPA-NXX or NPA-NXX-X.

  	
   

  	
  System identifies any instance where two or
  more service providers report utilization data on the same NPA-NXX or
  NPA-NXX-X

  	
   

  	
  NRUF submission is accepted, and NeuStar
  investigates with involved service providers to determine if an error has
  been made.  Note:  it is not uncommon for more than one
  service provider to report an NXX or NXX-X if there is an intermediate
  carrier involved.

  

 

The identification and
correction of data errors, inconsistencies and anomalies are essential to the
forecasting of NPA and NANP exhaust projections.  Simply put, “garbage in, garbage out.”  Additionally, state commissions use this data
to make important decisions concerning NPA relief and the implementation of
other number optimization measures (e.g., increased thousand block
contamination levels).

 

NeuStar has made
significant advances in improving the quality of service provider submissions.  In addition to the NRUF job aid, NeuStar has
added additional data error checking capabilities to the Excel version of Form 502
that permits the service provider to identify and correct errors prior to
submission.  Furthermore, NeuStar staff
spends numerous hours with service providers, walking them through the nuances
of NRUF reporting and educating them on

 

 

the process and forms.  NeuStar
has also conducted training sessions for service providers and state
regulators.  NeuStar’s efforts have been
rewarded with submissions of improved quality. 
With the first submission cycle in September 2000, over 80% of all
original submissions contained errors or anomalies.  In August 2002, approximately 30% of the
original submissions contained errors.  Further,
state commissions have become much more knowledgeable on how to use the tools
NeuStar has provided to assist them in data analysis, providing states the
tools and results needed to evaluate other number optimization alternatives.

 

As part of these efforts,
NeuStar will also identify any other anomalies and/or developing trends
concerning NPAs and other NANP resources, for example, carrier identification
codes and 555 line numbers.  In
identifying these anomalies and trends, NeuStar will provide an assessment of
what is driving these changes and, as required, recommend appropriate
action.  NeuStar will report its findings
to the FCC on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, based upon the results
of its analysis.

 

I.3.4  NANP Administration (RFP M.2.A.2, TRD 3,)

 

NeuStar’s
seasoned personnel will continue to administer CICs and numerous other important
NANP resources leveraging an in-depth knowledge of history, details, and
nuances associated with each resource—essential to unbiased, expert NANP administration.

 

TRD Section 3 lists
categories of NANP numbering resources and describes NANPA’s responsibilities
as they relate to the administration of each category.  Successful execution of these responsibilities
requires knowledge of the rules and regulations, understanding the needs
and motivations of each and every stakeholder, knowledge of availability and
depletion rate of each category of numbering resource, historical instances
applicable to new requests, and strong instincts regarding subtle points that
collectively go into making an appropriate and clearly unbiased decision. A few
examples of the subtleties follow:

 

•                  Many
precedents in number administration are not documented, but the administrator
must have knowledge of such precedents; e.g., the practice of making “temporary
assignments” in cases of advertising misprints.

 

 

•                  NeuStar,
as NANPA, has served in the past and will continue to serve as the “institutional
memory” for numbering, using that knowledge to advise regulatory authorities,
assist the industry, and inform the general public.  NeuStar has taken care to preserve this
heritage and will continue to do so as the next term NANPA.

 

•                  The
19 countries that participate in the NANP must share its resources equitably,
otherwise, diplomatic issues can arise. 
For example, the U.S. territory of American Samoa applied to join the
NANP and receive an area code.  In
reaction, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
expressed deep concerns about the life of the NANP and the continuing
availability of numbering resources because of the large number of area codes
assigned to the United States in recent years. 
As NANPA, NeuStar made the FCC aware of the Canadian viewpoint, and offered
assistance to the FCC in finding a solution that satisfies all parties.  The resulting FCC decision, which assigned
only ten central office codes in the 684 NPA to American Samoa, was an
effective and delicate way to resolve the issue.

 

•                  NANPA
administers eleven 800-NXX codes set aside for use in Bermuda and Caribbean
countries (not specifically addressed in the TRD) that elected not to
participate in the toll free database. Should these countries require
additional blocks, it will be NANPA’s responsibility to obtain and administer
them.

 

A quick reading of TRD Section 3
might lead a company to propose automating the administration of some resources
such as carrier identification codes or 500-NXX codes, even eliminating human
involvement in assignments.  Trying to
administer these and other NANP resources without involving expert experience
and judgment would be a major error. 
NeuStar has learned that experience and judgment are necessary
ingredients for successful NANP administration. Table I-16 summarizes key
points about each of the NANP resources. 
Approximate, annual application volumes in the chart below are based on
historical, not forecasted, data.

 

 

Table
I-16.  Key Points - Administering NANP Resources

 

	
  Resource

  (TRD

  Section)

  	
   

  	
  Assigned

  by

  NANPA?

  	
   

  	
  Approximate

  annual

  app volume

  	
   

  	
  Remarks

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Numbering Plan Area
  Codes

  

  (TRD 3.1)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
   

  	
  Administering area codes
  requires knowledge, tact, and courage.
  

  

  NANPA’s job is to say “no” when an application fails to meet the guidelines.
  Each year NeuStar receives a few area code assignment requests associated
  with non-conforming relief plan outcomes, forcing NeuStar to say “no” to
  state commissions. In such cases, NeuStar works actively with the states to
  find a conforming compromise, or assists them in appealing the denial to the
  FCC. 

  

  NeuStar works tactfully with state commissions to determine which new area
  code to assign. To avoid dialing conflicts when a new area code is
  introduced, a relief area code is reserved years in advance. Some states,
  however, prefer to choose the relief code themselves; e.g., 321 in the Cape
  Canaveral area of Florida.

  

  Assignment guidelines are not always clear and unambiguous, and NANPA, as
  steward of the numbering resource, must step in and make assignment decisions
  without specific guidance. For example, when Guyana applied to join the NANP,
  NANPA made the final decision to deny the application. Such decisions can
  have major political ramifications and must be made with the utmost care.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Central Office Codes

  

  (TRD 3.2)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  15,000-50,000

  	
   

  	
  Section 1.3.3 of
  the proposal discusses central office code assignment processing in depth.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  International Inbound
  NPA – 456-NXX Codes 

  

  (TRD 3.3)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  NANPA must maintain subject
  matter knowledge of little used numbering resources.
  There have been no applications for 456-NXX assignments during our term as
  NANPA. There is no shortage of unassigned 456-NXX codes. Exhaust is not an
  issue.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Personal Communications
  Service (PCS)/N00 (NPA 500) NXX Codes 

  

  (TRD 3.4)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  60-70

  	
   

  	
  NANPA has no enforcement
  authority when it comes to the use of these numbers, but has an implicit
  obligation to the FCC to point out possible misuse of numbers. Lack
  of specificity in the guidelines has allowed one entity to acquire large
  numbers of 500-NXX codes without using the numbers in their inventory. NANPA
  has reported such potential (but legal) resource-depleting activities to the
  FCC for appropriate action. NeuStar stands ready to provide whatever
  assistance the FCC deems necessary.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Easily Recognizable
  Code (ERC) 900 NXX Codes

  

  (TRD 3.5)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  1-2

  	
   

  	
  Disposition of numbering
  resources assigned to bankrupt entities is legally complex.
  Several key 900-service providers have exited the business or gone bankrupt,
  stranding customers. The 900 codes assigned to these service providers are
  subject to the guidelines, but the bankruptcy court typically treats the
  numbers as assets of the bankrupt corporation. In such cases, NANPA and its
  attorneys work closely with the parties to find a solution that permits
  continued service to the end users of these numbers. As NANPA, NeuStar
  recognizes that court rulings typically take precedence over rules and
  guidelines, and makes recommendations to the FCC accordingly. Note that similar
  bankruptcy issues occur in CIC administration.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  N11 Service Codes

  

  (TRD 3.6)

  	
   

  	
  No

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  NANPA is the recognized source
  for information on all numbering resources, even those we do not assign.
  The FCC assigns N11 codes in the US, but state commissions have allowed local
  assignments for some codes, particularly in the Southeast. NANPA answers questions
  about the implementation of N11 codes, particularly 211, which the FCC has
  assigned for community services.

  

 

 

	
  Resource

  (TRD

  Section)

  	
   

  	
  Assigned

  by

  NANPA?

  	
   

  	
  Approximate

  annual

  app volume

  	
   

  	
  Remarks

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Hearing Impairment
  Codes – 800 855 XXXX Line Numbers 

  

  (TRD 3.7)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  0-1

  	
   

  	
  Historical precedent allows for
  temporary assignment of restricted toll free numbers in case of advertising
  misprints. If a company is
  assigned a toll free number, and it erroneously prints an unused 800-855
  number in its literature, there is historical undocumented precedent for
  NANPA to assign the number “for a reasonable period of time” until the
  printing error can be fixed.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Information Services
  Codes – 555 XXXX Line Numbers

  

  (TRD 3.8)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  250-300

  	
   

  	
  Due diligence is the key to
  finding fraudulent applications.
  Today most requests for 555 line number assignments come from individuals
  convinced that these numbers could be licensed for use by others for a profit
  some time in the future. These applicants are represented by an agent who
  “manages” the numbers on their behalf. Such an arrangement is not explicitly
  prohibited under the guidelines, although it is not yet clear whether
  licensing of assigned numbers is legitimate. NANPA’s due diligence in
  processing 555 applications has uncovered a significant number of attempts by
  various individuals to obtain more assignments than the guidelines allow
  through false pretenses; for example, forged signatures. Whenever NeuStar
  encounters such attempts, it denies the applications.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Carrier Identification
  Codes (CICs) 

  

  (TRD 3.9)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  200-250

  	
   

  	
  When assignment of numbering
  resources is constrained, these resources take on monetary value. Applicants
  try to circumvent the rules, making due diligence critical for effective
  administration. CICs are required for
  many routing and billing applications as well as for “dial around.” Each
  entity (one or more companies under common ownership or control) is allowed
  only two Feature Group D CICs under FCC directive. To circumvent this rule,
  applicants often lie about inter-company relationships. To catch this,
  NeuStar carefully checks company names, executive names, addresses and phone
  numbers against its database, which contains ten years of assignment
  information. Another commonly used method of acquiring CICs is to buy all or
  part of the assets of another company that has a CIC assignment. Reliable
  sources have informed NeuStar that companies have paid up to $75,000 to get a
  CIC from another company using this mechanism.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Vertical Service Codes
  (VSC) 

  

  (TRD 3.10)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  Everyone would like to have a
  phone number that is shorter and easier to remember than their competitor’s
  phone number. Legitimate
  applications for vertical service codes are infrequent, but NANPA receives
  frequent queries from interested parties. In virtually all cases, the callers
  are seeking abbreviated numbers; i.e., shorter numbers than their competitors
  have. NANPA works with these callers to find alternative ways to meet their
  needs.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Automatic Number
  Identification (ANI) II Digits (TRD 3.11)

  	
   

  	
  Yes

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  NANPA assigns these codes in
  response to a directive from INC.
  No new assignments have been requested in the last five years.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Non-Dialable Toll
  Points

  (NPAs 886 and 889)

  

  (TRD 3.12)

  	
   

  	
  No

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  Non-dialable toll points
  (NDTPs) are in the final stage of phase out. Five
  years ago, INC reached consensus to eliminate these highly inefficient
  arrangements, and all of the remaining NDTPs have been removed from the
  rating/routing databases. NANPA has put the industry on notice that the 886
  and 889 NPAs will be returned to the inventory as of July 1, 2003.

  

 

 

NeuStar’s management factor highlights

 

•      Unassailable neutrality

•      Comprehensive,
corporate-wide neutrality program in place

•      Passed
all quarterly neutrality audits-11 to date

•      Central
to NeuStar’s service offering

 

•      Unwavering corporate commitment to NANPA

•      NANPA
service receives Board level attention

•      Considers
NANPA as company flagship

•      NANPA
team supplemented by corporate support groups

•      External
affairs focus on stakeholder relations

•      Software
quality management involvement

•      Technical
operations support

 

•      Leveraging a wealth of knowledge gained from directly applicable past
performance:

•      Responsible
steward of national resources-NANPA and .us domain registry administration

•      Successful
development and deployment of complex technology-NPAC, Internet Registry

•      Successful
transition and cutover-National Pooling, .us domain registry

•      Record
of on time delivery-National PA and NPAC

 

•      Staffing the organization with NANPA SMEs

•      Key
personnel possess over 136 years of experience

•      Unmatched
experience in fulfilling all NANPA requirements-both implicit and explicit,
system and service

•      In
place day one-focused on a flawless transition

•      Streamlined
team with strategic redundancies

 

•      Refining established and effective communications approach

•      New
and improved NANPA website-optimize user experience

•      “Implementation-focused”
communications campaign:

•      Quarterly
newsletters-NANPA Numbering News, The State Scenes

•      Industry
and State conference calls

•      Email
notifications

•      Regular
updates to the FCC and NANC

 

•      Short, clear lines of escalation-ensures
problems are resolved expeditiously

 

 

II.            MANAGEMENT FACTORS (RFP L.5, M.2.B)

 

NeuStar has the requisite and proven: capabilities and
experience; in-place and uniquely experienced staff; unassailable neutrality
and corporate commitment; and an established and appropriate stakeholder
communications approach to ensure confidence that the NANP will continue to be
administered in a responsible and effective manner.

 

The success
of the NANPA’s next term is dependent on experience. Indeed, experience is the
key enabler to providing “best value.” 
The successful vendor must possess directly relevant NANP administration
experience in order to develop, deploy, and utilize a complex NANP resource
administration system.  Further, given
the complex project transition whereby the chosen vendor must develop a new
system, flawlessly migrate millions of data items between the current NANPA
systems to the new NANP administration system (NAS), and smoothly transition
operations, the chosen vendor must readily possess a detailed knowledge of the
algorithms, database schemas, and underlying business logic of the current
NANPA systems.  It must also have the
experience to properly establish and manage a comprehensive neutrality
compliance program. And, finally, it must understand how to communicate with
all stakeholders effectively and efficiently.

 

Because
it is the current NANPA, NeuStar possesses all of the management and technical
experience to seamlessly migrate to the next term.  NeuStar has proven repeatedly that it is
uniquely qualified to carry out the Commission’s mandates for numbering
administration.  As demonstrated in
Proposal Section II.1, NeuStar has a record of excellent past performance
that is directly applicable to the NANPA. 
NeuStar’s existing NANPA managers, including those we have identified in
Proposal Section II.2 as key personnel, possess numbering resource administration
expertise that simply cannot be matched. 
As detailed in Proposal Section II.3, NeuStar’s corporate
commitment to its role as the NANPA is rock-solid and its commitment to
neutrality is unwavering.  Finally, as
highlighted in Proposal Section II.4, NeuStar has an established and
proven approach to effectively serve, communicate, and interface with
regulatory authorities, telecommunications service providers, and other
stakeholders.

 

 

II.1          Past
Performance (RFP L.5,
M.2.B.1)

 

NeuStar will leverage a legacy of performance and experience
in successfully delivering neutral, industry-wide services to ensure that the
implementation of the new NANPA system and the continuing provision of NANPA
functions are provided with no disruption to users and maximum value to the FCC
and the industry.

 

The
importance of a qualified vendor to successfully administer the NANP cannot be
overstated. The administration of the NANP is more than just assigning
numbering resources; it is, quite literally, preserving a mission-critical
public resource in a highly competitive and volatile environment. As such, to
ensure success, the administration of the NANP must be performed with the
highest levels of trust, neutrality, quality, reliability, and
security—attributes only NeuStar’s direct experience can guarantee. Experience
only NeuStar possesses. Indeed, when evaluating the merits of the solution, one
must also evaluate the experience that was leveraged to design, implement,
operate, and price that solution. Experience is what separates the practical
from the theoretical, rewards from risks, and successes from failures.

 

As the entity trusted time and again by the Government and
the industries it serves, NeuStar has the requisite experience in managing the
NANP resources.

 

NeuStar, Inc.
is a privately held, neutral third-party company formed in 1999 to serve as the
NANPA under contract with the FCC. Since its founding, and operating through
its various lines of business, the company has leveraged its reputation as a
trusted neutral third-party provider of critical registry, clearinghouse, and
infrastructure services to develop lines of business serving both the
telecommunications and internet industries. For example, in addition to serving
as the NANPA for the past five years, NeuStar designed, built, and manages the
Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC), one of the largest databases
in the world; has successfully implemented, on a national scale,
thousands-block number pooling on behalf of the FCC; and was selected to
transition, enhance, and administer the .us internet domain name registry by
the United States Department of Commerce. 
Integrity, stability, and neutrality are the underpinnings of NeuStar’s
services. NeuStar’s numbering services enable the routing of virtually every
call dialed within the United States, and 18 other countries in North America.

 

 

Likewise, NeuStar’s .biz
and .us registries provide stable, high-availability DNS services to the global
internet community.

 

In
Table II-1, NeuStar addresses each of the seven critical standards the FCC set
out in its RFP and highlights NeuStar’s experience.  NeuStar’s achievements in serving as the
current NANPA are highlighted throughout the response.  In addition, NeuStar has provided, at the end
of this proposal section, the required past performance survey and questionnaire
for its work as the Local Number Portability Administrator. The past
performance questionnaires for NeuStar’s work as the current NANPA and National
Pooling Administrator are currently under review by FCC personnel.  As such, FCC personnel have informed NeuStar
that it will not be considered late or non-compliant with regard to this
requirement.

 

Table II-1.  Meeting the Criteria

 

	
  Evaluation

  Criteria

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Experience

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1. To develop and
  field a comparable automated system

  	
   

  	
  For the next term,
  NANPA requires a system with rich feature functionality, and high reliability
  and availability comparable to NeuStar’s Pooling Administration System (PAS).
  In fact, the technical requirements of the NAS and NeuStar’s PAS are
  virtually identical. Moreover, the system that NeuStar used for local number
  portability, the NPAC SMS, requires continuous availability, a requirement
  more stringent than that of the NAS.

   

  •           NeuStar
  developed the PAS on time and below cost, and it has been well received by
  service providers. 

   

  •           NeuStar
  is the only selected vendor who could design, develop, and implement, on
  time, the NPAC SMS, to allow the porting of local numbers between carriers in
  North America. The system serves more than 250 service providers daily and
  ports more than 1,000,000 numbers each month. 

   

  •           In
  1998, NeuStar was presented with the Supercomm Award for excellence in
  Operational Support Systems for its NPAC SMS system.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2. To transition successfully
  from old automated system to new automated system with overnight cutover

  	
   

  	
  •           NeuStar’s
  successful transition of the state pooling trial systems to the PAS is a good
  example. NeuStar performed the cutover in a “flash-cut fashion” during one
  night without error, allowing the PAS to migrate data and operations from
  over 20 separate pooling trials.

   

  •           NeuStar
  has also successfully migrated the entire .us internet domain registry. This
  complex migration was implemented using a combination of parallel operations
  and a real-time flash-cut.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3. To staff, manage,
  and operate a NANP administration or comparable service operation

  	
   

  	
  •           NeuStar’s
  experienced, proven NANPA staff is in place today. 

   

  •           NeuStar
  adjusted staffing levels throughout its tenure to meet unprecedented volumes
  and continually assessed and resized as appropriate to workload.

  

 

 

	
  Evaluation

  Criteria

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Experience

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4. To meet
  schedule requirements and manage contract costs

  	
   

  	
  •           In
  its initial implementation of the new neutral NANPA, NeuStar successfully
  transitioned functions previously performed by Bellcore and CO code
  administration and NPA relief-planning functions from 16 incumbents on time.

   

  •           NeuStar
  delivered the NPAC SMS local number portability system on time so carriers
  could meet the FCC’s mandate for LNP in 1997.

   

  •           NeuStar
  successfully implemented the registry for the .biz internet domain and
  transitioned the registry of the .us internet domain, meeting aggressive
  roll-out schedules.

   

  •           Finally,
  for the National PA implementation, NeuStar successfully developed the new
  PAS and transitioned the data and operations from over 20 state trials all on
  time and within budget under a cost plus award fee/fixed fee arrangement with
  the FCC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5. To communicate with
  a wide spectrum of organizations, customers, and stakeholders

  	
   

  	
  •         Established,
  effective NANPA communications approach in place with all NANPA constituents
  including providing valuable, accurate, and timely information through:

   

  •      Websites

  •      The State Scene
  and NANPA Numbering News
  newsletters oEmail notifications and conference calls 

  •      Conference
  calls 

  •      Regular
  updates to the FCC, NANC, NOWG, and state commissions 

  •      NANPA
  annual report and other reports.

   

  •      Similar
  requirements and demonstrable record of performance for LNP, National
  Pooling, and internet Registry clients, for example:

   

  •      Websites,
  newsletters, annual reports, conference calls, email notifications, etc. 

  •      Quarterly
  cross-regional meetings with LNPA stakeholders 

  •      Weekly
  conference calls and monthly face-to-face meetings with LNP contracting
  parties 

  •      Official
  presentations at industry fora.

   

  •      Active
  participation in various industry forums including LNPA WG, NOWG, NANC and
  its subtending working groups, NENA, INC, OBF, IETF, ICANN, ITU, etc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  6. To provide full
  financial and operational reporting and insight

  	
   

  	
  •      NeuStar
  publishes and provides an annual report to the FCC and the NANC, and remains
  in constant contact with them about the performance improvement plan.

   

  •      NeuStar
  provides a written report in conjunction with an oral presentation at every
  NANC meeting and responds to questions.

   

  •      NeuStar
  also provides a monthly account of its activities to the NOWG.

   

  •      As
  the National PA, NeuStar provides detailed billing and cost data to the FCC
  and DCAA.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  7. To develop and
  implement escalation procedures

  	
   

  	
  •      Effective
  escalation procedures in place for NANPA (discussed thoroughly in Proposal
  Section II.4), LNPA, National Pooling, internet registry contracts (.BIZ
  and .US). 

   

  •      Short,
  clear lines of escalation to ensure timely address of issues as they arise.

  

 

II.2          Key
Personnel (RFP L.5,
M.2.B.2, H.5, H.7)

 

NeuStar’s key personnel are experienced, in place, and
focused on ensuring a successful, low-risk implementation of the new NANP
Administration System and effective ongoing provisioning of NANP functions for
the FCC and the industry.

 

NeuStar’s
key operational personnel possess a combined 136 years of experience in the
telecommunications field.  Our technical
staff has the requisite expertise in developing state-of-the-art,

 

 

feature-rich
systems—having successfully created and deployed the national Pooling
Administration System. All of NeuStar’s NANPA personnel have been entrenched in
the day-to-day operations of NANPA for several years.  Additionally, the executives, directors, and
managers within NeuStar have extensive telecommunications system development,
management, and operations experience.

 

NeuStar
considers the people identified below as key personnel for this endeavor. They
have complementary skill sets that enable them to work together productively
for the betterment of the team and also allow them to provide backup for each
other when necessary for the benefit of the industry and timely delivery of
services to the FCC.  Copies of their resumes
are attached and include their educational backgrounds, job experience, specific
efforts they have supported, and references (most of whom are clients they
serve).  A review of those resumes will
establish that these individuals possess qualifications and capabilities to
develop, implement, and maintain the new NAS, to perform NANP administrative
functions, and to manage the NANP in accordance with FCC directives.

 

John Manning, Director, NANPA, is responsible for the overall success of
the NANPA organization.  Mr. Manning
will monitor the effectiveness of the team, ensure proper client interfaces,
maintain industry and regulatory satisfaction through performance measurements
and feedback surveys, perform data analysis, and manage the budget.  Mr. Manning will continue to act as
NANPA’s primary point of contact with the FCC and liaison with the NANC and the
NOWG.  Mr. Manning will also
continue to directly oversee the development of NPA and NANP exhaust
projections.  John Manning has played a
critical role in numbering for more than 15 years, has a strong working
relationship with the industry and regulatory authorities, and is a widely
recognized authority on NANP administration. 
He has provided testimony to Congress regarding numbering issues.  Prior to his tenure with NeuStar, Mr. Manning
served as the first chair of the INC and chaired the NANC’s NANPA Working Group
which was responsible for selecting the NANPA in 1997.  He has been an active participant in the NANC
since its inception in 1996.

 

Sandy Tokarek, Regional Director, Code Administration, will continue to oversee CO code
administration, including the allocation and management of CO codes for each
rate center or area.  Ms. Tokarek
will continue in the leadership role she has filled for more than two years,

 

 

at one point managing
eight functional areas and a staff of 28. 
The Code Administration Service Center processed more than 70,000 CO
code requests during Ms. Tokarek’s leadership.  She oversaw the implementation of new
processes and methods to ensure compliance with the FCC’s Numbering Resource
Optimization orders and more than 125 individual state regulatory agency
orders.  She oversaw the implementation
of CAS to process CO code applications, conducted successful system testing
and roll out, and created a help desk to support users of the system.  Ms. Tokarek carefully monitored the
flow and trends of incoming requests and reduced the size of the administration
group accordingly.  Ms. Tokarek also
provided numbering training and code administration training to other NANP
member countries including Barbados, Jamaica, and the Organization of Eastern
Caribbean States to prepare their organizations for telecommunications
competition. Ms. Tokarek
has obtained unique and intimate insight into more than one area of NANP
administration.  For the three years
prior to her role in Code Administration, Ms. Tokarek served as a Senior
NPA Relief Planner and Relief Planner, conducting many NPA relief projects,
facilitating industry meetings, and providing expert testimony before state
commissions.

 

Tom Foley, Senior Manager, Data Analysis, is responsible for NRUF data analysis,
publishing the annual NANP and NPA exhaust forecasts.  He will continue to provide CO Code activity
reports on NANPA’s website on a weekly and monthly basis.  He will also review individual NPA exhaust
projections between forecast cycles to determine if revised forecasts are
necessary.  Mr. Foley has extensive
knowledge of the NANPA organization—an essential qualification for the person
responsible for working with all aspects of the NANPA. In his present position
with NeuStar, Mr. Foley prepares 35 NRUF and other data analyses and
internal reports on a daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis to ensure
that all areas of the NANPA operations have the most up-to-date information
they need to perform their jobs.  He also
prepares 43 external reports to 25 state regulatory agencies on a daily,
weekly, or monthly basis.  Additionally, Mr. Foley
prepares ad hoc reports on a wide
variety of requests from the FCC and state regulatory agencies.  Prior to Mr. Foley’s transfer to data
analysis, he served for several years as an NPA relief planner, facilitating
industry meetings and providing expert testimony.  Mr. Foley has more than 20 years
experience in telecommunications management, operations, planning, project
management, and engineering.

 

 

Beth Sprague, Manager, NRUF & Industry Liaison, will continue building upon the strong
rapport she has established with the industry through her work with industry
working groups.  She will continue as
NANPA’s liaison with INC and other industry fora, as well as her extensive
efforts to aid the industry in complying with FCC NRUF requirements.  Ms. Sprague has managed NeuStar’s COCUS
and NRUF efforts for the past three years and successfully led NeuStar’s
extensive efforts to transition service providers from the COCUS to the NRUF submission
requirements.  Ms. Sprague has
provided more than 120 contributions to the INC and acted as co-chair of the
INC’s Document Maintenance and Management Workshop.  Prior to her work at NeuStar, Ms. Sprague
worked for the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS),
managing and leading several ATIS-sponsored forums.

 

LaShanda Tomlinson, Senior NRUF Administrator, works in cooperation with Mr. Foley
and Ms. Sprague to compile and prepare NRUF reports.  Since the inception of the NRUF process, Ms. Tomlinson
has administered the NRUF database and generated reports for regulators.  She manages inflow and processing of Form 502
data, identifying and resolving anomalies with service providers.  She also identifies and documents
requirements for database enhancements.  Ms. Tomlinson
serves as acting NRUF Manager, as needed. 
Together, over the previous two years, Ms. Sprague and Ms. Tomlinson
have processed more than 50,000 service provider responses in connection with
NRUF reporting.

 

Wayne Milby, Senior NPA Relief Planner, will manage NPA relief planning
projects.  Mr. Milby will interface
with all internal and external customers regarding NPA relief, and will be
responsible for the preparation of timely reports.  Additionally, he has developed a good rapport
with state regulatory personnel and will continue to testify as required before
state or federal regulatory agencies.  Mr. Milby
has more than 35 years experience in the telecommunications field, 8 of those
in NPA relief planning.  Prior to working
for NeuStar, Mr. Milby acted as a relief planner for the implementation of
one of the first NPA overlays for the 301 and 410 NPAs in Maryland.  He was also instrumental in reducing the time
needed for industry review of NPA relief plans from an average four days to one
day.  Mr. Milby has served as a
Senior NPA Relief Planner for NeuStar for more than five years, supervising the
implementation of more than 50 NPA relief plans.  As such, Mr. Milby has been instrumental
in the development of basic methods and procedures used throughout the United
States. He

 

 

developed the process
that allows the lifetimes of relief planning alternatives to be determined
dynamically—providing the industry with an effective way to examine new or
modified alternatives during relief meetings.

 

Joe Cocke, Senior NPA Relief Planner, will be responsible for conducting all
aspects of NPA relief planning in coordination with Mr. Milby.  Mr. Cocke also has more than 35 years experience
in the telecommunications field, and for more than 10 of those years, was
involved in NPA relief planning.  Mr. Cocke
joined NeuStar team in 1997 as an NPA relief planner.  As a previous NPA relief planner for service
providers, Mr. Cocke understands the goals and concerns of the service
providers and works swiftly to resolve any issues that arise.  In California, a state that has aggressively
managed more NPA relief plans than any other state, Mr. Cocke has become
an invaluable liaison with the state commission, legislators, and industry.

 

Nancy Fears, Manager, NANP Resources, will continue to administer carrier
identifications codes, 500-NXX, 900-NXX, and 555 line number assignments, a
role she has deftly filled for more than five years.  Ms. Fears has been a numbering
administrator for more than 10 years and has intimate and unparalleled
knowledge of the intricate assignment guidelines and procedures for these
numbering resources.  Ms. Fears
conscientiously deals with highly proprietary information on a daily basis and
strictly adheres to federal rules and regulations and industry
guidelines.  In the past five years, Ms. Fears
has processed record numbers of applications, including more than 2,330 CIC
applications, 1,170 500-NXX applications, 450 900-NXX applications, and 5,100
555 Line Number applications. Ms. Fears has used this vast experience to
enable her to investigate incoming requests to ensure adherence to FCC rules and
industry guidelines and utilize information she obtains to propose new
enhancements to the guidelines or provide assistance to the FCC to promote more
efficient usage of limited numbering resources.

 

Rudy
Amparano, Program Manager, NANP Administration System, will manage and
direct the technical teams responsible for the successful implementation,
development, and deployment of NeuStar’s new NAS. He will monitor the status of
the project, anticipate and mitigate risks, issues, and either resolve or
escalate them to the appropriate management level to ensure the project is
completed within budget, on schedule, and meets all customer expectations and
requirements. He led the successful on-time implementation of PAS, and
therefore, has a

 

 

unique understanding of
the systems necessary to accommodate numbering resource requests. Mr. Amparano has more than five years of
client/server development project management experience, during which he has
successfully deployed 10 software projects; two of these were multi-managed and
totaled $5.4M.

 

Samir Bham, Senior Systems Engineer,
NANP Administration System, will be responsible for leading
the technical areas of software development (i.e, programming, GUI designs,
etc.) and working closely with the Program Manager on a day-to-day basis to
supervise the technical issues of software development.  He, along with the 2nd Senior
Systems Engineer, will be responsible for supporting the transformation of
business requirements into system requirements. 
Mr. Bham has been responsible for analysis, design, development,
implementation, and testing of several high-end products for the
telecommunications industry.   Mr. Bham
was a key development resource for the implementation and development of
PAS.  His significant experience,
knowledge, and understanding of the numbering resource process is a key factor
for provisioning a successful NAS.

 

Rajeshwar Kamineni, Senior Systems Engineer, NANP Administration System, will participate
in supporting the development of key software architecture modules and system requirements
critical to a successful on-time system delivery.  Mr. Kamineni was another key resource
for the successful deployment and implementation of the PAS.   His experience spans over eight years
development in a UNIX/Object Oriented environment.  He has extensive knowledge and demonstrated
experience with Client/Server applications, J2EE applications technologies, and
Enterprise Java Beans with WebLogic middleware. 
Mr. Kamineni brings strong software design and development
experience to the NeuStar NANP administration team.

 

II.3          Management
Organization (RFP L.5,
M.2.B.3)

 

Created to serve, shaped by experience, and further optimized
for this solicitation, NeuStar’s NANPA organization combines logical functional
structure, unassailable neutrality, and corporate commitment to ensure the FCC’s
program objectives are met.

 

In the
past five years, NeuStar has developed and honed its management organization to
meet the day-to-day administration needs of the NANPA, and also to address the
challenges presented by an unprecedented explosion of competition in the
telecommunications field, the

 

 

emergence of new
technologies, and the authorization by the FCC of numerous numbering resource
optimization measures.  This
well-developed NeuStar management organization and team is now in place—poised
to deliver numbering management and administration services to the FCC for the
next five years.  Further, NeuStar’s
corporate and executive commitment to neutrality and the long-term success of
NANP is unwavering.

 

 

II.3.1       NANPA
Functional Organization

 

NeuStar’s streamlined NANPA organization has strategic
redundancies and is staffed with subject matter experts to deliver on all NANPA
requirements.

 

A
successful NANPA organization requires dedicated, experienced individuals who understand
the workings of number administration and appreciate the essential
relationships between NANPA, the FCC, state regulatory personnel, and the
industry.  In addition, the maintenance
of neutrality must be paramount within the organization.  NeuStar’s NANPA team is managed by
professionals and is already staffed to successfully accomplish all tasks
identified in the solicitation. Our key personnel already are dedicated to
NANPA and all individuals required for implementation and operation of the new
NANPA term have been named to ensure a low-risk, high quality deployment.

 

NeuStar’s
direct experience in staffing requirements necessary to meet the responsibilities
of the NANPA enables it to ascertain the resource requirements and the
functional structure required to effectively administer the NANP. NeuStar has
proposed modifications to its current NANPA operations team to meet the
forecasted challenges of the next five years with experienced staff that can
fulfill multiple roles or provide back up capabilities whenever an unexpected
need arises.  The operations team is
fully staffed and organized into six primary groups, each focused on a
different area of NANPA and each requiring different skill sets. As shown in Exhibit II-1,
NeuStar has identified each portion of its functional organization and reporting
structure during implementation and ongoing operations.  Further, the chart notes, by color and/or
symbol, which personnel are key and which personnel are “implementation”
only.  In addition, as required, NeuStar
has provided, (Table II-2) job descriptions at the end of this subsection.  The job descriptions, which correspond to the
organization chart, detail the responsibilities and minimum qualifications of
each position.

 

[Exhibit II-1.
NeuStar’s NANPA organization is streamlined, in place, and possesses unmatched
experience in effectively serving as the NANPA – marks of best value and low
risk. Graphic omitted: diagram of NeuStar’s NANPA organization.]

 

 

The Director of NANPA is responsible for the
overall success of the NANP administration. 
The Director, John Manning, will monitor the effectiveness of the team,
ensure proper client interfaces, satisfy regulatory and industry needs through
performance measurements and feedback surveys, perform data analysis, and
manage the budget.  He will continue to
maintain his strong working relationships as the primary technical liaison with
the FCC, NANC, NOWG, state regulatory personnel, and the industry.  Importantly, the Director will manage the
day-to-day operations, ensuring efficiency and success in all aspects of
numbering administration.  Mr. Manning
will also continue to act as NeuStar’s Corporate Neutrality Officer.

 

The Code Administration Services Group will be
responsible for performing the functions of CO code administration, including
the allocation and management of CO codes for each rate center.  Our Code Administrators will process Part 1
and Part 4 forms, assign CO codes, receive requests for CO codes from the
Pooling Administrator, and reclaim CO codes in accordance with FCC
requirements, INC guidelines, and state commission orders. The customer service/help
desk, quality assurance, and AOCN enterprise functions will be assigned to this
group.

 

The Data Analysis and Industry Liaison Group is
responsible for NRUF data analysis, publishing the annual NPA and NANP exhaust
forecasts, providing required NRUF reports, and acting as NeuStar’s liaison
with the telecommunications industry. 
This group will provide notifications and assistance to service
providers to assist them in complying with FCC rules for reporting
numbering utilization and forecasting. 
The team will manage the NRUF operation to process daily forecast
updates necessary for service providers to comply with FCC requirements.  The group members will also provide
assistance and educational services to state regulatory personnel on telephone
number reporting processes.  The NRUF and
Industry Liaison Manager will continue as NeuStar’s liaison with INC and other
industry fora.

 

The NPA Relief Planning Group will continue to
be responsible for initiating NPA relief planning projects, facilitating
industry meetings, filing NPA relief petitions with state regulatory agencies,
and, as necessary, providing subject matter expert testimony before state commissions.  This team has a well-developed customer
interface with the regulatory agencies and industry.

 

 

The NANP Resources Manager is responsible for
administration of carrier identifications codes, 456-NXX, 500-NXX, 900-NXX, 555
line number assignments, 800-555 line number assignments, ANI II digits, and
vertical service codes (VSCS).  This
individual will also investigate resource utilization and initiate reclamation
activities as necessary.

 

The NANP Administration System,  post-implementation technical operations support team
will consist of the Program Manager (PM), Senior Systems Engineer (SSE),
Database Administrator (DBA), and other corporate support resources such as
Systems Administrator, Webmaster, Network Engineer, and Security Engineer.  This team will be responsible for the
day-to-day operation of the system and equipment support, security, and
maintenance.  The PM manages the
technical operations, supports NANP administration services, and manages
post-implementation CDRL oversight, contractually compliant maintenance
schedules, and asset management. The DBA will develop and implement technical
policies and procedures for ensuring the security and integrity of the NANP
administration database while providing ad
hoc data support.  During the
pre-implementation phase of the lifecycle, the resources mentioned above will
provide overall system design, development, testing, and implementation
support.

 

The Software Development Quality Management Group
will be responsible for establishing policies and procedures for ensuring the
timely development of high quality, cost-effective software and services.  The group consists of a management team
empowered to oversee quality across the corporation and is accountable to the
NeuStar CEO and senior management.  The
group performs the following functions: quality policy and planning;
development of quality standards and requirements; performs quarterly project
quality reviews; conducts quality and process audits; and manages overall
quality measurement and reporting.  Ben
Schneider, Director of Software Quality Management, has responsibility for
leading the Software Quality Management effort at NeuStar.  He has over 25 years of software development
and quality management experience in the telecommunications arena.  Mr. Schneider was the Director responsible
for the Bellcore Corporate Software Quality program and played a significant
role in the Telcordia Technologies Software Quality program, which was ISO9001
and CMM Level 5 certified.

 

 

NeuStar’s
External Relations and Legal Group
will be available to address all activities identified by the FCC relating to
legal, regulatory (both federal and state), and compliance issues. In addition,
the team will prepare filings, develop testimony, and act as a liaison with the
FCC and state commissions. The group, consisting of Mindy Ginsburg, Director,
Federal Relations, Brent Struthers, Director, State Relations, and Kimberly
Miller, Director, Legal Analysis, will be NeuStar’s “front line”, working in
coordination with the FCC and the states. 
Ms. Ginsburg is a veteran of the FCC and already spearheads NeuStar’s
communications with the FCC, including the quarterly briefings during which
NANPA and the FCC discuss timely numbering issues.  Mr. Struthers is a former staff member
of the Illinois Commerce Commission and, at NeuStar, he has become a vital link
between NANPA and the state commissions. 
Mr. Struthers conducts bi-monthly conference calls with the state
commissions to discuss topics of interest and address concerns.  He also leads the production of a quarterly
newsletter directed toward the state commissions entitled “The State Scene.”  Ms. Miller has acted as counsel for
NANPA, both at the FCC and the states, for more than five years.  She has filed more than 100 NPA relief petitions.  These efforts also involve representing NANPA
in formal hearings.  Ms. Miller
counsels the NPA Relief Planning and Code Administration teams on compliance
with FCC rules and policy, state orders and industry guidelines.  

 

Table II-2.  NeuStar NANPA Organization Job Descriptions

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director

  

  (DIR)

  	
   

  	
  The Director for NANPA
  (DIR) is responsible for the overall successful development, execution, and
  management of NANP administration. The DIR is responsible for the budget,
  payroll, performance evaluations, and training of all NANPA personnel.
  Additionally, the DIR will interface with internal and external customers, be
  responsible for the preparation of timely reports to the FCC and other regulatory
  bodies, attend industry meetings and ultimately will be responsible for
  resolving all customer service issues.

  	
   

  	
  5.     Bachelor’s
  Degree or equivalent telecommunications numbering experience 

   

  6.     Familiarity
  with NANPA operations 

   

  7.     At
  least five years of supervisory experience 

   

  8.     Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written

   

  9.     Excellent
  organization and time management; problem resolution; facilitation; and
  decision making skills.

   

  10.   Experience
  with various telecommunication industry fora

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Code
  Administration Service Group

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Regional Director,
  Code Administration 

  

  (RD-CA)

  	
   

  	
  The Regional Director,
  Code Administration (RD-CA) staffs, manages, and operates the Code
  Administration Service Group. The RD-CA hires and supervises the Senior Code
  Administrator, Quality Assurance, Customer Service Representative, Code
  Administrators, and Senior AOCN Administrator. The RD-CA also prepares
  reports 

  	
   

  	
  11.   B.S.
  in Business Administration, Business Management, Telecommunications or
  equivalent work experience 

   

  12.   Ten
  years experience in telecommunications and management 

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  for regulatory
  agencies and industry. Additionally, the RD-CA will testify as required
  before federal or state regulatory agencies.

  	
   

  	
  13.   PC
  literate; specifically in Word, Excel, email 

   

  14.   Excellent
  customer service and problem resolution skills 

   

  15.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written 

   

  16.   Knowledge
  of facilities management

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior Code
  Administrator, Quality Assurance Manager

  

  (SCA-QA)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior Code
  Administrator Quality Assurance Manager (SCA-QA) is responsible for
  supervising Code Administrators. The SCA-QA must also resolve escalated
  problems in a timely manner, and escalate further if necessary. In addition,
  the SCA-QA may interface with service providers and regulatory agencies,
  educate regulatory and industry staffs, prepare reports for the industry, and
  train Code Administrators. The SCA-QA will assist in processing CO code
  applications, if necessary.

  

  As Quality Assurance Manager, the SCA-QA will evaluate conformance to the
  standards mandated by the federal and state regulatory agencies and
  compliance with industry guidelines. The SCA-QA will perform operational and
  business audit reviews, evaluate results, and make recommendations for the
  improvement of internal operational and management control systems and
  performance.

  	
   

  	
  17.   B.S.
  in Business Administration, Business Management, Telecommunications, or a
  comparable field or equivalent work experience 

   

  18.   Supervisory
  or management experience 

   

  19.   Five
  years experience in telecommunications or comparable customer service 

   

  20.   Excellent
  working knowledge of Word, Excel, email, web interfacing 

   

  21.   Excellent
  customer service skills 

   

  22.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Code Administrator 

  

  (CA)

  	
   

  	
  The Code Administrator
  (CA) must receive and process applications for CO codes in accordance with
  all applicable federal and state regulatory orders, INC, and other industry
  guidelines. Code Administrators also maintain records in the database and on
  the NANPA website listing assigned and available CO codes, comply with CO
  code reclamation procedures outlined in the guidelines, analyze and help
  resolve problems related to misrouted calls and calls that cannot be completed,
  and interact with service providers. The CA must also interact with service
  providers, escalate problems as necessary, and attend or participate in meetings
  as required.

  	
   

  	
  23.   High
  School diploma; BS in Business Administration, Business Management, Telecommunications
  or a comparable field a plus 

   

  24.   Two
  years experience in telecommunications or comparable customer service 

   

  25.   Good
  working knowledge of Word, Excel, email, web interfacing 

   

  26.   Excellent
  customer service and communication skills, both verbal and written

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Customer Service
  Representative 

  

  (CSR)

  	
   

  	
  The Customer Service
  Representative (CSR) responds to both internal and external requests for
  technical support, confirms the cause of the problem, and identifies and resolves
  technical problems. The CSR must monitor trouble tickets to ensure timely
  resolution of problems, and escalate issues in a timely manner. The CSR will
  maintain logs of trouble tickets. The CSR will also answer questions
  regarding use of forms and assist users with locating documentation. The CSR
  also handles the creation, deletion, and maintenance of user accounts and
  passwords. NeuStar anticipates high demand for a dedicated CSR to aid service
  providers in using the new NAS
  within the first year of its operation. Following the first year, the CSR’s
  primary focus will continue to provide assistance to NAS users; however, if needed, the CSR will provide assistance
  to the Code Administrators or the Senior AOCN Administrator.

  	
   

  	
  27.   Bachelor’s
  Degree or equivalent experience required; two years experience in telecommunications
  or comparable customer service 

   

  28.   Experience
  with LAN/WAN, TCP/IP, and PC operating systems (Windows, NT, Unix), and
  supporting hardware and software in use at the site or over the phone 

   

  29.   Excellent
  customer service, decision-making, and communication skills, both verbal and
  written 

   

  30.   Detail-oriented,
  creative, and analytical 

   

  31.   Must
  be able to work independently, yet remain a strong team player

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior AOCN
  Administrator 

  (SAA)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior AOCN
  Administrator (SAA) inputs rating and routing data submitted by NeuStar’s
  AOCN customers on Part 2 code application forms, working closely with 

  	
   

  	
  32.   B.S.
  in Business Administration, Business Management, Telecommunications, or a
  comparable field or equivalent work experience.

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  customers when needed
  to ensure data accuracy and update timeliness. In addition, if and when
  additional resources are required to process input data, the SAA selects and
  supervises these individuals. The SAA manages NeuStar’s AOCN business, and in
  that capacity negotiates contracts with customers and coordinates customer
  billing with NeuStar finance.

  	
   

  	
  33.   Five
  years experience in customer service, preferably in telecommunications 

   

  34.   Excellent
  working knowledge of Word, Excel, email, web interfacing 

   

  35.   Excellent
  customer service and communication skills, both verbal and written 

   

  36.   Two
  years internal business auditing or related business experience and experience
  with commonly used auditing concepts and practices

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Data
  Analysis and Industry Liaison Group

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior Manager, Data
  Analysis 

  

  (SM/DA)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior Manager, Data Analysis (SM/DA) will collect and analyze utilization data
  and prepare any necessary reports using the results of that analysis,
  including the annual NRUF report projecting the exhaust of NPAs and the NANP.
  The SM/DA will be responsible
  for managing the NRUF reports and data. The SM/DA will supervise the
  Manager, NRUF and Industry Liaison.

  	
   

  	
  37.   Bachelor’s
  Degree or equivalent experience and three years experience in the telecommunications
  field 

   

  38.   Three
  years experience in data collection and analysis 

   

  39.   Experience
  in using databases and spreadsheets, including Access and Excel; and working
  knowledge of Microsoft Suite 

   

  40.   Excellent
  organizational and time management; analytical and problem solving skills 

   

  41.   Flexibility
  to handle variety of tasks and work as a team player

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Manager, NRUF and
  Industry Liaison 

  

  (M/NIL)

  	
   

  	
  The Manager, NRUF and
  Industry Liaison (M/NIL) will collect and analyze NRUF utilization data and
  prepare any necessary reports using the results of that data. The M/NIL will
  also represent NANPA at industry work group meetings such as INC, and must
  therefore fully comprehend the operational impacts to NANPA of any changes to
  industry guidelines. The M/NIL will prepare NANPA contributions for
  submission to industry work groups, advise the NANPA team about the results
  of any discussions, and follow up on any action items. The M/NIL must also educate
  staff on changes to guidelines. The M/NIL supervises the Senior NRUF
  Administrator.

  	
   

  	
  42.   B.A.
  or equivalent in telecommunications or a related field 

   

  43.   Familiarity
  with all NANPA operations 

   

  44.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written 

   

  45.   Experience
  working as a team player; 

   

  46.   Excellent
  organization, problem resolution, and time management skills;

   

  47.   Familiarity
  with various telecommunication industry fora

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior NRUF
  Administrator 

  

  (SNA)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior NRUF
  Administrator (SNA) will work in cooperation with the SM/DA and M/NIL to
  compile and prepare NRUF reports. The SNA also will work with service providers
  in processing NRUF submissions by notifying service providers of errors and
  anomalies and providing ongoing assistance.

  	
   

  	
  48.   B.A.
  or equivalent in telecommunications or a related field 

   

  49.   Excellent
  organization and time management skills 

   

  50.   Familiarity
  with the various telecommunication industry forums

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NPA
  Relief Planning Group

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior NPA Relief
  Planner 

  

  (SNRP)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior NPA Relief
  Planner (SNRP) will be responsible for management and execution of all NPA
  relief planning projects. Additionally, the SNRP will interface with all internal
  and external customers, and be responsible for the preparation of timely
  reports. Additionally, the SNRP will 

  	
   

  	
  51.   Bachelor’s
  Degree or equivalent experience 

   

  52.   Must
  have excellent facilitation skills (large meetings of telecommunications
  professionals and regulatory personnel)

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  testify as required
  before federal or state regulatory agencies.

  	
   

  	
  53.   At
  least 10 years experience in relevant positions (e.g., public speaking,
  facilitation, telecommunications, federal or state regulatory). Experience in
  telecommunications numbering issues. 

   

  54.   Must
  be able to maintain a virtual office at home with secure filing locations and
  willing and able to travel domestically

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP
  Resources Manager

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP Resources Manager

  

  (NRM)

  	
   

  	
  The NANP Resources
  Manager is responsible for administration of carrier identifications codes,
  500-NXX, 900-NXX and 555 line number assignments and other NANP resources.
  The NRM will also investigate resource utilization and initiate reclamation
  activities.

  	
   

  	
  55.B.A. or equivalent
  in telecommunications or a related field; familiarity with NANP ops 

   

  56.Excellent communication
  skills, both verbal and written 

   

  57.Excellent
  organization and time management and problem resolution skills

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NANP
  Administration System Group

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program Manager 

  

  (PM)

  	
   

  	
  The PM has overall
  responsibility for the successful completion of implementation, development,
  deployment, and upgrade of the NANPA Administration System product. The PM
  will provide overall leadership for the technical team; determine project
  scope; develop the project plan, milestones, skill requirements, and metrics;
  define and document resources needed; act as the front-line contact with
  client representatives on project-related issues; and respond to customer
  concerns with clear and concise feedback. The PM must monitor project status,
  anticipate issues and resolve or escalate them to appropriate level of higher
  management for resolution in order to ensure project completion. The PM must
  execute consulting, project/program planning methodologies, develop tools and
  standards, and provide ideas and strategies for enhancements. Additionally,
  the PM must interact with the technology organization to identify relevant
  technical product features, product deficiencies and other technical
  information for use in establishing product performance and operating
  improvements.

  	
   

  	
  58.   B.A./B.S.
  in a technical or business field, or equivalent work experience. 

   

  59.   Three
  years of application software implementation experience 

   

  60.   Experience
  in supporting business development opportunities through proposal creation,
  review, and presentation 

   

  61.   Strong
  leadership skills 

   

  62.   A
  proven ability to exceed customer expectations and incorporate customer
  service into all aspects of the project plan. 

   

  63.   Sufficient
  technical skill and knowledge to seek and share appropriate information with
  clients and team, and respond to concerns with timely, meaningful,
  fact-based, and constructive feedback.

   

  64.   Experience
  partnering and working closely with clients to further understand their business
  and anticipate their needs.

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Senior Systems
  Engineer

  

  (SSE)

  	
   

  	
  The Senior Systems
  Engineer (SSE) is responsible for the functional area of Java Applications
  development. This position requires day-to-day management of the technical
  areas of software development (i.e., Programming, GUI designs, etc.) and the
  development team, and anticipates changes required in development. The SSE
  and the team develop the system requirements from the business owners in
  order to transform business requirements into an effective product. The SSE
  must work closely with the PM to identify technical tasks to be completed to
  meet business requirements and conclude the overall project. This position
  requires the resolution of complex development issues quickly and
  efficiently, and clearly communicating the resolution to the team.

  	
   

  	
  65.   B.S.
  in Engineering or Computer Science, or Engineering Certification from a
  highly academically rated technical school 

   

  66.   Five
  years computer software development experience with object oriented languages
  (JAVA, C++, SmallTalk, etc.)

   

  67.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written; excellent teamwork and flexibility
  skills

   

  68.   Expertise
  in one or more technical areas (i.e., OS, networking, Web server applications,
  etc.) and relational database development and design experience

   

  69.   Demonstrated
  ability to design and program complex applications using development
  standards 

   

  70.   Ability
  to analyze and troubleshoot technical problems in a methodical manner 

   

  71.   Knowledge
  of HTML, JSP, Unix, Oracle, WebLogic, EJB, UML, JDBC, and SQL

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  System Engineer 

  

  (SE)

  	
   

  	
  The Systems Engineer
  (SE) will support the development of the system requirements as received from
  the business owners, into an efficient software product. The key responsibility
  area for the SE is the functionality for Java applications development. This
  may consist of focusing on particular module for development (i.e., GUI,
  Server, DB, etc.). The SE must apply experience with client/server and web
  server development to the design and development of application functions.

  	
   

  	
  72.   B.S.
  in Engineering, Computer Science, or Math or Engineering Certification from a
  highly academically rated technical school 

   

  73.   Three
  years of strong programming experience in Java and with object-oriented software
  design methodologies 

   

  74.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written 

   

  75.   Strong
  development experience with one or more IDE’s and source code version control
  products. 

   

  76.   Multi-platform
  development experience 

   

  77.   Knowledge
  of HTML, JSP, Unix, Oracle, WebLogic, EJB, UML, JDBC, and SQL

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Database Administrator
  

  

  (DBA)

  	
   

  	
  DBA individual will be
  responsible for the implementation and maintenance of Oracle database objects
  on a variety of Oracle database servers. Individual must possess knowledge of
  Oracle data definition language, data manipulation language, and replication
  standards. Responsibilities include, but not exclusive backup, recovery and
  tuning Oracle databases in an environment that crosses multiple platforms.
  This position also requires additional tasks involving Oracle and SQL server
  databases.

  	
   

  	
  78.   B.S.
  in Engineering or Computer Science or Engineering Certification 

   

  79.   Must
  have 3+ years experience with Oracle, SQL, ACCESS databases for migration and
  maintenance purposes.

   

  80.   Must
  possess strong analysis and design skills and excellent writing skills for
  ad-hoc technical documentation 

   

  81.   Experience &
  knowledge using Oracle version 8.x & higher, Oracle replication, relational
  db management system, designing relational objects like tables, stored procedures &
  triggers, tuning apps, that use Oracle DB objects, 

   

  82.   Additional
  DB experience required with PL\SQL, SQL, PERL programming, Access database
  management.

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Administrator 

  

  (SA)

  	
   

  	
  Individual will be
  responsible for installing and configuring new hardware servers, resolve
  technical issues, support various platforms; multiple processors; administer
  user accounts and passwords; support networking engineers with a variety of
  network topologies; secure and monitor daily; maintain adequate files space
  for the operating system, application files, new releases, patches; provide
  recommendations and troubleshooting support to a wide range of customers, end
  users, developers, DBA, network and system administrators;

  	
   

  	
  83.   B.S.
  in Information Systems or equivalent 

   

  84.   4+
  years experience with hands-on experience and knowledge with Sun, Linux and
  UNIX environments 

   

  85.   Strong
  knowledge and hands-on experience with installing and configuring multiple
  monitoring tools and configuration management tools.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Webmaster

  	
   

  	
  Responsibilities will
  be providing site content design that the program needs to follow to
  accomplish navigational goals; assess and monitor traffic patterns daily; run
  and provide update; assist in solving operating problems and support written
  user and operation manuals; aid in the selection and implementation of
  upgrades for Web tools, Publishing, Content Management, Search Engine; act as
  an advisor on issues concerning Web infrastructure architecture enhancements

  	
   

  	
  86.   Requires
  a B.S. in IS or Computer Science or equivalent 

   

  87.   3+
  years experience as a Webmaster 

   

  88.   Extensive
  background in working on high traffic Intranet/Internet sites.

   

  89.   Extensive
  knowledge and experience with HTML, JSP, ASP script, DHTML, DreamWeaver, MS
  FrontPage;

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Network Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Areas of
  responsibilities will include Internet, Local Area Network, Wide Area
  Network, convergence of data networks and IP initiatives; design, implement,
  and document systems and platforms with preventative maintenance
  methodologies which optimize security, reliability, performance, cost and
  maintenance;

  	
   

  	
  90.   B.S./B.A.
  Degree or equivalent CISCO systems equivalent certification 

   

  91.   5+
  years experience with routing protocols, including BGP, RIP, VRRP, HSRP, operations
  of LAN switching infrastructure 

   

  92.   Strong
  experience with building and converting LAN and WAN systems, monitoring of
  WAN infrastructures, VPN, Frame Relay

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Security Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Individual will be
  responsible for defining, modifying, critiquing, formalizing, documenting,
  and implementing security technical strategies. This includes provisioning recommendations
  for changes in response to security tools, products; security risk
  assessments; testing and evaluation, security documentation, security
  technical guidance; identifying hardware/software installation plan security
  products

  	
   

  	
  93.   Requires
  a B.S. in IS or Computer Science or equivalent 

   

  94.   Security
  Clearance required 

   

  95.   Extensive
  knowledge of and hands-on administrator experience with firewalls, especially
  Nokia\Checkpoint 

   

  96.   Extensive
  knowledge of and hands-on administrator experience with intruder detection
  systems

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Software
  Quality Management

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director, Software
  Quality Management

  

  (D-SQM)

  	
   

  	
  The Director Software
  Quality Management (D-SQM) oversees the software quality program and has
  responsibility for establishing policies and procedures for ensuring the
  development of high quality software and services. The D-SQM develops quality
  standards and requirements, performs quarterly project quality reviews,
  conducts quality and process audits, and manages overall quality measurement
  and reporting. The D-SQM works very closely with each project’s management
  team to ensure compliance to quality policies and standards. The D-SQM also
  communicates regularly and reports status to the COO and the senior
  management team.

  	
   

  	
  97.   B.S.
  in Computer Science, Information Systems or equivalent 

   

  98.   Ten
  years or more of software development experience; five years or more of experience
  implementing and managing software quality programs 

   

  99.   Strong
  knowledge of software quality standards 

   

  100.   Five
  years or more of management experience; able to work well in a matrix management
  environment 

   

  101.   Excellent
  communications skills, both oral and written; excellent interpersonal skills

  

 

 

	
  TITLE

  	
   

  	
  JOB DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  External
  Relations and Legal Group

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director, Federal
  Relations

  

  (D/FR)

  	
   

  	
  The Director, Federal
  Relations is responsible for performing or overseeing all federal regulatory
  liaison activities of NANPA and supervising federal regulatory and compliance
  activities. D/FR will review all federal regulatory directives, respond to
  them as appropriate, perform any necessary legal research, work with staff to
  prepare any filings that are needed in proceedings involving NANPA before
  federal regulatory agencies and in the courts, and interact with regulatory
  agencies.

  	
   

  	
  102.   Bachelors
  and Juris Doctor (J.D.) Degree 

   

  103.   Experience
  in telecommunications issues and administrative law 

   

  104.   Excellent
  communication skills, both verbal and written 

   

  105.   Strong
  decision-making skills

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director, State
  Relations

  

  (D/SR)

  	
   

  	
  The Director, State
  Relations is responsible for performing or overseeing all state regulatory
  liaison activities of NANPA regarding regulatory and compliance activities.
  D/SR will monitor and review all state regulatory directives, respond to them
  as appropriate, and perform any necessary research. The D/SR will notify all
  the other staff members that need to be involved, analyze how the NANPA
  activities may be affected, and be responsible for generating adequate
  internal resources to address the issue.

  	
   

  	
  106.   Bachelors
  Degree 

   

  107.   Familiarity
  with telecommunications issues, preferably issues related to numbering. 

   

  108.   Minimum
  five years state utility commission, or other commensurate experience 

   

  109.   Experience
  in analyzing agency orders, drafting and reviewing filings and testimony 

   

  110.   Strong
  interpersonal communications skills

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director, Legal
  Analysis

  

  (D/LA)

  	
   

  	
  The Director, Legal
  Analysis (D/LA) is responsible for performing or overseeing all federal and
  state regulatory legal activities of NANPA and supervising federal regulatory
  and compliance activities. D/LA will review all federal and state regulatory
  directives, respond to them as appropriate, perform any necessary legal
  research, work with staff to prepare any testimony and filings that are
  needed in all proceedings involving NANP administration before federal and
  state regulatory agencies and in the courts, and interact with regulatory
  agencies.

  	
   

  	
  111.   Bachelors
  and Juris Doctor (J.D.) Degree 

   

  112.   Admitted
  to and in good standing with the D.C. Bar 

   

  113.   Minimum
  5 years experience as regulatory attorney 

   

  114.   Experience
  in telecommunications issues, administrative law, advocacy, and litigation 

   

  115.   Excellent
  communications skills, both verbal and written 

   

  116.   Strong
  decision-making skills

  

 

 

II.3.2       How NANPA
Fits in with Overall Corporate Goals (RFP L.5, M.2.B.3)

 

NeuStar’s overall corporate goals embody the mission of
NANPA—the optimization and responsible, effective, and neutral administration
of a critical national resource.

 

The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 required that the FCC “create or designate one
or more impartial entities to administer telecommunications numbering and to
make such numbers available on an equitable basis.” This requirement, which
ultimately led to FCC selection of the entity that is now NeuStar as the NANPA,
was driven by Congress’ recognition that, in order for competition to flourish,
a neutral, independent and highly responsible entity must be charged with the
unbiased administration of critical shared numbering resources.

 

NeuStar’s
mission is to provide the FCC, state regulatory agencies, and the telecommunications
industry with high-quality, neutral, best-value services to facilitate
competition and ensure fair and unbiased administration of important shared resources.
Thus, the FCC’s core requirements for a successful NANPA form the very
foundation of NeuStar’s corporate mission.

 

If
selected to serve again, the NANPA contract will not be buried within a
multi-billion dollar corporation or shunted off to a small division of a
company.  Rather, NeuStar’s executive
management and its Board of Directors pay close attention to the NANPA contract
and consider the strict neutrality requirements not as a burden, but as
defining who NeuStar is and why NeuStar, as a neutral third party, will
continue to be successful.  Indeed, NeuStar regards serving as the NANPA a
privilege and considers the NANPA contract its flagship.  During its tenure as the NANPA, NeuStar
extended its legacy as a neutral third-party provider of numbering administration
services beyond NANPA to number portability and pooling administration and even
to the operation of the .biz and .us internet registries.  All of those services are provided with the
same commitment to neutrality.

 

 

II.3.3       How NeuStar
will Guarantee Neutrality (RFP L.5, M.2.B.3,
H.8.B.3)

 

NeuStar’s commitment to neutrality is unwavering—evidenced by
a comprehensive, corporate-wide neutrality program and a consistent record of
passing all quarterly neutrality audits.

 

Telephone
numbers are the keys to the public switched telephone network. Competition will
not survive, let alone thrive, in the telecommunications industry if
competitors do not have equal access to telephone numbers.  Any bias, real or perceived, in the
assignment of numbering resources will imperil the pro-competitive goals of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and undermine the ability of the FCC to carry
out its statutory mandate.

 

Neutrality
requirements must be an integral part of the NANPA organization and operation.  Few companies can truly live up to the rigors
of neutrality, which are necessary to effectively serve as the NANPA.  Indeed, no other entity in this procurement
will likely commit to as rigorous a program of neutrality as has NeuStar.  As a result, other entities will not fully
grasp, and are likely to drastically underestimate, the requirements for a
successful neutrality compliance program. These companies will assume that it
will be sufficient simply to comply with the specific neutrality rules of
the FCC and corresponding FCC orders and policies—perhaps even on a superficial
level.  Simple “adherence” to the letter
of the rules, however, is insufficient. 
Detailed compliance procedures and practices must be incorporated at all
levels of the NANPA’s business. NeuStar has the experience to satisfy fully
both the letter and spirit of these neutrality requirements, and can
immediately comply with both on an ongoing basis.

 

NeuStar
has in place a comprehensive, corporate-wide neutrality program designed to ensure
compliance with the stringent neutrality requirements set forth in its NANPA,
NPAC, Pooling, and Registry contracts. 
This neutrality program is unmatched by any other entity in the market
today.

 

Based
upon its neutrality Code of Conduct, NeuStar has established a comprehensive
set of procedures to ensure compliance by all employees.  The strength of NeuStar’s Code of Conduct
model has been recognized even in other industries. As part of its requirements
for all new internet domains, the ICANN, the regulatory body responsible for
internet TLD registries,

 

 

adopted a version of
NeuStar’s Code of Conduct.  Highlights of
NeuStar’s neutrality program include:

 

•      Designation of a full-time corporate
Neutrality Officer to oversee neutrality procedures and mechanisms, provide
day-to-day guidance on neutrality matters, and act as a liaison with the FCC on
matters related to neutrality;

 

•      Each NeuStar employee must participate in
formal neutrality training when hired; undergo annual neutrality training to update
and refresh his/her understanding of the neutrality requirements; complete a
test on the neutrality requirements; sign a quarterly certification asserting
his/her compliance with the Code of Conduct; and certify quarterly that he/she
does not own 5% or more interest in a telecommunications service provider.  Further, NeuStar has incorporated adherence
to the neutrality program procedures into employee evaluation and compensation
programs;

 

•      NeuStar’s adherence to its Code of
Conduct is audited on a quarterly basis by an independent third-party auditor
agreed to by the FCC;

 

•      Quarterly audit reports are reviewed by
NeuStar’s Board of Directors to ensure corporate-wide compliance and are
furnished to the FCC, NANC, and the NAPM, LLC; and

 

•      The FCC reviews the neutrality reports
and conducts an examination of the auditor’s working papers for these quarterly
audits.

 

In
addition to these formal compliance mechanisms, NeuStar has learned that the
most effective method for ensuring continued neutrality compliance is to
consistently and rigorously review operational plans and programs prior to
initiation or implementation. NeuStar ensures that such review is accomplished
in accordance with the following processes:

 

•      Requiring managers to submit operational
plans and programs, such as the deployment of new services, for a compliance
review.

 

•      Conducting compliance reviews through a
dedicated staff with significant experience in neutrality and other regulatory
requirements and reporting on those findings.

 

 

•      Maintaining constant communication with
the FCC, state regulatory agencies, NANC members, and other clients, as well as
industry participants regarding proposed activities and compliance issues.

 

The
results speak for themselves.  To date,
NeuStar has passed all quarterly neutrality audits and has had only one formal
neutrality complaint, which was addressed and resolved expeditiously.  In the highly competitive and volatile
telecommunications industry, this is a significant achievement. The very nature
of number administration ensures that there will be challenges from time to
time. NeuStar’s seasoned and highly expert team, however, has effectively addressed
all such challenges to the satisfaction of the FCC and the industry.

 

NeuStar
has provided the neutrality certifications per Solicitation requirements set
forth in Sections H.8.B.2 and H.8.B.3 at the end of this Proposal Tab.

 

II.4          Communication
Approach and Escalation Procedures for Establishing and Maintaining Interfaces (RFP L.5, M.2.B.4, TRD 2.17)

 

NeuStar has continually improved and refined its established
NANPA interfaces from the user’s point of view, revising processes based upon
customer feedback surveys, and providing formal communication and neutrality
training for all of NeuStar’s employees.

 

Through
its experience as NANPA, NeuStar has developed proven communications systems
that are vital to the successful operations of NANPA as well as the
implementation of new procedures. 
NeuStar’s formal communications approaches include two quarterly
newsletters (The State Scene and The NANPA Numbering News) that are
distributed to state regulatory personnel and industry members; bimonthly
conference calls with state regulatory personnel involved in numbering; the
NANPA website; and email notifications via the NeuStar DDS, which are sent to
interested parties including the FCC staff, NANC members, industry members, and
state regulatory personnel.  NeuStar’s
website and e-mails also contain names and telephone numbers for NeuStar
personnel that can address additional questions regarding specific subject
matter, such as NPA relief, CO Code Administration, and NRUF.

 

This
web of communications procedures is not only used in the day-to-day operations
of NANPA, but also to ensure the smooth implementation of new processes.  An important example

 

 

is NeuStar’s diligence in
helping service providers transition quickly and effectively from COCUS
reporting to NRUF reporting. 
Notifications of important changes were distributed in e-mails, posted
on NANPA’s website, and contact persons at NeuStar were available to address
specific questions from service providers and state regulatory agencies.  NeuStar also reviewed NRUF reporting forms
for errors and then called individual service providers to instruct them on how
to correct any insufficiencies, thereby drastically decreasing the error rate
quickly.

 

Ensuring
a smooth implementation

 

NeuStar will ensure a smooth transition to the next NANPA
term by using the same established and effective tools to communicate changes
that will occur when NeuStar implements the requirements set forth in this
solicitation.

 

All
required parties will be quickly and effectively notified of the upcoming
changes to the website, new NANP Administration System, or NANP functions via “implementation
focused and dedicated” state calls, newsletters, e-mails, and presentations to
industry groups.  Further, the NeuStar help desk will
be available, when necessary, to answer individual questions and concerns, and
provide step-by-step guidance.  NeuStar
will provide regular status updates to the NANC.  Such attention to early notification,
delivery of information over all communication vehicles, and individual
guidance will ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the new
requirements. NeuStar will continue to provide training for all NANPA staff on
neutrality, customer service, regulatory and industry guidelines changes, and
communications skills to ensure continued effective communications.

 

Effective
and appropriate interfaces ongoing

 

NeuStar will continue to use and further enhance its proven
communications approaches throughout the next NANPA term to effectively and
appropriately interface with the FCC, state regulatory agencies, pooling
administrator, LERG, NPAC, various service providers, the media, and the
public.

 

As
detailed in Table II-3 below, NeuStar will ensure that all primary NANPA
interfaces are effective and in compliance with the requirements set forth TRD
Sections 2.17.1 through 2.17.8.  In
addition, NeuStar will interface with the MBI Administrator as required in TRD

 

 

Section 2.18 to
provide information on the resources available as assignable MBIs.  Further, NeuStar has added a very important
interface—the general public.

 

Table II-3.  Interfaces

 

	
  Interface

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Response

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Pooling Administrator
  (PA)

  	
   

  	
  NANPA and the PA will
  exchange information relevant to the daily functions of each. When codes are
  disconnected, NANPA and the PA work cooperatively with NPAC to ensure
  customers with numbers from the disconnected code ported to other carriers do
  not lose service.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  LERG

  	
   

  	
  As NANPA, NeuStar has
  in place the required contractual agreements and hardware needed to access
  and view data from the BIRRDS database, from which the LERG is derived. When
  new CO codes are assigned, NANPA makes the initial entries into BIRRDS. For
  those companies that elect to use NANPA’s AOCN enterprise service, NANPA
  enters additional rating and routing data into BIRRDS. In order to make more
  numbers available and postpone NPA exhaust, NeuStar has taken the lead in
  investigating codes marked as un-assignable in BIRRDS. To date, we have freed
  up more than 1340 codes, making more than 13 million numbers available for
  reassignment. NeuStar has taken the lead in resolving data discrepancies
  between BIRRDS and other key databases.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NPAC

  	
   

  	
  When a service
  provider returns or abandons a CO code, NANPA requests an NPAC report to determine
  if the code contains numbers ported to other service providers. If it does,
  NANPA seeks, in accordance with industry guidelines, another service provider
  to serve as the “LERG assignee.” If this is not done, default routing to
  customers with ported numbers will fail. In the last year, NeuStar, has
  sought new LERG assignees for more than 321 codes.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Service Providers
  (SPs)

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar instructs SPs
  how to obtain NANP resource assignments. NeuStar provides multiple reports on
  the status of NANP resources on the NANPA website. For purposes of receiving
  requests, sending assignments, and processing NRUF submissions, NeuStar will
  support system-to-system (FTP), website, email, facsimile, and US mail for
  interchange of information with service providers.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Regulatory Agencies

  	
   

  	
  As NANPA, NeuStar will
  continue providing data to state regulatory personnel to enable them to work
  with SPs to optimize use of numbering resources. Data will be provided by
  voice, facsimile, e-mail, or US mail as needed. NANPA provides to the states
  aggregated and disaggregated NRUF data on each service provider’s number utilization
  and forecast. States can also choose to be notified about new code requests
  and assignments. As the NANPA, NeuStar also notifies state regulatory
  personnel regarding significant developments such as the change in a
  projected NPA exhaust date. Further, NeuStar is available to assist the
  states during consideration of NPA relief plans, and are often called upon to
  provide expert testimony. On request, NeuStar, as the NANPA, will meet in
  person with regulatory personnel to discuss issues that they may raise.
  NeuStar also serves regulators in other NANP countries and will continue to
  maintain effective interfaces with all NANP member countries. For example,
  NeuStar assisted Caribbean regulators in Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Kitts,
  Grenada, Dominica, and St. Vincent by training their code administrators.
  Additionally, NeuStar has provided detailed reports regarding NANP exhaust to
  Canadian regulatory authorities.

  

 

 

	
  Interface

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar Response

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Media

  	
   

  	
  The media have always
  relied on NANPA as the technical source for information on numbering issues,
  particularly area code relief activities. As NANPA, NeuStar will prepare
  press releases and speak to reporters in matters relating to administration
  and management of NANP resources in accordance with FCC requirements and
  confidentiality concerns. Information provided to the media will be factual,
  publicly available and previously released to the industry and regulatory
  agencies.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FCC

  	
   

  	
  NANPA has two types of
  interfaces with the FCC.

   

  1.     The
  work performance (operational) interface: Maintaining close contact with the
  COTR, NeuStar serves as policy implementer and information provider. NeuStar
  has implemented the provisions of the FCC’s NRO orders, including changing
  code administration forms and procedures. NeuStar built the NRUF system to
  FCC specifications, allowing regulatory authorities to obtain detailed
  utilization and forecasting information to assist in their optimization
  efforts. NeuStar informs the FCC of significant developments through periodic
  meetings and phone calls focused on numbering issues, including quarterly
  briefings. NeuStar provides background information to assist the FCC in its
  policy deliberations.

   

  2.     The
  business interface: NeuStar’s NANPA Director will work closely with the FCC
  contracting officer to monitor deliverables and other key aspects of the
  contract.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ITU Technical
  Standards Bureau

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar, as the NANPA,
  will maintain interfaces with the ITU Technical Standards Bureau. Information
  regarding the NANP including web links, contact individuals, the introduction
  of NPAs, and other changes to the NANP will be available to the ITU.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ITU Study Group 2

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar will maintain
  interfaces with the US Department of Commerce and service providers participating
  in ITU Study Group 2 meetings. NeuStar will advise participants as to whether
  international issues will have an impact on the management and availability
  of NANP resources.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Public

  	
   

  	
  As the NANPA, NeuStar
  serves as the “institutional memory” for numbering. Each day NeuStar responds
  to 25 to 50 people who send in questions through the NANPA web site. The FCC
  also directs to NeuStar general questions from the public. Several features
  have been added to the NANPA website specifically designed to help the
  public. This interface will continue to be available to the public and other
  interested parties.

  

 

Escalation
procedures

 

NeuStar has developed a powerful, effective set of problem
resolution and escalation procedures to ensure that problems are quickly and
effectively resolved to the satisfaction of its clients.

 

NeuStar
has established escalation procedures based upon two categories of issues.  First, a NANPA service issue involving the
performance of NANPA duties under the contract. 
For example, an applicant may believe that an application has been
incorrectly denied.  Second, an

 

 

issue involving the
availability or operation of the NAS or the NANPA website.  Escalation of NAS issues is discussed in
Proposal Section I.1.6.2, Help Desk.

 

Table II-4.  Severity Definitions

 

	
  Severity
  Level

  	
   

  	
  Definition

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1

  	
   

  	
  Major problem - many
  customers are impacted

  
	
  2

  	
   

  	
  Significant problem -
  one customer is impacted.

  
	
  3

  	
   

  	
  Minor problem - fix is
  not urgent

  
	
  4

  	
   

  	
  Suggested improvement

  

 

NANP service issue escalation—Whenever any user or NANPA employee determines that a
service problem exists, the service problem will be assigned a severity level
according to the definitions in Table II-4.

 

Table II-5.  Escalation Sequence

 

	
  Point
  of Contact

  	
   

  	
  Tier - Elapsed Time

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NeuStar President and
  CEO

  	
   

  	
  Tier 4 - 48 hours

  
	
  Vice President

  	
   

  	
  Tier 3 - 24 hours

  
	
  Director

  	
   

  	
  Tier 2 - 4 hours

  
	
  Designated NANPA
  Complaint Coordinator

  	
   

  	
  Tier 1

  

 

Table
II-5 shows the escalation path for severity 1 and 2 issues.  Escalation occurs automatically at the end of
the elapsed time shown in the table.  If,
at any time, the customer is not satisfied with NeuStar’s progress in resolving
any problem, the customer may escalate to the higher level regardless of
elapsed time.

 

Contact
information for the individuals currently holding these positions is listed in
Table II-6 below.  NeuStar posts current
contact information on the NANPA website.

 

Table II-6.  Escalation Contact List

 

	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Name

  	
   

  	
  Phone

  	
   

  	
  Email

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  President and CEO

  	
   

  	
  Jeff Ganek

  	
   

  	
  571-434-5420

  	
   

  	
  jeff.ganek@neustar.biz

  
	
  Vice President

  	
   

  	
  Chris Walker

  	
   

  	
  571-434-5720

  	
   

  	
  chris.walker@neustar.biz

  
	
  Director

  	
   

  	
  John Manning

  	
   

  	
  571-434-5770

  	
   

  	
  john.manning@neustar.biz

  

 

NeuStar
will perform a post-resolution review and analysis of each severity 1 and 2
issue, leading to corrective action, continual process improvement, and
adjustments to NANPA’s performance metrics as needed.

 

In
some cases, escalation may not be enough to resolve a problem.  Therefore, NeuStar developed on its own
initiative, a formal complaint process to deal with issues that could not be
resolved satisfactorily through escalation procedures.  To invoke this process, the originator
submits a formal complaint through the NANPA website by clicking on the “submit
a formal complaint” link on the home page. 
The complaint goes to the NANPA Director and designated

 

 

representatives of the
NANC, who then monitor resolution of the complaint.  NeuStar provides status updates to NANC as
necessary.  NANPA will forward formal
complaints, if any, to the FCC contracting officer and COTR, if and when
complaints are received.  Five years ago,
NANC developed another escalation process, called the “Dispute Resolution
Process.”  NeuStar’s NANPA internal
escalation process and the formal complaint process described above have been
so successful that the Dispute Resolution Process (TRD 2.12) has never been
required.

 

 

John C. Manning, Director, NANPA

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Manning has 20
years experience in various capacities in the telecommunications industry,
including network planning and engineering and participation in, and management
of, industry fora addressing national and international numbering issues.  He is currently responsible for NANPA program
management, accountable for interfacing with NANPA clients, regulatory agencies,
and other stakeholders to ensure the NANPA meets FCC requirements.  He is the primary NANPA point of contact for
the Commission staff responsible for numbering policy. He represents NANPA at
the North American Numbering Council and subtending groups and participates in
and/or supervises NANPA personnel attending industry fora.  He has testified before Congress on numbering
resource matters.  He is recognized
throughout the telecommunications industry as an expert on numbering issues.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

1999
– Present Director, Numbering Services, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Primary
NeuStar interface with the FCC and NANC on number assignment and administration
issues.

 

•      Coordinates
the development of area code and North American Numbering Plan exhaust
projections and presents results of this analysis to federal and state
regulatory agencies and the NANC.

 

•      Identifies
and quantifies the impact of proposed changes in number administration by
federal and/or state regulatory agencies, to include appropriate cost analysis.

 

•      Responsible
for the implementation of the NeuStar Neutrality Compliance Program and Code of
Conduct, based on quarterly audits which have consistently produced a positive
opinion from an independent auditor as to NeuStar management’s assertion of
compliance.

 

1995
– 1999   Director, Industry Forums,
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions

•      Managed
five industry forums, including the Industry Numbering Committee, that were
responsible for developing telecommunications industry standards, guidelines,
and procedures.

 

•      Responsible
for ensuring adherence to established industry forum practices and ensuring due
process in all deliberations.

 

•      Developed
business plan for implementation of an electronic commerce solution for the
sale and distribution of ATIS-forum created documents.

 

1987
– 1995   Manager, Network Strategic
Planning, Technical Regulatory & Access Services Planning, Bell
Atlantic, Arlington, VA.

 

1983
– 1987   Network Switching Engineer, Bell
Atlantic, Arlington, VA.

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Virginia Military
  Institute, 1979-1983 

  B.A. Economics,
  Distinguished Graduate,

  Distinguished Military Graduate

  	
   

  	
  Karen Mulberry, Senior
  Project Mgr., WorldCom

  303-904-0126 

  

  James T. Castagna,
  Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, Verizon Communications 

  212-395-5379

  

  Robert Atkinson Chairman,

  North American Numbering Council 

  212-854-7576

  

 

 

Rudy S. Amparano, Program Manager

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Amparano has
over 5 years of product development and information systems project management
experience within various types of industry sectors such as government,
financial, and telecommunications.   He
has successfully managed and led multiple teams, with on-time, on-budget
inception to implementation software development lifecycles.  He has extensive experience acting as a
liaison for internal\external customers, vendors, and all levels of management.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2000
– Present Program Manager,
NeuStar, Inc.

•      Managed
and led to an on-time, on-budget delivery of the National Pooling
Administration System (PAS).

 

•      Supported
product development in creation and development of proposal and cost
resolution.

 

•      Engineered
tactical plan and coordinated efforts to implement IEEE quality assurance
standards.

 

•      Responsible
for overall system implementation, pioneering communicative ways regarding
technical solutions supporting both GUI and FTP.

 

1998
– 2000   Project Manager, Nextel

•      Successfully
managed and led a multi-million dollar Web Application development for Content
Publishing and 3rd Party Wireless Applications.

 

•      Led
and maintained JAD sessions with both internal and external cross-functional
groups regarding key requirements and design milestones.

 

•      Responsible
for managing multi-software project methodologies, by conducting quality
assurance assessments.

 

1996
– 1998   Project Manager, FDIC

•      Responsible
for engineering in a collaborative manner on functional and system requirements
with both internal and external users.

 

•      Achieved
successful implementation of a web-based National Account Information
Management Systems using RAPID software methodologies.

 

•      Administered
and provided oversight overall project cost measurements as set forth by the
GAO.

 

1995
– 1996   Business/System Analyst,
USF&G Insurance

 

1994
– 1995   Web Developer, American Crop
Protection Association

 

1992
– 1994   Webmaster/QA Engineer, Equis International

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  B.S. in Economics, UCLA
  1993

  Los Angeles, CA

  

  Certification, Sun Certified Enterprise Architect for

  Java 2 Platform, 1999

  Rosslyn, VA

  	
   

  	
  Nick Gassaway, US
  Numbering Analyst Manager

  T-Mobile

  425-748-3106

  

  Dianne Black, Executive VP of Program Management 

  AOL  

  703-622-8038

  

  Greg Shaw, Regional Sales Director

  BEA WebLogic 

  202-309-2888

  

 

 

Samir Bham, Senior Systems
Engineer

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Bham has more
than 8 years of experience in software application development for the
telecommunications industry.  He has led
multiple application development teams through the software development
lifecycle and with visible communicative interaction with all levels of
management.   Mr. Bham is extremely
proficient in OOA/OOD, Java, J2EE, WebLogic, SQL, Oracle, Unix, Linux, and
C/C++.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2000
– Present Senior Systems
Engineer, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Developed
and supported the National Pooling administration system (PAS).

 

•      Implemented
and supported such development technologies as J2EE, supported by both WebLogic
Server 6.1 and Oracle.

 

•      Utilized
proficient development skills sets with establishing and implementing XML
technology for FTP.

 

•      Developed
and supported various form processing and report workflow modules by using
standard HTML, JSP, and JAVA technologies.

 

1996
– 2000   Senior Software Consultant,
Comsys ITS

•      Responsible
for developing and maintaining two critical projects for AT&T:

 

•      AT&T
Customer Direct Electronic Ordering System:

•      Developed
a web-based system allowing external customers to electronically order
additional services, and\or modify their existing service.

 

•      Collaborated
with process engineers in defining and documenting both user and system
requirements.

 

•      Developed
and implemented C++/COBRA application onto a CGI/HTML based front-end and
Oracle database back-end.

 

•      AT&T
Integrated Ordering System:

•             Led
development team through all phases of the software development lifecycle.

 

•             Architected
and developed key modules of this application using C++, Neuron Data tools on
HP-UX with back-end TUXEDO servers and Oracle.

 

1995
– 1996   Software Consultant, Integrated
Management Systems, Inc.

 

1993
– 1995   Graduate Assistant, Villanova
University

 

1992
– 1993   Software Engineer, Larsen & Toubro,
LTD

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  M.S. in Computer
  Science,  1995 

  Villanova University, PA

   

  B.S. in Computer
  Science, 1992, 

  Mangalore University, India

  	
   

  	
  Barbara Diehn, Process
  Engineer

  AT & T 

  913-859-9019

   

  Valinder
  Mangat, President & CEO

  OSS Management Inc.

  703-450-5026

   

  Ritoo Kashyap, Business
  Analyst 

  Comsys ITS

  703-675-7964

  

 

 

Joseph R. Cocke, Senior NPA Relief Planner

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Cocke has more
than 35 years experience in telecommunications, including work involving
telephone central offices, networks, revenue analysis, capital recovery and
valuation studies, interconnection contract negotiation, inter-company
relations, and regulatory and industry affairs.   In his current position, he interacts daily
with the telecommunications industry and the state regulatory commissions
regarding area code relief planning. He is deeply involved with NPA exhaust
forecasts and declaration of jeopardy when necessary.  As a relief planner for NANPA, he serves as a
facilitator, liaison, implementation coordinator, and media point of contact,
and he testifies as a numbering subject matter expert in state regulatory
proceedings.  As a member of the NANPA
staff, he has served as NeuStar’s primary contact with the California Public
Utilities Commission on matters relating to area code relief planning and
exhaust.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

1997
– Present Senior NPA Relief Planner, Western
Region, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Coordinates
all facets of area code relief planning, from initiation to implementation, for
the telecommunications industry.

 

•      Files
relief plans with appropriate regulatory agencies, and provides testimony when
necessary.

 

•      Facilitates
industry and public meetings, presenting alternate relief alternatives.

 

1997   Area Code Relief Coordinator, Chen &
McGinley, Inc.

•      Assisted
the Pacific Bell Code Administrator with area code relief projects in
California and Nevada.

 

1993
– 1997   Regional Staff Administrator, Industry
Affairs, GTE California

•      Served
as the company’s regulatory and industry affairs subject matter expert on all
phases of California and Nevada area code relief.

 

•      Represented
the company in all industry and public area code relief planning meetings.

 

•      Managed
exchange carrier relations activities, interconnection contract negotiation and
administration, dispute resolution, and inter-company settlements compensation.

 

1986
– 1993  Senior Revenue Analyst and Section Manager,
GTE

 

1982
– 1986  Senior Program Management Analyst, GTE

 

1977
– 1982  Maintenance Supervisor, Switching Services,
GTE

 

1967
– 1977  Equipment Maintainer, Switching Services, GTE

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  B.S., Business
  Administration, 1980, 

  University of Redlands, Redlands, CA

   

  Associate of Arts in
  History, 1977, 

  El Camino College, Torrance, CA

  	
   

  	
  Brenda Birdwell,
  Specialist Regulatory Affairs

  Verizon California, Inc.
  

  805-372-7049

   

  Rebecca
  Beaton, Programs Manager

  Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission

  360-664-1287

   

  Robert Benjamin,
  Regulatory Analyst 

  California Public Utilities Commission

  415-703-1069

  

 

 

Nancy K. Fears, Manager, NANP Resources

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Ms. Fears has more
than 15 years of experience within the telecommunications industry.  During the last 10 years, she has
administered carrier identification codes 500 NXXs, 900 NXXs, 555 line numbers,
and several other key resources, and in the process, developed an unsurpassed
knowledge and understanding of these resources. 
She is a recognized expert in the telecommunications industry and is
frequently asked to participate in industry working groups exploring issues
related to the resources she administers.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

1999
– Present Manager, NANP
Resources, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Administers
carrier identification codes (CICs), 500-NXX codes, 900-NXX codes, and 555 line
number assignments.

 

•      Reviews
and evaluates applications (along with ASRs, CPCNs, PUC Orders, etc.) for
adherence to FCC directives and industry assignment guidelines.

 

•      Monitors
assignments for implementation within prescribed timeframes; analyzes LEC CIC
access reports; and generates status reports to FCC and INC on number resource
exhaust projections.

 

•      Responds
to frequent queries from LECs, access service providers, Interchange carriers
(IXCs), resellers, telecom consultants, Canadian Numbering Administrator, law
enforcement, state/federal government agencies (i.e., FCC, FBI, PUCs, etc.),
general industry/INC representatives, attorneys and the public sector,
primarily dealing with highly contentious CIC resource.

 

1997
– 1999   Numbering Administrator, Central Support
Supervisor, Lockheed Martin

•      Supervised
4 support staff personnel in Central Support responsible for:  distributing nationwide NPA relief activity
documents to appropriate industry representatives, maintaining central database
containing all contact information for industry representatives, scheduling and
coordination of meeting facilities for NPA relief planning activity meetings,
and providing centralized support to 11 NPA relief planners operating from “virtual”
offices.

 

1995
– 1997   Numbering Administrator (NANPA), Bellcore

•      Distributed
nationwide NPA relief activity documents to appropriate industry
representatives.

 

•      Maintained
central database containing all contact information for industry
representatives.

 

•      Scheduled
and coordinated meeting facilities for NPA relief planning activity meetings.

 

1985
– 1995   Various positions in Legal and
Event Planning, Bellcore

	
  EDUCATION

   

  Business Administration
  credits, Raritan Valley Community College and Middlesex County College,
  Bridgewater and Edison, NJ 

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

   

  Lois Modrell, Technical
  Staff

  Telcordia Technologies, Common Language Group, 732-699-5281

   

  David O. Ward, Senior
  Legal Advisor

  Industry Analysis & Technology Division

  Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC

  202-418-2336

   

  Jean Case, Manager
  of Administration

  Monte R. Lee & Company

  Telecommunications Consultants

  405-842-2405

  

 

 

Thomas C. Foley, Senior Manager, Data Analysis

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Foley has more
than 20 years experience in telecommunications management, operations, planning,
project management, and engineering.  He
has extensive experience in NPA relief planning, and assisting the industry and
regulatory agencies to find solutions to numbering issues.  He has primary responsibility for NPA and
NANP exhaust forecasts, as well as the integrity of NANPA’s assignment
databases.  As needed, he acts as a
facilitator, liaison, implementation coordinator, media point of contact during
the public comment periods of the relief planning process, and testifies as a
numbering subject matter expert in state regulatory proceedings.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2000
– Present Senior Manager, Data
Analysis, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Ensures
the integrity of the 200,000 plus records in NANPA’s central office code
administration database.

 

•      Maintains
and upgrades NANPA’s complex modeling programs.

 

•      Programs
and executes reports, as needed, to meet the needs of the industry and
regulatory agencies.

 

1999
– 2000   NPA Relief Planner, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Led
NPA relief planning activities in the Southeastern United States and Caribbean.

 

•      Led
telecommunications industry meetings; built consensus among widely diverse
groups; developed and presented testimony on NPA relief plans to state
regulatory authorities.

 

•      Prepared
and delivered presentations at public meetings and hearings and provided
interviews to local press.

 

1988
– 1999   Project Manager, Network Planning, Sprint
Corporation

•      Addressed
issues for the national implementation of Local Number Portability (LNP);
representing Sprint at national forums and inter-company implementation
meetings.

 

•      Managed
the installation of LNP in the southeast operations area for Sprint.

 

•      Managed
implementation of new residential and small business services.

 

•      Successfully
directed and project managed major dialing plan conversions and numbering plan
changes including area code relief efforts.

 

1973
– 1988   Managerial Positions, Centel Corporation and
Subsidiaries

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Masters Certificate in
  Project Management, 1995,

  George Washington University

   

  Masters of Business
  Administration, 1988,

  Roosevelt University, Chicago, IL.

   

  BS, Electrical
  Engineering, 1972, 

  University of Nebraska

  	
   

  	
  Phoebe Forsythe-Isales,
  President

  Telecommunications Regulatory Bd. of Puerto Rico

  787-756-0804

   

  Commissioner J. Terry
  Deason

  Florida Public Service Commission

  850-413-6038

   

  Mr. Stan Greer,
  Manager Regulatory Relations

  BellSouth Telecommunications

  850-224-5139

  

 

 

Rajeshwar Kamineni, Senior Systems Engineer

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Kamineni
possesses over eight years of strong technical development experience as both
an engineer and a software architect.  Mr. Kamineni
is proficient with JAVA, J2EE, UNIX/C, C++, GUI and Oracle DBMS.  His experience has led to implementation of
various applications from Mainframes to Web Based for both the telecommunications
and financial industry sectors.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2001
– Present Senior Systems
Engineer, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Developed,
implemented, and support the National Pooling Administration System (PAS).

 

•      Architected
and developed significant workflow modules, by implementing stateful EJB’s,
Message Driven Beans, and PL/SQL stored procedures.

 

•      Demonstrated
proficient performance tuning skill sets with such tools as Jprobe Profiler and
WebLogic Console.

 

•      Developed
and implemented a JAVA support tool to generate DAO for persisting objects into
the Oracle DB.

 

1997
– 2001   Senior Technical Consultant,
COMSYS ITS

•      Developed
and maintained a Workflow Translator system to convert Visio Flow File to a
text based Workflow language using XML and Visual C++.

 

•      Created
and implemented a Workflow Engine using C++ and Java on HP-UNIX\NT environment,
which supported both, push-pull and call back patterns used to notify LSAT
clients.

 

•      Developed
back end servers for a Number Portability Subscription Manager system using
C++, OAK COBRA, Registry, and various other technical tools.

 

1996
– 1997  Senior Software Engineer,
Bluestone Consulting Services

•      Responsible
for designing and developing a Student Loan System for KPMG using C++, Motif,
and various XRT components.

 

•      Implemented
and developed a segment of a three tier client/server Document Contract
Management System for McDonnell Douglas using Visual C++ as front end with DCE
Server as application servers and routers.

 

1995
– 1996   Programmer/Analyst, COMPAID Consulting
Services, Inc.

 

1994
– 1995   Programmer/Analyst, UCC Western
Michigan University

 

1993
– 1994   Programmer/RA, University Computing Center,
WMU

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  M.S. Computer Science,
  1994,

  Western Michigan University, MI

   

  B.S. Mechanical
  Engineering, 1991, 

  REC, India

  	
   

  	
  Christine Podracky,
  Senior Manager 

  JbiSoft 

  703-802-0285

   

  Piali
  Ghose, Manager

  WorldCom

  240-662-2558

   

  Ravi Nara, Senior
  Manager 

  KPMG

  703-747-4716

  

 

 

D. Wayne Milby, Senior NPA
Relief Planner

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Mr. Milby
has more than 35 years experience in telecommunications, including NPA relief
planning, code administration, and trunk servicing and forecasting.  For more than 8 years, he has specialized in
NPA relief planning, and has been involved in 50 relief plans.  He has been instrumental in the development
of basic methods and procedures used throughout the U.S. by NeuStar in its
NANPA role.  He developed the model that
permits the lifetimes of relief planning alternatives to be determined
dynamically, providing the industry with an effective way to examine new or
modified alternatives during relief meetings.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

1997
– Present Senior NPA Relief
Planner, Eastern Region, NeuStar, Inc.

•      Supervises
NPA relief planning for the Eastern Region of the United States, including
preparation of relief plans and IPDs.

 

•      Facilitates
or participates in industry relief planning meetings and makes filings with the
utility commissions on behalf of the industry.

 

•      Declares
jeopardy in NPAs and conducts industry meetings to bring the industry to
consensus on the jeopardy procedures to be utilized in assigning the remaining
NXX codes in the NPAs nearing exhaust.

 

•      Testifies
at state public hearings.

 

1995
– 1997   Manager, Regional NPA/Code Administration,
Bell Atlantic

•      Responsible
for NXX Code Administration and NPA relief planning.

 

•      Developed
relief plans and prepared initial planning documents.

 

•      Conducted
industry meetings and made filings with the utility commissions on behalf of
the industry.

 

•      Made
presentations at public hearings regarding NPA relief.

 

•      Declared
jeopardy in NPAs and conducted industry meetings to bring the industry to
consensus on the jeopardy procedures to be utilized in assigning the remaining
NXX codes when necessary.

 

•      Testified
as the Area Code Coordinator and the Regional Numbering Code Administrator.

 

1993
– 1995   Manager, INPA/NPA Coordination, Bell Atlantic

•      Planned
and implemented dialing plan changes, including the installation of new area
codes when required.

 

1967
– 1995   Various Positions, Bell Atlantic and C&P
Telephone

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  B.
  S., Architectural Engineering, 1963, 

  Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

  	
   

  	
  Jena Downs, Manager,
  Network Engineering

  Verizon

  410-736-6711

   

  Robert H. Mundy, Jr.,
  Lead Rate Specialist

  Connecticut Dept. Public Utilities Commission

  860-827-2692

   

  Karlen J. Reed,
  Assistant Attorney General 

  Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General

  617-727-2200 Ext. 3436

  

 

 

Beth
Sprague, Manager, NRUF and Industry Liaison

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

For
more than 10 years, Ms. Sprague has held key roles in the industry forum
process, and at NeuStar, she has continued to participate in the Industry
Numbering Committee (INC) as NANPA’s representative.  She also managed the evolution of the Central
Office Code Utilization Survey (COCUS) into the NANP Number Resource
Utilization/Forecasting (NRUF) collection process in order to comply with the March 2000
FCC mandate to improve the industry tool for estimating NPA and NANP
exhausts.  As such, she has overseen the
collection, processing and analysis of over 30,000 NRUF submissions.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2000 – Present Manager,
NRUF and Industry Liaison, NeuStar, Inc.

•                  Manages the NANP Number Resource Utilization/Forecasting
collection process for NANPA.

 

•                  Provides ongoing client notification
and assistance to telecommunications service providers to assist them in
compling with FCC rules for reporting service provider inventory and
forecasting on the multi-part form (FCC Form 502) via spreadsheet and
electronic file transfer.

 

•                  Manages the NRUF operation to process
daily forecast updates necessary for service providers to comply with the FCC rules for
requesting number resources.

 

•                  Provides assistance and educates
public utility commissions on the code administration and telephone number
inventory reporting process.

 

•                  Participates
in the INC as the NANPA non-voting representative, presenting more than 120
contributions to assist the resolution of industry problems, and acting as
co-chair of the Document Maintenance and Management Workshop.

 

1991 – 1999   Senior Committee Administrator, Committee
Administrator, Executive Assistant, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions

 

•                  Served as the Committee Administrator
for several ATIS sponsored committees, including the forum addressing toll-free
services (SMS Number Administration Committee – SNAC) and was responsible for
preparation of meeting records, editor of committee documents, and ensuring efficient
operation of the group.

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  B.A.,
  1984,

  Mount Holyoke College, MA

   

  Paralegal Certification, 1996, 

  Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

  	
   

  	
  Karen
  G. Norcross,

  Senior Numbering Resource Specialist

  Michigan Public Service Commission

  571-241-8048

   

  Dana
  W. Smith, Technical Staff-Network

  Numbering Policy & Standards

  Verizon Wireless

  682-831-3364

   

  George Stanek, Manager

  AT&T Corp.

  973-236-6365

  

 

 

Sandy
Tokarek, Regional Director, Code Administration

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Ms. Tokarek
has 14 years progressive management experience, including 9 years in the
telecommunications industry.  For the
last three years, she has managed NeuStar’s central office code
organization.  She brings to NeuStar
advanced understanding of cellular technologies, interconnection agreements,
and rate structuring as well as knowledge related to mainframe and telephone
switching systems - provisioning, trouble shooting, and testing.  As a manager, she has a proven record in strategic
planning, fiscal management, managing simultaneous projects, meeting deadlines,
and staff development and evaluation.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

July 2000 – Present
Regional Director, Code Administration, NeuStar, Inc.

•                  Manages staff responsible for central
office code administration, including eight functional areas.  Responsibilities include hiring, employee
development, and salary administration.

 

•                  Responds to queries and works with
general counsel on responses and comments in connection with numbering issues
before the FCC, state regulatory agencies, and industry numbering forums.

 

•                  Develops administrative and business
procedures to incorporate new changes and requirements as ordered by the FCC
and state regulatory bodies.

 

1999 – 2000   Senior Relief Planner, Relief Planning,
NeuStar, Inc.

 

1998 – 1999   Relief Planner, Relief Planning, Lockheed
Martin

•                  Acted as a liaison between
telecommunications industry, and state regulatory agencies for area code
exhaust relief planning in 15 states.

 

•                  Developed relief alternatives for
NPAs approaching exhaust, analyzing historical demand data, carrier forecasts,
and local tariff information.

 

•                  Testified before state commissions at
hearings on numbering issues and provided frequent media interviews.

 

1993 – 1998   Public Affairs Manager, AT&T

•                  Managed public affairs in three
states as liaison between government, community leaders, and consumers; built
relationships and monitored relevant legislative activities.

 

•                  Ensured compliance with state and
federal regulations affecting the cellular industry.

 

•                  Coordinated and implemented Equal
Access Project to introduce long distance communications options to cellular
customers in the mid-Atlantic region.

 

•                  Developed corporate Process
Improvement Program that resulted in improved employee morale and customer relations,
increased efficiency and reduced operating expenses.

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Candidate,
  Master’s Certificate in Project Management, George Washington University;
  Washington, DC

   

  Associate
  Certificate in Project Management,

  George Washington University; Washington, DC

   

  Bachelor of Science in Business, 

  Gannon University; Erie, PA

  	
   

  	
  Rick
  Stueckle, Manager, National Numbering Administration, AT&T Wireless

  425-288-6787

   

  George
  Light, Engineering Analyst

  Illinois Commerce Commission

  312-814-8591

   

  Joanne
  Edelman, Team Member Tech Support

  Verizon Wireless 

  925-279-6159

  

 

 

LaShanda
Tomlinson, Senior NRUF Administrator

 

QUALIFICATIONS

 

Ms. Tomlinson
brings exceptional practical and organizational skills in implementing business
administration processes as well as excellent administrative skills and
computer literacy.  She has been involved
with the NRUF reporting process since its inception in 2000, working directly
with service providers in resolving submission errors and anomalies.

 

EXPERIENCE

 

2000 – Present Senior
NRUF Administrator, NeuStar, Inc.

 

•                  Administers the NRUF database and
generates detailed data reports for use by regulators.

 

•                  Manages the inflow and processing of Form 502
data, identifying and resolving anomalies.

 

•                  Generates queries and reports using
the features of Microsoft ACCESS.

 

•                  Interacts with regulatory agencies to
address service provider issues associated with NRUF.

 

•                  Ensures that state concerns on NRUF
data are investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

 

•                  Assists service providers with
identifying/resolving state concerns and vice-versa.

 

•                  Trains and serves as a consultant for
new NRUF Customer Service Representatives (CSRs).

 

•                  Addresses complex NRUF issues
referred by NRUF CSRs.

 

1999 – 2000   Central Support Manager, NeuStar, Inc.

 

•                  Provided administrative support to
relief planners, including meeting set-up and distribution of documents to
service providers.

 

•                  Conducted service provider’s meeting
survey.

 

•                  Administered the service provider’s
database, and generated detailed reports for use by the NPA Relief Planners as
required.

 

•                  Managed the inflow and processing of
service provider’s data via Document Distribution Service.

 

•                  Generated queries and reports.

 

•                  Interacted with federal and state
regulators in addressing issues associated with relief planning.

 

•                  Ensured that the state concerns on
relief planning data were investigated and resolved in a timely manner by the
dedicated relief planner for the particular region.

 

•                  Provided commission filings to the
appropriate state regulatory personnel.

 

	
  EDUCATION

  	
   

  	
  REFERENCES

  
	
  Eastern Senior High School, Academic Diploma,
  Washington, DC (1988-1992)

  	
   

  	
  Betty
  Matthews, Branch Manager

  Consumer Credit Counseling of Greater Washington

  202-682-1500

   

  Kimberly
  Swenson, Code Administrator

  ICG Communications

  303-414-4506

   

  Nicholas
  Gassaway, Analyst and Manager/US Numbering

  T-Mobile

  425-748-3106

  

 

 

Attachment B: PAST PERFORMANCE REQUEST AND QUESTIONNAIRE

 

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT o
Final or ý Interim - Period Report: From 12/31/97 To 03/31/03

 

	
  1.             Contractor
  Name and Address:

  NeuStar,
  Inc

  46000 Center Oak Plaza

  Sterling, VA 20166

  	
   

  	
  2.     Contract
  Number:

  N/A

  	
   

  	
  Task Order
  Number:

  N/A

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  3.     Value: Minimum value per region (8
  regions total) $20M Does not include additional revenue due to usage-based
  charges.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  4.     Award
  Date: Various (first on Dec 31,
  1997, revised for all regions on Dec 1, 2000) Completion Date: May 31, 2006 with one-year
  options thereafter.

  

 

5.     Type
of Contract:(Check all that apply)-ýFP  oFP-EPA  oCPFF - Completion  oCPFF-Term  oCPIF oCPAF  oID/IQ  oBOA  ýRequirements  ýLabor Hour  ýT&M  oCR  oOther

 

6.     Description
of Requirement:  Provide transaction services for all telecommunication providers that
port telephone numbers.  NeuStar is the
single, neutral third party company to provide these services for the US and
Canada.

 

7.     Ratings.  After commenting, score, in column on the
right, using 1 for unsatisfactory, 2 for marginal, 3 for satisfactory, 4 for
very good, and 5 for exceptional.

 

	
  Quality – Comments

  	
   

  	
  Score = 3

  

NeuStar provides a
quality service to its Users per Service Level Requirements defined in its
master contract with the NAPM LLC. 
Operations and Development efforts are incorporated into Change
Management Control.  NeuStar conducts
periodic surveys of its Users at various operational levels.  NeuStar’s performance is evaluated on a
semi-annual basis by members of the NAPM LLC. 
Areas for improvement are identified and implemented via Action Plans.

 

	
  Cost Control – Comments

  	
   

  	
  Score = 3

  

TN Porting Events are
charged at a fixed rate.  Software
enhancements (encompass Statement of Works) are priced on an auditable (by the
NAPM LLC) cost-plus basis.

 

	
  Timeliness – Comments

  	
   

  	
  Score = 3

  

Development and delivery
of Statements of Work normally follows agreed upon Project Plans.  Stability and functionality of the NPAC
database has significant impact to both NeuStar and more importantly its Users
and their business operations.   NeuStar
has experienced instability in its database functions within the past twelve
months and is currently taking corrective action.

 

	
  Business Relations - Comments

  	
   

  	
  Score = 4

  

NeuStar strives to
maintain a close working relationship with its customer base at multiple
levels.  Communication via website, email
distribution lists, regularly scheduled conference calls and industry meetings
is on going.  NeuStar executives make
themselves available to clients for discussion. 
Contacts are readily available and provide follow-up information in a
timely manner.

 

 

8.     Assessing
Officers Name/Position/Organization:  Pamela Connell

	
  9.     Signature

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  
	
  10.   Telephone
  Number: 

  	
  Fax Number:

  	
   

  	
  Internet Address:

  
				

 

Release
of Information: 
This Contractor Performance Report may be used to support future award
decisions, and will be treated as source selection information in
accordance with FAR 3.104-4(k)(1)(x) and 42.1503(b).  The completed report shall not be released to
other than Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being
evaluated during the period the information is being used to provide source
selection information.  CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

 

Block 1:  Contractor Name and Address.  Identify the specific division being
evaluated if there is more than one.

 

Block 2:  Contract number/task order number being evaluated.

 

Block 3:  Contract value, including options.

 

 

May 12, 2003

 

 

Mr. Mark Oakey

Contracting Officer

FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

 

RE:          Solicitation No.:
SOL03000001

North American Number Plan Administrator

 

Dear Mr. Oakey:

 

Please find attached the original and five (5) copies of NeuStar, Inc.’s
Cost Volume, Volume 2, in response to the above-referenced solicitation.  Accompanying this Cover Letter are: 1) signed
Standard Forms 33 and 1411; 2) completed Representations and Certifications; 3)
and the required Neutrality Certifications.

 

The attached Cost Volume is
submitted in full compliance with the above-referenced solicitation and we
certify that our proposal has been prepared consistent with the terms and
condition of the solicitation, including a Table of Contents and sections to
provide comprehensive narrative support of our Firm Fixed Price.  Section 1.0 is a Solution Overview,
describing NeuStar’s “best value” NANPA offering, which provides the Commission
and the industry with the highest quality and lowest risk solution, delivered
by a vendor with unmatched experience and unassailable neutrality.

 

Underlying price assumptions
and descriptive cost rationale are included in Section 2.0, Basis of Estimate.  Section 3.0 provides a detailed cost
breakdown.  And, cost backup is submitted
under Section 4.0.

 

We are certain you will find our costs and, thus, our price realistic,
which is paramount in a Firm Fixed Price contract.  Our extensive experience in numbering
administration, coupled with our five plus years as the NANPA, gives us the
ability to accurately estimate the activities, manpower, and other direct costs
over the five year period of this procurement.

 

Importantly, NeuStar has elected to contribute to the cost of the NANPA
by proposing only direct costs in its Firm Fixed Price.  Such a corporate cost sharing is not unlike
commercial businesses where indirect costs are a part of the “margin”, which is
adjusted on a case-by-case basis for competitive or customer relations
purposes.  Hence, General &
Administrative costs and profit in this proposal are priced at 0%.

 

Also, NeuStar is offering a price reduction, which is described in Section 2.4.  This reduction is derived from our position
as the incumbent operating under two complementary NANPA contractual vehicles
during transition.  Because the amount of
the reduction is essentially equivalent to the price for the Base Year, all
of the CLINs – CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, CLIN 0004, and CLIN 0005 – in
the Base Year are provided at no charge.

 

 

With the aforementioned cost contribution and price reduction, the
total Firm Fixed Price for the anticipated five-year contract is $5,686,487.

 

Further, NeuStar, as the current NANPA, possesses the unique ability to
create efficiencies for the Commission. NeuStar offers an option to its already
low, responsive fixed price.  This option
is based on a shared staff performing both NANPA and National Pooling Administration.  This option contemplates exercise, if the
Commission so desires, within ninety (90) days after the NANPA contract award,
and is more fully described in Section 5.0 of the Cost Volume.

 

NeuStar understands the fundamentals of submitting a firm fixed
price.  NeuStar has successfully operated
as the incumbent NANPA under the same arrangement.  NeuStar is committed to providing the
necessary staffing levels to continue to deliver outstanding service.

 

All information contained in this price proposal is Company
Confidential and may be used by the recipient only for the purpose intended,
i.e., to evaluate the price and cost realism of NeuStar’s proposal in response
to FCC Solicitation SOL03000001, on a need to know basis.

 

NeuStar’s cognizant audit office is DCAA Southern New Jersey Branch
Office, Woodcrest Plaza, 10 Melrose Street, Suite 200, Cherry Hill, NJ
08003.  NeuStar is not under the
cognizance of any ACO.  All copies of
this proposal are forwarded to the FCC. 
If so advised by the contracting officer, NeuStar will forward a copy of
the proposal to its cognizant DCAA office.

 

We look forward to bringing our
unsurpassed NANPA experience, our cost efficiency, and our state-of-the-art
NANP Administration System solution to bear in the role of the NANPA into the
next term.  Should you have any
questions, or need any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(571) 434-5580.  I am NeuStar’s
authorized negotiator for this proposal, and am further authorized to bind the
Corporation to any contract resulting herefrom.

 

 

Very truly yours,

NeuStar, Inc.

 

 

Gregory J.A. Roberts

Vice President, Business Development

 

Enclosures

Attachment

 

 

Solicitation, Offer and Award

 

	
  1.

  	
  This
  Contract is a rated order under DPAS (15 CFR 700)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.

  	
  Contract Number

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.

  	
  Solicitation Number

  	
  SOL03000001

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.

  	
  Type of Solicitation

  	
  Sealed Bid (IFB) Negotiated (RFP)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5.

  	
  Date Issued

  	
  03/28/2003

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  6.

  	
  Requisition/Purchase Number

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  7.

  	
  Issued By

  	
  Code 00001

  FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

  445 12th St., SW

  Washington, DC 20554

  Tel: (202) 418-0930 ext.

  Fax: (202) 418-0237 ext.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8.

  	
  Address Offer to (if other than
  item 7)

  	
  See Sec. H.6

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9.

  	
  Sealed offers in original and 5
  copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be
  received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the
  depository located in Sec H.6 until 2:00 PM local time 05/12/2003

   

  Caution – Late submissions, modifications,
  and withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1.
  All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this
  solicitation.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10.

  	
  For information call:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10a.

  	
  Name

  	
  Mark Oakey

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10b.

  	
  Telephone (No
  Collect Calls)

  	
  Area Code

  	
  202

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Number

  	
  418-0933

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ext.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10c.

  	
  E-mail address

  	
  moakey@fcc.gov

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
														

 

 

	
  11.

  	
   

  	
  Table of Contents

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  Sec.

  	
   

  	
  Description

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  A

  	
   

  	
  Solicitation/Contract Form

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  B

  	
   

  	
  Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  C

  	
   

  	
  Description/Specs/Work Statement

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  D

  	
   

  	
  Packaging and Marking

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  E

  	
   

  	
  Inspection and Acceptance

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  F

  	
   

  	
  Deliveries or Performance

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  G

  	
   

  	
  Contract Administration Data

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  H

  	
   

  	
  Special Contract Requirements

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  I

  	
   

  	
  Contract Clauses

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  PART II
  – CONTRACT CLAUSES

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  J

  	
   

  	
  List of Attachments

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  PART IV
  – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  K

  	
   

  	
  Representations, Certifications, and Other
  Statements of Offerors

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  L

  	
   

  	
  Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X

  	
   

  	
  M

  	
   

  	
  Evaluation Factors for Award

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

	
  12.

  	
  In compliance with the above, the
  undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within                    
  calendar days (60 calendar days unless a
  different period is inserted by the offeror) from the date for
  receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which
  prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the
  designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13.

  	
  Discount for prompt payment (See
  Section 1, Clause No. 52-232-8)

  	
  10 CALENDAR
  DAYS(%)

  	
  20 CALENDAR

  DAYS (%)

  	
  30 CALENDAR
  DAYS(%)

  	
  CALENDAR
  DAYS (%)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  14.

  	
  Acknowledgment of amendments (the offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to
  the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

  	
  AMENDMENT
  NO.

  	
  DATE

  	
  AMENDMENT NO.

  	
  DATE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15a.

  	
  Name and Address of Offeror

  	
  Code

  Facility

  NeuStar, Inc.

  46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15b.

  	
  Telephone Number

  	
  Area Code

  	
  571

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Number

  	
  434-5580

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ext.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15c.

  	
  Check if
  remittance address is different from above – enter such address in schedule

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16.

  	
  Name and Title of Person Authorized to Sign
  Offer (Type or Print)

  	
  Gregory J.A. Roberts, VP, Numbering
  Services

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  17.

  	
  Signature

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  18.

  	
  Offer Date

  	
  12 May 03

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  19.

  	
  Accepted as to Items Numbered

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  20.

  	
  Amount

  	
   

  
											

 

 

	
  21.

  	
  Accounting and Appropriation

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  22.

  	
  Authority for using other than full and
  open competition:

  	
   

  	
  10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (             )

  41 U.S.C. 253 (c) (             )

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  23.

  	
  Submit Invoices to Address Shown in (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

  	
   

  	
  Item

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  24.

  	
  Administered By (If other than item 7)

  	
   

  	
  Code

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  25.

  	
  Payment will be made by

  	
   

  	
  Code

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  26.

  	
  Name of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  27.

  	
  United States of America (Signature of Contracting Officer)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  28.

  	
  Award Date

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  CONTRACT PRICING PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

  	
  1.  SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

   

  SOL03000001

  	
   

  OMB
  No.:9000-0013

  Expires:  09/30/98

   

  
	
  (Cost
  or Pricing Data Required)

  
	
  Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
  estimated to average 4 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
  instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
  data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden
  estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including
  suggestions for reducing this burden, to the FAR Secretariat (VRS), Office of
  Federal Acquisition Policy, GSA, Washington, DC 20405.

  
	
  2a.  NAME OF OFFEROR

  NeuStar,
  Inc

  	
  3a.  NAME OF OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT

  Gregory
  J. A. Roberts

  	
   

  3c.  TELEPHONE

  
	
  2b.  FIRST LINE ADDRESS

  46000
  Center Oak Plaza

  	
  3b.  TITLE OF OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT

  Vice
  President, Numbering Services

  	
  AREA
  CODE

  571

  	
  NUMBER

  434-5580

  
	
  2c.  STREET ADDRESS

  	
  4.  TYPE OF
  CONTRACT ACTION (Check)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  a.     NEW
  CONTRACT

  	
   

  	
  d.     LETTER
  CONTRACT

  
	
   

  	
  X

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2d.  CITY

  	
  2e.  STATE

  	
  2f.  ZIP CODE

  	
   

  	
  b.    CHANGE
  ORDER

  	
   

  	
  e.    UNPRICED
  ORDER

  
	
  Sterling

  	
  VA

  	
  20166

  	
   

  	
  c.     PRICE
  REVISION/

  	
   

  	
  f.    OTHER (Specify) 

  
	
  5.  TYPE OF CONTRACT (Check)

  	
   

  	
          REDETERMINATION

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  X FFP 

  	
  CPFF

  	
  CPIF

  	
  CPAF

  	
  6.  PROPOSED
  COST (A+B=C)

  
	
    FPI

  	
  OTHER (Specify)    

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A.
  COST

  	
  B.
  PROFIT/FEE

  	
  C.
  TOTAL

  
	
   

  	
  $5,686,487

  	
  $0

  	
  $5,686,487

  
	
  7.  PERFORMANCE

  
	
  PLACE 

  	
  a.

  	
  46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA  20166

  	
  PERIOD

  	
  a.

  	
  1
  year + 4 option years

  
	
  b.

  	
   

  	
  b.

  	
   

  
	
  8.   List and reference the identification, quantity and total price
  proposed for each contract line item. 
  A line item cost breakdown supporting this recap is required unless
  otherwise specified by the Contracting Officer.  (Continue on reverse,
  and then on plain paper, if necessary. 
  Use same headings.)

  
	
  a.  LINE ITEM
  NO.

  	
  b. 
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
  c.  QUANTITY

  	
  d.  TOTAL PRICE

  	
  e.  PROP. REF.
  PAGE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SEE
  ATTACHED

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9.  PROVIDE THE
  FOLLOWING  (If
  available)

  
	
  NAME OF CONTRACT
  ADMINISTRATION OFFICE

  none

  	
  NAME
  OF AUDIT OFFICE

  Southern
  NJ Branch Office

  
	
  STREET ADDRESS

   

  	
  STREET
  ADDRESS

  Wooderest
  Pavilion, 10 Melrose Ave, Suite 200

  
	
  CITY

   

  	
  STATE

   

  	
  ZIP
  CODE

   

  	
  CITY

  Cherry
  Hill

  	
  STATE

  NJ

  	
  ZIP
  CODE

  08003

  
	
  TELEPHONE

  	
  AREA
  CODE

   

  	
  NUMBER

   

  	
  TELEPHONE

  	
  AREA
  CODE

  856

  	
  NUMBER

  354-7550

  
	
  10.   WILL YOU
  REQUIRE THE USE OF ANY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS
  WORK?  (If “yes,”
  identify)

  	
  11a.    DO YOU REQUIRE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
  FINANCING TO PERFORM THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT?  (If “yes,” complete Item
  11b.)

  	
  11b.  TYPE OF FINANCING  (Check one)

  
	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ADVANCE
  PAYMENT

  	
  PROGRESS
  PAYMENTS

  
	
  YES         X 
  NO

  	
  YES         X NO

  	
  GUARANTEED
  LOANS

  
	
  12.         HAVE YOU BEEN AWARDED ANY CONTRACTS OR
  SUBCONTRACTS FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR ITEMS WITHIN THE PAST 3 YEARS?  (If “yes,” identify
  item(s), customer(s) and contract number(s) on reverse of form.)

  YES         X NO

  	
  13.         IS THIS PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH YOUR
  ESTABLISHED ESTIMATING AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES AND FAR PART 31,
  COST PRINCIPLES?  (If “no,”
  explain on reverse of form.)

  X      YES       NO

  
	
  14.  COST
  ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (CASB) DATA 
  (Public Law 91-379 as amended and FAR PART 30)

  
	
  a.                WILL THIS CONTRACT ACTION BE SUBJECT TO
  CASB REGULATIONS?  (if “no,”
  explain in proposal.)

   

  	
  b.                HAVE YOU SUBMITTED A CASB DISCLOSURE
  STATEMENT (CASB DS-1 or 2)? (If “yes,” specify in
  proposal the office to which submitted and if determined to be adequate.)

  
	
  YES         X 
  NO   Monetary Exemption

  	
  YES        X 
  NO

  
	
  c.                HAVE YOU BEEN NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE OR MAY BE
  IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR COST ACCOUNT
  STANDARDS?  (If “yes,”
  explain in proposal.)

  YES         X 
  NO

  	
  d.                IS ANY ASPECT OF THIS PROPOSAL
  INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR DISCLOSED PRACTICES OR APPLICABLE COST ACCOUNTING
  STANDARDS?  (if “yes,”
  explain in proposal.)

  YES        X 
  NO

  
	
  This proposal is
  submitted in response to the solicitation, contract, modification, etc. in
  Item 1 and reflects our estimates and/or actual costs as of this date and
  conforms with the instructions in FAR 15.804-6(b)(1), and Table 15-2.  By submitting this proposal, the offeror,
  if selected for negotiation, grants the contracting officer and authorized
  representative(s) the right to examine, at any time before award, those
  records, which include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices,
  and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are
  in written form, in the form of computer data, or any other form, or whether
  such supporting information is specifically referenced or included in the proposal
  as the basis for pricing, that will permit an adequate evaluation of the
  proposed price.

  
	
  15.   NAME OF
  OFFEROR  (Type)

  Gregory J. A. Roberts

  	
  15.   TITLE OF
  OFFEROR  (Type)

  Vice President, Numbering Services

  	
  16.   NAME OF
  FIRM

  NeuStar, Inc

  
	
  17.   SIGNATURE

  	
  18.   DATE OF
  SUBMISSION

  
	
   

  	
  12 May 03

  
	
  AUTHORIZED
  FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

  	
  STANDARD FORM 1411 
  (REV. 10-95)

  
	
  Previous
  edition is not usable.

  	
  Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.215-2(a)

  
																																		

 

 

SF
1411 Attachment

 

Base Year

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  Automated NANPA System Development and
  Implementation

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.1

  	
   

  
	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  Transition to NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2

  	
   

  
	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 2, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0005

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Initial Year

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option Year 1

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  Automated System Support (operation and
  maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,016,832

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.3

  	
   

  
	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 2, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0105

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 1

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option Year 2

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  Automated System Support (operation and
  maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.3

  	
   

  
	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 2, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0205

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 2

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option Year 3

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  Automated System Support (operation and
  maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.3

  	
   

  
	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 2, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0305

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 3

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

 

Option Year 4

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  Automated System Support (operation and
  maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  133,789

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,048,966

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.3

  	
   

  
	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  147,800

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 2, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,760

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
  0406

  	
   

  	
  Transition

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,679

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section I.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 4

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450,340

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

 

Total
Firm-Fixed Price—Base Year Plus Four Option Years:  $5,686,487.

 

 

Certification
Required by H.8.B.3 (H.8.B.3, L.5)

 

In
compliance with RFP Sections H.8.B.3 and L.5, the following certification is
submitted.  This certification also
appears in the Cost Volume.

 

CERTIFICATION

 

To:          FCC/Contracts
and Purchasing Center

445 12th Street,
SW

Washington, DC  20554

 

RE:          Solicitation
SOL03000001

North American Numbering
Plan Administrator (NANPA)

 

From:      NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Sterling, VA  20166

(571)
434-5400

TIN:  522141938

 

Description of Services under
Solicitation:

NeuStar
will design, develop, and deploy a new NANP administration system (NAS) in the
first six (6) months after award. 
During the next month (Month 7), NeuStar will flawlessly migrate data
from the existing NANPA systems to the new NAS and seamlessly transfer NANPA
operations.  At the end of Month 7,
NeuStar will flash-cut (cut-over) from the NANP systems to the new NAS.  Commencing at the beginning of Month 8 after
award, NeuStar will continue to provide outstanding, neutral NANPA services for
a period of 4 years and 5 months provided that the FCC exercises all planned
option years.

 

Description of Services During Past
Two Years:

During
the two years preceding the date of this CERTIFICATION, NeuStar rendered
services to the clients listed below relating to numbering administration or
activities provided to a telecommunications service provider or a party with a
vested interest in the outcome of numbering administration or activities or
affiliates thereof, unless de minimis:

 

 

1.                                      North
American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA)

Client:  FCC

Client
Contact:  Sanford Williams

445
Twelfth Street, S.W.

Washington,
D.C.  20554

(202)
418-1508

NeuStar,
as the NANPA, is responsible for the day-to-day neutral administration, of the
North American Numbering Plan in the United States, including U.S. insular
areas, and 18 other NANP member nations.

 

2.                                      National
Pooling Administration

Client:  FCC

Client
Contact:  Mark Oakey

445
Twelfth Street, S.W.

Washington,
D.C.  20554

(202)
418-0933

NeuStar,
as the National Pooling Administrator, is responsible for the day-to-day
neutral administration of central office code thousands block pools, a key
component of the FCC’s number optimization policy.

 

3.                                      North
American Number Portability Administration

Client:  North American Portability Management, LLC

Client
Contact:  Pamela Connell, Co-chair

1200
Peachtree Street

Atlanta,
GA  30309

(404)
810-4762

NeuStar
is the neutral operator of the master system and database for local number
portability in North America.

 

4.                                      Number
Translation Service

Client:  Level 3 Communications, LLC

Client
Contact:  Jack Hobaugh

1025
Eldorado Blvd

Broomfield,
CO  80021

(720)
888-1000

Pursuant
to the standardized NPAC User Agreement, NeuStar provides NPAC data to service
providers in Internet protocol format.

 

5.                                      European
Telephone Numbering System (ETNS) Administration

Client:  European Radio Office (formerly European
Telecommunication Office)

Client
Contact:  B. Spohr

Peblingehus

Nansensgade 19

DK 1366 Copenhagen

+45
33896300

NeuStar
administers the registration of ETNS service providers and serving networks,
distribution of Routing Numbers, and support of the number portability process
on behalf of the ETNS Registrar, the European Radio Office Director.

 

 

NeuStar
certifies that it has made inquiry and to the best of its knowledge and belief,
no actual or potential conflict of interest, or situations that could raise the
appearance of impropriety or unfair competitive advantage exist with respect to
the services to be provided in connection with the instant contract, or that
any actual or potential conflict of interest, and issues of impropriety or
unfair competitive advantage that does or may exist has been communicated in
writing to the Contracting Officer.

 

NeuStar
also provides other services to telecommunications service providers that are
not related to numbering administration or activities and, therefore, are not
required to be included in the instant certificate.  NeuStar, however, lists those services here
and will provide further information upon request:

 

A.                                   CARE
Clearinghouse:  The CARE
Clearinghouse is a customer account record exchange (CARE) service NeuStar
offers to all telecommunications service providers.  The CARE clearinghouse is an industry wide
service that processes and tracks primary interexchange carrier records,
billing name and address requests, and other customer account information in
industry accepted CARE formats.

 

B.                                     LSR
Express:  LSR Express is a part of
NeuStar’s CARE Clearinghouse.  NeuStar’s
LSR Express is designed to offer a cost saving industry service that both
processes and tracks preorders and local service requests (LSR) with industry
accepted local service ordering requirements.

 

C.                                     ASR
Express:  As part of NeuStar’s CARE
Clearinghouse, ASR Express facilitates the sending and receiving of access
service request (ASR) order information among access customers and their
multiple access service providers, including competitive local exchange carrier
(CLEC) to CLEC, CLEC to interexchange carrier (IXC), IXC to incumbent LEC, and
enterprise customers to telecommunications service providers.

 

 

NeuStar, Inc.

 

 

	
  By

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Gregory J.A. Roberts,

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President, Numbering Services

  
	
   

  
	
  Date: May 12, 2003

  

 

Neutrality
Criteria Certification

 

I, Greg Roberts, a duly authorized officer of
NeuStar, Inc. hereby certify that NeuStar:

 

(1)                is a
non-governmental entity that is impartial and not aligned with any particular
telecommunications industry segment;

 

 

(2)                is not an
affiliate of any telecommunications service provider(s) as defined in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  “Affiliate”
is a person who controls, is controlled by, or is under the direct or indirect
common control with another person.  A
person shall be deemed to control another if such person possesses, directly or
indirectly –

 

(A)      An equity interest by stock,
partnership (general or limited) interest, joint venture participation, or
member interest in the other person ten (10%) percent or more of the total
outstanding equity interests in the other person, or

 

(B)   The power to vote ten (10%)
or more of the securities (by stock, partnership (general or limited) interest,
joint venture participation, or member interest) having ordinary voting power
for the election of directors, general partner, or management of such other
person, or

 

(C)   The power to direct or cause
the direction of the management and policies of such other person, whether
through the ownership of or right to vote voting rights attributable to the
stock, partnership (general or limited) interest, joint venture participation,
or member interest) of such other person, by contract (including but not
limited to stockholder agreement, partnership (general or limited) agreement,
joint venture agreement, or operating agreement), or otherwise;

 

(3)                has not issued
and does not intend to issue a majority of its debt to, nor does it derive a
majority of its revenues from, any telecommunications service provider.  “Majority” shall mean greater than 50
percent, and “debt” shall mean stocks, bonds, securities, notes, loans or any
other instrument or indebtedness; and

 

(4)                is not subject
to undue influence by parties with a vested interest in the outcome of
numbering administration and activities.

 

	
   

  	
  BY:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Greg Roberts

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President, Numbering Services

  
	
   

  	
  NeuStar, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
  May 12, 2003

  

 

Evidence of authority is attached

 

 

Evidence
of Authority

 

I, Michael Lach, am Chief Operating Officer of
NeuStar, Inc., and I hereby authorize Greg Roberts, Vice President,
Numbering Services, to bind NeuStar to the Neutrality Criteria Certification.

 

 

	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Michael Lach

  
	
  Chief Operating Officer

  
	
  NeuStar, Inc.

  

 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this the 9th day of May 2003.

 

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  NOTARY PUBLIC

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  My Commission Expires:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
				

 

 

SECTION K — REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS
OF OFFERORS

 

	
  K.1

  	
  52.252-01

  	
  SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY
  REFERENCE

  

 

 

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by
reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text.
Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The
offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be
completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of
submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the
provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with
its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be
accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

 

 

 

 

[Insert one or more Internet addresses]

 

	
  Clause

  	
   

  	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
  52.203-11

  	
   

  	
  Certification
  and Disclosure Regarding Payment to Influence Certain Federal Transactions

  	
   

  	
  April 1991

  
	
  52.237-08

  	
   

  	
  Restriction
  on Severance Payments to Foreign Nationals

  	
   

  	
  October 1995

  

 

	
  K.2

  	
  52.204-03

  	
  TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION

  	
  OCTOBER 1998

  

 

(a) Definitions.

 

“Common parent,” as used in this provision, means that corporate entity
that owns or controls an affiliated group of corporations that files its
Federal income tax returns on a consolidated basis, and of which the offeror is
a member.

 

“Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN),” as used in this provision,
means the number required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to be used by
the offeror in reporting income tax and other returns. The TIN may be either a
Social Security Number or an Employer Identification Number.

 

(b) All Offerors must submit the information required in
paragraphs (d) through (f) of this provision to comply with debt collection
requirements of 31 U.S.C. 7701(c) and 3325(d), reporting requirements of
26 U.S.C. 6041, 6041A, and 6050M, and implementing regulations issued by the
IRS. If the resulting contract is subject to the payment reporting requirements
described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.904, the failure or refusal
by the offeror to furnish the information may result in a 31 percent reduction
of payments otherwise due under the contract.

 

(c) The TIN may be used by the Government to collect and report on
any delinquent amounts arising out of the offeror’s relationship with the
Government (31 U.S.C. 7701(c)(3)). If the resulting contract is subject to the
payment reporting requirements described in FAR 4.904, the TIN provided
hereunder may be matched with IRS records to verify the accuracy of the offeror’s
TIN.

 

(d) Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

 

 

ý
TIN:       52-2141938    .

 

o
TIN has been applied for.

 

o
TIN is not required because:

 

o
Offeror is a nonresident alien, foreign corporation, or foreign partnership
that does not have income effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or
business in the United States and does not have an office or place of business
or a fiscal paying agent in the United States;

 

o
Offeror is an agency or instrumentality of a foreign government;

 

o
Offeror is an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government.

 

(e) Type of organization.

 

o
Sole proprietorship;

 

o
Partnership;

 

o
Corporate entity (not tax-exempt);

 

ý
Corporate entity (tax-exempt);

 

o
Government entity (Federal, State, or local);

 

o
Foreign government;

 

o
International organization per 26 CFR 1.6049-4;

 

o
Other                                             .

 

(f) Common parent.

 

ý
Offeror is not owned or controlled by a common parent as defined in paragraph (a) of
this provision.

 

o
Name and TIN of common parent:

 

Name

 

TIN

 

	
  K.3

  	
  52.209-05

  	
  CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT,
  SUSPENSION, PROPOSED DEBARMENT, AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS

  	
  DECEMBER 2001

  

 

(a)(1) The Offeror certifies, to the best of its knowledge and
belief, that—

 

(i) The Offeror and/or any of its Principals—

 

(A) Are o
are not ý presently debarred, suspended, proposed for
debarment, or declared ineligible for the award of contracts by any Federal
agency;

 

 

(B) Have o
have not ý, within a three-year period preceding this
offer, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for:
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, state, or local)
contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes
relating to the submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, tax evasion, or receiving stolen property; and

 

(C) Are o
are not ý presently indicted for, or otherwise
criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of any
of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B) of this provision.

 

(ii) The Offeror has o
has not ý, within a three-year period preceding this
offer, had one or more contracts terminated for default by any Federal agency.

 

(2) “Principals,” for the purposes of this certification, means
officers, directors, owners, partners, and persons having primary management or
supervisory responsibilities within a business entity (e.g., general manager,
plant manager, head of a subsidiary, division, or business segment, and similar
positions).

 

THIS CERTIFICATION CONCERNS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF AN
AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE MAKING OF A FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR
FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATION MAY RENDER THE MAKER SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER
SECTION 1001, TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

 

(b) The Offeror shall provide immediate written notice to the
Contracting Officer if, at any time prior to contract award, the Offeror learns
that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by
reason of changed circumstances.

 

(c) A certification that any of the items in paragraph (a) of
this provision exists will not necessarily result in withholding of an award
under this solicitation. However, the certification will be considered in
connection with a determination of the Offeror’s responsibility. Failure of the
Offeror to furnish a certification or provide such additional information as
requested by the Contracting Officer may render the Offeror non-responsive.

 

(d) Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to
require establishment of a system of records in order to render, in good faith,
the certification required by paragraph (a) of this provision. The
knowledge and information of an Offeror is not required to exceed that which is
normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business
dealings.

 

(e) The certification in paragraph (a) of this provision is a
material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when making
award. If it is later determined that the Offeror knowingly rendered an
erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the
Government, the Contracting Officer may terminate the contract resulting from
this solicitation for default.

 

	
  K.4

  	
  52.215-07

  	
  ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS—NEGOTIATION

  	
  OCTOBER 1997

  

 

The offeror has [check the appropriate block]:

 

o (a) Submitted
to the Contracting Office issuing this solicitation, annual representations and
certifications dated               
[insert date of signature on submission] that are incorporated herein by
reference, and are current, accurate, and complete as of the date of this
proposal, except as follows [insert changes that affect only this proposal;
if  “none,” so state]:

 

ý (b) Enclosed
its annual representations and certifications.

 

 

	
  K.5

  	
  52.219-01

  	
  SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATIONS

  	
  APRIL 2002

  

 

(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
code for this acquisition is                               
[insert NAICS code].

 

(2) The small business size standard is                            
[insert size standard].

 

(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits
an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but
which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500
employees.

 

(b) Representations. (1) The offeror represents as part of
its offer that it o
is, ý is not a small business concern.

 

(2) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small
business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents, for general statistical purposes, that it o
is, o is not, a small disadvantaged business
concern as defined in 13 CFR 124.1002.

 

(3) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small
business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o
is, o is not a women-owned small business concern.

 

(4) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small
business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o
is, o is not a veteran-owned small business
concern.

 

(5) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a
veteran-owned small business concern in paragraph (b)(4) of this
provision.] The offeror represents as part of its offer that it o
is, o is not a service-disabled veteran-owned small
business concern.

 

(6) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small
business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents, as part of its offer, that—

 

(i) It o
is, o is not a HUBZone small business concern
listed, on the date of this representation, on the List of Qualified HUBZone
Small Business Concerns maintained by the Small Business Administration, and no
material change in ownership and control, principal office, or HUBZone employee
percentage has occurred since it was certified by the Small Business
Administration in accordance with 13 CFR part 126; and

 

(ii) It o
is, o is not a joint venture that complies with the
requirements of 13 CFR part 126, and the representation in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of
this provision is accurate for the HUBZone small business concern or concerns
that are participating in the joint venture. [The offeror shall enter the name
or names of the HUBZone small business concern or concerns that are participating
in the joint venture:                    .]
Each HUBZone small business concern participating in the joint venture shall
submit a separate signed copy of the HUBZone representation.

 

(c) Definitions. As used in this provision—

 

“Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern”—

 

(1) Means a small business concern—

 

(i) Not less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more
service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not
less than 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more
service-disabled veterans; and

 

(ii) The management and daily business operations of which are
controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a
veteran with permanent and severe disability, the spouse or permanent caregiver
of such veteran.

 

(2) Service-disabled veteran means a veteran, as defined in 38
U.S.C. 101(2), with a disability that is service-connected, as defined in 38
U.S.C. 101(16).

 

 

“Small business concern” means a concern, including its affiliates,
that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of
operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a
small business under the criteria in 13 CFR part 121 and the size standard in
paragraph (a) of this provision.

 

“Veteran-owned small business concern” means a small business concern—

 

(1) Not less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more
veterans (as defined at 38 U.S.C. 101(2)) or, in the case of any publicly owned
business, not less than 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or
more veterans; and

 

(2) The management and daily business operations of which are
controlled by one or more veterans.

 

“Women-owned small business concern” means a small business concern—

 

(1) That is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women; or, in
the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of
which is owned by one or more women; and

 

(2) Whose management and daily business operations are controlled
by one or more women.

 

(d) Notice. (1) If this solicitation is for supplies and has
been set aside, in whole or in part, for small business concerns, then the
clause in this solicitation providing notice of the set-aside contains
restrictions on the source of the end items to be furnished.

 

(2) Under 15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm’s
status as a small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, or women-owned small
business concern in order to obtain a contract to be awarded under the
preference programs established pursuant to section 8(a), 8(d), 9, or 15
of the Small Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that
specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program
eligibility, shall—

 

(i) Be punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both;

 

(ii) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension
and debarment; and

 

(iii) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under
the authority of the Small Business Act.

 

	
  K.6

  	
  52.219-22

  	
  SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS

  	
  OCTOBER 1999

  

 

(a) General. This provision is used to assess an offeror’s small
disadvantaged business status for the purpose of obtaining a benefit on this
solicitation. Status as a small business and status as a small disadvantaged
business for general statistical purposes is covered by the provision at FAR
52.219-1, Small Business Program Representation.

 

(b) Representations. (1) General. The offeror represents, as
part of its offer, that it is a small business under the size standard
applicable to this acquisition; and either—

 

o  (i) It has received certification by the
Small Business Administration as a small disadvantaged business concern
consistent with 13 CFR 124, Subpart B; and

 

(A) No material change in disadvantaged ownership and control has
occurred since its certification;

 

(B) Where the concern is owned by one or more disadvantaged
individuals, the net worth of each individual upon whom the certification is
based does not exceed $750,000 after taking into account the applicable
exclusions set forth at 13 CFR 124.104(c)(2); and

 

 

(C) It is identified, on the date of its representation, as a
certified small disadvantaged business concern in the database maintained by
the Small Business Administration (PRO-Net); or

 

o (ii) It
has submitted a completed application to the Small Business Administration or a
Private Certifier to be certified as a small disadvantaged business concern in
accordance with 13 CFR 124, Subpart B, and a decision on that application is
pending, and that no material change in disadvantaged ownership and control has
occurred since its application was submitted.

 

(2) o
For Joint Ventures. The offeror represents, as part of its offer, that it is a
joint venture that complies with the requirements at 13 CFR 124.1002(f) and
that the representation in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision is accurate
for the small disadvantaged business concern that is participating in the joint
venture. [The offeror shall enter the name of the small disadvantaged business
concern that is participating in the joint venture:                                         .]

 

(c) Penalties and Remedies. Anyone who misrepresents any aspects
of the disadvantaged status of a concern for the purposes of securing a
contract or subcontract shall—

 

(1) Be punished by imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both;

 

(2) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension
and debarment; and

 

(3) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under
the authority of the Small Business Act.

 

	
  K.7

  	
  52.219-22

  ALT I

  	
  SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS STATUS - ALT.
  I

  	
  OCTOBER 1998

  

 

(a) General. This provision is used to assess an offeror’s small
disadvantaged business status for the purpose of obtaining a benefit on this
solicitation. Status as a small business and status as a small disadvantaged
business for general statistical purposes is covered by the provision at FAR
52.219-1, Small Business Program Representation.

 

(b) Representations. (1) General. The offeror represents, as
part of its offer, that it is a small business under the size standard applicable
to this acquisition; and either—

 

o (i) It
has received certification by the Small Business Administration as a small
disadvantaged business concern consistent with 13 CFR 124, Subpart B; and

 

(A) No material change in disadvantaged ownership and control has
occurred since its certification;

 

(B) Where the concern is owned by one or more disadvantaged
individuals, the net worth of each individual upon whom the certification is
based does not exceed $750,000 after taking into account the applicable
exclusions set forth at 13 CFR 124.104(c)(2); and

 

(C) It is identified, on the date of its representation, as a
certified small disadvantaged business concern in the database maintained by
the Small Business Administration (PRO-Net); or

 

o (ii) It
has submitted a completed application to the Small Business Administration or a
Private Certifier to be certified as a

 

 

small disadvantaged business concern in accordance with 13 CFR 124,
Subpart B, and a decision on that application is pending, and that no material
change in disadvantaged ownership and control has occurred since its
application was submitted.

 

(2) o
For Joint Ventures. The offeror represents, as part of its offer, that it is a
joint venture that complies with the requirements at 13 CFR 124.1002(f) and
that the representation in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision is accurate
for the small disadvantaged business concern that is participating in the joint
venture. [The offeror shall enter the name of the small disadvantaged business
concern that is participating in the joint venture:                                                .]

 

(3) Address. The offeror represents that its address o
is, o is not in a region for which a small
disadvantaged business procurement mechanism is authorized and its address has
not changed since its certification as a small disadvantaged business concern
or submission of its application for certification. The list of authorized
small disadvantaged procurement mechanisms and regions is posted at
http://www.arnet.gov/References/sdbadjustments.htm. The offeror shall use the
list in effect on the date of this solicitation. “Address,” as used in this
provision, means the address of the offeror as listed on the Small Business
Administration’s register of small disadvantaged business concerns or the
address on the completed application that the concern has submitted to the
Small Business Administration or Private Certifier in accordance with 13 CFR
part 124, subpart B. For joint ventures, “address” refers to the address of
small disadvanted business concern that is participating in the joint venture.

 

(c) Penalties and Remedies. Anyone who misrepresents any aspects
of the disadvantaged status of a concern for the purposes of securing a
contract or subcontract shall—

 

(1) Be punished by imposition of a fine, imprisonment, or both;

 

(2) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension
and debarment; and

 

(3) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under
the authority of the Small Business Act.

 

	
  K.8

  	
  52.222-22

  	
  PREVIOUS CONTRACTS AND COMPLIANCE REPORTS

  	
  FEBRUARY 1999

  

 

The offeror represents that—

 

(a) It ý
has, o has not participated in a previous contract
or subcontract subject to the Equal Opportunity clause of this solicitation;

 

(b) It ý
has o has not filed all required compliance
reports; and

 

(c) Representations indicating submission of required compliance
reports, signed by proposed subcontractors, will be obtained before subcontract
awards.

 

	
  K.9

  	
  52.222-25

  	
  AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMPLIANCE

  	
  APRIL 1984

  

 

The offeror represents that it (a) ý  has developed and has on file, o
has not developed and does not have on file, at each establishment, affirmative
action programs required by the rules and regulations of the Secretary of
Labor

 

 

(41 CFR 60-1 and 60-2), or (b) o
has not previously had contracts subject to the written affirmative action
programs requirement of the rules and regulations of the Secretary of
Labor.

 

	
  K.10

  	
  52.223-01

  	
  CLEAN AIR AND WATER CERTIFICATION

  	
  FEBRUARY 2000

  

 

[Reserved]

 

	
  K.11

  	
  52.223-13

  	
  CERTIFICATION OF TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE
  REPORTING

  	
  OCTOBER 2000

  

 

(a) Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making
or entering into this contract imposed by Executive Order 12969, August 8,
1995.

 

(b) By signing this offer, the offeror certifies that—

 

(1) As the owner or operator of facilities that will be used in
the performance of this contract that are subject to the filing and reporting
requirements described in section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11023) and section 6607
of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13106), the offeror
will file and continue to file for such facilities for the life of the contract
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form (Form R) as described in
sections 313(a) and (g) of EPCRA and section 6607 of PPA; or

 

(2) None of its owned or operated facilities to be used in the
performance of this contract is subject to the Form R filing and reporting
requirements because each such facility is exempt for at least one of the
following reasons: [Check each block that is applicable.]

 

ý (i) The
facility does not manufacture, process, or otherwise use any toxic chemicals
listed under section 313(c) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(c);

 

o (ii) The
facility does not have 10 or more full-time employees as specified in section 313(b)(1)(A)
of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(1)(A);

 

ý (iii) The
facility does not meet the reporting thresholds of toxic chemicals established
under section 313(f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f) (including the
alternate thresholds at 40 CFR 372.27, provided an appropriate certification
form has been filed with EPA);

 

ý (iv) The
facility does not fall within Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC)
designations 20 through 39 as set forth in section 19.102 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation; or

 

o (v) The
facility is not located within any State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United
States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, or any other territory or
possession over which the United States has jurisdiction.

 

(a) The offeror, by signing this offer, certifies that —

 

ý  (1) To the best of its knowledge and
belief, it is not subject to the filing and reporting requirements described in
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) sections 313(a) and
(g) and Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) section 6607 because none of
its owned or operated facilities to be used in the performance of this contract
currently —

 

 

ý  (i) Manufacture, process or otherwise
use any toxic chemicals listed under section 313(c) of EPCRA, 42
U.S.C. 11023(c).

 

o  (ii) Have more than 10 or more full-time
employees as specified in section 313(b)(1)(A) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C.
11023(b)(1)(A).

 

ý  (iii) Meet the reporting thresholds in
toxic chemicals established under section 313(f) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C.
11023(f) (including the alternate thresholds at 40 CFR 372.27, provided an
appropriate certification form has been filed with EPA).

 

ý  (iv) Fall within Standard Industrial
Classification Code (SIC) designations 20 through 39 as set forth in FAR section 19.102.

 

o  (2) If awarded a contract resulting from
this solicitation, its owned or operated facilities to be used in the
performance of this contract, unless otherwise exempt, will file and continue
to file for the life of the contract the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Form (Form R)
as described in EPCRA sections 313(a) and (g) and PPA section 6607
(42 U.S.C. 13106).

 

(b) Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making
or entering into this contract imposed by Executive Order 12969, August 8,
1995 (60 FR 40989-40992).

 

	
  K.12

  	
  52.227-15

  	
  REPRESENTATION OF LIMITED RIGHTS DATA AND
  RESTRICTED COMPUTER SOFTWARE

  	
  MAY 1999

  

 

(a) This solicitation sets forth the work to be performed if a
contract award results, and the Government’s known delivery requirements for
data (as defined in FAR 27.401). Any resulting contract may also provide the
Government the option to order additional data under the Additional Data
Requirements clause at 52.227-16 of the FAR, if included in the contract. Any
data delivered under the resulting contract will be subject to the Rights in
Data-General clause at 52.227-14 that is to be included in this contract. Under
the latter clause, a Contractor may withhold from delivery data that qualify as
limited rights data or restricted computer software, and deliver form, fit, and
function data in lieu thereof. The latter clause also may be used with its Alternates
II and/or III to obtain delivery of limited rights data or restricted computer
software, marked with limited rights or restricted rights notices, as
appropriate. In addition, use of Alternate V with this latter clause provides
the Government the right to inspect such data at the Contractor’s facility.

 

(b) As an aid in determining the Government’s need to include
Alternate II or Alternate III in the clause at 52.227-14, Rights in
Data-General, the offeror shall complete paragraph (c) of this provision
to either state that none of the data qualify as limited rights data or
restricted computer software, or identify, to the extent feasible, which of the
data qualifies as limited rights data or restricted computer software. Any
identification of limited rights data or restricted computer software in the
offeror’s response is not determinative of the status of such data should a
contract be awarded to the offeror.

 

(c) The offeror has reviewed the requirements for the delivery of
data or software and states [offeror check appropriate block] -

 

ý
None of the data proposed for fulfilling such requirements qualifies as limited
rights data or restricted computer software.

 

o
Data proposed for fulfilling such requirements qualify as limited rights data
or restricted computer software and are identified as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

NOTE: “Limited rights data” and “Restricted computer software” are
defined in the contract clause entitled “Rights in Data-General.”

 

	
  K.13

  	
  52.230-01

  	
  COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND
  CERTIFICATION

  	
  JUNE 2000

  

 

Note: This notice does not apply to small businesses or foreign
governments. This notice is in three parts, identified by Roman numerals I
through III.

 

Offerors shall examine each part and provide the requested information
in order to determine Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements applicable
to any resultant contract.

 

If the offeror is an educational institution, Part II does not
apply unless the contemplated contract will be subject to full or modified CAS
coverage pursuant to 48 CFR 9903.201-2(c)(5) or 9903.201-2(c)(6),
respectively.

 

I. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT—COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND CERTIFICATION

 

(a) Any contract in excess of $500,000 resulting from this
solicitation will be subject to the requirements of the Cost Accounting
Standards Board (48 CFR Chapter 99), except for those contracts which are
exempt as specified in 48 CFR 9903.201-1

 

(b) Any offeror submitting a proposal which, if accepted, will
result in a contract subject to the requirements of 48 CFR Chapter 99 must, as
a condition of contracting, submit a Disclosure Statement as required by 48 CFR
9903.202. When required, the Disclosure Statement must be submitted as a part
of the Offeror’s proposal under this solicitation unless the Offeror has
already submitted a Disclosure Statement disclosing the practices used in
connection with the pricing of this proposal. If an applicable Disclosure
Statement has already been submitted, the Offeror may satisfy the requirement
for submission by providing the information requested in paragraph (c) of Part I
of this provision.

 

Caution: In the absence of specific regulations or agreement, a
practice disclosed in a Disclosure Statement shall not, by virtue of such
disclosure, be deemed to be a proper, approved, or agreed-to practice for
pricing proposals or accumulating and reporting contract performance cost data.

 

(c) Check the appropriate box below:

 

o (1) Certificate
of Concurrent Submission of Disclosure Statement.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that, as a part of the offer, copies of
the Disclosure Statement have been submitted as follows: (i) original and
one copy to the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or cognizant
Federal agency official authorized to act in that capacity (Federal official),
as applicable, and (ii) one copy to the cognizant Federal auditor.

 

(Disclosure must be on Form No. CASB DS-1 or CASB DS-2, as
applicable. Forms may be obtained from the cognizant ACO or Federal official
and/or from the loose-leaf version of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.)

 

Date of Disclosure Statement:

 

 

Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed:

 

 

 

The Offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating
costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting practices
disclosed in the Disclosure Statement.

 

o (2) Certificate
of Previously Submitted Disclosure Statement.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that the required Disclosure Statement was
filed as follows:

 

Date of Disclosure Statement:

 

 

Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed:

 

 

The Offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating
costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting
practices disclosed in the applicable Disclosure Statement.

 

ý (3) Certificate
of Monetary Exemption.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that the Offeror, together with all
divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates under common control, did not receive
net awards of negotiated prime contracts and subcontracts subject to CAS totaling
$50 million or more in the cost accounting period immediately preceding the
period in which this proposal was submitted. The offeror further certifies that
if such status changes before an award resulting from this proposal, the
Offeror will advise the Contracting Officer immediately.

 

o (4) Certificate
of Interim Exemption.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that (i) the Offeror first exceeded
the monetary exemption for disclosure, as defined in (3) of this
subsection, in the cost accounting period immediately preceding the period in
which this offer was submitted and (ii) in accordance with 48 CFR 9903.202-1,
the Offeror is not yet required to submit a Disclosure Statement. The Offeror
further certifies that if an award resulting from this proposal has not been
made within 90 days after the end of that period, the offeror will immediately
submit a revised certificate to the Contracting Officer, in the form specified
under subparagraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of Part I of this provision,
as appropriate, to verify submission of a completed Disclosure Statement.

 

Caution: Offerors currently required to disclose because they were
awarded a CAS-covered prime contract or subcontract of $50 million or more in
the current cost accounting period may not claim this exemption (4). Further,
the exemption applies only in connection with proposals submitted before
expiration of the 90-day period following the cost accounting period in which
the monetary exemption was exceeded.

 

II. COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS—ELIGIBILITY FOR MODIFIED CONTRACT
COVERAGE

 

If the Offeror is eligible to use the modified provisions of 48 CFR
9903.201-2(b) and elects to do so, the Offeror shall indicate by checking
the box below. Checking the box below shall mean that the resultant contract is
subject to the Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices clause
in lieu of the Cost Accounting Standards clause.

 

o
The Offeror hereby claims an exemption from the Cost Accounting Standards
clause under the provisions of 48 CFR 9903.201-2(b) and certifies that the
Offeror is eligible for use of the Disclosure and Consistency of Cost
Accounting Practices clause because during the cost accounting period
immediately preceding the period in which this proposal was submitted, the
Offeror received less than $50 million in awards of CAS-covered prime contracts
and subcontracts. The Offeror further certifies that if such status changes
before an award resulting from this proposal, the Offeror will advise the
Contracting Officer immediately.

 

 

Caution: An Offeror may not claim the above eligibility for modified
contract coverage if this proposal is expected to result in the award of a
CAS-covered contract of $50 million or more or if, during its current cost
accounting period, the Offeror has been awarded a single CAS-covered prime
contract or subcontract of $50 million or more.

 

III. ADDITIONAL COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EXISTING
CONTRACTS

 

The Offeror shall indicate below whether award of the contemplated
contract would, in accordance with subparagraph (a)(3) of the Cost
Accounting Standards clause, require a change in established cost accounting
practices affecting existing contracts and subcontracts.

 

    o
yes    ý   no

 

	
  K.14

  	
  52.230-01

  ALT I

  	
  COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND
  CERTIFICATION ALTERNATE I

  	
  JUNE 1996

  

 

Note: This notice does not apply to small businesses or foreign
governments. This notice is in three parts, identified by Roman numerals I
through III.

 

Offerors shall examine each part and provide the requested information
in order to determine Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) requirements applicable
to any resultant contract.

 

If the offeror is an educational institution, Part II does not
apply unless the contemplated contract will be subject to full or modified CAS
coverage pursuant to 48 CFR 9903.201-2(c)(5) or 9903.201-2(c)(6),
respectively.

 

I. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT—COST ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND CERTIFICATION

 

(a) Any contract in excess of $500,000 resulting from this
solicitation, except contracts in which the price negotiated is based on (1) established
catalog or market prices of commercial items sold in substantial quantities to
the general public, or (2) prices set by law or regulation, will be
subject to the requirements of the Cost Accounting Standards Board (48 CFR
Chapter 99), except for those contracts which are exempt as specified in 48 CFR
9903.201-1.

 

(b) Any Offeror submitting a proposal which, if accepted, will
result in a contract subject to the requirements of 48 CFR Chapter 99 must, as
a condition of contracting, submit a Disclosure Statement as required by 48 CFR
9903.202. When required, the Disclosure Statement must be submitted as a part
of the Offeror’s proposal under this solicitation unless the Offeror has
already submitted a Disclosure Statement disclosing the practices used in
connection with the pricing of this proposal. If an applicable Disclosure
Statement has already been submitted, the offeror may satisfy the requirement
for submission by providing the information requested in paragraph (c) of Part I
of this provision.

 

Caution: In the absence of specific regulations or agreement, a
practice disclosed in a Disclosure Statement shall not, by virtue of such
disclosure, be deemed to be a proper, approved, or agreed-to practice for
pricing proposals or accumulating and reporting contract performance cost data.

 

(c) Check the appropriate box below:

 

o (1) Certificate
of Concurrent Submission of Disclosure Statement.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that, as a part of the offer, copies of
the Disclosure Statement have been submitted as follows: (i) original and
one copy to the cognizant Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or cognizant
Federal agency official authorized to act in that capacity (Federal official),
as applicable, and (ii) one copy to the cognizant Federal auditor.

 

(Disclosure must be on Form No. CASB DS-1 or CASB DS-2, as
applicable. Forms may be obtained from the cognizant ACO or Federal official
and/or from the loose-leaf version of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.)

 

 

Date of Disclosure Statement:

 

 

Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed:

 

 

The Offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating
costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting
practices disclosed in the Disclosure Statement.

 

o (2) Certificate
of Previously Submitted Disclosure Statement.

 

The offeror hereby certifies that the required Disclosure Statement was
filed as follows:

 

Date of Disclosure Statement:

 

 

Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Filed:

 

 

The Offeror further certifies that the practices used in estimating
costs in pricing this proposal are consistent with the cost accounting
practices disclosed in the applicable Disclosure Statement.

 

ý (3) Certificate
of Monetary Exemption.

The Offeror hereby certifies that the Offeror, together with all
divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates under common control, did not receive
net awards of negotiated prime contracts and subcontracts subject to CAS
totaling more than $50 million or more in the cost accounting period
immediately preceding the period in which this proposal was submitted. The
Offeror further certifies that if such status changes before an award resulting
from this proposal, the Offeror will advise the Contracting Officer immediately.

 

o (4) Certificate
of Interim Exemption.

 

The Offeror hereby certifies that (i) the Offeror first exceeded
the monetary exemption for disclosure, as defined in (3) of this
subsection, in the cost accounting period immediately preceding the period in
which this offer was submitted and (ii) in accordance with 48 CFR 9903.202-1,
the offeror is not yet required to submit a Disclosure Statement. The Offeror
further certifies that if an award resulting from this proposal has not been
made within 90 days after the end of that period, the Offeror will immediately
submit a revised certificate to the Contracting Officer, in the form specified
under subparagraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of Part I of this provision,
as appropriate, to verify submission of a completed Disclosure Statement.

 

(5) Certificate of Disclosure Statement Due Date by Educational
Institution. If the Offeror is an educational institution that, under the
transition provisions of 48 CFR 9903.202-1(f), is or will be required to submit
a Disclosure Statement after receipt of this award, the Offeror hereby
certifies that (check one and complete):

 

o  (i) A Disclosure Statement Filing Due
Date of                                     
has been established with the cognizant Federal agency.

 

o  (ii) The Disclosure Statement will be
submitted within the 6-month period ending                               
months after receipt of this award.

 

Name and Address of Cognizant ACO or Federal Official Where Disclosure
Statement is to be Filed:

 

 

Caution: Offerors currently required to disclose because they were
awarded a CAS-covered prime contract or subcontract of $50 million or more in
the current cost accounting period may not claim this exemption (4). Further,

 

 

the exemption applies only in connection with proposals submitted
before expiration of the 90-day period following the cost accounting period in
which the monetary exemption was exceeded.

 

II. COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS—ELIGIBILITY FOR MODIFIED CONTRACT
COVERAGE

 

If the Offeror is eligible to use the modified provisions of 48 CFR
9903.201-2(b) and elects to do so, the Offeror shall indicate by checking
the box below. Checking the box below shall mean that the resultant contract is
subject to the Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices clause
in lieu of the Cost Accounting Standards clause.

 

The Offeror hereby claims an exemption from the Cost Accounting
Standards clause under the provisions of 48 CFR 9903.201-2(b) and
certifies that the offeror is eligible for use of the Disclosure and
Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices clause because during the cost
accounting period immediately preceding the period in which this proposal was
submitted, the offeror received less than $50 million in awards of CAS-covered
prime contracts and subcontracts. The Offeror further certifies that if such
status changes before an award resulting from this proposal, the offeror will
advise the Contracting Officer immediately.

 

Caution: An Offeror may not claim the above eligibility for modified
contract coverage if this proposal is expected to result in the award of a
CAS-covered contract of $50 million or more or if, during its current cost
accounting period, the Offeror has been awarded a single CAS-covered prime
contract or subcontract of $50 million or more.

 

III. ADDITIONAL COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO EXISTING
CONTRACTS

 

The Offeror shall indicate below whether award of the contemplated
contract would, in accordance with subparagraph (a)(3) of the Cost
Accounting Standards clause, require a change in established cost accounting
practices affecting existing contracts and subcontracts.  o   yes   ý  no

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

	
  Cover Letter/Forms

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1.0

  	
  Proposal Overview

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.0

  	
  Basis of Estimate (L.5, M.2.C)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.1

  	
  Definitions and
  Nomenclature (L.5, M.2.C.1)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.1.1

  	
  CLIN Nomenclature

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.1.2

  	
  Price Model Definition

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2

  	
  Assumptions (L.5, M.2.C.1, M.2.C.2)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.1

  	
  Labor Hours

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.2

  	
  Materials - System Hardware

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.3

  	
  Materials - System Software

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.4

  	
  ODCs - Facilities and Furnishings

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.5

  	
  ODCs – Travel

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.2.6

  	
  ODCs – Other

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.3

  	
  Rates

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  2.4

  	
  Reduction

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.0

  	
  Pricing

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.1

  	
  Total Price/SF 1411

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.2

  	
  Section B—CLINS Prices

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.3

  	
  Labor Summary and Detail

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.4

  	
  Material Summary and Detail

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.5

  	
  Other Direct Costs Summary and
  Detail

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.6

  	
  Indirect Cost Summary and Detail

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.0

  	
  Proposal Backup

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.1

  	
  Bill of Materials

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.2

  	
  Quotes

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.3

  	
  Product Literature

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5.0

  	
  Optional Proposal

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Appendices

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Enterprise Services

  	
   

  

 

	
  LIST OF EXHIBITS

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5-1

  	
  NeuStar Shared NANPA/National PA Organization

  	
   

  

 

	
  LIST OF TABLES

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-1

  	
  Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Nomenclature

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-2

  	
  NANPA Position/Title to Labor Category
  Mapping

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-3

  	
  Manpower Loading Table (Base, plus four
  option years)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-4

  	
  NPA Relief Planning Projects 3Q2003 through
  2Q2008

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-5

  	
  Pending NPA Relief Planning Projects

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-6

  	
  Suspended NPA Relief Planning Projects

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-7

  	
  NPA Relief Planning Projects To Be Completed
  At Specific Trigger Points

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  2-8

  	
  Central Office Code Activity
  (January 2000 – March 2003)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-9

  	
  CO Code Application Processing Productivity
  Analysis

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2-10

  	
  Estimated Duration of Trips

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5-1

  	
  PROPOSED SHARED ORGANIZATION
  EXPERIENCE

  	
   

  

 

 

1.0                               SOLUTION OVERVIEW

 

NeuStar’s “best value” NANPA offering will provide the
Commission and the industry with the highest quality and lowest risk solution,
delivered by a vendor with unmatched experience and unassailable neutrality.

 

During
the past five-plus years, the U.S. telecommunications market has been defined
by change. The passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and subsequent
increase in local competition, coupled with the emergence of new
telecommunications technologies and services, propelled the demand for
numbering resources to an all-time high during NeuStar’s first term as the
North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA). These changes necessitated
new FCC rules governing the use of numbering resources. Under these new
rules, NeuStar managed the unprecedented demand for numbering resources with
impeccable performance. NeuStar’s proposal for the second five-year NANPA term
is built on this solid foundation. By continuing to serve as the NANPA, NeuStar
can be a key constant in this time of continuous change. In the process, the
Commission can be assured that NeuStar is determined to surpass its own outstanding
record of performance.

 

NeuStar
offers the Commission and the industry two factors that are simply unavailable
from any other vendor: unmatched experience and unassailable neutrality.  In addition to these corporate qualities, NeuStar’s
integrated operations and technology solution offers the highest quality and
lowest risk.  NeuStar further sets itself
apart from the competition by offering this high-quality, low-risk solution at
a competitive price, thus demonstrably providing “best value” to the
Commission.

 

Unmatched
Experience

 

NeuStar’s numerous accomplishments during the first NANPA
term are the foundation for the second term.

 

NeuStar’s
administration of vital numbering resources has been a steady and reliable beacon
throughout this period of competitive upheaval in telecommunications.  Since its selection by the Commission in 1997
as the first and only impartial NANPA, NeuStar has effectively and efficiently
administered the NANP, working cooperatively with the FCC to rigorously implement
the Commission’s numbering orders and rules throughout this turbulent
time.  NeuStar served as the Commission’s
instrument to enact the bold, innovative measures

 

 

needed to ensure the
viability of the NANP.  In the final
analysis, NeuStar not only has managed numbering resources, but has also
managed the impact of dramatic industry changes on these critical resources.  Some highlights of NeuStar’s accomplishments
during the first NANPA term include:

 

•                  Successfully
transitioning various numbering administration functions from several different
administrators and, soon thereafter, processing over three times the normal
demand for CO codes within the required 10 business days 99.3% of the time,
using new FCC rules;

 

•                  Designing,
developing, and deploying: (i) a comprehensive Document Distribution
Service (DDS) to deliver NPA relief planning and other documents to
stakeholders and (ii) three generations of the Code Administration System
(CAS), an automated central office code processing system, allowing online
entry and tracking of applications for codes;

 

•                  Planning
eight times the normal demand for Numbering Plan Area (NPA) relief projects in
42 states and completing 99% of the projects on time;

 

•                  Designing
and developing new and innovative methods and algorithms for forecasting NPA
and NANP exhaust and updating NANP exhaust studies annually, capturing the
latest usage trends and the impact of the Commission’s numbering resource
optimization strategies;

 

•                  Designing,
developing, deploying, and enhancing a new data utilization and reporting program
known as Numbering Resource Utilization and Forecast (NRUF) to monitor resource
usage and to provide insight into consumption trends; and

 

•                  Initiating
the reclamation of unused CO codes within six months of their effective date, resulting
in thousands of codes being returned to the available inventory of resources,
thus avoiding premature exhaust of the NANP.

 

As a
result of its experience as NANPA and other third-party administrative
services, NeuStar fully understands that the NANPA is a comprehensive service solution, not
merely a system
solution.  Other vendors, who solely have
a technology-oriented focus, likely will neither understand all of the
Commission’s NANPA requirements, nor grasp how to provision the NANPA services
with unassailable neutrality and efficiency. Like technology-oriented vendors,
NeuStar builds and integrates sophisticated systems on aggressive schedules, selects
the best hardware and third-party software components, develops custom-software
applications, and supports these integrated systems 24 by 7 in our world-class
data centers. However, unlike other

 

 

vendors, NeuStar
recognizes that the systems it builds are tools that enable people to
administer resources in a neutral and evenhanded fashion, and are not solutions
unto themselves.

 

NeuStar’s
experience will benefit both the Commission and the industry during the upcoming
years, for change is once again accelerating. 
The Commission’s numbering policies are having a dramatic effect on
resource utilization, as evidenced by the recent drop in CO code assignments.  The implosion of the CLEC industry has
triggered the large-scale return of CO codes, a situation further complicated
by number portability.  Conversely, new
services like VoIP, ENUM, and WiFi are becoming more widely adopted and
deployed, fueling the search for additional resource optimization measures.
This environment will have significant impact on number administration and
presents new challenges that require an experienced, tested NANPA.  NeuStar is that NANPA.

 

NeuStar’s
experience is embodied in its existing NANPA organization. Key personnel within
this group, led by Mr. John Manning, have over 130 years of combined
industry and regulatory experience and over 40 years of actual, direct NANPA
experience. It is a veteran team, widely respected as industry experts, working
together cohesively and efficiently. NeuStar will augment this team with
experienced technical experts to deliver the new system specified in the solicitation.  All proposed “Key Personnel” are already on
board and other personnel needed on Day One have been named and are poised to
commence work immediately under the next term.

 

The
NANPA organizational structure has been optimized to continue to achieve high
productivity and excellent service quality. In addition, the NeuStar’s NANPA organization
is dedicated solely to the performance of NANPA functions, and reports directly
to a company officer.  Any problems will
be diagnosed quickly, escalated through a short chain of command, and resolved
expeditiously.

 

As the
telecommunications industry continues to undergo fundamental structural change,
the Commission can be confident that NeuStar possesses the unmatched NANPA
experience and demonstrated track record of performance to navigate the
continuously changing industry landscape, while avoiding the uncertainty
surrounding the selection of and transition to an inexperienced NANPA.

 

 

Unassailable
Neutrality

 

At NeuStar, neutrality is not a platitude; it is our
identity.  Our neutrality ensures timely,
fair, and even-handed NANP resource administration now and into the future.

 

The
neutrality of the NANPA is critical to the effective administration of NANP resources,
and is an essential component of a vendor’s value. Neutrality is vital because
the Commission and service providers must rely upon the NANPA to administer
numbering resources strictly in accordance with Commission rules and
industry guidelines, and in an even-handed, neutral manner ensuring that no
particular industry segment or technology is unduly advantaged or
disadvantaged.

 

NeuStar
understands that neutrality is not equal to passivity.  Neutrality serves as the platform upon which,
as the NANPA, NeuStar provides proactive leadership to ensure the long-term
viability of the NANP.  From the
principled denial of an NPA code request to Missouri in 1998 to the pioneering
NPA Exhaust Analysis in 1999 to the proactive management of the abandoned CO
code crisis of 2000-2001, NeuStar has consistently taken leadership positions
with the dual goals of NANP viability and telecommunications infrastructure
stability.

 

NeuStar
satisfies all of the Commission’s strict criteria for being a neutral third
party.  Our neutrality is not sheltered,
fenced-off, or confined to certain groups and organizations; rather, it is
deeply ingrained throughout the entire company and fundamental to our existence
and way of doing business. All NeuStar employees follow a strict FCC-approved
neutrality “Code of Conduct”. NeuStar employs an independent FCC-approved
auditor to verify that our services are being provided in a neutral fashion and
to confirm our ongoing adherence to the neutrality Code of Conduct.  NeuStar has passed all 11 quarterly audits
to-date, a spotless record.

 

NeuStar’s
neutrality goes beyond its Code of Conduct and the day-to-day actions of its personnel
and extends to the corporate level.  For
example, NeuStar has consciously chosen to diversify its (and its subsidiaries’)
customer base to avoid receiving a majority of its revenue from a single
service provider, industry segment, or aligned bloc of service providers.  This diversity assures the Commission of
NeuStar’s neutrality commitment.

 

 

Lowest
Risk Deployment and Operations

 

NeuStar’s transition plan, combined with its position as the
incumbent NANPA, ensures a smooth, flawless migration to the NANP
administration system (NAS) followed by effective, reliable operations.

 

By
retaining NeuStar as the NANPA, a risky and complex transition of NANPA
services to an inexperienced entity is avoided. 
The NANPA role demands continuous, seamless, and transparent
service.  The assignment of telephone
number resources cannot be interrupted because of failed or difficult
transition between vendors.  As the
current NANPA, NeuStar is the only vendor that can provide a smooth, risk-free
evolution to the next term and avoid the uncertainties associated with such an
evolution.

 

NeuStar
has developed a sound migration plan and will concentrate on the development
and deployment of the new NANPA system the moment the contract is awarded.
NeuStar can successfully transition NANPA operations to the NAS after the
development period without having to hire any staff or conduct NANPA process
and familiarization training.

 

Upon
review of the NANPA system requirements and the specified deployment schedule,
NeuStar quickly determined that the timeline is very aggressive.  However, NeuStar can and will meet the schedule challenge
by leveraging the business rules, algorithms, and logic from the current NANPA
systems and the application framework of NeuStar’s National Pooling Administration
System.  NeuStar believes that other
suppliers lack the detailed knowledge of the current NANPA systems and will
have difficulty satisfying the delivery schedule while maintaining the
high level of quality demanded by the FCC and industry.

 

As if
the schedule challenge is not enough, the new NANPA vendor must flawlessly
migrate a tremendous volume of data (historical and current) from the current
NANPA systems to the new system.  To
successfully complete this undertaking, the selected vendor must possess
detailed understanding of all current NANPA systems, database schemas, and
underlying logic.  The significance of
this understanding, which only NeuStar possesses, cannot be overstated.  For example, there are over 120,000 CO codes
assigned and, at any one time, there are hundreds of CO code applications in
various stages of processing.  All must
be migrated flawlessly.  Just a one
percent (1%) error rate would result in the incorrect disposition of 1,200 CO
codes; creating 1,200 individual opportunities for code conflicts and errors
and having the potential to cause service disruptions for consumers.

 

 

After
the technical task of system conversion is completed, the new NANPA will face
an even greater transition challenge: assuming day-to-day operations of NANP
administration.  The significant risks
posed by this operational challenge are fundamentally different than those
posed by the technical challenge of system transition.  These risks are more directly related to the
Commission’s staff and its involvement in the day-to-day issues of NANP
management.   NeuStar is uniquely
qualified to mitigate these risks. 
NeuStar has a proven ability to handle all NANPA decision-making
responsibilities.  NeuStar’s experience
will enable the Commission’s limited resources to focus on its core
policymaking mission, with the assurance that NANP resource administration is
in qualified hands.

 

In
addition, in today’s environment, many state regulatory agencies and, in
particular, service providers, have significantly downsized their
organizations, requiring their numbering resource personnel to do more with
less.  As a result, they simply cannot
afford the time and effort to “train” a new NANPA, nor should they have to
endure the resulting disruptions of an inexperienced NANPA—during transition or
through a long learning curve performing day-to-day responsibilities.

 

By
retaining NeuStar as the NANPA, the Commission can minimize overall program
risk and be confident that a new NANPA system will be successfully deployed,
data will be accurately migrated, and high-quality NANPA operations will
continue without interruption.

 

Highest
Quality Solution

 

NeuStar has formed its NANPA solution using the highest
quality combination of software, infrastructure, processes, and personnel.

 

As a
vital tool for NANPA, the quality of the NAS serves as the foundation of
NeuStar’s solution.  NeuStar’s current
NANPA systems—CAS, DDS, and the NRUF—all operational and error-free, along with
the production-proven National PA System application framework, will serve as
the foundation for NAS.  NeuStar will
leverage these quality software components to deliver a stable, fully
functional, integrated, productivity-enhancing system on time.  Additionally, NeuStar’s NAS will offer
tangible improvements over the current NANPA technology suite, including an
application portal with unified logins and security, a redesigned web site, expanded
automated resource management, and integrated forecasting.

 

 

To
meet the solicitation’s reliability, capacity, throughput, and availability
requirements, NeuStar proposes a PAS-like system architecture that is easily
and incrementally scalable, using high-quality hardware from Dell, Cisco, and
Sun.  Although the technical requirements
in the solicitation are virtually identical to those for PAS, NeuStar has
improved upon the PAS architecture in the areas of security and
performance.  NeuStar has designed NAS to
offer the high availability prescribed by requirements.  At carefully selected points in the architecture,
redundancy has been added, either locally or cross-site, guaranteeing high availability.

 

While
the technical quality of the architecture is impressive, it is surpassed only
by the quality of NeuStar’s NANPA team. 
For example, NeuStar’s NANPA team goes beyond simple understanding of
NANPA process flows.  NeuStar’s team
fully understands why processes flow the way they do, the rationale for
decisions leading to the process flows, and the comprehensive impact of
potential change on process stakeholders. 
This level of quality and experience goes far beyond any one or two “brand
name” individuals; this experience is organizational, institutional, and
cultural.

 

The
NANPA review process provides concrete evidence of this quality.  The real-world performance of the NeuStar
NANPA team has been monitored continuously and undergone formal yearly reviews
by NANC-selected industry experts and has been found to repeatedly exceed the
stringent expectations of the industry.

 

Conclusion

 

NeuStar is the high-quality, low-risk choice to be the
next-term NANPA; its solution embodies “best value” as enabled by unmatched
experience and unassailable neutrality.

 

NeuStar
was formed for the specific purpose of meeting the needs of the U.S. Government
and the telecommunications industry for a neutral third party administrator of
numbering resources.  Our commitment to
this purpose has never faltered.  The
NANPA defines NeuStar and is inherent to the very fabric of the company.  By retaining NeuStar as the NANPA, the
Commission can have complete confidence that this critical administrative
function will continue on its success-oriented track.

 

NeuStar
possesses unassailable neutrality and a dedicated, knowledgeable NANPA organization
with a demonstrated record of outstanding performance.  As stated by the Numbering Oversight Working
Group of the NANC in NeuStar’s 2002 evaluation as the

 

 

NANPA, NeuStar “has
displayed the leadership, initiative and expertise as the custodian of
numbering resource goals in every aspect of their involvement” which is
attributed to “the perseverance, outstanding professionalism and expertise
exhibited by NANPA personnel.”  In this
proposal, NeuStar has incorporated this wealth of knowledge and experience to
offer a “best value” solution for the next NANPA term.  NeuStar thanks the Commission for taking the
time to consider its proposal.

 

 

2.0                               BASIS OF ESTIMATE (L.5, M.2.C)

 

This section contains NeuStar’s basis of estimating the costs used
in its firm-fixed price for the NANPA contract. 
Proposal Section 2.1 contains CLIN definitions as well as describes
the structure of the Cost Breakdown provided in Proposal Section 3.0.  Proposal Section 2.2 identifies the
assumptions used to estimate:

 

•                  Labor;

 

•                  NANP
Administration System (NAS) hardware and software and other equipment;

 

•                  Facilities and
furnishings;

 

•                  Travel; and

 

•                  Other direct
costs.

 

Proposal Section 2.3 describes NeuStar’s rates, including: labor
rates, labor burden rate, and G&A rate. 
This section also provides the annual escalation factors/rates for
labor, air travel, and other direct costs, including the sources used to
determine each.  And, finally, Proposal Section 2.4
details NeuStar’s price reduction as a result of its unique position as the
incumbent NANP Administrator.

 

2.1          Definitions and Nomenclature (L.5, M.2.C.1)

 

Below is information that will assist the evaluator in reviewing
NeuStar’s price proposal:

 

•                  Contract Line
Item Numbers (CLINs) – described in Section 2.1.1.

 

•                  The price model
used to develop, roll-up, and present the price for this contract is included
in Section 3.0; however, the model is briefly outlined in Section 2.1.2
below.  The price model includes a
detailed cost breakdown to allow the evaluator to ascertain labor costs and
hours, cost build up, indirect costs, other direct costs (ODCs), escalation
rates, and profit for the total contract.

 

2.1.1       CLIN Nomenclature

 

The following table (Table 2-1) identifies the CLINs defined in the
solicitation.  NeuStar, in its Price
Proposal uses the same CLINs as required. 
NeuStar has not deviated from the solicitation’s Cost Volume
requirements.

 

 

	
  Table 2-1. Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Nomenclature

  
	
   

  
	
  BASE YEAR

  
	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0001—Automated NANPA
  System Development and Implementation

  
	
  CLIN 0002—Transition to
  NANP Administration

  
	
  CLIN 0003—Reporting

  
	
  CLIN 0004—Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  
	
  CLIN 0005—Data Requirements
  (CDRLs)

  
	
   

  
	
  OPTION
  YEAR 1

  
	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0101—Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  
	
  CLIN 0102—NANP
  Administration

  
	
  CLIN 0103—Reporting

  
	
  CLIN 0104—Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  
	
  CLIN 0105—Data Requirements
  (CDRLs)

  
	
   

  
	
  OPTION
  YEAR 2

  
	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0201—Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  
	
  CLIN 0202—NANP
  Administration

  
	
  CLIN 0203—Reporting

  
	
  CLIN 0204—Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  
	
  CLIN 0205—Data Requirements
  (CDRLs)

  
	
   

  
	
  OPTION
  YEAR 3

  
	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0301—Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  
	
  CLIN 0302—NANP
  Administration

  
	
  CLIN 0303—Reporting

  
	
  CLIN 0304—Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  
	
  CLIN 0305—Data Requirements
  (CDRLs)

  
	
   

  
	
  OPTION
  YEAR 4

  
	
   

  
	
  CLIN 0401—Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  
	
  CLIN 0402—NANP
  Administration

  
	
  CLIN 0403—Reporting

  
	
  CLIN 0404—Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  
	
  CLIN 0405—Data Requirements
  (CDRLs)

  
	
  CLIN 0406—Transition

  

 

2.1.2       Price Model Definition

 

Pricing for this proposal, located at Section 3.0 herein, is
organized into six sub-sections which are as follows:

 

•                  Section 3.1
– Total price of the contract as provided on SF 1411 and summarized in a Total
Pricing Summary

 

 

•                  Section 3.2
– CLIN pricing summary

 

•                  Section 3.3
–Labor summary and detail depticting categories, hours, and blended Labor rates
by CLIN and by year

 

•                  Section 3.4
– Material summary and detail

 

•                  Section 3.5
– Other direct costs summary and detail

 

•                  Section 3.6
– Indirect cost summary

 

In addition, NeuStar developed it firm fixed price proposal using the
following assumptions:

 

•                  One person year
is 1,824 hours and one person month is 152 hours;

 

•                  Unburdened labor
rates are escalated by a 1.8% annual factor;

 

•                  Materials,
supplies, and general travel have been escalated at an annual rate of 0.2% and
air travel has been escalated at an annual rate of 1.3%.

 

The escalation, labor burden, and G&A rates are further described
below in Section 2.3.

 

2.2          Assumptions (L.5, M.2.C.1, M.2.C.2)

 

2.2.1       Labor Hours

 

Labor, by far, is the great cost contributor in NeuStar’s price.  As such, it is important to understand the
composition NANPA’s proposed work force. 
For convenience, NeuStar has grouped individual staff positions into
labor categories.  The mapping of NANPA
positions/titles to labor categories is shown in the following table (Table 2-2):

 

Table 2-2. NANPA Position/Title to Labor Category Mapping

 

	
  NANPA Position

  	
   

  	
  Labor
  Category

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Director, NANPA

  	
   

  	
  Program Director

  
	
  Sr. NPA Relief Planner

  	
   

  	
  NPA Relief Planning

  
	
  Sr. NPA Relief Planner

  	
   

  	
  NPA Relief Planning

  
	
  Sr. Manager, Data Analysis

  	
   

  	
  NRUF
  Administration\Reporting

  
	
  Manager, NRUF and Industry
  Liaison

  	
   

  	
  NRUF
  Administration\Reporting

  
	
  Sr. NRUF Administrator

  	
   

  	
  NRUF
  Administration\Reporting

  
	
  Regional Director, Code
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  

 

 

	
  Manager, NANP Resources

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Sr. Code Administrator – QA

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Code Administrator

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Code Administrator

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Code Administrator

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Program Manager

  	
   

  	
  Technical Manager

  
	
  Database Administrator

  	
   

  	
  Technical Support

  
	
  Customer Service
  Representative

  	
   

  	
  Technical Support

  
	
  Sr. Systems Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Systems Engineering

  
	
  Sr. Systems Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Systems Engineering

  
	
  System Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Systems Engineering

  
	
  System Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Systems Engineering

  
	
  Sr. Quality Assurance
  Engineer

  	
   

  	
  Systems Engineering

  
	
  Sr. AOCN Administrator

  	
   

  	
  Resource Administration

  
	
  Systems Administrator

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Security Engineer

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Network Engineer

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Web Master

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Director, Federal Relations

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Director, State Relations

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Director, Legal Analysis

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  
	
  Director, Software Quality
  Management

  	
   

  	
  G&A

  

 

Next, NeuStar has determined the proposed total labor hours for each
labor category, by year, and by CLIN. 
These total labor hours are shown in a NANPA Manpower Loading Table
(Table 2-3), which is located on the following pages.

 

The remainder of this section (Section 2.2.1, Labor Hours)
describes, in detail, how NeuStar arrived at the staffing levels for each NANPA
group, underlying labor categories, or NANPA positions.

 

 

TABLE 2.3 : MANPOWER LOADING TABLE

 

Base Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  0005

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program
  Director

  	
   

  	
  191

  	
   

  	
  396

  	
   

  	
  137

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  949

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Manager

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  1,664

  	
   

  
	
  Systems
  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  4,260

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  300

  	
   

  	
  4,560

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief
  Planning

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,412

  	
   

  	
  92

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,595

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF
  Administration/Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1,028

  	
   

  	
  1,616

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,556

  	
   

  
	
  Resource
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  568

  	
   

  	
  5,150

  	
   

  	
  283

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  6,226

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Support

  	
   

  	
  1,348

  	
   

  	
  1,733

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  339

  	
   

  	
  3,420

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  2,096

  	
   

  	
  1,751

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,847

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  10,494

  	
   

  	
  12,058

  	
   

  	
  1,424

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,841

  	
   

  	
  25,817

  	
   

  

 

Option Year
1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  0105

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program
  Director

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,369

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Manager

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  
	
  Systems
  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief
  Planning

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF
  Administration/Reporting

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  
	
  Resource
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Support

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  

 

Option Year
2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  0205

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program
  Director

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,369

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Manager

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  
	
  Systems
  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief
  Planning

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF
  Administration/Reporting

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  
	
  Resource
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Support

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  

 

 

Option Year
3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  0305

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program
  Director

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,369

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Manager

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief
  Planning

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF
  Administration/Reporting

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  
	
  Resource
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Support

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  

 

Option Year
4

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  0406

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Hours

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Program
  Director

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,278

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Manager

  	
   

  	
  274

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  
	
  Systems
  Engineering

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief
  Planning

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,375

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF
  Administration/Reporting

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  1,714

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  
	
  Resource
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  7,022

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  7,295

  	
   

  
	
  Technical
  Support

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  3,739

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  1,368

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  364

  	
   

  	
  1,914

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  2,089

  	
   

  	
  19,994

  	
   

  	
  2,351

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  1,001

  	
   

  	
  26,164

  	
   

  

 

 

 

 

CLIN 0001

 

System
Development Staffing

 

NeuStar, by virtue of its
experience in developing and deploying telecommunications software products,
e.g., National Thousands Block Pooling Administration System, NPAC, State
Pooling, etc., in maintaining those systems, and by proposing the inclusion of
certain NeuStar-developed software modules as building blocks, estimates that
the following system development team is required to perform the contract:

 

The system development
team is organized under the Program Manager, NANP Administration System (NAS),
who has extensive experience in successfully leading software development teams
that must perform within time constraints and under fixed budgets.  The Program Manager is assigned full time
responsibility for this contract and is responsible for the software
development and system integration for delivering the NAS to the Commission. He
reports to the Director of NANPA.

 

To develop the software,
NeuStar estimates, through the use of its internally developed and tested
resource metrics, that five highly qualified systems engineers, working full
time, will be required to develop, test, and implement the specified system

 

The dedication of a
Senior QA Engineer will ensure compliance with all performance and design
specifications.  The Senior QA Engineer
will report directly to the Program Manager, NAS.  This full time quality assurance professional
will develop the quality assurance plan, the systems test plan, and all other
directives to the development team to ensure compliance with the Commission’s
requirements.  This close relationship
between the program manager, the developers and quality assurance is key to the
successful and timely deployment of the NAS.

 

Operations
Staffing

 

In order to be compliant
with the Commission’s requirement to be ready for implementation of the North
American Number Plan Administrator Program immediately upon the Commission’s
acceptance of the NAS, NeuStar is proposing a team of operational
professionals. This team will facilitate the migration and transition of the
current NANPA.

 

The contract’s program
manager, under the title of NANPA Director, will be dedicated to the program
upon contract award, working 80% on the current NANPA and 20% on the new

 

 

contract.  He will manage all aspects of the contract,
including the timely and compliant delivery of the NAS and the transition of
the operational staff for full operational capability upon system
acceptance.  Thereafter, he will manage
the ongoing implementation and operation of the NANPA on a full-time basis.

 

Upon contract award, the
Database Administrator will come on board full-time.  This individual will begin familiarization of
the system hardware and purchased software for the trouble-free operation of
the Oracle database.  The system and
database redundancy designed into NeuStar’s system requires the Database
Administrator to be conversant with all aspects of seamless remote facility
operation.

 

As of the beginning of
the eighth month of the contract, the entire proposed operations staff will be
on board, trained, and ready for NAS implementation and administration.

 

CLINS 0002, 0102, 0202, 0302, and 0402

 

Staffing
for NPA Relief Planning

 

NeuStar has gained
extensive experience over the last five years in managing NPA relief planning
meetings, interacting with state regulatory agencies to address potential NPA
exhaust, managing jeopardy conditions and pending relief plans, and
facilitating other regulatory and industry meetings.  From this, NeuStar has concluded that two experienced
NPA relief planners are needed to perform the U.S. relief planning activities
required during the contract period.  The
projected relief planning workload includes new NPA relief plans that will be
initiated over the term of the contract, management of existing relief projects
pending before state regulators, facilitation of jeopardy meetings, industry
meetings to address the need to withdraw filed NPA relief plans where no state
regulatory action has taken place, and facilitation of meetings to address unavailable
central office codes.  Each NPA relief
planner will be responsible for a specific geographic territory (East and
West).  One of the relief planners will
be based in California to allow efficient and cost effective handling of the
many anticipated relief activities in that state.

 

The following table
(Table 2-4) highlights the NPAs where relief planning is projected to start
during the contract period.  NeuStar
estimates 37 new NPA relief activities, based upon our preliminary analysis of
the February 2003 NRUF forecast data submitted by service providers.  This information, combined with other
important factors affecting exhaust projections, for

 

 

example, the
quantity of available codes, the impact of local competition and the rollout of
number pooling, permits NeuStar to identify those NPAs where exhaust is
projected to occur and NPA relief planning is to be initiated.  It should be noted that industry guidelines
require NANPA to begin relief planning 36 months prior to the projected exhaust
date.  See Proposal Section I.3.2.1,
Relief Planning.

 

Table 2-4.  NPA Relief Planning Projects 3Q2003 through
2Q2008

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  Projected NPA

  Exhaust

  Year/Qtr.

  	
   

  	
  Relief Planning

  Initiated

  Year/Qtr.

  	
   

  	
  Explanation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  870

  	
   

  	
  Arkansas

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2003

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  505

  	
   

  	
  New Mexico

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2004

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  Earlier relief petition was dismissed by PSC
  in 2002

  
	
  580

  	
   

  	
  Oklahoma

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2004

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  517

  	
   

  	
  Michigan

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2004

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  406

  	
   

  	
  Montana

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  509

  	
   

  	
  Washington

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  Earlier relief petition was dismissed by PSC
  in 2002.

  
	
  757

  	
   

  	
  Virginia

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  Relief petition was dismissed by PSC in 2002.

  
	
  850

  	
   

  	
  Florida

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  256

  	
   

  	
  Alabama

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  417

  	
   

  	
  Missouri

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  843

  	
   

  	
  South Carolina

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  Assumes original relief petition is withdrawn.

  
	
  207

  	
   

  	
  Maine

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  Earlier relief plan was withdrawn by NANPA in
  2002.

  
	
  573

  	
   

  	
  Missouri

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  508/774

  	
   

  	
  Massachusetts

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  334

  	
   

  	
  Alabama

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  828

  	
   

  	
  North Carolina

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  620

  	
   

  	
  Kansas

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  803

  	
   

  	
  South Carolina

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  Assumes original relief petition is withdrawn.

  
	
  989

  	
   

  	
  Michigan

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  208

  	
   

  	
  Idaho

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  Earlier relief petition was dismissed by PSC
  in 2002.

  
	
  317

  	
   

  	
  Indiana

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  318

  	
   

  	
  Louisiana

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  518

  	
   

  	
  New York

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  Assumes original relief petition is withdrawn.

  
	
  910

  	
   

  	
  North Carolina

  	
   

  	
  2009

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2006

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  252

  	
   

  	
  North Carolina

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  802

  	
   

  	
  Vermont

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  845

  	
   

  	
  New York

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  337

  	
   

  	
  Louisiana

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  3Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  502

  	
   

  	
  Kentucky

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  701

  	
   

  	
  North Dakota

  	
   

  	
  2010

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
  2007

  	
   

  	
  4Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  309

  	
   

  	
  Illinois

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  Projected NPA

  Exhaust

  Year/Qtr.

  	
   

  	
  Relief Planning

  Initiated

  Year/Qtr.

  	
   

  	
  Explanation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  516

  	
   

  	
  New York

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  Assumes original relief petition is withdrawn.

  
	
  661

  	
   

  	
  California

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  1Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  212/646

  	
   

  	
  New York

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  401

  	
   

  	
  Rhode Island

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  Earlier relief plan was withdrawn by NANPA in
  2002.

  
	
  423

  	
   

  	
  Tennessee

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  716

  	
   

  	
  New York

  	
   

  	
  2011

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
  2008

  	
   

  	
  2Q

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

In addition to new relief
projects, there are ongoing relief projects that NANPA will be responsible for
managing until completion.  There are
presently 47 projects in which a state decision is pending or the industry has
yet to determine when the relief petition will be submitted to the state
regulators.  These are shown in Table
2-5.  Although NANPA has completed a
significant portion of the relief planning work for these area codes, many
other important tasks remain to be accomplished once a relief decision has been
made including:

 

•                  Requesting the assignment of a new NPA
relief code;

 

•                  Issuing a press release announcing the
details of the new NPA code;

 

•                  Scheduling and conducting the initial
implementation meeting;

 

•                  Publishing a planning letter on the web;

 

•                  Responding to requests for information
from the industry, regulators, and the public;

 

•                  Announcing changes to the relief plan
ordered by a state regulator, e.g., modifications to implementation dates,
publishing updated planning letters; and

 

•                  If necessary, declaring jeopardy and
conducting jeopardy meetings to determine a future reduced allocation of codes.

 

In addition, because
several years may have passed since initial relief planning was conducted, and
circumstances may have change significantly, state regulators may request NANPA
to refresh the record by updating the alternatives proposed.  For example, NeuStar recently updated the
relief alternatives for Wisconsin’s 715 NPA at the request of the Wisconsin
commission.

 

 

Table 2-5.
Pending NPA Relief Planning Projects

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Industry

  Recommended

  Relief Plan

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  469/214/972

  	
   

  	
  TX

  	
   

  	
  4Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/28/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  832/713/281

  	
   

  	
  TX

  	
   

  	
  4Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  3/7/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  209

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2012

  	
   

  	
  Overlay & Splits

  	
   

  	
  8/28/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  217

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  1Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  10/18/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  262

  	
   

  	
  WI

  	
   

  	
  3Q2010

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  270

  	
   

  	
  KY

  	
   

  	
  4Q2004

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/25/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  304

  	
   

  	
  WV

  	
   

  	
  1Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  6/21/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  315

  	
   

  	
  NY

  	
   

  	
  1Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  12/23/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  323

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay & 4 Splits

  	
   

  	
  1/31/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  336

  	
   

  	
  NC

  	
   

  	
  2Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/7/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  402

  	
   

  	
  NE

  	
   

  	
  1Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  9/15/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  405

  	
   

  	
  OK

  	
   

  	
  4Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  10/25/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  414

  	
   

  	
  WI

  	
   

  	
  3Q2015

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  440

  	
   

  	
  OH

  	
   

  	
  3Q2009

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  12/1/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  516

  	
   

  	
  NY

  	
   

  	
  1Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/15/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  518

  	
   

  	
  NY

  	
   

  	
  4Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/23/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  530

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  4/26/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  540

  	
   

  	
  VA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  11/3/99

  	
   

  	
  2/22/01

  	
   

  	
  3 Way Split

  	
   

  	
  Phase 1: 4/10/01 Phase
  2: TBD

  	
   

  
	
  541

  	
   

  	
  OR

  	
   

  	
  3Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  6/5/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  559

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2013

  	
   

  	
  Overlay & Split

  	
   

  	
  8/21/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  562

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2016

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  6/15/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  570

  	
   

  	
  PA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/20/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  601

  	
   

  	
  MS

  	
   

  	
  3Q2004

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  1/18/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  603

  	
   

  	
  NH

  	
   

  	
  2Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/18/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  609

  	
   

  	
  NJ

  	
   

  	
  3Q206

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  8/10/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  615

  	
   

  	
  TN

  	
   

  	
  4Q2010

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  8/31/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  618

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  2Q2004

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  10/19/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  626

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2014

  	
   

  	
  Overlay & 2
  Splits

  	
   

  	
  7/12/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  631

  	
   

  	
  NY

  	
   

  	
  1Q2007

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  1/25/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  662

  	
   

  	
  MS

  	
   

  	
  4Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/28/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  706

  	
   

  	
  GA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/9/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  715

  	
   

  	
  WI

  	
   

  	
  2Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  8/12/02

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  717

  	
   

  	
  PA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2007

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/30/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  765

  	
   

  	
  IN

  	
   

  	
  4Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/9/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  803

  	
   

  	
  SC

  	
   

  	
  1Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/23/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  805

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  7/17/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Industry

  Recommended

  Relief Plan

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  812

  	
   

  	
  IN

  	
   

  	
  4Q2004

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/1/02

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  814

  	
   

  	
  PA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2007

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  815

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  2Q2004

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  6/29/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  843

  	
   

  	
  SC

  	
   

  	
  3Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/23/01

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  856

  	
   

  	
  NJ

  	
   

  	
  3Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  8/10/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  908

  	
   

  	
  NJ

  	
   

  	
  4Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  1/27/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  916

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  7/30/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  918

  	
   

  	
  OK

  	
   

  	
  2Q2007

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  10/27/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  920

  	
   

  	
  WI

  	
   

  	
  2Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  925

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2013

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  7/30/99

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  949

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2017

  	
   

  	
  Overlay & Split

  	
   

  	
  7/27/00

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

There are 21 relief
projects in which relief planning has been suspended by state regulators.  These are shown in Table 2-6.  NeuStar has completed all of its activities,
but the relief projected has not yet been implemented due to changes in the
projected NPA exhaust date or action taken by the state.  NANPA may be directed to refresh the record
for these projects as a significant amount of time has passed since the relief
plan was filed with the state.  For example,
NeuStar recently updated the relief alternatives associated with California’s
909 NPA, updating a relief plan originally filed in December 1998.  NeuStar knows that California will continue
to request updates to filed relief plans twelve months prior to the projected
exhaust date.

 

Table 2-6.
Suspended NPA Relief Planning Projects

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Industry

  Recommended

  Relief Plan

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  205

  	
   

  	
  AL

  	
   

  	
  3Q2007

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/25/00

  	
   

  	
  4/2/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/27/01

  	
   

  
	
  206

  	
   

  	
  WA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2016

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/15/00

  	
   

  	
  8/28/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/10/00

  	
   

  
	
  253

  	
   

  	
  WA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2014

  	
   

  	
  None

  	
   

  	
  2/15/00

  	
   

  	
  5/10/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/10/00

  	
   

  
	
  314

  	
   

  	
  MO

  	
   

  	
  2Q2010

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  12/17/99

  	
   

  	
  10/24/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/10/00

  	
   

  
	
  321/407

  	
   

  	
  FL

  	
   

  	
  4Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/15/01

  	
   

  	
  3/25/02

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/23/02

  	
   

  
	
  360

  	
   

  	
  WA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/22/99

  	
   

  	
  5/10/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/10/00

  	
   

  
	
  408

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  8/20/98

  	
   

  	
  11/20/98

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  1/4/99

  	
   

  
	
  415

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2008

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  12/18/98

  	
   

  	
  4/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/28/99

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Industry

  Recommended

  Relief Plan

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  425

  	
   

  	
  WA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2014

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/15/00

  	
   

  	
  5/10/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/10/00

  	
   

  
	
  510

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2008

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  12/30/98

  	
   

  	
  4/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/28/99

  	
   

  
	
  512

  	
   

  	
  TX

  	
   

  	
  3Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  3/1/00

  	
   

  	
  4/19/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/15/00

  	
   

  
	
  513

  	
   

  	
  OH

  	
   

  	
  2Q2011

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  12/1/99

  	
   

  	
  10/28/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  3/13/01

  	
   

  
	
  614

  	
   

  	
  OH

  	
   

  	
  3Q2005

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  12/22/00

  	
   

  	
  5/17/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  7/25/01

  	
   

  
	
  619

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  1Q2013

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  2/18/98

  	
   

  	
  6/4/98

  	
   

  	
  3-Way Split

  	
   

  	
  Phase 1: NA Phase 2: TBD

  	
   

  
	
  650

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  1/22/99

  	
   

  	
  4/22/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/12/99

  	
   

  
	
  707

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2009

  	
   

  	
  Split w/Overlay or 3-Way
  Split

  	
   

  	
  7/30/99

  	
   

  	
  12/16/99

  	
   

  	
  3-Way Split

  	
   

  	
  1/26/00

  	
   

  
	
  714

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  2Q2006

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  11/30/98

  	
   

  	
  3/18/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/20/99

  	
   

  
	
  760

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2005

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  3/16/99

  	
   

  	
  7/8/99

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  8/12/99

  	
   

  
	
  816

  	
   

  	
  MO

  	
   

  	
  3Q2011

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  12/17/99

  	
   

  	
  10/24/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/30/00

  	
   

  
	
  909

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2003

  	
   

  	
  Overlay or Split

  	
   

  	
  12/7/98 6/14/02

  	
   

  	
  3/19/99

  	
   

  	
  Split/Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/20/99

  	
   

  
	
  919

  	
   

  	
  NC

  	
   

  	
  2Q2032

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  12/10/99

  	
   

  	
  3/13/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  4/5/01

  	
   

  

 

There are 19 completed
NPA relief projects in which NANPA is responsible for monitoring the quantity
of central office code assignments and determining when relief plans approved
by the state regulators need to be implemented “just in time” to prevent
exhaust.  These completed NPA relief
projects are shown in Table 2-7.

 

Table 2-7.
NPA Relief Planning Projects To Be Completed At Specific Trigger Points

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  	
  Explanation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  484/610

  	
   

  	
  PA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2005

  	
   

  	
  1/20/00

  	
   

  	
  4/4/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/18/00

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  240/301

  	
   

  	
  MD

  	
   

  	
  1Q2009

  	
   

  	
  5/12/00

  	
   

  	
  1/3/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/7/01

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  678/770

  	
   

  	
  GA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2019

  	
   

  	
  2/19/99

  	
   

  	
  2/6/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  3/8/01

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  443/410

  	
   

  	
  MD

  	
   

  	
  4Q2005

  	
   

  	
  5/12/00

  	
   

  	
  1/3/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  2/22/01

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  267/215

  	
   

  	
  PA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2008

  	
   

  	
  1/20/00

  	
   

  	
  4/4/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  5/18/00

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  203

  	
   

  	
  CT

  	
   

  	
  2Q2005

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  9/29/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/19/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  NPA

  	
   

  	
  Location

  	
   

  	
  NPA

  Exhaust

  	
   

  	
  Relief

  Filed

  w/PSC

  	
   

  	
  PSC

  Approval

  Received

  	
   

  	
  Type of

  Approved

  Relief

  	
   

  	
  Implementation

  Meeting Date

  	
   

  	
  Explanation

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  305

  	
   

  	
  FL

  	
   

  	
  3Q2005

  	
   

  	
  8/4/99

  	
   

  	
  11/10/00

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Implementation
  meeting to be held in future when NXXs in Florida Keys exhaust.

  	
   

  
	
  310

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2003

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  9/25/00

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  11/2/00

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when 8 codes remain

  	
   

  
	
  312

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  3Q2006

  	
   

  	
  11/18/98

  	
   

  	
  7/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/21/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  313

  	
   

  	
  MI

  	
   

  	
  4Q2012

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  9/12/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
  Implementation
  meeting to be held 12 months before exhaust in conjunction with 734 NPA.

  	
   

  
	
  630

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  2Q2004

  	
   

  	
  11/18/98

  	
   

  	
  7/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/21/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  708

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  4Q2008

  	
   

  	
  11/18/98

  	
   

  	
  7/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/21/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  716

  	
   

  	
  NY

  	
   

  	
  2Q2011

  	
   

  	
  7/21/98

  	
   

  	
  5/22/00

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  3/30/01

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  approved and will be completed 11/15/04

  	
   

  
	
  734

  	
   

  	
  MI

  	
   

  	
  4Q2011

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  9/12/01

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  TBD

  	
   

  	
  Implementation
  meeting to be scheduled 12 months before exhaust in conjunction with 313 NPA.

  	
   

  
	
  773

  	
   

  	
  IL

  	
   

  	
  3Q2006

  	
   

  	
  11/18/98

  	
   

  	
  7/1/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  9/21/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  
	
  801

  	
   

  	
  UT

  	
   

  	
  2Q2007

  	
   

  	
  11/4/99

  	
   

  	
  4/26/00

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
  5/18/00

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  approved and will be completed 9/30/05.

  	
   

  
	
  804

  	
   

  	
  VA

  	
   

  	
  3Q2012

  	
   

  	
  6/9/99

  	
   

  	
  12/7/00

  	
   

  	
  Split/Over.

  	
   

  	
  1/4/01

  	
   

  	
  First
  phase of relief to be completed 6/1/03.

  	
   

  
	
  818

  	
   

  	
  CA

  	
   

  	
  4Q2006

  	
   

  	
  2/12/99

  	
   

  	
  10/7/99

  	
   

  	
  Split

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Implementation
  date pending before PSC.

  	
   

  
	
  860

  	
   

  	
  CT

  	
   

  	
  2Q2005

  	
   

  	
  NA

  	
   

  	
  9/29/99

  	
   

  	
  Overlay

  	
   

  	
  11/19/99

  	
   

  	
  Relief
  to be implemented when underlying NPA exhausts.

  	
   

  

 

NeuStar’s estimate of the
number of relief planners is based upon the predicted number of new NPA relief
projects, the management of pending relief plans, and other ongoing activities
that NPA relief planners are involved.

 

Through careful analysis
of the 132 NPA relief projects initiated during the past five years, NeuStar
has identified the effort required to prepare, conduct and finalize a relief
plan.  Each new NPA relief project will
require approximately eight weeks of preparation time, which includes meeting
with state regulatory staff, requesting and reviewing detailed maps for each
proposed relief alternative, preparing the Initial Planning Document (IPD),
conducting the pre-IPD meeting, and updating the IPD.  This time also includes planning and
facilitating the NPA relief planning meeting(s), reviewing all relief
alternatives and reaching consensus on the relief

 

 

plan(s) to be
proposed to the state, creating meeting minutes, sending out notifications to
the industry and filing the relief plan with the state.  The estimate also includes any travel
necessary if the industry prefers to have a face-to-face relief planning
meeting rather than the normal conference call(s).

 

After the relief plan is
filed, NeuStar estimates that another five weeks of the relief planner’s time
is required over the course of the next two or more years monitoring the status
of the relief, conducting NPA jeopardy meetings if necessary, coordinating and
conducting other industry meetings associated with the relief project, such as
the examination of the unavailable codes in the NPA and answering questions
from regulators and the industry.  This
includes responding to state requests for data, preparing additional or
modified alternatives requested by the state regulatory staffs, updating relief
alternatives when significant time has passed since the relief alternatives
were created, and preparing for and attending public hearings.  Recently, relief planners have agreed to
facilitate meetings to discuss rescinding jeopardy, as well as the NPA relief
plan itself, when state regulatory action has not taken place and relief is no
longer necessary.

 

Once a relief decision is
rendered by the state, it takes another three weeks to request the new NPA,
develop and publish a press release announcing the new NPA and preparing for
and conducting the initial implementation meeting.  Part of this effort is preparing lists of
central office codes associated with the old and new NPA when an NPA split is
ordered and issuing an industry planning letter that highlights all the
specific dates and activities associated with the relief project.  When necessary, NPA relief planners develop
and publish additional planning letters to inform the industry of subsequent
state regulatory action that impacts the relief plan (e.g., suspension of the
relief project).  Also during this time,
NPA relief planners must be available to respond to state regulatory questions
and data requests as well as monitor industry implementation efforts and
provide assistance when necessary.

 

It is important to stress
that the estimates above require highly experienced relief planners.  Successful relief planning requires technical
depth, facilitation skills, and broad knowledge of telecommunications that
comes only with extensive experience. 
NeuStar’s relief planners have been seasoned during the most demanding
times in numbering history.  Therefore,
two highly experienced NPA relief planners with intimate knowledge of current
activities and

 

 

detailed
understanding of the intricacies of the relief planning process can effectively
manage all relief planning requirements over the contract term.

 

Experience has shown,
however, that there may be brief periods of time in which additional resources
are required.  To provide for this
contingency, NeuStar’s proposal includes other key personnel with substantial
relief planning experience.  For example,
our Senior Manager, Data Analysis served as an NPA relief planner for three
years, conducting or overseeing more than 20 relief projects.  In addition, the Regional Director, Code
Administration also served as an NPA relief planner for two years prior to
assuming her current position and was involved with nearly 40 relief projects.  The availability of these experienced
individuals helps to ensure that NeuStar can continue to meet required performance
measures despite variations in the workload.

 

Staffing
for Code Administration

 

NeuStar has extensive
experience in processing central office code applications.  During its tenure as NANPA, NeuStar processed
more than 150,000 central office requests, including requests for the
assignment, return, reservation, and change of codes.  Further, NeuStar understands that code
administration includes not only the processing of code applications but also ongoing
customer service to assist applicants in understanding and completing the application
process.  Using this knowledge, NeuStar
used a comprehensive approach to determine staffing requirements for the
contract period.  First, NeuStar
estimated the volume of central office code requests over the contract term and
identified those applications to be processed by the system with no human
intervention to determine the number of central office code administration
staff required.

 

Over the past five years,
NeuStar has noted significant variations in the number of code requests.  For example, from 1999 through mid-2001, more
than 3,000 applications were received each month on average.  Volumes decreased, however, after
implementation of the FCC Number Resource Optimization (NRO) orders, the
introduction of optimization measures such as wireline thousand block number
pooling, and the economic downturn of the telecommunications market.  Over the last few months, the number of code
applications has decreased again due the implementation of wireless number
pooling in November 2002.  As a result,
CO code volumes are now at their lowest levels since NeuStar assumed the NANPA
function in 1998, with an

 

 

average of 1,500
applications submitted a month since the introduction of wireless pooling. A
summary of the monthly requests is shown in Table 2.8.

 

Table 2-8.
Central Office Code Activity (January 2000 – March 2003)

 

	
  Month

  	
   

  	
  Requests

  	
   

  	
  Assignments

  	
   

  	
  Changes

  	
   

  	
  Denials

  	
   

  	
  Cancel

  	
   

  	
  Disconnects

  	
   

  	
  Reservations

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  January 00

  	
   

  	
  3,372

  	
   

  	
  1,276

  	
   

  	
  849

  	
   

  	
  247

  	
   

  	
  49

  	
   

  	
  179

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  February

  	
   

  	
  4,240

  	
   

  	
  1,649

  	
   

  	
  1,221

  	
   

  	
  208

  	
   

  	
  28

  	
   

  	
  227

  	
   

  	
  19

  	
   

  
	
  March

  	
   

  	
  4,533

  	
   

  	
  1,627

  	
   

  	
  1,393

  	
   

  	
  162

  	
   

  	
  93

  	
   

  	
  369

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  
	
  April

  	
   

  	
  4,083

  	
   

  	
  1,333

  	
   

  	
  1,073

  	
   

  	
  207

  	
   

  	
  66

  	
   

  	
  291

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  
	
  May

  	
   

  	
  4,127

  	
   

  	
  1,356

  	
   

  	
  1,259

  	
   

  	
  189

  	
   

  	
  51

  	
   

  	
  437

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  
	
  June

  	
   

  	
  4,486

  	
   

  	
  1,437

  	
   

  	
  1,212

  	
   

  	
  274

  	
   

  	
  86

  	
   

  	
  195

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  July

  	
   

  	
  4,745

  	
   

  	
  1,328

  	
   

  	
  1,214

  	
   

  	
  713

  	
   

  	
  113

  	
   

  	
  253

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  
	
  August

  	
   

  	
  4,633

  	
   

  	
  1,112

  	
   

  	
  1,456

  	
   

  	
  848

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
   

  	
  283

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  September

  	
   

  	
  4,048

  	
   

  	
  1,057

  	
   

  	
  1,045

  	
   

  	
  617

  	
   

  	
  53

  	
   

  	
  282

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  
	
  October

  	
   

  	
  4,748

  	
   

  	
  1,453

  	
   

  	
  1,173

  	
   

  	
  669

  	
   

  	
  121

  	
   

  	
  393

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  November

  	
   

  	
  3,834

  	
   

  	
  942

  	
   

  	
  1,071

  	
   

  	
  387

  	
   

  	
  92

  	
   

  	
  360

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  December

  	
   

  	
  3,609

  	
   

  	
  840

  	
   

  	
  992

  	
   

  	
  316

  	
   

  	
  59

  	
   

  	
  393

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  2000
  TOTAL

  	
   

  	
  50,458

  	
   

  	
  15,410

  	
   

  	
  13,958

  	
   

  	
  4,837

  	
   

  	
  881

  	
   

  	
  3,662

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
   

  
	
  January 01

  	
   

  	
  4,373

  	
   

  	
  959

  	
   

  	
  1,414

  	
   

  	
  841

  	
   

  	
  104

  	
   

  	
  789

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  February

  	
   

  	
  4,590

  	
   

  	
  817

  	
   

  	
  1,922

  	
   

  	
  1412

  	
   

  	
  64

  	
   

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  March

  	
   

  	
  6,980

  	
   

  	
  1,319

  	
   

  	
  3,660

  	
   

  	
  1333

  	
   

  	
  89

  	
   

  	
  575

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  April

  	
   

  	
  3,514

  	
   

  	
  754

  	
   

  	
  1,541

  	
   

  	
  839

  	
   

  	
  37

  	
   

  	
  334

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  May

  	
   

  	
  5,143

  	
   

  	
  1,358

  	
   

  	
  1,757

  	
   

  	
  1,392

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  556

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  June

  	
   

  	
  4,224

  	
   

  	
  1,024

  	
   

  	
  1,589

  	
   

  	
  1,087

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  430

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  
	
  July

  	
   

  	
  3,439

  	
   

  	
  768

  	
   

  	
  981

  	
   

  	
  831

  	
   

  	
  73

  	
   

  	
  750

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  August

  	
   

  	
  3,140

  	
   

  	
  734

  	
   

  	
  1,124

  	
   

  	
  787

  	
   

  	
  132

  	
   

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  September

  	
   

  	
  2,974

  	
   

  	
  610

  	
   

  	
  937

  	
   

  	
  891

  	
   

  	
  38

  	
   

  	
  498

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  October

  	
   

  	
  3,102

  	
   

  	
  836

  	
   

  	
  1,008

  	
   

  	
  763

  	
   

  	
  92

  	
   

  	
  398

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  
	
  November

  	
   

  	
  2,912

  	
   

  	
  617

  	
   

  	
  1,133

  	
   

  	
  465

  	
   

  	
  70

  	
   

  	
  627

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  December

  	
   

  	
  2,893

  	
   

  	
  602

  	
   

  	
  1,337

  	
   

  	
  468

  	
   

  	
  109

  	
   

  	
  377

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  2001
  TOTAL

  	
   

  	
  47,284

  	
   

  	
  10,398

  	
   

  	
  18,403

  	
   

  	
  11,109

  	
   

  	
  954

  	
   

  	
  6,058

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  
	
  January 02

  	
   

  	
  3,132

  	
   

  	
  491

  	
   

  	
  1,254

  	
   

  	
  630

  	
   

  	
  102

  	
   

  	
  655

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  February

  	
   

  	
  2,821

  	
   

  	
  557

  	
   

  	
  1,593

  	
   

  	
  462

  	
   

  	
  77

  	
   

  	
  132

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  March

  	
   

  	
  3,180

  	
   

  	
  683

  	
   

  	
  1,388

  	
   

  	
  587

  	
   

  	
  110

  	
   

  	
  412

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  April

  	
   

  	
  6,047

  	
   

  	
  896

  	
   

  	
  3,570

  	
   

  	
  731

  	
   

  	
  181

  	
   

  	
  669

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  May

  	
   

  	
  3,121

  	
   

  	
  792

  	
   

  	
  1,495

  	
   

  	
  414

  	
   

  	
  74

  	
   

  	
  346

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  June

  	
   

  	
  2,586

  	
   

  	
  704

  	
   

  	
  1,238

  	
   

  	
  320

  	
   

  	
  79

  	
   

  	
  425

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  Month

  	
   

  	
  Requests

  	
   

  	
  Assignments

  	
   

  	
  Changes

  	
   

  	
  Denials

  	
   

  	
  Cancel

  	
   

  	
  Disconnects

  	
   

  	
  Reservations

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  July

  	
   

  	
  2,335

  	
   

  	
  576

  	
   

  	
  1,131

  	
   

  	
  314

  	
   

  	
  107

  	
   

  	
  207

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  August

  	
   

  	
  2,788

  	
   

  	
  855

  	
   

  	
  1,407

  	
   

  	
  315

  	
   

  	
  58

  	
   

  	
  153

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  September

  	
   

  	
  2,125

  	
   

  	
  523

  	
   

  	
  970

  	
   

  	
  332

  	
   

  	
  72

  	
   

  	
  227

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  
	
  October

  	
   

  	
  2,626

  	
   

  	
  623

  	
   

  	
  1,263

  	
   

  	
  382

  	
   

  	
  106

  	
   

  	
  252

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  November

  	
   

  	
  1,269

  	
   

  	
  220

  	
   

  	
  661

  	
   

  	
  220

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
   

  	
  135

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  December

  	
   

  	
  1,567

  	
   

  	
  258

  	
   

  	
  852

  	
   

  	
  241

  	
   

  	
  45

  	
   

  	
  171

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  2002
  TOTAL

  	
   

  	
  33,597

  	
   

  	
  7,178

  	
   

  	
  16,822

  	
   

  	
  4,948

  	
   

  	
  1,044

  	
   

  	
  3,604

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  
	
  January 03

  	
   

  	
  1,348

  	
   

  	
  354

  	
   

  	
  587

  	
   

  	
  193

  	
   

  	
  30

  	
   

  	
  184

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  February

  	
   

  	
  1,491

  	
   

  	
  261

  	
   

  	
  748

  	
   

  	
  194

  	
   

  	
  79

  	
   

  	
  209

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  March

  	
   

  	
  1,895

  	
   

  	
  282

  	
   

  	
  1190

  	
   

  	
  201

  	
   

  	
  62

  	
   

  	
  140

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

In addition to the
reduction in overall demand, there has also been a change in the mix of code
requests processed.  During the first few
years of NeuStar’s NANPA term, the number of monthly assignment requests
outnumbered the quantity of changes and other types of requests.  In 2000, the mix began to change, and change
requests became the dominant type of requests. 
Since January 2002, half of the central office code applications
processed by NANPA were for changes to existing records, while assignments made
up only 20% of the applications approved. 
Of these assignments, 65% to 70% were for initial codes.  Further, the number of returned codes
increased significantly as the telecommunication market experienced a downturn,
making up 10% of the applications processed. 
This trend continues today, with change requests being the largest
number of requests processed by NANPA.

 

To estimate future
volumes, NeuStar examined future technologies and services that may stimulate
number demand and thereby increase code activity.  These included Voice over the Internet
Protocol (VoIP), convergence of the Internet and telephone address spaces
(ENUM), and expansion of wireless services (e.g., disposable phones).  Other areas potentially impacting number
assignment include CLEC migration into residential markets, duplicating numbers
for disaster recovery (e.g., homeland security), and the introduction and
proliferation of soft switches, which allow entities to enter the
telecommunications business without significant investment.

 

In estimating future
demand for numbers, one must also consider that overall network access line
growth rate is declining, and many second lines are being absorbed by cable and

 

 

alternative
technologies.  According to industry
analysts, wireless penetration is approaching saturation and expected to grow
more slowly.  In addition, new technologies
may provide ways to use existing numbers more efficiently, lessening the demand
for new numbers.

 

Further offsetting any
potential increase in the demand for numbers are a vast array of optimization
initiatives that can minimize or negate this demand.  These include wireless and wireline number
pooling, increasing utilization thresholds for growth codes to 70% in June 2003
and 75% in 2004, rate center consolidation, and continued close monitoring by
regulatory agencies of service provider utilization as reported via the Number
Resource Utilization and Forecast (NRUF) reporting.  Voluntary number pooling is being implemented
in rate centers outside the top 100 MSAs, and may offer another opportunity for
increased number utilization if, in the future, regulators order mandatory
pooling in these LNP-capable rate centers. 
In addition, new optimization measures are available for future
consideration by regulatory authorities. 
Measures such as unassigned numbering porting (UNP), individual
telephone number pooling, increasing block contamination levels from the
current 10% requirement, and charging for telephone numbers are policy actions
that may be deployed in addition to the optimization initiatives already in
place.

 

Simply put, the
optimization initiatives introduced by the FCC beginning in 2000 will enable
the industry to better absorb any significant increase in telephone number
demand.  Although there may be spikes in
demand over the next five years, NeuStar fully expects that current and future
numbering optimization measures will prevent an explosion of central office
code assignments and therefore any increase in telephone number will have a
limited impact on the quantity of code applications processed by NANPA.

 

Based upon the above
information, NeuStar believes that the number of applications processed over
the last five months, since the implementation of wireless number pooling in November
2002, provides the most likely model for future demand.  Current volume of code requests will remain
approximately 1,500 to 2,500 applications per month, with approximately 50% of
the applications being change requests.

 

The next step in the
process was to determine the quantity of applications that can be processed
automatically by the system.  As stated
previously, approximately 50% of all applications are changes.  Typical changes requested are modifications
to the operating company number (OCN) associated with a code assignment or
updates to the switch identification and

 

 

tandem homing
arrangement.  Based upon historical data,
these types of changes represent approximately 75% of all changes made, meaning
that they may be processed in a mechanized manner, ostensibly without human
intervention.  The remaining 25% of
changes will require human intervention.

 

NeuStar also examined the
other types of applications submitted by service providers to determine if
mechanized processing could be implemented. 
Assignments make up about 20% of the expected demand, with nearly 70% of
these being applications for initial codes. 
These requests require human intervention due to the detailed
documentation the FCC requires the service provider to submit to NANPA as proof
of certification to provide service and network readiness.  In addition, a primary reason for denying
code applications is the failure of service providers to provide the necessary
documentation required for an initial code assignment.  Finally, applications returning central
office codes currently make up approximate 10% of the applications processed by
NANPA.  These requests require human
intervention to determine if there are ported telephone numbers within the
returned code and, if so, to take appropriate steps to find another code holder
to avoid possible customer service disruption. 
NeuStar expects that these types of applications will continue to slowly
decline as the telecommunications industry recovers from the current economic
situation.

 

After the monthly demand
was estimated, NeuStar’s code administration group estimated the number of
codes that each administrator can reasonably process while continuing to meet
performance requirements.  Based upon
internal NeuStar force load studies, which examined the number of applications
a code administrator can process within the industry guidelines’ requirement of
ten working days, highly experienced code administrators can process up to 400
central office code requests requiring manual intervention per month.  The following table (Table 2-9) shows the
results of these estimates.

 

Table 2-9.
CO Code Application Processing Productivity Analysis

 

	
  Code

  Requests

  	
   

  	
  Efficiency %

  	
   

  	
  Effective Code

  Requests

  	
   

  	
  Code Requests

  per CA

  	
   

  	
  Code Administrators

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  1500

  	
   

  	
  55

  	
  %

  	
  825

  	
   

  	
  400

  	
   

  	
  3

  	
   

  
	
  2000

  	
   

  	
  55

  	
  %

  	
  1100

  	
   

  	
  400

  	
   

  	
  3

  	
   

  
	
  2500

  	
   

  	
  55

  	
  %

  	
  1375

  	
   

  	
  400

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  

 

 

As a result, NeuStar
proposes three central office code administrators, supervised by a senior code
administrator, who will also process code applications.  A Regional Director, Code Administration,
will oversee this group.

 

The FCC can be confident
that NeuStar, as demonstrated during its term as the NANPA, will obtain
additional resources if central office code volumes are significantly higher
than our projections.  Many of our
proposed NANPA staff are experienced in code processing.  Our help desk staff, who is a highly
experienced code administrator, will be available to process applications in
those times when volumes spike.  In
addition, our Senior AOCN Administrator is a former code administrator and
therefore trained in this process. 
Finally, other members of our staff will be cross-trained in code
administration so that they may step in and provide assistance if necessary.

 

Data
Analysis and Industry Liaison

 

NeuStar’s Data Analysis
and Industry Liaison Group fulfills the data reporting and analysis
requirements of the contract.  This group
is comprised of a Senior Manager, Data Analysis, an NRUF Manager and Industry
Liaison, and a Sr. NRUF Administrator. 
These three people are necessary to meet the Commission’s requirements
throughout the duration of the contract.

 

The Senior Manager, Data
Analysis oversees the production of data reports and analysis.  He will develop the semi-annual NPA and NANPA
exhaust projections and, based upon data gathered via the NRUF process and code
assignment information, change these projections as necessary.  Additionally, he will perform the analysis
necessary to generate the numerous NRUF reports required by the
Commission.  He will produce ad hoc
reports requested by NANPA staff and federal and state regulatory agencies in
support of their numbering oversight efforts. 
Finally, he will supervise and ultimately be responsible for the
activities of the Manager, NRUF and Industry Liaison and Sr. NRUF
Administrator.

 

The NRUF Manager and
Industry Liaison will directly manage the NRUF reporting process.  She will notify service providers of the
requirement to submit utilization and forecast data semi-annually.  She will oversee the collection, storage and
analysis of service provider-specific data, ensuring that the NRUF reporting
requirements are implemented in accordance with the FCC orders and
directives.  Additionally, she will be
responsible for updating and maintaining the NRUF job aid, and implement our
training and education initiatives on the

 

 

NRUF reporting
process for service providers and state regulatory agencies.  Additionally, she will serve as NANPA’s
representative to the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) and provide direct input
to the INC about the day-to-day operations of the administrator.  In this role, she will report directly the
NANPA Program Director.  She will also
supervise the Sr. NRUF Administrator..

 

The Sr. NRUF
Administrator will work directly with service providers in the NRUF reporting
process.  She will be responsible for
analyzing service provider submissions, identifying any errors or anomalies,
and communicating these finding to service providers so that they may be
corrected.  She will also provide
assistance to service providers in completing and submitting the Form 502.  Past experience with NRUF processing clearly
shows the need to dedicate one full-time person to this process.

 

Manager,
NANP Resources

 

The Manager, NANP
Resources will be responsible for the assignment and administration of the
Feature Group B CICs; Feature Group D CICs; 456-, 500-, and 900-NXX
resources;  800-855 and 555 line numbers;
VSCs; and ANI II digits.  In this
position, she will process applications for these resources, follow-up with
applicants to ensure they meet assignment criteria, which is quite often due to
the nature of these resources.  She will
also analyze Feature Group B and Feature Group D Access and Usage reports to
identify CIC resources that are subject to reclamation.  She will perform any tasks required to ensure
that the phase-out of non-dialable toll points has been completed.  Finally, she will investigate, where
necessary, the use of these resources in order to ensure conformance with FCC
directives and industry guidelines.

 

Customer
Service Representative (Help Desk)

 

The Customer Service Representative
will be responsible for general customer service and Help Desk related
items:  general troubleshooting, handling
questions on user login/passwords, general client assistance, logging trouble
tickets, and managing the customer satisfaction efforts.

 

Senior
Code Administrator – Quality Assurance

 

The Senior Code
Administrator – Quality Assurance will be responsible for training code
administrators, developing methods and procedures for code administration,
working with and

 

 

providing information
for auditors, providing client feedback, collecting and interpreting performance
metrics, including quality improvement, and developing and presenting internal
training.

 

Senior
AOCN Administrator

 

The Senior AOCN
Administrator will manage the Administrator Operating Company Number (AOCN)
Enterprise Service by entering rating and routing data into BIRRDS upon request
from code applicants.  This includes
reviewing the submitted information, assisting with the preparation of the
information and the actual inputting of the data in the associated
databases.  From a cost perspective, this
position is not included in the NANPA staffing requirements since revenues from
this service are used to offset the direct costs associated with this function.

 

NANP
Administration System Staff

 

To maintain the NANP
Administration System (NAS), NeuStar has assigned a dedicated technical staff
to the contract to ensure system availability and integrity.  This staff includes the Program Manager, two
Senior Systems Engineers and a Database Administrator.  The Program Manager will be responsible of
the overall maintenance of the NAS hardware and software.  In addition, this position will work directly
with the Senior Systems Engineers, which are responsible for software development,
and the Customer Service Representative to address issues concerning the access
and use of the NAS.  The Database
Administrator will be responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data
contained in the NAS.  In addition to the
full time staff, NeuStar will provide support from its General &
Administrative-funded Information Technology organization throughout the
duration of the contract: Systems Administrator (50% dedicated); Security
Engineer (30% dedicated); Network Engineer (10% dedicated); and Web Master (20%
dedicated).  The estimated time in
support of the NANPA by these G&A-funded resources is not delimiting.  The assigned personnel will support the
program to the extent necessary for compliant operations no matter the level of
effort required.

 

External
Relations Group and Quality Assurance

 

The External Relations
Group and Corporate Software Quality Assurance provides regulatory, legal, and
compliance support.  This group is
comprised of a Director, Federal Relations; Director, State Relations;
Director, Legal Analysis; and Director, Software Quality

 

 

Assurance.  Since these functions do not require
dedicated, full-time staff, these resources will come from NeuStar Corporate
resources and are included in NeuStar’s G&A rate.

 

The Director, Federal
Relations will liaise with the Commission on NANPA and numbering related
issues.  This position will review
regulatory orders and directives, respond to them as necessary and provide
ongoing communications with the Commission, to include coordinating quarterly
meetings between NeuStar and FCC staff to discuss numbering and other relevant
topics.  The Director, State Relations,
will perform a similar role from a state perspective.  This position will interface with state
regulatory agencies and facilitate communications between NANPA and the states
by coordinating bi-monthly meetings to discuss NANPA and numbering-relating matters.  The Director, Legal Analysis is responsible
for performing or overseeing all legal activities of NANPA.  Included in the role is performing necessary
legal research, working with NANPA staff to prepare any testimony and filings
involving NANPA, including NPA relief planning, before state and federal
regulatory agencies and the courts.  The
Director, Software Quality Assurance will, through direct oversight, ensure
that all quality assurance requirements of the company and the customer are
strictly adhered to in the performance of the system development,
implementation and operation of the NAS.

 

2.2.2       Materials - System Hardware

 

To achieve the best
solution for the NAS, NeuStar leveraged its past experience in developing
client/server applications with online transaction and distribution of
information capabilities.  Taking the
system requirements into consideration, NeuStar evaluated several options, and
has carefully selected the most logical, cost-effective architecture design to
fully meet the Commission’s NANP Administration System requirements—while offering
maximum flexibility and scalability in the future.

 

NeuStar’s NAS Production
Environment provides a fully redundant NAS, offering both a primary site,
located in Sterling, Virginia, as well as a fully functional backup site in
Charlotte, North Carolina.  This
architecture will allow NeuStar to satisfy the availability requirements outlined
in the requirements, given the ability to switchover during any prolonged
Primary site outage, and run the NAS indefinitely, and in a fully functional
manner, from the backup site in Charlotte. 
This switchover is made possible by the fact that a complete and
up-to-date database will be kept at the backup site.  This will be made possible using advanced
database replication capability.  Since
the backup site facility is shared between Development, Testing and

 

 

Production backup,
any development and/or testing taking place at the backup site would cease
until the Primary site is made operational again.

 

NeuStar’s hardware
configuration provides ample capability to meet the needs of NeuStar’s
developers.  The hardware, listed below, is
capable of supporting all of the selected software development tools to be used
in building the NAS.  The Production
Backup System will also be used as the Development Environment hardware as well
as the Test Environment hardware, ensuring that full use is made of the
equipment.  The major components of each
system, per site, include:

 

•                  Router—1 Cisco 3660

 

•                  Intrusion detection—1 NFR Security NID
Server

 

•                  Switch—1 3Com Superstack II

 

•                  Firewall—1 Nokia IP350

 

•                  Load balancer—1 Cisco 11050 Content Switch

 

•                  Switch1—Cisco 3524

 

•                  Web server—2 Dell 1650

 

•                  Application server—2 Dell 1650

 

•                  FTP server—1 Dell 1550

 

•                  Batch application server—1 Dell 1550 (1
of the 2 servers is a transfer from the preexisting CAS architecture)

 

•                  Database server—1 Sun Microsystems SunFire
V880

 

The basis of estimate for
the system hardware is actual quotes. 
Although the contemplated contract is fixed price, GSA pricing was
obtained for NAS hardware and software, as title to it will be vested in the
FCC.  In the event that GSA pricing is
not authorized for system components under the contract, NeuStar will assume
the risk that it can negotiate comparable pricing on a commercial basis,
leveraging volume purchasing power.  A
comparison of the GSA prices to commercial quotes for the same hardware was
made, and the lower price quote was included in the price build-up.  GSA pricing is, by definition, considered to
be fair and

 

 

reasonable.  For commercial items for which there is no
comparable GSA price, the published price list price, or a discount there from,
is considered to be fair and reasonable.

 

Other
Equipment

 

Equipment in this
category includes desk top for code administrators and laptop computers for
other professional staff, wireless telephones, and other office equipment.  All NANPA employees will commence the
contract with their current computer, with anticipated replacement one-time
during the contract in year three. 
Wireless telephones and other office equipment will be replaced in
accordance with NeuStar’s corporate replacement policies for such incidental
equipment from the G&A pool.

 

The basis of estimate for
this equipment is the quoted market prices published by the manufacturer, and
are considered fair and reasonable.  If
no quote was available from the manufacturer, then NeuStar used the published
prices from national chain discount stores such as Office Depot, Best Buy,
CompUSA, etc. as the basis of estimate, all of which are considered to be fair
and reasonable prices.

 

2.2.3       Materials - System Software

 

The software components
of NeuStar’s NAS include: the operating systems, Database Management System,
the Application and Web Servers, and Knowledge Based Software.

 

The Sun V-880 Server
comes bundled with Solaris version 8.0, Sun’s own Unix-based operating system.  Solaris supports multi-threading and is
well-matched with the chosen database (Oracle).

 

For the Pentium-Class
servers, although Windows NT or another Unix-based operating system could be
used, NeuStar has chosen Red Hat Linux for a number of reasons.  Foremost among them is the fact that DELL
recommends Linux for use in building high availability systems on PowerEdge
Servers.

 

The database will be a
critical component of the NAS’ success: it must be available at least 99.9% of
the time throughout the year and must operate in a failsafe manner, providing a
switchover capability.  In order to
provide a switchover capability, there must be a second database that remotely
mirrors the primary database so that the system does not become unavailable
should the primary database server experience an outage.  The chosen database must support advanced
replication in order to eliminate the Single-Point-Of-Failure that would exist
in

 

 

a system with only
one database server.  In light of these
requirements, NeuStar has selected the use of Oracle9i as the database management
system.

 

The Oracle9i database is
highly scalable.  High scalability is
primarily achieved through the use of connection pooling and multiplexing.
Connection pooling and multiplexing allows the database to support a large
number of concurrent users. Table partitioning, which allows the database to be
split across multiple disk devices, thus sharing the load.  Oracle9i’s ability to perform online
maintenance and reorganization of the database while the data is being accessed
and updated by users dramatically reduces planned downtime.  These online maintenance capabilities improve
data availability, query performance, response time, and disk space utilization
- all important to the 24x7 Enterprise operation, and thus make it well suited
for use in NeuStar’s NAS.  Additionally,
Oracle9i’s Fast-Start architecture minimizes unplanned downtime, by providing
near instantaneous and predictable recovery from system faults.  Oracle9i’s advanced manageability functionality
offers the capacity to support an abundance of users from centrally managed
servers, reducing total cost of ownership, while ensuring Enterprise-caliber
quality of service.

 

The DELL PowerEdge
Pentium-Class Servers will run the NAS’ J2EE-enabled application servers.  In particular, these machines will run
WebLogic Server, the software that NeuStar has chosen to provide the
application servers.  The NAS will use a
total of four Pentium-Class servers as application servers, with two being deployed
at the main production site and two being deployed at the backup site.  This configuration provides both single and
multi-site hardware redundancy.

 

NeuStar has chosen Apache
HTTP Server as the web server software for the NAS.  Apache HTTP Service is open-source software
and is available at no cost from Apache Software.

 

Applied Innovation
Management’s “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service” has been selected as the
help desk and knowledge-based software solution for the NAS.  “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service” is a
web-based external help desk system designed specifically for hardware and
software product support.  Customers can
use the system 24 hours a day to get answers to frequently asked questions
(FAQs); search the knowledge base, application notes, service packs or support
news; submit a service request; or download fixes.  Customers can also upload error messages or
other text to the support desk for faster problem resolution.  Features and benefits of “HelpDesk Expert for
Customer Service” include:

 

 

•                  Web-based – It works like any other web
page.

 

•                  No learning curve – Anyone who can use a
browser can easily learn to use “HelpDesk Expert for Customer Service.”

 

•                  Searchable Database – Customers can find
out if a problem has been previously submitted by using the software’s search
function.

 

•                  Searchable Knowledge Database – Customers
and staff can use free text queries to search the knowledgebase of support
information.

 

•                  Uses relational databases (Oracle) to
store all help desk information.

 

NeuStar has selected
Checkpoint’s FireWall-1 product.  This
software delivers a highly scalable solution that is able to integrate and
centrally manage all aspects of network security.  FireWall-1 is based upon Stateful Inspection
technology, the de facto standard for firewall security, and is integrated into
the Nokia Firewall hardware.

 

The basis of estimate for
the system software is actual quotes. 
Even though the contemplated contract is firm fixed price, GSA pricing
was obtained for NAS software, title to which will vest in the FCC.  In the event that GSA purchasing is not
authorized under the contract, NeuStar will take the risk that it can negotiate
comparable prices through volume purchasing power leverage. A comparison of the
GSA prices to commercial quotes for the same software was made, and the lower
price quote was included in the price buildup. 
GSA pricing is, by definition, considered to be fair and
reasonable.  For commercial items for
which there is no comparable GSA price, the published price list price, or a
discount therefrom, is considered to be fair and reasonable.

 

Other
Software

 

QTEL 9000 (CO code
conflicts). This commercially available software provides a national telcom
tariff database, and is used by NeuStar to prevent code assignment
conflicts.  The software is offered at
commercial pricing and is considered to be fair and reasonable.

 

GDT maps (NPA relief
planning). This commercially available software produces maps that are used in
NPA relief planning projects.  The
software is offered at commercial pricing and is considered to be fair and
reasonable.

 

 

LERG (code administration
software). This commercially available software is used by code administrators
in the performance of code assignments. 
The software is offered at commercial pricing and is considered to be
fair and reasonable.

 

2.2.4       ODCs - Facilities and Furnishings

 

•                  Rent—Estimated at $2.60/sq. ft.

 

•                  Furnishings—NeuStar proposes to use the existing
office furnishings in the leasehold property above.  All such furnishings are fully depreciated
and will be used at no cost to the project.

 

•                  Furnishings (Other)—Office furnishings for the virtual
employees will be the fully expensed furnishings currently in use by those
employees at no cost to the project.

 

•                  Facilities (Other)—All facility costs for NeuStar offices in
Sterling, VA and the data center in Charlotte, NC are corporate expenses
recovered through its G&A expense rate.

 

2.2.5       ODCs - Travel

 

NeuStar has estimated the
travel expenses based upon its experience and knowledge of the NANP
administration requirements to attend certain industry meetings as well as to
make the trips necessary to perform the contract requirements, as follows.  Assumes NANPA Operations start at end Month 7
of the contract.

 

Number of
Trips

 

•                  INC Meetings = 3/year x 5 days = 15 days
(base year) – 6/year x 5 days = 30 days (thereafter)

 

•                  NANC Meetings = 3/year x 1 day (local in
DC) (base year) - 6/yr x 1 day (local) (thereafter)

 

•                  NOWG (Face-to-Face) = 3/year x 1 day
(local in DC) (base yr) – 6/yr x 1 day (local) (thereafter)

 

•                  NOWG Operations Meetings = 1/yr x 2 day x
4 staff = 8 days (every year

 

•                  Jeopardy NPA Meetings = 0

 

•                  NPA Relief Meetings = 2/year x 1 day x 2
staff = 4 days (base year); 4/year x 1 day x 2 staff =  8 days (thereafter)

 

 

•                  Canada/Caribbean = 1/year x 2 days = 2
days (base year); 2/year x 2 days = 4 days (thereafter)

 

•                  Study Group A = 2/year x 1 day (local in
DC) (base year); 4/year x 1 day (local) (thereafter)

 

•                  NANPA Director = 2/year x 2 days = 4 days
(base year); 4/year x 2 days = 8 days (thereafter)

 

After identifying the
trips required, NeuStar estimated the duration of each trip as set forth in the
table (Table 2-10) below:

 

Table 2-10
Estimated Duration of Trips

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Year 1

  	
   

  	
  Year 2

  	
   

  	
  Year 3

  	
   

  	
  Year 4

  	
   

  	
  Year 5

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Days

  	
   

  	
  41

  	
   

  	
  58

  	
   

  	
  58

  	
   

  	
  58

  	
   

  	
  58

  	
   

  
	
  Trips

  	
   

  	
  18

  	
   

  	
  24

  	
   

  	
  24

  	
   

  	
  24

  	
   

  	
  24

  	
   

  

 

Travel
Expenses:

 

•                  Hotel Nights

 

•                                                                                   15% of the days require 0 night stay

 

•                                                                                   80% of the days require 1 night stay

 

•                                                                                   5% of the days require 2 nights stay

 

•                  Meals - $50/day x number of days

 

•                  Car - $36/day x number of days

 

•                  Lodging - $150/day x number of days (per
percentage breakdown above)

 

•                  Air Fare – $500/ trip based on NeuStar’s
2002 actual costs

 

Travel expenses for
ongoing operations are then distributed to the CLINs.

 

2.2.6       ODCs - Other

 

Telecommunications

 

NeuStar estimated
telecommunications costs of $120 per person per month.

 

Office
Supplies

 

NeuStar estimated its
cost of supplies for the contract at $80.00 per person per month.

 

 

Postage/Shipping

 

NeuStar
estimated its cost for postage and shipping for all staff at $30.00 per person
per month.

 

Printing

 

NeuStar
estimated the cost of printing at $30.00 per person per month.

 

Equipment
Rental

 

None

 

Dues/Subscriptions

 

Dues/Subscriptions
are approximately $35,000 per year based on previous experience.

 

Leasehold
Improvements

 

No
leasehold improvements are contemplated during the contract period.

 

Employee
Bonuses

 

Employee
bonuses are estimated based on 2002 actual bonuses for the levels of personnel
projected for this contract.  Because
bonuses are not added to the employees base salary, and are exclusive of fringe
benefits, their treatment, for cost estimating purposes, as an ODC, is appropriate.

 

2.3                               RATES

 

The
rationale and explanation of NeuStar’s rates for labor, labor burden, G&A,
and escalation, included in the pricing model, appear below.

 

NeuStar’s
Burden and G&A rates, reviewed by DCAA, without questioned or disallowed
costs, are used in Neustar’s cost reimbursement contract.  NeuStar’s cost accounting system, based on
Soloman accounting system software, collects and allocates costs in a manner
acceptable for government cost type contracts and uses generally accepted
accounting procedures.  NeuStar welcomes
any review of its accounting system and proposed rates to validate its estimated
costs.

 

 

Labor
Rates

 

In September 2000,
NeuStar employed the services of Watson Wyatt Worldwide to conduct a review of
salary levels of different positions in NeuStar.  Using position descriptions and data gathered
during job analysis meetings as well as market data from surveys gathered from
various company types (e.g., national, telecommunications industry, high
technology, revenue of approximately $200 million), Watson Wyatt developed appropriate
minimum and maximum salary ranges for over 45 NeuStar positions.  This assessment was used as input in
determining appropriate labor rates for NeuStar salaried employees, including
the software development team and the NANP Administration staff.  A follow-up review of NeuStar labor
categories and salaries by Watson Wyatt Worldwide is scheduled for mid-2003.  We expect that NeuStar’s is paying “market”
rates for its human capital.

 

Labor
Burden Allocation Rate:

 

The
NeuStar Labor Burden rate is 33.25% of base salary.  This rate is calculated by allocating all of
the below-listed expenses over the wages paid to employees.

 

Labor
Burden captures all costs associated with an individual’s employment beyond
their base salary (all NeuStar employees are offered the same benefits
packages). The expenses include, but are not limited to FICA, unemployment
benefits, health, dental, eye and life insurance, short-term disability,
vacation and holidays, and retirement benefits.

 

The
NeuStar Labor Burden rate is consistent with the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) 2001 and 2nd Quarter 2002 rates for Private Industry employees
and for Professional Specialty and Technical Occupations in private
industry.  The rate of 33.25% is less
than the employer cost for employee compensation for companies based in the
Northeast, for companies with 500 or more white collar employees, and for
companies in the communications industry. 
Based on the BLS data, NeuStar’s Labor Burden rate of 33.25% is
considered to be fair and reasonable.

 

General
and Administrative Expense Allocation Rate

 

The
calculated National Pooling contract final 2002 G&A rate submitted to DCAA
for review is 20.53%. NeuStar has projected a 2003 rate of 20.53%, 2004 rate of
19.5%, 2005 rate of 18%, 2006 rate of 17.5%, and 2007 rate of 17%.  NeuStar predicts a decrease in the G&A
rate due to an anticipated increase in direct business expenses to support
wireless LNP and other business opportunities.

 

 

The
continued success of the NANPA program, NeuStar believes, is crucial to the
industry, the FCC, and the reputation of NeuStar.  With this
in mind, NeuStar has elected to contribute to the costs of the NANPA through
cost sharing all indirect costs of the program. 
Therefore, in this firm fixed price proposal, no G&A ($0) is
included in the price.  As required
by FAR Part 31, recovery of the allocated G&A to any contract awarded
as a result of this proposal will be recovered through the profits of NeuStar
and not through allocation of these indirect costs to other programs.  It should be noted that in NeuStar’s
commercial business, G&A is not considered to be a cost, but is a part of
margin (profit), which is estimated and proposed, accordingly.  Therefore, this cost share on the part of
NeuStar does not represent a loss on this anticipated fixed price contract
under its traditional business model and accounting practices.

 

Escalation
Rates

 

In
order to properly price the estimated costs of operation of the NANPA during
the option years of the contract, NeuStar looked to the actual inflations
rates, by specific category, in the data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS).  The actual experience for the
period reported by the BLS ending March 2003 was used for each and every
option year, because, in NeuStar’s estimation, this experience is
representative of inflationary trends for the foreseeable future.  The factor used for Labor is the actual
experience reflected in the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for wages and salaries
for private workers in the white collar professional, specialty and technical
category. The factor used for Other Direct Costs is the experience of the
Consumer Price Index – US City Average less Food and Energy Costs.  The Airline Travel experience during the most
recent 12-month period has been one of decreasing prices, however, this trend
is expected to end.  The rate used for
escalation of airline travel is the CPI – US City Average including Food and
Energy Costs.  These rates of escalation,
estimated firm for the next five years, are considered to be fair and
reasonable.  It should be noted that BLS
does not forecast escalation for future periods.

 

The
escalation factors used by NeuStar are:

 

	
  •

  	
  Labor:

  	
   

  	
  1.8%

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •

  	
  Airline Travel

  	
   

  	
  1.3%

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  •

  	
  All Other Direct
  Costs

  	
   

  	
  0.2%

  	
   

  

 

 

2.4                               Reduction

 

NeuStar
is the current NANP Administrator, and will continue to administer the NANP on
a month-to-month basis under the firm-fixed-price arrangement dated January 31,
2003 between the FCC and NeuStar (the “Month-to-Month Arrangement”) until NANPA
operations cuts over to the new NANP Administration System as specified in the
NANPA Transition Plan attached to the solicitation.  If awarded a contract under this
solicitation, NeuStar is able to provide the FCC with a price reduction as a
result of NeuStar’s unique position as the incumbent NANP Administrator.  This price reduction (the “Reduction”) is
derived from NeuStar’s position as the incumbent operating under two
complementary NANPA contractual vehicles, which in no way puts NeuStar in a
loss position.

 

Accordingly,
NeuStar will apply the Reduction to all of the CLINs in the Base Year.  Because the amount of the Reduction is
essentially equivalent to the price for the Base Year, all of the CLINs – CLIN
0001, CLIN 0002, CLIN 0003, CLIN 0004, and CLIN 0005 – in the Base Year are
priced at $0.  It is assumed for pricing purposes that at
the end of Month 7 of the new contract, NeuStar will cut-over the operations of
the current NANPA to the new NANP Administration System, and the need for the
Month-to-Month Arrangement will simultaneously cease.

 

The
Reduction is clearly identified in the cost breakdown in Section 3.0 of
this Cost Volume as a below-the-line-subtraction from the prices of CLINs 0001
through 0005.

 

 

NANPA 3.1 Costs

 

 

	
  North American
  Numbering Plan Administration

  	
   

  	
  

  

 

TOTAL PRICE SUMMARY

 

	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  Base Scenario

  	
   

  	
  Total

  NANPA Price

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  Automated NANPA
  System Development and Implementation

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  Transition to
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  0005

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Base
  Year

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  
	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,016,832

  	
   

  
	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  
	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  
	
  0105

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Year 1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  
	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  
	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  
	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  
	
  0205

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Year 2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  
	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  
	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  
	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  
	
  0305

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Year 3

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  133,789

  	
   

  
	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,048,966

  	
   

  
	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  147,800

  	
   

  
	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  
	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,760

  	
   

  
	
  0406

  	
   

  	
  Transition

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,679

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Year 4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Firm-Fixed Price – Base Year Plus Four Option Years:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,686,487

  	
   

  

 

Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of
this proposal

 

 

	
  CONTRACT
  PRICING PROPOSAL COVER SHEET

  	
  1. 
  SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

  	
  OMB
  No.:9000-0013

  
	
  (Cost
  or Pricing Data Required)

  	
  SOL03000001

  	
  Expires:
   09/30/98

  
	
  Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
  estimated to average 4 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
  instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
  data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send comments regarding this burden
  estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information including
  suggestions for reducing this burden, to the FAR Secretariat (VRS), Office of
  Federal Acquisition Policy, GSA, Washington, DC 20405.

  
	
  2a.  NAME OF OFFEROR

  NeuStar,
  Inc

  	
  3a.  NAME OF OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT

  Gregory J. A. Roberts

  	
   

  3c.  TELEPHONE

  
	
  2b.  FIRST LINE ADDRESS

  46000
  Center Oak Plaza

  	
  3b.  TITLE OF OFFEROR’S POINT OF CONTACT

  Vice President, Numbering Services

  	
  AREA
  CODE

  571

  	
  NUMBER

  434-5580

  
	
  2c.  STREET ADDRESS

  	
  4.  TYPE OF
  CONTRACT ACTION (Check)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  a.     NEW
  CONTRACT

  	
   

  	
  d.     LETTER
  CONTRACT

  
	
   

  	
  X

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2d.  CITY

  	
  2e.  STATE

  	
  2f.  ZIP CODE

  	
   

  	
  b.           CHANGE ORDER

  	
   

  	
  e.           UNPRICED ORDER

  
	
  Sterling

  	
  VA

  	
  20166

  	
   

  	
  c.           PRICE REVISION/

  	
   

  	
  f.            OTHER (Specify)

  
	
  5.  TYPE OF CONTRACT (Check)

  	
   

  	
        REDETERMINATION

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FFP 

  	
  CPFF

  	
  CPIF

  	
  CPAF

  	
  6.  PROPOSED
  COST (A+B=C)

  
	
  FPI

  	
  OTHER (Specify)    

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A.
  COST

  	
  B.
  PROFIT/FEE

  	
  C.
  TOTAL

  
	
   

  	
  $5,686,487

  	
  $0

  	
  $5,686,487

  
	
  7.  PERFORMANCE

  
	
  PLACE 

  	
  a.

  	
  46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA  20166

  	
  PERIOD

  	
  a.

  	
  1
  year + 4 option years

  
	
  b.

  	
   

  	
  b.

  	
   

  
	
  8.   List and reference the identification, quantity and total price
  proposed for each contract line item. 
  A line item cost breakdown supporting this recap is required unless
  otherwise specified by the Contracting Officer.  (Continue on reverse,
  and then on plain paper, if necessary. 
  Use same headings.)

  
	
  a.  LINE ITEM
  NO.

  	
  b. 
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
  c.  QUANTITY

  	
  d.  TOTAL PRICE

  	
  e.  PROP. REF.
  PAGE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  SEE
  ATTACHED

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9.  PROVIDE THE
  FOLLOWING  (If
  available)

  
	
  NAME OF CONTRACT
  ADMINISTRATION OFFICE

  none

  	
  NAME
  OF AUDIT OFFICE

  Southern
  NJ Branch Office

  
	
  STREET ADDRESS

   

  	
  STREET
  ADDRESS

  Wooderest
  Pavilion, 10 Melrose Ave, Suite 200

  
	
  CITY

   

  	
  STATE

   

  	
  ZIP
  CODE

   

  	
  CITY

  Cherry
  Hill

  	
  STATE

  NJ

  	
  ZIP
  CODE

  08003

  
	
  TELEPHONE

  	
  AREA
  CODE

   

  	
  NUMBER

   

  	
  TELEPHONE

  	
  AREA
  CODE

  856

  	
  NUMBER

  354-7550

  
	
  10.   WILL YOU
  REQUIRE THE USE OF ANY GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS
  WORK?  (If “yes,”
  identify)

  YES        NO

  	
  11a.    DO YOU REQUIRE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT
  FINANCING TO PERFORM THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT? 
  (If “yes,” complete Item 11b.)

  	
  11b.  TYPE OF FINANCING  (Check one)

  
	
  ADVANCE
  

  PAYMENT

  	
  PROGRESS
  PAYMENTS

  
	
  GUARANTEED
  LOANS

  
	
   

  	
  YES         NO

  	
   

  
	
  12.         HAVE YOU BEEN AWARDED ANY CONTRACTS OR
  SUBCONTRACTS FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR ITEMS WITHIN THE PAST 3 YEARS?  (If “yes,” identify
  item(s), customer(s) and contract number(s) on reverse of form.)

  YES        NO

  	
  13.         IS THIS PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH YOUR
  ESTABLISHED ESTIMATING AND ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES AND FAR PART 31,
  COST PRINCIPLES?  (If “no,”
  explain on reverse of form.)

  YES         NO

  
	
  14.  COST
  ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (CASB) DATA 
  (Public Law 91-379 as amended and FAR PART 30)

  
	
  a.                WILL THIS CONTRACT ACTION BE SUBJECT TO
  CASB REGULATIONS?  (if “no,”
  explain in proposal.)

   

  	
  b.                HAVE YOU SUBMITTED A CASB DISCLOSURE
  STATEMENT (CASB DS-1 or 2)? (If “yes,” specify in
  proposal the office to which submitted and if determined to be adequate.)

  
	
  YES        NO   Monetary Exemption

  	
  YES        NO

  
	
  c.                HAVE YOU BEEN NOTIFIED THAT YOU ARE OR MAY BE
  IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH YOUR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR COST ACCOUNT
  STANDARDS?  (if “yes,”
  explain in proposal.)

  YES        NO

  	
  d.                IS ANY ASPECT OF THIS PROPOSAL
  INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR DISCLOSED PRACTICES OR APPLICABLE COST ACCOUNTING
  STANDARDS?  (if “yes,”
  explain in proposal.)

  YES        NO

  
	
  This proposal is
  submitted in response to the solicitation, contract, modification, etc. in
  Item 1 and reflects our estimates and/or actual costs as of this date and
  conforms with the instructions in FAR 15.804-6(b)(1), and Table 15-2.  By submitting this proposal, the offeror,
  if selected for negotiation, grants the contracting officer and authorized
  representative(s) the right to examine, at any time before award, those
  records, which include books, documents, accounting procedures and practices,
  and other data, regardless of type and regardless of whether such items are
  in written form, in the form of computer data, or any other form, or whether
  such supporting information is specifically referenced or included in the
  proposal as the basis for pricing, that will permit an adequate evaluation of
  the proposed price.

  
	
  15.   NAME OF
  OFFEROR  (Type)

  Gregory J. A. Roberts

  	
  15.   TITLE OF
  OFFEROR  (Type)

  Vice President, Numbering Services

  	
  16.   NAME OF
  FIRM

  NeuStar, Inc

  
	
  17.   SIGNATURE

  	
  18.   DATE OF
  SUBMISSION

  
	
   

  	
  12 May 03

  
	
  AUTHORIZED FOR
  LOCAL REPRODUCTION

  	
  STANDARD FORM 1411 
  (REV. 10-95)

  
	
  Previous edition
  is not usable.

  	
  Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.215-2(a)

  
																																			

 

 

SF 1411 ATTACHMENT

 

Base
Year

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL
  PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  Automated NANPA System Development and
  Implementation

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.1

  	
   

  
	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  Transition to NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2

  	
   

  
	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0005

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Initial
  Year

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option
Year 1

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL
  PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,016,832

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.3

  	
   

  
	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0105

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 1

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option
Year 2

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL
  PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  NANP
  Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.3

  	
   

  
	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0205

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 2

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

Option
Year 3

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL
  PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.3

  	
   

  
	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to
  Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0305

  	
   

  	
  Data
  Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option Year 3

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 4

 

	
  CLIN

  	
   

  	
  IDENTIFICATION

  	
   

  	
  QUANTITY

  	
   

  	
  TOTAL
  PRICE

  	
   

  	
  PROP.REF.PAGE

  	
   

  
	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  Automated System
  Support (operation and maintenance)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  133,789

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.1.5.5

  	
   

  
	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  NANP Administration

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  %

  	
  1,048,966

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.3

  	
   

  
	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  147,800

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.7

  	
   

  
	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  Travel, Not to Exceed Amount

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 2.2.5

  	
   

  
	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  Data Requirements (CDRLs)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,760

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
  0406

  	
   

  	
  Transition

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,679

  	
   

  	
  Vol. 1, Section 1.2.6

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total—Option
  Year 4

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450,340

  	
   

  	
  N/A

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Firm-Fixed Price — Base Year Plus Four Option
  Years:

  	
   

  	
  $5,686,487

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
												

 

 

 

NANPA 3.2  Cost

 

 

	
  North American
  Numbering Plan Administration

  	
   

  	
  

  

 

PRICE BREAKDOWN – YEAR / CLIN /
CATEGORY

 

Base Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  332,766

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  313,080

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  53,909

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  74,703

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  774,458

  	
   

  
	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,662

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,274

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,275

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,342

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  245,499

  	
   

  
	
  Indirect Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,645

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,099

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,925

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  24,839

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  257,507

  	
   

  
	
  Profit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,258,643

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  521,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80,109

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,883

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,991,034

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Reduction

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  (1,258,643

  	
  )

  	
  $

  	
  (521,453

  	
  )

  	
  $

  	
  (80,109

  	
  )

  	
  $

  	
  (19,945

  	
  )

  	
  $

  	
  (110,883

  	
  )

  	
  $

  	
  (1,991,034

  	
  )

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

Use or
disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the
title page of this proposal.

 

 

Option
Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  94,383

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  613,378

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,654

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,870

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  837,285

  	
   

  
	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,512

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  199,507

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,436

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,757

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,981

  	
   

  
	
  Indirect Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  203,948

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,470

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,597

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  278,397

  	
   

  
	
  Profit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,016,832

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,016,832

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  96,082

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  624,407

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  99,412

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  852,345

  	
   

  
	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  39,156

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  39,156

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,705

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  200,984

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,639

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,823

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  263,110

  	
   

  
	
  Indirect Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,947

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  207,615

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,054

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,788

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  283,405

  	
   

  
	
  Profit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,812

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  635,647

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,201

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,028

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  867,688

  	
   

  
	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,901

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,845

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,890

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  265,273

  	
   

  
	
  Indirect Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,522

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,352

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,649

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,982

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  288,506

  	
   

  
	
  Profit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 4

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0401

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0402

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0403

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0405

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0406

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  90,565

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  635,104

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  99,187

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,622

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,802

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  886,280

  	
   

  
	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,110

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,690

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  23,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,958

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,634

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  269,372

  	
   

  
	
  Indirect Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30,113

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,172

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,980

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,179

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,244

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  294,688

  	
   

  
	
  Profit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  133,789

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,048,966

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  147,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  23,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,760

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,679

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450,340

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  133,789

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,048,966

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  147,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  23,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,760

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,679

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450,340

  	
   

  

 

 

NANPA 3.3

 

 

	
  North American
  Numbering Plan Administration

  	
   

  	
  

  

 

LABOR SUMMARY AND DETAIL

 

Base Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  $’s/ Hr

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  
	
  Program Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  54.68

  	
   

  	
  191

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,331

  	
   

  	
  396

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,805

  	
   

  	
  137

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,447

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,280

  	
   

  	
  949

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  51,893

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Manager

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  45.86

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41,651

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  752

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34,653

  	
   

  	
  1,664

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  76,304

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  44.80

  	
   

  	
  4,260

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  190,635

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  300

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,667

  	
   

  	
  4,560

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  204,302

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  40.34

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,609

  	
   

  	
  1,412

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  57,013

  	
   

  	
  92

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,715

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,595

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  64,337

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF Administration/

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34.83

  	
   

  	
  1,028

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36,155

  	
   

  	
  1,616

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  52,617

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,100

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,556

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  123,872

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  26.87

  	
   

  	
  568

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,019

  	
   

  	
  5,150

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  138,629

  	
   

  	
  283

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,618

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  225

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  6,057

  	
   

  	
  6,226

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  167,323

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25.27

  	
   

  	
  1,348

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,366

  	
   

  	
  1,733

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  43,015

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  339

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,047

  	
   

  	
  3,420

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  86,428

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  2,096

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,751

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,847

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  10,494

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  332,766

  	
   

  	
  12,058

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  313,080

  	
   

  	
  1,424

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  53,909

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,841

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  74,703

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  774,458

  	
   

  

 

Use or
disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the
title page of this proposal.

 

 

Option Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  $’s/ Hr

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  
	
  Program Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  55.56

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,056

  	
   

  	
  1,368

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  76,061

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,168

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,056

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,340

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Manager

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  46.91

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,391

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,391

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42,782

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  45.97

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  62,513

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  62,513

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  40.74

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,208

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,415

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,622

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF Administration/

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34.95

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121,103

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  70,128

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  191,231

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27.16

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  193,220

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,943

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  198,163

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25.39

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,423

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  81,787

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,423

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  92,633

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  94,383

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  613,378

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,654

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,870

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  837,285

  	
   

  

 

 

Option Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  $’s/ Hr

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  
	
  Program Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  56.56

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,147

  	
   

  	
  1,369

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  77,430

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,441

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,147

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  103,164

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Manager

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47.75

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,776

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,776

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  43,552

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  46.79

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  63,638

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  63,638

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  41.47

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  143,749

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,548

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  151,298

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF Administration/

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35.58

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  123,283

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  71,391

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  194,673

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27.65

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  196,687

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,032

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  201,719

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25.85

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,521

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  83,259

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,521

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  94,300

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  96,082

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  624,,407

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  99,412

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,444

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  852,345

  	
   

  

 

 

Option Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  $’s/ Hr

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  
	
  Program Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  57.58

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,240

  	
   

  	
  1,369

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  78,823

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,719

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,240

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  105,021

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Manager

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48.61

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  22,168

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  22,168

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  44,336

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47.64

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  64,784

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  64,784

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42.22

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,466

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  146,337

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,684

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  154,021

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF Administration/

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.22

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  125,502

  	
   

  	
  1,805

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  72,676

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  198,177

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28.15

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,114

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  200,227

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,123

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,296

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  205,350

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  26.32

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,620

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  84,757

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,620

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  95,998

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,550

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,732

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2,271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,812

  	
   

  	
  20,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  635,647

  	
   

  	
  2,442

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,201

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,028

  	
   

  	
  25,892

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  867,688

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 4

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rate

  $’s/ Hr

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0401

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0401

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0402

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0402

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0403

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0403

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0405

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0405

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0406

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0406

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Hours

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  Total

  Labor $’s

  	
   

  

	
  Program Director

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  58.61

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,334

  	
   

  	
  1,278

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  74,849

  	
   

  	
  273

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  16,002

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,334

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,381

  	
   

  	
  1,824

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  106,900

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Manager

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49.58

  	
   

  	
  274

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,560

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  456

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  22,567

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,087

  	
   

  	
  912

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  45,215

  	
   

  
	
  Systems Engineering

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48.49

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,950

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,360

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,950

  	
   

  
	
  NPA Relief Planning

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42.98

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,375

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,016

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,822

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,946

  	
   

  	
  3,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  156,785

  	
   

  
	
  NRUF

  Administration/

  Reporting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.87

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  3,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  127,761

  	
   

  	
  1,714

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  70,148

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,870

  	
   

  	
  5,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  201,779

  	
   

  
	
  Resource Administration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28.85

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  7,022

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  201,195

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,215

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,631

  	
   

  	
  7,295

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  209,041

  	
   

  
	
  Technical Support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  26.91

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,721

  	
   

  	
  3,284

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  86,283

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,721

  	
   

  	
  91

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,886

  	
   

  	
  3,739

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  100,612

  	
   

  
	
  G and A

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,368

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  364

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  1,914

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2,089

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  90,585

  	
   

  	
  19,994

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  635,104

  	
   

  	
  2,351

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  99,187

  	
   

  	
  —

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  729

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,622

  	
   

  	
  1,001

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,802

  	
   

  	
  26,164

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  888,280

  	
   

  

 

 

NANPA 3.4 Costs

 

 

	
  North American
  Numbering Plan Administration

  	
   

  	
  

  

 

MATERIALS SUMMARY

 

Base Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  0005

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  
																								

 

Option Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  0105

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
																								

 

Option Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  0205

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  39,156

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  39,156

  	
   

  
																								

 

Option Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  0305

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
																								

 

Option Year 4

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLINs

  	
   

  	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  0406

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Materials

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  39,156

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  752,726

  	
   

  

 

Use or disclosure
of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page
of this proposal.

 

 

CLIN
0001 BILL OF MATERIALS

 

	
  TYPE

  	
   

  	
  HW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  HW

  SPEC.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  SW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  YRS

  	
   

  	
  PART

  	
   

  	
  DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  PRICE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ISP

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  T-1
  Line for Sterling (Monthly Rate for 5 years/60Mths) – ISP>Qwest

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,903

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  T-1
  Line for Charlotte (Monthly Rate for 5 years/60Mths) – ISP>BellSouth

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  45,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Routers
  (Network)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Cisco
  3660 Routers

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CISCO3662-AC

  	
   

  	
  Dual
  10/100 6-slot modular router, AC power, IP SW

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  NM-1FE2W

  	
   

  	
  1
  Port 10/100 Ethernet, 2WIC slots Network Module

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,840

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  WIC-1DSU-T1

  	
   

  	
  1
  Port Serial w/FR T1–T1 DSU/CSU WAN Interface Card

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  600

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  WIC-1T

  	
   

  	
  1
  Port Serial WAN Interface Card

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  300

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  NM-1HSSI

  	
   

  	
  1
  Port HSSI Module

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
  CON-SNTP-PKG13

  	
   

  	
  Cisco
  SmartNet 24x7x4 Maintenance, 1 year

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  29,390

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Firewall
  Server

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  424054

  	
   

  	
  Nokia
  IP350 Base System Bundle NKA-NBB0350000 (Each server contains the following:)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,994

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-4
  Port NIC card per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-OS
  IPSO 3.6 FCS 6v

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-Power
  Supply per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
  424067

  	
   

  	
  1-Nokia
  Access 7x24 Support IP350 NKA-NSP 5001350 (5 yrs for each server)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CPVP-VIG-250-V41

  	
   

  	
  Checkpoint
  VPN-1 250 IP License Firewall w/Mgmt Console

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,400

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
  SS-CPVP-VIG-250

  	
   

  	
  Software
  Subscription – 1 yr renewals

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,650

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Taps
  (Network)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  96317

  	
   

  	
  NetOptics
  10/100 Base T Tap; 8 ports (Model $98317; replaces the 96276)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,580

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Full
  Duplex Rack Mountable, DUAL 12V DC Power Supplies for Redundancy

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  96045

  	
   

  	
  19:
  Rack Mount Frame (Hold 3 Taps each)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  118

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTP
  Server

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dell
  1550 (Each server contains the following:)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-CPU
  per server\1.14GHZ Intel Pentium III

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2-Hard
  Drives per server (Each box w/73 GB 10k SCSI RPM hardrives with Raid)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  512
  MB of RAM per server (Change from 1GB)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3-NIC
  cards per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-Redundant
  Power Supply per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-RedHat
  Linux OS Advanced Server 2.1v (24x7 Support)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,190

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Hub
  (Network)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3C16460

  	
   

  	
  3Com
  SuperStack II Baseline Switch

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  450

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7x5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  TYPE

  	
   

  	
  HW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  HW

  SPEC.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  SW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  YRS

  	
   

  	
  PART

  	
   

  	
  DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  PRICE

  	
   

  
	
  IDS
  Server

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Load
  Balancer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CSS-11051-AC

  	
   

  	
  CISCO
  CSS11050 Load Balancer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,798

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dimensions:
  2.62”x17”x15” (HxWxD)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Fixed
  Slot Configuration

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  5.0
  Gbps (Switch Bandwidth)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CSS-PWR-USA

  	
   

  	
  100-240
  VAC, 50-60 Hz (AC)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3.1A
  (Mas-Current AC)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310W
  (Max-Power Consumption)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CSS-11051-AC

  	
   

  	
  8-10/100
  Base-TX ports

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CSS-11052-AC

  	
   

  	
  1-1000
  Base-SX port

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  29,390

  	
   

  
	
  Switch
  (Network)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  WS-C3524-XL-EN

  	
   

  	
  Cisco
  3524XL-EN; 24 port 10/100 autosensing, (2) 1000X GBIC Slots

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,690

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  WS-G5484

  	
   

  	
  CISCO
  1000Base-SX-GBIC

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  450

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CAB-AC

  	
   

  	
  Power
  Cord, 110V

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
  CON-SNTP-PKG4

  	
   

  	
  24x7x4
  Svc, 24-10/100 and 2 GBIC ports; Std Multilayer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,740

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Web
  Servers

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  220-8606

  	
   

  	
  PowerEdge
  DELL 1650\Pentium III-T, 1.4GHz, 512K Cache, Base

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  311-2926

  	
   

  	
  GB
  SDRAM, 133 MHZ 2x512, PE1650 (Memory)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1357

  	
   

  	
  AC
  Power Option (Video Card)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  430-0288

  	
   

  	
  PCI
  Riser, 2x64/66 (Video Memory)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3602

  	
   

  	
  73
  GB 10k RPM Ultra 160 SCSI (Hard Drive)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3605

  	
   

  	
  RAID
  on Motherboard, PERC3-DI, 128MB, w/Documentation (Hard Drive Controller)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3612

  	
   

  	
  1.44
  MB, 3.5” (Floppy Disk Drive)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  420-0236

  	
   

  	
  Windows
  2000 Server, 5 Client Access Licenses, English (OS)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1261

  	
   

  	
  Dell OpenManage Kit, 32-bit (OS)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  430-8991

  	
   

  	
  Dual
  On-Board NICS Only (NIC)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  313-0317

  	
   

  	
  24x IDE Internal, Black (CD-ROM)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  313-0868

  	
   

  	
  Bezel
  Option (Sound Card)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  311-1586

  	
   

  	
  3
  Bay SCSI Hard Drive Backkplane, (1” only) (Speakers)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-0438

  	
   

  	
  Electronic
  Documentation (Documentation Diskette)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3602

  	
   

  	
  73GB
  10K RPM Ultra 160 SCSI Hard Drive (Addt’l Storage Product)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3606

  	
   

  	
  MRO,
  ROMB 0, C2 (Feature)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1354

  	
   

  	
  Rapid
  Rails for Rack (Feature)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1358

  	
   

  	
  Power
  Supply, 275W, AC, Redundant

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  900-2962

  	
   

  	
  Type
  2 Contract – Same Day 4 hr 7x24 Parts and Labor On-Site Response

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,200

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-RedHat
  Linux OS Advanced Server 2.1v Series (24x7 Support)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,190

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  TYPE

  	
   

  	
  HW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  HW

  SPEC.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  SW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  YRS

  	
   

  	
  PART

  	
   

  	
  DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  PRICE

  	
   

  
	
  App
  Servers

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  220-8606

  	
   

  	
  PowerEdge
  DELL 1650\Pentium III-T, 1.4GHz, 512K Cache, Base

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  311-2926

  	
   

  	
  GB
  SDRAM, 133 MHZ 2x512, PE1650 (Memory)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1357

  	
   

  	
  AC
  Power Option (Video Card)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  430-0288

  	
   

  	
  PCI
  Riser, 2x64/66 (Video Memory)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3602

  	
   

  	
  73
  GB 10k RPM Ultra 160 SCSI (Hard Drive)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3605

  	
   

  	
  RAID
  on Motherboard, PERC3-DI, 128MB, w/Documentation (Hard Drive Controller)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3612

  	
   

  	
  1.44
  MB, 3.5” (Floppy Disk Drive)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  420—-236

  	
   

  	
  Windows
  2000 Server, 5 Client Access Licenses, English (OS)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1261

  	
   

  	
  Dell OpenManage Kit, 32-bit (OS)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  430-8991

  	
   

  	
  Dual
  On-Board NICS Only (NIC)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  313-0317

  	
   

  	
  24x IDE Internal, Black (CD-ROM)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  313-0888

  	
   

  	
  Bezel
  Option (Sound Card)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  311-1586

  	
   

  	
  3
  Bay SCSI Hard Drive Backkplane, (1” only) (Speakers)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-0438

  	
   

  	
  Electronic
  Documentation (Documentation Diskette

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3602

  	
   

  	
  73GB
  10K RPM Ultra 160 SCSI Hard Drive (Addt’l Storage Product)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  340-3606

  	
   

  	
  MRO,
  ROMB 0, C2 (Feature)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1354

  	
   

  	
  Rapid
  Rails for Rack (Feature)

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  310-1358

  	
   

  	
  Power
  Supply, 275W, AC, Redundant

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  900-2962

  	
   

  	
  Type
  2 Contract – Same Day 4 hr 7x24 Parts and Labor On-Site Response, 2 yr

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,200

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-RedHat
  Linux OS Advanced Servier 2.1v Series (24x7 Support)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,190

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Weblogic
  7.0 (Non-cluster) Licenses

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,600

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Weblogic
  Server Support for 5 years (60Months)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  42,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Offline
  Server

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Dell
  1550 (Each server contains the following:)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2-CPU
  per server\1.40GHZ Intel Pentium III

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2-Hard
  Drive per server (100 GB 10K RPM SCSI Harddrives with RAID)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2GB
  RAM per server (Change from 512MB)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2-NIC
  cards per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-Redundant
  Power Supply per server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1-RedHat
  Linux OS Advanced Server 2.1 Series (24x7 Support)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,190

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  24x7\365\5
  yr Maintenance Support Agreement

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2-Weblogic
  7.0 (Non-cluster) Licenses per CPU (2 on each offline box)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,800

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Weblogic
  Server Support for 5 years (60Months)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,000

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  TYPE

  	
   

  	
  HW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  HW

  SPEC.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  SW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  YRS

  	
   

  	
  PART

  	
   

  	
  DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  PRICE

  	
   

  
	
  DB
  Servers

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (HW)

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  SUN
  Fire V880 Server

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  56,590

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A4902A

  	
   

  	
  (2) 900-MHz UltraSPARC III CPU Processors

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6144B

  	
   

  	
  8-MB
  External Cache

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6696B

  	
   

  	
  4-GB
  Memory

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6696B
  0D1

  	
   

  	
  4-73
  GB 10000 RPM FC-AL Disk Drives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A5581A

  	
   

  	
  1-DVD-Rom
  10 Drive

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6799A

  	
   

  	
  2GB
  Ethernet Ports

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6799A
  0D1

  	
   

  	
  (1)
  RJ45 Serial Port

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6155A

  	
   

  	
  (2)
  USB Ports

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A6155A
  0D1

  	
   

  	
  (2)
  1440-Watt Power Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A5798A

  	
   

  	
  (4)
  Post Rack-Mount Kit w/Cable Management

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  8

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  A5798A
  0D1

  	
   

  	
  OS-Solaris
  8.0v

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
  H4405A
  613

  	
   

  	
  Support-rp5450/5470(L2000/3000)
  Server 24x7, 5 yr, 4-HR Response Time

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Oracle
  9i Replication Database to include:

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Oracle
  Database Enterprise Edition

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  146,400

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Diagnostics
  Management Pack

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  SQL
  Plus 10 User

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Tuning
  Management Pack

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  One
  Year Product Support and Update Subscription Service for Oracle DB Enterprise
  Edition

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  One
  Year Product Support and Update Subscription Service for Oracle Tuning Mgmt.
  Pack

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  One
  Year Product Support and Update Subscription Service for Oracle Diagnostics
  Mgmt. Pack

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  One
  Year Product Support and Update Subscription Service for SQL *Plus

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  CD
  Media Pack

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Help
  Desk\Monitoring Tools\Req. Dev Tools

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Keynote
  Website Perspective Business Edition; Internet Performance Measuring URL Tool

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  20,264

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  AIM
  Help Desk Support by Innovate.com (Incl. user licenses, Knowledge Base DB)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  21,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  AIM
  Support and Maintenance Agreement 5 yrs (24x7)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,125

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  F1-Excel
  Parsing Tool for NRUF FTP

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Jbuilder
  8 (Dev)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,697

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  8EA
  Dev-2-Dev Platform Edition 7.0v Development Lincense (Jrocket)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,250

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  14

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  SysEdge
  Monitoring

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  2

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sysedge
  24x7\5 yr Maintenance Response

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,720

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Seagate-Crystal
  Upgrade 9.0v

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,000

  	
   

  

 

 

	
  TYPE

  	
   

  	
  HW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  HW

  SPEC.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  SW

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  QTY.

  	
   

  	
  MAINT.

  YRS

  	
   

  	
  PART

  	
   

  	
  DESCRIPTION

  	
   

  	
  PRICE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Operations

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  PCs (6-Desktops\10-Laptops)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  28260TG
  – (221-1156)

  	
   

  	
  Dell
  Desktop; Pentium 4 Processor 2.8Ghz, 533 FSB, 512 Cache

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,494

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  512D-
  (311-1714)

  	
   

  	
  512MB
  DDR Non-ECC SDRAM (1 DIMM) (Memory)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  PS2-(310-1515)

  	
   

  	
  Dell
  PS/2 Keybooard in Gray, No Hot Keys (Keyboards)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  NM-(320-0438)

  	
   

  	
  Monitor

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  32M75-(320-0438)

  	
   

  	
  32MB,
  ATI, Radeon TM 7500 (Video Boards

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  40-(340-6089)

  	
   

  	
  40GB
  EIDE 7200RPM (Boot Hard Drives)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  3-(340-6286)

  	
   

  	
  1.44MB
  3.5” Floppy Drive (Floppy Drives)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  XPP1EC-(420-2119)

  	
   

  	
  Windows
  XP Professional Version, Service Pack 1 w/CD (OS using NTFS)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  L-(310-1301)

  	
   

  	
  Dell
  PS/2 2-Button Mouse (Mouse)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  INTNIC-(430-0353)

  	
   

  	
  Integrated
  Intel Gigabit (10/100/1000), with Alert Standards Format (NICs)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  COMBO32-(313-1739)

  	
   

  	
  32x
  DVD-CDRW Cmbo Drive w/Software Decode (1st Removable Media)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  INTSND-(313-8170)

  	
   

  	
  Integrated
  Sound Blaster Compatible (Audio Solutions)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  HK206-(313-0970)

  	
   

  	
  Harman
  Kardon 206 Speakers

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  RESORCD-(313-7168)

  	
   

  	
  Optiplex
  Systems

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  ES-(310-6413)

  	
   

  	
  Energy
  Star Label

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  W30S-(900-1210;
  900-1272)

  	
   

  	
  3
  yr parts+On-site Labor (Next Business Day) (HW Support)

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  GTS3YR-(950-4909)

  	
   

  	
  Optional
  Support Service

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  6

  	
   

  	
  5

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Additional
  2 yr support to cover full 5yr support

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  10

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  461035

  	
   

  	
  IBM
  TP A31 8/2.0 40GB CRW XPP (IBM-2652PCU)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,660

  	
   

  
	
  (SW)

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  399283

  	
   

  	
  MS
  MBL Project 2002 STD (MBL-076-02343)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,764

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (Periph.)

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  373965

  	
   

  	
  HP
  OfficeJet D145 (Printer\Scanner\Fax) (H-P-C8377A#ABA)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,900

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  1

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  476934

  	
   

  	
  HP
  LJ 1300 19PPM 18MB Printer (H-P-Q1334A#ABA)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  384

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  3

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  404726

  	
   

  	
  Brother
  PPF-4100 LASER FAX (BRT-PPF-4100)

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,170

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  (Telco)

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Motorola
  V60s

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  800

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  59

  	
   

  	
  88

  	
   

  	
  62

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  124

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  713,570

  	
   

  

 

 

 

NANPA 3.5 Costs

 

 

	
  North American Numbering Plan Administration

  	
  

  

 

OTHER
DIRECT COST SUMMARY

 

Base Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,200

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,657

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,082

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,442

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,382

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  OfficeSupplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,772

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  721

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  961

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,254

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,164

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,595

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,164

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,595

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,760

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,826

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,586

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus&Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36,604

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34,439

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,930

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,217

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  85,190

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subscriptions

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  16,698

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,252

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34,950

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,662

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,274

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,275

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,342

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  245,499

  	
   

  

 

Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this
proposal.

 

 

Option Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,443

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,166

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  578

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,632

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  OfficeSupplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  963

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,629

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  385

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,421

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,611

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  542

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,658

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,611

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  542

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,658

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,717

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,717

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus&Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  67,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,742

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,506

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  92,101

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subscriptions

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,025

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,025

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,512

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  199,507

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,436

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,757

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,981

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,447

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,171

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  579

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,669

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  OfficeSupplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  965

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,447

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  386

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,446

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  362

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,618

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  543

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,667

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  362

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,618

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  543

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,667

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,848

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,848

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus&Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,569

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  68,685

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,935

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,569

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  93,758

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subscriptions

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,095

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,095

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  4

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,705

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  200,984

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,639

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,823

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  263,110

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,501

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,175

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  580

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,706

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  967

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  387

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,471

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,625

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  544

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,677

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,625

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  544

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  4,677

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,980

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,980

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus &
  Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,759

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,921

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,132

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  95,446

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subscriptions

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,165

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,165

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,901

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,845

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,890

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  265,273

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 4

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0401

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0402

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0403

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0405

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0406

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,530

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,180

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  581

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  727

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,471

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  969

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,687

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  387

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,981

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  545

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,868

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  545

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,868

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  66,112

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  66,112

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bonus
  & Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,962

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,861

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,911

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,698

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,058

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,491

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subscriptions

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,235

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,110

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,690

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,958

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,634

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  269,372

  	
   

  

 

 

OTHER
DIRECT COST DETAIL

 

Base
Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  60.00

  	
   

  	
  72.00

  	
   

  	
  9.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  153.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.18

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.18

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.14

  	
   

  
	
  Total Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,200

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,657

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,082

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,442

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,382

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  60.00

  	
   

  	
  72.00

  	
   

  	
  9.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  153.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.16

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.16

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.12

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.12

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.09

  	
   

  
	
  Total Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,772

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  721

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  961

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,254

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  60.00

  	
   

  	
  72.00

  	
   

  	
  9.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  153.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.06

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.06

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.04

  	
   

  
	
  Total Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,164

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,595

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  60.00

  	
   

  	
  72.00

  	
   

  	
  9.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  153.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.06

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.06

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.04

  	
   

  
	
  Total Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,800

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,164

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  271

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,595

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Square Foot
  Months

  	
   

  	
  12,600.00

  	
   

  	
  12,600.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Square Foot

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.60

  	
   

  
	
  Total Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,760

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,826

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,586

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Units

  	
   

  	
  66.00

  	
   

  	
  72.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  138.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Unit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.00

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.51

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.26

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.26

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.26

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  253.26

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Subscription

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  16,698

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,252

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34,950

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal Other
  Cost

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,058

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,835

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,345

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,125

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  140,363

  	
   

  
	
  Total Bonus/
  Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36,604

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  34,439

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,930

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,217

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  85,190

  	
   

  
	
  Total Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,662

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,274

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,275

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,342

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  245,499

  	
   

  
																								

 

 

Option
Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.36

  	
   

  
	
  Total Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,443

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,166

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  578

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,632

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.24

  	
   

  
	
  Total Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  963

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,629

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  385

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,421

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  
	
  Total Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,611

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  542

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,658

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  
	
  Total Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  361

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,611

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  542

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,658

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Square Foot
  Months

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Square Foot

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  
	
  Total Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,717

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,717

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Units

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Unit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  291.87

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Subscription

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,025

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,025

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal Other
  Cost

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,129

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  132,035

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,694

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,252

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,110

  	
   

  
	
  Total Bonus/
  Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  67,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,742

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,506

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  92,101

  	
   

  
	
  Total Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,512

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  199,507

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,436

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,757

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,981

  	
   

  
																								

 

 

Option
Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.60

  	
   

  
	
  Total Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,447

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,472

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,171

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  579

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,669

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.40

  	
   

  
	
  Total Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  965

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,648

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,447

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  386

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,446

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.15

  	
   

  
	
  Total Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  362

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,618

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  543

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,667

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.09

  	
   

  
	
  Total Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  362

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,618

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  543

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,667

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Square Foot
  Months

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Square Foot

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.61

  	
   

  
	
  Total Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,848

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,848

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Units

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Unit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  292.46

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Subscription

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,095

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,095

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal Other
  Cost

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,136

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  132,299

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,703

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,254

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,393

  	
   

  
	
  Total Bonus/ Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,569

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  68,685

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,935

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,569

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  93,758

  	
   

  
	
  Total Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,705

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  200,984

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,639

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,823

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  263,110

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.84

  	
   

  
	
  Total Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,501

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,175

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  580

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  18,706

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.56

  	
   

  
	
  Total Office
  Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  967

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,667

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,450

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  387

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,471

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  
	
  Total Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,625

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  544

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,677

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  154.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.21

  	
   

  
	
  Total Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,625

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  544

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,677

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Square Foot
  Months

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Square Foot

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  
	
  Total Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,980

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  65,980

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Units

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Unit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.04

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Subscription

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,165

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,165

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal Other
  Cost

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,142

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  132,564

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,713

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,257

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,675

  	
   

  
	
  Total Bonus/
  Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,759

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,921

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,132

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  95,446

  	
   

  
	
  Total Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  
	
  Total
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,901

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,845

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,890

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  265,273

  	
   

  

 

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0401

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0402

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0403

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0405

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0406

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  6.00

  	
   

  	
  160.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.08

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.08

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.08

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.08

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.08

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  120.20

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  121.09

  	
   

  
	
  Total Telecom

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  14,530

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,180

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  581

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  727

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,471

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  6.00

  	
   

  	
  160.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.72

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.80

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80.73

  	
   

  
	
  Total Office Supplies

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  969

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,687

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  387

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,981

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  6.00

  	
   

  	
  160.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.30

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  
	
  Total Postage

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  545

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,868

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FTE Months

  	
   

  	
  12.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  18.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  4.80

  	
   

  	
  6.00

  	
   

  	
  160.8

  	
   

  
	
  $ / FTE

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.30

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30.27

  	
   

  
	
  Total Printing

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  363

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  545

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  182

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,868

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Square Foot Months

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  25,200.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Square Foot

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2.62

  	
   

  
	
  Total Facility

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  66,112

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  66,112

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Units

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  0.00

  	
   

  	
  120.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Unit

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  293.63

  	
   

  
	
  Total Subscription

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  35,235

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Subtotal Other Cost

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,148

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  132,829

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,722

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,259

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,576

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  143,534

  	
   

  
	
  Total Bonus/ Incentives

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,962

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  69,861

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,911

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,698

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  3,058

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,491

  	
   

  
	
  Total Travel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  
	
  Total Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,110

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,690

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,633

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,958

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,634

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  269,372

  	
   

  

 

 

OTHER DIRECT COSTS - TRAVEL DETAIL

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0404

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Distance Trips

  	
   

  	
  18.0

  	
   

  	
  24.0

  	
   

  	
  24.0

  	
   

  	
  24.0

  	
   

  	
  24.0

  	
   

  	
  114.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Trip

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  503.25

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  509.79

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  516.42

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  523.13

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  529.93

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  517.20

  	
   

  
	
  Total Distance Trips

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,059

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,394

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,555

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  12,718

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  58,961

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Days Lodging

  	
   

  	
  49.0

  	
   

  	
  70.0

  	
   

  	
  70.0

  	
   

  	
  70.0

  	
   

  	
  70.0

  	
   

  	
  329.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Day

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150.45

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150.75

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  151.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  151.35

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150.79

  	
   

  
	
  Total Lodging

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,357

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,532

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,553

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,574

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,595

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  49,610

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Meals

  	
   

  	
  41.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  273.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Meal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.05

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.15

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.25

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.35

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.45

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  50.26

  	
   

  
	
  Total Meals

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,052

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,909

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,916=5

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,920

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,926

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,722

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Rentals

  	
   

  	
  41.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  58.0

  	
   

  	
  273.0

  	
   

  
	
  $ / Rental

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.04

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.11

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.18

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.25

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.33

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  36.19

  	
   

  
	
  Total Transportation

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,477

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,094

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,098

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,103

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  2,107

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,880

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,346

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  132,173

  	
   

  

 

 

NANPA 3.6 Cost

 

 

	
  North American Numbering Plan Administration

  	
  

  

 

INDIRECT COST SUMMARY

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0001

  	
   

  	
  0002

  	
   

  	
  0003

  	
   

  	
  0004

  	
   

  	
  0005

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Base

  Year

  	
   

  	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,645

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,099

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,925

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  24,839

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  257,507

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  G & A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,645

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,099

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,925

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  24,839

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  257,507

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0101

  	
   

  	
  0102

  	
   

  	
  0103

  	
   

  	
  0104

  	
   

  	
  0105

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option

  Year 1

  	
   

  	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  203,948

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,470

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,597

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  278,397

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  G & A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  203,948

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,470

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,597

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  278,397

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0201

  	
   

  	
  0202

  	
   

  	
  0203

  	
   

  	
  0204

  	
   

  	
  0205

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option

  Year 2

  	
   

  	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,947

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  207,615

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,054

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,788

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  283,405

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  G & A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,947

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  207,615

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,054

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,788

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  283,405

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0301

  	
   

  	
  0302

  	
   

  	
  0303

  	
   

  	
  0304

  	
   

  	
  0305

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option

  Year 3

  	
   

  	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,522

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,352

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,649

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,982

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  288,506

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  G & A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,522

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,352

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,649

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,982

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  288,506

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  0401

  	
   

  	
  0402

  	
   

  	
  0403

  	
   

  	
  0404

  	
   

  	
  0405

  	
   

  	
  0406

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option

  Year 4

  	
   

  	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30,113

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,172

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,980

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,179

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,244

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  294,688

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  G & A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Subtotal

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  30,113

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,172

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,980

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,179

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,244

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  294,688

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  236,610

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  938,187

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,079

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  68,384

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  9,244

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,402,504

  	
   

  

 

 

INDIRECT COST DETAIL

 

Base
Year

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0001

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0002

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0003

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0004

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0005

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  332,766

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  313,080

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  53,909

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  74,703

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  774,458

  	
   

  
	
  Labor Burden %

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,645

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,099

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,925

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  24,839

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  257,507

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  815,232

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,274

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  8,275

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  11,342

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  959,069

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,258,643

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  521,453

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  80,109

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  19,945

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,883

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,991,034

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  G&A %

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  
	
  G&A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  110,645

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  104,099

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  17,925

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  24,839

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  257,507

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 1

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0101

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0102

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0103

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0104

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0105

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  94,383

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  94,383

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,654

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,870

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  837,285

  	
   

  
	
  Labor Burden %

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,470

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,597

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  278,397

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,512

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,512

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,436

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,757

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  260,981

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  139,277

  	
   

  	
  7

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  145,560

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,770

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  47,225

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,376,664

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  G&A %

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  
	
  G&A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,382

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,470

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,597

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  278,397

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 2

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0201

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0202

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0203

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0204

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0205

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  96,082

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  624,407

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  99,412

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,444

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  852,345

  	
   

  
	
  Labor Burden %

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,947

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  207,615

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,054

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,788

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  283,405

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,705

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  240,140

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,639

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,823

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  302,266

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  141,734

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,072,163

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  148,105

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  27,960

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,055

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,438,017

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  G&A %

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  
	
  G&A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  31,947

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  207,615

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,054

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,788

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  283,405

  	
   

  

 

 

Option
Year 3

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0301

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0302

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0303

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0304

  	
   

  	
  CLIN

  0305

  	
   

  	
  Total

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Labor

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  97,812

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  635,647

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  101,201

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,028

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  867,688

  	
   

  
	
  Labor Burden %

  	
   

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  	
  33

  	
  %

  
	
  Labor Burden

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,522

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,352

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,649

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,982

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  288,506

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Other Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  13,901

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  202,485

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  15,845

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  4,890

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  265,273

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total Direct Costs

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  144,235

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,049,484

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  150,696

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  28,152

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  48,900

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,421,467

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  G&A %

  	
   

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  	
  0

  	
  %

  
	
  G&A Expense

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Total

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  32,522

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  211,352

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  33,649

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  0

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,982

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  288,506

  	
   

  

 

4.2                               Quotes

 

Actual
costs for each NAS hardware and system software component are provided in the
Bill of Materials contained in Section 4.1 above.  These costs have been provided verbally from
the perspective suppliers.  Formal
written quotes can be provided upon request.

 

 

5.0                               OPTIONAL PROPOSAL

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Enterprise Services (TRD 11)

 

NeuStar
is amply qualified to provide tlte required enterprise services.

 

The
TRD requires the NANP A to provide three enterprise services:

 

•· Inputting rating and routing into
the RDBS/BRIDs (now called BIRRDS) upon request from service providers.

 

This
is commonly referred to as the Administrative Operating Company Number or AOCN
service.

 

•· Inputting of paper submissions
(e.g., NRUF data, applications) into the NANPA system.

 

•· Providing testimony for state
regulatory hearings.

 

NeuStar
is uniquely qualified to provide these enterprise services. NeuStar, as the
current NANP A, performs AOCN services for more than 300 service providers.
Over the past five years, NeuStar’s AOCN administrators have processed more
than 35,000 rating and routing inputs from Part 2 forms, having met the
standard five-day processing timeframe 99.72% of the time. As part of its
normal operations, NeuStar’s CO code administration group inputs faxed and
mailed CO code applications into the Code Administration System (CAS). NeuStar’s
NRUF group also inputs NRUF submissions into the NRUF database as a
NANC-approved enterprise service. Finally, NeuStar’s NPA relief planning
organization has provided direct testimony in approximately 75 state regulatory
hearings. With this experience, NeuStar fully understands and appreciates the
time and effort necessary to provide high quality, neutral enterprise services.

 

Equally
important, is NeuStar’s understanding of the need to separately identify and
track the direct costs associated with an enterprise service. NeuStar presently
tracks direct costs associated with the AOCN enterprise service and has
undergone two separate audits, the results of which have been shared with the
FCC and the NANC and included in the NANP A Annual Report. NeuStar will
continue to contract an independent third party to conduct the audit of all
enterprise services after the first, third, and fifth year of the NANP A
contract term, ensuring the audit is conducted in the second quarter of the
year and the report is available to the appropriate regulatory agencies and the
NANC during the third quarter of the year.

 

Use or disclosure of data
contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

 

 

North American Numbering
Plan Administration

 

NeuStar
will implement enterprise services in compliance with TRD Section 11. The
following table summarizes the required enterprise services (TRD Section11.2)
that NeuStar will support.

 

AOCN
Enterprise Service

 

The
following table provides NeuStar’s yearly fees for AOCN inputs.

 

Entry of Paper Submissions of Resource
Applications

 

The
following table provides NeuStar’s yearly fees for inputting paper submissions
of resource applications and in-service confirmation forms into the NANP
Administration System.

 

ii

 

North
American Numbering Plan Administration

 

Entry of Paper
NRUF Submissions

 

The
following table provides NeuStar’s yearly fees for inputting paper submissions
of NRUF Form 502 into the NANP Administration System.

 

In
addition to the fee indicated above, a fee will be charged based on the
quantity of data provided on the Form 502. Specifically:

 

•· An additional $3 fee will be charged
per NP A-NXX-X for actual NP A-NXX-X data submitted on forms UI and U3;

 

•· An additional $3 fee will be charged
per NP A-NXX for actual NP A-NXX data submitted on forms U2 and U4;

 

•· An additional $3 fee will be charged
per NP A per rate center for actual NP A per rate center data submitted on
forms Fla, FIb, F2a and F2b; and

 

•· An additional $3 fee will be charged
per NP A per state for actual NP A per state data submitted on forms F3a and F3b.

 

NANPA Testimony in State Regulatory Hearings

 

As the
incumbent NANP A, NeuStar has supplied expert NP A relief planning witnesses at
the request of numerous state commissions in connection with individual NP A
relief planning projects. By doing so, NeuStar has created internal processes
and templates for the development of written testimony, including typical
questions raised and responses provided at hearings on NPA relief planning
matters. NeuStar’s NPA Relief Planning group and legal counsel have significant
experience in providing oral testimony, minimizing the time and effort
necessary to

 

prepare for these events.
Further, NeuStar’s NPA relief planners possess detailed knowledge of every step
of the NP A relief planning process, including:

 

•· The relief alternatives initially
examined and proposed by NANP A;

 

•                                          The
impact of the various relief alternatives on the life of the NP A;

 

iii

 

 

North American Numbering
Plan Administration

 

•                                          The
cities and localities affected by geographic split alternatives;

 

•                                          The
reasons provided by the industry as to why certain alternatives were rejected;
and

 

•                                          The
specific details of the industry approved reliefplan(s) filed with the state.

 

With
this knowledge and experience, NeuStar has been able to effectively streamline
the process to prepare, file, and present oral and written testimony and will
pass along this efficiency in its testimony fees. Given these considerations,
NeuStar will provide testimony for state regulator hearings at no charge.
NeuStar will require the state to reimburse NeuStar for expenses (e.g., travel,
lodging, meals, local transportation, etc.) associated with the NeuStar
witnesses) and legal counsel attending the hearing. If the state requires local
counsel to represent the NANP A at state regulatory hearings, these costs will
be passed along to the state.

 

iv

 

	
  NANPA – Scope of Work Change # 1 Proposal – INC
  Issue 434

  	
  7/16/2004

  

 

 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

 

 

	
  1.

  	
   

  	
  Contract ID Code

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.

  	
   

  	
  Amendment/Modification No.

  	
   

  	
  0002

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.

  	
   

  	
  Effective Date

  	
   

  	
  07/09/2004

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.

  	
   

  	
  Requisition/Purchase Req. No.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5.

  	
   

  	
  Project No. (if
  applicable)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  6.

  	
   

  	
  Issued by

  	
   

  	
  Code 00001

  FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

  445 12th St., SW

  Washington, DC 20554

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  7.

  	
   

  	
  Administered by (if
  other than item 6)

  	
   

  	
  Code

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8

  	
   

  	
  Name and Address of Contractor

  (No., street, county, State and Zip Code)

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar, Inc.

  46000 Center Oak Plaza

  Sterling, VA 20166

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9a.

  	
   

  	
  Amendment of Solicitation No.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9b.

  	
   

  	
  Dated (See item
  11)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10a

  	
   

  	
  Modification of Contract/Order No. CON03000016

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10b.

  	
   

  	
  Dated (See Item
  13)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  11.

  	
   

  	
  This item only applies to amendments of
  solicitations

  	
   

  	
   

  

 

iv

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  The above numbered solicitation is amended as set
  forth in Item 14.

  

  The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not
  extended.

  

  Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date
  specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

  

  (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning
                
  copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment
  on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or
  telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment
  numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE
  DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT
  IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to
  change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or
  letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation
  and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date
  specified.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  12.

  	
   

  	
  Accounting and Appropriation Data

  (If required)

  	
   

  	
  No Funding Information

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13.

  	
   

  	
  This Item only applies to modification of
  contracts/orders. It modifies the contract/order no. as described in Item 14

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13a.

  	
   

  	
  Check One

  	
   

  	
  This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify
  authority) the changes set forth in Item 14 are made in the contract order
  no. in Item 10A.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13b.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  The above numbered contract/order is modified to
  reflect the administrative changes (such as changes in paying office,
  appropriation date, etc.) Set forth in Item 14, pursuant to the authority of
  authority of FAR 43.103(b).

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13c.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  This supplemental agreement is entered into
  pursuant to authority of:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13d.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Other (Specify
  type of modification and authority)

  

  FAR 1.6, “authority of Contracting Officer”

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13e.

  	
   

  	
  Important: Contractor is not, is required to sign
  this document and return       copies to the issuing
  office.

  

 

v

 

	
  14.

  	
   

  	
  Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including
  solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

  

  The above numbered contract is hereby modified to exercise option
  year one effective July 9, 2004 through July 8, 2005. All other
  terms and conditions remain the same.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15a.

  	
   

  	
  Name and Title of Signer (Type or print)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15b.

  	
   

  	
  Contractor/Offeror

  	
   

  	
  (Signature of person authorized
  to sign)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15c.

  	
   

  	
  Date signed

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16a.

  	
   

  	
  Name and Title of Contracting Officer (Type or print)

  	
   

  	
  Mark Oakey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16b.

  	
   

  	
  United States of America

  	
   

  	
  /s/ by Mark Oakey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Signature of Contracting Officer)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16c.

  	
   

  	
  Date signed

  	
   

  	
  7/7/04

  

 

vi

 

Schedule

 

	
  Line
  Item

  Summary

  	
  Document
  Number

  CON03000016/0002

  	
  Title

  NANP
  Administrator

  	
  Page

  2 of 2

  
	
  No
  Funding Information

  

 

	
  Line Item

  Number

  	
  Description

  	
  Delivery Date (Start

  date to End date)

  	
  Quantity

  	
  Unit of

  Issue

  	
  Unit Price

  	
  Total Cost

  
	
  

  

  No Changed Line Item Fields

  

  

  Previous Total

  Modification Total:

  Grand Total:

  

 

vii

 

AMENDMENT OF
SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

 

	
  1.

  	
   

  	
  Contract ID Code

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.

  	
   

  	
  Amendment/Modification No.

  	
   

  	
  0003

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.

  	
   

  	
  Effective Date

  	
   

  	
  01/06/2005

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  4.

  	
   

  	
  Requisition/Purchase Req. No.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  5.

  	
   

  	
  Project No. (if
  applicable)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  6.

  	
   

  	
  Issued by

  	
   

  	
  Code 00001

  FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

  445 12th St., SW

  Washington, DC 20554

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  7.

  	
   

  	
  Administered by (if
  other than item 6)

  	
   

  	
  Code

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  8

  	
   

  	
  Name and Address of Contractor

  (No., street, county, State and Zip Code)

  	
   

  	
  NeuStar, Inc.

  46000 Center Oak Plaza

  Sterling, VA 20166

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9a.

  	
   

  	
  Amendment of Solicitation No.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  9b.

  	
   

  	
  Dated (See item
  11)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10a

  	
   

  	
  Modification of Contract/Order No. CON03000016

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  10b.

  	
   

  	
  Dated (See Item
  13)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  11.

  	
   

  	
  This item only applies to amendments of
  solicitations

  	
   

  

 

viii

 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  The above numbered solicitation is amended as set
  forth in Item 14.

  

  The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not
  extended.

  

  Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date
  specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

  

  (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning
                
  copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment
  on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or
  telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment
  numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE
  DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT
  IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to
  change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or
  letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation
  and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date
  specified.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  12.

  	
   

  	
  Accounting and Appropriation Data

  (If required)

  	
   

  	
  No Funding Information

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13.

  	
   

  	
  This Item only applies to modification of
  contracts/orders. It modifies the contract/order no. as described in Item 14

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13a.

  	
   

  	
  Check One

  	
   

  	
  This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify
  authority) the changes set forth in Item 14 are made in the contract order
  no. in Item 10A.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13b.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  The above numbered contract/order is modified to
  reflect the administrative changes (such as changes in paying office,
  appropriation date, etc.) Set forth in Item 14, pursuant to the authority of
  authority of FAR 43.103(b).

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13c.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  This supplemental agreement is entered into
  pursuant to authority of:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13d.

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Other (Specify
  type of modification and authority)

  

  FAR 1.6, “authority of Contracting Officer”

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  13e.

  	
   

  	
  Important: Contractor is not, is required to sign
  this document and return      copies to the issuing
  office.

  

 

ix

 

	
  14.

  	
   

  	
  Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including
  solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

  

  The above numbered contract is hereby modified to exercise option
  year one effective July 9, 2004 through July 8, 2005. All other
  terms and conditions remain the same.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15a.

  	
   

  	
  Name and Title of Signer (Type or print)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15b.

  	
   

  	
  Contractor/Offeror

  	
   

  	
  (Signature of person authorized
  to sign)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  15c.

  	
   

  	
  Date signed

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16a.

  	
   

  	
  Name and Title of Contracting Officer

  (Type or print)

  	
   

  	
  Mark Oakey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16b.

  	
   

  	
  United States of America

  	
   

  	
  /s/ by Mark Oakey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  (Signature of Contracting
  Officer)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  16c.

  	
   

  	
  Date signed

  	
   

  	
  01/06/2005

  

 

x

 

	
  Schedule

  
	
  Line Item

  Summary

  	
  Document Number

  CON03000016/0003

  	
  Title

  NANP Administrator

  	
  Page

  2 of 2

  
	
  No
  Funding Information

  
	
  Line Item

  Number

  	
  Description

  	
  Delivery Date (Start

  date to End date)

  	
  Quantity

  	
  Unit of

  Issue

  	
  Unit Price

  	
  Total Cost

  
	
  

  

  No Changed Line Item Fields

  

  

  Previous Total

  Modification Total:

  Grand Total:

  
										

 

xi

 

NANP Administration Services

Scope of Work Change Proposal # 1

(LNPA Issue #434 - “Removal of Codes from NPAC When

There Are Ported Numbers”)

July 16, 2004

 

	
  NeuStar, Inc.

  	
   

  	
  46000 Center Oak
  Plaza

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Building 10

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sterling, VA
  20166

  

 

xii

 

Table of Contents

 

	
  1

  	
  Introduction

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  1.1

  	
  Purpose
  and Scope

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  2.1

  	
  Modification of Guidelines

  	
   

  
	
  2

  	
  Proposed Industry Numbering
  Committee (INC) Scope of Work Change

  	
   

  
	
  3

  	
  NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

  	
   

  
	
  4

  	
  Risk
  and Assumptions

  	
   

  
	
  5

  	
  Cost
  Assumptions and Summary

  	
   

  
	
  6

  	
  Conclusion

  	
   

  

 

 

1.                                      Introduction

 

1.1.                            Purpose and Scope

 

In accordance with NeuStar’s contract(1) and
our constant effort provide the best support and value to both the FCC and the
telecommunications industry, NeuStar, as the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA) hereby submits this scope of work change to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for approval. This scope of work change is in compliance with
NANPA’s Change Management protocol and most importantly per requirements as
outlined in NANP Administrator Solicitation SOL03000001, Section H.9, Item
5, which states the following:

 

“If and when a change to the NANPA system is adopted
by the NANC or the INC, the contractor’s liaison shall ensure that the proposed
change is forwarded to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s
Technical Representative (COTR). No change shall be binding until such
modification is issued, nor shall the Government be liable for any costs
associated with a system change until such modification is issued.”

 

2.1.                            Modification of
Guidelines

 

Pursuant to NeuStar’s contact, the NANPA shall
participate in the development and modification of guidelines and procedures,
which may affect the performance of the NANPA functions. These changes may be
derived from regulatory directives and/or modifications to guidelines. In
addition, new guidelines may be developed as appropriate to comply with
regulatory directives. The NANPA shall adopt and implement any changes that are
consistent with regulatory directives after they are officially adopted,
recognizing that some may constitute a change in the scope of work.

 

When the Industry Numbering Committee (INC) places
any changes to its guidelines in initial closure, the NANPA shall submit an
assessment regarding the impact of scope of work, time and costs to the INC,
the North American Numbering Council (NANC) and the FCC within 30 days.(2)

 

This document provides detailed information
pertaining to the INC’s requirement submitted on June 18, 2004. This
change order document covers the required subject matters such as explaining
the industry’s requirements, proposed solution, costs and risk and assumptions.

 

(1)               Contract
Number CON03000016 and the NANPA Technical Requirements Document, March 2003

 

(2)               NANPA
Technical Requirements Document, March 2003, Section 2.10,
Modification of Guidelines

 

 

2.                                      Proposed Industry
Numbering Committee (INC) Scope
of Work Change

 

During the March 30, 2004 INC meeting, INC
Issue 434 was accepted. It was resolved and moved to Initial Closure on June 18,
2004. This issue does not affect the NANP Administration

 

System (NAS), but it does affect NANPA operations.

 

Issue 434: Removal of Codes from NPAC When There Are
Ported Numbers The official INC issue statement is stated below and can also be
found on the ATIS website:

 

A)                                                           ISSUE STATEMENT

 

The INC received a letter from the LNPA WG alerting
INC to a problem related to removing codes from NPAC’s network data when the
code is being recovered (see GS-398). In a code recovery situation, the NPAC
removes the code from its network data 15 business days prior to the planned LERG
disconnect date. Sometimes, the NPAC finds that there are ported numbers in the
code and thus is unable to remove the code from its network data. However,
there are instances when the code must be removed even though there are ported
numbers on the code. For example, Carrier X has ceased operations and its
ported-in customers abandoned their numbers. Consequently, the ported number
records remained in tact but are associated with non-working numbers. Later,
the code associated with the non-existent customers’ numbers is recovered, but
because the ported TN records still exist in NPAC, the code cannot be removed
from NPAC’s network data. When the code is reassigned in the LERG to another
carrier, the new LERG-assignee for the code cannot enter the code in NPAC’s
network data as its own, and pooled blocks must be created and ported to the
new LERG-assignee to work around the limitation. Further, the new LERG-assignee
cannot make full use of the code because the numbers remaining in NPAC as
ported cannot be assigned to its customers, i.e., traffic to these numbers
would not route to the new LERG-assignee’s switch, but still to the LRN of
Carrier X.

 

The problem is that NPAC has no authority to remove
a code with active numbers from the NPAC data network, even if it can be
determined that the numbers are not working.

 

B)                                                           FOLLOWING RESOLUTION FROM INC

 

The following text changes were made to the final
paragraph of Section 3 of the Central Office Code (NXX) Assignment
Guidelines, Procedures for Code Holder Exit (Appendix C):

 

If there are active or pending ports on the returned
NXX code pending disconnect, or if porting of TNs occurs on a returned NXX code
after NANPA has issued a Part 3 disconnect but prior to the 15 business
days before the effective date of the disconnect, NPAC should notify NANPA that
a port has occurred. NPAC also will disregard the Part 3 disconnect
information and will not suspend porting at the 15 business-day timeframe.
NANPA will request approval from the appropriate regulatory authority for NPAC
to delete the Subscription Version(s) (SVs) from its databases. Written
approval from the regulator for the deletion of the SVs from the NPAC databases
may be sent to NPAC directly from the regulator or via NANPA.

 

2

 

3.                                      NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

 

NeuStar’s NANPA reviewed the INC Issue 434 from an
operational perspective and proposes that the INC resolution, as stated in the
INC Issue statement, is adequate for meeting the industry requirement. No
changes to the NANP Administration System (NAS) are required.

 

4.                                      Risk and Assumptions

 

Part of NANPA’s assessment of this Scope of
Work Change is to consider the associated risks and assumptions that can have
an impact on the operation.

 

NeuStar notes that the proposed process of NANPA
interfacing between the NPAC and the appropriate regulators may result in
service providers’ increased failure to comply with the industry requirement to
“disconnect and remove all records related to the LRN and NXX code, including
intra-SP ported TNs, from the NPAC database.”(3) That is, service
providers may come to rely on NANPA to implement the process of removing ported
telephone numbers from the NPAC rather than complying with the guidelines and
performing this work themselves. As a result, the proposed solution may become
time consuming for NANPA if there are periods when large quantities of NXX
codes are returned to NANPA where service providers have failed to fulfill
their responsibilities as described in industry guidelines.

 

This solution also provides a risk that NXX codes
could be held in an indefinite waiting period if NANPA is unable to contact
and/or obtain written approval from the appropriate regulator to remove the
codes from the NPAC database.

 

5.                                      Cost Assumptions and Summary

 

With any Scope of Work Change, NANPA must consider
the associated costs that can be incurred with the resolution of INC Issue 434.
As mentioned above, this new process would be an operational implementation and
may require additional resources, depending on the volume of returned NXX codes
where service providers fail to comply with the industry requirement to remove
all NPAC records related to the LRN and NXX code.

 

Since it is unknown at
this time how often such situations as described in Section 4 above will
arise, NANPA cannot estimate whether it will incur additional operational costs
as a result of this guidelines change. To this end, NANPA proposes to implement
the new process at no cost but reserves the right to revisit this situation
with the INC, NANC and the FCC if the concerns expressed above occur.

 

(3)               The
Assumptions Section 2.12 of the Appendix C of the INC Central Office Code
(NXX) Assignment Guidelines states that “It is the responsibility of the SP
returning the NXX code to disconnect and remove all records related to the LRN
and NXX code, including intra-SP ported TNs, from the NPAC database. If a NXX
code is reassigned and there are still old records in NPAC, the new code holder
will encounter problems with the affected numbers from the reassigned NXX code,
e.g., porting records on TNs not in service.”

 

3

 

6.                                      Conclusion

 

NeuStar, as the NANPA, does hereby seek the FCC’s
approval for this Scope of Work Change in order for proper communication
protocols to be executed by which the industry can be made aware that NANPA is
accommodating this Scope of Work change order.

 

4

 

NANPA - Scope of Work Change # 2 Proposal -

	
  Interim Red Light Rule Process

  	
  October 13, 2004

  

 

NANP Administration Services

Scope of Work Change Proposal # 2

Interim Red Light Rule Process

October 13, 2004

 

 

Table of Contents

 

	
  1

  	
  Introduction

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  1.1

  	
  Purpose and Scope

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  1.2

  	
  Modification of
  NANPA Scope of Work

  	
   

  
	
  2

  	
  Proposed FCC Scope of Work Change

  	
   

  
	
  3

  	
  NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

  	
   

  
	
  4

  	
  Assumptions and Risks

  	
   

  
	
  5

  	
  Cost

  	
   

  
	
  6

  	
  Conclusion

  	
   

  
					

 

ii

 

1.                                      Introduction

 

1.1.                            Purpose and Scope

 

In accordance with NeuStar’s contract(4) and
our constant effort to provide the best support and value to both the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) and the telecommunications industry, NeuStar, as
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), hereby submits this
scope of work change to the FCC for approval. This scope of work change is in
compliance with NANPA’s Change Management protocol and is consistent with the
requirements outlined in NANP Administrator Solicitation SOL03000001-, Section H.9,
Item 5, which states the following:

 

“If and when a change to the NANPA system is adopted
by the NANC or the INC, the contractor’s liaison shall ensure that the proposed
change is forwarded to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s
Technical Representative (COTR). No change shall be binding until such
modification is issued, nor shall the Government be liable for any costs
associated with a system change until such modification is issued.”

 

1.2.                            Modification of NANPA
Scope of Work

 

Pursuant to NeuStar’s contact, the NANPA shall
participate in the development and modification of guidelines and procedures,
which may affect the performance of the NANPA functions. These changes may be
derived from regulatory directives and/or modifications to guidelines. In
addition, new guidelines may be developed as appropriate to comply with
regulatory directives. The NANPA shall adopt and implement those changes that
are consistent with regulatory directives after they are officially adopted,
recognizing that some may constitute a change in the scope of work.

 

On September 8, 2004, the FCC issued a Public
Notice regarding the interpretation of the Red Light Rule.(5) The notice
reads, in pertinent part:

 

The new rule, found at 47 C.F.R. §1.1910 and
commonly referred to as the “red light rule,” provides that anyone filing an
application or seeking a benefit from the Commission or one of its components
(including the Universal Service Administrative Corporation, the
Telecommunications Relay Service, or the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator) who is delinquent in debts owed to the Commission will be barred
from receiving a license or other benefit until the 

 

(4)               Contract
Number CON03000016 and the NANPA Technical Requirements Document, March 2003

 

(5)               The
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1910, commonly
referred to as the “red light rule.”

 

3

 

delinquency
has been resolved. Under this rule, when an application or request for benefit
is filed, the FCC Registration Number (FRN) will be checked to determine if the
entity or person is delinquent in debt owed to the Commission.

 

On September 13, 2004, NeuStar received a
letter from the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Managing
Director(6) that directed NeuStar, acting as the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator “to withhold numbering resources from any entity identified
by the FCC as not having paid or made satisfactory arrangement for payment of
any debts owed to the Commission.”

 

Currently, FCC Contract Number CON03000016 does not
contain any reference to the Red Light Rule, nor does it require the NANPA to
perform the multiple processes, which will be necessary to implement the rule.
By this change order proposal, we offer to provide those services required by
the Red Light Rule Order and the September 13 Letter. This document
provides the information required by the contract, such as identifying the new
requirements, offering our proposed solution, and addressing its cost, risks,
and assumptions.

 

2.                                      Proposed FCC Scope of Work Change

 

In accordance with the North American Numbering Plan
Administration Technical Requirements Document, dated March 2003, the NANP
Administration System (NAS) assigns resources based upon the Operating Company
Number (OCN) of a carrier. All utilization and months-to-exhaust forms, as well
as all other functions of NAS, are keyed to OCNs. The FCC is administering the
Red Light Rule using companies’ FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). A service
provider may have multiple OCNs per FRN. For the NANPA to implement the Red
Light Rule properly, it is necessary for NANPA to identify which OCNs are
associated with any FRN appearing on the FCC delinquent list. The FCC will post
this delinquent FRN list daily to its website. NANPA will then process the list
in order to identify which OCNs match the FRNs on the list and withhold
numbering resources from those applicants whose OCNs on the application form
matches an FRN that appears on the FCC delinquent list.

 

3.                                      NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

 

In order to implement the FCC Red Light Rule for
central office code application processing,(7) the NANPA proposes using a
short-term, labor-intensive interim manual procedure that will be followed by
the implementation of a long-term mechanized process. (See NANP Administration
Services, Scope of Work Change Proposal #3, NAS Implementation of the Red Light
Rule, which is being filed simultaneously with this Change Order.)

 

(6)               Letter
to Mindy Ginsburg, NeuStar, from Mark Reger, Chief Financial Officer, Office of
Managing Director and Richard Lerner, Acting Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau, FCC, September 13, 2004 (the September 13 Letter).

 

(7)               This
includes central office code requests from geographic area codes, the 500 area
code and the 900 area code.

 

4

 

NeuStar’s NANPA has reviewed the implementation of
the Red Light Rule from both the operational and technical perspectives.
We believe that our proposed solution set forth below will enable us to
properly assign and deny resources in accordance with the Rule beginning November 1,
2004.

 

Interim Solution:

 

1.                                       On a daily
basis, NANPA staff will access the FCC FTP file containing delinquent FRNs.

 

2.                                       NANPA staff
will run a report that compares the FRNs in the FTP file with the FRNs reported
via the Number Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) reporting process. This
comparison permits the identification of the Operating Company Number(s) (OCNs)
associated with the FRN.

 

3.                                       NANPA staff
will generate a report of OCN(s) that are ineligible to receive numbering
resources due to the appearance of their FRN on the FCC delinquent list. This
report will be available to NANPA staff processing central office code
assignment requests.

 

4.                                       At the end of
each business day, NANPA staff will run a query to identify all pending
assignment/reservation applications for central office codes in geographic area
codes. A comparison will be performed on each pending assignment/reservation
application to determine if the requesting OCN is on that day’s FCC delinquent
list, and a list of those applications will be generated. NANPA Code
Administrators will be provided with this list.

 

5.                                       If a NANPA Code
Administrator processes any of those applications during the next business day,
a Part 3 denial will be created with standard verbiage providing the
reason for the denial and the contact information for the FCC’s Red Light Rule help
desk.

 

NANPA will also provide a list of FRNs and
associated OCNs to the National Pooling Administrator (PA) because the PA is
also subject to the requirements of the Red Light Rule and the September 13
letter, but has no independent access to the OCNs in the NRUF data that is
submitted to the NANPA.

 

Questions concerning an entity’s status with regard
to debts and payment must be directed to the FCC. NANPA will not have any
information on these matters. In compliance with the FCC’s requirements for
NANPA, NANPA will simply use the list of delinquent FRNs provided by the FCC
and identify the associated OCNs as part of the resource assignment and review
process.

 

4.                                      Assumptions and Risks

 

Part of the NANPA’s assessment of this change
order is to identify the associated assumptions and consider the risks that can
have an impact on our operations.

 

5

 

Assumptions:

 

1.                                       NANPA assumes
that the FCC FTP file will be available each business day. If there are any
problems or issues that result in an updated file not being available, NANPA
will use the most recent FRN list the FCC made available to the NANPA.

 

2.                                       NANPA assumes
the proposed interim solution outlined in this change order proposal will be
eliminated when the NAS is modified to enable it to perform the manual
functions included in this proposal (within the next 6 months).

 

3.                                       NANPA assumes
when carriers call to request information relating to the denial, NANPA will
only be required to explain the Red Light Rule and its application in the
assignment of number resources. Questions concerning an entity’s status with
regard to debts and payment must be directed to the FCC.

 

4.                                       NANPA assumes
the information provided to it on the FCC’s delinquent list is true and
accurate.

 

If the process expands beyond the assumptions, the
NANPA reserves the option of filing a revised change order proposal to address
the additional expansion.

 

Risks

 

As with any manual process, the risks of human error
are greater than with a mechanized process. Further, NANPA relies on the NRUF
data for the FRN-to-OCN associations. The accuracy of the FRN to OCN
association performed by NANPA is only as reliable as the information that
carriers have entered on their NRUF Form 502 submissions.

 

Impact on Operations

 

The proposed solution impacts our operations by
requiring NANPA staff to perform additional functions not identified in the
contract. Specifically, they fall into the following categories:

 

1.                                       Accessing the
daily FCC delinquent FRN list and transforming the information into a list of
delinquent OCNs;

 

2.                                       Checking
central office assignment applications against the delinquent OCN list and
denying those assignment/reservation applications that contain an OCN appearing
on the delinquent OCN list;

 

3.                                       Providing a
list of FRNs and associated OCNs to the Pooling Administrator; and

 

4.                                       Addressing
additional calls and emails that result from the implementation of the new
criteria.

 

5.                                      Cost

 

Although NANPA personnel will, on a temporary basis,
assume significant additional tasks to accomplish the processes described
herein, there will be no cost associated with this short-term 

 

6

 

change order proposal. If however, NAS is not
modified within 6 months to accommodate the Red Light Rule (see NANPA
Change Order #3, NAS Implementation of the Red Light Rule), NANPA may seek to
hire additional personnel to perform the functions on a long-term basis. The
costs associated with hiring additional personnel would be the subject of a
separate change order proposal.

 

6.                                      Conclusion

 

NeuStar, as the NANPA, hereby seeks the FCC’s approval
for this Scope of Work Change in order for proper communication protocols to be
executed by which the industry can be made aware of NANPA’s implementation of
the new requirements generated by the FCC’s adoption of the Red Light Rule. In
reviewing the impacts of the Red Light Rule on NANPA operations, the
proposal attempts to develop a plan that permits the immediate implementation
of the Red Light Rule while NANPA pursues a long-term, system-oriented
solution to new implementation requirements presented by the Red Light Rule.

 

7

 

NANP Administration Services

Scope of Work Change Proposal #3

NAS Implementation of the Red Light Rule

October 13, 2004

 

3

 

NANPA - Scope of Work Change # 3 Proposal - 

	
  NAS Implementation of the Red Light Rule

  	
  October 13, 2004

  

 

 

Table of Contents

 

	
  1

  	
  Introduction

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  1.1

  	
  Purpose and Scope

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  1.2

  	
  Modification of NANPA Scope of
  Work

  	
   

  
	
  2

  	
  Proposed FCC Scope of Work Change

  	
   

  
	
  3

  	
  NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

  	
   

  
	
  4

  	
  Assumptions and Risks

  	
   

  
	
  5

  	
  Cost

  	
   

  
	
  6

  	
  Conclusion

  	
   

  

 

ii

 

 

1.                                      Introduction

 

1.1.                            Purpose and Scope

 

In accordance with NeuStar’s contract(8) and
our constant effort to provide the best support and value to both the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) and the telecommunications industry, NeuStar, as
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), hereby submits this
scope of work change to the FCC for approval. This scope of work change is in
compliance with NANPA’s Change Management protocol and is consistent with the
requirements outlined in NANP Administrator Solicitation SOL03000001, Section H.9,
Item 5, which states the following:

 

“If and when a change to the NANPA system is adopted
by the NANC or the INC, the contractor’s liaison shall ensure that the proposed
change is forwarded to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s
Technical Representative (COTR). No change shall be binding until such
modification is issued, nor shall the Government be liable for any costs
associated with a system change until such modification is issued.”

 

1.2.                            Modification of NANPA
Scope of Work

 

Pursuant to NeuStar’s contact, the NANPA shall
participate in the development and modification of guidelines and procedures,
which may affect the performance of the NANPA functions. These changes may be
derived from regulatory directives and/or modifications to guidelines. In
addition, new guidelines may be developed as appropriate to comply with
regulatory directives. The NANPA shall adopt and implement those changes that
are consistent with regulatory directives after they are officially adopted,
recognizing that some may constitute a change in the scope of work.

 

On September 8, 2004, the FCC issued a Public
Notice regarding the interpretation of the Red Light Rule(9) The notice
reads, in pertinent part:

 

The new rule, found at 47 C.F.R. §1.1910 and
commonly referred to as the “red light rule,” provides that anyone filing an
application or seeking a benefit from the Commission or one of its components
(including the Universal Service Administrative Corporation, the
Telecommunications Relay Service, or the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator) who is delinquent in debts owed to the Commission will be barred
from receiving a license or other benefit until the delinquency has been
resolved. Under this rule, when an application or request for 

 

(8)               Contract
Number CON03000016 and the NANPA Technical Requirements Document, March 2003

 

(9)               The
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 47 C.F.R. §1.1910, commonly referred
to as the “red light rule.” 0 NeuStar, Inc. 2004 NeuStar Proprietary
and Confidential -3-

 

3

 

benefit is filed, the FCC Registration Number (FRN)
will be checked to determine if the entity or person is delinquent in debt owed
to the Commission.

 

On September 13, 2004, NeuStar received a
letter from the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and the Office of Managing
Director(10) that directed NeuStar, acting as the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator “to withhold numbering resources from any entity identified
by the FCC as not having paid or made satisfactory arrangement for payment of
any debts owed to the Commission.”

 

Currently, FCC Contract Number CON03000016 does not
contain any reference to the Red Light Rule, nor does it require the NANPA to
perform the multiple processes, which will be necessary to implement the rule.
By this change order proposal, we offer to provide those services required by
the Red Light Rule Order and the September 13 Letter. This document
provides the information required by the contract, such as identifying the new
requirements, offering our proposed solution, and addressing its cost, risks,
and assumptions.

 

2.                                      Proposed FCC Scope of Work Change

 

In accordance with the North American Numbering Plan
Administration Technical Requirements Document, dated March 2003, the NANP
Administration System (NAS) assigns resources based upon the Operating Company
Number (OCN) of a carrier. All utilization and months-to-exhaust forms, as well
as all other functions of NAS, are keyed to OCNs. The FCC is administering the
Red Light Rule using companies’ FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs). A service
provider may have multiple OCNs per FRN. For the NANPA to implement the Red
Light Rule properly, it is necessary for NANPA to identify which OCNs are
associated with any FRN appearing on the FCC delinquent list. The FCC will post
this delinquent FRN list daily to its website. NANPA will then process the list
in order to identify which OCNs match the FRNs on the list and withhold
numbering resources from those applicants whose OCNs on the application form
matches an FRN that appears on the FCC delinquent list.

 

3.                                      NeuStar’s Proposed Solution

 

In order to implement the FCC Red Light Rule for
central office code application processing,(11) NANPA proposes modifying the
NANP Administration System (NAS). We believe that our proposed solution set
forth below will enable us to properly assign and deny resources in accordance
with the Red Light Rule in the most efficient and effective manner
possible. .

 

(10)         Letter
to Mindy Ginsburg, NeuStar, from Mark Reger, Chief Financial Officer, Office of
Managing Director and Richard Lerner, Acting Deputy Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau, FCC, September 13, 2004 (the September 13 Letter).

 

(11)         This
includes central office code requests from geographic area codes, the 500 area
code and the 900 area code.

 

4

 

Solution:

 

l.                                          On a daily
basis, NAS will access the FCC FTP file containing delinquent FRNs.

 

2.                                       NAS will
compare the FRNs in the FTP file with the FRNs reported via the Number Resource
Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) reporting process. This comparison will permit the
identification of the Operating Company Number(s) (OCNs) associated with the
FRN.

 

3.                                       NAS will
generate a report of OCN(s) that are ineligible to receive numbering resources
due to the appearance of their FRN on the FCC delinquent list. This report will
be available to NANPA staff processing central office code assignment requests.

 

4.                                       At the end of
each business day, NAS will run a query to identify and flag all pending
assignment/reservation applications for central office code in geographic area
codes in which the OCN on the application appears on the delinquent
NAS-generated OCN list.(12)

 

5.                                       If a NANPA Code
Administrator processes any of those applications during the next business day,
a Part 3 denial will be created with standard verbiage providing the
reason for the denial and the contact information for the FCC’s Red Light Rule help
desk.

 

NANPA will also provide a list of FRNs and
associated OCNs to the National Pooling Administrator (PA) because the PA is
also subject to the requirements of the Red Light Rule and the September 13
letter, but has no independent access to the OCNs in the NRUF data that is
submitted to the NANPA.

 

Questions concerning an entity’s status with regard
to debts and payment must be directed to the FCC. NANPA will not have any
information on these matters. In compliance with the FCC’s requirements for
NANPA, NANPA will simply use the list of delinquent FRNs provided by the FCC
and identify the associated OCNs as part of the resource assignment and review
process.

 

4.                                      Assumptions and Risks

 

Part of the NANPA’s assessment of this change
order is to identify the associated assumptions and consider the risks that can
have an impact on our operations.

 

Assumptions:

 

1.                                       NANPA assumes
that the FCC FTP file will be available each business day. If there are any
problems or issues that result in an updated file not being available, NAS will
use the most recent FRN list the FCC made available to the NANPA.

 

2.                                       NANPA assumes
when carriers call to request information relating to the denial, NANPA will
only be required to explain the Red Light Rule and its application in the
assignment of number resources. Questions concerning an entity’s status with
regard to debts and payment must be directed to the FCC.

 

(12)         Applications
for the assignment/reservation of central office codes from the 500 and 900
NPAs will continue to be identified by the Code Administrator.

 

5

 

3.                                       NANPA assumes
the information provided to it on the FCC’s delinquent list is true and
accurate.

 

If the process expands beyond these assumptions, the
NANPA reserves the option of filing a revised change order proposal to address
the additional expansion.

 

Risks

 

This process relies on the NRUF data for the
FRN-to-OCN associations. The accuracy of the FRN to OCN association performed
by NANPA is only as reliable as the information that carriers have entered on
their NRUF Form 502 submissions.

 

Impact on Operations

 

The proposed solution impacts the NAS by requiring
the system to perform additional functions not identified in the contract.
Specifically, they fall into the following categories:

 

1.                                       Accessing the
daily FCC delinquent FRN list and transforming the information into a list of
delinquent OCNs;

 

2.                                       Checking and
flagging central office assignment applications against the delinquent OCN
list;

 

3.                                       Denying those
assignment/reservation applications that have been identified by NAS as
containing an OCN appearing on the delinquent OCN list;

 

4.                                       Providing a
list of FRNs and associated OCNs to the National Pooling Administrator; and

 

5.                                       Addressing
additional calls and emails that result from the implementation of the new
criteria.

 

5.                                      Cost

 

The proposed solution for implementation of the Red
Light Rule requires changes in the NANP Administration System in order for
NANPA Code Administration to identify automatically assignment/reservation
applications and withhold numbering resources where the applicant is appears on
the FCC delinquent FRN list. NANPA has determined that the cost associated with
implementing this change in NAS is $13,121.31.

 

6.                                      Conclusion

 

NeuStar, as the NANPA, hereby seeks the FCC’s
approval for this Scope of Work Change in order for proper communication
protocols to be executed by which the industry can be made aware that NANPA’s
implementation of the requirements generated by the FCC’s adoption of the Red
Light Rule. The proposal and the costs identified herein are intended to permit
the implementation of a long-term system-oriented solution to the new
implementation requirements presented by the Red Light Rule.

 

6QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.5  

 
  ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES    
    

	1.	 	DATE OF ORDER	 	26 Oct. 2001
	

2.	
 	

CONTRACT NO. (if any)	
 	

 
	

3.	
 	

ORDER NO.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

4.	
 	

REQUISITION/REFERENCE NO.	
 	

01-909-0066
	

5.	
 	

ISSUING OFFICE

(address correspondence to: 000SB	
 	

NIST

100 BUREAU DRIVE STOP 3571

BUILDING 301 ROOM B129

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899-3571

WIDDUP, JOSEPH (301-975-6324
	

6.	
 	

SHIP TO:	
 	

SCHED
	

 	
 	

a.  Name of Consignee	
 	

SEE SCHEDULE BELOW
	

 	
 	

b.  Street Address	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

c.  City	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

d.  State	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

e.  Zip Code	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

f.  Ship VIA	
 	

 
	

7.	
 	

TO:	
 	

0007158
	

 	
 	

TIN:	
 	

522141938
	

 	
 	

a.  Name of Contractor	
 	

NEUSTAR
	

 	
 	

b.  Company Name	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

c.  Street Address	
 	

1120 VERMONT AVENUE NW

Suite 400
	

 	
 	

d.  City	
 	

Washington
	

 	
 	

e.  State	
 	

DC
	

 	
 	

f.  Zip	
 	

20005
	

8.	
 	

TYPE OF ORDER	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

a.  /x/ Purchase	
 	

REFERENCE YOUR: Quotation

Dated July 27, 2001

Please furnish the following terms and conditions specified on both sides of this order and on the attached sheet, if any, including delivery as indicated.
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

 

	

 	
 	

b.  / / Delivery	
 	

Except for billing instructions on the reverse, this delivery order is subject to instructions contained on this side only of this form and is issued subject to the terms and conditions of the above-referenced contract.
	

9.	
 	

ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION	
 	

See Attached Schedule
	

 	
 	

BOC:	
 	

$0.00
	

 	
 	

OBLIGATED AMT:	
 	

 
	

10.	
 	

REQUISITIONING OFFICE	
 	

NTIA 909.00
	

11.	
 	

ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION	
 	

/ / a.  Small
	

 	
 	

(check appropriate box(es))	
 	

/x/ b.  Other Than Small
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

/ / c.  Disadvantaged
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

/ / d.  Women-Owned
	

12.	
 	

F.O.B. POINT	
 	

See Schedule
	

13.	
 	

PLACE OF	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

a.  Inspection	
 	

Destination
	

 	
 	

b.  Acceptance	
 	

Destination
	

14.	
 	

GOVERNMENT B/L/ NO.	
 	

 
	

15.	
 	

DELIVER TO F.O.B. POINT ON OR BEFORE	
 	

25 Oct 2005
	

16.	
 	

DISCOUNT TERMS	
 	

00.00% 0 Days
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Net 0
	

17.	
 	

SCHEDULE (seer reverse for Projections)	
 	

 

2

 

	Item No.

(a)
	 	Supplies or Services

(b)
	 	Quantity

Ordered

(c)
	 	Unit

(d)
	 	Unit Price

(e)
	 	Amount

(f)
	 	Qty

Accept.

(g)

	 	 	The Contractor's quotation dated July 27, 2001 is hereby incorporated by reference into this purchase order as though it were included in full text. In the event of an inconsistency between the provisions of this Purchase
Order and the Contractor's quotation, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: i) the Purchase Order (excluding the Contractor's	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

 	
 	

Account and Appropriation Data: 00.00.00.0000000000.0000000000. 000.00000000000000.0000000000	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

BOC: 27800	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

002	
 	
Option Period One

The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW
 Period of Performance: 365 days, beginning the day after the Base Period expires	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

Account and Appropriation Data:

00.00.00.0000000000.0000000000. 000.00000000000000.0000000000	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

BOC: 27800	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

3

   
July 27, 2001 

Attn:
Joseph L. Widdup

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Dr. Stop 3571

Bldg. 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

M/F Solicitation SB1335-01-Q-0740 

Dear
Mr. Widdup: 

        We
are pleased to submit the attached proposal in response to the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Request for Quotation (RFQ) (Solicitation Number
SB1335-01-Q-0740) on behalf of the U. S. Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration for Centralized Management and
Coordination of Registry, Registrar, Database, and Information Services for the usTLD. 

        As
our proposal demonstrates, we offer the Department of Commerce a truly neutral vendor who is qualified to perform the required roles and responsibilities set forth in the Statement of
Work in the Request for Quotation. 

        The
solution we propose will demonstrate that NeuStar has: 

	•
	A
legacy of managing public resources in a responsible manner.

	•
	The
experience to transition mission critical infrastructure services.

	•
	Proven
experience implementing advanced technologies to increase the utility of public resources.

	•
	A
legacy of facilitating policy processes in environments with multiple stakeholders.

	•
	The
financial means and necessary commitment to build and operate mission critical resources. 

        As
requested, we have provided an original version and two copies of our response to the RFQ. The proposal is organized in accordance with the Instructions for Submitting Quotations, and
Amendment 1, Question 15. Following this letter of transmittal is the RFQ Transmittal Form, NeuStar's signed Acknowledgment of Amendment 0001 (June 16, 2001), Amendment 0002
(June 17, 2001), and Amendment 0003 (July 23, 2001). NeuStar submits this response as "Confidential and Proprietary Information" and has indicated so in the left hand corner of each
page. NeuStar understands this to mean, all information received in response to this solicitation will be considered confidential and proprietary information and will be treated as such, as cited in
SB1335-01-Q-0740 Amendment 0001, Question 5. 

        While
I am the negotiator for this proposal and am authorized to bind the Corporation to any contract resulting herefrom, should you have any questions regarding our proposal, please
contact Ken Hansen at 202.533.2685, via fax at 202.533.2975, or via e-mail at Ken.hansen@neustar.com. 

        We
look forward to working with the DOC and NTIA to ensure the successful enhancement and expansion of the usTLD. 

Sincerely,

Robert
Poulin

Vice President, Corporate Development

NeuStar, Inc. 

Enclosures 

4

  

	

REQUEST FOR QUOTATION
 (THIS IS NOT AN ORDER)	
 	

This RFQ o is ý is not a small Business set-aside	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

1. REQUEST NO

SB1335-01-Q-0740	
 	

2. DATE ISSUED

Jun 12, 2001	
 	

3. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ NO.

01-909-0066	
 	

4. CERT FOR NAT. DEF. UNDER BDSA REG 2 AND/OR DMS REQ. 1	
 	

RATING
	

5a. ISSUED BY	
 	

6. DELIVERY BY (Date)
	 	
 NATIONAL INST OF STDS AND TECHNOLOGY

100 BUREAU DRIVE STOP 3572

CONTRACTS BUILDING 301 ROOM B117

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-3572	
 	

7. DELIVERY

o FOB Destination ý Other (See Schedule)
	

5b. FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL (No Collect Calls)	
 	

9. DESTINATION    SCHED
	

NAME	
 	

 	
 	

Area Code	
 	

Telephone	
 	

a. NAME OF CONSIGNEE
	WIDDUP, JOSEPH	 	061	 	301	 	975-6324	 	SEE SCHEDULE BELOW
	

8. TO	
 	

b. STREET ADDRESS
	

a. NAME	
 	

b. COMPANY	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	Robert Poulin	 	NeuStar, Inc.	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

c. STREET ADDRESS	
 	

 	
 	

 
	1120 Vermont Avenue, NW

Suite 400	 	 	 	 
	

d. CITY	
 	

e. STATE	
 	

f. ZIP CODE	
 	

d. STATE	
 	

e. ZIP CODE
	Washington	 	DC	 	20005	 	 	 	 
	

10. PLEASE FURNISH QUOTATIONS TO THE ISSUING OFFICE IN BLOCK 5A ON OR BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS (DATE)

Jul 27, 2001	
 	

IMPORTANT: This is a request for information and quotations furnished are not offers. If you are unable to quote, please so indicate on this form and return it to the address in Block 5A. This request does not commit the Government to pay any costs
incurred in the the submission of this quotation or to contract for supplies or services. Supplies are of domestic origin unless otherwise indicated by Any representations and/or certifications to this Request for Quotations must be completed by the
quoter.
	

11. SCHEDULE (Indicate applicable Federal, State and local taxes)
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

	ITEM NO.

(a)
	 	SUPPLIES/SERVICES

(b)
	 	QUANTITY

(c)
	 	UNIT

(d)
	 	UNIT PRICE

(f)
	 	AMOUNT

(f)

	0001	 	The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW Period of Performance: Base Period (4 years, beginning on the date of purchase order award)	 	4	 	YR	 	$	0.00	 	$	0.00
	0002	 	The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW Period of Performance: Option Period One (365 days, beginning the day after the Base Year expires)	 	1	 	YR	 	$	0.00	 	$	0.00
	0003	 	The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW Period of Performance: Option Period Two (365 days, beginning the day after the Base Year expires)	 	1	 	YR	 	$	0.00	 	$	0.00

	

12. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT	
 	

a. 10 Calendar Days (%)	
 	

b. 20 Calendar Days (%)	
 	

c. 30 Calendar Days (%)	
 	

D. CALENDAR DAYS
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

NUMBER	
 	

PERCENTAGE
	

NOTE: Additional provisions and representations ý are o are not attached.
	

13. NAME AND ADDRESS OF QUOTER	
 	

14. SIGNATURE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN QUOTATION	
 	

15. DATE OF QUOTATION
	

a. NAME OF QUOTER	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	NeuStar, Inc.	 	DUNS-11-240-3295	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

b. STREET ADDRESS	
 	

16. SIGNER
	1120 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 400	 	a. NAME (Type or print)	 	b. TELEPHONE
	

c. COUNTY	
 	

Robert Poulin	
 	

AREA CODE

202
	

d. CITY	
 	

e. STATE	
 	

f. ZIP CODE	
 	

c. TITLE (Type or print)	
 	

NUMBER
	Washington	 	DC	 	20005	 	Vice President	 	533.2680
	
AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION	
 	

STANDARD FORM 18 (Rev. 6/95)

5

  

 
 

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)    
    

        The Contractor must furnish the necessary personnel, material, equipment, services, and facilities (except as otherwise specified) to perform the requirements
stated in this SOW. 

A. INTRODUCTION  

        The.us domain ("usTLD") is the country code top level domain ("ccTLD") of the Internet domain name system ("DNS") that corresponds to the United States.
Currently, second-level domain space in.us is designated for states and U.S. territories and special purposes as described in the Internet Engineering Task Force's ("IETF") RFC 1480 (titled  The US Domainhttp://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1480.txt?number=1480) ("RFC 1480"), and is further subdivided
into localities and other functional designations. 

        Individuals
and organizations may currently request a delegation from the usTLD Administrator to provide registry and registrar services for a particular locality or localities. Local
governments and community-based organizations typically use the usTLD, although some commercial names have been assigned. Where registration for a locality has not been delegated, the usTLD
Administrator itself provides necessary registry and registrar services. Information on the locality-based usTLD structure and registration policies is available for review at:  http://www.nic.us

        The
usTLD is a widely distributed registry, currently with over 8000 sub-domain delegations to over 800 individuals and entities, who maintain a registry and provide
registration services for commercial, educational, and governmental entities. This distributed registration model affords scalable registration services and opportunities for organizations and
commercial entities to provide name registration services. For purposes of this acquisition, we will refer to the current.us name space and structure, including its non-locality,
functional elements, as the "locality-based usTLD structure." 

        While
the locality-based usTLD structure has not attracted high levels of registration and utilization in comparison to other ccTLD's, it is popular with its current base of users.
During consultations with the public on the administration of the usTLD, a considerable number of parties expressed a desire for the
continued operation and support of the locality-based usTLD structure. The Contractor will be required to maintain and improve the management of the current usTLD space. 

        Because
of its deeply hierarchical and somewhat cumbersome structure, the usTLD has not been used on a wide scale. The general absence of less hierarchical registration opportunities in
the usTLD has limited the domain's attractiveness to users. It has been suggested that this more "generic" space would greatly increase the utility of the usTLD. Therefore, this acquisition also
encompasses functions that will allow, on a competitive basis, for the registration of second level domains directly under usTLD (such as example.us). 

        A
number of technical enhancements to the usTLD system functions are required to make the system more robust and reliable. Because the usTLD has operated for the most part on a delegated
basis for a number of years, the availability of centralized contact information for the usTLD has proven difficult to maintain. For example, RFC 1480 advises but does not require that the
administrator of a delegated sub-domain operate a database of accurate and up-to-date registration information ("WHOIS") service. As described in section above,
"locality-based usTLD structure" in this acquisition refers to the current usTLD space (as described in RFC 1480), including those limited non-locality, functional designations. 

        Notwithstanding
the fact that some of the administrative responsibilities for the locality-based usTLD structure require the registry to act as a registrar in certain limited
circumstances, in order to encourage competition in domain name registration services, the Contractor will not be permitted to act as both the registry and a registrar in the expanded usTLD space.
Further, the Contractor will be 

6

 

required
to perform a core set of usTLD registry functions, as described in the Contractor Requirements section below. 

        On
August 4, 1998, the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC"), through DOC's National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA"), solicited comments
addressing the future expansion and administration of the usTLD space. On March 9, 1999, NTIA hosted a public meeting regarding the future management and administration of the.us domain with
approximately sixty participants, including the current usTLD Administrator, current.us registrars, educators, representatives of the technical, public interest and business communities, and federal,
state and foreign government officials. NTIA also established an open electronic mailing list to facilitate further public discussions of the issues. On August 17, 2000, NTIA requested comments
on a draft SOW for this acquisition. Comments received by NTIA were reviewed and considered by NTIA in connection with preparation of this SOW. 

        This
acquisition is being conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. 

B. CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS  

        The Contractor must perform the required services for this acquisition as a prime Contractor, not as an agent or subcontractor. (The provision of the required
services may be accomplished through coordinating the resources and services provided by entities other than the prime Contractor.) The Contractor must be (a) incorporated within one of the
fifty states of the United States of America or the District of Columbia or (b) organized under a law of a state of the United States of America or the District of Columbia. The Contractor must
possess and maintain through the performance of this acquisition a physical address within the United States and must be able to demonstrate that all primary registry services will remain within the
United States of America (including the District of Columbia). 

        The Contractor may not charge the United States Government for performance of the requirements of this purchase order (the unit price and amount for Line Items
0001, 0002 and 0003 must each be $0.00). However, the Contractor may establish and collect fees from third parties for performance of the requirements of this purchase order,
provided that the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which approval will not be withheld unreasonably, provided that the fee levels are fair and reasonable. 

B.1 Statement of Purpose  

        The Department of Commerce seeks to acquire centralized management and coordination of registry, registrar (where specified), database, and information services
for the usTLD. In broadest terms, the usTLD was created to provide a locus for registration of domain names to serve the Internet community of the United States, and is intended to be available to a
wide range of registrants. Given the foregoing, the Department seeks quotations that will achieve the following objectives: 

	1.
	Ensure
that procedures and a framework of accountability for the delegation and the administration of usTLD evolve into a more robust, certain, and reliable system.

	2.
	Promote
increased use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States (including small businesses, consumers, Internet users, not-for-profit
organizations, and local governments (i.e., state, city, and county), among others), with residence or a
bona fide presence in the United States) through introduction of enhanced services, dissemination of information through advertising and/or other appropriate mechanisms, and simplification of
registration services including direct registration. 

7

 

	3.
	Create
a centrally administered and efficiently managed structure that ensures both registrant/consumer confidence and infrastructure stability through coordination of delegations as
well as other appropriate functions.

	4.
	Create
a stable, flexible, and balanced environment within the usTLD that is conducive to innovation and that will meet the future demands of potential registrants.

	5.
	Ensure
continued stability of the domain name system as a whole and the usTLD, particularly throughout the transition period from the current management structure into the new
structure developed and maintained under the Contractor.

	6.
	Manage
the usTLD consistent with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) technical management of the DNS.

	7.
	Allow
for the adequate protection of intellectual property in the usTLD. This includes, in particular, the implementation of a "sunrise period" that permits qualified trademark owners
to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the expanded usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider registration, and a dispute resolution procedure to
address conflicts between trademarks and domain names arising from "cybersquatting" in the usTLD.

	8.
	Establish
and maintain consistent communication between the COTR, the Contractor and ICANN. This includes representation of the usTLD in the ICANN ccTLD constituency and contribution
to ICANN's operating costs as apportioned to the usTLD through the ICANN budget process.

	9.
	Promote
robust competition within the usTLD and in particular registration services that will lead to greater choice, new, and better services for users. 

B.2 Core Registry Functions  

        The Contractor must provide, at a minimum, the services that are outlined below. This list should not be viewed as exhaustive. The Contractor must provide all
systems, software, hardware, facilities, infrastructure, and operation for the following functions: 

	1.
	Operation
and maintenance of the primary, authoritative server for the usTLD;

	2.
	Operation
and/or administration of a constellation of secondary servers for the usTLD;

	3.
	Compilation,
generation, and propagation of the usTLD zone file(s);

	4.
	Maintenance
of an accurate and up-to-date registration (WHOIS) database for all usTLD registrations;

	5.
	Maintenance
of an accurate and up-to-date database of usTLD subdelegation managers;

	6.
	Establishment
of a data escrow for usTLD zone file and domain name registration information, including chain of registration data;

	7.
	Compliance
with applicable Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and applicable ICANN policies for the functions outlined above; and

	8.
	Promotion
of awareness and registration in the usTLD including maintaining website with up-to-date policy and registration information for the usTLD. 

8

 

B.3 Core Policy Requirements  

        The Contractor must: 

	1.
	Implement United States Nexus Requirement: The Contractor must run the usTLD as a country code top level domain intended to serve the
community of Internet users (including end users, business, government, and not-for-profit organizations, among others) resident or located with a bona fide presence in the
United States, and is not intended to attract or otherwise encourage registrations from outside the United States. In addition to the current policy set forth in RFC 1480 requiring that usTLD domain
name registrations be hosted on computers located within the United States, the Contractor must implement a United States Nexus Requirement in both the locality-based usTLD structure and the expanded
usTLD space.

	2.
	Adopt ICANN Policies Pertaining to Open ccTLD's: Although the usTLD is intended to serve the Internet community of the United States,
and is not intended to encourage registrations from entities or individuals resident outside the United States, the Contractor must follow the ICANN policies pertaining to open ccTLD's unless
otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer.

	3.
	Implement a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure and Sunrise Policy. The Contractor must implement a uniform domain name
dispute resolution procedure intended to resolve disputes arising from "cybersquatting" applicable to the usTLD (such policy is intended to be modeled upon the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Procedure, consistent with modifications necessary for such policy to be applicable to the usTLD specifically). The Contractor must also implement a "Sunrise Policy" that permits qualified
trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the expanded usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider registration.

	4.
	Abide by Government Advisory Committee Principles: The Contractor must abide by the principles and procedures set forth in the
Government Advisory Committee document "Principles for the Delegation and Management of Country-Code Top Level Domains," unless inconsistent with U.S. law or regulation. 

B.4 Locality-based usTLD Structure Functions  

        The Contractor must: 

	1.
	Provide Service for Existing Delegees and Registrants: Provide service and support for existing delegees and registrants in the
existing, locality-based usTLD structure under current practice, including policies set forth in RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies.

	2.
	Provide Services for Undelegated Third Level Sub-Domains: Provide direct registry and registrar services for all other
undelegated third level locality sub-domains, including services for CO and CI, and undelegated special purpose domains (K12, CC, TEC, LIB, MUS, STATE, DST, COG and GEN).

	3.
	Modernize Locality-Based usTLD processes: The Contractor must modernize and automate the locality-based usTLD delegation and
registration process under the control of the usTLD administrator, including the creation of an electronic database to store historical usTLD registration data.

	4.
	Coordinate Current Locality-Based usTLD Users: The Contractor must create a mechanism or mechanisms whereby delegated managers of the
usTLD, users of the locality-based usTLD, traditional usTLD user groups (such as state and local governments, the library community and educational institutions, among others), and other interested
parties, can coordinate to discuss usTLD administrative, technical, and policy issues related to the operation and management of locality-based usTLD structure. 

9

 
	5.
	Investigate Compliance with Current Locality-Based usTLD Policies: The Contractor must conduct an investigation (or commission such an
investigation) and submit a report to the COTR, within six months after purchase order award, evaluating the compliance of existing sub-domain managers with the requirements of RFC 1480
and other documented usTLD policies. Further, the study should include an evaluation of "locality-squatting" issues, or the practice of registering a locality name without providing a responsive level
of service to such locality. Such report must recommend structural, procedural, and policy changes designed to enhance such compliance or improve usTLD registration services and increase the value of
the locality-based usTLD structure to local communities. During this evaluation period, the Contractor must not make any additional locality delegations or transfers unless otherwise directed by the
Contracting Officer.

	6.
	Develop Database of usTLD Delegated Managers: The Contractor must develop a single database for up-to-date and
verified contact information for all delegated managers in the usTLD, including to locality-level and functional second level (where delegated) administrators and, where applicable, for all
sub-delegations made by such locality-level or second level administrators. Such databases should allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, public,
web-based interface, and consist of at least the following elements:

	A.
	The
name of the delegated manager;

	B.
	The
IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation;

	C.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	D.
	The
date of delegation;

	E.
	The
name and postal address of the delegated manager;

	F.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager;

	G.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager; and

	H.
	The
website or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under that delegation.

	7.
	Develop Registrant WHOIS Database: The Contractor must develop an enhanced searchable WHOIS database that contains, or provides reliable
access to, all locality-based usTLD registrants including the registrants of delegated usTLD managers and, where applicable, registrants located under delegated managers' sub-delegations.
Such WHOIS database must allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, public, web-based interface, and consist of at least the following elements:

	A.
	The
name of the domain registered;

	B.
	The
Internet Protocol (IP) address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;

	C.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	D.
	The
identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered;

	E.
	The
creation date of the registration;

	F.
	The
name and postal address of the domain name holder; 

10

 

	G.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and

	H.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder. 

B.5 Expanded usTLD Space Functions  

        The Contractor must not act as a registrar in the expanded usTLD space. Presented below is a non-exhaustive list of elements that the Contractor must
incorporate into its procedures and policies for the expanded usTLD structure: 

	1.
	Develop and Implement Shared Registration System: The Contractor must develop and implement a shared registration system whereby
qualified competing registrars may register domain names for their customers in the expanded usTLD space (i.e., example.us). At a minimum, this proposed
shared registration system must allow an unlimited number of accredited/licensed registrars to register domain names in the expanded usTLD; provide equivalent access to the system for all
accredited/licensed registrars to register domains and transfer domain name registrations among competing accredited/licensed registrars; update domain name registrations; and provide technical
support for accredited/licensed registrars.

	2.
	Accreditation of usTLD Registrars: The Contractor must develop and implement a process describing the manner in which registrars in the
expanded usTLD space will be accredited to register names in the expanded usTLD.

	3.
	Technical Certification of usTLD Registrars: The Contractor must develop and implement a process for technical certification of
registrars in the expanded usTLD space.

	4.
	Develop WHOIS Database: The Contractor must develop an enhanced searchable WHOIS database that contains, or provides reliable access to,
all expanded usTLD registrations. Such WHOIS database must be operated at the registry level (as opposed to at the level of individual accredited registrars) and allow for multiple string and field
searching through a free, public, web-based interface, and consist of at least the following elements:

	a.
	The
name of the second level domain registered;

	b.
	The
IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;

	c.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	d.
	The
creation date of the registration;

	e.
	The
name and postal address of the domain name holder;

	f.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and

	g.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder.

	5.
	Community Outreach Plan: The Contractor must develop a public outreach mechanism whereby the public space can suggest or recommend
additional policies or procedures for the usTLD that may be developed or suggest how existing policy should be modified or updated. 

11

 

C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES  

        The Contractor must post the following reports on their Internet site in order to facilitate transparency and public access. 

C.1 Investigational Study (One-Time Report Due Six Months After Purchase Order Award)

        The
Contractor must conduct an investigation and submit a written report to the COTR, within six months after purchase order award, evaluating the compliance of existing
sub-domain managers with the requirements of RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies. Such report must recommend structural, procedural, or policy changes designed to enhance such
compliance and increase the value of the locality-based structure to local communities. During this evaluation period, the Contractor must make no additional locality delegations unless otherwise
directed by the Contracting Officer. 

C.2 Progress Reports  

        For the first two years of the purchase order, the Contractor must submit monthly progress reports to the COTR, in writing, detailing the Contractor's progress
towards meeting the purchase order SOW requirements. Thereafter, such reports must be provided to the COTR on a quarterly basis. 

        These
reports must indicate the status of all major events, as well as major work performed during the month, including technical status, accomplishments, and complications experienced
in fulfilling the SOW requirements, and must be submitted in such detail and form as required by the COTR. Such reports must also provide performance data related to operation of the usTLD including,
but not limited to, the following: the total number of registry transactions; the number of new, transferred or deleted registrations in the usTLD (including cumulative registrations over time); the
number of delegated managers and changes in delegated managers in the locality-based usTLD space; the number of registrars accredited to register names in the expanded usTLD space, including the
operational status of those registrars; and any updates or modifications to the shared registration system made by the Contractor. 

12

  

 
 

CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS    
    

1.    52.203-12 DEV 52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS (DEVIATION NOV 1990) (JUN 1997)  

        (a)   Definitions.

        "Agency,"
as used in this clause, means executive agency as defined in 2.101. 

        "Covered
Federal action," as used in this clause, means any of the following Federal actions: 

        (1)   The
awarding of any Federal contract; 

        (2)   The
making of any Federal grant; 

        (3)   The
making of any Federal loan; 

        (4)   The
entering into of any cooperative agreement; and, 

        (5)   The
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 

        "Indian
tribe" and "tribal organization," as used in this clause, have the meaning provided in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(25 U.S.C. 450B) and include Alaskan Natives. 

        "Influencing
or attempting to influence," as used in this clause, means making, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any covered Federal action. 

        "Local
government," as used in this clause, means a unit of government in a State and, if chartered, established, or otherwise recognized by a State for the performance of a governmental
duty, including a local public authority, a special district, an intrastate district, a council of governments, a sponsor group representative organization, and any other instrumentality of a local
government. 

        "Officer
or employee of an agency," as used in this clause, includes the following individuals who are employed by an agency: 

        (1)   An
individual who is appointed to a position in the Government under title 5, United States Code, including a position under a temporary appointment. 

        (2)   A
member of the uniformed services as defined in subsection 101(3), title 37, United States Code. 

        (3)   A
special Government employee, as defined in section 202, title 18, United States Code. 

        (4)   An
individual who is a member of a Federal advisory committee, as defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, title 5, United States Code, appendix 2. 

        "Person,"
as used in this clause, means an individual, corporation, company, association, authority, firm, partnership, society, State, and local government, regardless of whether such
entity is operated for profit or not for profit. This term excludes an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or any other Indian organization with respect to expenditures specifically permitted by other
Federal law. 

        "Reasonable
compensation," as used this clause, means, with respect to a regularly employed officer or employee of any person, compensation that is consistent with the normal
compensation for such officer or employee for work that is not furnished to, not funded by, or not furnished in cooperation with the Federal Government. 

13

 

        "Reasonable
payment," as used this clause, means, with respect to professional and other technical services, a payment in an amount that is consistent with the amount normally paid for
such services in the private sector. 

        "Recipient,"
as used in this clause, includes the Contractor and all subcontractors. This term excludes an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or any other Indian organization with
respect to expenditures specifically permitted by other Federal law. 

        "Regularly
employed," as used in this clause, means, with respect to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal contract, an officer or employee who is employed
by such person for at least 130 working days within 1 year immediately preceding the date of the submission that initiates agency consideration of such person for receipt of such contract. An
officer or employee who is employed by such person for less than 130 working days within 1 year immediately preceding the date of the submission that initiates agency consideration of such
person must be considered to be regularly employed as soon as he or she is employed by such person for 130 working days. 

        "State,"
as used in this clause, means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory or possession of the United States, an agency
or instrumentality of a State, and multi-State, regional, or interstate entity having governmental duties and powers. 

        (b)   Prohibitions. 

        (1)   Section 1352
of title 31, United States Code, among other things, prohibits a recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement from using
appropriated funds to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract; the making of any Federal grant; the making of any Federal loan; the entering
into of any cooperative agreement; or the modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 

        (2)   The
Act also requires Contractors to furnish a disclosure if any funds other than Federal appropriated funds (including profit or fee received under a covered Federal
transaction) have been paid, or will be paid, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,
or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 

        (3)   The
prohibitions of the Act do not apply under the following conditions: 

          (i)  Agency
and legislative liaison by own employees. 

	(A)
	The
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, does not apply in the case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or
employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action if the payment is for agency and legislative liaison activities not directly related to a covered Federal action.

	(B)
	For
purposes of subdivision (b)(3)(i)(A) of this clause, providing any information specifically requested by an agency or Congress is permitted at any time. 

14

 

	(C)
	The
following agency and legislative liaison activities are permitted at any time where they are not related to a specific solicitation for any covered Federal action: 

        (1)   Discussing
with an agency the qualities and characteristics (including individual demonstrations) of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and
service capabilities. 

        (2)   Technical
discussions and other activities regarding the application or adaptation of the person's products or services for an agency's use. 

	(D)
	The
following agency and legislative liaison activities are permitted where they are prior to formal solicitation of any covered Federal action— 

        (1)   Providing
any information not specifically requested but necessary for an agency to make an informed decision about initiation of a covered Federal action; 

        (2)   Technical
discussions regarding the preparation of an unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission; and 

        (3)   Capability
presentations by persons seeking awards from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small Business Act, as amended by Pub. L. 95-507, and
subsequent amendments. 

	(E)
	Only
those services expressly authorized by subdivision (b)(3)(i)(A) of this clause are permitted under this clause. 

         (ii)  Professional
and technical services. 

	(A)
	The
prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, does not apply in the case of— 

        (1)   A
payment of reasonable compensation made to an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action or an extension, continuation, renewal,
amendment, or modification of a covered Federal action, if payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or
application for that Federal action or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal action. 

        (2)   Any
reasonable payment to a person, other than an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action or any extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of a covered Federal action if the payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid,
proposal, or application for that Federal action or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal
action. Persons other than officers or employees of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action include consultants and trade associations. 

	(B)
	For
purposes of subdivision (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this clause, "professional and technical services" must be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical
discipline. For example, drafting of a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational
capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed
lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section 

15

 

unless
they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or
negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the
legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services.
Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this
section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. 

	(C)
	Requirements
imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation and any other requirements in the actual
award documents.

	(D)
	Only
those services expressly authorized by subdivisions (b)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of this clause are permitted under this clause.

	(E)
	The
reporting requirements of FAR 3.803(a) must not apply with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person. 

        (iii)  Selling
activities by independent sales representatives. The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, does not apply to the
following sales activities before an agency by independent sales representatives, provided such activities are prior to formal solicitation by an agency and are specifically limited to the merits of
the matter; 

	(A)
	Discussing
with an agency (including individual demonstrations) the qualities and characteristics of the person's products or services, conditions or terms of sale, and service
capabilities; and

	(B)
	Technical
discussions and other activities regarding the application or adoption of the person's products or services for an agency's use. 

        (c)   Disclosure.

        (1)   The
Contractor who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract must file with that agency a disclosure form, OMB standard form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under subparagraph
(b)(1) of this clause, if paid for with appropriated funds. 

        (2)   The
Contractor must file a disclosure form at the end of each calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially affects the accuracy of the
information contained in any disclosure form previously filed by such person under subparagraph (c)(1) of this clause. An event that materially affects the accuracy of the information reported
includes— 

          (i)  A
cumulative increase of $25,000 or more in the amount paid or expected to be paid for influencing or attempting to influence a covered Federal action; or 

         (ii)  A
change in the person(s) or individual(s) influencing or attempting to influence a covered Federal action; or 

16

 

        (iii)  A
change in the officer(s), employee(s), or Member(s) contacted to influence or attempt to influence a covered Federal action. 

        (3)   The
Contractor must require the submittal of a certification, and if required, a disclosure form by any person who requests or received any subcontract exceeding
$100,000 under the Federal contract. 

        (4)   All
subcontractor disclosure forms (but not certifications) must be forwarded from tier to tier until received by the prime Contractor. The prime Contractor must submit
all disclosures to the Contracting Officer at the end of the calendar quarter in which the disclosure form is submitted by the subcontractor. Each subcontractor certification must be retained in the
subcontract file of the awarding Contractor. 

        (d)   Agreement.
The Contractor agrees not to make any payment prohibited by this clause. 

        (e)   Penalties.

        (1)   Any
person who makes an expenditure prohibited under paragraph (a) of this clause or who fails to file or amend the disclosure form to be filed or amended by
paragraph (b) of this clause must be subject to civil penalties as provided for by 31 U.S.C. 1352. An imposition of a civil penalty does not prevent the Government from seeking any other remedy
that may be applicable. 

        (2)   Contractors
may rely without liability on the representation made by their subcontractors in the certification and disclosure form. 

        (f)    Cost
allowability. Nothing in this clause makes allowable or reasonable any costs which would otherwise be unallowable or unreasonable. Conversely, costs made
specifically unallowable by the requirements in this clause will not be made allowable under any other provision. 

2.     52.204-6 DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER (JUNE 1999)  

        (a)   The
offeror shall enter, in the block with its name and address on the cover page of its offer, the annotation "DUNS" followed by the DUNS number that identifies the
offeror's name and address exactly as stated in the offer. The DUNS number is a nine-digit number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services. 

        (b)   If
the offeror does not have a DUNS number, it should contact Dun and Bradstreet directly to obtain one. A DUNS number will be provided immediately by telephone at no
charge to the offeror. For information on obtaining a DUNS number, the offeror, if located within the United States, should call Dun and Bradstreet at
1-800-333-0505. The offeror should be prepared to provide the following information: 

        (1)   Company
name. 

        (2)   Company
address. 

        (3)   Company
telephone number. 

        (4)   Line
of business. 

        (5)   Chief
executive officer/key manager. 

        (6)   Date
the company was started. 

        (7)   Number
of people employed by the company. 

        (8)   Company
affiliation. 

17

 

        (c)   Offerors
located outside the United States may obtain the location and phone number of the local Dun and Bradstreet Information Services office from the Internet Home
Page at http://www.customerservice@dnb.com

        If
an offeror is unable to locate a local service center, it may send an e-mail to Dun and Bradstreet at  globalinfo@mail.dnb.com

(End
of provision) 

3.    52.213-4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL ITEMS) (MAR 2001)  

        (a)   The
Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses that are incorporated by reference: 

        (1)   The
clauses listed below implement provisions of law or Executive order: 

          (i)  52.222-3,
Convict Labor (AUG 1996) (E.O. 11755). 

         (ii)  52.225-13,
Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases (July 2000)(E.O.'s 12722, 12724, 13059, 13067, 13121, and 13129). 

        (iii)  52.233-3,
Protest After Award (AUG 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553). 

        (2)   Listed
below are additional clauses that apply: 

          (i)  52.232-1,
Payments (APR 1984). 

         (ii)  52.232-8,
Discounts for Prompt Payment (MAY 1997). 

        (iii)  52.232-11,
Extras (APR 1984). 

        (iv)  52.232-25,
Prompt Payment (JUN 1997). 

         (v)  52.233-1,
Disputes (DEC 1998). 

        (vi)  52.244-6,
Subcontracts for Commercial Items and Commercial Components (MAR 2001). 

      (viii)  52.253-1,
Computer Generated Forms (JAN 1991). 

        (b)   The
Contractor shall comply with the following FAR clauses, incorporated by reference, unless the circumstances do not apply: 

        (1)   The
clauses listed below implement provisions of law or Executive order: 

          (i)  52.222-20,
Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (DEC 1996) (41 U.S.C. 35-45) (Applies to supply contracts over $10,000 in the United States). 

         (ii)  52.222-26,
Equal Opportunity (FEB 1999) (E.O. 11246) (Applies to contracts over $10,000). 

        (iii)  52.222-35,
Affirmative Action for Disabled Veterans and Veterans of the Vietnam Era (APR 1998) (38 U.S.C. 4212) (Applies to contracts over $10,000). 

        (iv)  52.222-36,
Affirmative Action for Workers with Disabilities (JUN 1998) (29 U.S.C. 793) (Applies to contracts over $10,000). 

         (v)  52.222-37,
Employment Reports on Disabled Veterans and Veterans of the Vietnam Era (JAN 1999) (38 U.S.C. 4212) (Applies to contracts over $10,000). 

18

 

        (vi)  52.222-41,
Service Contract Act of 1965, As Amended (MAY 1989) (41 U.S.C. 351, et seq.) (Applies to service contracts over $2,500). 

       (vii)  52.222-19,
Child Labor—Cooperation with Authorities and Remedies (JAN 2001) (E.O. 13126). (Applies to contracts for supplies exceeding the
micro-purchase threshold.) 

      (viii)  52.223-5,
Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know Information (APR 1998) (E.O. 12856) (Applies to services performed on Federal
facilities). 

        (ix)  52.225-1,
Buy American Act—Balance of Payments Program—Supplies (FEB 2000) (41 U.S.C. 10a - 10d) (Applies to contracts
for supplies, and to contracts for services involving the furnishing of supplies, for use within the United States if the value of the supply contract or supply portion of a service contract exceeds
the micro-purchase threshold and the acquisition— 

	(A)
	Is
set aside for small business concerns; or

	(B)
	Cannot
be set aside for small business concerns (19.502-2), and does not exceed $25,000). 

         (x)  52.232-33,
Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Central Contractor Registration (May 1999). (Applies when the payment will be made by
electronic funds transfer (EFT) and the payment office uses the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database as its source of EFT information.) 

        (xi)  52.232-34,
Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer—Other than Central Contractor Registration (May 1999). (Applies when the payment will be
made by EFT and the payment office does not use the CCR database as its source of EFT information.) 

       (xii)  52.247-64,
Preference for Privately Owned U.S.-Flag Commercial Vessels (June 2000) (46 U.S.C. 1241). (Applies to supplies transported by
ocean vessels.) 

        (2)   Listed
below are additional clauses that may apply: 

          (i)  52.209-6,
Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment (JULY 1995) (Applies to
contracts over $25,000). 

         (ii)  52.211-17,
Delivery of Excess Quantities (SEPT 1989) (Applies to fixed-price supplies). 

        (iii)  52.247-29,
F.o.b. Origin (JUN 1988) (Applies to supplies if delivery is f.o.b. origin). 

        (iv)  52.247-34,
F.o.b. Destination (NOV 1991) (Applies to supplies if delivery is f.o.b. destination). 

        (c)   FAR
52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998). This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if
they were taken in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):
http://www.arnet.gov/far 

        (d)   Inspection/Acceptance.
The Contractor shall tender for acceptance only those items that conform to the requirements of this contract. The Government reserves the right
to inspect or test any supplies or services that have been tendered for acceptance. The Government may require repair or replacement of nonconforming supplies or reperformance of nonconforming
services at no increase in contract price. The Government must exercise its postacceptance rights— 

        (1)   Within
a reasonable period of time after the defect was discovered or should have been discovered; and 

19

 

        (2)   Before
any substantial change occurs in the condition of the item, unless the change is due to the defect in the item. 

        (e)   Excusable
delays. The Contractor shall be liable for default unless nonperformance is caused by an occurrence beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor and without
its fault or negligence, such as acts of God or the public enemy, acts of the Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes,
unusually severe weather, and delays of common carriers. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer in writing as soon as it is reasonably possible after the commencement of any excusable
delay, setting forth the full particulars in connection therewith, shall remedy such occurrence with all reasonable dispatch, and shall promptly give written notice to the Contracting Officer of the
cessation of such occurrence. 

        (f)    Termination
for the Government's convenience. The Government reserves the right to terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for its sole convenience. In the event of
such termination, the Contractor shall immediately stop all work hereunder and shall immediately cause any and all of its suppliers and subcontractors to cease work. Subject to the terms of this
contract, the Contractor shall be paid a percentage of the contract price reflecting the percentage of the work performed prior to the notice of termination, plus reasonable charges that the
Contractor can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Government, using its standard record keeping system, have resulted from the termination. The Contractor shall not be required to comply with the
cost accounting standards or contract cost principles for this purpose. This paragraph does not give the Government any right to audit the Contractor's records. The Contractor shall not be paid for
any work performed or costs incurred that reasonably could have been avoided. 

        (g)   Termination
for cause. The Government may terminate this contract, or any part hereof, for cause in the event of any default by the Contractor, or if the Contractor
fails to comply with any contract terms and conditions, or fails to provide the Government, upon request, with adequate assurances of future performance. In the event of termination for cause, the
Government shall not be liable to the Contractor for any amount for supplies or services not accepted, and the Contractor shall be liable to the Government for any and all rights and remedies provided
by law. If it is determined that the Government improperly terminated this contract for default, such termination shall be deemed a termination for convenience. 

        (h)   Warranty.
The Contractor warrants and implies that the items delivered hereunder are merchantable and fit for use for the particular purpose described in this contract. 

(End
of clause) 

4.     52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)  

        (a)   The
Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within sixty (60) days of expiration of the then-current
contract period, provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least sixty (60) days before the contract expires. The preliminary
notice does not commit the Government to an extension. 

        (b)   If
the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause. 

20

  

        (c)   The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed six (6) years. 

        (End
of clause) 

5.    52.227-17 RIGHTS IN DATA—SPECIAL WORKS (JUN 1987)  

        (a)   Definitions.

        "Data,"
as used in this clause, means recorded information regardless of form or the medium on which it may be recorded. The term includes technical data and computer software. The term
does not include information incidental to contract administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing or management information. 

        "Unlimited
rights," as used in this clause, means the right of the Government to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly
and display publicly, in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or permit others to do so. 

        (b)   Allocation
of Rights. (1) The Government shall have— 

          (i)  Unlimited
rights in all data delivered under this contract, and in all data first produced in the performance of this contract, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this clause for copyright. 

         (ii)  The
right to limit exercise of claim to copyright in data first produced in the performance of this contract, and to obtain assignment of copyright in such data, in
accordance with subparagraph (c)(1) of this clause. 

        (iii)  The
right to limit the release and use of certain data in accordance with paragraph (d) of this clause. 

        (2)   The
Contractor shall have, to the extent permission is granted in accordance with subparagraph (c)(1) of this clause, the right to establish claim to copyright
subsisting in data first produced in the performance of this contract. 

        (c)   Copyright—(1)
Data first produced in the performance of this contract. (i) The Contractor agrees not to assert, establish, or authorize others to
assert or establish, any claim to copyright subsisting in any data first produced in the performance of this contract without prior written permission of the Contracting Officer. When claim to
copyright is made, the Contractor shall affix the appropriate copyright notice of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402 and acknowledgment of Government sponsorship (including contract number) to such data when
delivered to the Government, as well as when the data are published or deposited for registration as a published work in the U.S. Copyright Office. The Contractor grants to the Government, and others
acting on its behalf, a paid-up nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license for all such data to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly
and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. 

         (ii)  If
the Government desires to obtain copyright in data first produced in the performance of this contract and permission has not been granted as set forth in subdivision
(c)(1)(i) of this clause, the Contracting Officer may direct the Contractor to establish, or authorize the establishment of, claim to copyright in such data and to assign, or obtain the
assignment of, such copyright to the Government or its designated assignee. 

        (2)   Data
not first produced in the performance of this contract. The Contractor shall not, without prior written permission of the Contracting Officer, incorporate in data
delivered under this contract any data not first produced in the performance of this contract and which contain the copyright notice of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402, unless the Contractor identifies such data
and grants to the Government, or acquires on its behalf, a license of the same scope as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1) of this clause. 

21

 

        (d)   Release
and use restrictions. Except as otherwise specifically provided for in this contract, the Contractor shall not use for purposes other than the performance of
this contract, nor shall the Contractor release, reproduce, distribute, or publish any data first produced in the performance of this contract, nor authorize others to do so, without written
permission of the Contracting Officer. 

        (e)   Indemnity.
The Contractor shall indemnify the Government and its officers, agents, and employees acting for the Government against any liability, including costs and
expenses, incurred as the result of the violation of trade secrets, copyrights, or right of privacy or publicity, arising out of the creation, delivery, publication, or use of any data furnished under
this contract; or any libelous or other unlawful matter contained in such data. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply unless the Government provides notice to the Contractor as soon as
practicable of any claim or suit, affords the Contractor an opportunity under applicable laws, rules, or regulations to participate in the defense thereof, and obtains the Contractor's consent to the
settlement of any suit or claim other than as required by final decree of a court of competent jurisdiction; nor do these provisions apply to material furnished to the Contractor by the Government and
incorporated in data to which this clause applies. 

        (End
of clause) 

6.    1352.233-70 HARMLESS FROM LIABILITY (MARCH 2000)  

        The Contractor shall hold and save the Government, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability of any nature or kind, including costs and expenses
to which they may be subject, for or on account of any or all suits or damages of any character whatsoever resulting from injuries or damages sustained by any person or persons or property by virtue
of performance of this contract, arising or resulting in whole or in part from the fault, negligence, wrongful act or wrongful omission of the contractor, or any subcontractor, their employees, and
agents. 

7.    1352.233-71 SERVICE OF PROTESTS (MARCH 2000)  

        An agency protest may be filed with either (1) the Contracting Officer, or (2) at a level above the Contracting Officer, with the agency Protest
Decision Authority. See 64 Fed. Reg. 16,651 (April 6, 1999) (Internet site: http://oamweb.osec.doc.gov/conops/reflib/alp1296.htm) for the procedures for filing agency protests at the level
above the Contracting Officer (with the Protest Decision Authority). Agency protests filed with the Contracting Officer shall be sent to the following address: 

ATTN JOSEPH L. WIDDUP, CONTRACTING OFFICER  

U
S DEPT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

100 BUREAU DRIVE STOP 3571

BUILDING 301 ROOM B129

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-3571

PHONE: (301) 975-6324

FAX: (301) 975-8884

EMAIL: Joseph.Widdup@nist.gov 

        If
a protest is filed with either the Protest Decision Authority, or with the General Accounting Office (GAO), a complete copy of the protest (including all attachments) shall be served
upon both the Contracting Officer and Contract Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel within one day of 

22

 

filing
with the Protest Decision Authority or with GAO. Service upon the Contract Law Division shall be made, as follows: 

ATTN
JERRY WALZ, ESQ

U S DEPT OF COMMERCE

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

CONTRACT LAW DIVISION—RM 5893 HCH BLDG

14TH ST AND CONSTITUTION AVE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20230

FAX: (202) 482-5858 

8.    1352.252-71 REGULATORY NOTICE (MARCH 2000)  

        Offerors are advised that certain provisions and clauses identified with a Commerce Acquisition Regulation (CAR) notation for identification purposes, have not
yet been incorporated into the CAR. However, all of these items are binding for this acquisition and will eventually be contained in the CAR at Part 13 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. 

9.    52.233-1 I DISPUTES (DEC 1998)—ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991)  

        (Reference 33.215) 

10.    52.239-1 PRIVACY OR SECURITY SAFEGUARDS (AUG 1996)  

        (Reference 39.107) 

11.    1352.201-70 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S AUTHORITY (MARCH 2000)  

        The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to make or approve any changes in any of the requirements of this contract and notwithstanding any
provisions contained elsewhere in this contract, the said authority remains solely in the Contracting Officer. In the event the Contractor makes any changes at the direction of any person other then
the Contracting Officer, the change will be considered to have been made without authority and no adjustment will be made in the contract terms and conditions, including price. 

12.    1352.201-71 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) (MARCH 2000)  

        a.     (To
be completed at time of award) is hereby designated as the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). The COTR may be changed at any time by the
Government without prior notice to the Contractor by a unilateral modification to the Contract. The COTR is located at: 

        To
be completed at time of award 

        b.     The
responsibilities and limitations of the COTR are as follows: 

        (1)   The
COTR is responsible for the technical aspects of the project and serves as technical liaison with the Contractor. The COTR is also responsible for the final
inspection and acceptance of all reports, and such other responsibilities as may be specified in the contract. 

        (2)   The
COTR is not authorized to make any commitments or otherwise obligate the Government or authorize any changes, which affect the Contract price, terms or conditions.
Any Contractor request for changes shall be referred to the Contracting Officer directly or through the COTR. No such changes shall be made without the expressed prior authorization of the Contracting
Officer. The COTR may designate assistant COTR(s) to act for the COTR by naming such assistant(s) 

23

 

in
writing and transmitting a copy of such designation through the Contracting Officer to the Contractor. 

13.    ANSWERS TO ANTICIPATED OFFEROR QUESTIONS  

        A.    What procedure is the Government using to conduct this acquisition? The Government is using Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, to conduct this acquisition. The entire FAR (including Part 13) may be accessed on the Internet at: http://www.arnet.gov/far. The
competitive solicitation, solicitation amendments, and all questions and answers related to this procurement will only be made available via the Internet at http://www.fedbizops.gov. 

        B.    Is the solicitation available in hard copy? No. The solicitation will only be released and made available in Microsoft
Word 97 format via the Internet at the above web site. Potential offerors are responsible for accessing the web site. Interested parties must respond to the solicitation in order to be considered for
award of any resultant contract. There is no written solicitation document available, telephone requests will not be honored, and no bidders list will be maintained. 

        C.    What organization is currently administering the .us domain space? Under what authority? Network Solutions, Inc.,
21345 Ridgetop Circle, Dulles, VA 20166-6503, a wholly owned subsidiary of VeriSign, Inc., is administering the .us domain space under the authority of Cooperative Agreement No. NCR
92-18724 originally issued by the National Science Foundation in 1992. The cooperative agreement was transferred to DOC in September of 1998 through a memorandum of understanding between
the two agencies. 

        D.    What organizations (by name, address, and phone number) currently have .us addresses? Is there a web site for this, or a database from which a
report could be extracted? (If there is a database from which a report could be extracted, then please extract such a report and send the report to me in Microsoft Word or other windows-based
format.) Because of the hierarchical nature of registrations in the .us domain, there is at present no compiled list or database that includes all registrations in the .us
space. A description of the information that is available can be found on the Official US Domain Registry web site at: http://www.nic.us/register/whois.html. A list of delegated subdomains and related
contacts is provided at: http://www.nic.us/register/register.html. 

        E.    Over the next five years, how many current .us registrants does DOC expect to not renew their registration (at some point during the next five
years) for their .us web site? Because of the hierarchal structure of the usTLD, this information is not directly available. Further, with the introduction of an expanded usTLD
space, it is expected that a considerable number of new registrations will occur. Prospective Contractors should include estimated registration projections in their proposals. 

        F.     Historically, how many registrants, per year, have not renewed their registration for their .us web site? Because of the
hierarchal structure of the usTLD, this information is not directly available. Further, with the introduction of an expanded usTLD space, it is expected that a considerable number of new registrations
will occur. Prospective Contractors should include estimated registration projections in their proposals. 

        G.    Over the next five years, how many new organizations, per year, does DOC expect to register for a new .us web site?
Prospective contractors should include estimated registration projections in their proposals. 

        H.    What is the fee structure that is currently being charged, per registrant, for registration in the .us space? Network
Solutions, Inc., does not charge a fee for registration in the .us space. Organizations approved to register .us domain names by the US Domain Registry may charge a fee, 

24

 

which
is generally nominal in nature. For a fuller description of charges, see the Official US Domain Registry web site at http://www.nic.us/register/cost.html 

        I.     What data will have to be transitioned from the incumbent contractor to the contractor from the new procurement? What format is the data in? When
will that data be transitioned? How will that data be transitioned? Does the Government own that data, or does the incumbent contractor own that data? Pursuant to Amendment 21
to the Cooperative Agreement between the Department of Commerce and Network Solutions, Inc., Network Solutions has agreed, upon designation of a successor registry for .us by the Department, to
use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with the Department to facilitate the smooth transition of operation of the .us domain. That cooperation will include timely transfer to the successor
registry of an electronic copy of the then-current top-level domain registration data and, to the extent such information is available, specification of the format of the data.
Network Solutions has also agreed to provide, upon the Department's request, any information or documentation regarding administration of the .us domain that the Department reasonably deems necessary
to secure a successor registry. After the transition period, any rights held by Network Solutions, Inc., as registry in the registry data shall terminate. DOC will license the data on a
non-exclusive, transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free, paid-up basis to the successor registry. 

        J.     Are there minimum facilities requirements (i.e., space, equipment) will companies be expected to meet in order to be considered technically
acceptable from that standpoint? If so, then please specify what those requirements are. There are no minimum facilities requirements per se. Rather, quotations will be
evaluated, in part, on the basis of Offerors demonstrating the quality and adequacy of their technical facilities, equipment, software, hardware, and related technology to meet these requirements. 

        ** Any additional Offeror questions shall be sent by email only to Joseph.Widdup@nist.gov no later than 12:00 noon
Eastern Time on June 29, 2001. Answers to all questions received by then will be posted as amendment(s) to the solicitation. Questions received regarding this solicitation after June 29,
2001 may not be answered by the Government. **

25

 
 
 

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS OF OFFERORS    
    

1.    52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATIONS (MAR 2001)  

        (a)   (1)
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541519 

        (2)   The
small business size standard is $18.0 million. 

        (3)   The
small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a
product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees. 

        (b)   Representations.
(1) The offeror represents as part of its offer that it o is,
ý is not a small business concern. 

        (2)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents, for general statistical purposes, that it o is, o is not, a small disadvantaged
business concern as defined in 13 CFR 124.1002. 

        (3)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a women-owned small business concern. 

        (4)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a veteran-owned small business concern. 

        (5)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a veteran-owned small business concern in paragraph (b)(4) of this provision.] The
offeror represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a service-disabled
veteran-owned small business concern. 

        (c)   Definitions.
As used in this provision— 

        "Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern"— 

        (1)   Means
a small business concern— 

          (i)  Not
less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than
51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans; and 

         (ii)  The
management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a veteran with permanent and severe
disability, the spouse or permanent caregiver of such veteran. 

        (2)   Service-disabled
veteran means a veteran, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(2), with a disability that is service-connected, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(16). 

        "Small
business concern," means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government
contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria in 13 CFR Part 121 and the size standard in paragraph (a) of this provision. 

        "Veteran-owned
small business concern" means a small business concern— 

        (1)   That
is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women; or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned
by one or more women; and 

26

 

        (2)   The
management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more veterans. 

        "Women-owned
small business concern," means a small business concern- 

        (1)   Which
is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned
by one or more women; and 

        (2)   Whose
management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women. 

        (d)   Notice.
(1) If this solicitation is for supplies and has been set aside, in whole or in part, for small business concerns, then the clause in this solicitation
providing notice of the set-aside contains restrictions on the source of the end items to be furnished. 

        (2)   Under
15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm's status as a small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, or women-owned small business concern in order to
obtain a contract to be awarded under the preference programs established pursuant to section 8(a), 8(d), 9, or 15 of the Small Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that
specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program eligibility, shall— 

          (i)  Be
punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both; 

         (ii)  Be
subject to administrative remedies, including suspension and debarment; and 

        (iii)  Be
ineligible for participation in programs conducted under the authority of the Act. 

        (End
of provision) 

2.    52.203-11 DEV 52.203-11 CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE REGARDING PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS DEVIATION (JAN 1990)  

        (a)   The
definitions and prohibitions contained in the clause, at FAR 52.203-12, Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions, included in
this solicitation, are hereby incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this certification. 

        (b)   The
offeror, by signing its offer, hereby certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief as of December 23, 1989 that— 

        (1)   No
Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress on his or her behalf in connection with the awarding of a contract resulting from this solicitation; 

        (2)   If
any funds other than Federal appropriated funds (including profit or fee received under a covered Federal transaction) have been paid, or will be paid, to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress on his or her behalf
in connection with this solicitation, the offeror must complete and submit with its offer, OMB standard form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, to the Contracting Officer, and 

        (3)   He
or she will include the language of this certification in all subcontract awards at any tier and require that all recipients of subcontract awards in excess of
$100,000 must certify and disclose accordingly. 

        (c)   Submission
of this certification and disclosure is a prerequisite for making or entering into this contract imposed by section 1352, title 31, United States Code.
Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited under this provision or who fails to file or amend this disclosure form to be filed or amended by this provision, must be subject to a civil penalty of
not less than $10,000, and not more than $100,000, for each such failure. 

        [End
of Clause] 

27

  

 
 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS    
    

        Before submitting a quotation, Offerors are encouraged to review the information on the locality-based usTLD structure and registration policies at:
http://www.nic.us 

The Offeror must submit the ORIGINAL VERSION and TWO COPIES of the Quotation to the following address:

ATTN
JOSEPH L WIDDUP

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

100 BUREAU DR STOP 3571

BLDG 301 RM B129

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-3571

M/F SOLICITATION SB1335-01-Q-0740 

Each quotation (original and copies) submitted in response to this solicitation must:

	A.
	Include
resume(s) of key personnel (including education and experience credentials) that would perform and/or manage the requirements of this acquisition.

	B.
	Describe
how the Offeror would satisfy each of the individual requirements described in the "Contractor Requirements" section of the
SOW. (In the event that the provision of the required services would be accomplished through coordinating the resources and services provided by entities other than the prime Contractor, the quotation
must explicitly indicate how the Contractor will ensure that the "Contractor Requirements" will be fulfilled.)

	C.
	In
light of the "Statement of Purpose" in the SOW, present a detailed narrative describing the Offeror's overall vision for future management of the usTLD, including how the Offeror
proposes to make the usTLD more attractive and useful to United States Internet users and the Offeror's expectations for the number of potential usTLD registrants.

	D.
	Describe
any services or functions, if any, the Offeror proposes to perform as part of usTLD management in addition to those listed in the SOW.

	E.
	Demonstrate
clearly, concisely and accurately, in written narrative form, the Offeror's understanding of the current state of the usTLD domain space.

	F.
	Describe,
for the SOW requirement related to the development of a database of usTLD delegated managers, and the development of registrant WHOIS databases (both for the locality-based
usTLD structure and the expanded usTLD space) how the Offeror would collect the necessary information and the technical and operational specifications of the databases.

	G.
	Include
a proposed draft of any contract(s) that the Offeror proposes to use between itself, as Contractor, and usTLD delegated managers (which may include "flow through" registration
agreements to be used by locality-based usTLD registrants) considered necessary to ensure the stable operation of the locality-based usTLD structure and implement necessary policies. Note: The content
of the final version of all such contract(s) must be approved by the Contracting Officer before use by the Contractor in performance of the resultant purchase order.

	H.
	Include
a proposed draft of any contract(s) that the Offeror proposes to use between itself, as Contractor, and expanded usTLD registrars to ensure the stable operation of the expanded
usTLD and implement the necessary policies (which may include shared registration system license agreements, registrar accreditation agreements, and registrant agreements). Note: The content of the
final version of all such contract(s) must be approved by the Contracting Officer before those contract(s) may be used by the Contractor in performance of the resultant purchase order; 

28

 

	I.
	Include
written policies (including implementation details) that the Offeror proposes to follow, as Contractor, during the start-up phase of registrations in the usTLD.
Such description must include the following considerations:

	1)
	How the Offeror would design and implement the "Sunrise Policy" that permits qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain
names in the expanded usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider registration.

	2)
	How the Offeror would implement a uniform domain name dispute resolution procedure intended to resolve disputes arising from "cybersquatting" applicable to the
usTLD (such policy is intended to be modeled upon the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure, consistent with modifications necessary for such a policy to be applicable to the usTLD
specifically. Offeror should propose necessary modifications).

	3)
	How the Offeror proposes to implement and enforce the United States nexus requirement intended to preserve the usTLD for use by the community of United States
Internet users.

	4)
	Describe any proposed additional, alternative, or supplemental policies or programs the Offeror considers relevant and essential towards the locality-based
usTLD space or the expanded usTLD space.

        Offerors
should also describe additional procedures that address other considerations than those listed above that they consider relevant to their quotation. 

	J.
	Address the following considerations in the description of the registration process:

	1)
	How the Offeror proposes to address the potential initial "rush" for registrations at the opening of the expanded usTLD space.

	2)
	Describe
the proposed application process for potential registrants;

	3)
	Describe the proposed mechanisms for ensuring that registrants meet registration requirements;

	4)
	Describe
any proposed appeal process that could be used by the applicant as a result of Contractor denial of registration.

	5)
	Describe
any proposed procedure that would permit third parties to seek cancellation of a registration for failure to comply with restrictions imposed by the Contractor.

	K.
	Describe
in detail the proposed mechanisms and community outreach plans for coordinating the current locality-based usTLD users and the mechanism by which the public can suggest or
recommend additional policys or procedures for the usTLD.

	L.
	Describe, in detail, how the Contractor would fund the requirements of this acquisition at no cost to the United States Government.

	M.
	Project/estimate and explain annual Contractor costs for this acquisition in such a way to permit the Government to match those costs to specific SOW Contractor
Requirements.

	N.
	Include detailed proposed financial plans, including, if appropriate, the manner in which fees levied for services rendered by the Contractor would be derived,
considering cost plus a fair and reasonable profit.

	O.
	Describe, in detail, the technical facilities, equipment, software, hardware, and related technology that the Offeror would use to meet the requirements of this
acquisition.

29

 

	P.
	Include no more than five past performance references for other efforts similar in scope to this acquisition that were either (a) completed by the
Offeror (either as a prime Contractor or as a first-tier subcontractor) in the past five years or (b) currently in process. For each past performance reference, include the
following information:

	1.
	Contract
Number/Purchase Order Number;

	2.
	Duration
of the Contract/Purchase Order;

	3.
	Dollar
Value of Contract/Purchase Order (Broken Down on a Per-Year Basis, if Applicable);

	4.
	Contract
type of Contract/Purchase Order (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee,
cost-plus-award-fee, fixed-price with economic price adjustment);

	5.
	Name
and Mailing Address of Customer Organization;

	6.
	Technical
Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract/Purchase Order, including Phone Number, Fax Number and Email Address;

	7.
	Information
Noted in I.4 above for an Alternate Customer Organization Point of Contact; and

	8.
	Detailed
Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract/Purchase Order. 

At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a site visit to the Offeror's facility(ies) may also be requested and conducted by DOC personnel involved in this acquisition. The
purpose of this visit would be to gather information relevant to the Offeror's submitted quotation. The Contracting Officer would arrange such a visit at least seven days in advance with the
Offeror.

	Q.
	Describe, in detail, proposed performance measures that will provide accurate indicators of the Contractors progress under the project and assessment of
services offered.

	R.
	Include a completed copy of "Offeror Representations and Certifications" from this solicitation.

	S.
	The Offeror's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. (See FAR 52.204-6 on page 16 of this solicitation.)

30

  

 
 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD    
    

        A quotation will only be considered if it is submitted by an organization that is (a) incorporated within one of the fifty states of the United States of
America or the District of Columbia or (b) organized under a law of a state of the United States of America. The Contractor must have a physical address within the United States of America or
the District of Columbia and must be able to demonstrate that all primary registry services will remain within the United States of America (including the District of Columbia). 

        The
Government will evaluate quotations submitted in response to this acquisition for services and will award a purchase order to the technically acceptable, responsible Offeror whose
quotation represents the best value. Technical excellence and comprehensiveness of the overall service for usTLD operation is significantly more important than proposed price(s) to .us registrants.
The evaluated price for all quotations, in terms of the price paid by the Government, will be $0.00. This acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures.
Under FAR Part 13, solicitations are not required to state the relative order of importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they required to include subfactors. The
evaluation factors are listed below. 

	•
	Technical
excellence and comprehensiveness of the offered service—For this factor, the Government will evaluate responses to items A through O and item Q in the
"INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS."

	•
	Past
performance information—For this factor, the Government will evaluate information obtained from past performance references provided by the Offeror in their
quotation in response to item "P" in the "INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS" section of the solicitation, as well as any other relevant past performance information that the Government obtains
about the Offeror from other sources;

	•
	Reasonableness
of proposed price(s) to .us registrants. For this factor, the Government will determine whether the proposed price(s) to the registrants are fair and
reasonable considering the level of service(s) to be provided to the .us registrants. 

        For
the purposes of this solicitation, "best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response
to the requirement. In this solicitation, the term "best value" is not meant to imply that a specific tradeoff process (as described in FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation) will be used by
the Government. This acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. 

31

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

00001
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

 
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

National Inst of Stds and Technology

100 Bureau Drive Stop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersbur MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NUESTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and

Appropriation Data

(if required)	
 	

61010001020400009091900000

9000090900000000000000$US0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

32

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR Subpart 43.103(a)
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

A.	
 	

The purpose of this modification is to modify Section J, Registration Process: Land Rush Implementation, An Overview of the Land Rush Solution, The Benefits of NeuStar's Land Rush Implementation Approach in the Contractor's quotation, which is incorporated by reference into this Purchase Order, as follows:
	

 	
 	

—Delete the batch-based Landrush process originally proposed by the Contractor.
	

 	
 	

—The Contractor must implement increased monitoring of the system loads to ensure equality among its customers and that the Contractor's systems do not become overloaded.
	

 	
 	

—The Contractor must proceed with a first-come-first-served ("FCFS") registration approach following Sunrise.
	

B.	
 	

The adoption of the FCFS approach must not affect the overall timeline for the usTLD startup phases described on page I-2 of the Contractor's quotation. The Sunrise process will remain unchanged.
	

 	
 	

END OF MODIFICATION
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

James A. Casey
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ James A. Casey
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

02-04-2002
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Widdup, Joseph

Contracting Officer

301-975-6324

jwiddup@nist.gov
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joseph Widdup
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

02-04-2002
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

33

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	

1.	
 	

Contract Id Code	
 	

 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0002
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

June 14, 2002
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code 000SB

National Inst. Of Stds. And Technology

100 Bureau Drivestop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and

Appropriation Data

(if required)	
 	

61010001020400009091900000

9000090900000000000000$US0.00
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

34

 

	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR Subpart 43.103(a)
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

A.	
 	

The purpose of this modification is to incorporate the Government-approved version of the Contractor's usTLD Undelegated Name Policy (Interim) into this purchase order in full text. That policy is stated verbatim in the continuation pages of this
modification.
	

B.	
 	

The parties agree that the usTLD Undelegated Name Policy (Interim) in no way affects the Contractor's obligation to produce a report within six months of Purchase Order award, as required by Section C.1 of the Purchase Order.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

Robert Poulin

Senior Vice President
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ Robert Poulin
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

June 14, 2004
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Widdup, Joseph

Contracting Officer

301-975-6324

jwiddup@nist.gov
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joseph Widdup
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

June 14, 2002

 
 

usTLD Undelegated Name Policy (Interim)    
    

I.    Background  

        One of NeuStar's primary responsibilities for the usTLD is the enhancement of the locality-based space in .us. The distributed nature of this space has led,
despite the good efforts of many existing delegated managers, to an often poorly coordinated and sometimes "broken" top-level domain. NeuStar is committed, in partnership with existing
delegated managers and users, to improving the coordination, management and operation of the locality space. This policy provides an interim solution for registration of locality-based names, in
formerly undelegated domains, by state and local governments to ensure smooth operation of the existing locality space during this undertaking. 

        This
diagram shows the current basic structure of the usTLD locality space. 

35

 

        Since
its inception, the locality space has operated through "delegated managers". Delegated managers take responsibility for the operation of specified zones within the usTLD structure.
These delegations are based upon "localities," such as cities and counties, and have been third-level delegations in the form <locality>.<state>.us. For example, an entity might
operate as the delegated manager of the domainburke.va.us. As the delegated manager, that entity would be fully responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the delegated domain—the usTLD Administrator maintains no records or information for the zone created by the delegation beyond the actual delegation to the delegated
manager. 

        Under
the government contract between NeuStar and the Department of Commerce ("DoC"), the existing delegated managers maintain their delegations and will operate them in the normal
fashion, but NeuStar is not permitted to make any new delegations until it has completed a report on the status of the locality space and made recommendations on its future operation. In order to
allow the continued operation of the space for local and state governments during this process. NeuStar has developed this interim policy relating to names that were never delegated to a delegated
manager prior to NeuStar's acceptance of the usTLD Administrator role. 

II.    Interim Policy  

        Until completion of the "Compliance Report Process," NeuStar will assume responsibility for the operation of all of the currently undelegated name spaces
identified in RFC 1480 and/or created by the prior usTLD Administrator.NeuStar will become the interim delegated manager for all such names and run the nameservers for those names.NeuStar's role as
the delegated manager for these spaces and its operation of the corresponding nameservers will be an interim role until completion of the usTLD locality space compliance report process. Upon
completion of that process, NeuStar will implement necessary changes, if any, to this policy to realize the goals and requirements set out in the report. Recognizing that this process could result in
a change to the manner in which the undelegated locality-based names are managed, NeuStar has designed the policy below to allow the greatest degree of flexibility while maintaining the integrity of
the hierarchical locality-based domain space. 

III.  Domain Delegations for Undelegated Domains  

        In keeping with the goal of centralizing the technical function of the usTLD, all of the currently undelegated names in the identified usTLD structure will, in
the interim, be delegated(1) to NeuStar.Specifically, NeuStar will be the delegated manager for the following domains to the extent that they were not delegated prior to NeuStar's acceptance of the
administrator role: us.(2) 

	(1)
	A
"delegation" results in the entire authority and responsibility over a given name being assigned to another party. Delegations are implemented via NS (or nameserver) records.

	(2)
	Labels
indicated by "<name>" are labels that may have any number of entries. For example, <state> indicates any of the two-letter postal codes for
the states of the United States and its possessions and territories. 

        <state>.us

        <locality>.<state>.us 

        lib.<state>.us 

        k12.<state>.us 

        pvt.k12.<state>.us

        cc.<state>.us

        tec.<state>.us

36

 

        isa.us 

        nsn.us

        dni.us

        This
approach will allow NeuStar to maintain control of the listed zone while permitted additional records to be registered at higher delegation levels. For example, an entity would not
be permitted to be the delegated manager of some locality.<state>.us. That domain already would be delegated to NeuStar. However, the city or county government for that locality would be
permitted to register its corresponding city or county government name at a level higher (e.g., ci.somelocality.<state>.us or co.somelocality.<state>.us). 

IV.    Registration of Names  

        NeuStar will serve as the registrar for all currently undelegated domains. Adds, modifies, deletes and renewals will be ordered through an Internet GUI or other
process.(3) However, during the time in which this interim policy applies, only state and local government agencies and their designated representatives will be eligible to register new names in
formerly undelegated.US domains.(4) In order to register a name, the registrant must complete the online form (including the provision of all requested information) and agree to the NeuStar.US Domain
Name Registration Terms and Conditions. The data required from registrants in the locality space is the same as in the expanded space. 

	(3)
	Initial
registration processes may be manually run until suitable web-based tools are developed and tested. The basic registration process and requirements will be the
same, however.

	(4)
	As
noted above, for those locality domains already delegated, this policy will not apply and the authorized delegated managers will continue to operate in their normal fashion. 

        Upon
completion submission of the registration information, the entity registering the name will be required to provide the following along with the registration information: 

	•
	If
the entity requesting the name is the entity eligible to hold the name (a local government, for example), then the requester must provide a notarized letter on the
letterhead of the requesting entity stating that the requestor is authorized to request and use the name.

	•
	If
the entity requesting the name is not the entity eligible to hold the name, but is operating under authority of such entity (a hosting company hired by a local
government, for example) then the requester must provide a notarized letter that it is authorized to request the name On behalf of the eligible entity, as well as a notarized letter from the eligible
entity stating that it has authorized the requestor to obtain and maintain the name.

	•
	Once
NeuStar receives the originals of the above letters, the requested name will be activated. 

V. Future Policies and Processes  

        Any registration made under this interim policy will remain subject to the results of the compliance report process. Policies and procedures described in the
compliance report and approved by the DoC will apply to all registered names, including names registered under this interim policy. 

37

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0003
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

August 17, 2002
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AJF60012

National Inst. Of Stds. And Technology

100 Bureau Drivestop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers is o extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

38

 

	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

610100010020400009091900009000009090000000000000$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

(X)	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

 	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor ý is not, o is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

39

 

        THIS
PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

40

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

        a.     Ms. Sallianne
Schagrin is hereby designated as the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). The Government may change the COTR at any time without
prior notice to the Contractor by a unilateral modification to the Contract. The COTR is located at: 

U.
S. Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Office of Policy Analysis and Development

1401 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room 4725

Washington, D.C. 20230 

Phone:
(202) 482-1885

Email: SSchagrin@ntia.doc.gov 

        b.     The
responsibilities and limitations of the COTR are as follows: 

        (1)   The
COTR is responsible for the technical aspects of the project and serves as technical liaison with the Contractor. The COTR is the only Government person other than
the Contracting Officer from whom the Contractor may rely for information or guidance related to performance under this purchase order. The COTR is also responsible for the final inspection and
acceptance of all reports, and such other responsibilities as may be specified in the contract. 

        (2)   The
COTR is not authorized to make any commitments or otherwise obligate the Government or authorize any changes that affect the purchase order terms or conditions. Any
Contractor request for changes shall be referred to the Contracting Officer directly or through the COTR. No such changes shall be made without the expressed prior authorization of the Contracting
Officer. The COTR may designate assistant COTR(s) to act for the COTR by naming such assistant(s) in writing and transmitting a copy of such designation through the Contracting Officer to the
Contractor. 

END
OF MODIFICATION 

41

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0004
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

 
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code 000SB

National Inst. Of Stds. And Technology

100 Bureau Drive Stop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

42

 

	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

610100010020400009091900009000009090000000000000$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103(a).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 43.103(a)
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

        The purpose of this modification is to incorporate the Government-approved version of the usTLD Reserved Name Registration Process and the.US Validated Domain Registration Process, along with associated
appendices. Those documents are found in the continuation pages of this modification.
	

END OF TEXT

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    
    USTLD RESERVED NAME REGISTRATION PROCESS    
    

        The U. S. Department of Commerce awarded Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175 ("the contract") to NeuStar, Inc. ("the
Contractor") for management of the.us domain, the country-code toplevel domain uniquely associated with the United States. On April 24, 2002, the.us domain was opened to the general
public for registration. To preserve the U.S. Government presence in the new expanded.us space, the Department of Commerce, working through the Federal CIO Council among others, reserved second-level
domain names that correspond to the names used by the U.S. Government in the.gov space, as well as the names of states and local governments. The reservation list currently appears on the Contractor's
website at http://www.neustar.us. 

        This
document describes the process that the Contractor will use for registration of these names by the appropriate entities. This process is intended to provide a streamlined method for
Federal, State and Local government entities to obtain access to the reserved names. 

Proposed Federal Reserved Name Registration Process  

        The Contractor will serve as the registrar for all reserved name registrations. Registrations, modifications to registrations, deletions and registration renewals
all will be ordered through a formbased registration and certification process. The Contractor will implement the following process: 

Step 1: A pre-populated form will be sent by electronic mail to each Federal government Central Information Officer (CIO). This form will
contain only those names that correspond to the recipient's agency or department. State and local government contacts will receive either email, or direct mail notifications and a web address, which
they can go to for viewing their reserved names. 

43

 

Step 2: In the case of the Federal Government, the CIO will complete the electronic form, selecting the available reserved names they wish to register
along with the term of the registration (yearly or lifetime) and method of payment (credit card). State and local government points of contact will fill out a web form and then mail it to a PO Box
that the Contractor set up. 

Step 3: The CIO will return the completed form by e-mail within 90 days. State and local government points of contact will have
120 days. 

Step 4: Once the Contractor has received the completed form and the appropriate payment, the names will be loaded into the Contractor's Registry system
and the registration point of contact will be notified by email of the name registration(s). 

        The
reserved names will be released for general availability on the date to be identified in the mailing described in Step 1. 

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    
    VALIDATED DOMAIN REGISTRATION PROCESS    
    

        The .US Validated Domain Registration Process is detailed in the sections that follow. The documents provided break down the steps by type. Specifically, what
parts are handled by the systems that the Contractor built for standard .BIZ and .US registrations as well as the manual processes required to complete validation and order entry. 

        The
documents also detail the level of effort required to complete each step in the registration process. In order to give one an understanding of how the level of effort impacts the
Contractor's costs, the incremental time by functional area are categorized for these out of manual processes. This information was used to derive the pricing that is provided in Appendix 3. 

	1.
	Process
Flow 

Appendix 1
contains two process flows. The first process flow details the steps required to process a validated domain registration. The second process flow details the steps required to
process a fully automated domain registration. In the first process flow the incremental level of effort to perform a validated registration are listed. 

	2.
	Process
Flow Description 

Appendix 2
is the process flow description document. This documents provides the details of each step in the registration process as well as the functional areas that are impacted. 

	3.
	Business
Case & Price By Option: 

Appendix 3
contains the pricing options for a validated registration. The Contractor factored into its standard registration business case all of the incremental costs associated with the
Validated Domain Registration Process. After capturing the incremental costs and applying a reasonable margin, the Contractor arrived at what the cost per unit needs to be for a Validated
registration. 

44

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION OF CONTRACT    
    

 
 

APPENDIX 1
  VALIDATED DOMAIN REGISTRATION PROCESS    
    

45

 
 
 

APPENDIX 2
  USTLD FEDERAL RESERVE NAME ALLOCATION PROCESS    
    

	STEP
	 	OWNER
	 	ACTIVITY & DESCRIPTION
	 	TRIGGER
	 	SUPPORT TOOL(S)/

SYSTEMS

	

1	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Send Request Packet to Agency Email full Request Packet with instructions and "terms & conditions" to Federal Agency points of contact. The Request Packet will minimally include;	
 	

DoC Pricing Approval	
 	

1.	
 	

Dol provided Agency email list
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Reserved names for each agency	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Agency Master List—excel spreadsheet w/Agency, domain name, and authorized email cross-ref
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Request instructions	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Contractor email text, email generator, and receipt email box
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Terms & Conditions	
 	

 	
 	

4.	
 	

Request packet with;
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Domain request forms with fields for all domain contacts	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

• Reserved name list
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Credit card authorization form	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

• Instructions
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Pricing and billing sheet	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

• Terms & Conditions
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

• Payment authorization
	

2	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Receive Completed Request Packet	
 	

Email with Request Packet attachment	
 	

1.	
 	

Contractor email address
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Email with completed Request Packets received via defined and unique Federal Gov't Contractor email address	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Talisma
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	

3	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Confirm Authorization	
 	

Email with Request Packet attachment	
 	

1.	
 	

Agency Master List
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Compare "from" email address and "Agency Name" to Agency Master List content. If the email address and Agency name do not match that contained in the excel spreadsheet a "non confirmed" email response must be sent.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Soft -copy pre-written "non- email
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

46

 

	

4	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Review Completeness	
 	

Email with Request Packet attachment	
 	

1.	
 	

Request Packet Requirements Checklist
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Review Request Packet completeness ensuring that all forms and fields are included paying special attention to ensure minimally that each domain name has all contact information and that Credit Card authorization is included	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Pre-written common error response emails
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	

5	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Review Accuracy	
 	

Email with Request Packet attachment	
 	

1.	
 	

Common Error Checklist
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Review each form and field to identify incorrect data, data that does not synch from form to form and instances where multiple credit cards are not associated with domain names.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Pre-written common error response emails
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	

6	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Assess Charge & Assign Order Number	
 	

Email with Request Packet attachment	
 	

1.	
 	

Pricing sheet
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Audit pricing/billing sheet to ensure numbers tie with domain order forms and pricing calculations are correct.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Calculator
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Assign an order number and record such in Talisma and on the paperwork for translation to billing data.	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Order number tracking sheet
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

4.	
 	

Talisma
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

5.	
 	

Request Packet
	

7	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Determine if Request Packet Complete	
 	

Completion of Steps 3,4,5, and 6.	
 	

1.	
 	

Agency Master List Updated
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Record results of preliminary review steps (steps 3-6) in Talisma and on paperwork.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Talisma
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

47

 

	

7a	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Request Packet Incomplete	
 	

Completion of Step 7.	
 	

1.	
 	

Talisma
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

If Request Packet appears to be complete, does not have common/known errors, and is confirmed as being received from an authorized Agency email account then date/time/rep stamp the packet and forward to Finance.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Request Packet
	

7b	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Request Packet Complete	
 	

Completion of Step 7.	
 	

3.	
 	

Email text editor
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

If any error is identified in Steps 3, 4, 5, or 6 such should be record in Talisma and on the paperwork. An email must be crafted with all error details and next steps and then returned to the submitting email address.	
 	

 	
 	

4.	
 	

Talisma Request Packet
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

5.	
 	

Request Packet
	

8	
 	

Finance	
 	

Enter Credit Card Transaction	
 	

Credit Card Authorization form sent by Customer Service	
 	

1.	
 	

Fed Gov't SurePay account
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Enter each Credit card transaction into the Federal Gov't Reserve Name SurePay account via the web interface. The SurePay order number should be the Customer Service assigned order number to support later reconciliation and research.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

SurePay interface
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Customer Service assigned order number
	

9	
 	

Finance	
 	

Receive Credit Response	
 	

Entered SurePay transaction	
 	

1.	
 	

Email
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

SurePay shall respond with approval or denial within 5 minutes. The response shall be printed and attached to original credit card authorization noting any pertinent denial information for use by Customer Service. Finance personnel should go to step
14 after sending approvals to Customer Service entry temp or denials to Customer Service lead.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

Printer
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

48

 

	

10	
 	

Customer Service Temp	
 	

Update Contacts	
 	

Credit card approval response from Finance	
 	

1.	
 	

SRS GUI
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Using the "Modify Domain" transaction command in the CSR GUI change all domain contacts per information contained in the Request Packet. Domain contacts include;	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

"Modify Domain" transaction instructions/job aid
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Registrant	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Request Packet
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Billing	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Administrative	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Billing	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Note the registrant password should be entered into the "name- value pair" field to verify authorization of later changes	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

11	
 	

Customer Service Temp	
 	

Update Registration Period	
 	

Credit card approval response from Finance	
 	

1.	
 	

SRS GUI
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Using the "renew domain" transaction command in the CSR GUI update the registration period for each domain as indicated in the Request Packet.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

"Renew Domain" transaction instruction/job aid
	

12	
 	

Customer Service Temp	
 	

Send Confirmation	
 	

Completion of Steps 10 and 11	
 	

1.	
 	

Pre-written confirmation email text
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Draft confirmation email (utilizing pre-written template) listing all completed/updated domain names, their registration period, and the total credit card charge.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

List of entered domain names
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Credit card charge details
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

49

 

	

13	
 	

Customer Service Temp	
 	

Review & File	
 	

 	
 	

1.	
 	

Full Request Packet with activity not es and date/time stamps
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Ensure that all necessary activities have been completed and properly noted on paperwork and in Talisma with order number cross- reference. Check Whois and Speed of Light to confirm DNS and Whois propogation.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

SRS GUI
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

All paperwork to include at least the following must be filed for later retrieval.	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

usTLD Whois
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Initial Request	
 	

 	
 	

4.	
 	

Speed of Light
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Order Number	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

Date/time/rep stamps for each activity and disposition	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

—	

SurePay approval/denial response	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

14	
 	

Finance	
 	

Record Billing Transaction	
 	

Step 9	
 	

1.	
 	

Peoplesoft
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Create a daily Peoplesoft (billing system) transaction tracking all SurePay submissions.	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

SurePay
	

15	
 	

Finance	
 	

Reconcile w/Daily	
 	

 	
 	

1.	
 	

List of prior credit card submissions
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Reconcile daily SurePay bank clearance list with prior SurePay transaction submissions to ensure accuracy and completeness. Upon accurate reconciliation clear/close Peoplesoft transaction for posting.	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

50

 

	

16	
 	

Customer Service	
 	

Audit Review SRS Inventory and Activity reports comparing such to Billing and Talisma activity reports to ensure full reconciliation. Audit approach must confirm that no domain orders have been lost or added and that no financial transactions have
been lost or duplicated.	
 	

 	
 	

1.	
 	

SRS Reserve Name Activity Report
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

2.	
 	

SRS Reserve Name Inventory List
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

3.	
 	

Agency Master List with disposition notes
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

4.	
 	

SurePay Activity List
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

5.	
 	

Peoplesoft Activity List

Note: This process only represents Federal reserve name allocation activities conducted after system and tool development, training, and SurePay account
set-up and does not fully represent the error correction process for submissions that are denied payment authorization or otherwise do not meet the Contractor's full information
requirements. 

51

 
 
 

APPENDIX 3
  PRICING    
    

Option
1

Permanent Reservation: $152 

Option
2

Three-year registration: $168 ($56 per year) 

Option
3

Five-year registration: $180 ($36 per year) 

Option
4

Lifetime registration: $395 

Note:
all prices listed above represent up front fees that must be paid at the time the registration is processed. For example, for a three-year registration, the Contractor will charge
the registrant $168. 

52

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0005
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

December 23, 2002
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code 000SB

National Inst. Of Stds. And Technology

100 Bureau Drive Stop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

610100010204000090919000090000090900000000000000$US 0.00
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

53

 

	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103(a).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 43.103(a)
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

A.	
 	

The purpose of this modification is to incorporate the usTLD Federal, State and Local Name Request Registration Process that is found on the continuation pages of this modification.
	

END OF TEXT	
 	

 

 
 

usTLD Federal, State and Local Name Request Registration Process    
    

Introduction  

        Prior to the launch of the second-level us domain space, the Contractor, in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) within the U. S. Department of Commerce, reserved certain Federal, State, and Local names from open registration to ensure their availability to Federal, State and Local governments.The process
for registering these reserved names was incorporated into this purchase order via Modification No. 0004. 

Additional Governmental Name Requests  

        Recently, representatives from Federal, State and Local government agencies have requested that additional names be registered under the Reserved Name Process.
Consistent with the Contractor's obligations under this purchase order to serve the needs and interests of these users of the usTLD, the Contractor must accommodate such requests following the process
described below.There is no deadline or limited time period for requests for additional names under the Reserved Name Process, as modified. 

Additional Governmental Name Registration Process  

        In order to register additional names, a Federal, State, or Local governmental agency, department or bona fide representative must follow these steps: 

Step
One 

	•
	The
Federal, State or Local governmental agency, department or bona fide representative must contact the Contractor with a request for names serving a governmental function
or purpose. 

54

 

Step
Two 

	•
	The
Contractor must verify the availability of the requested names, reserve the available name requested, and inform the governmental representative of the list of names
that have been "reserved" as a result of their request. 

Step
Three 

	•
	The
Federal, State or Local governmental agency must follow the reserved name registration process incorporated into this purchase order or otherwise approved by the
Contracting Officer for the identified names. 

Requests by a Governmental Agency for Names Currently Registered by the General Public  

        The Contractor must maintain a list of those names, presently registered by members of the general public, for which representatives of Federal, State or Local
government request a reservation in the event that such general public registrations expire. Upon expiration of such registrations, the Contractor must remove the requested name(s) from the general
pool of names available for public registration and place them on the Reserved Name List.The Contractor must inform the Federal, State or Local governmental representative who requested the
reservation that the requested name(s) is now available for registration under the Reserved Name Process, and process the Federal, State or Local governmental entity's request pursuant to the
requirements set forth in this modification to the purchase order. 

55

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0006
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

January 13, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code 000SB

National Inst. Of Stds. And Technology

100 Bureau Drive Stop 3571

Building 301 Room B129

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-3571

Widdup, Joseph 301-975-6324
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

Code 0000013

DOC/NOAA/OFA External Customer Acq.

OFA66

1305 East West Highway Suite 7604

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

56

 

	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

610100010020400009091900009000009090000000000000$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

(X)	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103(b).
	

 	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor ý is not, o is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

A.	
 	

The purpose of this modification is to assign administration of all functions listed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subparts 42.302(a) and 42.302(b) to the agency listed in Block 7 of this modification.
	

B.	
 	

This assignment is effective on the date that appears in Block 3 of this modification.
	

END OF TEXT

57

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0007
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

February 13, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

NTIA907-3-0055SS
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AMD00065

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers

c/o CAMS Support Center

209 Perry Parkway, Suite 5

Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2171

Joel L. Perloth 301-258-4505 x258
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NEUSTAR

1120 Vermont Avenue NW

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Vendor ID: 00007158

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

58

 

	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 52.243-1 "Changes", FAR 43, and MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

Modification no.: 0007 under Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175 ("the Contract") for management of the.us domain by NeuStar, Inc. ("the Contractor") sets forth the implementation and operation of a second level domain in .us domain pursuant to
the "DotKids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002," Public Law No. 107-317. On December 4, 2002, President George W. Bush signed this law requiring NTIA to establish a second level domain within the.us domain to provide access to
material that is suitable for and not harmful to minors.
	

15.A	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

 
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

 
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.PerlrothAnoaa.gove

301-258-4505 x258
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 

59

 

Implementation and Operation of "Kids" Second Level Domain  

        This document describes the Contractor requirements to establish, operate and maintain a second level domain within the United States country code top level
domain as required by Section 4 of Pub. Law No. 107-317. Each of the following tasks shall be completed in accordance with the requirements of Pub. Law
No. 107-317. 

	1.
	The
Contractor shall establish, operate and maintain a second level domain within the United States country code domain to be called the "kid.us" domain.

	2.
	The
Contractor shall establish written content standards for the kids.us domain that ensures access only to material that is suitable for minors and not harmful to minors as such terms
are defined by Pub. Law No. 107-317.

	3.
	The
Contractor shall establish rules and procedures for enforcement and oversight that minimizes the possibility that the kids.us domain provides access to content that is not in
accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	4.
	The
Contractor shall establish a process for removing from the kids.us domain any content that is not in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	5.
	The
Contractor shall establish a process to provide registrants in the kids.us domain with an opportunity for a prompt, expeditious, and impartial dispute resolution process regarding
any material of the registrant excluded from the kids.us domain.

	6.
	The
Contractor shall establish procedures and mechanisms to promote the accuracy of contact information submitted by registrants and retained by registrars in the kids.us domain.

	7.
	The
Contractor shall have written agreements with each registrar for the kids.us domain that requires each registrar to:

	a.
	Ensure
that use of the kids.us domain will be in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	b.
	Enter
into a written agreement with each registrant in the kids.us domain to use the kids.us domain in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor; to prohibit
two-way and multiuser interactive services in the kids.us domain, unless the registrant certifies to the registrar that such service will be offered in compliance with the kids.us content
standards and is designed to reduce the risk of exploitation of minors using such two-way and multiuser interactive services; and to prohibit hyperlinks in the kids.us domain that take
kids.us users outside the kids.us domain.

	8.
	The
Contractor shall establish and ensure that the kids.us domain is operational and begins accepting registrations no later than December 3, 2003.

	9.
	The
Contractor shall ensure continuous and uninterrupted service for the kids.us domain during any transition to a successor registry operator for the kids.us domain or the .us domain.

	10.
	The
Contractor shall take any other action that NTIA considers necessary to establish, operate, or maintain the new domain in accordance with the purposes of Section 4 of Pub.
Law No. 107-317, including, but not limited to, the following:

	a.
	The
Contractor shall implement a "Sunrise Period" that permits qualified trademark owners to preregister their trademarks in the kids.us domain prior to general public registration in
the kids.us domain.

	b.
	The
Contractor shall establish, in conjunction with NTIA, a list of domain names (if any) that will be reserved from domain name registration in the kids.us domain. 

60

 

	c.
	The
Contractor shall have written agreements with each registrar for the kids.us domain that requires each registrar to enter into a written agreement with each registrant in the
kids.us domain to subject such kids. us domain name registration to the following us policies and requirements, as may be amended from time to time by the Contractor and approved by the Contracting
Officer: 

            i.  usTLD
Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules; 

           ii.  The
usTLD Nexus Requirements; 

          iii.  Nexus
Dispute Policy and Rules; and 

          iv.  Registration
Review Policy (April 22, 2002) 

	d.
	The
Contractor shall create and maintain a centralized, publicly accessible Whois database for all domain name registrations in the kids.us domain. 

        All
requirements, rules, processes, procedures, mechanisms, fees, agreements and subcontracts required to implement the kids.us domain shall be subject to the Contracting Officer's
approval. 

61

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0008
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

May 1, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

AJF60000-3-01088
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AMD00065

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers.

c/o CAMS Support Center

209 Perry Parkway, Suite 5

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Joel L. Perloth 301-258-4505 x258
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

62

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 52.243-1 "CHANGES", FAR 43 and Mutual Agreement of the Parties
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

Modification No.: 0007 under Purchase order No.: SB1335-02-W-0175 set forth the implementation and operation of a second level domain in.us domain pursuant to the "Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002" Public Law
No. 107-317
	

This Modification No.: 0008 is being issued to add a new subsection (e) under paragraph 10. Accordingly, paragraph 10 is being deleted and replaced in its entirety.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Director, Law & Policy, NeuStar, Inc.

Jeff.Neuman@NeuStar.US
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ Jeffrey J. Neuman
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

May 1, 2003
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-258-4505 x258
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

May 1, 2003
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

63

 

	Schedule

	
Item No.
 
	
 	

Supplies/Services
	
 	

Quantity
	
 	

Unit
	
 	

Unit Price
	
 	

Amount

	
 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

0001	
 	

BASE PERIOD	
 	

4	
 	

YR	
 	

0.00	
 	

0.00
	

 	
 	

The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW.	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

Period of Performance: 4 years, beginning on the date of purchase order award	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

64

 

Implementation and Operation of "Kids" Second Level Domain  

        This document describes the Contractor requirements to establish, operate and maintain a second level domain within the United States country code top level
domain as required by Section 4 of Pub. Law No. 107-317. Each of the following tasks shall be completed in accordance with the requirements of Pub. Law
No. 107-317. 

	1.
	The
Contractor shall establish, operate and maintain a second level domain within the United States country code domain to be called the "kid.us" domain.

	2.
	The
Contractor shall establish written content standards for the kids.us domain that ensures access only to material that is suitable for minors and not harmful to minors as such terms
are defined by Pub. Law No. 107-317.

	3.
	The
Contractor shall establish rules and procedures for enforcement and oversight that minimizes the possibility that the kids.us domain provides access to content that is not in
accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	4.
	The
Contractor shall establish a process for removing from the kids.us domain any content that is not in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	5.
	The
Contractor shall establish a process to provide registrants in the kids.us domain with an opportunity for a prompt, expeditious, and impartial dispute resolution process regarding
any material of the registrant excluded from the kids.us domain.

	6.
	The
Contractor shall establish procedures and mechanisms to promote the accuracy of contact information submitted by registrants and retained by registrars in the kids.us domain.

	7.
	The
Contractor shall have written agreements with each registrar for the kids.us domain that requires each registrar to:

	a.
	Ensure
that use of the kids.us domain will be in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor.

	b.
	Enter
into a written agreement with each registrant in the kids.us domain to use the kids.us domain in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Contractor; to prohibit
two-way and multiuser interactive services in the kids.us domain, unless the registrant certifies to the registrar that such service will be offered in compliance with the kids.us content
standards and is designed to reduce the risk of exploitation of minors using such two-way and multiuser interactive services; and to prohibit hyperlinks in the kids.us domain that take
kids.us users outside the kids.us domain.

	8.
	The
Contractor shall establish and ensure that the kids.us domain is operational and begins accepting registrations no later than December 3, 2003.

	9.
	The
Contractor shall ensure continuous and uninterrupted service for the kids.us domain during any transition to a successor registry operator for the kids.us domain or the.us domain.

	10.
	The
Contractor shall take any other action that NTIA considers necessary to establish, operate, or maintain the new domain in accordance with the purposes of Section 4 of Pub.
Law No. 107-317, including, but not limited to, the following:

	a.
	The
Contractor shall implement a "Sunrise Period" that permits qualified trademark owners to preregister their trademarks in the kids.us domain prior to general public registration in
the kids.us domain.

	b.
	The
Contractor shall establish, in conjunction with NTIA, a list of domain names (if any) that will be reserved from domain name registration in the kids.us domain. 

65

 

	c.
	The
Contractor shall have written agreements with each registrar for the kids.us domain that requires each registrar to enter into a written agreement with each registrant in the
kids.us domain to subject such kids. us domain name registration to the following us policies and requirements, as may be amended from time to time by the Contractor and approved by the Contracting
Officer:

	i.
	usTLD
Dispute Resolution Policy and Rules;

	ii.
	The
usTLD Nexus Requirements;

	iii.
	Nexus
Dispute Policy and Rules; and

	iv.
	Registration
Review Policy (April 22, 2002)

	d.
	The
Contractor shall create and maintain a centralized, publicly accessible Whois database for all domain name registrations in the kids.us domain.

	e.
	The Contractor shall serve as Content Manager and is therefore responsible for the content review at the initial stage and through ongoing monitoring. The
Contractor may perform these duties directly or subcontract a portion or all of these duties to a third party(ies).

        All
requirements, rules, processes, procedures, mechanisms, fees, agreements and subcontracts required to implement the kids.us domain shall be subject to the Contracting Officer's
approval. 

66

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0009
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

August 19, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

AJF60000-3-01423
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AMD00065

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers

c/o CAMS Support Center

209 Perry Parkway, Suite 5

Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2171

Joel L. Perloth 301-258-4505 x258
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14, the hour and date specified for receipt of offers is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge
receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

67

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 52.243-1 "CHANGES", FAR 43 and Mutual Agreement of the Parties
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

Modification No.: 0009 under Purchase order No.: SB1335-02-W-0175 is being issued to accomplish the following:
	

1.	
 	

To extend the date for the usTLD Reserved Name Registration Process until September 30, 2003.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Director, Law & Policy, NeuStar, Inc.

Jeff.Neuman@NeuStar.US
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ Jeffrey J. Neuman
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-258-4505 x258
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 

68

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

U.
S. Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

1401 Constitution Ave., Room 4720

Washington, D.C. 20230

Phone: (202) 482-0775

E-mail: BKFulton(untia.doc.gov 

	0001	 	BASE PERIOD	 	4	 	YR	 	0.00	 	0.00
	

 	
 	

The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW. Period of Performance: 4 years, beginning on the date of purchase order award	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

69

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0010
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

September 30, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

AJF60000-4-00024
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AMD00065

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers

c/o CAMS Support Center

209 Perry Parkway, Suite 5

Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2171

Joel L. Perloth 301-258-4505 x258
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

70

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of
FAR 43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 52.243-1 "Changes", FAR 43, and Mutual Agreement of the Parties
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority).

The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

Modification No: 0010 under Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175 is being issued to accomplish the following:
	

1.	
 	

To extend the date for the Coordination and Management of the.us Top Level Domain (usTLD) Reserved Name Registration Process until December 31, 2003.
	

2.	
 	

To implement interim content monitoring procedures as follows:
	

15.A	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

James A. Casey

Director, Policy and Bus. Development
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ James A. Casey
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

10/20/03
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-258-4505 x258
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

10-29-03

 
 

SF 30 Continuation of Block Narrative    
    

        Consistent with Section 10 Paragraph (e) of Modification 8 to the.us requirements, the Contractor shall serve as Content Manager and is therefore
responsible for the content review at the initial stage and through ongoing monitoring. The Contractor may perform these duties directly or subcontract a portion or all of these duties to a third
party(ies). 

71

 

 
 

Schedule    
    

	Item No.
 
	 	Supplies/Services
	 	Quantity
	 	Unit
	 	Unit Price
	 	Amount

	

0001	
 	

BASE PERIOD	
 	

4	
 	

YR	
 	

0.00	
 	

0.00
	

 	
 	

The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW.	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

72

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0011
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

December 31, 2003
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

 
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AMD00065

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers

c/o CAMS Support Center

209 Perry Parkway, Suite 5

Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2171

Carol A. Silverman 301-258-4506
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

73

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of
FAR 43.103(b).
	

 	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:
	

(X)	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority).

Mutual agreement of the parties. (Ref: Contractor Request dated 12/23/03)
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return    copies to
the issuing office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

        The purpose of this modification is to extend the date for the coordination and management of the .us Top Level Domain (usTLD) Reserved Name Registration Process until March 31, 2004.
	

All other terms and conditions of Order No. DG1335-02-W-0175 remain the same.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

 
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

 
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Carol A. Silverman

Contracting Officer

csilverman@doc.gov

301-258-4506
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Carol A. Silverman
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

December 31, 2003

 
 

Schedule    
    

	Item No.
 
	 	Supplies/Services
	 	Quantity
	 	Unit
	 	Unit Price
	 	Amount

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

74

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	

1.	
 	

Contract Id Code	
 	

 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No. 0012	
 	

 
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

March 31, 2004
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

AJF60000-4-00560
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AJF60012

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers Acq.

OFA66

1305 East West Hwy, Suite 7604

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Joel L. Perloth 301-713-0838 x205
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

75

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

(X)	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

 	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority).
	

 	
 	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return    copies to
the issuing office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

 	
 	

The purpose of this Modification No. 0012 under Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175 is being issued to accomplish the following:
	

1.	
 	

To extend the date for the coordination and management of the .us Top Level Domain (usTLD) Reserved Name Registration Process until June 30, 2004.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

 
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

 
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-713-0838 x205
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

March 31, 2004

 
 

SF 30 Continuation of Block Narrative    
    

2.
To accept the contractors proposed fee of $65.00 per domain name for the direct registration of the reservation list for kids.us 

        All
other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 

	Schedule

	Item No.
	 	Supplies/Services
	 	Quantity
	 	Unit
	 	Unit Price
	 	Amount

	

0001	
 	

BASE PERIOD	
 	

4	
 	

YR	
 	

0.00	
 	

0.00
	

 	
 	

The Contractor must perform the services required by the SOW.	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

Period of Performance: 4 years, beginning on the date of purchase order award	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

76

 
 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0013
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

June 1, 2004
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

AJF60000-4-01203
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AJF60012

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers Acq.

OFA66

1305 East West Hwy, Suite 7604

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Joel L. Perloth 301-713-0838 x205
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE:
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

77

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR
43.103(b).
	

 	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:
	

(X)	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority) Mutual agreement of the Parties.
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not, ý is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

 	
 	

Modification No. 0013 under Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175 is being issued to implement the EPP-complaint Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for ".US" domain names in accordance with the attached proposal.
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Director, Law & Policy, NeuStar, Inc.

Jeff.Neuman@NeuStar.US
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ Jeffrey J. Neuman
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

June 6, 2004
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-713-0838 x205
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

 
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

 

OVERVIEW  

        NeuStar proposed the implementation of a fully automated, EPP-compliant Redemption Grace Period (RGP) for .US domain names. The NeuStar RGP will
enable Registrars to restore registered.US domain names that have been inadvertently deleted through registrant or Registrar error, but which are still within a designated 30-day
Redemption Period. 

STATUSES  

        In order to remain EPP-complaint, NeuStar will only use domain statuses defined in the current EPP specifications. As such, all domains slated for
deletion will remain in PendingDelete status for 35 days or until they are restored. 

	•
	All
domains deleted outside the Add Grace Period will be placed on PendingDelete status for a total of 35 days, after
which time the names will be purged from the Registry database and made available again for registration.

	•
	During
this PendingDelete timeframe, domain names will only be redeemable for the first 30 days, and cannot be
otherwise modified. The only action allowed by the Registrar is the restoration of the domain name. 

78

 

	•
	Upon
being placed in PendingDelete status, domain names will be immediately removed from the DNS, but will remain in the
WHOIS with a notation about their dates of deletion in the "Last Updated Date" field.

	•
	At
the conclusion of the 30-day restoration period, the domain will remain on PendingDelete for an additional
five days. During this time, the domain cannot be restored, modified, deleted, or transferred. At the conclusion of this five-day period, the domain will be purged from the Registry
database. 

RESTORE COMMAND  

        NeuStar will use the existing EPP Renew command as the basis for the  Restore command. In
addition, EPP extensions will be used to capture additional required information as set forth below in the section entitled
"Registrar Reporting Requirements." 

REPORTS  

        Registrars may only restore domains in order to correct unintentional deletions caused by the registrant or Registrar. Restoring registered domains in order to
assume the rights to use or sell them will be considered a violation of the Registry-Registrar Agreement. 

Registrar Reporting Requirements  

        Registrars must verify their compliance with the intention of the RGP service by submitting a Registrar Restore Report to the Registry. The primary purpose of the
report is to identify the circumstance that led to the Restore request. NeuStar will take advantage of its "thick" registry to collect the reporting
data at the time the Restore command is submitted. The following data is already collected and stored by the Registry, and as such will not need to be provided separately by the Registrar: 

	•
	WHOIS
data for deleted name, as it existed prior to deletion

	•
	WHOIS
data for deleted name, as it existed at the time of report submission

	•
	Exact
date and time of deletion

	•
	Exact
date and time of redemption 

        In
addition, the following information must be submitted by the Registrar to the Registry as part of the Restore command. Failure to
provide all of the follow data at the time the command is submitted will result in a failure to restore the domain name. 

	•
	Written
explanation and corresponding reason code as to why registered name was restored (e.g., Registrar error, dispute resolution, etc.)

	•
	Written
statement affirming that Registrar has not, unless required by law, restored the.US domain name in question in order to assume the rights to use or sell the name for
itself or for any third party

	•
	Written
statement affirming that information in report is factually accurate to the best of the Registrar's knowledge 

        NeuStar
will retain copies of all Registrar Restore and will provide the United States Department of Commerce with such reports as requested. 

79

 

Registry Reporting Requirements  

        To facilitate the recirculation of unredeemed domain names back into the publicly available pool of names, NeuStar will provide comprehensive, regularly updated
lists of names with a PendingDelete status to all Registrars via an FTP or SCP mechanism; these lists will include corresponding dates of deletion.
Other than as set forth in these paragraphs, no Registrars will be able to modify or restore names with a PendingDelete status. 

FEES  

        NeuStar proposed a tiered fee structure as follows: 

	•
	For
the first five (5) days of the RGP, a domain name that has been unintentionally deleted can be restored for a one-time fee of $6.00.

	•
	The
cost of restoring an accidentally deleted name will be raised to a one-time fee of $40.00 for the remaining 25 days of the RGP. 

        Please
also note that fees associated with the restoration of a domain name through the RGP are separate and apart from the fees that are due and payable to NeuStar for the registration
or renewal of a domain name. Thus, if a domain name is deleted within five (5) days of the expiration of a domain
name registration and a domain name registrant would like to restore the name through the RGP, the registry would charge the registrar the $6 for the restoration plus $5.50 for the renewal of the
domain name. If the restoration occurs more than five (5) days after the expiration of the domain name, the registry would charge the registrar $40 for the restoration of the domain plus $5.50
for the one (1) year renewal of the domain name registration. 

80

  

 
 

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT    
    

	1.	 	Contract Id Code	 	 
	

2.	
 	

Amendment/Modification No.	
 	

0014
	

3.	
 	

Effective Date	
 	

September 21, 2004
	

4.	
 	

Requisition/Purchase Req. No.	
 	

NTIA911-4-0111BF
	

5.	
 	

Project No. (If Applicable)	
 	

 
	

6.	
 	

Issued By	
 	

Code AJF60012

DOC/NOAA/OFA/ External Customers,AMD

OFA66

1305 East West Hwy, Suite 7604

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Joel L. Perloth 301-713-0838 x205
	

7.	
 	

Administered By (if other than item 6)	
 	

See Block 6
	

8.	
 	

Name And Address Of Contractor (No. Street, County, And Zip Code)	
 	

NeuStar, Inc.

46000 Center Oak Plaza

Building 10

Sterling VA 20166-6593

Vendor Id: 00001032

DUNS: 112403295

CAGE: 3DXC3
	

9A.	
 	

ý Amendment Of Solicitation No.	
 	

 
	

9B.	
 	

Date (See Item 11)	
 	

 
	

10A.	
 	

ý Modification Of Contractor/Order No.	
 	

SB1335-02-W-0175
	

10B.	
 	

Date (See Item 13)	
 	

October 26, 2001
	

11	
 	

THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS
	

o The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. the hour and date specified for receipt of offers o is extended o is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing item 8 and 15, and returning            copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or
(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY
RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment,
and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.
	

12.	
 	

Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required)	
 	

$US 0.00
	

13.	
 	

THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESIRED IN ITEM 14
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

81

 

	

(X)	
 	

A.	
 	

This change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority). The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. In Item 10A.
	

 	
 	

B.	
 	

The above numbered Contract/Order is modified to reflect the administrative charges (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set forth item 14, pursuant to the authority of
FAR 43.103(b).
	

(X)	
 	

C.	
 	

This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

FAR 52.243-1 "Changes", and Mutual Agreement of the Parties
	

 	
 	

D.	
 	

Other (specify type of modification and authority)	
 	

 
	

E.	
 	
IMPORTANT: Contractor o is not o, is required to sign this document and return 3 copies to the issuing
office.
	

14.	
 	

Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)
	

Modification No. 0014 under Purchase Order No. SB1335-02-W-0175, Coordination and Management of the.us Top Level Domain (usTLD) is being issued to end the usTLD Reserved Name Registration Process (RNRP) in a phased manner by
December 31, 2004 in accordance with the plan and schedule set forth below:
	

15A.	
 	

Name and Title of Signer (Type or Print)	
 	

Jeffrey J. Newman, Esq.

Director, Law & Policy, NeuStar, Inc.

Jeff.Neuman@NeuStar.US
	

15B.	
 	

Contractor/Offeror	
 	

/s/ Jeffrey J. Neuman
	

15C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

September 21, 2004
	

16A.	
 	

Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)	
 	

Joel L. Perlroth

Contracting Officer

Joel.L.Perlroth@noaa.gov

301-713-0838 x205
	

16B.	
 	

United States of America	
 	

/s/ Joel L. Perlroth
	

16C.	
 	

Date Signed	
 	

September 24, 2004

PHASES:  

Phase 1—Review and Cleansing of Reserve List  

        NeuStar will undertake a thorough review of all registration applications received to date. Shared Registration System (SRS) registration data will be
crosschecked with any payments received. At the conclusion of this process, a definitive list of non-registered/non-reserved domain names will be created. This list will be
used to complete the remaining phases. A keyword scan will be performed against the entire set of names will be created. This list will be used to complete the remaining phases. A keyword scan will be
performed against the entire set of non-registered reserved names to identify any potentially sensitive domain names. These domain names will be set aside for further manual review at a
later stage. During this period, NeuStar will work, with the Department of Commerce to make every reasonable effort to reach out to the various affinity groups to notify them of the conclusion of the
reserved name program. NeuStar will publish a press release, send letters, send e-mail, make direct telephone calls, and where possible create articles to be published in relevant affinity
group and stakeholder newsletters. In addition, NeuStar will provide an announcement on the official.us website. 

82

 

Phase 2—Release of Local Names  

        This phase will involve the release of all unregistered or unreserved local names. This includes any city, town, village, borough, rancheria, community, or county
name. This list will contain approximately 51,000 domain names. The names will be released in bulk, however due to the large number of names, the release will occur over a period of several hours. 

Phase 3—Release of all State and Indian Reservation Names  

        All unregistered or unreserved State and Indian Reservation domain names will be released. This will include the various on each name, and state mottos. This list
will contain approximately 600 domain names. 

Phase 4—Interim Review  

        With prior approval of the NTIA, NeuStar will develop a permanent reservation list from the federal government domain names. 

Phase 5—Release of Remaining Names  

        All remaining names not placed in the permanently reserved state during Phase 4 will be released at this point. 

SCHEDULE  

September 30,
2004 

	•
	Phase
1 completed (Review all registration applications, create master list, keyword scan, and affinity group and stakeholder outreach)

	•
	Final
day for accepting Local Name registrations 

October 15,
2004 

	•
	Phase
2 completed (Release Local Names)

	•
	Final
day for accepting State and Indian Reservation registrations 

November 1,
2004 

	•
	Phase
3 completed (Release State and Indian Reservation Names) 

November 15,
2004 

	•
	Phase
4 completed (Review remaining names for permanent reserves)

	•
	Final
day for accepting Federal registrations 

December 15,
2004

Phase 5 completed (Release remaining names) 

83

   Table of Contents  

	Transmittal Letter/Forms	 	Tab
	Acronyms/ Clarification of Terms	 	Tab
	Compliance Matrix	 	Tab
	Solution Summary	 	Tab
	A.    usTLD Team	 	A-1
	B.    Contractor Requirements	 	B.1
	B.1	 	Statement of Purpose	 	B.1-1
	B.2	 	Core Registry Functions	 	B.2-1
	B.2.1	 	Primary usTLD Server	 	B.2-2
	B.2.1.1	 	NeuStar's Multiple Primary Nameservers	 	B.2-3
	B.2.1.2	 	General Description of Proposed Facilities and Systems	 	B.2-3
	B.2.1.3	 	Description of System Functions	 	B.2-6
	B.2.2	 	Secondary usTLD Servers	 	B.2-8
	B.2.3	 	usTLD Zone Files	 	B.2-9
	B.2.3.1	 	Current Zone File Generation—Problems and Solution	 	B.2-9
	B.2.3.2	 	Secure Access to Update Zone File Data	 	B.2-10
	B.2.3.3	 	Frequency of Zone File Generation	 	B.2-11
	B.2.3.4	 	Zone File Generation Architecture	 	B.2-11
	B.2.3.5	 	Zone File Distribution and Publication	 	B.2-11
	B.2.3.6	 	Locations and Architecture	 	B.2-12
	B.2.3.7	 	Frequency of Zone File Publication/Update	 	B.2-13
	B.2.4	 	Whois Database	 	B.2-13
	B.2.5	 	usTLD Delegated Manager Database Administration	 	B.2-15
	B.2.6	 	Data Escrow	 	B.2-16
	B.2.7	 	Industry Representation/Compliance	 	B.2-17
	B.2.8	 	usTLD Public Awareness Initiatives	 	B.2-18
	B.2.8.1	 	Executive Summary	 	B.2-18
	B.2.8.2	 	Background	 	B.2-19
	B.2.8.3	 	Strategic Goal	 	B.2-20
	B.2.8.4	 	Customer Base	 	B.2-20
	B.2.8.5	 	Marketing Objectives	 	B.2-24
	B.2.8.6	 	Market Definition	 	B.2-24
	B.2.8.7	 	Market Opportunity	 	B.2-28
	B.2.8.8	 	Value Proposition	 	B.2-28
	B.2.8.9	 	Channel	 	B.2-31
	B.2.8.10	 	Marketing Plan	 	B.2-32
	B.2.9	 	Integration Assistance	 	B.2-34
	B.2.10	 	Compliance Monitoring	 	B.2-35
	B.2.11	 	Web Site	 	B.2-36

84

 

	B.2.12	 	Documentation and Training	 	B.2-37
	B.2.13	 	Customer Relationship Management	 	B.2-39
	B.2.14	 	Reporting	 	B.2-40
	B.2.15	 	Progress and Quarterly Reporting	 	B.2-41
	B.2.16	 	Help Desk	 	B.2-41
	B.3	 	Core Policy Requirements	 	B.3-1
	B.3.1	 	US Nexus Requirement Implementation	 	B.3-3
	B.3.2	 	Open ccTLD Policies Adoption	 	B.3-5
	B.3.3	 	usTLD Dispute Policies and Sunrise Policy/Implementation	 	B.3-6
	B.3.3.1	 	usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy	 	B.3-6
	B.3.3.2	 	Sunrise Policy and Implementation	 	B.3-8
	B.3.4	 	GAC Principles	 	B.3-10
	B.3.5	 	Additional, Alternative, or Supplemental Policies	 	B.3-10
	B.4	 	Locality-Based usTLD Structure Functions	 	B.4-1
	B.4.1	 	Existing Delegees and Registrants Service Provision	 	B.4-2
	B.4.1.1	 	Needs of Existing Users	 	B.4-2
	B.4.1.2	 	Implementing Services for Delegees	 	B.4-3
	B.4.1.3	 	Providing Support for Registrants	 	B.4-3
	B.4.2	 	Undelegated Third Level SuB.domains Service Provision	 	B.4-4
	B.4.2.1	 	Additional Needs of Undelegated Domains	 	B.4-6
	B.4.2.2	 	Implementing Registrar Services	 	B.4-6
	B.4.2.3	 	Providing Registry Services	 	B.4-7
	B.4.3	 	Locality-Based Process Modernization	 	B.4-7
	B.4.4	 	Current Locality-Based usTLD Users Coordination	 	B.4-8
	B.4.5	 	Compliance with Current Locality-Based usTLD Polices Investigation and Report	 	B.4-8
	B.4.6	 	usTLD Delegated Manager Database Development	 	B.4-12
	B.4.7	 	Whois Database Development	 	B.4-14
	B.5	 	Expanded usTLD Space Functions	 	B.5-1
	B.5.1	 	usTLD Shared Registration System	 	B.5-2
	B.5.2	 	Accreditation Process for usTLD Registrars	 	B.5-3
	B.5.3	 	Technical Certification of usTLD Registrars	 	B.5-4
	B.5.4	 	Whois Database Development	 	B.5-7
	B.5.5	 	Community Outreach Plan	 	B.5-9
	C.    NeuStar's Vision of the usTLD	 	C-1
	D.    Enhancing the Utility of the usTLD	 	D-1
	E.    Current State of the usTLD Domain Space	 	E-1
	F.    Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System	 	F-1
	F.1	 	Enhanced Shared Registration System	 	F-2
	F.2	 	Centralized usTLD Database	 	F-3
	G.    Draft Delegated Managers/Administrator Contract	 	G-1

85

 

	H.    Draft Registrar/Registry Contract	 	H-1
	I.    Start-up Phase Policies	 	I-1
	J.    Registration Process	 	J-1
	K.    Outreach to Current Locality-based usTLD Users	 	K-1
	L.    Funding for the usTLD	 	L-1
	M.    Description of Cost Elements	 	M-1
	N.    Pro Forma Projections	 	N-1
	O.    Proposed Technical Plan	 	O-1
	O.1	 	Proposed Technical Facilities and Systems	 	O-2
	O.1.1	 	Registry Facilities Site Description	 	O-2
	O.1.1.1	 	Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) Data Center Functional Description	 	O-2
	O.1.1.2	 	Nameserver Sites Functional Description	 	O-5
	O.1.1.3	 	Enhanced SRS Data Center and Nameserver Buildings	 	O-6
	O.1.2	 	Enhanced Shared Registration System Descriptions	 	O-8
	O.1.2.1	 	Enhanced SRS Data Center System Descriptions	 	O-10
	O.1.2.2	 	Nameserver Description	 	O-14
	O.1.3	 	Registry Network System Description	 	O-15
	O.1.3.1	 	Internet Connectivity	 	O-15
	O.1.3.2	 	VPN Registry Management Network	 	O-16
	O.1.4	 	Registry System Application Software	 	O-16
	O.1.4.1	 	Application Components	 	O-16
	O.1.4.2	 	Registry Software Development Methodology	 	O-19
	O.2	 	Registry-Registrar Model and XRP Protocol	 	O-22
	O.3	 	NeuStar's Database Capabilities	 	O-23
	O.3.1	 	Functional Overview	 	O-23
	O.3.2	 	Database System Description	 	O-26
	O.3.3	 	Database Security and Access Privileges	 	O-32
	O.4	 	Zone File Generation	 	O-33
	O.4.1	 	Secure Access to Update Zone File Data	 	O-33
	O.4.2	 	Zone File Generation Architecture	 	O-34
	O.5	 	Zone File Distribution and Publication	 	O-35
	O.5.1	 	Locations of Data Centers Housing Zone File Nameservers	 	O-35
	O.5.2	 	Zone File Publication/Update Architecture	 	O-35
	O.6	 	Billing and Collection System	 	O-37
	O.6.1	 	Technical Capabilities and Characteristics	 	O-37
	O.6.2	 	Security	 	O-43
	O.6.3	 	Access Privileges	 	O-44
	O.6.4	 	Backup and Recovery	 	O-45
	O.6.5	 	Billing and Collection Audits	 	O-46
	O.7	 	Data Escrow and Backup	 	O-47

86

 

	O.7.1	 	Frequency and Procedures for Backup of Data	 	O-47
	O.7.2	 	Backup Hardware and Software Systems	 	O-48
	O.7.3	 	Procedures for Retrieval of Data and Rebuild of the Database	 	O-48
	O.8	 	Whois Databases for Both Registrars and Delegated Managers	 	O-49
	O.8.1	 	Whois Service Functional Description	 	O-50
	O.8.2	 	Whois System Architecture	 	O-52
	O.8.3	 	Network Speed and Proposed Service Levels	 	O-52
	O.9	 	System Security	 	O-54
	O.9.1	 	System Security	 	O-54
	O.9.1.1	 	Enhanced Shared Registration System Data Center Security	 	O-55
	O.9.1.2	 	Nameserver Data Center Security	 	O-58
	O.9.2	 	Physical Security	 	O-59
	O.10	 	Peak Capacities	 	O-61
	O.10.1	 	Enhanced SRS Peak Capacity	 	O-61
	O.10.2	 	Whois Peak Capacity	 	O-62
	O.10.3	 	DNS Query Peak Capacity	 	O-63
	O.11	 	System Reliability	 	O-64
	O.11.1	 	Quality of Service and Performance Measurements	 	O-64
	O.12	 	System Outage Prevention	 	O-65
	O.13	 	System Recovery Procedures	 	O-71
	O.13.1	 	Restoring Enhanced SRS Operations in the Event of a System Outage	 	O-71
	O.13.2	 	Redundant/Diverse Systems for Providing Service in the Event of an Outage	 	O-73
	O.13.3	 	Process for Recovery From Various Types of Failures	 	O-74
	O.13.4	 	Training of Technical Staff Who Will Perform Recovery Procedures	 	O-76
	O.13.5	 	Software and Operating Systems for Restoring System Operations	 	O-76
	O.13.6	 	Hardware Needed To Restore and Run the System	 	O-76
	O.13.7	 	Backup Electrical Power Systems	 	O-76
	O.13.8	 	Projected Time for Restoring the System	 	O-77
	O.13.9	 	Testing the System Restoration Process	 	O-77
	O.13.10	 	Documenting System Outages	 	O-77
	O.13.11	 	Documenting System Problems That Could Result in Outages	 	O-77
	O.14	 	Technical and Other Support	 	O-78
	O.14.1	 	Technical Help Systems	 	O-78
	O.14.2	 	Staffing	 	O-80
	O.14.3	 	Test and Evaluation Facility	 	O-80
	O.14.4	 	Customer Satisfaction Survey	 	O-80
	P.    Past Performance	 	P-1
	P.1	 	Registry, Database, and Internet Experience	 	P-7
	P.2	 	Technical Capabilities	 	P-9
	P.3	 	Past Performance References	 	P-11
	Q.    Performance Measurements	 	Q-1

87

 

	R.    Offerors Representations and Certifications	 	R-1
	S.    NeuStar's DUNs Number	 	S-1
	T.    Transition and Project Plan	 	T-1
	T.1	 	Transition to New usTLD Administrator	 	T-2
	T.1.1	 	Requirements for Successful Transition	 	T-2
	T.1.2	 	Time Line for Transition	 	T-4
	T.1.3	 	Implementation	 	T-5
	T.1.4	 	Resources	 	T-5
	T.2	 	Project Plan	 	T-5
	T.2.1	 	High-level Task Descriptions	 	T-7
	T.2.2	 	Staffing and Organization	 	T-8
	T.2.3	 	Monitoring, Control, and Change Management	 	T-8
	T.2.4	 	Quality Assurance	 	T-8

88

   Acronyms  

	

AAA	
 	

American Arbitration Association
	

ACD	
 	

Automatic Call Distributor
	

AFNOG	
 	

African Network Operators Group
	

API	
 	

Application Program Interface
	

APRICOT	
 	

Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies
	

ARIN	
 	

American Registry for Internet Numbers
	

B&C	
 	

Billing and Collections
	

BEEP	
 	

Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
	

CASE	
 	

Computer-Aided Software Engineering
	

ccTLD	
 	

Country Code Top-Level Domain
	

COTR	
 	

Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
	

CRM	
 	

Customer Relationship Management
	

DBMS	
 	

Database Management System
	

DFP	
 	

Dynamic Feedback Protocol
	

DNS	
 	

Domain Name System
	

DOC	
 	

Department of Commerce
	

DUNS	
 	

Data Universal Numbering System
	

FAQ	
 	

Frequently Asked Questions
	

FCC	
 	

Federal Communications Commission
	

ftp	
 	

File Transfer Protocol
	

GDP	
 	

Gross Domestic Product
	

gTLD	
 	

Generic Top-Level Domain
	

http	
 	

Hypertext Transfer Protocol
	

ICANN	
 	

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
	

ICC	
 	

International Chamber of Commerce
	

ID	
 	

Identification
	

IDL	
 	

Interface Domain Language
	

IETF	
 	

Internet Engineering Task Force
	

IP	
 	

Internet Protocol
	

IPC	
 	

Intellectual Property Constituency
	

IPNS	
 	

Internet Property Notification Service
	 	 	 

89

 

	

IPv6	
 	

Internet Protocol Version 6
	

IP Services/Solutions	
 	

Internet Protocol Services or Solutions
	

ISA	
 	

Inter-State authority
	

ISO	
 	

International Organization for Standards
	

ISP	
 	

Internet Service Provider
	

IT	
 	

Information Technology
	

IVR	
 	

Interactive Voice Response
	

LOB	
 	

Line of business
	

M & P	
 	

Methods and Procedures
	

MORs	
 	

Monthly Operation Reviews
	

MTTR	
 	

Mean Time To Repair
	

N + 1	
 	

Needed Number Plus One for A Safety Factor
	

NANPA	
 	

North American Numbering Plan Administrator
	

NANOG	
 	

North American Network Operators Group
	

NDP	
 	

Nexus Dispute Policy
	

NIST	
 	

National Institute of Standards and Technology
	

NOC	
 	

Network Operations Center
	

NPAC	
 	

Number Portability Administration Center
	

NSI	
 	

Network Solutions, Inc.
	

NTIA	
 	

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
	

NXX	
 	

Central Office Code (where N is a number greater than 1 and X is a number greater than 0)
	

OLTP	
 	

Online Transaction Processing
	

OT&E	
 	

Operational Test & Evaluation
	

PGP	
 	

Pretty Good Privacy
	

PKI	
 	

Public Key Infrastructure
	

POC	
 	

Point of Contact
	

PSU	
 	

Production Support Unit
	

QA	
 	

Quality Assurance
	

RAD	
 	

Rapid Application Development
	

RAID	
 	

Redundant Array of Independent Disks
	

RAP	
 	

Registry Authentication Period
	

RFC	
 	

Request for Comment
	

RFQ	
 	

Request for Quotation
	 	 	 

90

 

	

RRP	
 	

Registry-Registrar Protocol
	

RTK	
 	

Registrar Tool Kit
	

Rwhois	
 	

Referral Whois protocol
	

SDA	
 	

Session Distribution Algorithm
	

SDK	
 	

Software Development Kit
	

SIPNS	
 	

Start-up Intellectual Property Notification Service
	

SLA	
 	

Service Level Agreement
	

SLD	
 	

Second-Level Domain
	

SMP	
 	

Symmetric Multiprocessing
	

SMS	
 	

Service Management System
	

SNMP	
 	

Simple Network Management Protocol
	

SOW	
 	

Statement of Work
	

SRS	
 	

Shared Registration System
	

SSL	
 	

Secure Socket Layer
	

SW-CMM	
 	

Software Capability Maturity Model
	

SUDRP	
 	

Start-Up Dispute Resolution Policy
	

TCP	
 	

Transmission Control Protocol
	

TLD	
 	

Top-Level Domain
	

TPC	
 	

Transaction Processing Council
	

tpsC	
 	

Transactions per second
	

UAT	
 	

User Acceptance Test
	

UDRP	
 	

Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
	

US$	
 	

United States dollars
	

usDRP	
 	

United States Dispute Resolution Policy
	

usTLD	
 	

us Top-Level Domain
	

VoIP	
 	

Voice over IP
	

VPN	
 	

Virtual Private Network
	

WAP	
 	

Wireless Application Protocol
	

WIPO	
 	

World Intellectual Property Organization
	

www	
 	

World Wide Web
	

XML	
 	

eXtensible Markup Language
	

XRP	
 	

eXtensible Registry Protocol

91

 

Clarification of Terms  

	Delegee	 	An entity designated by the past usTLD administrator to be responsible for registering names within the third and fourth levels of the locality-based namespace.
	
Subdelegee	
 	

An entity designated by a delegee to operate a subdomain within the delegee's namespace. The term "delegee" as used in this proposal always includes both delegees and subdelegees.
	
Delegated Manager	
 	

The term "delegated managers" refers collectively to delegees and subdelegees.

92

 

Highlights  

	•
	NeuStar has a legacy of managing public resources in a responsible and neutral manner

	•
	NeuStar has the experience to transition mission critical infrastructure services

	•
	NeuStar has proven experience implementing advanced technologies to increase the utility of public resources

	•
	NeuStar has a legacy of facilitating policy processes in environments with multiple stakeholders

	•
	NeuStar has the financial means and necessary commitment to build and operate mission critical resources

Solution Summary  

        NeuStar, the leading neutral third party administrator of critical public resources, possesses the experience, technical expertise, service capabilities, and
integrity to ensure all the DOC's objectives for managing and enhancing the usTLD namespace are met. 

        The
current United States top-level domain (usTLD) is greatly underutilized. The existing hierarchical structure, operational challenges, limited awareness, service level
issues, and infrastructure needs have resulted in limited adoption and use by the U.S. community. A great opportunity exists to unlock the potential of the usTLD to the benefit of the American people.
Widespread use of the usTLD for e-Gov, consumer, business, and public service applications has the potential to improve the ability of the American people to find information, access
services, to communicate, and to transact business. 

        The
new administrator must meet the critical needs identified by the Department of Commerce (DOC) in order for the U.S. Internet community to realize the full benefit of the usTLD. The
administrator must: 

        Develop
a more robust, certain, and reliable system. 

        Promote
increased use of the usTLD. 

        Create
a centrally administered and efficiently managed structure that ensures confidence and infrastructure stability. 

        Create
a stable, flexible, and balanced environment within the usTLD that is conducive to innovation and that will meet the future demands of potential registrants. 

        Ensure
continued stability of the domain name system as a whole and the usTLD in particular especially through the transition period from the current to the new management structure. 

        Manage
the usTLD so it is consistent with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) technical management of the domain name space (DNS). 

        Allow
for the adequate protection of intellectual property in the usTLD. 

        Establish
and maintain consistent communication between the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR), the Contractor, and ICANN. 

        Promote
robust competition within the usTLD. 

        In
order to meet its objectives, the DOC should seek an administrator that can meet the significant challenges outlined below: 

	•
	Manage public resources in a responsible and neutral manner—The usTLD Administrator will be a trustee of an
important public resource. Undertaking the administration of any public 

93

 

resource,
including the usTLD, means taking on an obligation to operate in a fair and even-handed manner, providing equal access and service levels to all. 

	•
	Transition mission critical infrastructure services—Since the existing usTLD space currently contains over 8,000
registrations, and the vast majority of these registrations support important public service and government applications, it is extremely important that a transition take place with zero impact to the
existing usTLD community.

	•
	Implement advanced technologies to meet the needs of the public and private sectors—In order to meet the current
and future needs of the public and private sectors, the usTLD Administrator must be prepared to employ the advanced technologies necessary to meet the demands of a vital public resource. The
technology must be highly reliable, scalable, and secure. The architecture must have attributes that provide for great flexibility in meeting the needs of both the private and public sectors.

	•
	Facilitate policy in an environment with multiple stakeholders—The usTLD will serve a broad spectrum of users.
Given that widespread acceptance and use of the usTLD is expected, the stakeholders in the usTLD collectively represent a group that is as diverse as the American people. The usTLD Administrator
should have the experience necessary to work collaboratively with this diverse group in order to facilitate policy that reflects the needs of the community.

	•
	Ensure the financial commitment and means to build and operate mission critical resources—The usTLD Administrator
must have the necessary financial resources to build the required infrastructure and to sustain the business over the long term. Companies who lack the considerable financial resources required to
build and operate the required infrastructure may have to "cut corners" in their implementation of the usTLD resulting in poor service and inhibiting their ability to introduce enhanced services. 

        NeuStar
is amply qualified to meet these challenges and execute the solution highlighted in the following paragraphs. A chart describing NeuStar's capabilities, qualifications, and
experience is attached to the end of this section. 

The NeuStar Solution  

        Integrity is the cornerstone of NeuStar's solution for the usTLD namespace. Our long-term vision of the usTLD is to see it regarded as the world's
premier country code top-level domain (ccTLD), and that goal can only be achieved by ensuring that every aspect of its administration is managed with integrity. Integrity permeates every
element of our solution and is fundamental to our corporate mission to lead and serve the industry as a neutral third party. We understand that this space is a ccTLD not a generic
top-level domain (gTLD) and is exclusively available to serve the needs of U.S. constituents. Therefore, our solution for administering and enhancing the space is structured with that
awareness. NeuStar will reach out to the industry and the U.S. public to ensure that the interests of all participants will be incorporated into the administration of the usTLD, and this important
public resource will be managed in a manner designed to serve the public interest. Our active, ongoing involvement with the industry provides us with a perspective only experience can impart. We
understand the needs and concerns of the industry for the usTLD namespace and this understanding clarifies our responsibility to develop operations and systems that address those needs while
conducting ourselves in strict adherence to the principles of a neutral third party. If NeuStar did not firmly believe it could meet and exceed the DOC's objectives for the usTLD, through innovation,
dedication, excellence, and integrity, we would not be submitting this proposal. We are committed to managing extremely sensitive proprietary data in an atmosphere of high security and confidentiality
and our goal is the equitable treatment of all participating industry players and stakeholders. 

94

 

        Our
solution can be broken down into four primary components, each of which will be defined below. 

NeuStar Service Administration  

        Every aspect of service administration for the usTLD space must be managed with integrity. NeuStar will do this by ensuring equal access of all industry players
and stakeholders to our locality-based and expanded registry services through a thick registry architecture that operates at the highest levels of availability and security. We will coordinate
disparate user communities under a stable, centralized
umbrella and conduct a phased, customer-focused outreach program through public awareness campaigns, marketing initiatives, and defined, accessible public mechanisms to promote the space as a place
for the U.S. and its citizens. 

        Integrity
requires that the usTLD space be operated in a responsible manner. This includes ensuring there is open communication between the administrator and the DOC, seeking
on-going feedback from users, and introducing various applications and services. In addition, NeuStar will establish an advisory council made up of parties representative of the multiple
constituency interests involved in the space to provide guidance regarding the addition of new features and enhancements. Finally, integrity means ensuring that policies are being applied and followed
appropriately. Our approach is a collaborative one through which we will work with industry players and stakeholders to conduct compliance investigations and develop reports. As the usTLD vendor,
NeuStar understands that it has several roles to play including administrator, registry, and registrar for unallocated localities. Integrity requires that each of these positions be clearly defined
and appropriately managed. NeuStar understands the definitions as well as the distinctions between the three and will serve each role in an independent and neutral manner. A brief summary of some
features of our Service Administration follows. More details may be found in Proposal Section B and Sections B.1 through B.5. 

	•
	NeuStar
will support competition and promote use of the usTLD by encouraging communication, ensuring equitable application of policies and procedures, and cultivating an
environment conducive to innovation

	•
	NeuStar
will provide a comprehensive suite of core registry functions that take into account the needs of all our customers—delegated managers, registrars, and
registrants.

	•
	NeuStar
will leverage our Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) and implement automated registration processes, updates, and zone file
generation to provide accurate, up-to-date information on demand.

	•
	NeuStar's
policies and processes will be designed to foster collaborative partnerships between the usTLD administrator and the usTLD community.

	•
	NeuStar
will develop policies to ensure our operations serve the public interest

	•
	NeuStar
will modernize the usTLD locality space by working with delegated managers to centralize all data currently managed by locality delegees and subdelegees.

	•
	NeuStar's
expanded usTLD registry will promote registrar competition and encourage registrations in the usTLD namespace. 

Policy Framework  

        Integrity is essential when we establish policies to ensure they are created to serve the needs of the entire U.S. population, are applied in an
even-handed fashion, protect intellectual property and the privacy of individuals, and yet, are not so restrictive as to discourage registrations. NeuStar will ensure, through its policies
and processes, that the space is used appropriately as a ccTLD to serve the public interest. This is a unique opportunity to redefine the space, and it is essential that it be done properly. 

95

 

Some
highlights of our proposed policy are below and more details about them may be found in Proposal Section B.3 Core Policy Requirements and Proposal Section J Registration Process. 

	•
	To
address the complex problem of heavy registration traffic during the start-up, NeuStar will implement a Land Rush policy to provide an effective and fair
method for ensuring stability during the initial registration period of the TLD.

	•
	NeuStar
will implement a Sunrise policy for owners of United States trademark applications and registrations which validates whether the claimed applications or
registrations actually exist within the United States Patent and Trademark Office database, thus eliminating any need for a costly and time-consuming Sunrise dispute resolution mechanism

	•
	NeuStar
will develop a usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) modeled after ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy to develop a set of policies and dispute resolution
processes that are simple, effective, and provide a level of accountability for usTLD users.

	•
	NeuStar
will implement a Nexus Requirement that registrants in the usTLD must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States, an entity or organization that is
incorporated within one of the states or territories of the United States, or an entity or organization with a bona fide presence in the United States.

	•
	As
a trustee for the usTLD, NeuStar will hold itself to a Code of Conduct exceeding traditional commercial standards. This code addresses issues such as confidentiality,
equal access to administration services, non-disclosure of proprietary information and user data, as well as others to ensure DNS resources in the usTLD are administered in a fair and
efficient manner that makes them available to all parties.

	•
	NeuStar
will develop a usTLD Policy Advisory Council as an advisory body for usTLD policy operations to ensure representative and unbiased policymaking. This body will
interface with the public and provide an independent forum and mechanism for future development of the usTLD to address recognized public needs, enhancement of privacy protections, or enforcement of
accreditation agreements with registrars. 

Next Generation Technical Infrastructure  

        Integrity of our Technical Infrastructure implies several fundamental requirements. The system must work; the name must resolve. It must be robust, secure,
dependable, and available on a consistent basis. In addition, it must enable enhanced services thereby enhancing the utility of the usTLD to service all U.S. constituencies. As with our approach for
Service Administration, NeuStar will follow an inclusive and responsible process to introduce new uses and will set up mechanisms for feedback. In addition, we will provide documented, disciplined,
systematic, quality processes for transition. As the space is operational, we will be introducing new functionality while commercially live and will ensure existing industry players and stakeholders
experience a seamless transition. Below we describe some features of our technical infrastructure; detailed descriptions can be found in Proposal Section O. 

	•
	NeuStar's
registry architecture is designed to be flexible, scalable, and highly available to virtually eliminate downtime while providing for smooth growth.

	•
	NeuStar
will provide support for the existing usTLD space as well as full registry support to all eligible registrars for the expanded usTLD space.

	•
	NeuStar
proposes the implementation of a centralized usTLD database that includes a Delegated Manager Database and a centralized Whois. 

96

  

	•
	NeuStar
will implement co-active data centers and a number of nameserver data centers to create a resilient infrastructure protected against outages through
redundancy, fault tolerance, and geographic dispersion.

	•
	NeuStar
will frequently arrange for data escrow of the usTLD registry to ensure continued operations and availability in the unlikely case of a catastrophic loss of data.

	•
	NeuStar
will implement near-real-time updates to the zone files and Whois database.

	•
	NeuStar's
high-availability cluster architecture will provide scalable processing throughout, dynamic load balancing between the two data centers, and multiple
high-speed Internet connections.

	•
	NeuStar
will develop and deploy a new, streamlined registry-registrar protocol for the expanded usTLD space called the extensible registry protocol (XRP) that provides more
features, functionality, and greater security than the existing registry/registrar interface. 

Business Plan  

        Business Plan integrity implies that an administrator is financially stable and therefore dependable. NeuStar is financially stable. We are not a
start-up company. We have a reputation for dependability and integrity. We have been in operation for over five years, have a fully funded business plan, and our original line of business
is cash flow and net income positive. Furthermore, with respect to the usTLD space, NeuStar will allocate significant marketing funds to promote it. Another aspect of Business Plan integrity is
developing consistent and equitable pricing strategies. In compliance with the RFQ, NeuStar will not charge the government, nor will we charge those who have existing usTLD
name registries. For new players, we have highly competitive market rates for registry funding. Our for profit commercial enterprise is the right business model for providing stability and utilization
to the namespace. Without profit as a motivator, there is no incentive to be creative or adhere to performance measurements. Risk and reward is an effective vehicle for delivering innovation into a
competitive market. Detailed information about our Business Plan can be found in Proposal Sections L, M, and N. A summary of some of its features follows: 

	•
	NeuStar's
financial stability ensures full funding of the usTLD administration

	•
	Domain
name registrations will be offered at highly competitive prices

	•
	NeuStar
will leverage its existing infrastructure and experience to reduce overall expenses

	•
	NeuStar
has a high confidence level in our expense estimates based on our five plus years of registry experience

	•
	NeuStar
will be responsible to ICANN for all ccTLD fees

	•
	NeuStar's
financial plan is based on a solid understanding of the costs to build and operate a highly stable, next generation registry and on a competitive pricing structure
that will facilitate market adoption. 

NeuStar—Corporate Overview  

        NeuStar is particularly suited to be the administrator responsible for further developing and improving the usTLD. As the leading provider of mission critical
infrastructure and services in North America, NeuStar has as its central purpose, the neutral provisioning of mission critical systems in support of important public resources. 

        Since
its founding in 1996, NeuStar has been selected time and again by the industry in open competitive procurements to provide first-of-a-kind
mission critical services. In this capacity, NeuStar 

97

 

designed,
built, and manages the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC), one of the largest databases in the world, and is the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) whose duties
include operating the public telephone numbering database for North America. Integrity and accuracy are the underpinnings of these services which affects virtually every telephone call placed within
the United States and 18 other countries, including Canada. In addition, in a highly competitive bid for expansion of the Internet's Top Level Domains, NeuLevel, a subsidiary of NeuStar, was selected
to serve as the registry operator for dot-biz. 

        The
"Neu" in NeuStar refers to its trusted, neutral, third party role. All of its services are available to all service providers on non-discriminatory terms. Its entire
staff is sworn to a corporate Code of Conduct and voluntarily subjects itself to independent quarterly audits, reported publicly, verifying its compliance to this Code. The critical nature of the
industry functions with which NeuStar has been entrusted leads it to serve all stakeholders: regulators, standards bodies, industry and public interest groups, as well as all segments of the
communications industry itself. It does so in a policy-neutral manner, providing important technical and operational subject matter expertise. Its mission is to remain the trusted, neutral third party
that all these stakeholders have come to rely upon. The "Star" in NeuStar refers to its central role as a trusted clearinghouse, the hub to which communications networks connect. As the administrator,
NeuStar will ensure the usTLD namespace is available to users on a neutral and equitable basis. 

        For
all vendors, past performance is indicative of future accomplishment and NeuStar's serious, corporate commitment to the neutral, even-handed administration of
communications resources is peerless. The following descriptions demonstrate our varied and rich experience in providing communications services. For each of our services, NeuStar created the
necessary systems from scratch with the long-term interests of the industry in mind. We worked closely with the industry while developing these to ensure we met its initial and ongoing
needs. We hope to enjoy that same productive working relationship with the DOC to ensure its evolving priorities and requirements to enhance the operation and utilization of the usTLD are also met. 

        NeuStar
offers a diverse range of products and services for the communications industry that can be broken down into three main categories: 

	•
	Internet
Protocol (IP) Services

	•
	Numbering
Services

	•
	Operational
Support Systems (OSS) Commercial Services 

IP Services  

        "Next-Gen" Registry for dot-biz—NeuStar, through its majority owned NeuLevel
joint venture, was recently selected in November, 2000, to operate the new top-level domain registry for dot-biz. The dot-biz registry will be successful because of
the combined skill sets of both NeuLevel and NeuStar. NeuLevel is the ICANN accredited registry for dot-biz and provides the marketing, sales, and service delivery of dot-biz
registrations. NeuStar, the majority owner of NeuLevel, has designed, is developing, and will implement, operate, and manage the technical infrastructure of the dot-biz "thick" registry
platform. NeuStar also provides standards development, external affairs, and additional corporate support services to ensure the success of dot-biz. NeuLevel was selected by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) from over 40 respondents as the result of a worldwide, competitive procurement to develop the only top-level Internet domain created
exclusively for business activity. This new TLD will be the place for businesses to establish their presence on the Internet. In addition, dot-biz will open the Internet to more businesses
and support the introduction of new products and functionality that will provide increased services for the business community. 

98

 

        Convergence Directories—NeuStar is leading the development and introduction of a suite of Global Directory Services that
include national and international ENUM administration, as well as next generation signaling standards that will bring intelligent network capabilities to IP based networks. Collectively, NeuStar's
Global Directory Services will facilitate the convergence and interoperability of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) and IP based networks. As co-chair of the Internet
Engineering Task Force Working Group (IETF WG) that has finalized the ENUM standard, NeuStar is a recognized leader in the development of technologies required for the introduction of next generation
network services. NeuStar continues its leadership role by working closely with the communications industry, regulators, and standards bodies to leverage the ENUM standard to efficiently connect
networks and to enable a broad range of converged services. 

Numbering Services  

        North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA)—NeuStar operates the telephone numbering registry
for the North American Numbering Plan as a public resource, serving customers throughout the United States, Canada, Bermuda, and many of the Caribbean Islands. It is the centralized source for
assigning all Number Plan Area (NPA) codes and central office codes, and coordinating NPA code relief as the demand for numbers increases. NeuStar became the NANPA on October 9, 1997 for a
five-year period that began formally on February 21, 1998. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the North American Numbering Council (NANC), an industry group advising
the FCC on numbering issues, selected NeuStar through a competitive bidding process. NeuStar transitioned this responsibility from the original Regional Bell Operating Companies and the former
Bellcore in a highly responsible manner, transparent to the public. As designated in NeuStar's agreement with the FCC and the NANC, NeuStar ensures timely, equitable, and efficient administration of
the rapidly growing number of requests for NPA codes and central office codes by working with all industry stakeholders. 

        Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC)—In April 1996, NeuStar was chosen to serve as the Local Number
Portability Administrator (LNPA) through 2003. The contract was recently extended until 2006. In that role, NeuStar operates the routing registry for North America that allows customers to keep their
existing phone numbers when changing local service providers. NeuStar's development and operation of the NPAC in Chicago, Illinois, provides a master registry of routing information that interfaces
with local carriers. Virtually all calls in North America query a copy of NeuStar's database to be properly routed. Through this center, NeuStar coordinates the porting of local telephone numbers
between carriers in North America, serving more than 250 service providers daily and porting more than one million numbers each month. 

        Number Pooling Administration—As proven by NeuStar, number pooling has the potential to extend the North American Numbering
Plan's (NANP) life well into the next century. NeuStar has been the Pooling Administrator for over two years for U.S. pooling trials in several states and number planning areas, and in June, 2001,
NeuStar was selected as the National Number Pooling Administer by the FCC. Number pooling, also known as thousands-block pooling, allows for the disbursement of numbers to service providers in 1,000
number parcels. NeuStar worked with the telecommunications industry to develop the initial Pooling Administration guidelines in New York and Illinois in 1997-1998. The current guidelines
are based upon those findings and have spurred the demand for pooling implementation in several other states. NeuStar continues to work with the Industry Numbering Council (INC) to suggest and modify
changes to current pooling guidelines based upon NeuStar's actual experiences with pooling trials. 

        ETNS—In March 2001 the European Radiocommunications Office (ERO)—a permanent office of the European
Committee on Telecommunications Regulatory Affairs of CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) and a center of expertise in the fields of licensing, numbering, and
radiocommunications—selected NeuStar in a competitive bidding process to manage 

99

 

the
establishment of the European Telephony Numbering Space (ETNS) to establish a single country code for all of Europe and assist in enhancing the availability of pan-European
telecommunications services. A pan-European service is an international service that can be invoked from at least two European countries. The designation of a new European country
code—388—allows European international companies, services, and individuals to obtain a single European Number for accessing their services. In this role, NeuStar will manage a
pan-European numbering registry for the provisioning of critical public resources. 

OSS Commercial Services  

        NeuStar's commercial services build on the company's strength as a neutral third-party in developing and managing complex database systems and network elements.
New commercial services are designed to help the industry improve operational efficiencies while saving time and money. 

        CARE Clearinghouse—An industry solution for Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE), the CARE Clearinghouse simplifies the
mechanized exchange of customer information between long distance and competitive local exchange carriers. NeuStar's CARE Clearinghouse service supports CARE industry standards. CARE Clearinghouse
participants benefit from expedited CARE processing and reduced costs. 

        IdentiBaseSM—A solution to number registry problems resulting from deregulation, number portability, pooling,
and local competition. With IdentiBaseSM, the Local Service Provider of any telephone number—ported, pooled, or not—can be identified whenever it is needed, in
whatever format is desired. Information from IdentiBaseSM can help improve billing, provisioning, order entry, trouble management and universal emergency services.
IdentiBaseSM's flexible, easy-to-query, timely data allows each department to better serve the customer base, increase revenue, decrease costs, and reduce
customer churn. 

        NeuStar
has rich experience in successfully building databases and establishing clearinghouse services that benefit the communications industry and has been widely recognized for this.
Yet our expertise is not limited to systems development, and we are not merely a systems developer. We actually operate and support the systems we develop. We manage a complete
start-to-finish solution. Working closely with our clients we design, develop, and create systems. We then implement and support them which allows us to understand
first-hand any issues that arise and to address them quickly and intelligently. It also enables us to recognize and mitigate problems we encounter and readily adapt appropriate methods and
procedures. We will assume direct accountability for the administration of the usTLD from beginning to end, because we provide services, not just systems or software. 

        In
addition, NeuStar's corporate mission is to lead and serve the industry as a neutral third party. Neutrality for us is not a platitude; it is our identity, embodying the impeccable,
high-quality, even-handed service essential to the central role we play in the industry. We are committed to impartiality and fairness, and our staff has a history of
recognizing the importance of understanding and working successfully with the various industry participants and respecting their differing perspectives within the confines of regulatory environments.
Our adherence to the tenets of neutrality does not come from a desire to please nor is it considered an obligation. Rather, it is what we were established to do. Neutrality is a belief we embrace and
have embodied in the Code of Conduct available on NeuStar's Web site. We satisfy the strict criteria established for neutrality by the FCC and have been certified as a neutral third party in FCC order
99-346. To ensure our impartiality, we undergo a quarterly neutrality audit. We are committed to managing extremely sensitive proprietary data in an atmosphere of high security and
confidentiality and our goal is the equitable treatment of all participating industry players. 

100

 

Conclusion  

        NeuStar's believes that it is uniquely qualified to ensure the success of the usTLD. Our plan builds on our legacy of managing public resources in a responsible
and neutral manner. Neu-Star's proven experience in implementing advanced technologies to meet the needs of the public and private sectors will deliver a high level of service to usTLD
registrants and enable the introduction of enhanced services. We are confident that we can transition the administration of the usTLD with zero impact to the current users of the usTLD and begin to
enhance the services they currently receive. Widespread adoption and use within the new expanded space will be ensured by the execution of our comprehensive marketing program and through the
introduction of a competitive registrar model. NeuStar is committed to working collaboratively with the usTLD stakeholders to facilitate the development of policy that reflects the needs of the
community. NeuStar's registries are designed and administered to ensure all industry participants have equal access, its services are provided equitably to all service providers, and its corporate
focus is on the industry as a whole. This, in combination with its reputation for integrity, experience, neutrality, and industry expertise makes NeuStar the ideal vendor to administer the usTLD. 

        The
following table provides a detailed display of NeuStar's capabilities, as evidenced by our current projects and past performance. 

NeuStar's Capabilities and Qualifications  

	Vendor Qualification
 
	 	NeuStar's Experience

	Administration of complex, mission-critical U.S. public resources	 	•	 	NeuStar established processes working with the FCC and state commissions for reclamation of central office codes that have not been activated by service providers.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed databases for the tracking of central office code activity for the U.S.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

In conjunction with the industry and FCC, NeuStar developed a new method for reporting utilization and forecasting of numbering resources (NRUF)
	

Successfully transitioning administration of mission-critical public resources	
 	

•	
 	

Transitioned Telephone number administration from 10 companies with more than 100 local administrators across all 50 states to one central administrator
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Transitioned telephone number inventory from more than 200 local databases to one central database
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Have been contracted to transition telephone number inventory from thousands of local databases across all 50 states to one local database
	

Proven neutrality in all business operations	
 	

•	
 	

In CC Docket No. 92-237, FCC 99-346, NeuStar was found to be in compliance with the neutrality requirements put forth in the NANP Administration Third Report and Order.
	 	 	 	 	 

101

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar undergoes a quarterly Neutrality audit performed by Ernst and Young, with a report forwarded to the FCC, NANC, and NAPM LLC. This report covers the findings of the audit regarding compliance with the NeuStar Code of Conduct and Neutrality
Compliance Procedures. NeuStar asserts that it is neutral, and Ernst and Young has agreed in all audit reports.
	

Facilitation of controlled, systematic evolution, enhancement, and expansion of the space.	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar performs the change management administration function for the NPAC SMS on behalf of the telecommunications industry. This includes over 200 change orders resulting in 7 major software releases in 4 years.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar hosts quarterly NPAC operations forums, known as NPAC Cross regional meetings, where issues pertinent to the operation of the NPAC and its downstream systems are discussed and resolved.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar facilitated the transition of state number pooling trials to a national database focusing on a systematic evolution allowing for growth and future enhancements.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar works closely with industry and the FCC to develop enhancements to the existing NANPA process, including expansion of current functions.
	

Experience designing, building, and supporting robust databases	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar designed, built, and expanded the NPAC database from inception to its current support of 17 million ported telephone numbers in the database. The growth rate of the database is currently increasing, having surpassed 1 million additional
records per month earlier this year.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar designed and built the pooling administration system to leverage the existing portability infrastructure. An existing NPAC database was adapted and scaled to support number pooling.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed various NANPA-related databases to enhance functionality and streamline work efforts associated with number administration. This allows for real-time tracking of number assignment, utilization, and forecasting data.
	 	 	 	 	 

102

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Leveraging its experience with high-availability, mission critical system in the telecommunications industry, NeuStar is developing the next generation DNS architecture for the.biz registry.
	

Experience that ensures real-time access to multiple users with a minimum of system outages and downtime	
 	

•	
 	

NPAC offers a Low Tech Interface (LTI) dialup access. This capability currently supports over 700 clients, allowing for simultaneous access by over 200 users. This access method is also fully scalable.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

While fully scalable, the NPAC currently supports over 500 dedicated accesses by various service providers.
	

Manage a high availability system to contractual service levels	
 	

•	
 	

The NPAC SMS has 29 contractual service level requirements, developed jointly with the industry, which are reported on monthly.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

The.biz registry has SLAs with several major Channel Partners covering limited system downtime and system performance measures.
	

Comprehensive understanding of the usTLD's evolution	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has monitored proceedings on the usTLD and associated DOC activities.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has subject matter experts on staff who were involved with the original development of the usTLD.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is an active participant in various Internet-related forums such as the IETF and ICANN
	

Strong working relationships with stakeholders	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar holds quarterly cross-regional meetings with LNPA stakeholders.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar holds weekly conference calls with LNP LLCs, the NPAC contracting parties, in addition to holding monthly face-to-face meetings to discuss operational issues.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar actively participates in various industry forums, including LNPA WG, NOWG, IETF, ICANN, and ITU.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar provides assistance to both the telecommunications industry and regulators in an effort to resolve difficulties in the area of number assignment, reporting, etc.
	

Facilitation of progress in a political and competitive environment	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar acted as interim pooling administrator in several states prior to being selected as National Pooling Administrator.
	 	 	 	 	 

103

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar facilitates NPA relief planning meetings, resulting in a relief plan which meets the needs of the industry and the regulators.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar provided objective information and assistance to the LNPA WG in an effort to resolve issues facing the entire telecommunications industry.
	

Ability to address long-term management issues	
 	

•	
 	

Developed Number Resource Utilization Forecasting tool, ensuring that appropriate detailed carrier information is collected, stored, analyzed, and properly distributed to appropriate regulatory authorities
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Work closely with INC, NANC, and LNPA WGs to ensure that long term Number Resource Optimization needs are and will continue to be achieved
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Developed long term strategic view of the needs of telecommunication service providers and regulators
	

Experience in building scalable databases that ensure security of personal data	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed, deployed, and supports the Customer Account Management Exchange database, which contains highly proprietary service provider information.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed, deployed, and maintains the Number Portability Administration Center, which contains routing information for all calls placed in the US and Canada.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar maintains physical biometric facility security, with fulltime monitoring, strong physical security, and token authentication for dial-up access.
	

Ability to understand, develop, and manage all associated policy issues	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has an in-depth understanding all federal and state policy issues regarding number administration, in addition to meeting requirements developed by the industry which are seen to be the guidelines under which NANPA operates
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's experience in the policy rich telecommunications regulatory environment provides it with significant insight into the proper means for policy identification and coordination for the Internet.
	 	 	 	 	 

104

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is active in ICANN, the IETF and other Internet-related policy and standards bodies. NeuStar has a staff of experts on Internet policy and technical matters. NeuStar policy and legal experts participate heavily in ICANN constituencies'
activities.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has an in-depth understanding of federal and state regulatory processes that are likely to be of prominent importance to Internet policy in the future.
	

Support and drive important technology standards	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is an active participant at the IETF where important internet technology protocols are developed. We are currently co-chairs of two IETF WGs including the Whois WG.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has authored important IETF draft standards documents including one for a registry-registrar protocol.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed and patented the call processing technology used to enable telephone number portability. We patented the technology and made it freely available.
	

Proven reputation for fair, impartial policy management	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has extended its LNPA contract for an additional 3 years over its existing 5-year contract without going through the competitive bid process, with approval by the FCC.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar was selected by various service providers to provide Customer Account Record Exchange service via an in-house-developed database system.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Through its audit activities regarding NeuStar, Ernst & Young has consistently reported positive compliance to the Code of Conduct and Neutrality Compliance Procedures as approved by the FCC.
	

Strong financial performance and stability	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's existing lines of business are net income and cash flow positive
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's recent round of equity financing fully funded our business plan; if additional capital is required, our investment partner, Warburg Pincus, stands prepared to fund all NeuStar initiatives.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

[***].

105

   A.    usTLD Team  

        NeuStar's cross-functional team organization, combined with its strong corporate focus and oversight, ensures the successful achievement
of the DOC's objectives for managing and enhancing the usTLD.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	Cross-functional team organization maximizes resources and provides economies of scale to ensure best value

	•
	Dedicated team composed of subject matter experts ensures successful implementation and ongoing operation of the usTLD

	•
	Executive oversight provides resources and direction to ensure usTLD objectives are met

        NeuStar
is organized around a principle of leveraging a centralized group of functional organizations that support market-specific business initiatives. The line of business (LOB) teams
are staffed with subject matter experts from specific markets that provide requisite knowledge to meet their LOB constituency's needs and have responsibility for business development, marketing and
sales, and service delivery. By contrast, the corporate support organization is composed of information technology, operations, corporate development, administration, legal, external affairs
(including media relations), finance, and neutrality functions. These functional teams are staffed with highly qualified and experienced staff who are tasked with administering various facets of our
services. The Executive Oversight Committee provides direction and management to both the functional organization and the
LOBs. Because the organizational structure is broad, this group is readily accessible to all teams for guidance and approval. The cohesive nature of the organization optimizes communication and
fosters a collaborative work environment, whereby all of NeuStar's customer's benefit from a shared knowledge base. Additionally, this organization can quickly respond to change and reevaluate and
deploy resources for critical operation. 

        For
the usTLD Administration Program, NeuStar is proposing a dedicated cross-functional team reporting to the usTLD Director who will report to our Vice President of Internet Protocol
(IP) Services. The usTLD management positions will be staffed with individuals who possess many years of relevant management and technical experience. These positions will be supplemented with
personnel from our Corporate Support Team and our Technology and Operations division who will be dedicated to ensuring the success of the usTLD. The management staff will be supported by our corporate
executives, who also have a strong commitment to the success of the usTLD program and will provide the requisite oversight and resources to ensure the usTLD program objectives are met. 

usTLD Team  

        NeuStar's usTLD team will consist of an Executive Oversight Committee and an Implementation and Ongoing Operations Team. These teams are described below. 

Executive Oversight  

        Our executive oversight committee, shown in Exhibit A-1 and introduced below, is composed of senior-level staff with vast experience covering
Internet expertise, operations, systems development and deployment, financial planning, communications, and resource management. This group will provide the requisite direction and resources to ensure
that the usTLD program objectives are met. 

        [Exhibit A-1.
NeuStar's Executive Oversight Committee will ensure the requisite resources are provided for successful service delivery. Graphic Omitted:
Organization chart for NeuStar Executive Oversight Committee.] 

A-1

 

Jeffrey Ganek, President and Chief Executive Officer  

        Jeffrey Ganek is responsible for overall management of NeuStar, Inc. Jeff has nearly 25 years of experience in the telecommunications industry.
Before heading the Communication Industry Services division within Lockheed Martin IMS, Jeff served as Vice President of Asian Operations for Global TeleSystems Group, where he developed and managed
competitive telecommunications services com-panies in fast-growing Asian markets. He was also Vice President of Marketing at GTE Spacenet, Director of Global Communications
Services at MCI, and Division Manager of Corporate Development at AT&T. He holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. 

Matthew D. Wald, Vice President, IP Services  

        Matthew D. Wald is responsible for the commercial development and management of NeuStar's emerging IP business. He has more than 12 years of experience in
the telecommunications industry, including identifying, developing, and operationalizing new business opportunities in advanced intelligent networking, IP, and Web hosting. He has held positions with
LCI/Qwest Communications and Global TeleSystems Group. Most recently, as the leader of the Global Alliance and Partnership Group at GTS, he oversaw the development of several key Web hosting, Voice
over IP (VoIP), and content delivery partnerships that formed the cornerstone of the GTS IP business strategy. 

Mark D. Foster, Chief Technology Officer  

        Mark Foster is responsible for strategic technology initiatives, standards, and program management, and the design, development, and operation of NeuStar's
complex network and systems infrastructure. A widely recognized subject matter expert, Mr. Foster pioneered number portability in the industry in 1994-1995 and subsequently led the
development of NeuStar's Number Portability Administration Center in 1996. He has more than 20 years of entrepreneurial experience in developing innovative solutions to industry problems with
inventions such as a voice-controlled intelligent network service node platform, a new computer language for developing telephone switching systems software, and the first
SS7-to-IP signaling gateway (1990). 

Joseph F. Franlin, Senior Vice President of Operations  

        Joseph Franlin is responsible for NeuStar operations and customer satisfaction for clearinghouse and numbering products and services. Joseph's organization
managed the successful introduction of Local
Number Portability in the United States and Canada and assumed the role of North American Numbering Plan Administrator in the United States, Canada, and many of the Caribbean Islands. Joseph has more
than 30 years of experience in telecommunications and systems engineering, most notably with NYNEX, AT&T, and Lockheed Martin. 

Robert Dowski, Chief Financial Officer  

        Robert Dowski joined NeuStar in 2000, assuming the role of Chief Financial Officer. Prior to joining NeuStar, he held similar positions with Gilat/GE Spacenet,
PCS, Telecorp, and Hughes Network Systems. He has worked in the telecommunications and Information Technology industry sectors for more than 10 years, concentrating on managing large,
full-scale accounting, financial planning, and strategic planning departments. In addition, he has managed the development of a series of financial systems. 

Edward Frietag, General Counsel  

        Edward Freitag, General Counsel, is responsible for oversight of legal matters for NeuStar. Prior to joining NeuStar, he was with MCI Communications Corporation
and MCI WorldCom from 1975 to 1999, last serving as Chief Corporate Counsel. During his career at MCI, he was responsible for 

A-2

 

supporting
mergers and acquisitions, financing, SEC reporting, international ventures, and other corporate matters. Prior to joining MCI, he was an associate with Donovan, Leisure, Newton &
Irvine and Pro Se Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He also has served as Chairman of the Corporate and Securities Law Section of the American Corporate Counsel
Association. Mr. Freitag is a graduate of Princeton University and the Columbia University School of Law. 

Jerry Kovach, Senior Vice President, External Affairs  

        Jerry Kovach is responsible for the corporate communications, government relations, regulatory law, public policy, and public relations activities of NeuStar.
Prior to joining NeuStar, Mr. Kovach was a Senior Vice President at MCI Communications Corporation from 1985 to 2000. From 1975 to 1984, he was on the staff of the United States Senate, last
serving as the Chief Counsel and Chief of Staff of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Mr. Kovach's professional background also includes senior management positions with
Chrysler Corporation and the National Academy of
Sciences. Mr. Kovach is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and holds a bachelor of arts degree (cum laude) in economics from Wayne State University, a doctor of law degree (cum laude) from Wayne State
University Law School, and a master of law degree from the University of Washington School of Law. 

Robert Poulin, Vice President, Corporate Development  

        Robert R. Poulin is responsible for early-stage development of new business initiatives as well as alliance and acquisition opportunities. He actively pursues
opportunities where NeuStar's proven capabilities as a trusted provider of registry and clearinghouse services can facilitate the interoperability of networks. He has 12 years of experience in
the communications industry. Prior to joining NeuStar, he was Director of Business Development at Global TeleSystems Group, where he was responsible for early-stage development of new ventures in
Asia. He also has held a variety of business development and finance positions with GTE Spacenet, GTE Mobilnet, and GTE Telephone Operations. He has a bachelor's degree from the Haas School of
Business at the University of California at Berkeley. 

Jerome Haynesworth, Vice President of Human Resources and Administration  

        Jerome Haynesworth is responsible for organizational development, compensation planning, facilities management, human resources development, employee relations,
and equal employment programs. Jerome manages the human resources function for the technical and nontechnical components of NeuStar, with more than 400 employees internationally. He has more than
20 years of experience in managing human resources and administration, including positions with KPMG, Hughes Aircraft Company, The Interface Group/Mass., and IBM. 

David H. Crocker, Senior Advisor, Consultant  

        David H. Crocker has been a principal with Brandenburg InternetWorking since 1991. He has been developing internetworking technologies for 30 years,
including standards for e-mail, EDI, facsimile, security, and e-commerce. He was an IETF Area Director for four years, providing oversight of DNS technical development, and he
initiated public interest enhancement to BIND, the DNS reference software. During the 1980s, Mr. Crocker led TCP/IP, OSI, and network management product development efforts.
Mr. Crocker's current efforts focus on the creation of Internet-based businesses built on a solid foundation of customer benefit and revenue potential. 

William Manning, Senior Advisor, Consultant  

        Bill Manning is a contributing scientist on CenterGate's UltraDNS and serves on the research staff at USC's Information Sciences Institute. At Texas Instruments,
Bill was responsible for the deployment 

A-3

 

of
IP networking, initially in the semiconductor division, and then throughout the corporation. He joined Rice University to become the lead engineer for the NSFnet's SESQUINET regional network.
Following the successful migration of SESQUINET and MIDnet from the NSFnet to commercial networks, Bill assumed a role in the NSF's Routing Arbiter project at NSI. Bill is active in the IETF and has
been active in the DNS and Routing working groups as a participant, working group chair, and code developer. He was responsible for specifying the method for adding NSAP support to the DNS, and then
he developed and implemented a plan to expand the Internet root server system to add four new nodes. Bill is also on the program committees for the North American Network Operators Group (NANOG), the
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT), and the African Network Operators Group (AFNOG). He is also a member of the Advisory Council of ARIN (American Registry
for Internet Numbers). Bill continues to work on enhancing DNS code to track the growth of IP networks and is currently working with the IPv6 developers and implementers by managing the IP6.INT
domain, which is the functional equivalent of the in-addr.arpa zone. 

Implementation and Ongoing Operations Team  

        NeuStar's experience in forming successful implementation teams for such services as NPAC and NANPA will be used in staffing the usTLD operation. Leveraging these
skills ensures that the usTLD will be implemented on time and that effective ongoing operations will be established. The usTLD team will include the use of experienced, highly qualified, proven
individuals skilled in registry operation, database development and administration, data center operation, and transition and customer service. The usTLD team members were individually selected for
their respective expertise and in-depth knowledge of technical, policy, and operational requirements. Collectively, their unique qualifications and experience, when dedicated to the
coordination, expansion, and enhancement of the usTLD, will ensure success. 

        As
can be seen in Exhibits A-2 and A-3, NeuStar is proposing two functional organizations—an implementation team and an ongoing operations team.
NeuStar is committed to the delivery of high levels of quality service; therefore, most key team members participating in the implementation phase will eventually transition from the implementation
team to full-time, ongoing usTLD operations support. However, this separation provides a distinct focus on the critical implementation phase. Our experience has proven that transitioning
individuals participating in the implementation of an operation ensures an effective ongoing operation.
As required, résumés for key team members (arranged in alphabetical order) can be found at the end of this section. 

        [Exhibit A-2.
NeuStar's Implementation Team is comprised of dedicated subject matter experts with a depth of experience successfully meeting program
objectives. Graphic Omitted: Organization chart for usTLD Implementation Team.] 

        [Exhibit A-3.
NeuStar's usTLD Ongoing Operations Team will ensure all DOC program objectives are met. Graphic Omitted: Organization chart for usTLD Ongoing
Operations Team.] 

A-4

 

        The
following table contains the job titles, descriptions, and skills of key NeuStar usTLD team members. 

usTLD Organization Roles and Responsibilities/Skills Matrix  

	Title
 
	 	Job Description
	 	Skills

	

Director, usTLD	

 	

Responsible for defining the usTLD product and business requirements. Has ultimate responsibility for day-to-day management of operations to support the usTLD project and will serve as the primary point of contact (POC) to the industry. Will ensure
that the necessary resources are made available to address any deviation from expectations and will be the primary decision-maker on program-related issues. Will report status to the Contracting Officer at the DOC and to NeuStar Senior
Management.	

 	

•    Extensive industry experience

•    Excellent verbal and written communications skills

•    Excellent organizational and time management skills

•    Problem resolution skills

•    Excellent facilitation skills

•    Strong decision-making skills
	

Program Manager	

 	

Has overall responsibility for the successful completion of implementation, development, deployment, and upgrade of the usTLD service. Will provide overall leadership for the entire implementation team; determine project scope; develop the project
plan, milestones, and risk mitigation plan; and act as the front-line contact with the client representatives on project-related issues.	

 	

•    Excellent customer service, decision-making, and communications skills

•    Detail-oriented, creative, and analytical

•    Industry experience

•    Experience with managing large, complex, multi-phase technical projects

•    Strong leadership skills
	 	 	 	 	 

A-5

 

	

Director, Systems Engineering	
 	

Will be responsible for overall system delivery and will manage the design and development processes of all usTLD systems.	
 	

•    Well-developed and highly effective verbal and written communications skills

•    Demonstrated ability to manage the design and development of complex applications using development standards

•    Expertise in one or more technical areas as well as experience in relational database development and design
	

Director, Information Technology and Services	

 	

Manages the technical operations group and the network support group in a 24x7 real-time mission-critical production environment. Supports, monitors, tests, and troubleshoots hardware and software problems; recommends and schedules repairs; and
provides Tier 2 support for all LAN/WAN-based applications. Maintains security and disaster recovery procedures and participates in database architecture strategy development, database design and engineering, and reliability and performance
enhancement.	

 	

•    Experience in LAN operating systems

•    Extensive knowledge of LAN infrastructure setups, including hubs, routers, and firewalls

•    Strong written and communications skills

•    Strong analytical and problem-solving skills

•    Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures within particular field
	

Senior Manager, Channel Management	

 	

Is responsible for the registrar, delegee, and resellers outreach programs. This person and his or her team are responsible for channel communications for the usTLD product.	

 	

•    Experience with various Industry forums

•    Excellent verbal and written communications skills

•    Excellent organizational and time management skills

•    Problem resolution skills

•    Excellent facilitation skills

•    Ability to run efficient meetings

•    Supervisory skills
	 	 	 	 	 

A-6

 

	

Senior Manager, Product Marketing	

 	

Is responsible for the definition of enhanced services for the usTLD locality-based and expanded products. Will create marketing materials and review any training materials or other documentation about the product. Is responsible for public relations,
 branding, advertising, and Web content look and feel and will also attend industry forums.	

 	

•    Extensive Industry experience

•    Excellent verbal and written communications skills

•    Excellent organizational and time management skills

•    Problem resolution skills

•    Excellent facilitation skills
	

Senior Manager, Customer Service	

 	

Is responsible for all day-to-day usTLD service operations. Hires and supervises the Help Desk, Quality Assurance group, and the Training and Documentation group. Ensures that the staff have the adequate tools and facilities to properly perform their
functions and develops and implements escalation procedures.	

 	

•    Extensive Industry experience

•    Extensive data center operations experience

•    Excellent verbal and written communications skills

•    Excellent organizational and time management skills

•    Problem resolution skills

•    Excellent facilitation skills
	

Quality Assurance Group	

 	

Evaluates our conformance to the standards mandated by industry guidelines. Performs operational and business audit reviews, evaluates results, and makes recommendations for the improvement of internal operational and management control systems and
performance. Will send out surveys to the usTLD user base, soliciting comments about our service and incorporating their suggestions for improving the process.	

 	

•    Internal business auditing or related experience

•    Experience with commonly used auditing concepts and practices

•    Strong analytical and problem-solving skills

•    Strong written and verbal communications skills
	 	 	 	 	 

A-7

 

	

Help Desk Group	

 	

Plays a critical role in the implementation of usTLD, working closely with the industry to establish policies, procedures, and processes that facilitate usTLD operations. Ongoing activities will include resolution of all user problems and inquiries
associated with usTLD.	

 	

•    Excellent customer service, decision-making, and communications skills

•    Detail-oriented, creative, and analytical

•    Industry experience

•    Experience with troubleshooting computer hardware and software
	

Transition Team	

 	

Is responsible for managing the transition from the current administrator to NeuStar, which includes working closely with the delegees to understand and improve the existing locality-based space.	

 	

•    Excellent customer service, decision-making, and communications skills

•    Detail-oriented, creative, and analytical

•    Industry experience

•    Strong written and verbal communications skills.
	

Technical Industry Liaison	

 	

Is NeuStar's technical representative with the ICANN, IETF, and other industry standards bodies. Is responsible for ensuring that NeuStar is compliant with all industry standards and provides technical direction to the Systems Engineering
organization.	

 	

•    Well-developed and highly effective spoken and written communications skills

•    Understands the usTLD space, both technically and operationally

•    Expertise in ccTLD technology and standards.

•    Detail-oriented, creative, and analytical

•    Registry administration experience.
	

HR/Administration	

 	

Responsible for Human Resources including recruiting and hiring staff. Responsible for facilities management. Responsible for ensuring program is meeting financial budget, defining AP, AR, and credit processes. Also is responsible for neutrality
supervision and for ensuring that all program activities meet neutrality requirements.	

 	

•    Excellent customer service, decision-making, and communications skills

•    Detail-oriented, creative, and analytical

•    Industry experience

•    Strong written and verbal communications skills.
	 	 	 	 	 

A-8

 

	

Legal, Policy, and ICANN Relations	

 	

Responsible for usTLD contract negotiation and management. Also responsible for registrar, delegated manager, and delegee contracts. Responsible for US Nexus requirements, locality-based usTLD policy enforcement, domain name dispute resolution
procedure/policy, Sunrise and Land Rush Policy, ICANN Policy, Government Advisory Committee Principles, Registrar Agreement Development, and Policy compliance audit.	

 	

•    Extensive experience in ccTLD and ICANN policy

•    Excellent negotiation skills

•    Excellent contract management skills

•    Excellent decision-making and communication skills.
	

Billing and Collections	
 	

Responsible for defining Billing and Collections interface requirements, invoice design and development, methods and procedures, and credit card processing.	
 	

•    Extensive experience in registry billing and collections

•    Excellent customer service skills

•    Excellent decision-making and communications skills

Staffing Approach  

        NeuStar's philosophy is that the company achieves its business goals through its people. We promote the philosophy among our employees that they are individually
and collectively critical to the company's success and share in its rewards. A sense of ownership is encouraged among
employees—ownership of their own work as well as responsibility for the overall performance of the company. NeuStar consistently maximizes its business goals by hiring staff who are highly
productive and of high caliber, ensuring the highest levels of service. 

        Staffing
allocations may need to be adjusted as demand for service increases. Adjustments may include the staff size or refinements to required technical skills. The mechanisms for such
reviews and procedures will be consistent with NeuStar's policies. In addition, NeuStar can and will draw upon a reserve of managerial and technical skills within the corporation. Cross training is
used in all positions to promote job interest and esprit de corps. 

A-9

 

	 
	 	 

	 	 	Ken Hansen, Director, usTLD Administration
	

Qualifications	
 	

More that 18 years of management experience in information technology for the Internet, IT and telecommunications industries. His expertise includes managing global operations for a multi-nations telecommunications company; supporting multiple call
centers; managing and supporting large data centers; and customer and data center migrations. Accomplishments include managing and staffing network and infrastructure development and support organizations; meeting and exceeding Service Level
Requirements (SLRs) for availability in order provisioning environments; and working with IXCs and LECs to automate electronic information exchange to support service provisioning.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Corporate Development, NeuStar, Inc. (2000-Present)
	 	 	I.Responsibilities include the development of corporate strategy; growing NeuStar's service portfolio of communications infrastructure services; and identification and pursuit of new business opportunities including
partnerships, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions. Led the business development effort associated with ".BIZ".
	

 	
 	

Director, Marketing, Net2000 Communications (1999-2000)
	 	 	II.Led a team responsible for all aspects of the Net2000 product portfolio including Internet, e-commerce, Frame Relay, Private Line, Access, Local Service, Long Distance and vertical markets. Responsible for product
strategy, product definition, pricing, development, launch, and ongoing product management.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Local Service Product Management, Business Markets, MCI Communications Corporation (1989-1999)
	 	 	III.Complete product life cycle responsibility for the services associated with MCI's Local Service initiative. Areas of responsibility included product strategy, identification of product requirements, oversight of
development, product launch, and ongoing product related activities.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Access & Advanced Product Development, MCImetro (1995-1996)
	 	 	IV.Led the development of Carrier Access and Advanced Services for MCI's Local Service subsidiary. Primary responsibility included capability development, assessment of proposed services, and program management of new
service implementation. Products included SONET based Dedicated Access, Switched Access, ISDN, AIN, and Voice.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Global Accounts, Complex Bids / Customer Network Design (1992-1995)
	 	 	V.Directed an organization that developed network based solutions and provided third level technical support in pursuit of large complex revenue opportunities. This included; direct interface with customers, Global
Account teams, Engineering, Operations, Finance, and Product Marketing.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager Product Development, Global Communication Service (1991-1992)
	 	 	VI.Manage the development of MCI's global outsourcing offering targeted at U.S. based multinationals. This required development of short and long-term strategy; and interface with PTTs, Corporate Development and overseas
offices. Successfully completed large outsourcing contracts with several large Fortune 500 companies.
	 	 	 

A-10

 

	

Education	
 	

New York Institute of Technology, Islip, NY
	

 	
 	

B.S. Program, Telecommunications Management
	

 	
 	
Dianne Black, Program Manager
	

Qualifications	
 	

More than 12 years experience in Program Management, Product Management, Software Engineering Management and Telecommunications. Have successfully managed the implementation of over 50 large cross-functional programs with costs over 150
million.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Program Management Office, NeuStar, Inc. (1999-Present)
	 	 	VII.Implemented and manage the Program Management Office at NeuStar. The PMO serves as an enterprise cross-functional program management team responsible for implementation of all corporate strategic projects
including.biz systems, CARE OSS Clearinghouse, Code Administration System, NPAC Releases 1 through 4, and 10 other systems worth approx. 50 million in revenue within 2 years. Manage a staff of 15 people.
	

 	
 	

VIII.Implemented and manage the Project Support Office, part of the Program Management Office responsible for definition and implementation of the Project Management methodology. Created the NeuStar Project Management Handbook and created a library
of processes to include software development processes. Also responsible for defining and delivering monthly project management training to all employees, coaching and mentoring. Produces a monthly project management newsletter to entire company,
which highlights major project milestones, project successes, processes, best practices, and lessons learned. Participates in monthly operations reviews presented to executives. Program Management team participates in the PMI (Project Management
Institute) approved Project Management Certification program.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Local Systems Operations, MCI Communications, Inc. (1997-1999)
	 	 	IX.Managed 5 functions: Local Systems Project Management, Local Systems Training, Process Improvement (Business Process Reengineering), User Communications, and Web Development.
	

 	
 	

X.Responsible for end-to-end project management of 60+ Local systems development projects. Served as interface between Local Systems Development and Local User groups (Product Marketing, Provisioning, OE, Customer Service, Sales, etc.). Project
Management including prioritization, budgeting, scheduling, requirements definition, life-cycle development coordination including integration and UAT testing. Matrix management of approx. 50 Local Systems Organizations and 30 Systems User Groups.
Systems included Order Entry, Order Processing, Provisioning, Translations, Work Flow Manager, Traffic, Access and Subscriber Billing, Customer Service.
	

 	
 	

XI.Managed the Local Systems Training group. Train on approx. 30 Local Systems for approx. 1500 users. Training was mostly hands on technical training, but also support web-based training, web-based self-paced courses (CBT), and interactive video
training.
	 	 	 

A-11

 

	

 	
 	

XII.Managed a Process Improvement group (or Business Process Reengineering group). Projects included revamping systems audit processes, systems Help Desk processes, Billing Systems Operational Support Plan, Mass Markets Systems End User Support Plan
and others. Group will assess, recommend, and assist with implementation for each project. Appropriate process standards and methodology are applied for each project.
	

 	
 	

XIII.Provided all user communications on all Local Systems Releases. Work with development to package release contents into user friendly material to be presented to the user community.
	

 	
 	

XIV.Managed web development group responsible for design, creation, and maintenance of internal Local Systems Operations web pages.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Wireless Program Management, MCI Communications, Inc. (1995-1997)
	 	 	XV.Responsible for end-to-end project management of new city implementation. Successfully implemented 60+ wireless cities in approx. 1 year. Responsibilities include matrix management of approx 50 organizations including
Legal/Regulatory, Carrier Relations, Marketing, Engineering, Fulfillment, Customer Service, Systems Development, and Sales. Developed and managed new city project plan containing approximately 150 tasks.
	

 	
 	

XVI.Responsible for Customer Care and Billing software selection. Included managing software vendor RFP and selection process. Through in depth analysis and due-diligence, developed "buy vs. build" business case and presented to Wireless
Executives.
	

 	
 	

XVII.Responsible for systems requirements and implementation for the integration of Nationwide Cellular, a national cellular reseller acquired by MCI.
	

 	
 	

XVIII.Project Managed successful implementation of cellular fulfillment systems and operations. Tasks included review of external vendor candidates. Managed RFP process and vendor selection.
	

 	
 	

XIX.Project Managed successful implementation of Wireless Customer Service Systems and Operations. Tasks included operations planning, staffing, selecting and installing ACD, service processes/procedures, and system requirements and systems
implementation.
	

 	
 	

XX.Successfully planned and implemented National Technical Service Vendor program to support cellular customer on-site servicing needs. Established program processes and procedures and system requirements.
	

 	
 	

XXI.Member of Wireless Strategy Team focused on Digital, PCS Resale, and Interconnect strategies. Included thorough research and analysis of CDMA, TDMA, and GSM technologies.
	

 	
 	

XXII.Managed a staff of 3 Managers and 18 staff.
	

 	
 	

Manager, New Technologies Marketing, MCI Communications, Inc. (1993-1995)
	 	 	XXIII.Responsible for project management of systems development, provisioning, order entry, customer service, fulfillment, and all operations for analog video phone product.
	 	 	 

A-12

 

	

 	
 	

XXIV.Responsible for selection and then implementation of a product fulfillment vendor. Included developing all systems requirements and then managing development project through implementation. Entailed heavy vendor coordination.
	

 	
 	

XXV.Member of a team responsible for product management of set-top-box video phone, including product design, technology definition, manufacturing. Entailed heavy vendor management for both technology and manufacturing.
	

 	
 	

XXVI.Responsible for multimedia services development accessed via set-top-box video product.
	

 	
 	

Project Manager, MCI Communications, Corp. (1992-1993)
	 	 	XXVII.Responsible for successful implementation of Customer Marketing Database, a national marketing and lead generation system. Managed Consumer Exception Processing projects.
	

 	
 	

XXVIII.Responsible for Business Markets Customer Service Automation.
	

 	
 	

XXIX.Developed and facilitated Business Markets Systems Training.
	

 	
 	

Systems Analyst, MCI Communications, Corp. (1990-1992)
	 	 	XXX.Full life-cycle development of National LEC Interface System.
	

 	
 	

XXXI.Served as primary user interface contact.
	

 	
 	

XXXII.Represented MCI on OBF Subscription Committee to define order processing standards. Also stood on committee to define cellular interface standards.
	

Education	
 	

B.S., Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (IEOR) (1989)
	 	 	Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
	

 	
 	

M.S., Telecommunications (1995)
	 	 	University of Denver, Denver, CO
	

 	
 	

M.S., Information Systems Management
	 	 	George Washington University, Washington, DC, 75% complete
	

 	
 	
Barbara Blackwell, Media Relations
	

Qualifications	
 	

Seasoned communications professional with over 10 years of experience in the Internet domain registry, telecommunications, government relations and legal arenas. Skilled in media relations; corporate positioning; brand building; crisis
communications; event planning; issues management; public affairs and grassroots lobbying efforts.
	

Experience	
 	

Manager, Public Relations, NeuStar, Inc. (2000-Present)
	 	 	XXXIII.Creates and manages overall communications strategy and corporate positioning.
	

 	
 	

XXXIV.Managed nationwide outreach during spin off of parent company and initial launch and implementation phases of registry services.
	

 	
 	

XXXV.Responsible for the planning, coordination, and execution of all national and international media relations efforts.
	

 	
 	

XXXVI.Write and distribute press releases and develop tactical strategies for driving all existing and new business agendas.
	 	 	 

A-13

 

	

 	
 	

XXXVII.Provide public relations counsel to executive management and other senior staff.
	

 	
 	

Sr. Public Relations Specialist, NeuStar, Inc. (1999-2000)
	 	 	XXXVIII.Serve as a central point of contact for local, national and international media. Research and develop responses on a broad range of issues, arrange interviews, and pitch global and targeted issue-oriented stories
to reporters and producers.
	

 	
 	

XXXIX.Manage and coordinate registry/registrar public relations efforts with marketing team.
	

 	
 	

Sr. Public Affairs Specialist, American Bar Assoc. (1994-1999)
	 	 	XL.Plan and oversee media projects relating to program activities covering a wide range of legal issues, including international law, legal problems of the elderly, taxation, administrative law and regulatory
practice.
	

 	
 	

XLI.Write and edit press releases, news advisories, pitch letters, op-eds.
	

 	
 	

XLII.Develop and implement public relations strategies to increase association visibility in targeted media markets.
	

 	
 	

XLIII.Formulate opportunities for press conferences and media events surrounding issues, meetings and product and service launches.
	

 	
 	

XLIV.Managed public relations budget operations for the Public Affairs Office.
	

 	
 	

Legislative Assistant, Senator Charles S. Robb (1992-1994)
	 	 	XLV.Drafted legislation and constituency responses for Senator approval.
	

 	
 	

XLVI.Tracked legislation and in the areas of housing, banking, telecommunications and gun control; coordinated legislative efforts with other congressional offices.
	

 	
 	

XLVII.Served as liaison to state constituency on behalf of Senator; monitored statewide issues and activity.
	

 	
 	

XLVIII.During successful re-election year, served around the state as press assistant.
	

Education	
 	

M.A. Candidate, Public Communication, George Mason University
	

 	
 	

B.A., Pre-Legal Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University
	

 	
 	

Member, Public Relations Society of America; Association of Black Women in Journalism. As active member of National Press Club, participate in regular Club activities and events.
	 	 	 

A-14

 

	

 	
 	
James A. Casey, usTLD Policy
	

Qualifications	
 	

Mr. Casey has over seven years of experience with legal and policy matters relating to the Internet, advanced technologies and telecommunications. In this capacity Mr. Casey has assisted numerous companies in the identification and development of new
technology business ventures and the development and execution of strategic policy initiatives supporting business activities. Mr. Casey's legal practice has focused on telecommunications and technology law, telecommunications ventures, energy
projects, regulatory and transactional matters. And native American tribal affairs. Mr. Casey also has been involved with ongoing tribal telecommunications legislative and administrative efforts and has assisted the Federal Communications Commission
as an expert on tribal telecommunications matters. In addition, Mr. Casey participates in international proceedings at the ITU and in other standards bodies, as well as on indigenous knowledge rights and biodiversity and has served as an expert
witness with regard to indigenous treaty rights.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Policy and Business Development, NeuStar, Inc. (2000-Present)
	 	 	XLIX.Develop and implement strategic policy initiatives.
	

 	
 	

L.Monitor policy activities for consistency with NeuStar neutrality principles.
	

 	
 	

LI.Monitor international standards and treaty body activities.
	

 	
 	

LII.Assess and develop new business opportunities.
	

 	
 	

LIII.Conduct governmental relations activities.
	

 	
 	

Associate, Greenberg Traurig (2000-2001)
	 	 	LIV.Assist in the development of a tribal telecommunications, technology and economic development practice.
	

 	
 	

Associate, Morrison & Foerster (1995-2000)
	 	 	LV.Practice focused on representation of common carrier clients (wireline and wireless) before the Federal Communications Commission
	

 	
 	

LVI.Assisted tribal governments in telecommunications, utility, legislative and other matters, including development of tribal telephone and communications companies.
	

 	
 	

LVII.Mass media (radio, television), contract negotiation and drafting, rulemaking proceedings, administrative and federal litigation, satellite, common carrier matters, personal communications services, emergent technologies, and infrastructure
issues. Practice also included representation of Internet access companies on matters relating to computer, intellectual property and Internet law.
	

 	
 	

Associate, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C. (1994-1995)
	 	 	 

A-15

 

	 	 	LVIII.Represented communications clients before the Federal Communications Commission. Experience includes mass media (radio, television), contract negotiation and drafting, rulemaking proceedings, administrative and
federal litigation, satellite, common carrier matters, personal communications services, and infrastructure issues. Assisted Native tribal governments in the development of telecommunications infrastructure and provide guidance in regulatory matters
and the intersection of Federal Indian Law and Telecommunications law. Other practice areas included intellectual property, computer law, and entertainment law.
	

 	
 	

Summer Associate, Birch, Horton, Bittner & Cherot (1993)
	 	 	LIX.Conducted legal research in various areas including federal and state litigation and administrative law. Prepared legal memoranda, briefs, executive employment contracts, comments on proposed rule-makings and
administrative action response letters and assisted in lobbying efforts. Experience includes: tax status of non-profit organizations, sovereign immunity, FCC comparative hearings, intellectual property liability of spin-off companies, executive
contract preparation, good faith appeal to the Mineral Management Service (Department of the Interior).
	

 	
 	

Research Assistant, Cornell Law School (1992-1992)
	 	 	LX.Researched and wrote on the historical development of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the United States Supreme court's use of that history in search and seizure cases. Assisted in other
research and materials collection as needed.
	

 	
 	

Litigation Assistant, Brown and Bain (1989-1991)
	 	 	LXI.Researched and organized case materials for high technology litigation. Experience includes: video game and video special effects patents, trade secret theft, unfair competition, antitrust and class action litigation.
Duties included discovery, and factual research and analysis. Assisted in the preparation of summary judgment motions, pre-trial briefs and other filings.
	

Education	
 	

J.D., Cornell Law School (1994), specialization in international legal affairs
	

 	
 	

B.A., History (1988), extensive coursework in electrical engineering and computer science
	

 	
 	
David H. Crocker, Technical Industry Liaison
	

Qualifications	
 	

Management, design and development for all aspects of Internet and distributed systems, emphasizing innovate opportunities and aggressive delivery schedules.
	

Experience	
 	

Principal, Brandenburg InternetWorking (1991-Present)
	 	 	LXII.Consultancy with focus on use of intranets and the Internet. Participate in startup business planning and funding
	

 	
 	

LXIII.Assist in development of intellectual property, founded trade associations
	

 	
 	

LXIV.Recent projects included standard for facsimile over the Internet; specifications of extensions to Internet email and information services; design of transport-independent deferred-attachment API; and IP network design for contention-access
ATM-based interactive cable television service.
	

 	
 	

Manager (Internet tech transfer), Net Systems Lab, DEC (1989-1991)
	 	 	 

A-16

 

	 	 	LXV.Created TCP/IP technology-transfer corporate resource. Delivered early firewall and router products and network management administration tool.
	

 	
 	

VP Engineer, The Wollongong Group (1987-1989)
	 	 	LXVI.Led product development, guiding end-user and OEM open systems software products, including TCP/IP and ISO-OSI stacks, SNMP-based network management station and TCP/OSI transition products along 9 separate sets of
product lines.
	

 	
 	

LXVII.Responsible for staff of 50, providing software engineering, configuration management and project support, and corporate network and computing services.
	

 	
 	

Development Manager, Undermann-Bass (1985-1987)
	 	 	LXVIII.Delivered company's initial suite of TCP/IP software products, for PCs, terminal concentrators and internetwork routers.
	

 	
 	

Director, Sys. Development, MCI Digital Info Svcs Corp. (1983-1985)
	 	 	LXIX.Met aggressive development schedule, creating application, directory and data processing components for MCI Mail, a unique, $50 million, distributed national electronic mail service.
	

 	
 	

LXX.Developed interactive and remove batch access for 140,000 users, including delivery for Telex inbound and outbound, as well as hardcopy with letterhead and signature graphics, and access for communicating word processors.
	

 	
 	

Principal Investigator, Electrical Engineering, University of Delaware (1978-1982)
	 	 	LXXI.Developed Unix-based email relay for heterogeneous networks. System was an exemplar for "UA/MTA" architecture of CCITT X.400 email standards.
	

 	
 	

LXXII.Operated national mail relay service for the Army and for NSF's CSNet, precursor to NSFNet.
	

 	
 	

LXXIII.Authored various Internet protocol specifications, especially for electronic mail.
	

Education	
 	

Doctoral Program, Computer Science, University of Delaware (1992)
	

 	
 	

M.A., Communication, Annenberg School, USC (1977)
	

 	
 	

B.A., Psychology, UCLA (1975)
	

 	
 	
Thomas G. McGarry, Transition Team
	

Qualifications	
 	

Eighteen years experience in network engineering, network and technology planning, and telecommunications management. Significant experience in the internet and registry related technology. Represent NeuStar as SME on internet and domain name
space.
	

Experience	
 	

Chief Technical Strategic Technical Initiatives, NeuStar, (1998-Present)
	 	 	LXXIV.Manage a group of subject matter experts (SME) who provide technical representation for NeuStar at various industry meetings and forums.
	

 	
 	

LXXV.Drive the development of industry standards for voice over IP technologies. This work is primarily performed at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI).
	 	 	 

A-17

 

	

 	
 	

LXXVI.Interface directly with the federal and state regulators in North America as well as international regulators regarding numbering policy decisions. This is NeuStar's responsibility as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator
(NANPA).
	

 	
 	

LXXVII.Provide technical support with regard to telecommunications numbering issues for the North American and international communications industry.
	

 	
 	

LXXVIII.Support the development and advancement of DNS, BIND, and registry related technologies at the IETF.
	

 	
 	

LXXIX.Manage the process of developing new requirements in an open forum for future software releases to NeuStar's Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC). The NPAC is a registry service for ported telephone number information NeuStar has
been contracted to provide to the North American communications industry.
	

 	
 	

LXXX.Evaluate new business opportunities through representation at industry meetings and forums.
	

 	
 	

LXXXI.Manage the introduction of new business opportunities into NeuStar business development processes.
	

 	
 	

LXXXII.Acted as Director of Network Engineering for two data centers and six office locations for eight months prior to filling the vacancy.
	

 	
 	

Director-Network Engineering, Geotek, Inc. (1997-1998)
	 	 	LXXXIII.Manage a group of engineers and administrators in the deployment of network and switching equipment and software, and communications facilities.
	

 	
 	

LXXXIV.Interface with facility providers for timely deployment of cell site T1s.
	

 	
 	

LXXXV.Plan and deploy interconnection with the public switched telecom network.
	

 	
 	

LXXXVI.Manage the deployment and selection of a Frame Relay network for internal communications.
	

 	
 	

LXXXVII.Develop hardware and software requirements and configurations for network equipment; DACS, router, alarm, modem, terminal server, synchronization.
	

 	
 	

LXXXVIII.Coordinate the purchase and deployment of network and switching equipment.
	

 	
 	

LXXXIX.Provide network equipment documentation and support to Geotek field technicians.
	

 	
 	

Staff Director—Number Portability Project Management 7, NYNEX Corp. (1996-1999)
	 	 	XC.Provide company wide project management for the implementation of number portability capabilities in the NYNEX network.
	

 	
 	

XCI.Provide a requirements document to address number portability's impact on NYNEX's signaling and switching network, and related systems.
	

 	
 	

XCII.Develop and gain approval for three-year funding requirements for number portability.
	 	 	 

A-18

 

	

 	
 	

XCIII.Determine 5ESS, 4ESS, DMS10, DMS100, DMS200 TOPS and remote switch software requirements.
	

 	
 	

XCIV.Participated in the selection of hardware and software for the deployment of an overlaid intelligent network to provide number portability.
	

 	
 	

XCV.Participated in the network design and routing for the overlaid intelligent network.
	

 	
 	

XCVI.Represent NYNEX to state and federal regulators, industry committees, and competitors with regard to network and systems requirements for number portability.
	

 	
 	

Staff Director—Network & Technology Planning (1995-1996)
	 	 	XCVII.Act as Subject Matter Expert with regard to numbering related issues for NYNEX.
	

 	
 	

XCVIII.Evaluate the impact to NYNEX of numbering related issues. Develop the NYNEX position, and drive industry direction towards that position at the Industry Numbering Committee (INC).
	

 	
 	

XCIX.Provide the NYNEX interface to the North American Numbering Plan Administrator for multiple issues including NPA exhaust planning and reservations.
	

 	
 	

C.Successfully lead an effort within the INC to reserve 200 carrier identification codes (CIC) for intranetwork use, available to all carriers.
	

 	
 	

CI.Solely responsible for network related number portability issues within NYNEX.
	

 	
 	

CII.Lead NYNEX's participation in the NY number portability trial, an effort driven by the NY State Public Service Commission (PSC). Successfully drove decisions involving cost and network reliability to NYNEX's favor.
	

 	
 	

CIII.Actively participate in NY PSC effort with regard to deploying number portability. Participate on multiple subcommittees responsible for planning the deployment of new AIN technology and number portability databases.
	

 	
 	

CIV.Provide input to Lucent and Nortel with regard to their methods of deploying number portability solutions in end office switches, operator service switches, tandem switches, STPs, SCPs, and operations support systems.
	

 	
 	

Manager Strategic Planning—Switch and Network Technology, NYNEX Mobile Communications Company (1993-1995)
	

 	
 	

CV.Provide evaluation, recommendation, and development of new products, services, and technologies on a company wide basis.
	

 	
 	

CVI.Provided network requirements to equipment vendors and interconnected carriers for new products and services based on Marketing's product definition.
	

 	
 	

CVII.Project managed the implementation of new products and service with the line engineering organizations, equipment vendors, and interconnected carriers across multiple markets.
	

 	
 	

CVIII.Researched and evaluated new hardware and software developments and designs for cellular applications.
	 	 	 

A-19

 

	

 	
 	

CIX.Participated on digital deployment core team, which developed NMCC's digital deployment strategy.
	

 	
 	

CX.Analyzed and evaluated AT&T digital hardware developments.
	

 	
 	

Network Services Director, MobiLink (1992-1993)
	 	 	CXI.Chosen by NMCC upper management for a temporary assignment on a multifunctional task force (7 members) responsible for starting-up MobiLink, an international brand name for cellular service supported by 17 major
cellular carriers.
	

 	
 	

CXII.Developed network requirements; including performance engineering, automatic roaming, roamer validation, and dialing plans; for member companies.
	

 	
 	

CXIII.Participated in Board of Directors Meetings (consisting of 7 cellular carrier Presidents) providing definitions of requirements and status of member company's progress.
	

 	
 	

CXIV.Worked individually with member companies to advise on methods in which to meet network requirements.
	

 	
 	

Manager, Network Engineer (1989-1992)
	 	 	CXV.Provide traffic engineering, equipment engineering, and implementation engineering for switch, cell, and network equipment and trunks for the NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXVI.Developed and managed the organizational structure to provide equipment engineering, traffic engineering, and network planning for NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXVII.Supervised four Engineers and three support personnel.
	

 	
 	

CXVIII.Planned, engineered, and procured all switch, cell site, and network equipment utilized in the NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXIX.Planned, engineered, and procured the NY Metro voice and data facilities network.
	

 	
 	

CXX.Coordinated the implementation of equipment with various internal organizations and vendors.
	

 	
 	

CXXI.Responsible for the implementation of proper contract approval, accounting, and purchasing processes and procedures.
	

 	
 	

Manager, Network Planning (1987-1989)
	 	 	CXXII.Plan and implement network interconnection facilities and equipment for NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXXIII.Defined and developed the Network Planning role in the NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXXIV.Instituted cost savings methods and procedures for network interconnection and growth.
	

 	
 	

CXXV.Planned and implemented the first cutover of a cellular switch to a remote location in the NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXXVI.Supervised one Engineer.
	 	 	 

A-20

 

	

 	
 	

CXXVII.Total responsibility for planning voice network for the NY Metro cellular network.
	

 	
 	

CXXVIII.Solely responsible for equal access implementation and coordination from the 1988 to 1992 in the NY Metro cellular network.
	

Education	
 	

1983-Present, Advanced Technical Training; Numerous advanced engineering courses in communication system design, digital, communications systems, cellular systems, telephone technology, spread spectrum theory and design, Motorola and AT&T
cellular systems, and advanced intelligent network technology.
	

 	
 	

May 1983, B.S., Business Administration, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
	

 	
 	
Jeffrey J. Neuman, ICANN Relations
	

Qualifications	
 	

Mr. Neuman is the Director of Law and Policy at NeuStar, Inc. He is responsible for the oversight of intellectual property law and policy matters, as well as information technology licensing. He is the external liaison for both NeuStar and NeuLevel,
Inc. with the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Domain Name Supporting Organization.
	

 	
 	

He has testified before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives Oversight committee regarding "ICANN, New gTLDs and the Protection of Intellectual
Property."
	

 	
 	

Prior to joining NeuStar, his practice focused on representing telecommunication providers and e-commerce companies in matters involving technology licensing, intellectual property, and domain name disputes. Mr. Neuman is a frequent speaker on issues
involving intellectual property, domain names, online dispute resolution and the introduction of new generic top-level domain names. He has been featured in articles all over the globe, including the New York Times, Wired Magazine, and the June
edition of IP Asia, one of the leading intellectual property trade magazines for intellectual property practitioners in Asia, discussing the introduction of the new dot-biz top-level domain.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Law and Policy NeuStar, Inc. (2001-Present)
	 	 	CXXIX.Serves as Director of Policy and Intellectual Property and is responsible for policy development for dot-biz.
	

 	
 	

CXXX.Performs public relations functions for dot-biz registry and the introduction of top-level domains.
	

 	
 	

CXXXI.External liaison with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN, the gTLD Registry Constituency of ICANN and the Intellectual Property Constituency.
	

 	
 	

CXXXII.Responsible for the protection of NeuStar's intellectual property assets, domain name disputes, and Internet-related matters.
	

 	
 	

CXXXIII.Preparation and negotiation of agreements for technology and software licensing, hardware and software system development, and joint venture/marketing relationships.
	

 	
 	

Information Technology Associate, Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Akn, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP (1999-2001)
	 	 	 

A-21

 

	 	 	CXXXIV.Representation of domain name registry in intellectual property and policy-related matters before the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the United States House of Representatives and the
European Commission.
	

 	
 	

CXXXV.Counsel and representation of clients in the protection of intellectual property assets, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition, domain name disputes, and Internet-related matters; Representation of clients in
trademark matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and domain name disputes before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
	

 	
 	

CXXXVI.Preparation of agreements for technology and software licensing, hardware and software system development, telecommunication system acquisitions, and joint marketing and value added reseller relationships.
	

 	
 	

CXXXVII.Preparation of Internet agreements for web site development and hosting, electronic commerce, terms of service, spamming and privacy policies.
	

 	
 	

CXXXVIII.Advice and counseling of clients in the export of encryption technology; Representation of clients before the United States Department of Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration.
	

 	
 	

CXXXIX.Participation in the formation of ICANN as well as WIPO's hearings on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for domain name disputes.
	

 	
 	

Associate, Arter & Hadden, LLP (1997-1999)
	

 	
 	

Representation of clients in trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition, as well as in Internet law issues. Published several articles on the creation, development and new management of the domain name system. Participated
in the formation process of ICANN as well as WIPO's hearings on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for domain name disputes. Advice and counseling in matters involving Internet issues including the protection of clients' intellectual property
rights on the Internet, domain name registration, dispute resolution mechanisms, spamming, website development agreements, Internet privacy policies, and web hosting agreements.
	

Education	
 	

J.D., The George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC, 1997, cum laude
	

 	
 	

B.A., Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1994
	

 	
 	

B.A., Labor and Industrial Relations, 1994, summa cum laude
	

 	
 	

Phi Beta Kappa
	

 	
 	
Robert S. Nichols, Product Development
	

Qualifications	
 	

More than 14 years of experience in telecommunications and high-tech industries where he has played significant roles in launching new products and businesses.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, IP Services Business Development, NeuStar, Inc. (2000-Present)
	 	 	CXL.Manages marketing and product related activities in pursuit of commercializing a suite of Global Directory Services, which includes national and international ENUM administration as well as next generation signaling
services that bring intelligent network capabilities to IP based networks.
	 	 	 

A-22

 

	

 	
 	

Director, Product Management, USinternetworking, (1999-2000)
	 	 	CXLI.USi's Product Management lead for the Enterprise Messaging and Collaboration Business Unit. Primary responsibilities include strategic development of the product roadmap, product and system development, marketing
rollout and ongoing product management.
	

 	
 	

CXLII.Developed market rollout strategy and launched the Enterprise Messaging and Collaboration Business Unit in September 1999. Product introduction responsibilities included press and analyst briefings, product packaging, positioning, pricing and
promotion.
	

 	
 	

CXLIII.Managed a team of product managers and developers for ongoing management of the core messaging service based on Microsoft Exchange, as well as enhanced features including document management, unified messaging, real time voice and data
collaboration, and wireless access integration.
	

 	
 	

CXLIV.Directed a team of developers in defining, building and launching a Customer Extranet, designed to allow USi Clients online access to performance and billing reports, implementation tracking, contracts, as well as initiate service
changes.
	

 	
 	

CXLV.Directed corporate marketing teams in development of marketing collateral, press releases, sales training documents, advertising, direct mail, case studies and white papers, TCO tools, and the corporate web site.
	

 	
 	

CXLVI.Led business development activities with Microsoft Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), including evaluation, negotiation, service development and implementation of advanced service features that integrate with the Microsoft Exchange
platform.
	

 	
 	

Sr. Manager, New Business Development, Iridium LLC (1997-1999)
	 	 	CXLVII.Iridium's Service Development lead regarding new business initiatives involving external network integration and commercial reselling opportunities. Primary activities included initial development, product and
market rollout, as well as the ongoing product management and evolution of the Iridium World Calling Card Service, and the Iridium High Speed Data Service.
	

 	
 	

CXLVIII.Launch and ongoing service management responsibilities for the Iridium World Calling Card Service. Responsibilities included evaluating global business partners, negotiating partner agreements, developing global distribution and marketing
rollout, as well as pricing, positioning and worldwide promotion.
	

 	
 	

CXLIX.Service development of the Iridium High Speed Data Service (Integrated Inmarsat High Speed Data). Responsibilities included business plan development, external network integration, operation and customer service development, billing integration,
 global product distribution and market launch.
	

 	
 	

CL.Service development of the Iridium/(Inmarsat) Aeronautical Service. Responsibilities included business plan development, external network and billing integration, global card distribution, and market launch.
	

 	
 	

Manager, Satellite Telephone Products, Motient, Inc. (Formerly American Mobile Satellite Corp.(AMSC) (1994-1997)
	 	 	CLI.AMSC's product management lead and among the principal architects for marketing and operational related issues, including all SKYCELL service and product development projects.
	 	 	 

A-23

 

	

 	
 	

CLII.Managed a team of product managers with responsibility for development, implementation and ongoing support of AMSC's SKYCELL services, including voice, data and fax.
	

 	
 	

CLIII.Managed systemic and configuration specific development programs to ensure system level functional performance, including network enhancements, subscriber equipment and ancillary switching platforms.
	

 	
 	

CLIV.Managed product development life cycles for SKYCELL product lines including vendor management, operational and customer service support, pricing and market launch.
	

 	
 	

Business Analyst, Dun & Bradstreet (1987-1993)
	 	 	CLV.Developed comprehensive marketing and credit reports, resulting in the assignment of composite credit appraisals. Assigned ratings based upon financial strength, industry norms, management experience, tend of entity,
and payment record.
	

Education	
 	

B.S. in Business Administration, concentration in Marketing Management; Minor degree in philosophy, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. June 1987
	

 	
 	

M.B.A. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO. July 1999
	

 	
 	
John Spengler, Customer Service
	

Qualifications	
 	

Twenty-five years management responsibility in the areas of communications, information systems and customer service.
	

Experience	
 	

Director Business Operations, NeuStar, Inc. (2001-present)
	 	 	CLVI.Directs and Operates the Customer Support Center for the.biz Registry. Responsible for developing new service processes and procedures. Responsible for delivery of service within Service Level Objectives.
	

 	
 	

Project Manager, Integrion Financial Network (1997-2000)
	 	 	CLVII.Overall project management responsibility for the transition of all the Visa Interactive systems to the Interactive Financial Services platform for Integrion. The transition of all back office services to CheckFree
platforms. Primary vendor coordination responsibility for IBM, an annual contract of $9.0 million.
	

 	
 	

Manager Global Operations Support, Visa Interactive Inc. (1994-1997)
	 	 	CLVIII.Management responsible for a software maintenance team of nine programmers. Team was responsible for the quick resolution of system problems and changes. Managed assigned projects, controlled ad hoc system reports
and their distribution. Negotiated maintenance contract with Logica, a software house, for the CSMS system and managed the resulting team of eight consultants.
	

 	
 	

International Project Manager, Visa Interactive Inc.
	 	 	CLIX.Responsible for coordination and implementation of Visa Interactive Electronic Home Banking Services in the European Market. Implemented the first international electronic home banking for Barclays Bank in the UK.
The pilot was a significant success and the service went into full production in April,1997.
	

 	
 	

Administrative Manager,Visa International Inc. (1981-1994)
	 	 	 

A-24

 

	 	 	CLX.Prepare and track the Business Resumption and Administration departmental budget. On-site representative for Business Resumption and Site Emergency requirements. Provide support to the Department Senior Vice President
by preparing internal management presentations, analyzing and writing reports. Project manage the establishment of physical security standards for the worldwide data centers, completed site evaluations, recommend improvements and track each center
for completion.
	

 	
 	

Senior Project Manager
	 	 	CLXI.Responsible for the construction of a fully redundant 65,000 sq. ft. data center and ancillary structures, from the design phase through operational occupancy. The $32.6 million dollar budget included a negotiated
ten-year lease. The project completed on time and under budget, with less than 4% in change orders. The environmental systems included three 1250 KVA generators, two 600 Ton cooling towers.
	

 	
 	

Supervisor, Project Implementation and Facilities
	 	 	CLXII.Responsible for coordinating new services to be implemented at the McLean Computer Operations Center. Participate in the projects at an early stage and function as central coordinator during implementation.
Supervised four hourly employees in the day-to-day activities of maintaining and servicing of office facility.
	

 	
 	

Department Head Technical Support
	 	 	CLXIII.Administrative responsibility for six senior technical support analysts. Assigned personnel to hardware and software projects and directed their activities. Prepared operational cost estimates for current and
proposed projects; evaluated vendor proposals for purchase of hardware. Coordinated the Operations Center Budget for three years.
	

 	
 	

Department Head Customer Service
	 	 	CLXIV.Directed personnel and resources to provide, maintain, and operate a $3.2 million international credit authorization center. Responsible for productivity, growth, morale and job satisfaction for 70 employees.
Established programs, plans and budgets for an efficiently run center. Results: A 100% improvement in morale with a 50% improvement in productivity and a substantial reduction of overtime expenses.
	

 	
 	

Head Telecommunication/Data Processing Analyst
	 	 	CLXV.Supervised four senior analysts in the design, implementation and maintenance of a $15. million worldwide data network. Monitored and analyzed the performance of a 100 line WATS network on an Automatic Call
Distributor.
	

Education	
 	

Center for Creative Leadership
	

 	
 	

Electronic Computer Programming Institute
	

 	
 	

Certificate computer programming.
	 	 	 

A-25

 

	

 	
 	
Frankie Russell, Product Marketing
	

Qualifications	
 	

More than 16 years experience in telecommunications, including business development, strategic planning, quality assurance, product management, brand management, and life cycle management for products and services in telecommunications industry.
Expertise includes working with IXCs, ILECs, and CLECs to launch new products and services; media and public relations; and marketing communications.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Product Marketing, NeuStar, Inc. (2001-Present)
	 	 	CLXVI.Directs and coordinates activities concerned with research and development of new concepts, ideas, basic data on and applications for, organization's products and services.
	

 	
 	

CLXVII.Reviews and analyzes proposals submitted to determine if benefits derived and possible applications justify expenditures.
	

 	
 	

CLXVIII.Develops plan for Industry outreach for OSS services.
	

 	
 	

CLXIX.Develops and review marketing materials for new and existing products and services.
	

 	
 	

Group Manager, Identity Services, Network Solutions, Inc. (1999-2000)
	 	 	CLXX.Launched five enhanced services resulting in over $10 million in new revenues.
	

 	
 	

CLXXI.Negotiated deals with vendor companies to secure technology for enhanced services; programs included multiple-year registrations which established the company's renewal processes; dot com essentials, the company's first bundled product;
Expedited Transfer Service, resulting in over $4 million in its first year; Internet Keywords, a partnership with Real Names Corporation; and 800 number domain names, a "Call or Click" program concept that promotes purchasing a domain name to match
an existing 800 number.
	

 	
 	

Independent Consultant, McKinley Marketing Partners (1998-1999)
	 	 	CLXXII.Senior-level Independent Consultant leading strategic product development projects for Bell Atlantic (now Verizon), Network Solutions, and Cable and Wireless.
	

 	
 	

CLXXIII.Founder of consulting firm, Out-of-the-Box Marketing, Inc. Executed consulting contracts with WinStar Communications, Inc., City First Bank, and Kalidescope Kollections. First year billings exceeded $250,000.
	

 	
 	

CLXXIV.Group Manager, Quality Assurance, TELE-TV Systems (joint venture between Bell Atlantic, NYNEX and Pacific Telesis) (1995-1997)
	

 	
 	

CLXXV.38% improvement in productivity achieved in first six months. Led six QA analysts in support of software metrics, defect tracking/resolution, and documentation for video services product being developed for the company and a major international
client. Recruited to this position by exemplifying senior and technical team leadership abilities necessary to represent the company internationally.
	

 	
 	

Marketing & Communications Manager (1995-1996)
	 	 	 

A-26

 

	 	 	CLXXVI.Selected for this high-profile PR position to work closely with executive team in launching the company's introduction into highly competitive digital TV market. Served as spokesperson interfacing with TV, computer,
 and telecommunications media and the company's key international partners.
	

 	
 	

Marketing and Media Relations Manager, Video Services, Bell Atlantic (1995)
	 	 	CLXXVII.Chosen as spokesperson for leader in video services. Conceptualized first health and fitness channel for TELE-TV.
	

 	
 	

Marketing Manager, FeatureFAX (1991-1994)
	 	 	CLXXVIII.Spearheaded primary and secondary research for first-of-its-kind enhanced facsimile product. Developed specialized marketing concepts to direct initial marketing strategies. Resolved regulatory constraints
through partnership with Cable & Wireless.
	

 	
 	

Marketing Manager, Thinx Software—Information Services (1990-1991)
	 	 	CLXXIX.Conducted initial market analysis for company's first venture into computer software. Served as primary Microsoft contact as Independent Software Vendor representative. Interpreted market readings and recommended
product withdraw strategy. Successfully identified buyer and sold product.
	

 	
 	

Product Manager, Operator Transfer Service, Carrier Marketing and Operator Services (1987-1990)
	 	 	CLXXX.Added $4 million to the bottom line by launching innovative operator transfer service; significantly improved relations with top long-distance carrier customers, including AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.
	

 	
 	

Assistant Product Manager, Bell Atlantic Calling Card (1984-1987)
	 	 	CLXXXI.Championed proactive sales/marketing cultures (100 reps with Fortune 500 clients) to support initial launch of company's first calling card. Developed marketing campaigns targeting strategic market
segments.
	

Education	
 	

MS Candidate, Engineering Management, George Washington University
	

 	
 	

BA, Business Management & Marketing, National Louis University
	

 	
 	

Member, Association of Business and Professional Women; Association of Black Women Entrepreneurs. Serves as Vice Chairman, College Partnership Program, Fairfax County, Virginia.
	

 	
 	
Spencer Stefansic, Systems Engineering
	

Qualifications	
 	

Over nine years of experience in the telecommunications and technology industries developing client/server database systems; Internet/intranet/extranet applications and managing project implementations and large systems/IT organizations. His
expertise includes implementation and management of middleware billing systems; program management of disaster recovery operations for a national wireless operator's data warehouse environments. As a manager, his responsibilities include staffing and
managing over 75 employees located in four different regions; contract negotiations and vendor management; and process control.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Systems Engineering, NeuStar, Inc. (2001-Present)
	 	 	 

A-27

 

	 	 	CLXXXII.Director of a 45-person group responsible for implementing cutting edge systems at the enterprise level. Systems include the.BIZ Top Level Domain registry system; and systems providing telco-specific services such
as the CARE Clearinghouse, Code Administration System.
	

 	
 	

CLXXXIII.Management responsibilities include contract negotiation/vendor management, budget management and process control, invoice reconciliation, and monthly expense/capital report reconciliation
	

 	
 	

Director, Billing/Middleware Development, Nextel Communications (2000-2001)
	 	 	CLXXXIV.Responsible for the middleware development group, and after internal reorganizations, management and support of the Nextel billing systems group, to include production support, and reporting development
organizations. This expanded group has also been tasked with design and implementation of an Enterprise Application Integration system, based on IBM's MQSeries products, with a goal of replacing the current "spider web" of point-to-point system
interfaces.
	

 	
 	

CLXXXV.Management/budgetary responsibilities expanded to include responsibility of a 75-person group in four cities, with a $25 million+ budget.
	

 	
 	

Director, Advanced Communications, Nextel Communications (1999-2000)
	 	 	CLXXXVI.Director of a 40-person group (with locations in Atlanta, Denver and Reston) responsible for implementing cutting edge middleware systems at the enterprise level. Systems include an EDI/XML based B to B
infrastructure for transmitting bills to large corporate customers electronically; architecture and implementation of an enterprise wide database replication backbone; call detail Traffic Management systems; and development of an EJB-based API
platform/system to the NEXTEL billing system, a proprietary product with no native API access.
	

 	
 	

CLXXXVII.
	

 	
 	

CLXXXVIII.Management responsibilities include contract negotiation/vendor management, budget management ($12 million budget) and process control (assurance and adherence to Nextel policies), invoice reconciliation, and monthly expense/capital report
reconciliation.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, Web Architecture and Infrastructure, Nextel Communications (1997-1999)
	 	 	CLXXXIX.Responsible for program management of the design, development and deployment of Nextel intranet and Internet applications, using Netscape web and Oracle web/database technology. Systems include an Oracle
Application Server based rate plan workflow application, MapInfo-MapXtreme web based Internet cellular coverage application, and the Nextel Online Web Sales systems.
	

 	
 	

CXC.Additional responsibilities included the program management of the National Activity Report (NAR) disaster recovery operation. Coordinated all system stabilization, data and software recovery/repair operations. Responsible for complete project
management of all technical resources needed to stabilize the data warehouse environment, establish process control, develop/implement disaster recovery plans and create a 7x24 rapid response process.
	 	 	 

A-28

 

	

 	
 	

CXCI.Operated in a dual capacity providing special assistance to executive leadership (CIO, VP Development) by leading/supporting special projects research (Electronic billing payment/presentment), application gateway architecture development, and
business systems integration support.
	

 	
 	

Senior Systems Manager, OAO Corporation (1997-1997)
	 	 	CXCII.Technical Manager, providing technical expertise and program management in the architecture, development and deployment of intranet applications, using Netscape web and Oracle database technology. Projects include a
classified scientific data warehouse (the Virtual Data Center, or VDC) for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), accessed via a geographically distributed intranet web infrastructure, utilizing Java and CORBA technologies. Responsible
for coordinating the development efforts of four separate BMDO technical groups, each group with a different mission and location within the organization.
	

 	
 	

Principal Consultant, Netscape Communications (1996-1997)
	 	 	CXCIII.Technical/Project Manager, providing consulting expertise in the development, installation and deployment of intranet/Internet applications, using Netscape web technology. Projects include an electronic document
management system, messaging solutions, Internet content publishing systems, and web based executive information systems, in the healthcare and telecommunications verticals. Responsible for engagement management, as well as exploiting new consulting
opportunities in conjunction with the product sales force.
	

 	
 	

Senior Principal Consultant, Oracle Corporation (1993-1996)
	

 	
 	

CXCIV.Technical Manager, providing consulting expertise in the installation and deployment of the Oracle Transparent Gateway for M. Applications developed include an interactive voice response system, accessing legacy data through the gateway.
Management responsibilities include engagement and project management of on-site consultants; placement of consultants at customer sites; and customer relations.
	

 	
 	

CXCV.Technical Team Leader, provided database/application design review and CASE expertise, using Designer/2000, for a data warehouse environment consisting of an Oracle7 v7.2 database, storing 300 million records and requiring 500 Gigabytes of
storage.
	

 	
 	

Project Manager, Suncoast Scientific, Inc. (1991-1993)
	 	 	CXCVI.Lead eight programmers/analysts through analysis, logical and physical database design activities, using OracleTM CASE, for a state government agency client/server application. Provided development expertise
building eight applications of over 130 forms using Oracle Forms and Reports applications, with an Oracle v6.0 database.
	

 	
 	

U.S. Air Force (1983-1991)
	 	 	CXCVII.Aircrew member, operations and systems design.
	

Education	
 	

B.S., Physics, University of West Florida
	

 	
 	
Richard J. Tindal, Channel Management
	

Qualifications	
 	

Over 15 years experience in business development and sales with a recent focus on domain names and internet identity products. Responsible for operations management of the gTLD product suite.
	 	 	 

A-29

 

	

Experience	
 	

Vice President, Sales and Business Development NeuStar, Inc. (1999-Present)
	

 	
 	

Establish strong technical, operational, contractual, and billing relationships with all ICANN accredited Registrars to promote, sell and support.BIZ domain names. Work with strategic partners to enhance the functionality and utility of the.BIZ
space.
	

 	
 	

Vice President, International Operations Melbourne IT. (1999-2001)
	

 	
 	

Manage Melbourne IT registrar operations in North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America. Plan and execute the functions of business development, sales, marketing and account management. Oversee all technical, operational, financial and marketing
issues associated with major distribution channels. Grow revenues through these wholesale channels. Identify and introduce new product offerings to complement the existing, gTLD product suite. Ensure channel retention and sales growth by maintaining
strong relationships with distribution channels. Identify and respond to market trends and emerging technologies that impact the product line.
	

 	
 	

Director of Business Development, Network Solutions (1998-1999)
	

 	
 	

Developed and executed a global marketing strategy for domain names and associated internet identity products. Performed competitive analysis, forecast demand, identified distribution channels, established alliances, programmed and managed a
marketing budget, created promotional materials, mounted product presentations, prepared proposals and negotiated sales closings. Established distribution relationships with major hosting, design, access and portal companies. Substantially grew
business with these companies and solidified business relationships through co-marketing programs and the establishment of high quality account management.
	

 	
 	

Manager, International Sales, Texas Instruments (1996-1998)
	

 	
 	

Managed the worldwide sales of wireless communications products (systems comprising TV, digital and thermal cameras, handheld computers, data compression and transmission software, radios and data link modems). Introduced the product line to
government and commercial customers in the international market. Established long-term business relationships throughout Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. Trained and led a network of sales agents in 19 countries. Fostered key teaming
relationships with manufacturers of complementary technology to sell joint applications. Identified and exploited synergies in distribution channels and promotional activities with these technology partners. Designed and produced audio-visual and
interactive CD presentations. Trained foreign customers in proper operation and maintenance of systems they had purchased.
	

 	
 	

Contract Negotiator, Marine Spill Response Corp. (1994-1995)
	

 	
 	

Negotiated high cost/high complexity contracts with vendors in the US, Norway and the UK. The contracts were typically for system integration services, equipment test and evaluation, software/technology licensing, equipment purchase, and training
services. Secured improvements in price, terms and conditions while retaining positive, long-term relationships with these business partners. Settled disputes over technical, contractual or financial matters. Redefined Statements of Work (SOW) and
managed Change Order Processes.
	 	 	 

A-30

 

	

 	
 	

Deputy Director: International Programs, Australian Defense Force, Systems Command, Melbourne, Australia (1990-1993)
	

 	
 	

Led a team of 36 persons responsible for cooperation programs with government agencies in Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Israel, New Zealand, Italy, the UK, France, Canada and the USA. These programs involved logistics and engineering services,
acquisition support services, training, technology sharing and equipment sales. Planned, organized and managed the performance of this team. Cultivated excellent relationships with counterparts in foreign countries, and used these personal
relationships to maximum effect —accelerating agreements and innovating beneficial provisions. Developed an outstanding team spirit and productivity within the department, and mentored high performers into management positions.
	

 	
 	

Defense Attaché Staff, Embassy of Australia (1986-1990)
	

 	
 	

Responsible for financial, contractual and technical management of major equipment and technology acquisition programs. Liaised with multiple government departments in the US and in other countries.
	

Education	
 	

Honors Degree in Business Administration, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
	

 	
 	

Spanish Language Certification-in progress.
	

 	
 	
Ahita Vessali, Billing & Collections
	

Qualifications	
 	

Senior Professional with over 16 years of experience in increasingly responsible positions in the field of Accounting/Finance (eleven of those years being in the telecommunications industry). She has experience in several financial systems including
G/L, A/P, A/R, Billing and Inventory with broad experience in banking operations, business acquisitions/mergers and systems integration. She exhibits outstanding organizational and management skills, as well as, extensive financial analysis
expertise.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Billing & Collections, NeuStar, Inc. (2000-Present)
	 	 	CXCVIII.Responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of all invoices, as well as, cash applications for all lines of businesses at NeuStar.
	

 	
 	

CXCIX.Responsible for cash management support, billing system implementation and revenue to A/R cycle reconciliation.
	

 	
 	

Controller, Program Control Operations, Spacenet, Inc. (1998-2000)
	 	 	CC.Directed accounting staff of 10 in Program Control Operations including billing and collections, capital lease accounting and program profitability analysis.
	

 	
 	

CCI.Provided support for cash management, risk management and budget functions.
	

 	
 	

CCII.Improved accuracy and timeliness of invoices, as a result of SAP invoicing and Order-To-Cash processes.
	

 	
 	

CCIII.Reconciled revenue to A/R cycle and coordinated internal and external audits.
	

 	
 	

Manager, Financial Analysis & Contract Revenue, GE Capital Spacenet Services, Inc. (1994-1998)
	 	 	CCIV.Managed a group of six billing and collections accountants.
	 	 	 

A-31

 

	

 	
 	

CCV.Ensured accuracy of monthly customer invoices and provided high quality customer service for key accounts including MCI/USPS, Hollywood Video, Shell Oil, Rite Aid, JC Penney, and Kmart.
	

 	
 	

CCVI.Monitored A/R effectively and pursued aggressive collections on aged receivables.
	

 	
 	

CCVII.Automated and streamlined billing processes (annual labor savings-2000 hours).
	

 	
 	

CCVIII.Coordinated systems integration of the new subsidiaries that included 24% international and domestic travel (completed Germany's systems integration in April 1997 and achieved a Recognition of Excellence award).
	

 	
 	

Senior Cost Accountant, GTE Spacenet Corporation (1989-1994)
	 	 	CCIX.Performed profitability analysis for both domestic and international contracts.
	

 	
 	

CCX.Evaluated risk of carrying inventory to forecast and developed a new cost-of-goods sold recognition process by enhancing our inventory system to provide accurate equipment cost (cost accuracy-100%).
	

 	
 	

CCXI.Approved domestic A/P invoices and improved A/P processes to alleviate possible duplication of payments to vendors (1996 savings-$200 thousand).
	

 	
 	

CCXII.Audited and reconciled various physical inventories including our Manassas warehouse, which consisted of equipment in excess of $30 million and ensured existence of tight inventory controls.
	

 	
 	

CCXIII.Coordinated the development of a new enhanced fixed asset system (annual labor savings-500 hours).
	

 	
 	

Branch Manager/Assistant Vice President, Trustbank Savings & Loan Association (1983-1989)
	 	 	CCXIV.Increased growth of accounts and deposits by 15% on an annual basis by cross-selling new accounts and developing clientele through telemarketing, mail contacts and Chamber of Commerce.
	

 	
 	

CCXV.Supervised the operations of a full service branch and ensured compliance with regulatory policies.
	

 	
 	

CCXVI.Recruited, motivated, trained and supervised staff of 20 employees.
	

Education	
 	

Certified Public Accountant, 1997
	

 	
 	

MBA, Finance, George Mason University
	

 	
 	

BBA, Accounting, Marymount University
	 	 	 

A-32

 

	

 	
 	
Peggy Wenneman, Information Technology and Services
	

Qualifications	
 	

More that 18 years of management experience in information technology for the Internet, IT and telecommunications industries. Her expertise includes managing global operations for a multi-nations telecommunications company; supporting multiple call
centers; managing and supporting large data centers; and customer and data center migrations. Accomplishments include managing and staffing network and infrastructure development and support organizations; meeting and exceeding Service Level
Requirements (SLRs) for availability in order provisioning environments; and working with IXCs and LECs to automate electronic information exchange to support service provisioning.
	

Experience	
 	

Director, Information Technology and Services, NeuStar, Inc. (2001-Present)
	 	 	CCXVII.Manages the technical operations group and the network support group in a 7x24 real-time mission critical production environment.
	

 	
 	

CCXVIII.Responsible for supporting, monitoring, testing and troubleshooting hardware and software problems.
	

 	
 	

CCXIX.Manages all Tier 2 support for all LAN/WAN based applications.
	

 	
 	

CCXX.Participates in database architecture strategy development, database design and engineering, and reliability and performance enhancements.
	

 	
 	

Vice President, Global Standards, Cable & Wireless Global (2000-2001)
	 	 	CCXXI.Created a multi-cultural organization to establish standards across 15 business units spanning the United States, Europe, and Japan.
	

 	
 	

CCXXII.Directed organization to define, communicate, integrate and enforce standards globally.
	

 	
 	

CCXXIII.Participated on Executive eGO Board (e Buisness initiatives) and Global Information Management Steering Board.
	

 	
 	

CCXXIV.Saved over $2M in operating costs within first five months
	

 	
 	

CCXXV.Developed fast-path (1-4 week) business process to select standard technology utilizing key stakeholder participation, and supporting 90-day product launch life cycle.
	

 	
 	

CCXXVI.Implemented Web-based knowledge management system reducing e-mail congestion and dependency on subject-matter experts.
	

 	
 	

CCXXVII.Improved knowledge transfer and project startup efficiency.
	

 	
 	

CCXXVIII.Initiated development of enterprise interface architecture enabling faster product launch.
	

 	
 	

Senior Director, Internet IT (1998-2000)
	 	 	CCXXIX.Directed all activities to support C&W Internet network and IT systems, including migration of Internet network and customer base to C&W purchased from MCI, customization and support of Internet Operational
Support Systems, support of multiple customer call centers, and transition of Internet customer base upon sale to Prodigy.
	

 	
 	

CCXXX.Enabled C&W to launch first Internet business by migrating consumer base of 350,000+ dial customers within a four-month window.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXI.Migrated live network with no customer down time.
	 	 	 

A-33

 

	

 	
 	

CCXXXII.Implemented Customer Care, Order Entry, Security, Provisioning, and Financial systems within four months for Internet dial business.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXIII.Reduced operating cost structure from $350,000 per month to $90,000 within six months.
	

 	
 	

Senior Director, IT Systems (1996-1998)
	 	 	CCXXXIV.Directed all IT development and maintenance activities for Sales, Marketing, Commissions, and Network Provisioning systems with a staff of up to 100 employees.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXV.Implemented flow-through Circuit Order through Circuit Completion system and established automation agreements with 28 LECs, to fully automate electronic information exchange.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXVI.Improved Service Delivery intervals by 10 to 12 days by identifying and implementing performance enhancements to the Switched Network Provisioning system.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXVII.Provided 99.95% system availability of Circuit Order Provisioning, up from less than 80%, in six months during a 400% circuit transaction increase.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXVIII.Provided C&W with positive ROI within three months through consolidation of five legacy systems into a single Network Trouble Management system.
	

 	
 	

CCXXXIX.Developed a Consolidated Commissions System that enabled flexible changes to compensation plans and delivered company's first on time compensation program.
	

 	
 	

Senior Manager, IT, MCI (1983-1996)
	 	 	CCXL.Managed all life-cycle system development and implementation activities and utilized "bleeding-edge" technologies.
	

 	
 	

CCXLI.Managed development and delivery of client-server rate quotation system.
	

 	
 	

CCXLII.Enabled product launch (1-800-COLLECT) within eight-week period.
	

 	
 	

CCXLIII.Implemented first production DB2 application within Baltimore/Washington region in 1987; supported traffic alarming system that ran 24x7; and received 1987 Achievement & Commitment to Excellence (ACE) Award.
	

 	
 	

CCXLIV.Managed software migration of all mainframe software across four data centers, supporting over 200 application groups; received Flexible Flier Award (Manager of Year) 1986.
	

 	
 	

CCXLV.Managed the migration of two data centers over a weekend, including all operational systems and data; closed one data center; and realized significant reduction in operating costs.
	

 	
 	

CCXLVI.Implemented various technical improvements to Accounts Receivable System which reduced batch processing from 48 hours to 8 hours, while increasing volume of throughput by 250%.
	

Education	
 	

MBA, George Mason University
	

 	
 	

International Economy, Technology & Industry studies, Oxford University
	

 	
 	

Beta Gamma Sigma National Honor Society
	

 	
 	

Board Member and Secretary of George Mason Alumni, 1997-1998

A-34

 

B.    Contractor Requirements  

        NeuStar will execute our vision for the usTLD by significantly increasing and maintaining the utility and integrity of the space. We will
meet the objectives laid out in the Statement of Purpose through implementing our service and policy administration throughout the usTLD namespace.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar addresses the needs of every customer of the usTLD registry.

	•
	Our role as the successful administrator of U.S.-based, mission-critical public resources affords us a unique understanding of the needs that such an
administrator must fill.

        The
usTLD administrator must be more than just a registry operator. Because of the complexity of the usTLD space, its administrator must act as a registry, a registrar for undelegated
third-level localities, and a service and policy administrator. To perform all of these functions, there must also be an understanding of the many kinds of customers being served. To successfully
administrate the usTLD registry, there must be a demonstrated understanding of the needs of registrars, registrants, and delegated managers, including both delegees and subdelegees in the locality
space, as well as of the stated needs of the DOC. The policy and service solutions described in this section were developed with these needs in mind. 

        The
DOC has established a clear need for the provisioning of high-quality core functions and locality-based and expanded functions, as well as the implementation of and
adherence to usTLD policies. Our provisioning of these services works to meet the objectives laid out in Sections B.1 through B.5 of the RFQ. 

        In
accordance with RFQ requirements, NeuStar will perform the functions of usTLD administrator as a prime contractor, incorporated within the state of Delaware. NeuStar's corporate
offices are in Washington, D.C., and all of our usTLD registry servers will be located within the United States. NeuStar will not charge the U.S. Government for performance of these functions. 

        Executing
our vision through serving as the usTLD administrator, we will offer the best value for the most accurate, up-to-date, and available registry services. 

        Our
policy and service solutions are highlighted below and in Sections B.1 through B.5 of this proposal. 

        Statement of Purpose—NeuStar's solution will support competition and promote use of the usTLD, by encouraging communication,
ensuring equitable application of policies and procedures, and cultivating an environment conducive to innovation. We will ensure the stability of the DNS and inspire consumer confidence with a
secure, robust, and reliable technical infrastructure. 

        Core Registry Functions—NeuStar will provide a comprehensive suite of core registry functions that take into account the needs
of all of our customers—delegated managers, registrars, and registrants. We will leverage our Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced SRS, and implement automated registration processes,
updates, and zone file generation, to provide accurate, up-to-date information on demand. 

        Core Policy Requirements—NeuStar's policies and processes will be designed for collaborative partnerships between the usTLD
administrator and the usTLD community. As the trustee of a valuable public resource, we will develop our policies to ensure that our operations serve the public interest. 

        Locality-Based usTLD Structure Functions—NeuStar will modernize the usTLD locality space by working with delegated managers to
centralize all data currently managed by locality delegees and subdelegees. Our collaborative approach to modernizing this space will ensure that the needs of both delegated managers and registrants
are met. 

B-1

 

        Expanded usTLD Space Functions—NeuStar's expanded usTLD registry will promote registrar competition and encourage
registrations in the usTLD namespace. We will work closely with registrars in both our accreditation and certification processes. 

        NeuStar's
role in communications industries, part of our very identity, has been as an administrator of U.S.-based, mission-critical public resources. We understand the difference
between acting simply as a registry operator and acting as an administrator. Our goal is to serve every
customer—registrars, delegated managers, registrants, and the DOC itself—to provide to those customers with the best value, highest quality registry possible. 

B-2

   B.1    Statement of Purpose  

        NeuStar's solution for managing the usTLD namespace amply meets the objectives defined by the DOC and will both enhance its utility and
drive its widespread adoption.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar's administration will encourage communication, ensure equitable application of policies and procedures, and cultivate an environment
conducive to innovation

	•
	Our technical infrastructure will provide a secure, robust, reliable system that will ensure the stability of the DNS and inspire consumer
confidence

	•
	NeuStar's solution will encourage robust competition and promote the use of the usTLD

        The
usTLD was created to provide a locus for registration of domain names to serve the Internet community of the United States, and is available to a wide range of registrants. However,
it has not attracted high levels of registration and utilization when compared with other ccTLDs in part because of its hierarchical nature. Because the usTLD has been underutilized and
underdeveloped, the DOC now seeks proposals to centralize management and coordination of the existing usTLD space while expanding and enhancing it to encourage use and innovation. NeuStar's solution,
discussed below and in the subsections to follow, has been carefully designed to meet all the DOC's objectives for the space. 

NeuStar will develop a more robust, certain, and reliable system as a framework of accountability for the delegation and the administration of the usTLD.  

        NeuStar believes that the importance of expanding the scope and quality of core registry functions for the usTLD cannot be stressed enough and that the expanded
usTLD services should follow, in large part, the registry/registrar model that has become commonplace in the industry. Not only will this approach allow the development of a feature rich domain space,
it also will establish a level of consumer familiarity that will help ensure a successful roll-out of an enhanced usTLD. Therefore, the administrator must develop a robust shared registry
system (SRS) comparable to those being built for the new generic TLDs that have been established by ICANN. 

        The
development of a secure, functional and robust SRS is not a trivial task. In developing such an SRS, NeuStar believes that a number of key elements must be implemented to handle
delegation based TLD registration. In particular, Whois functionality should be centralized in the registry operator following the "thick registry" model. A "thick registry" centralizes registration
data with the TLD registry, rather than placing most of the storage burden on each registrar (or delegee). This centralization increases security, functionality, and stability. NeuStar submits that
existing usTLD delegation operators should be required to transition to a "thick registry" model. Other important aspects of a robust, trusted infrastructure will include: 

	•
	Geographically
diverse, redundant data centers with a high level of physical security and appropriate environmental conditions

	•
	Equal
network access for registrars

	•
	Open
source advanced system interface for registrars

	•
	Enhanced
security for the registrars and the information that is transmitted to the provider

	•
	Enhanced
privacy protections for registrant data

	•
	Enhanced
functionality for both delegations and direct registrations 

        For
example, currently the usTLD does not provide a comprehensive Whois service. This has a serious, negative impact on resolving some network operations problems. NeuStar will address
this and 

B.1-1

 

other
issues in the required compliance report on the usTLD space and will implement such a service with enhanced privacy protections. 

        Please
see Proposal Sections B.3, Core Policy Requirements and O, Proposed Technical Plan, for more detailed information. 

NeuStar will promote increased use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States by:  

	•
	Creating
a stable, flexible, and balanced environment within the usTLD that is conducive to innovation and will meet the future demands of potential registrants.

	•
	Promoting
robust competition within the usTLD, and in particular, registration services that will lead to greater choice, new, and better services for users. 

        NeuStar's
mission is to enhance the operation and utilization of the usTLD by bringing to bear the strengths and innovation of the next generation registry systems currently being
deployed in the generic TLD space. As the usTLD Administrator, NeuStar will work with the Internet Community, the DOC, and ICANN to expand significantly the use and value of the current usTLD space by
permitting direct registration of non-hierarchical names while centralizing and coordinating the management of the current usTLD delegations. This community-based, expanded approach will
allow NeuStar to develop effective policies and procedures to ensure that current uses of the usTLD not only are protected and enhanced but also that this important public resource is managed in a
manner designed to serve the public interest. To accomplish this goal, NeuStar proposes to analyze concerns
with existing usTLD delegations as contemplated by the RFQ. NeuStar will then develop policies and procedures to ensure maximum utility of the existing delegations and registrations. 

        The
complexity of the usTLD hierarchical namespace may discourage some Internet users from registering a name under the TLD. NeuStar, therefore, supports the expansion of the usTLD to
allow direct second-level registrations and potentially new, concept-based hierarchies targeted to specific communities or for specific purposes. Moreover, NeuStar believes that by developing
additional services to enhance the utility of the usTLD for its registrants, the usTLD's popularity and utility can be made to rival the existing generic TLDs. 

        In
developing services, NeuStar's approach will be to work collaboratively with registrars and end users. Registrars and domain name registrants be encouraged to provide constant
feedback and will have access to discussion lists and feedback forms. This feedback will be compiled and carefully considered in determining the ongoing development of the registry's systems,
procedures, and services. 

        By
improving the level of service and degree of coordination of the existing delegated space, NeuStar believes that there will be increased use of that space. For many functions, there
is an inherent value in the kind of geographic categorization developed in RFC 1480. Administered properly, the delegated space in the usTLD could become as valuable and highly used as the expanded
space is assumed to be. 

        Please
see Proposal Section B.4, Locality-Based usTLD Structure Functions; Section D, Enhanced Services; and Section L, Funding for usTLD for more detailed
information. 

NeuStar will create a centrally administered and efficiently managed structure that ensures registrant/consumer confidence as well as infrastructure stability.  

        NeuStar expects to tighten significantly the operation of the delegated usTLD space. It will achieve this as discussed above, by centralizing administration and
operation of the usTLD, except where decentralization is required. For all delegees there will be operational and technical standards. The centralized service will be offered for those delegees
primarily interested in addressing the "policy" function of the delegation. In addition, the usTLD will follow the "thick registry" model for the 

B.1-2

 

enhanced
space, whereby primary registrant data are kept with the registry, rather than the registrar. These measures will increase dramatically the usTLD Administrator's ability to ensure that the
promise of the usTLD is realized. 

        Please
see Proposal Sections B.2, Core Registry Functions and F, usTLD Centralized Database and Enhanced SRS, for more detailed information. 

NeuStar's solution will ensure continued stability of the usTLD and of the domain name system as a whole.  

        Citizens, businesses, consumers, and even governments depend on the Internet for communication and commerce. Key to this dependence is the domain name system
(DNS). The Internet community simply cannot afford a DNS that shows any type of unreliability. An unstable DNS has disastrous effects. It prevents communication among many thousands of organizations,
hinders trade between businesses and customers, and prohibits individuals from communicating with each other or contacting their government. NeuStar is acutely aware of the immense responsibility
attached to the administration of such a significant public resource and will undertake all measures required to ensure its success, reliability, and security. NeuStar will utilize existing DNS
infrastructure developed for the dot-biz TLD to ensure the enhanced operation and stability of the usTLD. We will do so in several ways: 

        By providing a stable and secure zone file distribution network—NeuStar's usTLD registry will not impact operation of the
existing DNS root. Publication and distribution of usTLD zone files will be entirely compatible with existing DNS standards and procedures. Our zone file distribution network will operate in parallel
with the existing root server network and will employ accepted, modern, strong, encryption-based procedures. The root servers for the network will be protected by special software and hardware
mechanisms. NeuStar's system will be developed and tested to scale seamlessly into the future for TLD name service. 

        By preserving the unique global domain name system—The NeuStar design has been developed on the principle of maintaining
consistency and interoperability through existing standards such as RFC 1034, RFC 1123, RFC 1480, and their successors. In addition, NeuStar is committed to working closely with the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and other relevant organizations to ensure the stable evolution of the domain name service technologies. NeuStar is supportive of implementing policy restrictions where
necessary to protect important Internet and ICANN policies and, thus, is committed to the administration of the usTLD in a manner that preserves the current system's strengths and acknowledges it as a
critical public resource. 

        By acting in accordance with sound business practices and operational management—NeuStar is founded on principles of strong
management, a tight user-oriented focus, and a clear vision. Market analysis and an understanding of the usTLD community is at all times the driver for NeuStar solutions. The NeuStar
executive team brings an abundance of experience in designing, implementing, and maintaining technology-based services especially in an Internet environment. 

        The
NeuStar usTLD registry solution will provide exceptional services. We are acutely conscious that support for domain names extends far beyond the initial registration or delegation
for the entire life of the domain name. By providing effective, long term operational solutions, the domain space will thrive ensuring its own stability and encouraging the improvement of service
levels within existing domain spaces. 

        By providing dedicated and responsive channel management—The NeuStar usTLD registry will deliver its solutions in the enhanced
space via the registrar community. In this context, NeuStar understands the importance of providing an absolutely neutral third party registry service to facilitate the advancement of effective
relationships in an extremely competitive environment. In this way, customer needs will drive the registry. 

B.1-3

 

        By developing an enhanced, community-based mechanism for maintaining and developing the existing usTLD space—The existing
usTLD space has suffered from a lack of coordination and technical innovation since its inception. NeuStar will develop a strong community-based mechanism for managing existing delegations. Steps to
improve the space will include analysis of delegee compliance with usTLD policies, quality of service improvement, establishment of a comprehensive centralized Whois service, development of minimum
technical standards, and provision of outsourced technical services for delegees. These and other measures will ensure the continued viability and improvement of existing usTLD services. 

        Please
see Proposal Section A, usTLD Organiztion; Section B.2, Core Registry Functions; Section B.3, Core Policy Requirements; Section F, usTLD Centralized
Database and Enhanced SRS; and Section O, Proposed Technical Plan for more detailed information. 

NeuStar's management of the usTLD will be consistent with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number's (ICANN) technical management of the DNS.  

        Since the DOC, through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), issued the statement of policy on the management of Internet names
and addresses, the Internet community has expended significant effort in the development of policies and mechanisms for the governance of the Internet DNS, as well as enhancement of existing TLDs and
the introduction of new TLDs. These efforts have resulted in development of a workable shared registry model that encourages competition and Internet stability, as well as protects the rights of
individual Internet users. NeuStar has, where appropriate, modeled its solutions to be entirely consistent with ICANN policies and DNS management principles. 

        Please
see Proposal Sections F, usTLD Centralized Database and Enhanced SRS, and O, Proposed Technical Plan, for more detailed information. 

NeuStar will allow for the adequate protection of intellectual property in the usTLD.  

        NeuStar recognizes and supports the need for appropriate protection of intellectual property. NeuStar will implement a "sunrise" trademark program patterned after
the "daybreak" proposal of the ICANN Intellectual Property Constituency. This program will allow registered US trademark holders and applicants a priority opportunity to register their marks within
the usTLD. NeuStar also will implement appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms designed specifically for the usTLD but consistent and compatible with the ICANN Universal Dispute Resolution Policy
(UDRP). Finally, NeuStar will explore additional policy and mechanisms as needed to address all manners of intellectual property issues in the usTLD. 

        Please
see Proposal Sections B.3, Core Policy Requirements and I, Start-up Phase Policies, for more detailed information. 

NeuStar will establish and maintain consistent communication between the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR), the Contracting Officer, and ICANN.  

        As part of its role as a neutral provider of mission critical infrastructure and services for important public resources, NeuStar has a history of coordinating
and working with numerous agencies and industry participants in performing its functions. For example, as the NANPA, NeuStar works with the FCC, the North American Numbering Council, and industry
forums as well as with individual telecommunications carriers. NeuStar has been highly successful in these endeavors and will bring these same communications abilities to the management of the usTLD.
In particular, NeuStar will identify dedicated liaison officers with the organization to ensure consistent communication between it and the Contracting Officer, the COTR, and ICANN. Moreover, NeuStar
will develop outreach programs for 

B.1-4

 

the
usTLD community including registrants and delegees, to ensure that the developing TLD meets the needs of its users. 

        Please
see Proposal Sections B.2.7, Industry Representation/Compliance, and B.3.5, Additional, Alternative, or Supplemental Policies, for more detailed information. 

        NeuStar's
solutions will address each of the DOC concerns. Indeed, because NeuStar's experience in the provision of mission critical public interest functions to US industry is
unmatched, the proposed solution significantly exceeds these requirements and will result in a usTLD that will serve as the model for the ccTLD community. 

B.1-5

 

B.2    Core Registry Functions  

        NeuStar's proven experience in delivering high-quality public resource administration services will ensure that registrars,
delegated managers, and registrants receive a total service package delivered in a neutral, even-handed manner.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar's total service package will contribute our vision of turning the usTLD into the model of a country code top-level
domain.

	•
	Additional services are designed to serve all of the registry's customers, including registrars, delegated managers, and
registrants.

	•
	We will provide a comprehensive suite of Core Registry Functions, leveraging our Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced SRS.

        Any
administrator of the usTLD must understand the complexity of functions and services that need to be offered. In addition to understanding the needs of registrars and their
registrants, this administrator must also appreciate the needs of delegated managers and registrants in the hierarchical locality space, whether they register through the registry or through a
delegated manager. The ability to administer a system with three distinct types of end-users, all with their own needs and issues, requires support services that can respond to all of
these needs. 

        As
depicted in Exhibit B.2-1, usTLD registry services, zone file generation, and Whois services are the central components of our registry service offering. These
components on their own make up a simple registry; however, there are equally important support functions that make up a truly successful usTLD registry. Our total service package, highlighted below
and in Sections B.2.1 through B.2.16, includes all of the requirements listed in RFQ Section B.2 as well as the additional services and functions that we believe are necessary to serve all of
our customers and to turn the usTLD registry into the model country-code top-level domain. As required, NeuStar will provide all systems, software, hardware, facilities,
infrastructure, and operations to support these functions. 

        usTLD Nameserver and usTLD Zone File Administration—NeuStar's usTLD architecture is designed to be flexible, scalable and
high-available to virtually eliminate downtime while providing for smooth growth. Redundant data centers in Virginia and Illinois ensure high service availability, while dynamic,
near-real-time transfers of zone file data provides up-to-date, authoritative responses from the usTLD nameserver constellation. 

        Whois Database Administration—NeuStar will centralize the usTLD Whois database in both the expanded
space and the locality space by developing and implementing two accurate and up-to-date, logical databases, one for registrants and registrars, and one for delegated managers.
NeuStar's Web-based and port 43 interfaces to this enhanced Whois database will allow multiple field and string searches, freely available to the public. 

        usTLD Delegated Manager Database Administration—NeuStar will reach out to all delegated managers in the locality space in
order to develop and implement a centralized database of delegated managers. This centralized information will serve registrants in the locality space while enabling us to contact those managers
quickly to resolve issues effectively. 

        [Exhibit B-2.1.
NeuStar will provide usTLD services with the best value and highest degree of quality and responsiveness. Graphic Omitted: highlight of
various categories of usTLD services.] 

        Data Escrow—NeuStar will arrange frequently for data escrow of the usTLD registry, to maintain continued operations and
availability in the unlikely case of a catastrophic loss of data. 

B.2-1

 

        Industry Representation/Compliance—NeuStar's involvement with Internet standards and policy organizations will contribute to
our operation of the usTLD as the model for a country code top-level domain. 

        Integration Assistance—NeuStar will implement an operational test-and-evaluation facility and provide
registrars with Registrar Tool Kit software in order to familiarize them with our thick registry and assist them in passing our technical certification process. 

        Compliance Monitoring—NeuStar will monitor delegated managers for technical compliance, not only as part of our initial
compliance investigation and report, but also throughout the life of their delegations. This will ensure that NeuStar's database remains up to date, that delegated managers remain compliant with usTLD
technical requirements, and that the usTLD retains a U.S. Nexus. This compliance monitoring will maintain the improved integrity of the usTLD. 

        Web Site—NeuStar will develop and implement a usTLD Web site for the Internet community as well as for private members,
including delegated managers and registrars. This Web site will provide access to registry functions, information to the Internet community, and the ability to register domain names in the undelegated
locality space. 

        Documentation and Training—At NeuStar, we believe that clear, concise documentation and training for our staff and our
customers is essential to provide the best service to those customers. NeuStar's external documentation, from our Programmer's Guide to our information on marketing the usTLD, are intended to give our
customers the highest level of comfort when working with the usTLD registry. 

        Customer Relationship Management—NeuStar's enterprise-wide CRM program assists with channel management and
outreach for the usTLD. We use CRM in combination with our extensive market and customer knowledge to ensure that we meet our commitment to timely, responsive, and high-quality customer
service. 

        Reporting—NeuStar's Web-based reporting system will have built-in functionality to provide reporting
information to registrars on all aspects of their interaction with the registry. 

        Progress and Quarterly Reporting—As required, NeuStar will submit progress reports to the DOC that
will indicate the status of all major events and all major work performed during the reporting period. 

        Help Desk—NeuStar will provide Help Desk services through our IP Customer Service Center, and will provide assistance to
registrars, delegated managers, and registrants in the undelegated locality space. 

        NeuStar's
experience in providing mission-critical services to the telecommunications industry has given us an understanding of what functions constitute the best service packages. The
functions and services outlined in this section represent what NeuStar has come to believe are essential for a total package solution, and our flexibility will allow us to incorporate additional
services as changes in the industry require them. A registry is more than servers and databases; it must serve its customers not just as a set of servers, but also as an administrator providing
services to support those customers. 

B.2.1    Primary usTLD Server  

        The essential core function of the usTLD Registry is providing authoritative name service for its domains.

        Failure
of a usTLD administrator to provide a reliable, secure, and robust nameserver function represents a fatal flaw in its system and ensures an unsuccessful administration of the
usTLD. NeuStar will implement a nameserver architecture that is highly superior to the traditional architecture that likely will be adopted by other bidders. 

B.2-2

 

        The
traditional implementation begins with one nameserver acting as the primary ("master") for zone data, which would then be transferred to secondary ("slave") servers. Located in
physically separate locations, these multiple authoritative servers provide robust and reliable responses to DNS queries. 

        The
primary nameserver holds the most current authoritative data for its zone. Secondary nameservers are also authoritative, but their data must be brought up to date by zone data
transfers from the primary nameserver. The same requirement for at least two authoritative servers, one primary nameserver along with one or more secondary nameservers, applies to all registrants
seeking to provide name service for their delegated domains. 

        NeuStar's
architecture and dynamic services exceed the capabilities of the traditional approach. Our proposed technical solution provides two co-active data centers in
Virginia and Illinois plus one nameserver data center in California—each of which is independently capable of processing the full data center workload. Multiple nameserver sites dispersed
across the United States protect against natural or man-made disasters. Moreover, the architecture scales to support future growth of the usTLD. 

        Essentially,
each NeuStar nameserver for the usTLD is a primary, authoritative nameserver. With near-real-time updates of zone data being handled by NeuStar's
redundant, high-availability database servers, each usTLD nameserver is targeted to its primary function—providing authoritative responses to DNS queries of the usTLD. 

        Registry
data are replicated on redundant, high-availability database servers at the data centers. Zone data are dynamically updated from these databases and propagated to
all the nameservers. Zone file data on the nameservers are updated in near real time. This timely distribution of updates is a significant improvement over the traditional implementation of zone data
deployment. 

        The
benefit to the United States and the Internet community of NeuStar's enhanced approach is a solid architecture with dynamic services designed to maintain maximum stability of the
usTLD and the Internet and promote user confidence. 

        The
following sections describe the operation and maintenance of authoritative nameservers for the us TLD. NeuStar's Technical Plan is described in detail in Section O of this
document. 

B.2.1.1    NeuStar's Multiple Primary Nameservers  

        A nameserver handles resolution of usTLD domain names to their associated nameserver names and to the IP addresses of those nameservers. NeuStar's nameservers
will be dynamically updated from NeuStar's usTLD Zone Update Database over secure VPN links. 

        Each
of NeuStar's nameservers for the usTLD is a primary, authoritative nameserver because each one acquires the same authoritative zone data, in near-real-time,
directly from the authoritative database of usTLD registry data. This implementation provides high availability and scalability, along with significant operational benefits compared with the more
traditional approach based on primary and secondary nameservers. 

B.2.1.2    General Description of Proposed Facilities and Systems  

        NeuStar submits that its redundant, high-availability architectures, including redundant facility implementation, high-availability
cluster server architectures, redundant high-availability database technology, and redundant alternate routed network connectivity, provide significant support for mission-critical service
availability. The Internet community must be able to depend on the Internet as a stable, highly available infrastructure for worldwide collaboration and commerce. 

B.2-3

 

B.2.1.2.1    Facilities Sites and Availability  

        NeuStar's architecture, consisting of redundant data centers and multiple nameserver sites, provides a seamless, responsive, and reliable registry service. Our
data center sites are geographically dispersed and interconnected with Virtual Private Network (VPN) capability to provide access to countrywide coverage and protect against natural and
man-made disasters and other contingencies. The facility locations are provided in the following table: 

Facility Site Locations  

	Data Center Sites
 
	 	Site Location

	NeuStar Data Center and Nameserver Site	 	Illinois
	

NeuStar Data Center and Nameserver Site	
 	

Virginia
	

Third Nameserver Site	
 	

California

        NeuStar's
proposed usTLD Registry Service Level Agreement (SLA) provides service levels commensurate with mission-critical services for availability, outages, response time, and disaster
recovery. Highlights of the SLA include: 

	•
	Registry
Service Availability at 99.9%, with a design goal of 99.99% per year, and

	•
	Nameserver
Service Availability at 99.999%. 

B.2.1.2.2    Data Center Functional Description  

        High-availability registry services can be provided only from facilities that have been designed and built specifically for such a critical operation.
NeuStar's data centers incorporate redundant uninterruptible power supplies; high-capacity ventilation and climate control; fire suppression; physical security; information system
security; firewalls with intrusion detection; redundant, high-availability cluster technology; and redundant network and telecommunications architectures. When selecting the sites, we also
considered their inherent resistance to natural and man-made disasters. The functional block diagram of our enhanced SRS data center is depicted in
Exhibit B.2-2. As can be seen from the referenced exhibit, the data center is highly redundant and designed to eliminate any single
point of failure. 

        Each
data center facility provides the functions listed in the system function table below: 

Data Center System Functions  

	Web Server	 	Delegee Distribution Database	 	Systems/Network Management Console
	

Protocol (XRP) Servers	
 	

Delegee Distribution Clusters	
 	

Applications Administration Workstations
	

Application Servers	
 	

Delegee Servers	
 	

Building LAN
	

Central usTLD Database Servers	
 	

Zone Distribution Database	
 	

Firewall
	

Whois Distribution Database	
 	

Billing and Collection	
 	

Load Balancers
	

Whois Database Clusters	
 	

Authentication Services	
 	

Telecommunications Access
	

Whois Servers	
 	

Backup Server	
 	

Central Help Desk

B.2-4

   
        [Exhibit B.2-2: Redundant network connectivity, high availability clusters, redundant, and replication to a second data center provide 99.9% availability
and scalability. Graphic Omitted: diagram of Enhanced SRS Data Center architecture.] 

B.2.1.2.3    Nameserver Site Functional Description  

        NeuStar's usTLD nameservers will be colocated with the data center sites described above, with an additional nameserver in California, and their architectures are
consistent with NeuStar's redundant, high-availability approach. Additional nameserver sites will be added as demand warrants. 

        The
functional block diagram of NeuStar's nameserver sites is depicted in Exhibit B.2-3. As can be seen from the exhibit, the nameserver sites are configured to be
remotely managed and operated "lights out." The hardware configuration is highly redundant and designed to eliminate any single point of failure. 

        [Exhibit B.2-3:
Redundant network components and high availability nameserver cluster provide scalable high availability. Graphic Omitted: diagram of
Nameserver Data Center architecture.] 

        The
following function table lists the nameserver functions. 

 Nameserver System Functions  

	Zone Update Database	 	Firewall
	

Nameserver	
 	

Load Balancers
	

Building LAN	
 	

Telecommunications Access

B.2.1.2.4    Building Environment and Security Description  

        Each NeuStar data center facility is located in a modern, fire-resistant building that offers inherent structural protection from such natural and
man-made disasters as hurricanes, earthquakes, and civil disorder. Sites are not located within a 100-year flood plain. Facilities are protected by a public fire department and
have their internal fire-detection systems connected directly to the fire department. Data centers are protected from fire by the sprinkler systems of the buildings that house them.
Furthermore, each equipment room is protected by a pre-action fire-suppression system that uses Inergen gas as an extinguishing agent. 

        Provisions
have been made for the following environmental factors: 

 Environmental Factors  

	Ventilation and climate control	 	Primary electrical power
	

Lighting	
 	

Backup power supply
	

Control of static electricity	
 	

Grounding

        In
addition to providing physical security by protecting buildings with security guards, closed-circuit TV video surveillance cameras, and intrusion detection systems, NeuStar vigilantly
controls physical access to our facilities. Employees must present badges to gain entrance and must wear their badges at all times while in the facility. Visitors must sign in to gain entrance, must
display their badges, and must be escorted by a NeuStar employee. 

        On-site
security personnel are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to monitor the images from closed-circuit television cameras placed strategically
throughout the facilities. Security personnel are 

B.2-5

 

stationed
at building access points throughout normal working hours; at all other times, individuals must use the proper key cards to gain access to the buildings. Further, access to rooms housing
sensitive data or equipment is additionally secured with palm-print readers. Senior facility managers establish the rights of employees to access individual rooms, and the palm readers
compile and record access logs. 

B.2.1.3    Description of System Functions  

        This section provides descriptions of systems functions at NeuStar data center and nameserver Sites that underlie the fundamental operations of the usTLD primary
nameserver(s). Key features of these sites include the following: 

	•
	Co-active
redundant data centers are geographically dispersed to provide mission-critical service availability due to two-way database replication
between the centers.

	•
	Nameserver
sites are designed with full redundancy, automatic load distribution, and remote management for "lights out" operation.

	•
	A
VPN provides a reliable, secure management network and dual-homed connectivity between the data centers and the nameserver sites.

	•
	Each
SRS data center and nameserver site uses high-availability cluster technology for flexibility, scalability, and high reliability.

	•
	Registry
systems are sized to handle the projected workload and can grow incrementally to accommodate workload beyond those levels.

	•
	The
registry database uses redundant, high-availability server architecture and is designed for fully redundant operations with synchronous replication between
the primary and secondary nameservers. 

B.2.1.3.1    Server Platforms  

        NeuStar is proposing cluster server platforms for installation at each site. The servers are selected for applications depending on the requirements, storage
capacity, throughput, interoperability, availability, and level of security. These server platform characteristics are summarized as follows: 

	•
	Nameserver
clusters and zone update servers are implemented with moderate-level Intel server clusters that include the following features:

 Rack-mounted
Intel 700-Mhz, 32-bit, 2- to
6-way SMP CPUs with 8 GB of ECC memory; CD-ROM; four hot-swap disk drives (9-36 MB each); redundant hot swappable power supplies; dual attach 100 BaseT
Ethernet Adapter; clustering and event management software for remote management; Red Hat Linux 6.1; and controlled access protection security. 

	•
	The
redundant, high-availability servers for the Registry's database are implemented on high-end RISC server clusters with the following
features:

 RISC
550-MHz CPU; 64-bit 2- to 32-way cross-bar SMP with 8x8 non-blocking multi-ported crossbar; 32 GB ECC RAM; 240 MB/sec
channel bandwidth; 288 GB Internal mass storage; 50 TB external RAID storage; redundant hot swappable power supplies; dual attach 1,000 BaseTX/FX Ethernet adapter; clustering and event management
software for remote management; and a Unix 64-bit operating system with controlled access protection security. 

B.2-6

 

B.2.1.3.2    Data Center Systems  

        The data centers provide co-active fully redundant system configurations with two-way replication over a high-speed VPN
network, a colocated complete nameserver, and dual-homed connectivity to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). 

        Complete
nameserver implementations for DNS queries are colocated in each data center site and at a stand-alone site in California. Their connectivity includes redundant ISP and VPN
local access links to provide alternate routed connectivity to Internet users and internal networks. Redundant Internet firewalls provide policy-based Internet Protocol (IP) filtering to protect our
internal building LAN from intruders and hackers. 

        The
redundant, high-availability database servers consist of two identical redundant, high-availability RISC systems that are designed for
high-volume, online transaction processing (OLTP) database applications. The database management software is based on a parallel database architecture with a redundant,
high-availability server option capable of maintaining 24 × 7 availability. The redundant, high-availability server supports
high-availability operations by implementing synchronous replication. The database enables transparent database failover without any changes to application code or the operating system.
Clients connecting to a replicated database are automatically and transparently
connected to the replicated pair of databases. The database replication feature enables maintaining geographically separated data services for multiple sites over a WAN to provide disaster recovery. 

B.2.1.3.3    Nameserver Description  

        Two nameserver sites are colocated at our data centers, with a third stand-alone site located in California. The nameservers are geographically dispersed with
dual-homed Internet and VPN local access telecommunications links to provide resilience and disaster recovery. Nameserver sites are configured to operate "lights out." The hardware
configuration is highly redundant, is designed to eliminate any single point of failure, and has exceptionally high throughput. Nameserver subsystem functions that are critical components for
operating a primary, authoritative nameserver include the following: 

	•
	Zone Update Database—The zone distribution database at the data center is propagated to the zone update database
using replication over the VPN. The zone update database is not hit when resolving DNS queries; instead, the nameservers update their in-memory database from the zone update database,
within defined service levels.

In
effect, nameservers are freed of the loading for handling zone transfers, just as the zone update functions are freed of the loading for handling DNS queries and responses. The capability to
insulate systems by separating processing loads is a key feature of NeuStar's systems architecture. 

	•
	Nameserver Cluster—The nameserver cluster handles resolution of TLD domain names to their associated nameserver
names and to the IP addresses of those nameservers. The resolution service can handle the expected load, and our load-balanced architecture allows additional servers to be added to any
nameserver cluster to allow on-demand scalability.

 The
nameserver cluster is based on a high-availability, rack-mounted, multiple computer cluster. A TCP/IP server load balancer switch with a dynamic feedback protocol is used
to distribute the load from Internet users to ensure that traffic is not routed to overutilized servers. 

	•
	Functions External to Nameservers—A major feature of NeuStar's implementation is the matching of functions to
platforms. Critical nameserver functions are implemented on nameserver systems. Related functions that are not specifically critical to nameserver 

B.2-7

 

DNS-query-response
operation are located on other platforms that are external to the nameserver platforms.

 

Whois
servers, for example, facilitate rapid response to Whois queries without putting any load on the nameservers and without any impact on name service functionality. As mentioned above, the
traditional functions of DNS query/response handling and zone transfer processing are also performed on separate platforms. 

B.2.1.3.4    Data Center Networking  

        Networking at the data centers provides both Internet connectivity and VPN capabilities. Nameserver and data center connectivity support fundamental operational
functions for name service and zone data. 

        Internet
connectivity is provided by multiple T-class local access telecommunications links at each of our data centers, enabling each to provide usTLD services independently
of the other. The bandwidth and capacity available are provisioned to handle current loads and expected growth for at least two years. 

        Connectivity
to each data center is via redundant routers, with load balancing that distributes the query load among the nameservers in that site's cluster, and with alternate routing to
provide resilience against cable faults and loss of local access telecommunications links. Telecommunications access links for VPN capabilities are dual homed and also use redundant routers and
alternate routing. 

        The
Nameserver site is connected to each data center via VPN, and the two data centers are connected by a pair of ATM links. The VPN capability provides secure networking for internal
exchange of registry data. Important operational functions supported by these networking capabilities include the following: 

	•
	Nameserver
database replication for updating zone data, and

	•
	Remote
administration and backup of the nameservers. 

B.2.1.3.5    Nameserver Software Platform  

        For the DNS software platform, NeuStar will deploy an enhanced version of BIND. The DNS software will comply with the latest IETF standards [RFC 1035,
RFC 2181]. 

B.2.1.3.6    Related Operational Requirements  

        For NeuStar's nameservers for the usTLD, there are operational requirements related to their roles as essential parts of the technical infrastructure of the
Internet. In RFC2870, "Root Name Server Operational Requirements" (R. Bush et al, June 2000), the guidelines provided for the operation of the root nameservers are also provided as guidelines
for the operation of ccTLD nameservers. The usTLD nameservers will comply with all relevant portions of the latest applicable standards for the proper, safe, and secure operation of such nameservers. 

B.2.2    Secondary usTLD Servers  

        NeuStar proposes an architecture in which registry data are maintained on synchronized, redundant, high-availability database servers and in which
zone updates are made to the usTLD nameservers in near real time. In effect, all such nameservers would be primary nameservers, and a DNS query would receive the same authoritative response,
irrespective of which particular nameserver had received the query. This is desirable DNS behavior. 

B.2-8

 

        As
described in Section B.2.1 above, secondary nameservers are components of the traditional implementation of name service. 

        A
secondary nameserver would obtain authoritative zone data from the primary nameserver for a zone. The primary nameserver would have the responsibility for maintaining the authoritative
zone data, generating the zone data file, and supporting zone data transfers. The "current" zone data would be propagated from the primary to secondary nameserver(s). Until all secondary nameservers
were updated, the response to a DNS query might depend on which particular nameserver generated the response. Getting possibly different responses to the same query is not a desirable result. 

        In
fact, if a secondary nameserver received its zone data updates from another secondary nameserver, rather than from the primary nameserver for the zone, the overall propagation delays
for updates would be doubled. This is even less desirable. 

        Section B.2.1
above describes the proposed operation and maintenance of primary authoritative nameservers for the usTLD. Since all of the proposed usTLD nameservers would be
primary, that Section therefore describes the operation and/or administration of the constellation of authoritative servers for the usTLD. 

B.2.3    usTLD Zone Files  

        NeuStar proposes generating zone files in near real time, a major improvement that will eliminate some serious deficiencies in the current TLD system. This
capability ensures that the usTLD nameservers will respond to DNS queries with the most timely, accurate, authoritative, and consistent responses possible. 

        A
zone file is a flat database file consisting of the technical information that the DNS requires to function correctly: the domain name, nameserver host name, and IP address are the
primary data elements. 

        Zone
file generation is the term traditionally used to describe the process of generating a zone file from the registry database, deploying it to the primary root server, and then
propagating it out to the secondary servers. However, this process traditionally is batch-oriented: there are delays incurred before updates to authoritative data are actually available for use in all
the authoritative nameservers. 

        NeuStar
proposes a significant improvement over traditional zone file generation and propagation (i.e., updating the zone file data in near real time within defined service levels). Just
as the current TLD system does, our proposed registry TLD would store the usual DNS resource records in the zone file database. 

        Unlike
the current system, however, NeuStar's model does not periodically generate a zone file and then publish that new file to a set of nameservers. This proposal describes our process
for creating updates for the nameserver files, including information about distributing and publishing the updates. NeuStar's Technical Plan is described in detail in Section O of this
document. 

B.2.3.1    Current Zone File Generation—Problems and Solution  

        The current zone file creation process has caused many problems for both registrars and registrants. The process is based on the traditional approach of using a
single primary nameserver, which maintains the authoritative data locally, and one or more secondary nameservers, which receive transfers of the primary's data. These nameservers ultimately contain
authoritative data for their zones, meaning that they can respond to queries about their zones based on their locally held data, without the need to further query other nameservers before responding.
However, the traditional process incurs delays and may, at times, return inconsistent responses to queries. 

B.2-9

 

        Registrants,
in particular, have been troubled by the long delay before their registered domain names go live (or are redelegated). The following are common issues with the current
process: 

	•
	Zone
file update (and propagation) is a batch process performed twice a day.

	•
	Because
updates occur infrequently, registrants have an additional delay before their domain names become "live." This delay confuses the registrants who, assuming that a
problem exists, contact the registrar. The registrars must, in turn, respond by deploying unnecessary customer support resources.

	•
	Currently,
Web sites can easily go down when a registrant transfers a domain name to a new hosting provider. This occurs when, because of the current delay in zone file
generation, the original hosting provider removes the Web site before the DNS is updated with the new delegation information. This adversely affects the general stability of the Internet.

	•
	Zone
file information does not match Whois information because the two files are often updated at different times.

	•
	Currently,
registrants can update zone information and then check the Whois server to verify it. Because the zone file and Whois service are not synchronized, the
registrants become confused. As with delayed zone file updates, this information mismatch causes additional and unnecessary customer support demands on registrars. 

        To
solve the problems inherent in the traditionally based implementation of zone file generation, NeuStar proposes to introduce a significant improvement to zone file generation and
propagation processes. We will update the zone files in near real time within defined service levels. Near-real-time updates provide the following significant advantages: 

	•
	They
eliminate the synchronization problems that now occur when information is modified.

	•
	They
enable us to define and monitor service levels for the maximum allowable time between zone file updates. 

        The
proposed approach enhances the value of the usTLD by providing the most timely, accurate, authoritative, and consistent responses possible to DNS queries of the usTLD. 

B.2.3.2    Secure Access to Update Zone File Data  

        Under NeuStar's proposed solution, the Centralized usTLD database in the data centers stores all data used to generate and distribute the zone file updates. For
security reasons, neither delegees nor internal data center staff can access this database directly; the application server tier controls all database access. Registrars/delegees access the database
(through the application servers) using the XRP protocol via the protocol servers. The following procedures govern creating and modifying database information: 

	•
	Registrars/delegee
are solely responsible for creating, modifying, and deleting information that updated the zone file. The XRP protocol is the only gateway available for
zone file editing, and is accessed using XRP servers.

	•
	A
registrar/delegee gains access to a domain name (and associated nameserver) when registering that domain name or when the appropriate Transfer of Registrar is enacted. In
the case of a Transfer of Registrar, access control is revoked from the losing registrar after the transfer.

	•
	Access
control to zone file data for XRP "Delete/Modify Domain Name" commands is granted only to the registrar/delegee that has management rights over the domain name.

	•
	In
the case of an XRP "Create/Modify/Delete Nameserver" command, access control is granted only to the registrar/delegee with management rights over the parent domain name. 

B.2-10

 

        Other
proposal sections provide additional security related information, including information about deployment security, system and network security, and access-control authentication
and authorization. 

B.2.3.3    Frequency of Zone File Generation  

        NeuStar will generate zone file updates (diffs) at regular intervals within defined service levels. Our solution enables us to meet any reasonable service level
merely by adding incremental hardware items and reconfiguring system software settings. 

        Any
real-time zone file update procedure must not degrade the performance of the core registration system. NeuStar's solution will enable us to agree to service levels that
guarantee the zone file distribution database is updated within defined intervals—initially 15 minutes—without adversely affecting core registration operations. 

        In
addition, NeuStar will provide a Zone File Access Program, which will enable registrars and delegees to access the zone file in bulk. Our proposed query program will: 

	•
	Reduce
the load placed on the nameservers by data mining programs (e.g., some ISPs use data mining to accelerate domain name availability checking) and

	•
	Provide
the entire database in a consistent format that will facilitate such services as suggesting alternate names, accelerating DNS queries, and compiling industry
statistics. 

        Finally,
NeuStar will provide for the essential functions for logging and data backup. All zone files and updates are generated using information from the registry database. All updates
are recorded as database transaction logs. Information about the primary database backup and escrow systems, data center replication, and data recovery procedures is contained in other sections of
this proposal. 

B.2.3.4    Zone File Generation Architecture  

        Zone file information is stored in the registry database (along with all other registry data) and replicated to a zone distribution server. The database stored on
the zone distribution server is in turn replicated out to a database at the nameserver data centers. 

B.2.3.4.1    Zone File Replication  

        Each time the zone distribution database is modified and before the zone file update is replicated out to the nameserver data centers, the system performs a
series of quality assurance checks. If any quality assurance checks raise an alert, operations staff must approve the deployment before the update is sent to the nameservers. The quality assurance
checks include: 

	•
	Greater
than a preestablished maximum number of modifications since the last update, and

	•
	Greater
than a preestablished maximum number of modifications since the last update for a special set of domain names used by key e-commerce sites. The alert
threshold will be much lower for these domain names than for the previous check. 

B.2.3.4.2    Standards Compliance  

        Each nameserver will run software that correctly implements the IETF standards for the DNS (RFC1035, RFC2181). 

        NeuStar
will implement all applicable best-practice recommendations contained in RFC2870 (Root Nameserver Operational Requirements). 

B.2-11

 

B.2.3.5    Zone File Distribution and Publication  

        NeuStar is proposing a significant improvement over traditional zone file generation and distribution by providing near-real-time updates
of the zone file data. 

        The
process of updating zone file information at the various nameserver data centers uses information from the zone distribution servers at the two co-active data centers,
which are updated as described in Sections O.4 and O.5. 

        The
databases on the zone distribution servers will be constantly replicated over a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to the zone update database at each nameserver data center. Each
nameserver data center will, in turn, use its zone update database to update its zone file databases. 

        To
ensure availability and provide scalability and redundancy, each nameserver data center will have a cluster of two or more nameservers behind a load balancer. This configuration
enables NeuStar to rapidly accommodate increases in query load by simply adding servers to the cluster at the affected nameserver data centers. 

        The
current zone file creation process has caused many problems—long delays before registered domain names go live or are redelegated—which can also confuse
registrants, disable access to Web sites, and provide inconsistent responses to queries. Currently, zone file update (and propagation) is not real-time (the delay may exceed
12 hours), and zone file information may not match Whois information (updates often take place at different times). 

        These
problems have consequences. Registrants are clearly affected when their domain names are not live. Registrars face additional costs for operations and customer support. Even the
stability of the Internet is adversely affected when delayed zone file updates result in information mismatches and cause unnecessary additional loading. 

        NeuStar's
improvement to zone file generation and propagation—updating the zone files in real time within defined service levels—is designed to eliminate
synchronization problems that occur when information is modified, facilitate the deployment of innovative new technologies such as dynamic update, and enable definition and monitoring of service
levels for zone file updates. 

B.2.3.6    Locations and Architecture  

        The usTLD nameservers that NeuStar will deploy are located in Virginia, Illinois, and California. At the nameserver data centers, a zone update database
constantly receives replication update packages from the zone distribution database server at the registry data centers. This zone update database is not "hit' when the nameservers process requests;
the nameservers use it only to update their zone file databases. NeuStar will deploy, for DNS software, a modified version of BIND. BIND has been modified to delete functions that are unnecessary for
TLD root server operation and enhance functions that are critical to root server operations. The DNS software will comply with the latest IETF standards [RFC1035, RFC2181]. 

        Near-real-time
update of the zone file data (a significant improvement over traditional zone file generation and propagation) takes the zone file information
stored in the registry master database and replicates it to a zone distribution server database. 

        The
following two Exhibits B.2-4 and B.2-5, illustrate the zone file distribution and nameserver update processes. 

        The
database on the zone distribution server at the registry data center is constantly replicated over our VPN to the zone update database at each nameserver data center. The update
packages are compressed, encrypted, and sent with an appended checksum. 

B.2-12

 

        Every
update package includes a checksum key, which is a generated checksum of the entire database up to and including modifications in that package. Each time a package updates a
nameserver, the checksum is compared to the final state of the zone file data to ensure that the nameserver zone file corresponds to the zone file in the data center's database. If the checksums
indicate an error, the nameserver asks the data center to replicate a full zone file to the nameserver. The update package replication process means that the full zone file should never need to be
redeployed; however, NeuStar will provide this capability to recover from an unforeseen event. Should this capability be needed, propagating zone file updates may result in a 60-minute
delay. We will include this as an exception in the Service Level Agreements (SLAs). 

        In
the nameserver update process, each nameserver updates its zone file databases from its zone update database within defined service levels. 

B.2.3.7    Frequency of Zone File Publication/Update  

        Any technical solution that includes real-time DNS updates must recognize that the most important function of the nameservers is responding to DNS
queries. This requirement outweighs real-time updating of the zone file. NeuStar's solution is based on this reality. Although our real-time update process includes
establishing and monitoring key parameters that measure compliance with agreed service levels, this process is subordinate to resolving DNS requests. Within this limitation, we are confident in
recommending that no more than 15 minutes elapse before processing an update package. We will be willing to negotiate these or other SLAs to meet performance requirements in a way that safeguards the
integrity of the Internet under heavy DNS load. 

B.2.3.7.1    Monitoring and Logging  

        Our central network management system will log all modifications to the registry database, all zone file update actions, and all attempts at intrusion or other
security-related events. 

B.2.3.7.2    Standards Compliance  

        Each nameserver will run software that correctly implements the IETF standards for the DNS (RFC1035, RFC2181). 

        [Exhibit B.2-4:
NeuStar's process for near real-time updating of the nameserver zone file databases ensures that consistent and timely data are
always available. Graphic Omitted: flow diagram depicting zone file distribution flow.] 

        [Exhibit B.2-5:
Maintaining a zone file database at each nameserver data center allows zone file servers to respond to DNS inquiries by accessing their own
local zone file database. This maximizes efficiency and increases redundancy. Graphic Omitted: diagram depicting nameserver update process.] 

B.2.4    Whois Database  

        NeuStar's centralized Whois database will ensure quality, consistent implementation and data, with all information available through
publicly accessible means.

        As
part of our efforts to centralize all of the usTLD registration information and to make it available for Web-based queries, NeuStar will create and maintain an accurate
and up-to-date centralized Whois database. In fact, NeuStar will actually administer two logical databases—one for registrants (in both the locality-based space and
the expanded space) and registrars and one for delegated managers, that is, delegees and subdelegees. It is important to manage these entities separately because delegated managers are held to a
higher level of accountability for the management of their namespace. NeuStar will maintain a Web site that will provide access to the Whois databases, and we will also provide a standard port 43
interface to the Whois data. In accordance with the RFQ, access to the Whois data via the Web site and to port 43 will be free of charge and available to the public, and the databases will allow for
multiple field and string searches. Responses to Whois queries will indicate whether the record is in the registrant Whois or a delegated manager's Whois. NeuStar will reach out to the existing
delegees and subdelegees to populate their information and their registrant's information in the databases. 

        Populating
the Whois information in the expanded space will be done through the registrar at the time of registration. Registrations will not be considered complete without all of the
appropriate information being provided. We will populate the data pertaining to the existing assignments by reaching out to the delegated managers, as well as by retrieving contact information
contained in existing zone files of the usTLD administrator and of the delegated managers. 

B.2-13

   
        NeuStar will collect and update, at a minimum, the information listed below for each type of Whois record. 

 Whois Information Under the usTLD  

	Registrants in Locality Space
 
	 	Delegated Managers in Locality Space

	1.	 	Name of the domain registered	 	1.	 	Name of the delegated manager
	2.	 	Internet Protocol (IP) address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name	 	2.	 	Delegated Manager ID
	3.	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers	 	3.	 	IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation
	4.	 	Identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered	 	4.	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers
	5.	 	Creation date of the registration	 	5.	 	Date of delegation
	6.	 	Name and postal address of the domain name holder	 	6.	 	Name and postal address of the delegated manager
	7.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder	 	7.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager
	8.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder	 	8.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager
	 	 	 	 	9.	 	Web site or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under the delegation

B.2-14

 

	Registrants in Expanded Space
 
	 	Registrars in Expanded Space

	10.	 	Name of the domain registered	 	17.	 	Name of the registrar
	11.	 	IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name	 	18.	 	Registrar ID
	12.	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers	 	19.	 	Registrar status (e.g., active, pending)
	13.	 	Creation date of the registration	 	20.	 	Name and postal address of the registrar
	14.	 	Name and postal address of the domain name holder	 	21.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar
	15.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder	 	22.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar
	16.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder	 	23.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the billing contact for the registrar

        Further,
to ensure the integrity and highest levels of service for Whois administration, redundant databases will be located at the geographically diverse, redundant Enhanced SRS Data
Centers located in Illinois and Virginia. In accordance with the U.S. Nexus requirement, no registry databases will be located outside of the United States. Both databases will be updated in near real
time (intervals no greater than 15 minutes) and will be synchronized to ensure consistency of the response. 

        Detailed
descriptions of how the databases will be populated, how they are kept up to date and accurate, and the structure of the Whois responses are provided in Section F,
Central usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System. A detailed description of our Whois policy is provided in Section B.3.5. 

        A
detailed description of the database infrastructure and design is provided in Sections O.3 and O.8 of this proposal. 

B.2.5    usTLD Delegated Manager Database Administration  

        NeuStar's centralized database of delegated managers will enable us to contact those managers quickly and resolve issues
effectively.

        In
order to manage a critical public resource like the usTLD, its administrator needs to maintain an accurate database for all entities that have a role in administering the space. The
usTLD's delegated managers—the locality delegees and subdelegees—play an important role in the communities they serve. The usTLD Administrator may need to contact a delegated
manager because of an outage or a question from one of their registrants. Out-of-date information prevents the administrator from resolving issues in a timely manner. To avoid
this problem and to ensure that all delegated managers can be contacted, an integral element of the Centralized usTLD Database that NeuStar will deploy as the usTLD Administrator will be an accurate
and up-to-date database of delegated managers. 

B.2-15

 

        The
most critical function with regard to creating the database is obtaining information from the existing delegated managers. NeuStar has, in the past, provided just this service to the
telecommunications industry. As the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, NeuStar was required to create a central database of telephone number assignments. This required us to work with
multiple telecommunications companies across the country, most of which had many telephone number administrators. Not only were databases across companies inconsistent, but databases within companies
were often inconsistent as well. NeuStar was nonetheless able to collect and standardize all of the data, and completed the transition ahead of schedule. 

        As
the usTLD Administrator, NeuStar will reach out to all of the delegated managers. We will provide them with a list of the data elements required in our database, and we will provide
them with multiple methods of provisioning that data with us. Our usTLD Transition Team will be tasked with the responsibility of contacting the delegated managers to collect this information. On an
ongoing basis, we will provide delegated managers with an easy-to-use web interface to provision new registrations into the Centralized usTLD Database. Alternatively, should
they have high volumes of registrations and would prefer a mechanized interface, delegated managers will have the option of using NeuStar's extensible Registry Protocol (XRP) to interface with the
registry. 

        Information
in the Delegated Manager Database will include at least the following: 

	1.
	The
name of the delegated manager;

	2.
	The
Delegated Manager ID;

	3.
	The
IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation;

	4.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	5.
	The
date of delegation;

	6.
	The
name and postal address of the delegated manager;

	7.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager;

	8.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager; and

	9.
	The
website or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under the delegation. 

        Detailed
descriptions of how the databases will be populated and how they will be kept up to date and accurate are provided in Section F, Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced
Shared Registration System. 

        Redundant
Delegated Manager databases will be located at the geographically diverse, redundant Enhanced SRS Data Centers located in Illinois and Virginia. In accordance with the U.S.
Nexus requirement, no usTLD databases will be located outside of the United States. Each database site will be updated in near real time (intervals of no more than 15 minutes) and will be
synchronized. This will ensure the requisite level of availability and stability for the usTLD. 

        A
detailed description of the operations of the databases is provided in Sections O.3 and O.9 of this proposal. 

B.2.6    Data Escrow  

        In addition to arranging for frequent escrowing of the data contained in the usTLD registry, the very design of NeuStar's registry
protects it from catastrophic failure.

B.2-16

 

        The
overall security and integrity of the usTLD requires that there be multiple mechanisms in place to ensure the continued operation of the usTLD in the event of a disaster, technical
or business failure, or any other unforeseen event affecting usTLD operations. Therefore, NeuStar will establish an agreement with an outside escrow agent to develop a process and schedule for
frequent escrowing of the usTLD zone file, Whois database, delegated manager Whois database, and delegated manager database, as well as necessary domain name registration data, including chain of
registration data. 

        Although
a usTLD administrator could choose simply to rely upon an escrow service to ensure data integrity and recovery capabilities, NeuStar believes that additional steps must be taken
to protect such an important public resource. NeuStar's heritage as an operator of mission critical, zero-downtime infrastructure makes it uniquely qualified to address such concerns.
Therefore, the design of NeuStar's registry systems virtually ensures that no single event likely will result in a catastrophic loss of data. Specifically, the NeuStar architecture will utilize
redundant, coactive data centers in Illinois and Virginia, combined with a robust, and redundant nameserver architecture. 

        These
measures by NeuStar will ensure that all data necessary for operation of the usTLD registry will be available in the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure of the registry or
following the selection of an alternate usTLD Administrator by the COTR. Such information will ensure that NeuStar, or any subsequent usTLD administrator, could recover operations quickly and easily,
or in the case of a
transition of administrators, such transmission would occur with minimal, if any, interruptions in service. 

B.2.7    Industry Representation/Compliance  

        NeuStar's continued participation with Internet standards and policy organizations will contribute to its operation of the usTLD as the
model for a country code top-level domain.

        As
is discussed throughout this proposal, one of NeuStar's primary goals is to make the usTLD an important part of the global Internet infrastructure. In order to successfully assume
such a role, however, the usTLD Administrator must be prepared to coordinate with the various members of the Internet community. In particular, the Administrator must be prepared to comply with
applicable policies and standards of the IETF and ICANN. Such policies form the basis for effective functioning of the global Internet and are followed by all reasonable Internet operators. NeuStar
will comply with all such applicable policies and standards in its operation of the usTLD. NeuStar's efforts will not stop, however, at simple compliance. 

        NeuStar
will continue to work with the NTIA, ICANN, IETF, and the Internet community to further develop and enhance not only the usTLD, but also the Internet and the DNS. Such efforts
include participation in development of privacy, security, encryption, multilingual domains, and other important policies and technologies for DNS operations. NeuStar will maintain staff dedicated to
such efforts. Indeed, NeuStar employees currently chair important IETF working groups such as the Whois Working Group. NeuStar intends, therefore, to operate as the model ccTLD in the international
ccTLD community and, through its technical and policy efforts, NeuStar will work to establish the usTLD as the leading example of, and staging platform for, the most advanced DNS registry services on
the Internet. 

        An
important example of NeuStar's efforts in this area will be the revision of RFC 1480 upon completion of the six-month compliance report. NeuStar believes that the learning
from this analysis of the locality-based usTLD will provide an important opportunity for significant improvement of the basic structure and underlying policy of the usTLD. 

B.2-17

 

B.2.8    usTLD Public Awareness Initiatives  

        NeuStar's primary research indicates that a strong demand for dot-us domain names exists within the U.S. public. NeuStar
evaluated this market analysis and performed further secondary research to produce a marketing plan that will maximize brand awareness and drive market adoption.

        In
its commitment to the promotion and marketing of the usTLD, NeuStar has crafted the following Marketing Plan to create public awareness, expand brand identity, and drive
registrations. A key component of the Marketing Plan is the maintenance of a Web site with current policy and registration information. Additional information regarding the usTLD Web site follows in
Section B.2.11. The following section outlines the target markets, potential positioning, and phased awareness initiatives for the usTLD. This approach is one potential strategy to market the
usTLD. 

B.2.8.1    Executive Summary  

        NeuStar will actively market the usTLD making it the most widely available, diverse, competitive option for both consumers and small businesses in the United
States. Sixty percent of the world's domain names originate in the United States. The usTLD, however, has not attracted registrations and remains underutilized compared to other country code domains.
This underutilization reflects poorly on the United States as a technological leader. The problem is due, in part, to lack of promotion and awareness. To address this lack of awareness and ensure the
success of public awareness initiatives, NeuStar conducted primary research uncovering the following empirical evidence to understand customers' needs, motivations, and attitudes: 

	•
	Strong
interest in purchasing a domain name exists, with more than one-quarter (27%) of consumers indicating that they plan to purchase one in the next
12 months. An additional 15% report that they plan to purchase a domain name in the next three years.

	•
	The
usTLD tested very favorably versus other options presented, particularly when the sought-after name in dot-com was unavailable.

	•
	Businesses
would rather have a dot-us extension for their corporate Web site over dot-biz, even though they acknowledge that dot-biz is
more descriptive of a business Web site.

	•
	Consumers
would rather have a dot-us for their personal Web site over dot-name, even though they acknowledge that dot-name is more
descriptive of a personal Web site.

	•
	A
key differentiator for dod-us is that they can receive the name they want. 

        These
findings present opportunities for the usTLD. These opportunities, when combined with appropriate public awareness initiatives supported by a dynamic channel strategy, create an
environment for success. NeuStar will execute a phased marketing program to create a "snowball effect." 

	•
	Phase
1: Our goal in this Phase is to capture as many early adopters/early majority consumers and small business owners as possible.

	•
	Phase
2: Our objectives in this phase focus on both channel and marketing programs. The channel strategy is designed to accredit registrars to extend the reach and
distribution and simplify usTLD acquisition. The marketing programs in Phase 2 build on this strategy and begin branding in targeted cities to capture a larger audience.

	•
	Phase
3: Our aim at this stage is to reach critical mass through a broader awareness campaign. Programs and promotions will be expanded across the country to build on the
contagion already established. 

B.2-18

 

        NeuStar
is confident that this phased approach will succeed for the following reasons: 

	1.
	There
is a strong commitment to make significant investment in marketing, advertising, and public relations to increase the awareness of the usTLD.

	2.
	The
channel strategy is a two-pronged approach. First, it targets current registrars and provides them with tools, programs, and marketing collateral to be successful. In
addition, it expands the size and reach of the distribution network by creating numerous new registrars with built-in membership networks of end users.

	3.
	It
capitalizes on the convergence of the expanded registrar network, the interactions of the early adopters coupled with a broad brand awareness campaign, and new applications to meet
end-user needs. 

        NeuStar
is committed to the success of the usTLD and submits the following documentation providing additional background, market environment analysis, complete research findings, and a
more comprehensive outline of the marketing programs as supporting credentials. 

B.2.8.2    Background  

        NeuStar is uniquely qualified to seize this challenge. As the leading provider of mission critical clearinghouse services, NeuStar has been entrusted to manage
competitively sensitive public resources. It brings distinctive strengths to these efforts: 

	•
	Neutrality Status—The "Neu" in NeuStar, Inc., refers to the trusted, neutral third-party role it maintains
in all interactions with other entities. As an organization that can be trusted for its objectivity, NeuStar is in a strong position to attract registrars and other membership organizations, thus
guaranteeing high participation levels and a strong distribution network.

	•
	Simplified Integration Services—NeuStar has repeatedly demonstrated a capability to leverage database
technologies and operating platforms to simplify the integration of additional services. This capability, when applied to the Registry for usTLD, will enable a variety of value-added services to be
easily deployed, thereby increasing the utility of the space.

	•
	Relationship Building Capabilities—NeuStar has demonstrated an ability to form coalitions of support among
diverse groups, thus providing a secure foundation for success with current delegation owners, future customers, ICANN, registrars, and public sector interests.

	•
	Public Resource Management—NeuStar has established itself as an organization that can deliver mission-critical
services. NeuStar currently manages several public resources. For example, it serves as the administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, operating the telephone numbering registry as a public
numbering resource. Recently, NeuStar was named as the Number Pooling Administrator. And NeuStar is the Local Number Portability Administrator for the U.S. and Canada, operating the enormous routing
registry for North America. The integrity and accuracy of this service is essential for virtually every call placed within North America. NeuStar will leverage this capability of successfully managing
mission-critical resources in managing the usTLD space. 

Market Environment  

        The usTLD will be introduced to a market already served by the very popular dot-com, as well as others such as dot-net and
dot-org. The usTLD will need to be positioned against these competitors, and heightened awareness levels will be required to attract consumers, businesses, and public sector entities.
Creating marketing programs to address these entrenched users will be of primary importance, though recognizing the need to retain current usTLD holders is not forgotten. In a recent NeuStar survey,
both consumers and businesses in the United States had a 99% awareness level of the domain 

B.2-19

 

extensions
dot-com (22.7M registered) and dot-net (4.4M registered).(1) Unfortunately, current awareness levels of the usTLD are not nearly as high. Both consumers and
businesses demonstrated a 3% unaided awareness level of the usTLD. (Unaided awareness tests ask respondents to answer a question without prompting or using precoded categories. For example, an unaided
question might be "Which brands of soda do you drink?") Aided awareness figures are much higher (70% to 74%), indicating general acceptance of the usTLD. (Aided awareness tests ask respondents to
answer a question while providing answer categories. For example, an aided question might be "Below is a list of sodas. Please mark on the answer sheet which brands you drink.") Americans have used
the abbreviation "us" for 200 years, are comfortable with its use, and recognize it in this context. 

	(1)
	Matthew
Zook, Berkeley, Domain Name Project 

B.2.8.3    Strategic Goal  

        The DOC "Statement of Purpose" seeks to achieve the following objectives: 

	•
	Promote
increased use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States and

	•
	Promote
robust competition within the usTLD and, in particular, registration services that will lead to greater choice. 

        NeuStar
is guided by these objectives and is committed to increasing the utility and overall value of the usTLD space to drive registrations. To achieve these objectives, it is important
to understand the community of customers and what motivates them to purchase. 

B.2.8.4    Customer Base  

Delegees  

        There are currently 8,000 subdomain delegations to more than 800 individual and entities who maintain a registry and provide registration services for commercial,
educational, and government entities. They span the United States and are primarily composed of businesses, individuals, federal government agencies, schools, libraries, museums, and state and local
governments. All K12 schools, community colleges/technical schools, and state and local government agencies are encouraged to register under the US Domain. 

Public Sector  

        The public sector represents a broad market that includes the sizeable government bodies as well as the many non-profit organizations, all of which
function in a way that suggests prime marketing opportunities for acquisition and promotion of the usTLD. Government bodies alone make up a sizeable group. There are currently more than 500 federal
government acronyms that identify agencies with Web sites.(2) While the opportunities represented by the federal government, the 50 states, and localities are extensive, the opportunity represented by
organizations, charities, foundations, churches, and associations is vast. These organizations, by their nature, are invested in the betterment of the United States and its people. Their numbers are
sizeable. Time Almanac lists 30 U.S. religious bodies with more than 500,000 members. GuideStar's
current list of U.S. nonprofit organizations numbers more than 700,000. Time Almanac 2001, Encyclopedia of Associations, lists approximately 23,000
organizations. These organizations will benefit greatly by expanding their reach via the Internet as they attempt, in a competitive environment, to reach their members and donors. 

	(2)
	Government
Information Resources at http://www.ulib.iupui.edu/subjectareas/gov/doc_abbrev.html 

B.2-20

 

Business  

        There are approximately 12 million businesses(3) in the United States with a labor force of 139.4 million employees.(4) They support an economy with
a gross domestic product (GDP) of $9.3 trillion in purchasing power parity.(5) As the U.S. economy continues to expand and globalization occurs, commercial enterprises are recognizing the need to
utilize the Internet in the growth of their business. In a report by Jupiter Research, the evolution of business and the Internet was explored: 

	(3)
	Dun
and Bradstreet

	(4)
	CIA
Fact Book

	(5)
	Ibid.

	•
	Businesses
reluctantly adopted computing in the 1980's to achieve productivity gains

	•
	In
the 1990's, client/server computing brought new capabilities to business

	•
	Today
the Internet offers a clear set of incentives that have spurred the exponential growth that we will continue to see. Incentives include:

	•
	Availability
of investment capital

	•
	Redefined
business practices to leverage the Internet

	•
	The
pace of adoptions means moving slower, which equals greater risk. 

        Today,
virtually all companies that participate in business-to-business (B-to-B) commerce are being forced to develop new strategies to
keep up with the reengineering of the economy as a whole. 

        Jupiter
estimates that between 2000 and 2005, online B-to-B commerce will swell from 3% to 42% of total B-to-B trade in the United States.
The five largest B-to-B online vertical segments today include: 

	•
	Computers
and telecommunications equipment,

	•
	Food
and beverages,

	•
	Motor
vehicle parts,

	•
	Industrial
equipment, and

	•
	Construction
and real estate. 

        Much
of today's research predicts that Internet growth will continue in the business sector as businesses look to the Internet as a tool to improve traditional and expensive business
processes. 

Small Business  

        There are approximately 9.8 million small businesses(6) in the United States, and they continue to be the fastest growing business segment. Defined as
having between 1 and 99 employees, small businesses employ roughly 40% of the private workforce in America.(7) Small businesses have recently created the vast majority of new jobs in the country. For
example, in a study conducted by Cognetics for the U.S. Small Business Administration, companies with 1-99 employees created 85% of the 11.2 million new jobs generated in the
country from 1992 to 1996. The top spots in the country for small business growth include Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Indianapolis, Washington DC, Orlando, Nashville, and
Charlotte.(7) 

	(6)
	Dun
and Bradstreet

	(7)
	Cognetics

B.2-21

   
        Small businesses affect every sector of the economy: 37% are in the service sector, 21% in retail, 11% in financial and investment-related, and 9% in manufacturing.(8) Computer use among
small businesses is quite high—estimated at 75% to 97%.(9) A recent study conducted by Dun and Bradstreet indicated online use was also substantial: 

	(8)
	Small
Business and Financial Services

	(9)
	Small
Business and the Internet 

 Small Business Use of the Internet  

	Use
 
	 	1999
	 
	E-mail	 	71	%
	Business research	 	58	%
	Personal research	 	50	%
	Purchase goods/services (business use)	 	43	%
	Purchase goods/sServices (personal use)	 	31	%
	Sell/market products	 	26	%

Medium and Large Business  

        Large businesses are defined as having more than 1,000 employees. There are approximately 7,000 firms(10) that fall into this category, and they represent .05% of
U.S. businesses. Medium-size businesses are characterized as having between 100 and 999 employees. There are approximately 2 million medium-size enterprises.(11) 

	(10)
	Ibid.

	(11)
	Ibid.

Consumers  

        When compared to other countries, the United States has the highest penetration of online consumers.(12) More and more consumers are utilizing the Internet to
gather information, research products, communicate via e-mail and meet their lifestyle needs. About 164 million (59%) of consumers are online today.(13) The online population is
predominantly located in large cities and the suburbs when compared with U.S. population density: 

	(12)
	Nielsen
NetRatings

	(13)
	U.S.
Census/Nielsen NetRatings 2001 

 Online Population  

	 
	 	U.S. Population
	 	Online Population
	 
	Large city	 	20	%	22	%
	Suburbs	 	23	%	31	%
	Small city/town	 	36	%	32	%
	Rural	 	21	%	14	%

        Geographically,
the online population is concentrated in the Pacific West, South Atlantic, and East North Central regions, but it continues to expand beyond the technology regions (U.S.
Census). Low-cost computers and reduced Internet access costs have contributed to the rise in overall household 

B.2-22

 

penetration.
San Francisco (66%), Seattle (64%), San Diego (62%), and Portland (60%) led the way with the highest household penetration rates as of September 2000.(14) 

	(14)
	Ibid.

        The
consumer online population is characterized by several distinct factors that play a significant role in a marketing effort. They are almost evenly split by gender (51% female and 49%
male), and 30% are between the ages of 35 and 49. They are overwhelmingly white and well educated when compared with the national average. The percentage of adult Internet users who have graduated
from college is 41%, nearly double the national average of 22%. Given that the Internet is primarily an information source, the more educated people are, the more likely it is that they will be
motivated to use the Internet. The typical online household has an annual income nearly 36% higher than that of the average American household; 30% of those online have incomes of $50,000-$75,000
although online use by those in lower and middle income groups is growing.(15) Although Internet users have higher income levels than the average American, a comparison with 1999 data reveals a
widening trend that includes lower levels of affluence. This expansion of income levels is attributed to lower costs for PCs and Internet access, as well as greater acceptance of the Internet as a
safe and convenient way to shop. Correlations can be drawn when examining occupation and online usage: 32.5% of the U.S. online population is in executive, managerial, or professional occupations.
Most of these workers use a computer and/or access the Internet as part of their work. On average, more time is spent online at work than at home. June 2001 data show that the number of online
sessions at work is twice the number of sessions at home.(16) 

	(15)
	Ibid

	(16)
	Ibid

        In
a study conducted by The Media Audit (a syndicated survey of both online and traditional media in more than 80 markets over a three-year period—1998, 1999, and
2000), online usage is diversifying. African American online usage has increased 41% during the past three years to 44% online usage today. The U.S. Census estimates that Hispanics represent the
fastest growing segment of the U.S. population with more than 30 million Spanish-speaking residents. Moreover, in a report published by The
Economist, the buying power of Hispanics in the United States has increased by 65% since 1990 to $348 billion. Tapping into this buying power can be done online: 42% of
Hispanics now have access to the Web, according to The Media Audit—an increase of 45%. Sixty-three percent of Asians were online in 1998. In 2000, that figure had risen 7% to more than
70%. Seventy percent exceeds the comparable figure for white households, whose online usage is about 58%. 

        E-mail
ranks as the most popular online activity for consumers. It is expected that there will be 140 million active e-mail users in the United States by
2003. While many consumers have between two and five accounts, 51% check only one e-mail account daily. It is estimated that online adults will spend between 9 and 10 months of a
typical lifetime writing and responding to e-mails. Research shows that e-mail has created a greater connection among family members with 26 million Americans regularly
sending e-mail to a family member with whom they had not previously had much contact.(17) Instant Messaging is another communications activity that is frequently used by online Americans.
Instant Messaging continues to grow because it is free and easy to use. In addition, approximately 30 million Americans are members of families in which someone has created a family Web
site.(18) It is evident that the internet has introduced a fundamental shift in the way people communicate. As this communication medium becomes widely accepted, more citizens will want to own domain
names to increase their online interactions. According to NeuStar research, less than 10% of Americans currently own a domain name. 

	(17)
	Pew
Internet Project

	(18)
	CyberAtlas

B.2-23

 

B.2.8.5    Marketing Objectives  

        The single marketing objective of this plan is to ensure that every consumer, business, and public sector entity of the United States is aware of the usTLD,
understands its value, and knows how they can acquire a dot-us domain name. 

B.2.8.6    Market Definition  

        Successful launch of the usTLD will rely on marketing initiatives aimed at the appropriate audience with the appropriate message. Clearly understanding the size
of the target, their demographic makeup, and their motivations and attitudes toward the Internet and domain names in particular will provide the foundation to drive usTLD penetration quickly. A
research study was conducted to obtain empirical data for both U.S. businesses and consumers. 

Research  

        NeuStar commissioned primary research to ensure a solid foundation from which to create a marketing strategy for the usTLD. The resulting information serves as
the basis for all aspects of the marketing plan and will enable NeuStar to establish a presence and firmly position the usTLD quickly. 

Objectives  

        Research was conducted in the form of a survey to a general audience of consumers and businesses regarding their attitudes and perceptions of the usTLD. The
survey objectives were to: 

	•
	Understand
market awareness of the current usTLD;

	•
	Assess
general awareness of country code extensions;

	•
	Determine
the size, demographics, and psychographics of the target market for the usTLD;

	•
	Assess
branding potential for the usTLD;

	•
	Determine
what product benefits are the most meaningful;

	•
	Understand
the barriers to purchasing a usTLD for both businesses and consumers;

	•
	Evaluate
the receptivity of usTLDs vis-à-vis other TLDs;

	•
	Evaluate
receptivity to locality-based domain name structures;

	•
	Determine
acceptability and preference for the hierarchical structure for the usTLD;

	•
	Test
various product-positioning statements for marketing the usTLD;

	•
	Determine
motivations for purchase of a domain name and types of Web sites;

	•
	Determine
means of differentiating the product;

	•
	Obtain
feedback regarding price; and

	•
	Evaluate
the likelihood to purchase. 

Methodology  

	•
	An
18-minute online survey consisting of both open-ended and close-ended questions,

	•
	A
sample size of 1,000 panelists,

	•
	Invitation
e-mailed to the respondent panels, 

B.2-24

 

	•
	Cash
drawing included as an incentive to increase the participation rate, and

	•
	Data
weighted to be representative of the overall online consumer and business market. 

Research Participants  

	•
	Sample
composition of 1,231 consumer and 1,355 business panelists within the United States,

	•
	Subsample
of at least 300 consumer and 300 business panelists who have purchased a domain name in the past to continue with the survey,

	•
	The
margin of error for the consumer sample as a whole was 2.8% at the 95% confidence interval, and

	•
	The
margin of error for the business sample as a whole was 2.6% at the 95% confidence interval. 

Target Audience  

	•
	Sample
was drawn from an existing online panel.

	•
	Split
sample consisted of consumers and business people who have used the Internet with some frequency.

	•
	All
panelists reside in the United States.

	•
	Initial
panel members were selected to be reflective of the online population of businesses and consumers and were not screened for particular knowledge of domain names.

	•
	To
continue the survey, 300 consumer and 300 business panelists were oversampled for current ownership of a domain name.

	•
	Screener
identified, but did not terminate, decision-makers in the category with the intention of finding sufficient sample size.

	•
	Small,
medium, and large business were quantified. Their percentages and responses will be reflective of the online business community.

	•
	Results
will be cross-tabbed to reflect both overall U.S. population and online U.S. population. 

Research Highlights  

        The major findings of the research can be found below. A complete report detailing the research findings is located at the end of this document. 

General Highlights  

	•
	On
a macro level, both businesses and consumers show a strong purchasing preference for gTLDs over specific TLDs.

	•
	The
usTLD tested very favorably versus the options presented, particularly when the sought-after name in dot-com was unavailable.

	•
	Consumers
and businesses overwhelmingly believe that public service second-level domains are a good idea. 

Consumer Research Findings  

	•
	Domain
name penetration (in percentage terms) is very low in the online consumer sector, with less than 1 in 10 people (6.6%) currently owning a domain name. 

B.2-25

 

	•
	In
an aided test, approximately three-quarters reported that they know that dot-us exists. This aided figure is very close to that for TLDs other than
dot-com and dot-net TLDs (such as dot-biz, dot-tv, and dot-pro). This suggests that even though the generic use of dot-us has
been released after some others, it does not start at a brand equity or intent to purchase disadvantage vis-à-vis newer TLDs.

	•
	Domain
name extensions appear to be less important to consumers than choosing a descriptive name for a Web site. For example, by a 3-to-1 margin,
consumers would rather select a first choice name with a dot-us extension than a less desirable name with a dot-com extension.

	•
	Consumers
would rather have a dot-us extension for their own Web site over dot-name, even though they acknowledge that dot-name is more
descriptive of a personal Web site.

	•
	Consumers
clearly prefer TLDs that:

	•
	Are
flat rather than hierarchical,

	•
	Are
generic (like.us) rather than specific (like dot-name), and

	•
	Encourage
shorter rather than longer names. 

Business Research Findings  

	•
	We
do not anticipate a great deal of business activity in the next year, since only 7% of businesses say they plan to purchase a domain name within the next year. An
additional 4% report that they plan to purchase a domain name in the next three years.

	•
	In
an aided test, approximately 7 in 10 report that they know that.us exists. This aided figure is very close to that for TLDs other than dot-com and
dot-net (such as dot-tv and dot-pro). This suggests that even though the generic use of dot-us has been released after some others, it does not start at
a brand equity or intent to purchase disadvantage vis-à-vis newer TLDs.

	•
	Our
initial estimates are that approximately 1 in 5 state some interest in eventually purchasing a usTLD name. This is an elastic figure, however, as many more are willing
to consider a usTLD if

	•
	Their
dot-com option is taken

	•
	dot-us
can competitively compete with dot-com on price

	•
	They
realize the necessity in purchasing dot-us in order to prevent cybersquatting.

	•
	While
small and large businesses demonstrate strong interest in purchasing domain names going forward, midsize businesses appear less interested.

	•
	Businesses
(just like consumers) clearly prefer TLDs that

	•
	Are
flat rather than hierarchical

	•
	Are
generic (like dot-us) rather than specific (like dot-name)

	•
	Encourage
shorter rather than longer names. 

Research Conclusions  

        The results from this survey show that Americans strongly feel that creating additional domain name extensions is a good idea. Clearly the market recognizes the
need for additional open space on the Internet. Whether we will see a rush to acquire additional domain names remains an open question. What is known, however, is that the usTLD is
well-positioned vis-à-vis other major TLDs. The primary reason is that both business and consumer purchasers appear to prefer multipurpose 

B.2-26

 

TLDs
over single-use TLDs. The likely cause is the widespread use of dot-com in the U.S.—the ultimate generic multipurpose TLD. Over the years, research has shown
that people tend to gravitate toward the familiar, hence the preference for other generic multipurpose TLDs. We believe that, with an intelligent brand awareness and advertising campaign, the usTLD
can gain significant market share in the coming years. 

        Many
natural uses for the usTLD already exist. In particular, Americans feel that dot-us is particularly well suited for e-government initiatives. For example,
Americans overwhelmingly think the use of the usTLD would work for programs such as creating a Web site called voting.us which lists local polling places and information about political candidates or
a Web site called parks.us which lists local, state, and national parks. 

[Graphic
Design] 

        While
e-government initiatives could help drive the growth of the usTLD, it would be a mistake to limit its utilization to that market, since both consumers and businesses
show interest in using the usTLD. In fact, overemphasis of e-government initiatives could persuade consumers and businesses that the usTLD is solely for government and public sector Web
sites—a scenario that is clearly avoidable. There appears to be strong demand on the consumer side of the equation. Our survey found that 27% of American consumers plan to register a
domain name in the next year. Additionally, survey respondents acknowledge that their first choice domain name with the dot-com suffix might be taken. As a result, they are looking at
secondary options. When we asked likely domain name consumer purchasers "If you had to select a new domain name and dot-com was already
taken but dot-us and dot-name were available, which would you choose?" a plurality (38%) selected the usTLD, 30% chose another name with the dot-com extension, and
only 10% selected
nameTLD. This speaks both to the power of the usTLD and the interest in multipurpose generic use TLDs. 

[Graphic
Design] 

        On
the business side of the equation, we also see a preference for the usTLD. When we asked likely domain name business purchasers "If you
had to select a new domain name and dot-com was already taken but dot-us and dot-biz were available, which would you choose?" a plurality (42%) selected the usTLD,
17% chose another name with the dot-com extension, and only 25% selected bizTLD. 

        To
reiterate: We believe that latent demand exists for the usTLD and that a strong marketing campaign will create the requisite interest in and eventual use of the usTLD. 

Key Survey Tables and Projections  

 Plan To Purchase Domain Within Next 12 Months / 3 Years  

	 
	 	Percentage
	 	Pop. Projection

	Business—12 months	 	8	%	0.7 M
	Business—3 years	 	5	%	0.4 M
	Consumer—12 months	 	27	%	35.8 M
	Consumer—3 years	 	11	%	15.2 M
	Total	 	—	 	52.1 M

B.2-27

 

 Likely To Purchase usTLD One Day  

	 
	 	Percentage
	 	Pop. Projection

	Business	 	4	%	1.6 M
	Consumer	 	23	%	31.5 M
	Total	 	—	 	33.1 M

 Likely To Consider Purchasing.usTLD After Being Informed of New System  

	 
	 	Percentage
	 	Pop. Projection

	Business	 	39	%	3.0 M
	Consumer	 	40	%	24.0 M
	Total	 	—	 	27.0 M

B.2.8.7    Market Opportunity  

        The research indicates that there are several opportunities to market and position the usTLD to address the needs of American consumers, businesses, and public
sector entities with regard to domain names: 

	•
	With
usTLD "I can get the name I want."

	•
	The
usTLD is generic, which provides greater use possibilities for both businesses and consumers.

	•
	Americans
reacted favorably to new TLDs in general.

	•
	Less
than 10%of American online consumers have domains today.

	•
	Small
and large businesses indicate interest in purchasing domain names going forward.

	•
	About
114 million Americans are not online today. NeuStar is committed to ensuring that new online citizens have a usTLD as the online household penetration continues
to grow. 

B.2.8.8    Value Proposition  

        Establishing a value proposition for a product provides the foundation around which a marketing campaign can be built. Value propositions define the most
important benefits or facts the target group of customers should know and readily understand about the product being marketed. They clearly establish why the product is important, defining each
product feature specifically and translating those features into customer benefits. Marketing programs are designed around communicating those benefits 

B.2-28

 

to
target groups. The research indicates that customers are interested in receiving the following benefits from the features of a domain name product: 

 Domain Name Features and Benefits Identified Through NeuStar's Research  

	Feature
 
	 	Benefit

	U.S.-centric	 	Identifies owner as a U.S. citizen, organization, nonprofit organization, government, charity, or church
	

New	
 	

Name they want is available
	

Competitive price proposition	
 	

Affordable, good value
	

Generic TLDs with flatter hierarchical structure	
 	

Wider use/wider popularity
	

Direct registration	
 	

Simplicity, ease of acquisition
	

Available through a wide distribution network	
 	

Simplicity, ease of acquisition

Positioning  

        Product positioning is helpful in identifying the specific position or definition that is desired when promoting the product. It defines how a product should be
known, described, or characterized in the 

B.2-29

 

customer's
mind. Based on the research outlined above, the following are examples of how the usTLD could be positioned: 

 usTLD Positioning  

	Market
 
	 	Responding to what

emotion or attribute
	 	Product Feature

Targeted
	 	Positioning Statement

	Consumers and businesses	 	Trust and security	 	U.S.-centric	 	usTLDs are trusted Web sites managed by individuals and businesses located in the United States
	

Consumers and businesses	
 	

Ease	
 	

Generic TLDs with flatter hierarchical structure	
 	

A new, easy-to-remember Web site that is owned and operated in America
	

Consumers and businesses	
 	

Uniqueness and urgency	
 	

New	
 	

A newly introduced domain name extension that allows me to get the name I want
	

Consumer singles, students, young families, self-employed	
 	

Cool factor, few people have this new cool thing	
 	

Personalization	
 	

usTLDs give you a piece of the Web that is as individual as you are by letting you name your own Web site.
	

5) Self-employed, SOHO	
 	

Multipurpose	
 	

Generic	
 	

usTLDs allow my Web site to be used for multiple purposes

Logos and Taglines  

        Logos and taglines are developed to provide customers an easily identifiable company symbol. These images or symbols help to brand a company or product by
offering a brief, easily recognizable description. Both consumers and businesses agreed that dot-us was easy to remember. In addition, they felt the extension was a clear indication that
the owner of the Web site was an American citizen. They also had favorable reactions to words like "trustworthy" and "descriptive" when asked to describe the usTLD. Given these findings, the logos, as
shown in Exhibit B.2-6, are examples of the types of symbols that could be used to brand or characterize the usTLD with the American public. 

        [Exhibit B.2-6:
There are numerous markets and positioning options for the usTLD as demonstrated in this illustrative sample of logos. Graphic Omitted:
sample usTLD logos.] 

B.2-30

   B.2.8.9    Channel  

        Surprisingly, many consumers and businesses do not know how to purchase a domain name today. NeuStar's survey revealed that 3 in 5 consumers and 1 in 5 businesses
do not know how or where to purchase domain names. This indicates a need for both education and a widely distributed network of sales channels to provide ease of acquisition for U.S. citizens.
NeuStar's channel strategy is to create the widest distribution network possible to enable every citizen a speedy and simplified registration process. Educating citizens on where and how to acquire a
usTLD will be covered within the Marketing Plan below. NeuStar would accomplish the channel objective in two phases: 

 Phase 1  

	 
	 	 
	 	 

	Objectives	 	•	 	Achieve 100% participation from ICANN-accredited registrars
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Create a sense of urgency and excitement around the usTLD to encourage the registrars to assist in public awareness and promotional campaigns
	

Market	
 	

Accredited registrars
	

Programs	
 	

•	
 	

Seminars
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Letters of usTLD introduction to all appropriate registrars
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Creation of sales materials
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Sample graphics for use on resellers' Web sites
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Fact sheet outlining the usTLD opportunity and benefits of the structure and application platform
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Tool kit
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Online Web site
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Work with search engines to ensure dot-us is recognized
	

Timing	
 	

1-4 months prior to launch

B.2-31

 

 Phase 2  

	 
	 	 
	 	 

	Objectives	 	•	 	Expand the network beyond current registrars to ensure that every American citizen, business, and public sector can easily acquire a usTLD
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Simplify the accreditation process to encourage wide participation of commercial organizations, nonprofit organizations, foundations, government, charities, churches, and associations
	

Market	
 	

•	
 	

Entities that offer channels beyond the online environment
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Benefits to these organizations as they expand service offerings and end-user benefits
	

Programs	
 	

•	
 	

Creation of accreditation process (Registrar in a box)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Letters of introduction to wide selection of entities
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Direct sales to targeted businesses and public service groups
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Creation of sales materials
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Educational seminars—benefits of the proposition and ease of implementation
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Fact Sheet outlining features and benefits, sales potential, or member reach for use in collateral
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Tool kit
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Sample graphics for use in information material/collateral
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Online Web site
	

Timing	
 	

Launch + 1 year

B.2.8.10    Marketing Plan  

        In order to promote the increased use of the space, expanding awareness levels is essential to a successful strategy. To be successful, branding requires a
consistent message, delivered frequently to the target group. A phased approach is recommended, based on the levels of immediate interest and the purchase intent of target groups. The programs are
designed to increase brand awareness and penetration across the United States to businesses, consumers, and the public sector. 

        Phase
1 objectives are to reach two specific target groups prior to launch. 

	•
	Current
owners of the usTLD will be notified of the changes taking place. The marketing material will pay particular attention to the benefits of a new Administrator and the
expansion of utility. Registrants will be encouraged to take advantage of these new features.

	•
	Consumers
and small business owners will be targeted to create buzz and suspense. The overall objective is to generate a level of interest prior to launch that would
encourage a high number of registrations at launch. 

        These
initiatives are critical and will be successful because they reach both current owners and those targeted consumers and business owners who have already expressed interest and
purchase intent. Capturing this group first is essential, as they become the foundation for the public awareness and word of mouth advertising on the Web. 

B.2-32

 

        Phase
2 builds on the awareness objectives as marketing and promotional efforts are launched to reach a wider audience. The major objectives of this phase are to: 

	•
	Touch
consumer early adopters and early majority to lead the way in numbers of usTLD registrations. As a sizeable mass of consumers begins to adopt the usTLD, more will be
interested and will follow suit.

	•
	Increase
awareness of those in the business community likely to purchase in the near term. Advertising and branding efforts will include education on product benefits and
the registration process to address lack of knowledge on how to acquire a domain name.

	•
	Enable
e-Government initiatives (see Section D for further information) outlining the public's interest in response to the NeuStar research. This interest
will be leveraged as sites come online to further the program.

	•
	Drive
registrations within the ethnic community by increasing awareness levels. Online populations within this community are growing. 

        Phase
2 efforts are designed to address both the timing related to purchase intent as well as the educational challenges that were uncovered within the research. Ensuring that the
population is knowledgeable of the product benefits and is aware of how and where to purchase is critical to driving registrations. This effort will be supported by the channel strategy. As more and
more businesses, groups, and organizations recognize the value of providing and promoting usTLDs to their customers, associates, and members, registrations will increase. In addition, both businesses
and consumers were overwhelmingly positive toward e-Government initiatives. These initiatives should be launched in Phase 2 as an increased benefit and in response to customer needs. 

        Phase
3 reaches across the country to all citizens to ensure they have the knowledge and the opportunity to acquire a usTLD. The major initiatives are planned to: 

	•
	Drive
toward critical mass using vehicles and messages that reach a wider audience of U.S. consumers and businesses. The marketing vehicles will place specific emphasis on
promoting product benefits—"with dot-us, you can get the name you want"—and educating Americans on where to acquire the premier ccTLD.

	•
	Partnership
marketing, affinity opportunities, and relationships will be leveraged to maximize awareness opportunities and drive registrations.

	•
	New
applications will be launched to derive additional product benefits and increase end-user utilization. 

        Phase
3 leverages the momentum established in the early stages. The usTLD message is spread to a greater audience with increased frequency. As the third phase progresses, Americans will
know that a new generic TLD is available, the value of owning one, how applications can improve their utility, and how and where to acquire one. Phase 3 continues to build and rely upon partnership
and affinity marketing strategies that take advantage of the greatly expanded distribution network. NeuStar is confident in this strategy because it: 

	•
	Implements
a build-out strategy to create the brand and increase awareness levels.

	•
	Provides
the greatest distribution network possible by leveraging end-user relationships and providing customers more opportunities to acquire a usTLD.

	•
	Executes
a staged plan to capture those users who are ready to purchase today, creates awareness for the group who indicated a desire to purchase tomorrow, and educates the
balance on why they need a usTLD next week.

	•
	Addresses
educational challenges uncovered in the research. 

B.2-33

 

	•
	Communicates
new applications to increase the utility of the product.

	•
	Responds
to citizens' needs for public interest and e-Government services. 

        What
follows is an outline of the types of campaigns and the coverage that would be launched within each of the program phases. Each phase builds upon the one prior to capture the widest
possible audience with as many impressions as possible. 

Conclusion  

        This plan conclusively demonstrates NeuStar's ability to successfully achieve expansion of the space and drive registrations of the usTLD to every corner of the
country. NeuStar has reviewed and addressed the key factors for success. It has conducted research to understand what American consumers and businesses think about domain names and the usTLD in
particular. With this understanding of the market, NeuStar has developed a plan to reach the U.S. audience. NeuStar recommends getting started on this plan immediately to ensure that usTLDs will be
available to more American consumers, businesses, and public sector entities without delay. 

Complete Research Findings  

Summary of Results and Conclusions—Consumers  

	Domain Name Registration Purchasing Habits	 	Domain name penetration (in percentage terms) is very low in the online consumer sector, with less than 1 in 10 people (6.6%) currently owning a domain name.
	

 	
 	

However, latent interest in purchasing a domain name exists, with more than one-quarter of consumers indicating that they plan to purchase one in the next 12 months. An additional 15% report that they plan to purchase a domain name in the next three
years.
	

 	
 	

Online consumers who access the Web from school are the population subgroup most likely to say they don't currently own a domain name but they plan to purchase one in the next year.
	

 	
 	

Not surprisingly, current domain name owners tend to be early adopters, while those planning future purchases self identify as less savvy in their use of the Internet.
	

 	
 	

Consumers say they primarily want a domain name to start/maintain home-based businesses and/or for a hobby.
	

 	
 	

A clear majority of consumer domain name owners say their personal Web site is very important to them.
	

Awareness and Purchasing Likelihood of usTLDs	
 	

In an unaided test, very few consumers were able to recall that dot-us exists. In fact, general awareness of country code TLDs is low.
	

 	
 	

In an aided test, approximately three-quarters report that they know that dot-us exists. This aided figure is very close to TLDs other than dot-com and dot-net (such as dot-biz and dot-pro). This suggests that even though the generic use of dot-us
has been released after some others, it does not start at a brand equity or intent to purchase disadvantage vis-à-vis newer TLDs.
	 	 	 	 

B.2-34

 

	

 	
 	

Our initial estimates are that approximately one-quarter of online consumers state an initial interest in purchasing a usTLD. This is an elastic figure, however, as many more are willing to consider a usTLD if a dot-com option is taken and/or dot-us
can compete with dot-com on price.
	

Size and Demographics of Likely Purchasers	
 	

Slightly less than one-quarter of online consumers state any interest in one day purchasing a domain name with a dot-us extension, and 5% say they are "very likely" to one day purchase a domain name with a dot-us extension. In round numbers, this 5%
roughly equates to 6.2 million Americans.
	

 	
 	

The target market is made up of a disproportionate number of people in upper socioeconomic groups.
	

 	
 	

Target purchasers have been online for over 5 years, read technology-oriented magazines, and self-identify as "Internet experts."
	

 	
 	

A disproportionate number of target users currently own a domain name.
	

 	
 	

The self-employed and those who are in technical fields also make strong targets.
	

 	
 	

Finally, online consumers who have a family member with a domain name are strongly interested in purchasing a domain name.
	

Attitudes About Existing TLD Options	
 	

Slightly more than three-quarters of consumers want to use the same domain name extension that they have used in the past when they make their next purchase. Given that the overwhelming majority used dot-com in the past, we can assume that this is
the preferred choice going forward.
	

 	
 	

dot-com remains the most universal TLD—many other TLDs have specifically assigned categories in the minds of consumers.
	

 	
 	

However, domain name extensions appear to be less important to consumers than choosing a descriptive name for a Web site (e.g., by a 3-to-1 margin, consumers would rather select a first choice name with a dot-us extension than a less desirable name
with a dot-com extension.
	

 	
 	

Consumers would rather have a dot-us extension for their own Web site over dot-name, even though they acknowledge that dot-name is more descriptive of a personal Web site.
	

Assess branding and product benefits for the usTLD	
 	

A key differentiator for dot-us (like most non-dot-com suffixes) is that consumers can receive the name that they want.
	

 	
 	

Other branding efforts should focus on the patriotic aspects of the usTLD. This focus particularly resonates with older online consumers.
	

 	
 	

Consumers assume that a dot-us Web site would be more trustworthy than a dot-web or dot-biz. site.
	 	 	 	 

B.2-35

 

	

 	
 	

Finally, while many feel that a usTLD is easy to remember, there is some concern that a person using a dot-us extension would be difficult to locate on a search engine.
	

Receptivity for locality and hierarchical based structures	
 	

About 4 in 10 consumers are generally receptive to locality-based name structures.
	

 	
 	

However, when we ask consumers if they would personally prefer a long locality-based name (such as yourname.dallas.tx.us) or a shorter structure (yourname.us), the overwhelming preference is for the shorter name.
	

 	
 	

Consumers overwhelmingly believe that public service second-level domains (i.e., parks.us) are a good idea.
	

Preferred strings for different types of Web sites	
 	

dot-com tested most favorably among all the options presented.
	

 	
 	

dot-us tested very favorably versus the options presented, particularly when the sought-after name in dot-com was unavailable.
	

 	
 	

dot-us is seen as most relevant for government, education, political, and military Web sites. Users were also receptive toward personal, business, family, and community Web sites with usTLDs.
	

 	
 	

dot-net is seen as primarily for networks and alliances. Other potential uses are for any corporate Web site and, to a lesser extent, for personal Web sites.
	

 	
 	

dot-name is seen as relevant only for personal or family Web sites.
	

 	
 	

dot-biz is seen as strictly a corporate Web site TLD.
	

 	
 	

Consumers believe dot-org has multiple applications outside personal use.
	

 	
 	

Consumers clearly prefer TLDs that:
	

 	
 	

•	

Are flat rather than hierarchical
	

 	
 	

•	

Are generic (like dot-us) rather than specific (like dot-name)
	

 	
 	

•	

Encourage shorter rather than longer names
	

Price elasticity and channel strategies	
 	

dot-us needs to be priced competitively in the marketplace. While most expect dot-com and dot-us to be priced equally, a plurality of consumers expects dot-us to be cheaper than dot-com.
	

 	
 	

For likely domain name purchasers, dot-us purchase intent remains low until the $15 per year price point; at $15 per year, 64% say they would be "very likely" to purchase a usTLD.
	

 	
 	

Not surprisingly, online is the preferred channel for TLDs. Among other avenues tested, about 1 in 10 are very interested in a tele-channel and 1 in 7 are very interested in purchasing domain names at retail outlets.
	

Barriers to TLD Purchases	
 	

Three in five online consumers do not know how to purchase a domain name.
	 	 	 	 

B.2-36

 

	

 	
 	

Two-thirds of online consumers believe that they do not need their own domain name right now.
	

 	
 	

Approximately 1 in 4 survey respondents believe that owning a Web site is too expensive and 1 in 5 believe the creation and maintenance of a Web site is too difficult.

Summary of Results and Conclusions—Businesses  

	Domain Name Registration Purchasing Habits	 	Domain name penetration (in percentage terms) is relatively high in the business Internet population, with 55% currently owning a domain name.
	

 	
 	

However, we do not anticipate a great deal of business activity in the next year, since only 7% of businesses say they plan to purchase a domain name within the next year. An additional 4% report that they plan to purchase a domain name in the next
three years.
	

 	
 	

Small businesses are more likely than large businesses to say they plan to purchase a domain name in the next year.
	

 	
 	

A majority of online businesses say their Web site is important to them.
	

 	
 	

Approximately 2 in 5 businesses say customers purchase goods or services through their current Web site.
	

Awareness and Purchasing Likelihood of usTLDs	
 	

In an unaided test, very few businesses were able to recall that dot-us exists. In fact, general awareness of ccTLDs is low.
	

 	
 	

One in twenty business survey respondents work for a company that currently has a country code associated with its domain name. Virtually all of these businesses have more than 1,000 employees.
	

 	
 	

In an aided test, approximately 7 in 10 report that they know that dot-us exists. This aided figure is very close to TLDs other than dot-com and dot-net (such as dot-pro). This suggests that even though the generic use of dot-us has been released
after some others, it does not start at a brand equity or intent to purchase disadvantage vis-à-vis newer TLDs.
	

 	
 	

Our initial estimates are that approximately 1 in 5 businesses state some interest in eventually purchasing a usTLD. This is an elastic figure, however, as many more are willing to consider a usTLD if
	

 	
 	

•	

Their dot-com option is taken
	

 	
 	

•	

dot-us can competitively compete with dot-com on price
	

 	
 	

•	

They realize the necessity in purchasing dot-us in order to prevent cybersquatting.
	

Size and Demographics of Likely Purchasers	
 	

Slightly more than one-fifth of online businesses state an interest in one day purchasing a domain name with a dot-us extension. This means that approximately 1.5 million businesses are potential purchasers of the usTLD.
	 	 	 	 

B.2-37

 

	

 	
 	

While small and large businesses demonstrate strong interest in purchasing domain names going forward, midsize businesses appear less interested.
	

 	
 	

SOHO is an excellent target.
	

 	
 	

Target business purchasers have been online for over 5 years, and self-identify as "Internet experts."
	

 	
 	

Most business purchasers currently own a domain name.
	

 	
 	

Very few target business purchasers are over the age of 55.
	

 	
 	

Businesses that do not currently own a domain name or know how to purchase a domain name, and whose employees do not use the Internet on a daily basis are disinclined to purchase a domain name.
	

Attitudes about existing TLD options	
 	

Slightly more than 3 in 5 businesses want to use the same domain name extension that they have used in the past when they make their next purchase. Given that the overwhelming majority used dot-com in the past, we can assume that this is the
preferred choice going forward.
	

 	
 	

dot-com remains the most universal TLD—many other TLDs have specifically assigned categories in the minds of businesses.
	

 	
 	

However, domain name extensions appear to be slightly less important to businesses than choosing a descriptive name for a Web site. For example, by a six-point margin, businesses would rather select a first choice name with a dot-us extension than a
less desirable name with a dot-com extension.
	

 	
 	

Businesses would rather have a dot-us extension for their corporate Web site over dot-biz even though they acknowledge that dot-biz is more descriptive of a business Web site.
	

Assess branding and product benefits for the usTLD	
 	

A key differentiator for dot-us (like most non-dot-com suffixes) is that businesses can receive the name that they want.
	

 	
 	

Seven in ten businesses believe the dot-us extension means that the company is based in the United States.
	

 	
 	

While many businesses feel that a usTLD is easy to remember, there is some concern that a company using a dot-us extension could be difficult to locate on a search engine.
	

 	
 	

About one-third of businesses feel that dot-us connotes that a Web site is secure and trustworthy.
	

 	
 	

Businesses say that just because a Web site has a dot-us extension, this does not necessarily mean that it is new.
	

 	
 	

Among the businesses interested in purchasing a usTLD, one-third cited the prevention of cybersquatting and one-third believes that usTLD adds value; the remainder were unsure.
	

Receptivity for locality and hierarchical based structures	
 	

About 4 in 10 online businesses are generally receptive to locality-based name structures.
	 	 	 	 

B.2-38

 

	

 	
 	

However, when we ask businesses if they would personally prefer a long locality-based name (such as your.company.dallas.tx.us) or a shorter structure (your.company.us), the overwhelming preference is for the shorter name.
	

Preferred strings for different types of Web sites	
 	

dot-com tested most favorably among all the options presented.
	

 	
 	

dot-us tested very favorably versus the options presented, particularly when the sought-after name in dot-com was unavailable.
	

 	
 	

dot-us is seen as most relevant for government, education, political, and military Web sites. Businesses were also receptive toward personal, business, family, and community Web sites with usTLDs.
	

 	
 	

dot-net is seen as primarily for networks and alliances. Other potential uses are for any corporate Web site and, to a lesser extent, for personal Web sites.
	

 	
 	

dot-biz is seen as strictly a corporate Web site TLD.
	

 	
 	

Businesses believe dot-org has multiple applications outside personal use.
	

 	
 	

Businesses (just like consumers) clearly prefer TLDs that:
	

 	
 	

•	

Are flat rather than hierarchical
	

 	
 	

•	

Are generic (like dot-us) rather than specific (like dot-name)
	

 	
 	

•	

Encourage shorter rather than longer names
	

Price elasticity and channel strategies	
 	

dot-us needs to be priced competitively in the marketplace. While most expect dot-com and dot-us to be priced equally, a plurality of businesses expect dot-us to be cheaper than dot-com.
	

 	
 	

For likely domain name purchasers, dot-us purchase intent remains low until the $15 per year price point; at $15 per year, 63% of business say they would be very likely to purchase a usTLD.
	

 	
 	

Businesses prefer purchasing domain names in longer intervals (well over 50% would like the intervals to be three years or more) without having to renew.
	

 	
 	

Not surprisingly, online is the preferred channel for TLDs. Among other avenues tested, 15% are very interested in a tele-channel and 1 in 10 are very interested in purchasing domain names at retail outlets.
	

Barriers to TLD Purchases	
 	

Slightly less than 1 in 5 businesses say that they do not know how to purchase a domain name and that this has been a very important barrier that has stopped them from creating a Web site.
	

 	
 	

One-third of businesses believe that they do not need their own domain name right now.
	

 	
 	

About 1 in 4 business respondents believe purchasing a domain name is too expensive and 13% believe the creation and maintenance of a Web site is too difficult.

B.2-39

 

B.2.9    Integration Assistance  

        NeuStar's Registrar Tool Kit software and operational test-and-evaluation facility will ensure that registries
rapidly become familiar with our thick registry system, allowing them to begin operations efficiently, as soon as possible after accreditation.

        NeuStar
will operate a thick registry for the usTLD; although this thick registry allows us to enable new and enhanced services, it will also require registrars to follow new procedures
when working with the usTLD registry. NeuStar will make every effort to give our registrars the support they need for a smooth transition to integrating with the usTLD registry. 

        Once
a registrar is accredited, NeuStar will provide the XRP Registrar Tool Kit (RTK) software, along with documentation and training materials, to enable that registrar to learn the
procedures and to obtain the technical knowledge necessary to interface with the usTLD registry. 

        NeuStar
will establish an operational test-and-evaluation facility that will be available 24 × 7 × 365 for
registrars to test their client systems. Our technical support team, which consists of functional experts in the processes and technologies for domain-name registration, will support this
testing. 

        Once
each new registrar is satisfied that its system is compatible with the registry system, it will schedule a formal acceptance test that will be monitored by our system
engineers. After a registrar has passed the acceptance test, we will issue a user ID, passwords, and digital certificates, so that the registrar can begin operations. 

B.2.10    Compliance Monitoring  

        Monitoring of delegees for technical compliance to the most current usTLD policies will ensure that NeuStar's database remains up to date,
that delegees remain compliant with usTLD technical requirements, and that the usTLD retains a U.S. Nexus.

        As
discussed in Section B.4.5, NeuStar will conduct an initial compliance investigation in the first six months after contract award. This investigation is a requirement of the
RFQ, and is intended to allow NeuStar to suggest policy changes, as well as to identify non-responsive delegees (including subdelegees), delegees who do not meet policy and technical
compliance requirements, and "locality squatters." As part of this investigation, we will work collaboratively with delegees to help them achieve both policy and technical compliance, if they are
found lacking in any way. 

        Information
garnered from this investigation should also serve to confirm information received from the current administrator regarding server names and physical locations of the delegee
servers. This will allow NeuStar to ensure that all delegee nameservers are physically located in the United States. 

        It
is also important, however, that delegees continue to remain compliant with usTLD technical requirements for the lifetime of their delegations, and a level of oversight by NeuStar
will help to guarantee this. Since NeuStar will not necessarily be hosting the resource records associated with names registered to delegated managers, it is possible for the delegee to register a
name and forget to update NeuStar. NeuStar will "walk the tree" (see Section F for a description) on a continuous basis and compare the results with information in the Centralized usTLD
Database. If there is a difference, we will contact the delegated manager to correct the discrepancy. Additionally, NeuStar will perform yearly monitoring for technical compliance of locality
delegees. 

B.2-40

 

        During
this yearly audit, NeuStar will check that delegees continue to meet the technical and other requirements set out in RFC 1480 and other documents, and will include the following: 

	•
	There
must be a knowledgable and competent technical contact, familiar with the Internet Domain Name System.

	•
	The
actual management of the assigning of domain names, delegating subdomains, and operating nameservers must be done with technical competence. This includes keeping the
usTLD administrator or other higher-level domain managers advised of the status of the domain; responding to requests in a timely manner; and operating the database with accuracy, robustness, and
resilience.

	•
	There
must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have IP connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for operational status and database accuracy by the
usTLD administrator.

	•
	Nameservers
should be in distinctly separate physical locations. It is appropriate to have more than two nameservers, but there must be at least two. 

        In
order to perform this monitoring function, NeuStar will compare delegee information in the Centralized usTLD Database with information in the zone files. NeuStar will also prepare a
technical survey to send to delegees, requesting information to confirm the names and physical locations of delegee nameservers, as well as delegee contact information. 

        In
continuing with our cooperative approach to our initial compliance investigation, NeuStar will be monitoring compliance to ensure that all delegees meet the technical and U.S. Nexus
requirements necessary to run a usTLD delegation and protect the integrity of the usTLD and of the Internet. As with the original report, we will work with any deficient delegees to help them achieve
technical compliance. 

B.2.11    Web Site  

        NeuStar's usTLD Web site will provide comprehensive information and communications methods to registrars and delegees while also
displaying, informative essential pages to the general public.

        NeuStar
recognizes how critical information flow is for a registry to interact with its registrars. We also understand that, as the administrator responsible for the integrity of the
usTLD, we must provide information that can be easily accessed by the Internet community. Although these are two very distinct requirements, they can easily be incorporated into a single,
easy-to-navigate, content-based Web site. NeuStar will implement such a Web site divided into a public section for potential new registrars and the Internet community and a
private section for existing registrars and locality delegees (including subdelegees). 

        The
public section of this Web site will provide information to potential new registrars as well as to the Internet community. It is vital that this section of the Web site be easy to
use and easy to navigate; we will make every effort to prevent confusion, especially among the newest visitors to the Web site. 

        This
public portion of the Web site will allow users to do the following: 

	•
	Obtain
information about the locality—based and expanded usTLD spaces;

	•
	Identify
a locality-based delegee for registration in a delegated space or subdelegation of a space;

	•
	Register
a domain name in an undelegated locality space;

	•
	Locate
a registrar for registration in the usTLD expanded space; 

B.2-41

 

	•
	Access
the usTLD Help Desk via e-mail and messaging services;

	•
	Obtain
Whois information, by string or field search, in the usTLD;

	•
	Look
up the availability of domain names; and

	•
	Apply
for accreditation as a registrar in the expanded space. 

        Our
efforts to maintain the best possible communications with usTLD registrars will be reflected in the private members section of the usTLD Web site. This section will allow registrars
to access information about all areas of the registry's operation. Some of the key components of the site will be: 

	•
	A
password-protected area where registrars will be able to access reports,

	•
	A
password-protected area where delegees and registrants will be able to communicate with the registry,

	•
	A
central repository of all public documentation,

	•
	Detailed
information and documentation regarding integration assistance,

	•
	A
comprehensive list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs),

	•
	Access
to the usTLD Help Desk via e-mail and instant messaging services,

	•
	All
relevant contact information and escalation procedures,

	•
	Access
to customer account information,

	•
	A
collection of marketing material and information that may be freely used by registrars to help them promote the domain space, and

	•
	Free
downloads of RTK software. 

        NeuStar's
Web development team is experienced in providing Web sites that allow both public and private access. We will leverage our Web development experience and design an
easy-to-navigate, content-based Web site that will provide fast and easy access to services, help, and information to all of our customers. 

B.2.12    Documentation and Training  

        Readily available, clear and concise procedures and documentation ensure a stable system, informed customers, and knowledgeable Help Desk
account representatives. These are fundamental to NeuStar's customer service philosophy.

        Accurate,
detailed documentation is vital to the implementation of any successful TLD registry, particularly when transitioning the administration of and enhancing the registry. System
documentation in particular will contribute to the stability of the registry and improve service enhancements. 

        Two
distinct types of documentation are required in order to provide a complete understanding of the usTLD and the services being provided—internal and external. Internal
documentation includes both system documents and methods and procedures (M&P) documents. External documentation includes all user documents, such as online help and user's manuals and training
materials for new registrars. Training of the usTLD staff ensures the highest quality of customer service that NeuStar can offer, and training materials provided to registrars allow those registrars
to quickly become familiar with usTLD registry operations. 

        System
documentation allows developers to relay the details of the usTLD registry specifications, design, and interfaces. These documents assist not only in the initial implementation of
the system but also in repairing the system and scaling the system, should the need arise. M&P documentation will 

B.2-42

 

provide
the usTLD support staff with policies and procedures for support of the usTLD. These documents will provide clear instructions for responding to requests for help, procedures for handling
service interruptions, and workflow processes for all functional areas. M&P documentation, while invisible to our customers, is a vital step in providing the best possible services to them. User
documentation provides registrars with detailed instructions for using the Registrar Tool Kit and interfacing with the usTLD registry. These documents are vital to successful implementation of the
usTLD expanded space. 

Internal Documentation  

        As part of our internal documentation initiative, NeuStar will develop both system documents and M&P documents. In addition, a Quality Assurance (QA) Plan will be
prepared and used throughout the development, test, implementation, and maintenance life cycles to ensure the quality and success of the usTLD registry. The QA Plan will specify all system and user
documents to be produced for the usTLD registry. 

        The
full suite of internal documentation will be prepared and maintained by NeuStar through the project life cycle and will be made available to the DOC or to a designated third party
for audit purposes. Compliance matrices will be prepared to map system requirements to system design and to individual test scenarios. At a minimum, system documentation will include the following: 

	•
	Functional Requirements Specification—Describes all external interfaces and specifies the
functional, data, performance, and security requirements of the usTLD registry.

	•
	System Design Document—Presents a high-level overview of the usTLD registry
that will facilitate analysis, planning, and implementation.

	•
	Detailed Design Document—Presents a more detailed overview of the usTLD registry to
further facilitate analysis, planning, and implementation.

	•
	Testing Documentation—Includes detailed test plans, test scenarios, and test scripts to
ensure that the usTLD meets the requirements outlined in the Functional Requirements Specification.

	•
	Security Policy Document—Outlines all aspects of NeuStar's security policies, including access, Internet and
physical security, and procedures for handling security breaches.

	•
	Disaster Recovery Plan—Details the requisite procedures for full recovery of the usTLD registry. 

        M&P
documents will be developed and maintained to guide NeuStar personnel in the day-to-day operation of the usTLD. These documents will contain all of the usTLD
business rules and workflow processes for all functional areas, as well as internal and external reporting requirements. At a minimum, M&P Documentation will include the following: 

	•
	Help Desk (Tier 1) Methods and Procedures—Provides all methods and procedures for
Help Desk staff in NeuStar's IP Customer Service Center, including phone and e-mail help procedures, trouble-ticketing procedures, and escalation procedures.

	•
	Applications Support (Tier 2) Methods and Procedures—Provides methods and
procedures for the applications support staff, including procedures for resolving trouble tickets as well as expected times for resolution of service-affecting and non-service-affecting
problems.

	•
	Billing and Collections Methods and Procedures—Provides all methods and procedures for
the usTLD billing staff, including procedures for handling registrar calls and resolving billing issues.

	•
	Quality Assurance Methods and Procedures—Provides all methods and procedures for QA
staff, to ensure that all QA requirements are followed by NeuStar's usTLD staff. 

        All
M&P documentation will also include contact information for escalation of issues. 

B.2-43

   External Documentation  

        As part of our external documentation initiative, NeuStar will develop guides for use by registrars in the usTLD expanded space, as well as guidelines for
locality-space delegees. These documents will be available on the usTLD Web site. 

        At
a minimum, user documentation will include the following: 

	•
	RTK Programmer's Guide—Contains detailed information to registrars about using the
Registrar Tool Kit, which will be provided to all usTLD accredited registrars via the private area of the usTLD Web site.

	•
	Connecting to the usTLD—Provides information and detailed guidelines for delegees and registrars for interfacing
with the usTLD registry.

	•
	Guidelines for Locality Delegees—Provides detailed guidelines for delegees and
subdelegees in the locality-based usTLD space, including technical and operational requirements of a locality delegee, as well as procedures for transferring a locality space to a new delegee.

	•
	Frequently Asked Questions—Provides answers to Frequently Asked Questions for both
registrars and locality delegees and subdelegees. An additional FAQ will be available on the public section of the Web site for registrants and the general public.

	•
	Marketing the usTLD—Provides ideas and information to registrars for successfully marketing the usTLD in their
own advertising. 

Training  

        In order to provide the best value in service to registrars, delegees, and registrants, the IP Customer Support Team will develop and distribute extensive
training materials to ensure that all staff have a well-rounded knowledge and understanding of registry and registrar operations and procedures. Although staff will be chosen on the basis
of domain name management experience, it is vital that all members of the usTLD team are trained on usTLD-specific methods and procedures. In this way, NeuStar will ensure extremely high levels of
quality, consistent support services. 

        At
NeuStar, we want our customers to feel comfortable working within our systems; a registrar that does not fully comprehend our procedures and functions may feel uncomfortable working
with us. To avoid these problems and ensure fuller participation in the usTLD registry, training materials will be provided to registrars via the usTLD Web site. These materials will include
presentations and walk-throughs that instruct registrars on use of the RTK software and inform them on how to interface with the usTLD registry. Any questions from registrars not covered
in these training materials and in the user documentation and FAQs will be answered, either by our Integration Assistance team or the Help Desk staff. 

B.2.13    Customer Relationship Management  

        NeuStar will leverage an enterprise-wide CRM program to assist in channel management and outreach for the
usTLD.

        NeuStar
recognizes that the most important element in any service is the customer—whether that customer is the Department of Commerce, a registrar, or an individual
registrant. To this end, NeuStar has codified and implemented throughout its lines of business a thoughtful, thorough, and down-to-earth approach to Customer Relationship
Management (CRM). NeuStar's goal is to ensure customer satisfaction and provide superb service levels to all of the customers with whom we have a relationship. 

B.2-44

 

        Our
CRM vision is to exceed customer satisfaction levels by managing all communications channels, regardless of how customer interactions are initiated, and by observing the needs and
wants of our
customers to better understand them. CRM allows us to seamlessly blend multiple technologies and applications with processes and resources while managing all areas and types of customer interactions,
including sales, marketing, customer service, billing, and technical support. Our CRM program will optimize the value of every customer interaction and experience with usTLD points of contact and
service. NeuStar's commitment to provide this down-to-earth customer support is at the heart of our CRM business practices and procedures. We understand the high expectations
of our customer base for providing usTLD services to the Internet community in the United States—and NeuStar will deliver. 

        Our
CRM program comprises scalable infrastructure, solid processes, and a technological foundation. We will use CRM in combination with our extensive market and customer knowledge to
ensure that we meet our commitment to timely, responsive, and high-quality customer service. 

B.2.14    Reporting  

        NeuStar's Web-based usTLD reporting system will be rich in functionality and have built-in flexibility to provide
reporting information to registrars in numerous ways.

        NeuStar's
usTLD registry will include an automated reporting service that will provide a regular, high-level description of information about the registrar's interaction with
the registry. This report will be e-mailed to designated registry contacts and will be available via the private section of the usTLD Web site. It is important to note that a registrar
will have access only to its own data; a registrar will not have access to any other registrar's private information. The specific information included in these reports will be developed in
consultation with registrars to ensure that they have access to information they deem critical for their business, and different sets of information will be available for different time periods. The
reports will include data such as: 

	•
	Total
number of domains registered since initiating service as a usTLD registrar;

	•
	Total
number of domains registered or cancelled in the previous 7 days, 24 days, or 1 month, as requested by the registrar;

	•
	Total
number of domains transferred from other registrars;

	•
	Total
number of domains transferred to other registrars;

	•
	Remaining
account balance; and

	•
	A
list of domain names that are coming due for re-registration. 

        It
is anticipated that registrars may require additional, specific information from time to time. To make this information available to registrars, NeuStar will develop a
Web-based report query function. This function will allow registrars to obtain information on registration and maintenance activity such as: 

	•
	Numbers
and names of domains registered within any specified period;

	•
	Domain
names transferred to or away from the registrar within a specified period;

	•
	Change
of ownership activity, including exact time and date requests were processed; and

	•
	Re-delegation
activity for domains assigned to a given registrar. 

        These
reports will be developed on an ongoing basis in consultation with registrars and the DOC. 

B.2-45

 

B.2.15    Progress and Quarterly Reporting  

        In order to provide assurances to the COTR of the level of work and progress toward goals of the usTLD, NeuStar will submit progress
reports and quarterly reports, as required by the RFQ.

        Routine
communications with our customer is the best way to ensure that we are making progress toward our goals for the usTLD. In accordance with RFQ Section C.2, NeuStar will
submit monthly progress reports to the COTR and post them on our web site for the first two years of the purchase order, as well as quarterly reports thereafter. These reports will indicate the status
of all major events as well as major work performed during the reporting period, including technical status, accomplishments, and complications experienced in fulfilling SOW requirements. These
reports will also provide performance data related to the operation of the usTLD registry. This data will include, for each reporting period: 

	•
	The
total number of registry transactions;

	•
	The
number of new, transferred, or deleted registrations in the usTLD, including cumulative registrations over time;

	•
	The
number of locality delegees (including subdelegees) and changes in locality delegees;

	•
	The
number of registrars accredited to register names in the expanded usTLD space, including the operational status of those registrars; and

	•
	Any
updates or modifications to the system made by NeuStar. 

B.2.16    Help Desk  

        Our unparalleled experience in providing data administration solutions and services makes NeuStar the only entity truly capable of
providing the technical support and administration services necessary for the successful operation of the usTLD registry.

        Because
of the complex nature of the usTLD space, a high level of Help Desk services will be necessary to support our customers—registrars, delegees (which includes
subdelegees), and locality-based registrants. NeuStar will ensure that these communities have access to the right support from the right people. 

        During
implementation, the usTLD staff will work to establish policies, processes, and procedures that facilitate efficient usTLD operations, including verifying and understanding
registrar interfaces, problem resolution and escalation procedures, service and administration guidelines, and customer record security. Registrars who call the Help Desk will be identified by caller
ID and by a pre-established pass phrase that is different for each registrar. 

        NeuStar's
usTLD Help Desk within the Internet Protocol (IP) Customer Service Center will be the first point of contact for registrars, delegees, and direct registrants for Tier 1
technical and account questions as well as for billing questions. Tier 2 technical support will be available on a 24 × 7 × 365 basis. We will
leverage NeuStar employees trained in Internet Help Desk operations; these employees will be familiar will all usTLD policies, standards, and practices. In order to accommodate multiple U.S. time
zones, the Help Desk will be available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday. 

        Help
Desk personnel and other assistance will be available to our customers through a variety of means, including: 

	•
	A
toll-free Help Desk number that provides customer support from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (EST) and technical support on a
24 × 7 × 365 basis;

	•
	E-mail
access for Tier 1 and Tier 2 assistance; 

B.2-46

 

	•
	Extensive
self-help provided via the usTLD registry Web site, including detailed documentation and answers to Frequently Asked Questions;

	•
	Online
instant messaging support;

	•
	Easy-to-use
training materials;

	•
	Discussion
and news lists; and

	•
	Password
access to reports via a secured section of the registry Web site. 

        The
IP Customer Service Center's phone system will use an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system and Automatic Call Distributor (ACD) to route registrar and direct registrant calls to
the appropriate Help Desk personnel. Customers who call the toll-free number after 8:00 p.m. will have their calls routed to the on-call Second Tier technical support
specialist. NeuStar's highly skilled, customer-oriented Help Desk staff will be responsive to customer needs and will provide the following support services: 

	•
	Assistance
with domain name registration and administration operations,

	•
	Troubleshooting
assistance and problem resolution for first-level technical and integration issues,

	•
	Answers
to questions regarding policies and procedures,

	•
	Assistance
with address charging and payment issues, and

	•
	Explanations
of general guidelines over the phone. 

        Customer
support queries received by phone, by e-mail, or from the usTLD Web site will be logged and tracked through assignment of a trouble ticket. It is the goal of
NeuStar's IP Customer Support Center to close as many trouble tickets as possible on the first call. In the event that an issue cannot be resolved during the initial call, it will be escalated to the
appropriate Second Tier support service. 

        NeuStar's
Second Tier Customer Support staff will act as a second level of escalation in resolving registrars' technical issues. This team will be responsible for providing complex
problem identification and resolution, in-depth system integration assistance, and system troubleshooting. Some of the key functions supported by this team include: 

	•
	Addition
of new registrars into the system;

	•
	Maintenance
of registrar security mechanisms, such as public and private keys and passwords;

	•
	System
service reporting;

	•
	Change
management;

	•
	Mass
database modifications and updates;

	•
	Non-standard
database modifications; and

	•
	Production
and updates of system documentation and integration guides. 

        The
Billing and Collections team will provide support for account statements, reconciliation, and other billing issues. Although the primary point of contact for registrars on these
issues will be the account manager, the Billing and Collections team will be responsible for understanding and meeting the day-to-day billing needs of registrars. The core
responsibilities of the Billing and Collections team will be to: 

	•
	Accept
and process initial registration payments from registrars,

	•
	Assist
registrars in adding funds to their account, 

B.2-47

 

	•
	Audit
and produce monthly statements for registrars,

	•
	Monitor
available funds in registrar accounts, and

	•
	Audit
and reconcile system registration records with accounting system records. 

Help Desk Escalation  

        Help Desk escalation procedures are intended to resolve issues as quickly as possible. An escalated Help Desk call will use the following procedure: 

	1.
	A
customer will contact the usTLD Help Desk via the toll-free number. The Help Desk account representative receiving the call will open a trouble ticket by obtaining the
following information from the customer:

	•
	Name
of customer contact;

	•
	Company
name;

	•
	Point
of Contact, if other than the person opening the trouble ticket;

	•
	Call-back
telephone number;

	•
	E-mail
address; and

	•
	Detailed
description of the problem, including how the problem manifested itself, the time the problem occurred or began, whether or not the symptoms of the problem are
still occurring, and whether or not a root cause analysis and/or resolution/fix are required. The problem description should be in bullet format.

	2.
	The
Help Desk account representative will attempt to resolve the issue and close the trouble ticket. The account representative will use a check sheet developed by second-level support
in diagnosing the problem and attempted problem resolution.

	3.
	If
the account representative cannot immediately resolve the issue, the account representative will escalate the issue to a Tier-2 support specialist. Our escalation policy
defines procedures and time lines for elevating problems either to functional experts or to management for 

B.2-48

 

resolution
if they are not resolved within the escalation policy time limits. The following table is an overview of our escalation policy. 

 NeuStar usTLD Help Desk Escalation Policy  

	Level
 
	 	Description
	 	Escalation Policy
	 	Notification

	I	 	Catastrophic outage affecting overall registry operations	 	Service center manager escalates to usTLD management and Disaster Recovery Team if not resolved in 15 minutes	 	Web portal and e-mail notifications to all registrars and locality delegees within 15 minutes; updates every 30 minutes
	

II	
 	

Systems outage affecting one or two registrar sessions but not the entire system	
 	

Systems engineer escalates to service center manager if not resolved in one hour.	
 	

Web-portal notification to all registrars and locality delegees, including subdelegees; hourly updates
	

III	
 	

Technical questions	
 	

Help Desk account representative escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved in two hours	
 	

Hourly updates to registrar, locality delegee, or registrant via e-mail
	

IV	
 	

Basic questions	
 	

Help Desk account representative escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved within four hours	
 	

Hourly updates to registrar, locality delegee, or registrant via e-mail

The NeuStar Difference  

        Throughout our operations, in both telephony and IP services, NeuStar has demonstrated its ability to deliver and manage complex database services such as those
needed to run a successful top-level domain. More than that, NeuStar has first-hand experience in learning what difficulties can arise from registry services like the usTLD
registry and has proven its capability not only to handle problems efficiently when they arise but also to prevent them from occurring. 

B.2-49

  

B.3    Core Policy Requirements  

        NeuStar will establish sound policies and processes designed to create a collaborative partnership between the usTLD Administrator and the
usTLD community.

	•
	Only NeuStar has the combination of technical and public resource service capabilities required to ensure proper administration of the
usTLD

	•
	NeuStar will develop collaborative partnerships focused on service to the community rather than ownership of a registry

	•
	NeuStar has entered into an agreement with the American Arbitration Association to provide dispute resolution services for the usTLD. This agreement
ensures the availability of a U.S.-based dispute resolution provider for the usTLD

        NeuStar
believes that the role of the usTLD Administrator is similar to that of a trustee of an important public resource. Indeed, NeuStar submits that this should be the role of the
administrator for any ccTLD. Given this role, the usTLD Administrator is responsible for the development of sound policies and procedures designed to ensure that the Administrator's operations serve
the public interest. 

        To
properly serve the public interest in the usTLD context, the usTLD Administrator must: 

	•
	Develop
a robust, secure, shared registry system designed to expand the utility and use of the usTLD. In effect, the system must be designed to bring the usTLD
infrastructure into the global Internet infrastructure to serve as a model of ccTLD "best practices".

	•
	Ensure
the stability and usability of the locality-based usTLD structure, delegations and registrations while describing a path forward for enhancements and new uses of the
locality-based space.

	•
	Develop
open policies and procedures with a high degree of responsiveness and accountability to the usTLD community. In particular, members of the usTLD community must have
readily accessible means to discuss, suggest, and promote modified or supplemental policies, services, and procedures in the usTLD, as well as address complaints or other issues raised in the context
of the operation of the domain space. 

        In
its development and implementation of policies and procedures for the usTLD, the new usTLD administrator must avoid (i) taking a minimalist approach by describing certain
public interest aspirations and guidelines without establishing sufficient processes to back them up, or (ii) adopting very heavy-handed regulation designed to force users and services
providers of the space into a single vision of the usTLD. The first approach fails to establish a sufficient framework to promote certainty and value for users of the space, and the second approach
establishes rigid structures lacking the flexibility to deal with changing business, social and policy environments. Thus, both approaches will fail, causing the ultimate failure of the enhanced
usTLD. NeuStar's approach will avoid the pitfalls of under- or over-structuring the TLD space. 

        NeuStar
will establish a number of core policies designed to address certain issues specified in the RFQ, as well as issues generally required for the transition and start-up
of an enhanced usTLD. The basic polices that NeuStar will implement include: 

	•
	The
US Nexus Requirement to ensure that the usTLD serves the US Internet community;

	•
	Adoption
of Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedures modeled after ICANN models to address intellectual property protection and similar concerns;

	•
	Adoption
of the "Sunrise" policy to allow trademark holders to protect their valuable names; 

B.3-1

 

	•
	Adoption
of ICANN and Governmental Advisory Committee policies on open ccTLDs to bring the usTLD into the global ccTLD community;

	•
	Whois
policy designed to enhance privacy and accountability in the whois database;

	•
	Review
and oversight of the locality-based space within the usTLD;

	•
	Other
implementation policies to support the development of the usTLD. 

        The
majority of NeuStar's policy activity will not be prescriptive in nature. Rather, NeuStar submits that the most effective policy structure for the usTLD will be one of collaborative
partnership. NeuStar will establish effective and flexible processes responsive to the usTLD community and the public interest. In particular, NeuStar will develop a usTLD Policy Council (Council) as
an advisory body for usTLD policy operations. This body will interface with the public and provide an independent forum and mechanism for future development of the usTLD. 

        Initially,
the Council will be responsible for the modernization and enhancement of the locality-based usTLD space. In the future, however, the Council may be called upon to address such
issues as new hierarchical space within the TLD to address recognized public needs, the enhancement of privacy protections for domain registrants, or the enforcement of the accreditation agreement
with registrars. In any event, the Council will be designed to work effectively with the various usTLD constituencies, federal, state and local governments, and ICANN, to ensure that the usTLD
Administrator's role as a trustee is fulfilled. 

        NeuStar
is uniquely qualified to assume the complex policy role needed to properly serve the usTLD community. Indeed, the kinds of goals described are entirely consistent with NeuStar's
proven record in its roles as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Local Number Portability
Administrator. Much more is needed in the administration of the usTLD than a strong technical solution. Absent the skills developed through the administration of public resources, it is unlikely that
an entity will have the expertise to properly manage the usTLD envisioned in the RFQ and the capability to support the principles established for ccTLDs by the Governmental Advisory Committee of
ICANN. 

        As
demonstrated through the proposed development of the Council, a key aspect of NeuStar's plan to meet the goals discussed above is its commitment to ensuring that the usTLD
Administrator operates as a trusted neutral third-party in the provision of secure, stable and fair administration services for the critical public resource, the usTLD space. As is clearly outlined
above, despite the views of many that a ccTLD is simply another commercial venture, the usTLD Administrator cannot act simply as a commercially motivated operator. Therefore, in performing its duties
for the usTLD the Administrator must hold itself to a code of conduct exceeding traditional commercial standards. 

        Access
to DNS services is critical to entities wishing to participate in the DNS industry specifically and in Internet business generally. Domain names are the means by which
governments, businesses, and consumers gain access to, navigate, and reap the benefits of the worldwide web. These benefits cannot be fully realized, however, unless policies are in place to ensure
that DNS resources in the usTLD are administered in a fair, equitable and efficient manner that makes them available to all parties desiring to provide DNS services. In order to meet this goal,
NeuStar submits that the services of the Administrator must be administered to meet the following objectives: 

	•
	Facilitate
the provision of Internet services and use of the usTLD by making DNS resources available on an efficient, timely basis to registrars and registrants;

	•
	Not
unduly favor or disadvantage any particular industry segment, public organization, government agency, or group of consumers; 

B.3-2

 

	•
	Ensure
that interests of all usTLD constituents are considered and addressed fairly and efficiently. 

        To
ensure that NeuStar meets these objectives, it commits to strict adherence to the following usTLD Administrator Code of Conduct: 

 
 

usTLD ADMINISTRATOR CODE OF CONDUCT    
    

        To ensure the provision of neutral usTLD administrative services, NeuStar will comply with this Code of Conduct.

	1.
	NeuStar will conduct periodic reviews of its policy and operation structures to ensure continuing operation of the usTLD in the public
interest.

	2.
	NeuStar will ensure that improvements and enhancements developed for the usTLD will benefit both the expanded and locality-based spaces of the
usTLD.

	3.
	NeuStar will not, and will require that its subcontractors do not, directly or indirectly, improperly show preference or provide special consideration to any
usTLD Accredited Registrar, Delegated Manager or usTLD user versus any other usTLD Accredited Registrar, Delegated Manager, or usTLD user.

	4.
	All usTLD Accredited Registrars, Delegated Managers, and usTLD users shall have equal access to Administration Services provided by
NeuStar.

	5.
	NeuStar will ensure that no user data or proprietary information from any usTLD Accredited Registrar is disclosed to its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other
related entities, or to other usTLD Accredited Registrars, except as necessary for usTLD Administrator management and operations.

	6.
	Registry Operator will not disclose Confidential information about its Registry Services to employees of any usTLD Accredited Registrar, Delegated Manager, or
usTLD user with the intent of putting them at an advantage in obtaining usTLD Administration Services from NeuStar, except as necessary for usTLD Administrator management and
operations.

	7.
	NeuStar will conduct internal neutrality reviews on a regular basis. In addition, NeuStar and DOC may mutually agree on an independent party to conduct a
neutrality review of NeuStar, ensuring that NeuStar and its owners comply with all the provisions of this Code of Conduct. The neutrality review may be conducted as often as once per year. NeuStar
will provide the analyst with reasonable access to information and records appropriate to complete the review. The results of the review will be provided to DOC and shall be deemed to be confidential
and proprietary information of NeuStar and its owners.

B.3.1    US Nexus Requirement Implementation  

        As an important public resource, the usTLD must be managed in a manner designed to serve the United States Internet community. Therefore
NeuStar will implement a US Nexus Requirement.

        Recognizing
that the usTLD is an important public resource that must be managed for the benefit of the United States, its citizens, and its residents, NeuStar will implement, in addition
to the requirement set forth in RFC 1480 that usTLD domain name registrations be hosted on computers located within the United States, the following Nexus Requirement in both locality-based usTLD
structure and the expanded usTLD space: Registrants in the usTLD must be either: 

	1.
	A
natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place of
domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or 

B.3-3

 

	2.
	An
entity or organization that is (i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or
territories or (ii) organized or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or

	3.
	An
entity or organization (including a federal, state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United States. 

        Whether
a prospective registrant has a "bona fide presence in the United States" will be determined on a case-by-case basis in light of all relevant facts and
circumstances at the time of application for a usTLD domain name. This requirement is intended to ensure that only those individuals or organizations that have a substantive connection to the United
States are permitted to register for usTLD domain names. 

        Factors
that should be considered in determining whether an entity or organization has a bona fide presence in the United States shall include, without limitation, whether such
prospective usTLD domain name registrant: 

	•
	Regularly
performs activities within the United States related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is constituted (e.g., selling goods or providing services
to customers, conducting regular training activities, attending conferences), provided such activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a usTLD domain name;

	•
	Maintains
an office or other facility in the United States for a business, noncommercial, educational, or governmental purpose and not solely or primarily to permit it to
register for a usTLD domain name; or

	•
	Derives
a material portion of its revenues or net income from sales to purchasers located in the United States. 

        For
purposes of this definition, the terms United States and United States of America shall include all U.S. territories and possessions. 

        It
shall be a continuing requirement that all usTLD domain name registrants maintain the US Nexus Requirement. 

        The
Nexus Requirement will be enforced through an initial screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, as well as a challenge process permitted through the Nexus
Dispute Policy
discussed below. The screening by NeuStar will verify that selected fields, within the contact information provided, on their face, meet the Nexus Requirement and that the registrant has certified
compliance with the requirement, as well as certified that the nameservers identified are located within the United States. In the event that the
contact information provided does not meet the above requirement, the name requested will be placed on hold within the registry and the registrant will be given an opportunity to correct any mistake
or demonstrate compliance with the Nexus requirement. If no action is taken by the registrant within the 30-day period, the registration will be cancelled and the name will be returned to
available status. If, on the other hand, the registrant is able to demonstrate compliance with the requirement, the name will be registered. 

Nexus Dispute Policy  

        Although the Nexus Requirement will initially be enforced through a usTLD Registrar's screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, and the
registrant will certify that it meets at least one of the Nexus Requirements set forth above, NeuStar understands that disputes may arise as to the authenticity, veracity, or accuracy of the
registrant's Nexus certification. Therefore, NeuStar, as administrator of the usTLD has devised a Nexus Dispute Policy (NDP) which will be administered 

B.3-4

 

solely
by the usTLD Administrator, or its designated representative. The NDP will provide interested parties with an opportunity to challenge a registration not complying with the Nexus Requirement. 

        In
the event that a third party wishes to challenge the authenticity or veracity of a usTLD registrant's United States Nexus, that party may submit a "Nexus Challenge" to the usTLD
Administrator or its authorized representative. The challenger must submit a written statement to the usTLD Administrator via first class mail alleging in specificity evidence to support its
allegation that the registrant fails to meet any of the Nexus Requirements set forth above. 

        Once
a challenge is received by the usTLD Administrator the domain name shall be "locked" by the usTLD Administrator until the matter is resolved. While in a "locked" position, the
registrant may not (i) change any of the contact information for that particular domain name or (ii) transfer the domain name to any third party. 

        In
the event that the usTLD Administrator finds that the challenger has established a prima facie case that the registrant has not met any of the Nexus Requirements, the usTLD
Administrator shall issue a letter to the registrant to submit evidence of compliance with the Nexus Requirements ("Letter"). The registrant shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of the Letter to submit evidence of compliance. If, within the thirty (30) days, the registrant submits evidence establishing any of the Nexus Requirements, the registrant shall be
permitted to keep the domain name. 

        If,
however, the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty days, or (ii) is unable to demonstrate through documentary evidence that it met any of the Nexus
Requirements prior to the date the NDP was invoked, the usTLD Administrator shall issue a finding that the registrant has failed to meet the Nexus Requirements. Upon such a finding, the registrant
shall be given a total of thirty (30) days to cure the US Nexus deficiency. If the registrant is able to demonstrate within (30) days that it has cured such deficiency, the registrant
shall be allowed to keep the domain name. If the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty (30) days, or (ii) is unable to proffer evidence demonstrating compliance
with the Nexus Requirements, the domain name registration shall be deleted from the registry database and the domain name will be placed into the list of available domain names. This process
represents the exclusive remedy for an NDP challenger. 

        NeuStar
reserves the right to modify this NDP at any time with the permission of COTR. NeuStar will post its revised NDP on its Website at least thirty (30) calendar days before
it becomes effective. 

B.3.2    Open ccTLD Policies Adoption  

        NeuStar intends to establish the usTLD as a model ccTLD in the global Internet community. NeuStar fully supports, and will abide by, the
open ccTLD policies established by ICANN.

        NeuStar
believes that the usTLD should be developed to serve as the model ccTLD in the global Internet community. In particular, it supports the significant work done by ICANN and the
Internet community in developing and enhancing the Internet in the public interest. Therefore, in accordance with the DOC's requirements, from both a technical and a policy standpoint, NeuStar will
develop the usTLD pursuant to developing "best practices" for open ccTLDs, as established by ICANN. Further, we will work with ICANN in the development and enhancement of new policies as they relate
to the usTLD and the Internet at large. 

        An
example of the types of open ccTLD policies supported by NeuStar is the ccTLD Constituency of the ICANN DNSO's document "Best Practice Guidelines for ccTLD Managers." Open, consensus-
based policies such as these provide a sound basis for operating public resource services. Indeed, many of the principles contained in the "Best Practices" document reflect the basic themes discussed
in this 

B.3-5

 

proposal.
For example, the document establishes, among other things, the following obligations of ccTLD Managers: 

The
primary duty of the ccTLD Manager is one of public service—to manage and operate the ccTLD Registry in the interest of and in consultation with the local Internet community, mindful of
the interests of the global Internet community. 

A
ccTLD Manager is a trustee for the delegated domain and has a duty to serve the community it represents as well as the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of
top-level domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. The ccTLD manager should be judged on his or her performance
and the extent to which it satisfies the needs of the local and global Internet communities. 

        NeuStar
considers it a basic principle of usTLD administration that the administrator is a trustee of a valuable and important public resource. Thus, NeuStar agrees with and will abide
by ICANN's open ccTLD policies, subject to any requirements of United States law and unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer. 

B.3.3    usTLD Dispute Policies and Sunrise Policy/ Implementation  

        NeuStar understands that the success of an expanded and enhanced usTLD requires the development of a set of policies and dispute resolution processes that are
simple and effective and provide a level of accountability for the users of the usTLD. Therefore, NeuStar has established (i) the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) that is modeled after
ICANN's Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, and (ii) a Nexus Dispute Policy; a dispute mechanism to handle disputes relating to the usTLD Nexus Requirements set forth in Section B.3.1
above. 

B.3.3.1    usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy  

        The usDRP combines the globally accepted Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") for the gTLDs with improvements developed in conjunction with the World
Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") for the administration of domain name disputes in the .BIZ top-level domain. Through its ongoing relationship with WIPO in its development of
the .BIZ dispute resolution services, NeuStar is uniquely qualified to apply its knowledge and expertise in the development of domain name dispute resolution policies for the usTLD. 

        Although
an applicant for the usTLD administrator might simply adopt the UDRP as in its current form, NeuStar believes that this would be unwise given the number of flaws that two years
of experience with the policy has demonstrated. 

        The
UDRP was adopted in late-1999 by ICANN as its first, and to date, its only global consensus-based policy, in response to the WIPO's recommendation to establish a uniform
dispute resolution policy for "cases of bad faith, abusive registration of domain names that violate trademark rights ("cybersquatting' in popular terminology)." The Management
of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, See
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/report/finalreport.html. 

        Through
its numerous consultations with WIPO during the formulation of the .BIZ dispute resolution policies, NeuStar uncovered several flaws in the UDRP process that not only led to the
issuance of inconsistent determinations by panelists but also unnecessary administrative burdens on the UDRP dispute providers. For example, the current UDRP requires that a trademark owner
demonstrate that a domain name registrant both registered and used the domain name in bad faith. This
requirement of both "registration and use" of domain names in bad faith has led UDRP panelists to find in favor of cybersquatters who have warehoused domain names that are identical or confusingly
similar to famous trademarks, but have not "used" the domain names in bad faith (i.e., the domain 

B.3-6

 

names
do not resolve to actual web pages). In other words, panelists have found that although a trademark owner has demonstrated that a cybersquatter has registered a number of domain names that
correspond to famous trademarks, because the domain name in question did not actually resolve to a web site, there was no "use" in bad faith. This result was clearly not intended by the original
drafters of the UDRP. 

        In
order to address this problem, NeuStar had modified this specific language in its usDRP to allow panelists to find in favor of the trademark owner if the trademark owner can establish
that the domain name was either registered or used in bad faith. This change was met with high praise by
both WIPO and the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN when it was adopted in .BIZ's Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy. 

        A
second example of a flaw in the UDRP which has led to inconsistent decisions is a paragraph dealing with "evidence of registration or use in bad faith" (Section 4(b) of the
Policy). This paragraph states that bad faith can be established if a Panel finds that a registrant registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. This has led to several decisions
which have been in favor of cybersquatters who although it was shown that they registered the one domain name in question to intentionally prevent the trademark owner from registering the domain name,
it could not be shown that there was a "pattern of such conduct." In other words, under the UDRP, the explicit wording implies that unless the cybersquatter has prevented other trademark owners from
registering their corresponding domain names, one instance of such activity does not amount to bad faith. This too is clearly inconsistent with the original drafters intent behind that particular
paragraph. In order to address this problem, NeuStar adopted WIPO's suggestion to modify this specific language in its usDRP to allow panelists to find in favor of the trademark owner if the trademark
owner can establish that the registrant registered the domain name
in question in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, without showing a "pattern of such conduct." 

        A
draft of both the usDRP and the Rules for the usDRP are provided at the end of this section. 

Implementation  

        In order to ensure that NeuStar's improved dispute resolution mechanism, the usDRP, is enforced by only the most qualified dispute panelists familiar with all
facets United States law, NeuStar has entered into an agreement with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). The AAA, the premier alternative dispute resolution provider in the United Sates, has
flourished for nearly 75 years by demonstrating an unparalleled commitment to progressive leadership in alternative dispute resolution. 

        While
many of the more than 140,000 cases administered by the American Arbitration Association in 1999 were resolved through mediation or arbitration, less formal methods of dispute
resolution—such as fact-finding, mini-trial, and partnering—are clearly coming into wider use. To serve dispute resolution needs, the AAA provides a
forum for the hearing of disputes through 37 offices nationwide, tested rules and procedures that have broad acceptance, and a roster of nearly 12,000 impartial experts to hear and resolve cases.
Moreover, in addition to its significant dispute resolution experience, the AAA brings a fresh perspective to the Internet dispute resolution process. 

        In
addition, if awarded the usTLD registry, NeuStar will solicit the expertise of other dispute resolution providers based in the United States in order to provide usTLD domain name
registrants and intellectual property owners around the United States with the most qualified and knowledgeable usDRP panelists. 

B.3-7

 

B.3.3.2    Sunrise Policy and Implementation  

        NeuStar will implement a Sunrise policy for owners of United States trademark applications and registrations which validates whether the claimed applications or
registrations actually exist within the United States Patent and Trademark Office database, thus eliminating any need for costly and time-consuming Sunrise dispute resolution mechanism. 

        Since
well before the formation of ICANN, intellectual property owners have debated how best to protect their trademarks and service marks ("Trademarks") on the Internet. NeuStar
proposes to implement an enhanced "Sunrise" policy that not only balances the intellectual property rights of registered trademark owners, but also provides the same level of protection to those
Trademark owners who have submitted trademark applications to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In addition, unlike any other "Sunrise" plan implemented or even proposed, NeuStar
will validate the authenticity of Trademark applications and registrations with the PTO through a unique and proprietary technological interface developed to ensure the integrity of the "Sunrise"
process. Following is an overview of the process proposed for the implementation of the Sunrise period as in Shown in Exhibit B.3-1. 

        The
Sunrise period will commence thirty (30) days prior to the general activation of the expanded usTLD space. During the Sunrise period, owners of trademarks and service marks
(Trademarks), as well as applicants for such marks, will be able to register their marks as domain names in the new expanded usTLD space. 

        Any
owner of an existing live Trademark registered on the Principal Register of the PTO, or an existing live application filed for registration with the PTO, will be eligible to seek to
register the mark as a domain name during the Sunrise period provided that (i) the Trademark registration for that mark was issued prior to the commencement date of the Sunrise Period, or
(ii) the application was filed with the PTO no later than July 27, 2001. In addition: 

	•
	Only
characters in the range A to Z, 0 to 9, and hyphens are allowed

	•
	The
maximum length is 63 characters (exclusive of the usTLD portion)

	•
	Domain
requests must be for ASCII characters identical to the textual or word elements of the mark only. However, hyphens may be used between spaces within a registered mark
or application; names cannot begin or end with a hyphen.

	•
	Sunrise
registrations will only be accepted for terms of at least five years and will be processed after registration fees are paid in full. 

        The
registration form for the Sunrise period will include all normal registrant information along with additional details of the registered mark under which the registration is being
made. The information required will include: 

	•
	The
name, address, telephone number, facsimile number and e-mail address of the domain name registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, and billing
contact

	•
	The
domain name

	•
	Name
servers

	•
	IP
addresses

	•
	The
exact Trademark

	•
	The
date of registration of, or filing of an application for the Trademark

	•
	The
registration or application number of the Trademark, whichever is applicable 

B.3-8

 

	•
	The
name of the current owner of the registered mark

	•
	Additional
optional data elements for directory services

	•
	In
addition, the domain name registrant will be required to affirmatively certify that it has met the usTLD Nexus requirement 

        Along
with these fields, the normal registration agreement will also contain a provision to the effect that: 

        The
registrar and the usTLD Administrator shall have no liability for administering the Sunrise program so long as the registrar acts in accordance with the policies set forth in the
Sunrise proposal. 

        [Exhibit B.3-1:
NeuStar's enhanced "Sunrise" Policy not only balances the IP rights of registered trademark owners, it also provides the same level of
protection for applicants to the PTD. Graphic Omitted: flow chart depicting sunrise policy implementation.] 

Phase 1—Announcement  

        Information regarding the enhanced Sunrise program will be broadly communicated to the general public at least sixty (60) days prior to the activation date
of the expanded usTLD space. The communication will be in the form of an announcement on the NeuStar web site as well as a general press release. During the announcement period, a list of all
accredited registrars participating in the Sunrise program will be posted on the NeuStar web site along with a link to the registrars' web sites. 

Phase 2—Sunrise Registration  

        In seeking to create the most neutral and impartial allocation of domain names during the Sunrise Period, NeuStar will use the same basic
procedure as set forth for the Land Rush Period, Section J with a few important modifications specific to the Sunrise process.

        Step 1: Submission of registration lists—Each accredited registrar will provide a list of domain names and Sunrise
registration details. There will be no minimum or maximum limit for the lists. The registration files will be submitted via a secure transport mechanism before a specified closing
time for first submissions. Registration lists cannot be modified until the first batch is processed and completed. 

        Step 2: Randomization of registrar submitted lists—The lists submitted by each
registrar will be individually randomized and processed to eliminate duplicate Sunrise domain name registration requests (e.g., four different parties request unclesam.us; one of the requests will be
selected and the others deleted from the list). 

        Step 3: Combination and randomization of registrar lists—After initial
processing, the entire set of registrar lists will be combined into a single processing file and randomized. 

        Step 4: Processing of randomized list—Once the registration system is
activated, a domain name will be randomly selected from the processing list. 

        Step 5: Validation of Trademark—NeuStar will not finalize the registration of
a domain name under the Sunrise policy until the Trademark registration or application has been verified by the registry or its designated partner or agent. In order to verify the Trademark
Registration or Application after the domain name is selected in Step 4 above, NeuStar will use its unique proprietary technology to query the PTO database to ensure that (1) the SLD portion of
the domain name selected is an exact match of the claimed Trademark, (2) the Trademark has actually in fact been either applied for or registered with the PTO, and (3) the domain name
applicant is in fact recognized in the PTO trademark database as the current owner or assignee of the Trademark. If a domain name meets all these qualifications, it is registered and entered into the
domain name database. 

B.3-9

 

        If
a domain name is either (i) unavailable, or (2) is rejected as not qualifying under the Sunrise policy, then another name is chosen at random from the list until one of
the following occurs: 

	•
	A
successful registration is complete

	•
	The
registrar has no more available names on its list 

        This
process repeats until the entire list has been processed. When applicants submit registrations during the Sunrise period, they will be required to enter all relevant details for
their mark's registration. The interface will support these extra fields and details will be published via the Whois database. If parties other than the registrant wish to challenge the validity of an
application, they will then be able to use the trademark details to verify authenticity with the US Patent and Trademark Office. 

        Step 6: Results—At the end of the list processing, the results of Sunrise registrations are returned to the registrar. 

        Step 7: At the conclusion of the Sunrise period, no further Sunrise registrations will be accepted and the registry will commence the Land
Rush registration process described in Section J. 

        NOTE: Sunrise registrations will only be accepted for terms of at least five (5) years and will be processed after registration
fees are paid in full. 

Sunrise Dispute Resolution  

        Because of NeuStar's unique and innovative approach to the Sunrise Policy coupled with actual validation of Trademarks with the PTO, NeuStar is proud to state
that there is no need for a specific dispute resolution mechanism related to Sunrise registrations other than what is provided under the Nexus Dispute Policy and the usDRP. 

B.3.4    GAC Principles  

        NeuStar fully supports and will abide by the principles established by the Government Advisory Council.

        As
previously stated, NeuStar believes that the usTLD should be developed to serve as the model ccTLD in the global Internet community. From both a technical and a policy standpoint,
therefore, NeuStar will develop the usTLD pursuant to developing "best practices" for ccTLDs. One such set of principles is set forth in the ICANN Government Advisory Council's "Principles for the
Delegation and Management of Country Code Top Level Domains." The document's preamble states that: 

[T]he
manager of a ccTLD performs a public service on behalf of the relevant local community and as such the designated manager has a duty to serve this community. The
designated manager also has a responsibility to the global Internet community. By 'global Internet community' we do not mean any specific legal or international entity, but rather we interpret the
term to refer to all of those who are affected by, now or in the future, the operation of the relevant TLD, because such operation may impinge on more than one jurisdiction and affect the interests of
individuals and entities from both within the relevant country or territory and elsewhere. 

        This
statement describes very clearly the basic premise pursuant to which NeuStar approaches the administration of the usTLD. Thus, NeuStar will abide by these principles, unless
inconsistent with U.S. law or regulation. 

B.3.5    Additional, Alternative or Supplemental Policies  

        NeuStar will develop and implement fair, flexible, and effective policies and procedures designed to ensure operation of the usTLD in the
public interest.

        NeuStar
believes that the usTLD Administrator, while establishing sound and fair initial policies for the usTLD, should limit the number and scope of policies established without the
benefit of usTLD 

B.3-10

 

community
participation. Therefore, the additional policies included in this section are those additional matters that must be addressed prior to launch to ensure a proper framework for enhancing and
improving the usTLD in the manner set forth in the RFQ. 

        The
additional policies needed for the transition to a new usTLD Administrator are: 

	•
	Outreach
Plan and Policy

	•
	Data
Rights and Use

	•
	Whois
Policy

	•
	Reserved
Names Policy 

        Each
of these policies is discussed in turn below. 

Outreach Plan and Policy Council  

        As is stated throughout this proposal, NeuStar considers the usTLD an important public resource that must be administered to serve the public interest. It cannot
be allowed to become captured by any single industry, constituency, or interest group, but instead, must carefully balance the needs of all community stakeholders. Thus, the usTLD Administrator must
act as a trustee and facilitate consensus to ensure that all policy and development efforts are not only conducted in an open manner, but are effective. 

        In
developing an appropriate and effective outreach plan, the new usTLD Administrator will have to address a number of important issues. Some of the tasks that the administrator must
complete: 

	•
	Develop
an outreach plan that ensures appropriate representation for all constituencies within the usTLD community;

	•
	Design
outreach mechanisms that are effective for each constituency involved;

	•
	Develop
a thorough understanding of the issues relevant to the space and the various constituencies; and

	•
	Ensure
continuity of efforts and responsiveness. 

        NeuStar
believes that an administrator must conduct some level of outreach in order properly to develop its outreach plan. NeuStar already has started its outreach in preparation for
this plan. In addition to the Public Awareness Plan work discussed in Section B.2.8, NeuStar has contacted a number of identified representatives of various constituencies in the usTLD
community. Entities with which NeuStar has discussed the usTLD include the Media Access Project, the American Library Association, the Benton Foundation, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Center for
Democracy and Technology, the National Indian Telecommunications Institute, education representatives, existing delegated managers, governmental representatives, and commercial entities. From these
activities we have identified a number of principal concerns to consider, including: 

	•
	The
operation of the usTLD must serve the public;

	•
	Commercial
interests must not dominate the usTLD;

	•
	The
administrator must develop effective outreach mechanisms for representation of user interests;

	•
	The
administrator must protect rights and ability of the existing users to maintain their use of the locality-based space; 

B.3-11

  

	•
	The
administrator must centralize much of the operation of the usTLD and develop better mechanisms for accountability to users and technical maintenance of the system;

	•
	The
administrator must improve administration and enhance the functionality of the usTLD;

	•
	All
innovation in the space must serve all constituencies within the usTLD, not just commercial interests; and

	•
	The
usTLD must operate in a highly stable manner. 

        In
addition to concerns and issues regarding the administration of the usTLD generally, a number of parties discussed possible structures for the operation of the usTLD and/or the
related policy function. 

        The
first of the proposed structures was that the registry operator should be a not-for-profit company. This approach was driven by the concern that a corporation
would be incented entirely by profit and not adequately serve the public interest. NeuStar submits, however, that a not-for-profit corporation would not be in the position to
ensure ongoing stability of the usTLD, nor would it have sufficient resources to allow it to be sufficiently innovative and enabling of innovation in the space. As a result, the use of the usTLD
likely would remain limited in comparison with the gTLDs and many other ccTLDs in the world. A commercial business, on the other hand, will commit the necessary resources to make the usTLD highly
successful. Moreover, the usTLD Administrator will be subject to the oversight of the DOC, and to the possibility of losing the contract if its services do not properly address public concerns.
Therefore, a for-profit model offers a superior approach for a successful usTLD. 

        Another
model proposed posits a separate not-for-profit corporation that would serve as the binding policy arm of the usTLD Administrator, and would require
definitive subcontract agreement as a condition of the DOC award. The administrator would fully fund the
operations of the policy corporation and could reject proposed policy measures only through a binding arbitration. This approach raises numerous concerns including: 

	•
	The
representativeness of the not-for-profit corporation;

	•
	The
appropriateness of delegating a policy level obligation;

	•
	The
lack of finality in a DOC award process subject to the formation of a policy corporation and reaching a definitive agreement as a condition of award;

	•
	The
role of the DOC and ICANN with respect to the formation of usTLD and the potentially inefficient duplication of policy efforts; and

	•
	The
lack of equity inherent in an approach which would make binding a recommendation from the not-for-profit corporation but would treat differently
recommendations from entities that were not associated with or participating in the not-for-profit policy entity. 

        NeuStar
will implement a policy structure that will address the concerns raised above and ensure independent, open, and unbiased policymaking for the usTLD, but will avoid the concerns
raised by these structures. Of course, to the extent that the groups behind these other proposal seek to work with NeuStar after award, or if the DOC determines that one of these approaches to be
preferable, NeuStar will explore effective ways of incorporating structure and concepts and addressing policy issues with participation of these important public entities. 

B.3-12

 

The usTLD Policy Council  

        The centerpiece of NeuStar's outreach and policy plan will be the usTLD Policy Council. The Council will be an advisory body facilitated by NeuStar to ensure
representative and unbiased policymaking. The Council's initial primary duties will include: 

	•
	Formation
of a mechanism for electing a full council;

	•
	Early
selection of a full council;

	•
	Develop
and implement basic outreach functions for the usTLD;

	•
	Oversight
of the locality-based policies and compliance of delegated managers;

	•
	Development
and implementation of mechanisms for addressing complaints regarding operation of the usTLD and appeals from decisions of the usTLD Administrator, as well as a
mechanism for addressing claims of non-compliance with the US Nexus Requirement;

	•
	The
facilitation of policy development forums at least annually;

	•
	The
facilitation of discussion groups, list-serves, and other electronic communications tools;

	•
	Development
and implementation of mechanisms for suggesting, discussing, and recommending to the usTLD Administrator new, modified or supplemental policies or procedures for
the usTLD;

	•
	Periodic
review of the policies and procedures of the usTLD for continuing relevance and effectiveness, and recommending necessary modifications, additions, or deletions.

	•
	Implementation
of a mechanism for identification of new sponsored categories of registration or registration services for identified spaces with a material impact on
important policy issues or concerns. 

        The
functions listed above will be facilitated by the usTLD Administrator as part of its public interest duties to the usTLD community. The Council will operate in a fashion independent
of the usTLD Administrator to ensure open and unbiased decision-making. The usTLD must, however, fully execute its DOC delegated obligations and, therefore, will participate on the council as a voting
member, as well as work with the Council members to develop an annual Council operating budget. 

        Drawing
on the significant progress that has been made within the ICANN in developing open and transparent consensus policy procedures, NeuStar, has modeled the aforementioned Council
procedures after those of ICANN. We believe that not only does this approach provide the usTLD Administrator with a solid process for policy development, it provides significant comfort to the DOC in
selecting such a structure given that it has already approved this procedural structure for ICANN, thus all parties interested in the development of usTLD policy will have a familiar mechanism to
which to turn. 

        Thus,
NeuStar will accept the policy recommendations of the usTLD Policy Council if NeuStar finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
interest of the usTLD; and (2) was arrived at through fair and open processes. If NeuStar declines to accept any recommendation of the Council, it shall return the recommendation to the Council
for further consideration, along with a statement of the reasons it declines to accept the recommendation. If, after reasonable efforts, NeuStar does not receive a recommendation from the Council that
it finds meets the standards above, NeuStar may initiate, amend or modify and then approve a specific policy recommendation. Nothing in this paragraph, however, is intended to limit the powers of the
NeuStar to act on matters not within the scope of primary responsibility of the Council or to take actions that the NeuStar finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of the usTLD. 

B.3-13

 

        A
critical aspect of ensuring the effectiveness and representativeness of the Council will be its selection. To facilitate its early start of operations, NeuStar will select, in
consultation with appropriate stakeholders, an initial set of council members. The first obligation of the initial council will be the implementation of a mechanism for nomination and election of the
entire board. They also will be
responsible for determining the details of board appointment, such as term and constituencies represented (the initial council members receive one-year terms). This approach will result in
a neutral, expert board to address the ongoing policy development for the usTLD. 

        NeuStar
expects that the Council will consist of 9 to 12 members each representing a different constituency or group of stakeholders in the usTLD community. The size of the Council could
be expanded in the future as necessary. Although the initial board will establish the process for determining the complete list of constituencies, NeuStar believes that a first list must include: 

	•
	DOC
Appointee,

	•
	usTLD
Administrator,

	•
	Delegated
managers,

	•
	Existing
registrants,

	•
	Government
(local and state),

	•
	Commercial
entities,

	•
	Public
interest advocates, and

	•
	Internet
technical representatives (example, member of IAB or IESG). 

        Some
or all of the potential representation issues can be dealt with by reserving places for organizations that themselves are broadly representative of user and public interests (e.g.,
National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the American Library Association, consumer advocacy groups, to name only a few). 

Outreach Activities  

        As discussed above, the Council will be a focal point for many of the outreach activities of the usTLD. In that role, the Council will be responsible for
developing and enhancing the primary policy outreach activities of the usTLD Administrator. However, a number of activities already are planned by NeuStar should it be awarded administration of the
usTLD. 

	•
	NeuStar
will hold an initial usTLD Administrator's Forum to introduce the usTLD community to the new administrator and begin the ongoing dialog on usTLD policy and services.
This forum will be held live and will make available means for teleconference/videoconference and online participation.

	•
	NeuStar
will establish on its usTLD website comprehensive information about the usTLD and how it will be operated, as well as open chat and e-mail forums to
allow early discussion of users' concerns, desires and suggestions.

	•
	Announcement
of the initial Council. 

        In
addition to these activities, during the first six months of NeuStar's operation of the usTLD, it will be in constant contact with the delegated manager and locality-based user
community in developing the required report to the DOC. NeuStar also will continue its public awareness activities as discussed in Section B.2.8. 

B.3-14

 

Data Rights and Use Policy  

        NeuStar, as a trusted neutral third-party registry, must maintain the trust of the registrars and delegated managers, as well as the end users of the usTLD.
Therefore, NeuStar recognizes that the data provided by usTLD Registrars and delegated managers belong exclusively to the usTLD Registrars and delegated managers, respectively. NeuStar will not use
the data obtained from registrars and delegated managers, other than for purposes of providing usTLD services and as set forth in the Registry-Registrar Agreement. 

Whois Policy  

        According to the Intellectual Property Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN, "Reliable, current, and multi-faceted Whois sites that
allow accurate and full-featured searching across all registries and registrars will help ensure the protection of copyrights and trademarks in cyberspace, as well as simultaneously
protect the interests of consumers who use the Internet to make important purchasing decisions." See Matters Related to Whois,
http://ipc.songbird.com/whois_paper.html. A Whois search allows copyright owners to identify the site operator and/or the Internet service provider that is hosting potentially infringing materials or
transmitting the infringing activities in order to identify online infringers for enforcement or licensing purposes. Trademark owners undertake Whois searches in an attempt to avoid possible
conflicts, as well as to cure unauthorized and confusing uses of their mark. 

        In
addition, Whois is a useful tool for consumers seeking to identify online merchants, the source of unsolicited e-mail, and so forth. Finally, many law enforcement
agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations, state and local police departments, and public safety watch groups including the Center for Missing Children also rely heavily on the
publicly-available Whois database to prevent and apprehend criminal behavior. 

        NeuStar
recognizes, however, that unfettered access to public Whois information also raises a number of significant privacy concerns, not the least of which is the ease with which this
often-personal information can be obtained. In addition, some believe that the current state of privacy protections with respect to the Whois database essentially eliminates the ability of Internet
users to anonymously register domain names. Finally, many people who register domain names, especially those who register domain names for noncommercial or personal purposes, are unaware that their
home address and phone number will immediately become available to any Internet user in the world. 

        NeuStar
understands that ICANN and the Domain Name Supporting Organization are currently addressing issues surrounding the Whois database and its use by the Internet Community. NeuStar
will closely monitor the activities of the DNSO and ICANN as well as initiate its own analysis of the issues through the Council, as set forth above. 

NeuStar's Whois Service  

        NeuStar's Whois service, modeled in part after a Whois solution that has been adopted by ICANN and has gained acceptance with the Internet community, will provide
a central, openly accessible system for information regarding a particular domain name registration in the usTLD. This centralized "thick" Whois repository for the Whois information will be designed
for robustness, availability, and performance. 

        In
designing the Whois service for the usTLD, NeuStar reviewed current approaches to the service offered by other ccTLD administrators as well as by the various gTLD operators. NeuStar
believes that aspects of the current approach offered by the.name gTLD balances both the need for easy access to the Whois database by legitimate users, including intellectual property owners, law
enforcement, and 

B.3-15

 

consumer
organizations, but also takes into consideration relevant privacy concerns of those whose information is contained within the Whois database. 

        The
usTLD Administrator will make available both a web-based and Port 43 Whois interface on its web site which can also be linked to by each usTLD Registrar that is a party
to a Registry-Registrar Agreement with NeuStar. The information available in the Whois database will be returned as a result of a query. 

        As
required in the RFQ, NeuStar's Whois database will allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, public, web-based interface. Although NeuStar's system
will be engineered to handle high transaction loads, unreasonable levels of traffic resulting from "data mining" activities common on the Internet could hamper public availability and quality of Whois
services. Therefore, this interface will provide up to seventy-five (75) responses to any given query. Recognizing that many users, including law enforcement and intellectual
property owners, have a legitimate need for more robust searching capabilities, NeuStar also will provide a Whois-like directory service that will provide responses to queries in excess of
seventy-five and will permit sub-string (wildcard) and more advanced Boolean searching. 

The Whois Report  

        The Whois report shall contain the following information: 

	•
	The
domain name registered;

	•
	The
IP address and corresponding names of the primary and secondary nameservers for the registered name;

	•
	The
registrar name and URL or, where appropriate, the identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered;

	•
	The
original creation date and term of the registration;

	•
	The
name and postal address of the domain name registrant;

	•
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the billing contact for the name registered;

	•
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the name registered; and

	•
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the name registered. 

        Whois
service will be subject to certain terms and conditions. The additional terms and conditions are intended to prevent the unauthorized use of Whois information for purposes such as
unsolicited marketing, e-mail (spamming), and other unlawful purposes. 

        When
requesting the Whois report, the requestor must provide the following information: 

	•
	A
declaration that the data is being requested for a lawful reason, and that the data will not be used for marketing purposes, spamming, or any other improper purpose.

	•
	A
declaration that the reason for collecting the data is to protect legal rights and obligations. Such a reason could be, but is not limited to:

	•
	Investigating
and defending a possible violation of intellectual property

	•
	Seeking
information for use by a law enforcement agency or consumer protection group 

B.3-16

 

	•
	Information
collected for use within the applicable Dispute Resolution Procedures under the usDRP or Nexus Dispute Policy, or

	•
	Gathering
or collecting information in pursuit of enforcing legal rights and/or remedies

	•
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number and (where available) fax number of the requestor, and declaration that this information is
correct. 

        Data
collected from or about requestors will be used only to document the request and will not be used for any commercial purpose whatsoever. 

        NeuStar
will reserve the right to prevent access to the Whois service to any individual, entity, or organization that it has reason to believe has violated the above terms and conditions
of the Whois service. 

Enforcement of Accurate Contact and Whois Information  

        Section 3.7.7 of the draft Registrar Accreditation Agreement provides in pertinent part that a Registrar shall require all registrants to enter into a
registration agreement with a registrar including at least the following provisions: 

3.7.7.1
[Registrant] shall provide to Registrar accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the
[Registrant] registration, including: the full name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number if available of the
[Registrant]; name of authorized person for contact purposes in the case of an [Registrant] that is an organization, association, or corporation; and
the data elements listed in Subsections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8. 

3.7.7.2
A [Registrant]'s willful or grossly negligent provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful or grossly negligent failure promptly to update information
provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen (15) calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the
[Registrant]'s registration shall constitute a material breach of the [Registrant]'s Registration Agreement with the registrar and be a basis for
cancellation of the [Registrant] registration. 

        Although
this requirement has been in ICANN's Accreditation Agreement for Registrars in the .com, .net and .org TLDs since 1998, historically, the registrar community has largely ignored
these provisions. As a result, this has led to an increase in inaccurate, false or out of date information in the Whois database. 

        NeuStar,
as the administrator for the usTLD, will adopt additional provisions in both the Accreditation Agreement, the Registry-Registrar Agreement, and the Delegated Manager Agreement
that would ensure that registrars and delegated managers take affirmative steps to enforce its agreements with its own registrants. For Example, NeuStar will require that registrars accept written
complaints from third parties regarding false and/or inaccurate Whois data of domain name registrants. No later than thirty (30) days after receipt of a written complaint, the registrar shall
be required to conduct an initial investigation into the accuracy of the Whois contact information. If the registrar determines that the information is either false, inaccurate or not up to date, the
registrar will be required to issue a notice to the registrant stating that it believes that the information contained in the registrant's Whois record may be false, inaccurate or not up to date. The
registrant shall be required to update its contact information no later than thirty (30) calendar days of the date of such notice. If, within thirty (30) days, the registrant can either
(i) show that it has not provided false or inaccurate contact information or (ii) provide the updated Whois information, then the registrant will be allowed to maintain its usTLD domain
name registration. If, however, after thirty (30) days, the registrant either does not respond to the registrar's notice or is unable to provide true and accurate contact 

B.3-17

 

information,
the registrant shall be deemed to have breached its registration agreement and the registrar shall be required to delete the registration. The registrar shall not be required to refund
any fees paid by the registrant if the registrar terminates a registrant's registration agreement due to its enforcement of this provision. 

Reserved Names Policy  

        Consistent with existing policies and subject to approval by the DOC, NeuStar, as the usTLD Administrator proposes to reserve from registration by the general
public certain second level domain names. The reservation of such names will be made to prevent their improper use in the marketplace and/or to permit the usTLD Administrator to introduce important
new services and enhancements to the usTLD. Moreover, responsible management of some of the listed names will maximize utility of these second level domains and can uniquely serve the public interest
if administered by a responsible party. 

        The
draft list that follows is intended to be illustrative rather than definitive. NeuStar will work collaboratively with DOC and the Council to finalize a list that will responsively
preserve second level names in order to: prevent confusion; serve a public need; prevent theft of phone numbers, social security numbers and zip codes, and/or represent possible future enhancement of
the usTLD space. Once a proposed definitive list is developed, it will be submitted to the DOC for approval. 

All
single-character labels 

All
two-character ISO 3166 country codes or United States Postal codes in addition to the state codes already reserved, shall be initially reserved to avoid conflict with the other country
codes and the states. 

Names
and abbreviations for federal government agencies and divisions (e.g., Department of Commerce, army, navy, air force, DOC, DOD, NTIA). 

All
numbers five digits or greater and all numbers in the form, five digits-four digits 

	 	 	iana
	

dnso	
 	

iana-servers
	

Icann	
 	

iesg
	

internic	
 	

ietf
	

pso	
 	

irtf
	

afrinic	
 	

istf
	

Apnic	
 	

lacnic
	

arin	
 	

latnic
	

example	
 	

rfc-editor
	

gtld-servers	
 	

ripe
	

Iab	
 	

root servers
	

Pro	
 	

nic
	

aero	
 	

whois
	

arpa	
 	

www
	

biz	
 	

kids
	 	 	 

B.3-18

 

	

com	
 	

xxx
	

coop	
 	

park
	

edu	
 	

zip
	

gov	
 	

geo
	

info	
 	

locate
	

int	
 	

scholarship
	

mil	
 	

whitehouse
	

museum	
 	

veterans
	

name	
 	

library
	

net	
 	

school
	

org	
 	

911

 
 

usTLD Dispute-Resolution Policies    
    

General Information  

        All usTLD Accredited Registrars in the usTLD shall follow the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (referred to as the "USDRP"). The USDRP, is incorporated by
reference into all usTLD Registration Agreements, and sets forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute relating to alleged bad faith domain name registrations as well as violations of
the United States Nexus Requirement. 

        To
invoke the policy, a trademark owner should either (a) file a complaint in a court of proper jurisdiction against the domain name holder (or where appropriate an
in-rem action concerning the domain name) or (b) in cases of abusive registration submit a complaint to an approved dispute-resolution service provider (see below for a list and
links). 

Principal Documents  

        The following documents provide details: 

	•
	usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy—This policy is followed by all registrars.

	•
	Rules for usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy—These rules are followed by all dispute-resolution service providers,
with supplementation by each provider's supplemental rules.

	•
	Current usTLD Dispute Resolution Provider—American Arbitration Association.

	•
	Nexus Dispute Policy

B.3-19

  

NOTE: This policy is between the usTLD Registrar and its customer (the domain name holder or registrant). Thus, the policy uses "we" and "our" to refer
to the registrar and it uses "you" and "your" to refer to the domain name holder. 

 
 

usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy    
    

        (As Approved by the United States Department of Commerce on                , 2001)

	1.
	Purpose—This usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") has been adopted by the United States Department of Commerce
("DOC"). It is incorporated by reference into the usTLD Registration Agreement, and sets forth the terms and conditions in connection with a dispute between you (as the registrant) and any party other
than us (as the registrar) or the registry administrator for the usTLD (as the "Registry") over the registration and use of an Internet domain name registered by you. Proceedings under
Paragraph 4 of this Policy will be conducted according to the Rules for the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), which are available
at                        , and the selected
administrative-dispute-resolution service provider's supplemental rules.

	2.
	Your Representations—By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration,
you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your usTLD Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of
the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not
knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's
rights.

	3.
	Cancellations, Transfers, and Changes—We will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration that
is subject to this Policy under the following circumstances:

	a.
	Subject
to the provisions of Paragraph 8, our receipt of written or appropriate electronic instructions from you or your authorized agent to take such action;

	b.
	Our
receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

	c.
	Our
receipt of a decision of an Administrative Panel requiring such action in any administrative proceeding to which you were a party and which was conducted under this Policy or a
later version of this Policy adopted by the DOC. 

        We
may also cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to a domain name registration in accordance with the terms of your Registration Agreement or other legal requirements. 

	4.
	Mandatory Administrative Proceeding—This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a
mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers listed
at                        (each, a "Provider").

	a.
	Applicable Disputes—You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a
"complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:

	i.
	Your
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

	ii.
	You
have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

	iii.
	Your
domain name has been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith. 

B.3-20

 

        In
the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements is present. 

	b.
	Evidence of Registration or Use in Bad Faith—For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(1)(iii), the following circumstances,
in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith:

	i.
	Circumstances
indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain
name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

	ii.
	You
have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; or

	iii.
	You
have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

	iv.
	By
using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by
creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or
location.

	c.
	How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint—When you receive
a complaint, you should refer to the Rules in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be
proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

	i.
	You
are the owner or beneficiary of a trade or service mark that is identical to the domain name; or

	ii.
	Before
any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

	iii.
	You
(as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

	iv.
	You
are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark
or service mark at issue.

	d.
	Selection of Provider—The complainant shall select the Provider from among those approved by DOC by submitting the complaint
to that Provider. The selected Provider will administer the proceeding, except in cases of consolidation as described in Paragraph 4(f).

	e.
	Initiation of Proceeding and Process and Appointment of Administrative Panel—The Rules state the process for initiating and
conducting a proceeding and for appointing the panel that will decide the dispute (the "Administrative Panel"). 

B.3-21

 

	f.
	Consolidation—In the event of multiple disputes between you and a complainant, either you or the complainant may petition to
consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel. This petition shall be made to the first Administrative Panel appointed to hear a pending dispute between the parties. This
Administrative Panel may consolidate before it any or all such disputes in its sole discretion, provided that the disputes being consolidated are governed by this Policy or a later version of this
Policy adopted by DOC.

	g.
	Fees—All fees charged by a Provider in connection with any dispute before an Administrative Panel pursuant to this Policy
shall be paid by the complainant, except in cases where you elect to expand the Administrative Panel from one to three panelists as provided in Paragraph 5(b)(iv) of the Rules, in which
case all fees will be split evenly by you and the complainant.

	h.
	Our Involvement in Administrative Proceedings—We do not, and will not, participate in the administration or conduct of any
proceeding before an Administrative Panel. In addition, we will not be liable as a result of any decisions rendered by the Administrative Panel.

	i.
	Remedies—The remedies available to a complainant pursuant to any proceeding before an Administrative Panel shall be limited
to requiring the cancellation of your domain name or the transfer of your domain name registration to the complainant.

	j.
	Notification and Publication—The Provider shall notify us of any decision made by an Administrative Panel with respect to a
domain name you have registered with us. All decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact
portions of its decision.

	k.
	Availability of Court Proceedings—The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall
not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or
after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in
the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. We will then implement the decision
unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you
have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3 of the Rules. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location
of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative
Panel's decision, and we will take no further action, until we receive (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii) evidence satisfactory to us that your
lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.

	5.
	All Other Disputes and Litigation—All other disputes between you and any party other than us regarding your domain name
registration that are not brought pursuant to the mandatory administrative proceeding provisions of Paragraph 4 shall be resolved between you and such other party through any court, arbitration
or other proceeding that may be available.

	6.
	Our Involvement in Disputes—We will not participate in any way in any dispute between you and any party other than us
regarding the registration and use of your domain name. You shall not name us as a party or otherwise include us in any such proceeding. In the event that we are named 

B.3-22

 

as
a party in any such proceeding, we reserve the right to raise any and all defenses deemed appropriate, and to take any other action necessary to defend ourselves. 

	7.
	Maintaining the Status Quo—We will not cancel, transfer, activate, deactivate, or otherwise change the status of any domain
name registration under this Policy except as provided in Paragraph 3 above. 

8.     Transfers During a Dispute  

	a.
	Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder—You may not transfer your domain name registration to another holder
(i) during a pending administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the location of our principal place of
business) after such proceeding is concluded; or (ii) during a pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced regarding your domain name unless the party to whom the domain name registration
is being transferred agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of the court or arbitrator. We reserve the right to cancel any transfer of a domain name registration to another holder that is
made in violation of this subparagraph.

	b.
	Changing Registrars—You may not transfer your domain name registration to another registrar during a pending administrative
proceeding brought pursuant to Paragraph 4 or for a period of fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the location of our principal place of business) after such proceeding is
concluded. You may transfer administration of your domain name registration to another registrar during a pending court action or arbitration, provided that the domain name you have registered with us
shall continue to be subject to the proceedings commenced against you in accordance with the terms of this Policy. In the event that you transfer a domain name registration to us during the pendency
of a court action or arbitration, such dispute shall remain subject to the domain name dispute policy of the registrar from which the domain name registration was transferred.

	9.
	Policy Modifications—We reserve the right to modify this Policy at any time with the permission of DOC. We will post our
revised Policy at <URL> at least thirty (30) calendar days before it becomes effective. Unless this Policy has already been invoked by the submission of a complaint to a Provider, in
which event the version of the Policy in effect at the time it was invoked will apply to you until the dispute is over, all such changes will be binding upon you with respect to any domain name
registration dispute, whether the dispute arose before, on or after the effective date of the change. In the event that you object to a change in this Policy, your sole remedy is to cancel your domain
name registration with us, provided that you will not be entitled to a refund of any fees you paid to us. The revised Policy will apply to you until you cancel your domain name registration. 

B.3-23

  

 
 

Rules for Uniform Domain Name
  Dispute Resolution Policy
  (the "Rules")    
    

(As
Approved by DOC on                        , 2001) 

        Administrative
proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by DOC shall be governed by these Rules and also the Supplemental Rules of
the Provider administering the proceedings, as posted on its web site. 

1.     Definitions  

In
these Rules: 

Complainant means the party initiating a complaint concerning a domain name registration. 

DOC refers to the United States Department of Commerce. 

Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar of the domain name in
question, or (b) the domain name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time a complaint is submitted to a Provider. 

Panel means an administrative panel appointed by a Provider to decide a complaint concerning a domain name registration. 

Panelist means an individual appointed by a Provider to be a member of a Panel. 

Party means a Complainant or a Respondent. 

Policy means the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy that is incorporated by reference and made a part of the Registration Agreement. 

Provider means a dispute-resolution service provider approved by DOC. A list of such Providers appears
at                        . 

Registrar means the entity with which the Respondent has registered a domain name that is the subject of a complaint. 

Registration Agreement means the agreement between a Registrar and a domain name holder. 

Respondent means the holder of a domain name registration against which a complaint is initiated. 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name. 

Supplemental Rules means the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these Rules. Supplemental Rules shall not be
inconsistent with the Policy or these Rules and shall cover such topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover
sheets. 

2.     Communications  

	a.
	Any
written communication to the Complainant or the Respondent required under these Rules shall be made by the means specified by the Complainant or the Respondent, respectively, or in
the absence of such specification:

	i.
	By
facsimile with a confirmation of transmission; or 

B.3-24

 

	ii.
	By
postal or courier service, postage pre-paid and return receipt requested; or our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of
competent jurisdiction, requiring such action; and/or

	iii.
	Electronically
via the Internet, provided a record of its transmission is available.

	b.
	Any
communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made in accordance with the Provider's Supplemental Rules.

	c.
	All
communications shall be made in the language prescribed in Paragraph 11.

	d.
	Either
Party may update its contact details by notifying the other Party, the Provider and the Registrar.

	e.
	Except
as otherwise provided in these Rules, or decided by a Panel, all communications provided for under these Rules shall be deemed to have been made:

	i.
	If
delivered by facsimile transmission, on the date shown on the confirmation of transmission; or

	ii.
	If
by postal or courier service, on the date marked on the receipt; or

	iii.
	If
via the Internet, on the date that the communication was transmitted, provided that the date of transmission is verifiable.

	f.
	Except
as otherwise provided in these Rules, all time periods calculated under these Rules shall begin to run on the earliest date that the communication is deemed to have been made in
accordance with Paragraph 2(e).

	g.
	Except
as otherwise provided in these Rules, any communication by:

	i.
	A
Panel to any Party shall be copied to the Provider and to the other Party;

	ii.
	The
Provider, following the commencement of an administrative proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 4(c), to any Party shall be copied to the other Party; and

	iii.
	A
Party shall be copied to the other Party, the Panel and the Provider, as the case may be.

	h.
	It
shall be the responsibility of the sender to retain records of the fact and circumstances of sending, which shall be available for inspection by affected parties and for reporting
purposes.

	i.
	In
the event that a Party sending a communication receives notification of non-delivery of the communication, that Party shall promptly notify the Provider of the
circumstances of the notification. 

3.     The Complaint  

	a.
	Any
person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules to any Provider approved by DOC. (Due to capacity
constraints or for other reasons, a Provider's ability to accept complaints may be suspended at times. In that event, the Provider shall refuse the submission. The person or entity may submit the
complaint to another Provider.)

	b.
	The
complaint shall be submitted in hard copy (with annexes) and in electronic form (without annexes). 

B.3-25

 

	c.
	The
complaint shall:

	i.
	Request
that the complaint be submitted for decision in accordance with the Policy and Rules and describe why the domain name registration should be considered subject to
the Policy;

	ii.
	Provide
the full name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers of the Complainant and of any representative authorized to act for
the Complainant in the administrative proceeding;

	iii.
	Specify
a preferred method for communications directed to the Complainant in the administrative proceeding (including person to be contacted, medium, and address
information) for each of (A) electronic-only material and (B) material including hard copy;

	iv.
	Designate
whether Complainant elects to have the dispute decided by a single-member or a three-member Panel and, in the event Complainant elects a three-member Panel,
provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these candidates may be drawn from any DOC-approved Provider's list of panelists);

	v.
	Provide
the full name of the Respondent and, if different from the contact details available in the Whois database for the domain name, provide all information known to
the Complainant regarding how to contact Respondent or any representative of Respondent, including contact information based on pre-complaint dealings;

	vi.
	Specify
the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint;

	vii.
	Identify
the Registrar(s) with whom the domain name(s) is/are registered at the time the complaint is filed;

	viii.
	Specify
the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and, for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used
(the Complainant may also separately describe other goods and;

	ix.
	Describe,
in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular,

	(1)
	The
manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

	(2)
	Why
the Respondent (domain name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and

	(3)
	Why
the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered in bad faith or is being used in bad faith 

(The
description should, for elements (2) and (3), discuss any aspects of Paragraphs 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy that are applicable. The description shall comply with any word or page limit
set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.); 

	x.
	Specify,
in accordance with the Policy, the remedies sought;

	xi.
	Identify
any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that are the subject of the
complaint; 

B.3-26

 

	xii.
	State
that a copy of the complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by the Provider's Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Respondent
(domain name holder), in accordance with Paragraph 2(b);

	xiii.
	State
that Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name, to the
jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction;

	xiv.
	Conclude
with the following statement followed by the signature of the Complainant or its authorized representative: 

"Complainant
agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain name holder and waives all
such claims and remedies against (a) the dispute-resolution provider and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator,
and (d) the Department of Commerce, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents." 

"Complainant
certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith
and reasonable argument."; and 

	xv.
	Annex
any documentary or other evidence, including a copy of the Policy applicable to the domain name(s) in dispute and any trademark or service mark registration upon
which the complaint relies, together with a schedule indexing such evidence.

	c.
	The
complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. 

4.     Notification of Complaint  

	a.
	The
Provider shall review the complaint for formal compliance with the Policy and the Rule. If the complaint is found to be in compliance, the Provider shall notify it to the
Respondent, in the manner prescribed by Paragraph 2(a). For the purposes of notifying the complainant, the Provider shall not be required to use any contact details other than those available
in the Whois database for the domain name(s) in dispute.

	b.
	If
the Provider finds the complaint to be formally deficient, it shall promptly notify the Complainant of the nature of the deficiencies identified. The Complainant shall have five
(5) calendar days within which to correct any such deficiencies, after which the administrative proceeding will be deemed withdrawn without prejudice to submission of a different complaint by
Complainant.

	c.
	The
date of commencement of the administrative proceeding shall be the date on which the Provider completes its responsibilities under Paragraph 2(a) in connection with
forwarding the Complaint to the Respondent.

	d.
	The
Provider shall immediately notify the Complainant, the Respondent, the concerned Registrar(s), and DOC of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding. 

5.     The Response  

	a.
	Within
twenty (20) calendar days of the date of commencement of the administrative proceeding the Respondent shall submit a response to the Provider. 

B.3-27

 

	b.
	The
response shall be submitted in hard copy (with annexes) and in electronic form (without annexes).

	c.
	The
response shall:

	i.
	Specifically
respond to the statements and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent to retain registration and use of the
disputed domain name;

	ii.
	Provide
the name, postal and e-mail addresses, and the telephone and telefax numbers of the Respondent and of any representative authorized to act for the
Respondent in the administrative proceeding;

	iii.
	Specify
a preferred method for communications directed to the Respondent in the administrative proceeding (including person to be contacted, medium, and address
information) for each of (A) electronic-only material and (B) material including hard copy;

	iv.
	If
Complainant has elected a single-member panel in the Complaint (see Paragraph 3(b)(iv)), state whether Respondent elects instead to have the dispute decided by
a three-member panel;

	v.
	If
either Complainant or Respondent elects a three-member Panel, provide the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists (these
candidates may be drawn from any DOC-approved Provider's list of panelists);

	vi.
	Identify
any other legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with or relating to any of the domain name(s) that are the subject of the
complaint;

	vii.
	Conclude
with the following statement followed by the signature of the Respondent or its authorized representative: 

"Respondent
certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper
purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and
reasonable argument."; and 

	viii.
	Annex
any documentary or other evidence upon which the Respondent relies, together with a schedule indexing such documents.

	d.
	If
Complainant has elected to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel and Respondent elects a three-member Panel, Respondent shall be required to pay one-half of
the applicable fee for a three-member Panel as set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules. This payment shall be made together with the submission of the response to the Provider. In the event
that the required payment is not made, the dispute shall be decided by a single-member Panel.

	e.
	At
the request of the Respondent, the Provider may, in exceptional cases, extend the period of time for the filing of the response. The period may also be extended by written
stipulation between the Parties, provided the stipulation is approved by the Provider.

	f.
	If
a Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the complaint. 

B.3-28

 

6.     Appointment of the Panel and Timing of Decision  

	a.
	Each
Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available list of panelists and their qualifications.

	b.
	If
neither the Complainant nor the Respondent has elected a three-member Panel (Paragraphs 3(b)(iv) and 5(b)(iv)), the Provider shall appoint, within five (5) calendar
days following receipt of the response by the Provider, or the lapse of the time period for the submission thereof, a single Panelist from its list of panelists. The fees for a single-member Panel
shall be paid entirely by the Complainant.

	c.
	If
either the Complainant or the Respondent elects to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Provider shall appoint three Panelists in accordance with the procedures
identified in Paragraph 6(e). The fees for a three-member Panel shall be paid in their entirety by the Complainant, except where the election for a three-member Panel was made by the
Respondent, in which case the applicable fees shall be shared equally between the Parties.

	d.
	Unless
it has already elected a three-member Panel, the Complainant shall submit to the Provider, within five (5) calendar days of communication of a response in which the
Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the names and contact details of three candidates to serve as one of the Panelists. These candidates may be drawn from any DOC-approved Provider's
list of panelists.

	e.
	In
the event that either the Complainant or the Respondent elects a three-member Panel, the Provider shall endeavor to appoint one Panelist from the list of candidates provided by each
of the Complainant and the Respondent. In the event the Provider is unable within five (5) calendar days to secure the appointment of a Panelist on its customary terms from either Party's list
of candidates, the Provider shall make that appointment from its list of panelists. The third Panelist shall be appointed by the Provider from a list of five candidates submitted by the Provider to
the Parties, the Provider's selection from among the five being made in a manner that reasonably balances the preferences of both Parties, as they may specify to the Provider within five
(5) calendar days of the Provider's submission of the five-candidate list to the Parties.

	f.
	Once
the entire Panel is appointed, the Provider shall notify the Parties of the Panelists appointed and the date by which, absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward
its decision on the complaint to the Provider.

 

	7.
	Impartiality and Independence—A Panelist shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment,
disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Panelist's impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the administrative proceeding, new circumstances
arise that could give rise to justifiable doubt as to the impartiality or independence of the Panelist, that Panelist shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the Provider. In such event, the
Provider shall have the discretion to appoint a substitute Panelist.

	8.
	Communication Between Parties and the Panel—No Party or anyone acting on its behalf may have any unilateral communication
with the Panel.

	9.
	Transmission of the File to the Panel—The Provider shall forward the case file as soon as the last Panelist is appointed in
the case of a three-member Panel. 

10.   General Powers of the Panel  

	a.
	The
Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. 

B.3-29

 

	b.
	In
all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

	c.
	The
Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a
period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

	d.
	The
Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

	e.
	A
Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. 

11.   Language of Proceedings  

	a.
	Unless
otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration
Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

	b.
	The
Panel may order that any documents submitted in languages other than the language of the administrative proceeding be accompanied by a translation in whole or in part into the
language of the administrative proceeding.

 

	12.
	Further Statements—In addition to the complaint and the response, the Panel may request, in its sole discretion, further
statements or documents from either of the Parties.

	13.
	In-Person Hearings—There shall be no in-person hearings (including hearings by teleconference,
videoconference, and web conference), unless the Panel determines, in its sole discretion and as an exceptional matter, that such a hearing is necessary for deciding the complaint. 

14.   Default  

	a.
	In
the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by these Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to
a decision on the complaint.

	b.
	If
a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw
such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. 

15.   Panel Decisions  

	a.
	A
Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems
applicable.

	b.
	In
the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall forward its decision on the complaint to the Provider within fourteen (14) days of its appointment pursuant to
Paragraph 6.

	c.
	In
the case of a three-member Panel, the Panel's decision shall be made by a majority.

	d.
	The
Panel's decision shall be in writing, provide the reasons on which it is based, indicate the date on which it was rendered and identify the name(s) of the Panelist(s).

	e.
	Panel
decisions and dissenting opinions shall normally comply with the guidelines as to length set forth in the Provider's Supplemental Rules. Any dissenting opinion shall accompany
the majority decision. If the Panel concludes that the dispute is not within the scope of 

B.3-30

 

Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy, it shall so state. If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain
Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the
administrative proceeding. 

16.   Communication of Decision to Parties  

	a.
	Within
three (3) calendar days after receiving the decision from the Panel, the Provider shall communicate the full text of the decision to each Party, the concerned
Registrar(s), and DOC. The concerned Registrar(s) shall immediately communicate to each Party, the Provider, and DOC the date for the implementation of the decision in accordance with the Policy.

	b.
	Except
if the Panel determines otherwise (see Paragraph 4(j) of the Policy), the Provider shall publish the full decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly
accessible web site. In any event, the portion of any decision determining a complaint to have been brought in bad faith (see Paragraph 15(e) of these Rules) shall be published. 

17.   Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination  

	a.
	If,
before the Panel's decision, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Panel shall terminate the administrative proceeding.

	b.
	If,
before the Panel's decision is made, it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the administrative proceeding for any reason, the Panel shall terminate the administrative
proceeding, unless a Party raises justifiable grounds for objection within a period of time to be determined by the Panel. 

18.   Effect of Court Proceedings  

	a.
	In
the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel
shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision.

	b.
	In
the event that a Party initiates any legal proceedings during the pendency of an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the complaint,
it shall promptly notify the Panel and the Provider. See Paragraph 8 above. 

19.   Fees  

	a.
	The
Complainant shall pay to the Provider an initial fixed fee, in accordance with the Provider's Supplemental Rules, within the time and in the amount required. A Respondent electing
under Paragraph 5(b)(iv) to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, rather than the single-member Panel elected by the Complainant, shall pay the Provider one-half
the fixed fee for a three-member Panel. See Paragraph 5(c). In all other cases, the Complainant shall bear all of the Provider's fees, except as prescribed under Paragraph 19(d). Upon
appointment of the Panel, the Provider shall refund the appropriate portion, if any, of the initial fee to the Complainant, as specified in the Provider's Supplemental Rules.

	b.
	No
action shall be taken by the Provider on a complaint until it has received from Complainant the initial fee in accordance with Paragraph 19(a). 

B.3-31

 

	c.
	If
the Provider has not received the fee within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the complaint, the complaint shall be deemed withdrawn and the administrative proceeding
terminated.

	d.
	In
exceptional circumstances, for example in the event an in-person hearing is held, the Provider shall request the Parties for the payment of additional fees, which shall
be established in agreement with the Parties and the Panel.

 

	20.
	Exclusion of Liability—Except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, neither the Provider nor a Panelist shall be liable to
a Party for any act or omission in connection with any administrative proceeding under the Policy and the Rules.

	21.
	Amendments—The version of these Rules in effect at the time of the submission of the complaint to the Provider shall apply
to the administrative proceeding commenced thereby. These Rules may not be amended without the express written approval of DOC. 

B.3-32

   B.4    Locality-Based usTLD Structure Functions  

        NeuStar's modernized functions for the locality-based usTLD namespace will support the current delegated managers and registrants, and
encourage new registrations in the namespace.

	•
	NeuStar's modernization of the usTLD structure extends not only to the expanded space but to the locality space as well.

	•
	We will reach out to delegated managers and registrants for continued input for improving functions in the locality space.

	•
	NeuStar will automate the registration process in the locality space to encourage registrations and ensure that those registrations are processed
quickly and efficiently.

        Although
the usTLD locality space is currently underutilized and undervalued, it remains a valuable space, with existing delegated managers and registrants who appreciate its
hierarchical structure. A goal of modernizing the usTLD infrastructure cannot lie only in plans to allow registrations in an expanded space; it must also accommodate the existing locality space.
Similarly, simply keeping the locality space as is, without modernizing its infrastructure or examining policies for improvements, is a disservice to the users of that space. 

        NeuStar's
approach to developing and implementing a usTLD infrastructure is inclusive. Our current understanding of the locality space will be augmented when we reach out to delegated
managers and to registrants for their input. Our services provided in the locality space, to registrants and to delegated managers, will be equal to those services offered in the expanded space. Our
customers are important to us, and our diminishing those services for any subset of our customers would be contrary to our philosophy of equitable treatment and integrity. 

        The
locality-based usTLD structure functions highlighted below and in Sections B.4.1 through B.4.7 include all of the requirements listed in RFQ Section B.4. In each case,
although the specific needs of customers in the locality space have been kept in mind, our solution is as rich in functionality as the comparable function in the expanded space. 

        Existing Delegees and Registrants Service Provision—NeuStar will provide an implementation of the usTLD consistent with the
policies and philosophy embodied in RFC 1480 and the other usTLD policy documents. This implementation will be supplemented by our Centralized usTLD Database, a centralized Whois, Delegee Whois and
automatic registration services to replace the current manual process. 

        Undelegated Third Level Subdomains Service Provision—NeuStar will provide registrar services for undelegated third-level
subdomains in the locality space through the use of our Enhanced Shared Registry System (SRS), the same system that will be used by registrars in the expanded space. 

        Locality-Based Process Modernization—NeuStar will modernize the processes used in the locality space by leveraging our
Enhanced SRS and Centralized usTLD Database, by automating registrations, and by implementing an automated update process and a modernized zone file update process. 

        Current Locality-Based usTLD Users Coordination—NeuStar will establish target communications mechanisms, including
e-mail listservs, chat services, and other Internet-based services, as well as traditional customer outreach mechanisms, such as user group meetings, user support representatives, and
other support services to maintain close relationships with usTLD stakeholders. 

        Compliance with Current Locality-Based usTLD Policies Investigation and Report—NeuStar will approach our compliance
investigation as a means of forming partnerships with the Delegated Managers, i.e., delegees and subdelegees in the locality space. We view this report as a means of not only discovering problems in
the locality space, but also of collaborating with Delegated Managers to improve the overall utility of the namespace. 

B.4-1

 

        usTLD Delegated Manager Database Development—NeuStar's database of Delegated Manager information will ensure that all delegee
and subdelegee contact information and delegation information is kept up to date, so that both the registry can contact these Delegated Managers to
resolve issues, and so that registrants can contact these Delegated Managers to register in the locality space. 

        Whois Database Development—NeuStar's centralized enhanced Whois database will accommodate Web-based, free, public
searches for registrant and delegated manager contact information and will ensure the accuracy of data throughout the locality space. 

        The
functions presented in this section will enhance the utility of the locality space and make the namespace more attractive to registrants who wish to register a domain name based in
the geographic hierarchy. By centralizing our services and automating the registration process, we will provide our customers with a stable registry environment and easy-to-use
services as good as or better than those offered by any other top-level domain registry. 

B.4.1    Existing Delegees and Registrants Service Provision  

        Existing delegees and registrants in the usTLD rely on the services that the usTLD infrastructure provides. However, that current infrastructure has not evolved
along with other leading Internet registries. Currently, the registration process currently is manual, the zone data update process is batch oriented, and the basic usTLD policies are not even
available in a single coherent document. 

        It
is unfortunate that the current implementations are now outdated. The lag behind modern implementations causes potential users to question the value of acquiring or maintaining names
in the US domain name space. NeuStar proposes significant improvements that will benefit the existing users of the usTLD. We intend to make the usTLD a world renown ccTLD. We intend to provide
services and support that improves on current practice and complies with existing policies (including RFC 1480 and Web pages on www.nic.us that take precedence). We intend to enhance the value of
domain names held by existing delegees and registrants. 

        As
proposed by NeuStar, the usTLD will have a robust, secure, and reliable infrastructure equal to or better than any Internet registry. The registration process will be streamlined so
that users can check, add, modify, or delete names over an easy to access, simple to use web interface. All pertinent data related to name registrations will be maintained in a centralized data base
at the registry. NeuStar will provide tools to delegees and subdelegees to simplify the process of inputting data into the Centralized usTLD Database. Zone file data will be updated from the database
and propagated to nameservers in near real time. Whois data for all name holders (name holder refers collectively to delegees, subdelegees and registrants) will be available free through a public,
web-based interface, and the Whois DB will allow for multiple string and field searches. 

        The
existing delegees and registrants in the US domain will then be provided the service and support that they are entitled to expect. NeuStar will provide these services using robust
and reliable systems designed to support the use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States. 

B.4.1.1    Needs of Existing Users  

        The continued operation and support of the locality based usTLD is a fundamental concern to its users and an essential set of functions for the Internet community
of the United States. For existing delegees and registrants, NeuStar proposes to provide service and support that will enhance the value of the names they hold in the US domain. 

        Current
name holders want the capability to check, add, modify, or delete their data. They want DNS nameservers to have current zone file data, and they want their Whois data to be
accurate and timely. In addition, users need to rely on a robust, reliable, and secure infrastructure that will be able to satisfy their expected future needs as well as their current ones. 

B.4-2

 

        NeuStar
plans to implement an infrastructure designed to meet users' needs. This will include the following: 

	•
	Secure
website for delegee and registrant access,

	•
	Centralized
usTLD database, and

	•
	Updates
of zone file, Whois and Delegee Whois in near real time. 

        In
addition, as described elsewhere in this proposal, NeuStar's facilities will be based on high availability, reliable platforms, and users (Section O.1) will have access to a
range of technical and customer support services (Section B.2). NeuStar will provide clear and current guidance on the
applicable policies (Section B.3). The needs of the existing delegees and registrants will be met by this approach. 

B.4.1.2    Implementing Services for Delegees  

        In the existing locality-based name space, delegees support the fabric of the US domain. These delegees are responsible for the technical operation of nameservers
for the zone names they hold, and they are responsible for administering the names in that branch of the name space. RFC 1480 speaks clearly to the degree of responsibility and commitment involved. In
addition to the technical and operational aspects, as indicated by the following: 

The
designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the DNS service for the domain. That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names, delegating subdomains and operating name
servers must be done with technical competence. This includes keeping the US Domain Administrator or other higher-level domain managers advised of the status of the domain, responding to requests in a
timely manner, and operating the database with accuracy, robustness, and resilience. 

        That
RFC also conveys the administrative context of delegation: 

The
major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do an equitable, just, honest, and competent
job. The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated manager for supervising that domain's name space. These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a
duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the domain for the domain itself and the global Internet community. 

        In
that spirit, NeuStar plans to provide an implementation of the usTLD consistent with the policies and philosophy embodied in RFC 1480 and the other usTLD policy documents (e.g., as
posted on www.nic.us). The major features that will provide service and support are described in Sections B, F, and O in this proposal, and include: 

	•
	Secure
website for delegee and subdelegee access, with authentication ensuring that they are modifying records within their own name space,

	•
	Centralized
usTLD database, replicated on high availability, reliable platforms, and

	•
	Updates
of zone file, Whois data, and Delegee Whois in near real time. 

B.4.1.3    Providing Support for Registrants  

        In the existing locality-based name space, registrants are offered an alternative to running their own name servers, since delegation entails its own burdens of
responsibility and costs. Instead, registrants' data is directly entered in the US domain, meaning that the zone data files on the usTLD name servers themselves have the name holders' information. 

B.4-3

 

        Direct
registration provides name service support to a wider population of users by relieving them of administrative and technical requirements that come with delegation. As described
later in this proposal, the usTLD registry will be able to perform registry and registrar functions on behalf of such registrants. 

        Registrants,
too, will enjoy the benefit from the same services and support indicated above for delegees in the existing locality-based space, including secure website, centralized
database, near real time updates, and other features provided for name holders in the usTLD. 

B.4.2    Undelegated Third Level Sub-domains Service Provision  

        Undelegated sub-domains have been situated as a middle ground that offers name registration without requiring name server operation. The name servers
for names in undelegated sub-domains are in fact the usTLD's name servers, and the name holders' data is kept in the main usTLD database and zone files. 

        The
Statement of Work (SOW) requires that the usTLD Administrator provide registry and registrar services for name holders in undelegated third level locality sub-domains and
others. 

B.4-4

 

According
to the official US Domain Registry's Web site (www.nic.us), that set of undelegated domains has the following structure: 

Name Structures—usTLD Locality-Based  

	City Government:	 	<dept-name>	 	.	 	CI	 	.	 	<locality>	 	.	 	<state-code>	 	.	 	US
	

County Government:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

CO	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Parish Government:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

PARISH	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Town Government:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

TOWN	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Township:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

TOWNSHIP	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Township (option):	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

TWP	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Borough Government:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

BOROUGH	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Village Government:	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

VILLAGE	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Village (option):	
 	

<dept-name>	
 	

..	
 	

VIL	
 	

..	
 	

<locality>	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Schools K12 District:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<school-district>	
 	

..	
 	

K12	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

K12 School:	
 	

<school>	
 	

..	
 	

<school-district>	
 	

..	
 	

K12	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Private School:	
 	

<school>	
 	

..	
 	

PVT	
 	

..	
 	

K12	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Community College:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<school>	
 	

..	
 	

CC	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Technical School:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<school>	
 	

..	
 	

TEC	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Councils of Government:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<org-name>	
 	

..	
 	

COG	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

District:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<org-name>	
 	

..	
 	

DST	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Library:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<library-name>	
 	

..	
 	

LIB	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Museum:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<org-name>	
 	

..	
 	

MUS	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

State Government:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<state-agency>	
 	

..	
 	

STATE	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US
	

Statewide Non-Profit:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

<org-name>	
 	

..	
 	

GEN	
 	

..	
 	

<state-code>	
 	

..	
 	

US

        In
order to satisfy these requirements, the needs of the name holders in these domains include not only those of direct registrants, but also those analogous to certain capabilities
available to delegees and subdelegees. The problem is that there is no delegee for the undelegated domains. The solution is to provide the functions of registry and registrar, on behalf of those
domains, for name holders who are direct registrants of undelegated domains. 

        The
usTLD functions will already include those of usTLD Administrator, for all users, and as name server operators and name space administrators for the undelegated third level
sub-domains. In addition to those, NeuStar proposes to provide the functions of registrar, on behalf of an undelegated sub-domain and its direct registrants, and of registry,
to include that registrar in the Enhanced SRS. 

        The
direct registrants in undelegated sub-domains of the US domain will then be provided the service and support that they are entitled to expect. NeuStar will provide these
services using robust and reliable systems designed to support the use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States. 

B.4-5

 

B.4.2.1    Additional Needs of Undelegated Domains  

        Undelegated domains, by definition, have no official delegee to whom the domain is delegated. Registrants in such a domain must rely on the usTLD itself to
operate name servers, store data for the
zone files, and administer that portion of the name space. There are two different roles for the usTLD Registry to perform, depending on the particular domain, namely: 

	•
	For
the ".us" domain, the function is that of the registry operator for a ccTLD, and

	•
	For
the undelegated sub-domain, the function is that of a registrar.

	•
	Secure
website for delegee and registrant access,

	•
	Centralized
usTLD database, and

	•
	Updates
of zone file, Whois, and Delegee Whois in near real time, 

        but
also including: 

	•
	Implementation
of an Enhanced SRS, and

	•
	Provision
of Registrar Services, on behalf of and in trust for undelegated sub-domains. 

        As
described elsewhere in this proposal, NeuStar's facilities will be based on high availability, reliable platforms (Section O), and users will have access to a range of
technical and customer support services (Section B.2). NeuStar will provide clear and current guidance on the applicable policies. The needs of the name holders in requisite undelegated
sub-domains will be met by this approach. 

B.4.2.2    Implementing Registrar Services  

        NeuStar will provide registrar services on behalf of undelegated sub-domains through a process analogous to that for competitive registrars wishing to
interconnect with the Enhanced Shared Registry System (SRS) for the usTLD. NeuStar is developing this Enhanced SRS as part of its planned modernized registry infrastructure. Registrar functions will
be developed to support NeuStar's capability to act as a registrar on behalf of an undelegated sub-domain in the locality-based name space. The term SRS refers to a system that has a
mechanized interface to multiple registrars, which provides the same service to all of the interconnected registrars. 

        The
process of acting as a registrar requires that the registrar functions, along with the relevant terms and conditions, satisfy all appropriate requirements for competitive registrars
who wish to interconnect with the SRS for the usTLD domain. This formal approach will provide both the services and the safeguards that are needed for NeuStar to act as a registrar. 

        In
NeuStar's role as registrar for an undelegated sub-domain, it acts on behalf of the name holders who are direct registrants in the locality-based name space and who wish
to have NeuStar perform the registrar function. In this role, registrants will register names at a website provided by NeuStar. This will be very similar to the way registrants register names with
registrars in gTLDs such as.biz. NeuStar will provide each registrant with authenticating information that will need to be submitted for future changes and updates. This will ensure that it is the
appropriate registrant modifying the name. 

        Just
like in the expanded space, NeuStar will gather information about the registrant to populate the Central usTLD Database, create a Whois record, and update the zone file. In addition
NeuStar needs to clear the payment and register the registrant in NeuStar's Registrant Database. There is a clear difference between managing a name for a registrar and managing a name for a
registrant. NeuStar understands the importance of treating these two types of registrations differently. 

B.4-6

 

B.4.2.3    Providing Registry Services  

        NeuStar will provide registry services on behalf of undelegated sub-domains through the use of our Enhanced SRS that is being developed to include
NeuStar's capability to act as a registrar on behalf of an undelegated sub-domain in the locality-based name space. 

        The
following briefly describes some of the registry functionality and support proposed by NeuStar. Details are contained in Sections F and O this proposal. 

	•
	NeuStar
will centralize all pertinent information regarding all names registered in the usTLD, and all name holders and registrars will be included in the Centralized usTLD
database and the Whois database.

	•
	The
Centralized usTLD database will be escrowed on a regular basis.

	•
	The
publicly accessible Whois, Delegee Whois and the zone file will be created from the Centralized usTLD database and the updates will be propagated in near real time. 

        NeuStar
understands the range of roles, the services and the safeguards, that are required to satisfy the needs of name holders in the usTLD. Our implementation and operation will
enhance the value of the names of name holders who actually are the usTLD. 

B.4.3    Locality-Based Process Modernization  

        NeuStar's automated registration process, Centralized Database, and Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) will modernize the usTLD
registry and encourage new registrations in the locality space.

        Under
the current usTLD administration, all registration and update processes within the registry are done manually. Although requests for registrations are received over a Web
interface, this interface does not interact with a registration system. It simply sends a message to a person who then checks to see if the name is available, if the forms are filled out correctly,
and if the registrant has met the appropriate requirements. The information is then manually added to a list of names and to the zone file, and a new zone file is created and sent to the nameservers,
where it writes over the old zone file. 

        This
process was implemented for registrations from delegated managers, that is, delegees and subdelegees, and for direct registrations with the registry. If a registrant wants to
register with a delegated manager, the registration process depends on the specific delegated manager. There are no
standard requirements for how or where delegated managers store information or how they update zone files, and there are very few requirements for how they maintain and manage their nameservers. 

        NeuStar
will make vast improvements in the operations of the registry itself. NeuStar will implement an automated registration process, a Centralized usTLD Database, a Centralized Whois,
an automated update process, and a modernized zone file update process. All system software and databases will be backed up daily, and the tapes will be stored off-site. As required,
historical files and data will be escrowed with an escrow agent. 

        NeuStar's
Enhanced SRS will be available to all delegated managers via secure web access. Under this new system, changes made by the delegated manager will be implemented directly into
the registry systems, eliminating all manual processes associated with a registration. Changes to the Centralized usTLD Database will be made in real-time, and updates to the Whois and the
zone file (if necessary) will be done in near-real time, that is, in intervals of no more than 15 minutes. A name will go from registration to live in 15 minutes or less, whereas today it
can take weeks. 

        NeuStar
will utilize its state-of-the-art Network Operation Center (NOC) to monitor the Enhanced SRS and its subsystems, including the Centralized
usTLD Database and Whois, as well as the constellation of nameservers, on a 24-hour basis 365 days per year. The NOC will not only monitor for 

B.4-7

 

failures
but also will monitor the systems and network for degraded service that may indicate that a failure is about to happen. 

        NeuStar
will implement billing systems to accommodate both debit accounts and credit cards. This will allow instantaneous registrations. In addition, we will utilize our customer
resource management system that allows for trouble ticket management and customer contact tracking, among other capabilities. 

        A
more detailed description of the ancilliary services provided by NeuStar to the locality space, e.g., customer service, tech support, software, is provided in Sections B.2.9 to B.2.16. 

        A
more detailed description of the Enhanced SRS and the Centralized usTLD Database is provided in Section F of this proposal. 

        Section O
of this proposal provides a detailed description of the systems, software, and functional capabilities that NeuStar will deploy to modernize the usTLD registry for the
locality name space. 

B.4.4    Current Locality-Based usTLD Users Coordination  

        NeuStar will develop user-friendly, effective mechanisms to encourage and coordinate the contributions of the current
locality-based usTLD stakeholders.

        NeuStar
is acutely aware that as a result of the comparative complexity of the namespace and the lack of coordination and marketing for the usTLD, the locality-based usTLD has not
attracted a high level of domain name registration activity and remains underpopulated in comparison with other ccTLDs. Although the existing administrator has established basic policies and
procedures for the TLD, little has been done to enforce such policies and procedures nor has any effort been made to analyze compliance by delegated managers or the value of the namespace to its
users. Moreover, virtually no effort has been made to reach out to users and stakeholders to further develop and improve the space. 

        NeuStar
has a strong legacy of coordinating complex groups of users in the industries that it serves. Successful administration of public resources, whether they are telephone numbers or
domain names, requires strong awareness of constituencies and their needs. NeuStar intends to establish target communications mechanisms, including e-mail listservs, chat services, and
other Internet-based services. In addition, NeuStar will utilize traditional customer outreach, such as user group meetings, user support representatives, and other support services to maintain close
relationships with usTLD stakeholders. These forums will be tailored to allow stakeholders to discuss usTLD administrative, technical, and policy issues related to the operation and management of the
locality-based usTLD structure. This will ensure that, going forward with improvements in the overall space, the current users have a "voice" and stake in the future success and increased utility of
the usTLD. 

        To
begin this process, NeuStar will leverage the six-month compliance report process, discussed in detail below in Section B.4.5, to develop a strong understanding of
stakeholder desires and concerns and to identify the best way to communicate with each constituency group. 

        Coordination
of all usTLD outreach will ultimately be coordinated and developed under the auspices of the usTLD Policy Council. This council will be very important to the ongoing
development of usTLD policy and public outreach. The structure and duties of this council, as well as the detailed outline of our basic outreach plan, are discussed in detail in Section B.3.5. 

B.4.5    Compliance with Current Locality-Based usTLD Policies Investigation and Report  

        NeuStar's approach to the Compliance Investigation and Report will forge good relations with locality delegees while solving many of the
problems that plague the current locality space.

B.4-8

 

        In
its request for an immediate investigation of policy compliance in the usTLD locality space, the DOC is sending a strong message about the current state of this space. Delegating
portions of localities within the usTLD hierarchy began as a logical method of maintaining the space and encouraging individuals within those physical localities to register domain names. However,
noncompliance by some delegees and specifically the problem of "locality squatting," have caused stagnation in registrations and have done little to promote the public interest aspect of the usTLD. 

        The
problem of locality squatting is prevalent across current locality delegations. According to current policy, for delegations or redelegations made after July 1, 1997, it is
assumed that every applicant for the delegation of a locality name has received written authorization from the locality's legitimate government to manage the domain name of that locality. Yet,
according to the current list of delegated subdomains and their contacts (available on the current usTLD Web site), approximately 40 percent of the delegated subdomains are held by five
individuals. Although a number of delegees who hold multiple locality delegations may be legitimate, that legitimacy is questioned when an individual delegee manages registries for localities in more
than 30 states. 

        This
compliance investigation effort is an excellent and necessary first step in improving usTLD operation and use. It will serve as more than just a report on compliance; it will also
aid efforts to create a partnership among the usTLD community for achieving stable, consistent service and for pursuing enhancements in the usTLD locality space. Because of the history of usTLD
administration, there is little information about current administration and operations. It is essential that a thorough investigation be performed to obtain a baseline for current information about
the status of usTLD operations, assess points of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among current delegees and current registrants, and enable NeuStar to provide recommendations to the DOC for
improvements by surveying current delegees and current registrants. 

        Without
this report, it will not be possible to ensure consistent and correct administration or operation of locality-based registrations within the usTLD. The existing problems in the
space will persist from an unclear, unresolved history with existing usTLD delegees. 

        Finally,
the stated goal for the Compliance activity is to establish a basis for moving to consistent quality of service for usTLD administration. However, investigation would be
appropriate even with a flawless history because it permits NeuStar to develop initial channels of communication with the existing usTLD community and to learn what changes and enhancements the
community desires. NeuStar anticipates that this investigation and report will be the first step toward codifying new technical and administrative policies and proposing a successor document to RFC
1480. 

 The Importance of Compliance  

        The usTLD portion of the DNS is as essential to the infrastructure of the Internet as any other portion of the DNS. Serious use of the Internet requires highly
reliable, highly stable, and highly efficient performance of the usTLD domain. Further, registrants and potential registrants in the usTLD must have assurances that they can register within their own
localities without encountering resistance or nonresponsiveness from the assigned delegee. To these ends, concerns for locality-space operations divide among: 

	•
	Technology and Operations—Modern, standard versions of DNS and registration protocols must be used, with
particular attention to recent security standards. Reliability and responsiveness of each DNS, Whois, and the registration process must be on a par with corresponding services elsewhere on the
Internet.

	•
	Administration—Quality, style, and access to registry and registrar customer services must also be on a par with
the recent, considerable improvements seen elsewhere in the DNS. 

B.4-9

 

	•
	Policies—The Domain Name Service is designed to support a variety of naming and operations models. However, there
is increasing support for some policies to be consistent across the entire DNS and for consistency among subsets of DNS activities.

	•
	Service—Service to registrants is of the utmost importance in ensuring that the locality hierarchy serves its
public service functions. Nonresponsiveness to customers and
resistance to serving those customers is an unacceptable practice. So, too, is unreasonable pricing for registration services. 

        Ultimately
there are four simple and direct needs that require assessment: 

	1.
	Historical
and current status and effectiveness of coordination and oversight for individual usTLD locality assignments. That is, for each delegee, an assessment must be made regarding
the method of operation and the effectiveness of that operation.

	2.
	Inconsistencies
in registry operation and in registered data. That is, a review must be undertaken across all usTLD locality assignments for differences in administration that would be
better to make consistent.

	3.
	Authority
of the delegee to run the delegated locality assignment. That is, if a delegation (or re-delegation) was made after July 1, 1997, the delegee should be
able to produce written authorization from the legitimate government of a locality to manage the domain name of that locality.

	4.
	Adherence
to the US Nexus Requirement, as outlined in Section B.3.1. 

 NeuStar's Approach  

        The new administrator of the usTLD domain will have a dual role. Although its main function will be to operate a registry for the usTLD root, it will also be
charged with continuing, expanding, and enhancing the usTLD domain. This latter role entails oversight, not just operations and administration. 

        There
are two approaches that a registry can take for oversight of the usTLD. One is top-down and authority-based, primarily entailing issuance of directives and checking for
conformance. The alternative is to treat the entire usTLD domain as an activity among partners, all seeking success for the stakeholders and satisfaction among the customers. NeuStar strongly believes
that an approach based on partnership will be easier to pursue and much more productive. Ultimately, a service is always collaborative, especially when the effort comprises multiple organizations. 

        An
approach based on partnership would be essential even with a flawless history. The "social" lesson of the Internet is that large-scale, multi-organization efforts must be based on
strong, consensus-based collaboration. Use of "authority" must be carefully limited, even to the extent of choosing not to use that authority if it is likely to cause ill will among participants.
However, the problematic history of usTLD makes this effort more sensitive and more difficult. We realize that there may be cases where a partnership approach may be unsuccessful, and we stand ready
to use a more authoritative approach, only if it becomes necessary. 

 NeuStar's Investigation Process  

        In order to conduct this compliance investigation, NeuStar will follow steps that are typical for survey research. 

 Planning Phase  

        In order to successfully conduct a compliance investigation and to ensure fairness to all parties, NeuStar will begin by reviewing all relevant documentation,
including RFC 1480, the post-1997 

B.4-10

 

agreement
with delegees, and any documentation provided to us by delegees. At the same time, NeuStar will request from the current usTLD registry all contact information for current delegees and
information on which delegees have signed the post-1997 agreement. This information is of vital importance to conducting a compliance investigation, because delegations or redelegations
made beginning in July 1997 follow different guidelines from those delegated before that date. 

        Once
this information is obtained from the current usTLD registry, a letter introducing NeuStar as the new usTLD registry will be sent to all delegees. This letter will be a formal
request for registrant and subdelegee data from the delegees and will include a request for a copy of the written authorization to manage the domain for each locality, for delegations or for
redelegations made since July 1997. The same letter will be sent to subdelegees to request registrant data under those suddelegations. 

        From
this effort, NeuStar will compile aggregate requirements for delegees, including subdelegees, and registrants and will begin our effort to find legitimate delegees. During this
time, we will also select an agency to conduct a compliance survey. 

        This
phase of activity will ensure that the investigation is based on existing history and, to the extent possible, based on the expectations of delegees and registrants. 

Design Phase  

        During the design phase, investigation questionnaires will be formulated for delegees, including subdelegees, and for registrants. The questionnaires will cover
the full range of administration and operations topics. Use of professional survey experts will ensure that the research tools employ proper wording to elicit helpful responses and otherwise avoid the
serious pitfalls often encountered with surveys developed by nonprofessionals. The surveys produced must be sufficiently open to permit participants to offer unexpected information and suggestions.
However, they will also be partially based on information that is already available, so that participants can be assisted with intelligent, directed questions and plausible solutions. 

        NeuStar
expects the survey to produce several types of useful information, including but not limited to: 

	•
	Legitimacy
of individual delegees;

	•
	Status
of current delegations, including adherence to current policies, policies outlined in RFC 1480, the usTLD web site and the US Nexus Requirement;

	•
	Changes
desired by delegees or registrants;

	•
	Status
quo desired by delegees or registrants; and

	•
	Identification
of nonresponsive delegees. 

        This
feedback will permit NeuStar to pursue a constructive, iterative process for obtaining a cure to problems, while maintaining stable operations. 

        As
noted earlier, it is essential that NeuStar approach the design of this survey as a means of finding ways to help delegees and serve them as customers of the usTLD registry. This
approach is in marked contrast to one that could be heavy-handed and oriented towards establishing authority and strictness. Such a heavy-handed approach would be likely to produce poor information
and strong resentment. It is expected that delegees will have concerns, and even fears, about the new administrator. NeuStar views it as appropriate and essential to allay those fears through a
constructive tone and process. 

B.4-11

 

Execution Phase  

        This phase is dominated by the mechanics of distributing surveys to delegees and registrants, ensuring they complete the forms, and then obtaining the completed
forms for processing. In cases where a delegee is nonresponsive, we will send a second request, followed by an attempt to contact the delegee by another method. 

Analysis  

        Structured portions of the surveys will be straightforward and will produce simple statistics. Open-ended portions of the survey will require the
skills of a professional survey researcher to ensure that answers are compiled in an appropriate and useful manner. 

Recommendations and Report  

        Beyond basic data analysis is the step of reducing the analysis to practical suggestions to remedy problems and pursue enhancements of the usTLD locality-space
policies. These may include recommendations on: 

	•
	Structure
of the locality hierarchy

	•
	New
policies for delegees to follow

	•
	New
cost guidelines for delegees to follow

	•
	Technical
aspects of the locality delegations

	•
	Methods
to enhance compliance among noncompliant delegees

	•
	Methods
of increasing the value of the locality-based structure to local communities as a public resource. 

        In
addition to presenting recommendations for changes in locality delegations, this report will, as required in RFQ Section B4, present a full evaluation of locality squatting issues.
Delegees who have proven their legitimacy by producing the requested letter of authorization will be listed, and carefully recorded information will be presented listing those delegees who contributed
to the investigation, as well as those who were nonresponsive to our requests. We believe that our partnership approach to this investigation will encourage participation in our survey, and it is our
hope that the vast majority of delegees will be responsive. We further believe that this investigation will serve as an excellent introduction of NeuStar's usTLD operations to current delegees, aid
efforts to create partnerships between the TLD and the delegees, and allow NeuStar to discover ways to improve the services offered in the usTLD locality space. Within six months of contract award, we
will file our report and recommendations with the DOC and post the report on the usTLD Web site, as required. 

B.4.6    usTLD Delegated Manager Database Development  

        NeuStar's Delegated Manager Database will ensure the accuracy and validity of all data for delegees and subdelegees.  

        Because of the administrative structure of the usTLD, that is, because there are a vast number of locality delegees and subdelegees (collectively known as
delegated managers), NeuStar will develop a database of delegated managers that will be kept accurate and up to date. This will be an integral element of the Centralized usTLD Database that NeuStar
will deploy as the usTLD Administrator. To manage a critical public resource like the usTLD, the Administrator needs an accurate database for all entities that have a role in administering the space,
and delegated managers play an important role in the functioning of the usTLD localities. Because the usTLD Administrator may need to contact a delegated manager for reasons ranging from network
outages to questions from a registrant, it is not 

B.4-12

 

acceptable
to have out-of-date contact information that prevents issues from being addressed in a timely manner. 

        The
most critical function with regard to creating the database is obtaining relevant information from the existing delegated managers—NeuStar has performed a similar
function before. The task at hand is analogous to NeuStar's undertaking in the transitioning of the North American Numbering Plan to centralized administration. In order to fulfill our duties, NeuStar
was required to create a centralized database of telephone number assignments by working with multiple phone companies across the country, most having multiple telephone number administrators. The
databases across companies were inconsistent, as were those within companies. NeuStar was able to collect and standardize all of the data, and completed the transition ahead of schedule. 

        In
order to ensure the accuracy and validity of the delegated manager data, NeuStar's Transition Team will reach out to all of the delegees and subdelegees. We will provide them with a
list of the data elements we wish to populate, and will provide them with multiple methods of provisioning this data with us. On an ongoing basis, we will provide the delegated managers an
easy-to-use web interface to provision new registrations into the Centralized usTLD Database. Alternatively, should they have high volumes of registrations and would prefer a
mechanized interface, they may opt to use NeuStar's eXtensible Registry Protocol, or XRP, to interface to the registry. 

        Information
in the Delegated Manager Database will, at a minimum, include the following: 

	1.
	The
name of the delegated manager;

	2.
	The
Delegated Manager ID;

	3.
	The
IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation;

	4.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	5.
	The
date of delegation;

	6.
	The
name and postal address of the delegated manager;

	7.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager;

	8.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager; and

	9.
	The
Web site or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under the delegation. 

        As
required the information in NeuStar's usTLD Delegated Manager Database will allow for multiple string and field searches though a free, publicly accessible, Web-based
interface. 

        Detailed
descriptions of how the databases will be populated and how they will be kept up to date and accurate are provided in Section F, Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced
Shared Registration System. 

        Redundant
Delegated Manager databases will be located at the geographically diverse, redundant Enhanced SRS Data Centers located in Illinois and Virginia. In accordance with U.S. Nexus
requirements, no databases will be located outside of the United States. Both databases will be updated in near real time (intervals of no more than 15 minutes) and will be synchronized. 

        A
detailed description of the technology and operations of the Delegated Manager Database is provided in Sections O.3 and O.9. 

B.4-13

 

B.4.7    Whois Database Development  

        NeuStar's centralized Whois database will accommodate public searches for registrant and delegated manager contact information and will
ensure the accuracy of data throughout the locality space.  

        The locality-based usTLD space has traditionally had no centralized Whois which makes it difficult to look up contact information for domain name holders, and
even for delegees. NeuStar will remedy the current deficiency by developing an enhanced, searchable, accurate, and up-to-date Whois database containing locality-based usTLD
registrant information. In fact, this Whois database will be common with the Whois database for the expanded usTLD space. 

        NeuStar
will maintain a Web site that will allow free public, searches of the Whois database, and will also provide a standard port 43 interface. As required by the COTR, the database
will allow for multiple string and field searches. These searches will return Whois records that will show a differentiation between a registrant's Whois record and a delegated manager's Whois record.
NeuStar will reach out to the existing delegees and subdelegees to populate information on their registrants in the databases. 

        NeuStar
will populate the data pertaining to the existing assignments by reaching out to each of the delegated managers through information provided by the current usTLD Administrator,
as well as with
contact information contained in existing zone files of the usTLD Administrator and of the delegated managers. At a minimum, NeuStar will collect and update the information described below for each
Whois record: 

	1.
	The
name of the domain registered;

	2.
	The
Internet Protocol (IP) address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;

	3.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	4.
	The
identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered;

	5.
	The
creation date of the registration;

	6.
	The
name and postal address of the domain name holder;

	7.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and

	8.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder. 

        More
detailed descriptions of how the databases will be populated, how they will be kept up to date and accurate, and the structure of the Whois responses are provided in
Section F, Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System. A detailed description of Whois policy is provided in Section B.3.5. 

        Redundant
databases will be located at the geographically diverse, co-active Enhanced SRS Data Centers located in Illinois and Virginia. In accordance with the U.S. Nexus
requirement, no registry databases will be located outside of the United States. All databases will be updated in near real time (intervals no greater than 15 minutes) and will be synchronized to
ensure consistency of responses. 

        A
more detailed, technical description of the usTLD database is provided in Sections O.3 and O.8. 

B.4-14

  

 
 

HIGHLIGHTS    
    

	•
	NeuStar
will leverage our Enhanced Shared Registration System and Centralized usTLD Database to promote registrar participation and registration in the usTLD expanded
namespace

	•
	We
will deploy a centralized Whois upon introduction of the expanded namespace

	•
	NeuStar's
centralized, automated processes ensure the continued integrity of data in the usTLD registry

	•
	Creation
of the us TLD Policy Council to assist in outreach efforts. 

B.5    Expanded usTLD Space Functions  

        NeuStar's functions for the expanded usTLD namespace will support an unlimited number of competitive registrars and encourage second-level
registrations in the namespace.  

        Although many users find the current usTLD hierarchical locality space to be valuable, or even essential to their presence on the Internet, the naming structure
is generally considered to be cumbersome. Expanding the usTLD space to allow registrations in the second level will encourage more registrations in the namespace, and open the usTLD to registrar
competition. 

        By
introducing this new namespace, we also introduce the need for functions related to a registrar community, including a shared registration system and registrar accreditation and
certification. Just as we have proposed in the locality namespace, we will leverage our Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) and Centralized usTLD Database, and implement an automated update
process and a modernized zone file update process for use in the expanded space. 

        The
expanded usTLD functions highlighted below and in Sections B.5.1 through B.5.5 include all of the requirements listed in RFQ Section B.5. In these sections, we emphasize our
desire to work with registrars throughout the accreditation and certification process, and our understanding of the need to develop a registry that the Internet community will consider to be valuable
and useful. 

        usTLD Enhanced Shared Registration System—NeuStar will leverage our eXtensible Registry Protocol (XRP) for interfacing
registrars to our Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS). This Enhanced SRS will support an unlimited number of competitive registrars for the expanded name space, and will provide equivalent
access to the system for all registrars to register, transfer, and update domain registrations. 

        Accreditation Process for usTLD Registrars—NeuStar's registrar accreditation process will ensure consistency in quality and
service within the usTLD, while at the same time promoting stability and competition for domain name registration services. 

        usTLD Technical Certification Process—NeuStar's Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) process will verify the correct
operation and performance of a registrar's client system before access to the live Enhanced SRS is granted. This OT&E Certification will allow NeuStar to maintain the integrity of the usTLD and of the
DNS as a whole. 

        Whois Database Development—NeuStar's centralized Whois database will accommodate Web-based, free, public searches
for registrant and registrar contact information and will ensure the accuracy of data in the expanded space, beginning with the very first Whois entry in that space. 

        Community Outreach Plan—NeuStar will coordinate usTLD public outreach under the auspices of the usTLD Policy Council, which
will be very important to the ongoing development of usTLD policy and public outreach. 

        Expanding
the usTLD namespace will be one of the biggest steps in achieving the goal of increasing registrations and promoting competition in the space. Furthermore, the expansion of the 

B.5-1

 

usTLD
space affords NeuStar the unique opportunity to centralize all data and information from the inception of the new space. Whereas centralizing this information in the locality space must be done
by reaching out to existing delegated managers, all information in the expanded space will be centralized from the beginning, ensuring that all Whois and zone file information has the highest possible
levels of accuracy and integrity. 

B.5.1    usTLD Enhanced Shared Registration System  

        NeuStar will develop and implement an Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) that will support an unlimited number of competitive
registrars for the expanded name space. As required, this enhanced SRS will provide equivalent access to the system for all registrars to register, transfer, and update domain registrations.  

        NeuStar's Enhanced SRS will be developed according to a three-level architecture: protocol servers, application servers, and database servers (the Centralized
usTLD Database). Exhibit B.5-1 displays a high-level view of this Enhanced SRS architecture. Registrars will interface to the registry over the Internet to the protocol
servers located at redundant data centers in Illinois and Virginia. Registrars will be able to interface with either data center, and in the unlikely event of an outage to one data center, registrars
will still be able to interface to the other. This redundancy ensures that the Centralized usTLD Database will always be available for handling queries, registrations, and modifications. 

        Protocol
servers will authenticate registrars based on authentication information provided by the registry. For each registrar, a profile will dictate the access rights that will be
provided. This ensures that one registrar will not be allowed to view customer-sensitive information for any other registrar or to modify registration data for another registrar's registrant. 

        NeuStar's
protocol for interfacing registrars to a registry, called XRP (eXtensible Registry Protocol) has been developed and is currently being deployed for the .biz registry. XRP is
based on two very important Internet protocols, eXtensible Markup Language (XML) and Blocks Extensible Exchange Prototcol (BEEP). Both of these protocols, XML for the data schema and BEEP for the
transport layer, make it extremely easy to expand the functionality of XRP to include registrar and registry capabilities for the usTLD. 

        It
should be noted that the IETF Provreg Working Group, in which NeuStar is an active participant, is developing an industry standard interface between registrars and registries. XRP
will be functionally compatible with the standard developed at the IETF. 

        NeuStar
has already developed the tool kits for registrars interfacing with the.biz registry. Registrars that have been tested with XRP for .biz will need to go through only simple
testing to be certified for the additional functionality required for the usTLD. Assistance will be provided to registrars through an operational test-and-evaluation facility,
described in Section B.2.9, and technical support will be available for usTLD accredited registrars, by phone or via the usTLD Web site, on a
24 × 7 × 365 basis. 

        [Exhibit B.5-1:
High-level architecture illustrates a high-level view of the Enhanced SRS and the interactions with external
systems. Graphic Omitted: high-level diagram of registry architecture.] 

        NeuStar's
application servers contain the business rules that manage the registration data between the registrar and the registry. Simply stated, it acts as the interface between the
protocol server, which interfaces to the registrars, and the Centralized usTLD Database. It is the most complex element of the registry because of the complex business rules and the need for
real-time efficiency. NeuStar has a great deal of experience in building high-availability, complex systems to support critical public resources. Examples of these systems
include the Number Portability Administration Center, the National Number Pooling Administration Center, and the.biz registry. 

B.5-2

 

        A
detailed description of the functions of the Enhanced SRS is provided in Section F, Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System. 

        A
detailed description of the technical operations and facilities of the Enhanced SRS, including XRP and the Centralized usTLD Database, is provided in Sections O.1, O.2, and O.3 of this
proposal. 

B.5.2    Accreditation Process for usTLD Registrars  

        NeuStar will implement a simple registrar accreditation process to ensure consistency in quality and service within the usTLD, while at
the same time promoting stability and competition for domain name registration services.

        In
order to encourage the rapid implementation of the enhanced usTLD space, promote strong competition among registrars, and ensure the continued neutrality of the registry, while at the
same time promoting competition and stability for domain name registration services, NeuStar will use a straightforward, fair and efficient accreditation process for all usTLD registrars. Eligibility
to access the registry will be subject only to an accreditation application process and technical testing and approval by NeuStar technical staff, payment of a registrar accreditation fee, and the
execution of a usTLD Registrar Accreditation and usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreements. 

        All
registrars or potential registrars, including those who are already ICANN-Accredited Registrars, must become accredited to register domain names in the usTLD. A registrar need not be
an ICANN-accredited registrar to become a usTLD registrar. The usTLD Registrar Accreditation Process is illustrated in Exhibit B.5-2. The following bullets outline the basic
process: 

	•
	Apply for Registrar Accreditation. All registrars must complete and submit to NeuStar a usTLD Registrar Accreditation
Application. They must also must review the Application Instructions and the current usTLD Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Registry-Registrar Agreement. 

        [Exhibit B.5-2:
The usTLD Registrar Accreditation Process will be followed to ensure all usTLD Registrars meet the requisite standards of integrity.
Graphic Omitted: flow chart depicting usTLD registrar accreditation process.] 

	•
	Receive Notification of Registrar Accreditation. After completing its review of the accreditation application and conducting
any necessary follow-up inquiries, NeuStar will inform the applicant by e-mail of its decision.

	•
	Sign a usTLD Accreditation Agreement Once NeuStar has approved the applicant for accreditation, the applicant must execute a
usTLD Registrar Accreditation Agreement with NeuStar.

	•
	Sign a usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement. Each applicant must also execute a usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement.

	•
	Technical Certification Process. Upon execution of the necessary agreements, the usTLD Accredited registrar will begin
operational testing and evaluation utilizing the NeuStar provided Registrar Tool Kit. Upon receipt of approval from the NeuStar Technical Evaluation Team, the new registrar will be eligible to access
and register domain names in the usTLD registry system. This process is described in detail in Section 3.5.3, Technical Certification of usTLD Registrars.

	•
	Announcement of Accreditation. NeuStar will announce the accreditation, along with contact information for the newly
accredited usTLD registrar on its Web site, unless the registrar specifies that it would prefer, for business reasons, to postpone the announcement of accreditation. 

        Because
NeuStar proposes an open, shared registry for the expanded usTLD space, there will be no restrictions on the number of registrars permitted to register names in the system. 

B.5-3

 

        Copies
of the usTLD Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Accreditation Application are attached at the end of this section. NOTE: The Application refers to Application Instructions
which will be developed by NeuStar and approved by the Department of Commerce prior to the commencement of the accreditation process. 

B.5.3    usTLD Technical Certification Process  

        NeuStar's process for Operational Test and Evaluation certification will test the capabilities of registrar systems before access to the
live Enhanced Shared Registry System is granted.

        In
order to maintain the integrity of the usTLD and of the DNS as a whole, it is necessary to ensure that registrars are technically competent and that their systems, which will
interface with the usTLD Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS), are capable of operating and performing the required functions. To fill this need, NeuStar will develop and implement a process for
technical certification of registrars in the expanded usTLD space. 

        Before
a registrar would be given permissions to access the live usTLD Enhanced SRS, it will first need to pass NeuStar's usTLD Technical Certification Process, called Operational Test
and Evaluation
(OT&E) certification. The purpose of this OT&E certification will be to verify the correct operation and performance of a registrar's client system. 

Preparations for OT&E Certification  

        The OT&E certification process will begin when a registrar becomes accredited by NeuStar to register names in the usTLD, at which point the registrar will enter
the usTLD registry provisioning process. This process begins when the registrar fills out a registration form. NeuStar will then send a usTLD welcome package to the registrar that will include
information to help implement its eXtensible Registry Protocol (XRP) client application for the Enhanced SRS. This package will also include the following: 

	•
	Username
and password to access the private members area of the usTLD Web site.

	•
	The
OT&E test bed server information and username/password for two accounts to access the usTLD OT&E test bed for registrar client testing.

	•
	Instructions
for downloading the XRP Registrar Tool Kit.

	•
	Instructions
for downloading the documentation for the XRP Registrar Tool Kit. This tool kit will be available to any interested party that would like to implement registrar
client applications.

	•
	Instructions
for downloading the XRP specifications and XRP Common Application Programmer Interfaces (APIs).

	•
	Instructions
on how to proceed with the OT&E certification process.

	•
	Instructions
on how to obtain an SSL certificate from an approved Certificate Authority.

	•
	Instructions
on how to provide the usTLD registry with the list of subnets that will be used to access the Enhanced SRS Test Plans and Procedures, which will explain the
test cases, test metrics, data collection, test data analysis, and reporting to be performed during OT&E verification. 

        The
registrar will be responsible for installing the XRP client application that will interface to the registry using the XRP. The registrar will interface the XRP client to the
back-office systems via the XRP common APIs. 

B.5-4

 

        Because
the registry-registrar communication channel will be encrypted, an SSL certificate from an approved Certificate Authority will be required to establish an SSL encrypted channel.
The username/password and subnet list will provide additional security; only a valid combination of an SSL certificate, username/password, and subnet will be allowed to access the live Enhanced SRS. 

        During
XRP client implementation, the registrar will have access to the Registry OT&E test bed environment. In the OT&E test bed, the registrar may test the operation of its software to
verify the correct handling of XRP commands, their responses, and notification messages. Operations performed in the OT&E environment will not be charged and will not have any impact on the live
Enhanced SRS. Registrars/Delegees will continue to have access to the OT&E test bed after certification, so that they may continue to test their back-office software systems. 

        When
a registrar has completed the testing of its XRP client and back-office systems and would like to proceed with OT&E certification, it will then contact the usTLD
Customer Service Center to schedule a time slot for an acceptance test. Time slots will be scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. At the scheduled time, the
registrar will contact the usTLD OT&E Technical Support Team to initiate the certification. 

The XRP Registrar Tool Kit  

        The XRP Registrar Tool Kit is a software development kit (SDK) that will support the development of a registrar software system for registering Internet domain
names in the usTLD registry using the XRP registry-registrar protocol and the XRP common APIs. The SDK will consist of software and documentation as described below. 

        The
SDK will be used by the registrar as a basis for connecting to the usTLD registry test bed environment during OT&E and can also be used to develop a system for interfacing with the
live usTLD registry once the registrar has been certified. 

        The
software will consist of a working Java XRP common API and samples of interfaces to back-office systems that implement the XRP core functions and XRP extensions used to
communicate between the registry and registrar. The SDK will illustrate how XML requests (registration events) can be assembled and forwarded to the registry for processing. The software will provide
the registrar with the basis for a reference implementation that conforms to the XRP registry-registrar protocol. The software component of the SDK will also include XML schema definition files for
all Registry XRP objects and XRP object extensions. 

        The
documentation will also describe the XRP software package hierarchy, the object data model, and the defined objects and methods (including calling parameter lists and expected
response behavior). New versions of the SDK will be made available from time to time to provide support for additional features as they become available and support for other platforms and languages. 

OT&E Certification Test Cases  

        During OT&E certification, a registrar's client application will be required to demonstrate the proper execution of the following operations: 

	•
	SSL
connection establishment

	•
	XRP
<login> command

	•
	Change
of <login> password

	•
	XRP
<logout> command

	•
	Domain
name operations 

B.5-5

 

        -
Create domain without nameservers and without contacts (XRP Transform <create>) 

        -
Create domain with nameservers 

        -
Create domain with contacts 

        -
Create domain with maximum registration period 

        -
Create domain with maximum number of nameservers 

        -
Create domain with maximum number of contacts 

        -
Create domain with maximum length domain name (63 characters +.US) 

        -
Create domain with invalid name 

        -
Check domain (XRP Query <check>)—domain not available 

        -
Check domain (XRP Query <check>)—domain available 

        -
Check domain—maximum length domain name (63 characters +.US) not available 

        -
Query domain (XRP Query <info>) 

        -
Query domain transfer status (XRP Query <transfer>) 

        -
Delete domain (XRP Transform <delete>) 

        -
Renew domain (XRP Transform <renew>) 

        -
Transfer domain (XRP Transform <transfer>) 

        -
Change domain (XRP Transform <update>)—nameservers 

        -
Change domain (XRP Transform <update>)—contact 

        -
Change domain (XRP Transform <update>)—status 

	•
	Nameserver
operations 

        -
Create nameserver (XRP Transform <create>) 

        -
Create nameserver with maximum length host name (80 characters) 

        -
Check nameserver (XRP Query <check>)—nameserver known 

        -
Check nameserver (XRP Query <check>)—nameserver unknown 

        -
Query nameserver (XRP Query <info>) 

        -
Delete nameserver (XRP Transform <delete>) 

        -
Change nameserver (XRP Transform <update>)—add IP address 

        -
Change nameserver (XRP Transform <update>)—remove IP address 

	•
	Contact
operations 

        -
Create contact (XRP Transform <create>) 

        -
Check contact (XRP Query <check>)—contact known 

        -
Check contact (XRP Query <check>)—contact unknown 

        -
Query contact (XRP Query <info>) 

        -
Query contact transfer status (XRP Query <transfer>) 

B.5-6

 

        -
Delete contact (XRP Transform <delete>) 

        -
Transfer contact (XRP Transform <transfer>) 

        -
Change contact (XRP Transform <update>)—change element 

        -
Change contact (XRP Transform <update>)—remove element 

	•
	Registrant
account operations 

        -
Create registrant account (XRP Transform <create>) 

        -
Check registrant account (XRP Query <check>)—contact known 

        -
Check registrant account (XRP Query <check>)—contact unknown 

        -
Query registrant account (XRP Query <info>) 

        -
Query registrant account transfer status (XRP Query <transfer>) 

        -
Delete registrant account (XRP Transform <delete>) 

        -
Transfer registrant account (XRP Transform <transfer>) 

        -
Change registrant account (XRP Transform <update>)—change element 

        -
Change registrant account (XRP Transform <update>)—remove element 

	•
	Effectiveness
and utility of client session management and information exchange

	•
	Performance
of client session management and information exchange throughput. 

        NOTE: The Registry will reserve the right to change the OT&E certification requirements as necessary to ensure compliance with the evolving XRP protocol and XRP
common APIs.

Post OT&E Certification  

        All tests performed during OT&E certification must be completed without errors. The registry will provide the certification results in a timely manner and provide
feedback for those registrars that failed to successfully complete the tests. Those registrars may correct their systems and reschedule for certification. Registrars will not be limited in the number
of attempts at OT&E certification. 

        Upon
successful OT&E certification, the registrar will become eligible for operation in the live Enhanced SRS. A new username and password will be assigned, and the NeuStar will
configure the live system to recognize the SSL certificate, username, password, and subnet blocks for the registrar. 

B.5.4    Whois Database Development  

        NeuStar's centralized Whois database will accommodate public searches for registrant and registrar contact information and will ensure the
accuracy of data throughout the usTLD namespace.

        The
locality-based usTLD space has traditionally had no centralized Whois, which made it difficult to look up contact information for domain name holders. But the usTLD expanded space is
new, and we have the chance to implement an enhanced Whois database for that space that will be accurate and up to date from the very first registration in that space. NeuStar will develop and
implement an enhanced Whois database that will contain information about all usTLD registrations, registrants, and registrars active in the usTLD namespace. NeuStar's usTLD Web site will provide
access to both the locality and expanded Whois databases; Whois will also be available through a standard port 43 interface. 

B.5-7

 

        In
accordance with the RFQ, the Whois database will allow for multiple string and field searches through a publicly available, Web-based interface. Query returns will
indicate the Whois database being accessed, and whether the record is for a registrant or a registrar. Access to the database through the Web site and through port 43 will be free of charge and
available to the public. 

        Populating
the Whois information in the expanded space will be done through the registrar at the time of registration. Registrations will not be considered complete without all of the
appropriate information being provided. 

        At
a minimum, NeuStar will collect and update the information provided below for each type of Whois record in the expanded space: 

        Registrant
Whois information in the expanded namespace will include the following information: 

	1.
	The
name of the domain registered;

	2.
	The
IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;

	3.
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	4.
	The
creation date of the registration;

	5.
	The
name and postal address of the domain name holder;

	6.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and

	7.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder. 

        Registrar
Whois information in the expanded space will include the following information: 

	1.
	The
name of the registrar;

	2.
	The
Registrar ID;

	3.
	The
registrar status (e.g., active, pending);

	4.
	The
name and postal address of the registrar;

	5.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar; and

	6.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar; and

	7.
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the billing contact for the registrar. 

        Detailed
descriptions of how the database will be populated, how it will be kept up to date and accurate, and the structure of the Whois responses are provided in Section F,
Central usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System. A detailed description of Whois policy is provided in Section B.3.5. 

        Further,
to ensure the integrity and highest levels of service for Whois administration, redundant databases will be located at the geographically diverse, redundant Enhanced SRS Data
Centers located in Illinois and Virginia. In accordance with the U.S. Nexus requirement, no usTLD registry databases will be located outside of the United States. Both databases will be updated in
near real time (intervals no greater than 15 minutes) and will be synchronized to ensure consistency of the response. 

B.5-8

 

        A
more detailed technical description of the database is provided in Sections O.3 and O.8 of this proposal. 

B.5.5    Community Outreach Plan  

        NeuStar has a strong history of facilitating discussion among stakeholders while ensuring it does not become a barrier to progress in the
public interest. NeuStar will bring this experience to bear in the usTLD.

        Administration
of public resources, whether they are telephone numbers or domain names, requires strong awareness of constituencies and their needs. Thus, community outreach is a
critical element in such administration. In addition, however, an administrator also must have the experience and resources to ensure that public outreach, discussion and input do not becomes barriers
to meeting project objectives. An inexperienced administrator might not recognize this important distinction. The distinction is, however, critical to the success of the usTLD, for without strong
coordination of the outreach process itself, enhancement and development efforts for the usTLD will stagnate. 

        NeuStar
has a strong legacy of coordinating complex groups of users in the industries that it serves. NeuStar intends to establish targeted communications mechanisms, including
e-mail listservs, chat services, and other Internet-based services whereby the public can suggest or recommend either additional policies and procedures or modifications to existing ones.
In addition, NeuStar will utilize traditional customer outreach, such as users group meetings, user support representatives, and other support services to maintain close relationships with usTLD users
and the public. 

        NeuStar
proposes the creation of a usTLD Policy Council to assist in the development and implementation of usTLD outreach, among other functions. This council will be very important to
the ongoing development of usTLD policy and public outreach. The structure and duties of this council, as well as the detailed outline of our basic outreach plan, are discussed in detail in
Section B.3.5 herein. 

B.5-9

   C.    NeuStar's Vision of the usTLD  

        NeuStar will elevate the usTLD to be as widely relied upon and responsive to demand as all other US public
resources.

	•
	NeuStar will position the usTLD as a citizen-centric name space

	•
	Functional attributes of NeuStar's registry will enable numerous applications and services to meet the needs of its
constituency

	•
	NeuStar is uniquely qualified to administer the usTLD in a responsible and even-handed manner

	•
	Combined, these measures will ensure integrity and wide adoption of the usTLD

        By
its very nature, a ccTLD denotes a sense of nationalism, generates a mental image in ones mind of that country, and establishes an impression about that country's relative position in
technological advancement. A ccTLD can only do this, however, if it is managed and developed to benefit the needs of its user community—the citizens and government bodies of that country.
This takes more than a nexus requirement, more than random newspaper advertisements, more than a commonplace central administrator. It requires a comprehensive business plan that will fulfill the
vision of elevating that ccTLD into the next generation of the Internet—a place where people communicate with one another, with their government, with their local businesses, in a stable,
secure and readily accessible environment. NeuStar has such a vision for the usTLD. 

        The
body of NeuStar's response enumerates the tools we will use to fulfill this vision—a thick registry architecture that operates at the highest levels of availability and
security, the coordination of disparate user communities under a stable, centralized umbrella, a phased and customer-focused outreach program to propagate the need for dot-us domain names,
the introduction of enhanced services and the enablement of new advanced applications. The response also illustrates NeuStar's commitment to operate the usTLD in a responsible manner—open
communication between the administrator and the DOC, willingness to seek user feedback, the formation of a representative policy council to act as a check point in the development of policy and
introduction of various applications and services, an advisory team representative of multiple constituency interests and consisting of pioneers in Internet technology and user constituencies. 

        NeuStar's
ability to perform each of the prescribed mission critical public resource functions is reinforced time and again—experience transitioning the North American
Numbering Plan and coordinating over 3,000 carriers, creation of the Number Portability Administration Center and integration of hundreds of users, and the design for a next generation Internet
registry. 

        This
section of NeuStar's response is dedicated to describing our vision for the usTLD and illustrating how our infrastructure, our position as a neutral third party, and our experience
will execute that vision. This section describes the image of the usTLD today, tomorrow and years from now. It is a roadmap for successful evolution of the usTLD into a revered domain name space. 

Representation of the usTLD  

        The repurposing of ccTLDs has become almost commonplace—efforts that ignore the needs of a country citizenry in order to take a name space into the
realm of the gTLDs. The reasons behind the moves are purely commercial, and serve only the economic interests of the participants. Promoting the utility of the usTLD in an effort to drive
registrations should not be confused with administering the space like a gTLD, something akin to repurposing. While a ccTLD deserves to have the technical and operational functionality of a gTLD, it
has a very different purpose. A ccTLD must have fulfilling the needs of its user community, its citizens, as its top priority. 

        NeuStar
will implement a US nexus requirement to encourage all registrations be made by registrants with a valid US address or bona fide presence in the U.S. Additionally, by requiring
proof of delegation in the current locality-based structure, we can promote the use of locality hierarchies by 

C-1

 

their
rightful community. This is the first step in representing the usTLD as truly being the name space of its citizens. 

        Once
the user community is defined, the next phase of proper representation of the usTLD is enabling applications and services that benefit those constituencies. These services can serve
a subset, a superset, or the entire user base. There should be no limitation on the application areas, no limit on the benefit from the usTLD. (Examples of services and applications can be found in
Section D of NeuStar's response.) By enabling applications that serve the public interest within a ccTLD, the space inherently becomes citizen-centered. NeuStar's proposed enhancements reflect
a commitment to enhance the usTLD to serve its unique user community. 

        NeuStar's
vision for the representation of the usTLD has a strong constituency focus; a name space with the needs of the user community at the core of its design and operational
philosophies. The usTLD should be revered as the most innovative ccTLDs and a vital U.S. public resource. 

Integrity of the Infrastructure  

        NeuStar's response highlights our commitment to providing a next generation registry architecture. Simply, what this means, is that NeuStar has actively reviewed
the current legacy systems, the similar registry work we perform as a part our existing businesses and balanced that with the needs of registrars and the end-user community to scope a
platform that is more stable and more flexible than what is known today. This sort of evolution is natural in every industry, and the Internet is at a migration point; the usTLD must utilize a next
generation design and lead the progression. 

        There
are many technical facets of the NeuStar design that qualify it as 'next gen', but it is how these facets will enable advancement in
the space that is truly visionary. One feature represents the shard dimension of our registry—a 'thick' registry model that utilizes an extensible protocol based on XML, standardizes and
centralizes Whois information and requirements, supports numerous data fields 'objects', and provides near real-time DNS and Whois updates. A second technical feature is that NeuStar is
using a database structure that treats data fields not as independent, stationary pieces of information, but as 'objects', dynamic components that can be integrated at any point of the database
lifecycle, that demonstrate ever-changing relationships between data and maximize scalability. 

        To
the end-user, the technical design of the registry is not as relevant as the way they can utilize it. The benefits to the end-user include: 

	•
	Assurance
that a query to a name within the usTLD will resolve to its appropriate site, regardless of its level in the hierarchy, i.e., any domain name with a.us extension
is resolvable;

	•
	Any
information registrants provide to the registry (either directly or indirectly through a registrar) will be secure and follow guidelines for confidentiality, i.e., data
will be collected on an opt-in basis;

	•
	Enhanced
services can be introduced to serve a variety of public interest initiatives, i.e., including creation of public interest hierarchies and directories that can
assist in identification of desired information;

	•
	Digital
security and trust initiatives at a local level, i.e., user-prescribed permissioning and authentication; and,

	•
	New
protocols and changes to the DNS will be supported and are less likely to have adverse affects on the registry, i.e., the progression to IPv6 addressing. 

        NeuStar's
Internet registry architecture is flexible and scalable by design, and based on an open protocol standard available to developers across the US. The usTLD should be open to any
applications that will benefit the user community, as long as they maintain the integrity of the overall infrastructure. The responsible introduction of enhanced applications is facilitated by
utilizing standards created by subject matter experts. The usTLD should become a space for continued evolution of 

C-2

 

Internet
technology, further strengthening the U.S. perception in the world as Internet pioneers. The NeuStar design enables this evolution. 

        NeuStar's
vision of the usTLD infrastructure is that of a platform renown for its high standards of technological excellence. The security, stability, and reliability of the architecture
will foster the introduction of numerous applications and services on the open protocol platform. 

Integrity of the usTLD Administrator  

        Selection of an administrator is a multi-faceted analysis of technical and operational capabilities, as determined by past performance and the specifications
defined for the usTLD, the commitment to protecting IP and personal information, as well as the standard the administrator will set for the usTLD in general. The usTLD administrator must be a trusted
entity that is known for coordinating numerous interests with proprietary systems into single platform, protecting confidential data, taking efforts to promote competition—effectively,
being a trusted neutral third party. 

        The
reputation of the usTLD administrator will have a role in shaping the overall image of the usTLD, and therefore the selected administrator must be a responsible member of the
Internet community. NeuStar is uniquely qualified to fit this role through our past and present performance: 

	•
	Committing
to not directly compete with our customers, specifically here, to be a registry operator and not a registrar in the expanded space;

	•
	Openly
supporting a single authoritative root, managed by ICANN, whereby all TLDs are used for their intended purposes; and,

	•
	Participation
in the IETF, specifically leading efforts to shape more flexible and less burdensome registry-registrar protocols. 

        These
are more than a list of random guidelines; they represent a commitment to being a neutral, trusted third party. This represents a starting framework that the administrator of the
usTLD should live by. An administrator must be a respected member of its community to effectively, coordinate and manage the usTLD in such a way as to create a valuable public asset for the United
States. 

        To
alleviate administrative burdens on the DOC, NeuStar do proposes the formation of an advisory council that can make recommendations on issues and new enhancements that have a material
impact on the policy of the usTLD. Part of this group's function is to offer an additional level of checks and balances to ensure the administrator is abiding by its code of conduct in the
introduction of policies and changes to the usTLD. 

        NeuStar's
vision of itself as administrator of the usTLD is as an enabler, that is, the facilitator for introducing applications and services all the while monitoring the needs of its
constituencies. The administrator must perform many roles, and each must be carried out in a responsible and even-handed manner. 

Anticipated Demand for the usTLD  

        Like the many models of ccTLDs that have opened before it, the usTLD is expected to generate a national interest and create a desire among public and private
bodies to secure usTLD domain names. Our vision for the usTLD will promote similar market adoption. NeuStar has reviewed our primary research (as presented in Section B2.8 of NeuStar's response) and
numerous points of secondary research to develop a forecast of demand for the usTLD. We assume there are many needs and user groups of the usTLD, and apply varying penetration factors against those
addressable markets. 

        Thus,
NeuStar anticipates the following demand (in millions) for the usTLD: 

	 
	 	Contract

Year 1
	 	Contract

Year 2
	 	Contract

Year 3
	 	Contract

Year 4

	Names Under Management	 	1.39	 	4.20	 	6.81	 	9.63

        These
projections are considered a moderate estimation; we recognize the names under management in the registry could be lower or higher. Given growth rates in other ccTLDs that have
been migrated to a more open space and have easier registration process, we feel these projections outline a scenario where the usTLD has gained broad market acceptance. 

C-3

 

D.    Enhancing the Utility of the usTLD  

        The phased introduction of new applications and innovations in a responsible manner to further the enhancement and utilization of the
usTLD will be a core function of NeuStar's administration of the space.

	•
	NeuStar's Internet Registry is uniquely developed with the ability to enable enhanced utility and services

	•
	NeuStar Service Levels meet and exceed those required to manage usTLD public resource enhancements

	•
	Use of standards-based protocols furthers the potential for developers to create new applications

Introduction  

        NeuStar has actively followed the domain name space for over three years—both the generic TLDs and the usTLD. Our involvement in the Internet
community and active participation at ICANN, IETF, and other standards-making bodies provide the requisite understanding of Industry needs in the near and long-term. Subsequently, our
Internet Registry architecture was shaped by the Industry desire to have a highly reliable, secure, scalable, open-protocol platform that will allow for the seamless introduction of
enhancements. 

        NeuStar
will leverage the following technical advancements and business commitments to enable a variety of enhanced services. 

        NeuStar
will dedicate resources to enable the numerous applications that the U.S. public and private sectors can utilize through a responsibly managed addressing scheme within the usTLD.
The new service enablers would be optional and made available for use both in the new expanded space and the existing hierarchical space. We present below a brief summary of enhanced applications that
could be enabled by integrating the combined strengths of a U.S.-centric addressing space and NeuStar's next-generation thick registry platform. NeuStar has gauged market demand and has
actively been developing the ability of its thick registry to uniquely enable these application areas. To this end, NeuStar also proposes a fair and responsible process for enabling these enhanced
services while maintaining the integrity of the usTLD. 

Enabling Enhanced Services  

        Thick Registry—NeuStar's industry-leading, next-generation thick-registry architecture
provides the flexibility required to introduce innovative private and public services that meet the needs of the U.S. Internet community. An extensible "thick" structure means that an unlimited number
of fields of information can be maintained in the registry database in order to enhance utility and facilitate the delivery of enhanced services. These extensible information fields are a key enabler
for the delivery of opt-in services to end users by registrars, resellers, delegees, and service providers. 

        High Reliability—NeuStar has a proven record of managing mission-critical public resources. NeuStar has developed highly
reliable infrastructure that is well suited to the consistent delivery of enhanced services within the usTLD. 

        Highly Secure—NeuStar's experience in securing mission-critical infrastructure, such as the Local Number Portability database,
is reflected in the registry platform. NeuStar will implement a trust infrastructure, comprising both security technology and business processes, to ensure the integrity, accuracy, and privacy of the
data in the registry. These attributes are critical for the delivery of enhanced services. 

D-1

 

        Open Standards—NeuStar's registry infrastructure makes use of approved open protocol standards. This approach is optimal in
terms of the ability of registrars, resellers, and delegees to interface with the registry and also facilitates the development of new services. A standards-based
approach will maximize the number of sales channels guaranteeing greater public awareness, access to the usTLD domain, and development of innovative services. 

        Marketing Investment—NeuStar has the financial resources and is committed to making the necessary investment in marketing and
promotional activities to ensure widespread awareness of enhanced service enablers. This approach will tap into the entrepreneurial energy and public-service spirit of the American people and will
lead to innovative services that are responsive to the needs of the U.S. community. 

        Neutrality—Consistent with NeuStar's trusted neutral third party status and Code of Conduct (See Section B.3 for
details), NeuStar will make all of the enhanced service enablers available on an equal and fair basis to all members of the U.S. Internet community. 

        NeuStar
has been validating the potential utility of these service enablers from a technical and market perspective. These "enablers" are intended to facilitate applications that are
provided to businesses, organizations, and citizens via registrars, resellers, delegees, and service providers. We will provide an overview of the following Enhanced Services for which there is market
demand and that our Internet Registry can uniquely enable. 

	•
	Public
Resource Domains

	•
	e-Government

	•
	Directory
Services

	•
	Personal
Identification Services

	•
	Location-based
Services 

        NeuStar
anticipates working with a broad base of representative organizations and government agencies to identify additional services that unlock the utility of the usTLD to serve the
American Internet community. 

Process for Enabling Enhanced Applications and Services  

        NeuStar has a history of managing shared public resources while simultaneously introducing enhanced features and functionality in a
responsible and even-handed manner. These neutral and responsible practices will be mirrored in the introduction of enhancements in the usTLD.

        NeuStar
will manage the introduction of new enhanced services and applications in an open, neutral, and responsible manner. The usTLD will be well suited to serving the interests of the
public—the way the government, citizens, business, and organizations communicate and interact. In many instances, NeuStar simply will enable enhanced services offered by others that
leverage the combined benefits of the usTLD address space and NeuStar's technically advanced registry. In these instances, no change in policy will be warranted. Nevertheless, NeuStar will follow a
strict process for the introduction of any new services. All new services will be analyzed for their technical and operational feasibility, and receptiveness to the usTLD existing or potential user
base, and will be openly discussed within a proposed usTLD Policy Council. The Council will provide policy comments and recommendations concerning the proposed new enhanced services. A detailed
discussion of the Council is found in Section B.3.5. 

        The
technical evaluation criteria will include, but is not limited to, ensuring that service level agreements will continue to be met or exceeded, that interested parties needs are met,
and that intellectual property rights and registrant privacy is protected. 

D-2

 

        After
NeuStar affirms the feasibility of a new service, it will seek approval by the DOC for implementation. NeuStar will develop a document to assist in the approval process; this
proposal will include a description and price of the enhancement. As shown in Exhibit D-1, NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

Public Resource Domains  

Public Need  

        The current locality structure generates lengthy names that are difficult to remember, but this is most notably because the requisite contextual information is
typically beyond the fourth level. While we will be taking direct second-level registrations as the administrator of the usTLD, we propose to explore the management of "public resource" domains that
serve as a common naming scheme to allow for convenient and consistent naming of various public interests and services. These condensed hierarchies afford Internet users the opportunity to easily
locate the information they seek without complicated trial-and-error searching. They will cross many district or state lines and be relevant to all citizens of the United
States. 

        The
usTLD is quite naturally the proper TLD for establishing such a condensed hierarchy, since the purpose would be to serve the American public. 

Enhanced Services  

        Numerous second-level domain names could be reserved to create unique and content-specific spaces on the Internet to serve a variety of citizen-centric public
interest needs. NeuStar can responsibly manage the third-level registries for each of these name spaces, through a sponsor approved by the usTLD Policy Council and the DOC, to maximize the overall
utility of the second-level name. 

        The
domain names could be registered through the sponsoring, name-specific channel that has an interest in the preservation of the name for a specific use. An example of a
public resource hierarchy NeuStar could manage for the benefit of the U.S. public includes: 

	•
	Park.us—a single reference point for all parks—national, state, or local—that are
physically located in the United States, where the name of the park is registered at the third level (e.g., arcadia.park.us, everglades.park.us, or grandcanyon.park.us). Currently, because our U.S.
parks fall under various jurisdictions, they are governed by disparate bodies, and do not have a single reference point to provide direct resolution. Park.us could offer a
common structure for citizens to gather information about any U.S. park under a memorable naming convention. 

        [Exhibit D-1:
NeuStar's process for introducing enhanced services and applications is approached in an open and responsible manner, with full involvement
of the DOC and the usTLD Policy Council. Graphic Omitted: flow chart of process for introducing usTLD enhancements.] 

        Other
examples of second-level domain names NeuStar could manage (i.e., NeuStar would take third level registrations for the sponsored second level): 

	•
	Vote.us—the
name space dedicated to campaign information and potentially a future forum to enable online voting

	•
	Veterans.us—a
reserved structure dedicated to the needs of U.S. Veterans. Organizations that provide informational resources and services that are relevant to
Veterans might register within this space.

	•
	Kids.us—A
"safe" space on the Internet that is specifically tailored to the needs of children. To avoid improper use of the space, a third party sponsorship
approach likely would be utilized. 

D-3

 

	•
	Healthcare.us—a
naming structure designed to allow citizens to locate and access healthcare services and programs and to facilitate HIPPA compliance.

	•
	Library.us—an
area of the Internet where citizens can identify libraries

	•
	Zip.us—A
space in which zip codes can be utilized to enhance navigation or to provide location-based services. Citizens could then easily locate local government
resources and services. 

        By
having a single administrator for these public service domains, the user community will better associate the domain name space with the high standards and reliability of the NeuStar
registry. This will further the notion of the usTLD as a trustworthy space managed for the benefit of the U.S. public, a ccTLD that propagates the U.S. image as the pioneers of the Internet. 

NeuStar's Enabling Role  

        The NeuStar registry is uniquely positioned to manage these public resource hierarchies through the design of our Internet registry. The registry will manage
domain names at any level with equal standards for reliability and security, for the same competitive price. NeuStar will extend its infrastructure to the third and fourth level domains to ensure
highly reliable and secure namespaces. Additionally, because these hierarchies will be centrally managed, NeuStar can provide directory services to facilitate user searching. 

Recommended Process  

        NeuStar has proposed a draft list of names for reservation by the usTLD Administrator (see Section B.3.5) and would work with the proposed Council and DOC
to introduce enhanced services for these namespaces in a fair and responsible manner. We will also conduct additional outreach activities to identify other namespaces that would serve the public
interest and to identify potential sponsors where appropriate. NeuStar will actively seek comment and input from delegated managers and organizations currently utilizing the existing hierarchical
space or with a public interest in the space prior to the introduction of Public Resource Domains. 

        NeuStar
will develop a document to assist in the approval process. NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

E-government  

Public Need  

        The usTLD should be utilized to support the directive from the White House to "use the Internet to create a citizen-centric government." As more government
agencies move critical components of their operations online, the need for a secure space increases. Moreover, an addressing infrastructure is a key enabler for a capability that allows citizens to
find and access government informational resources, services and e-Gov applications. 

        In
tandem to initiatives to provide a more secure platform for e-government initiatives, attempts are being made to streamline government processes and increase government
efficiency. Our Internet registry architecture, our unique position as a trusted neutral third party, and our commitment to fulfillment of the US Nexus requirement uniquely positions NeuStar to meet
this need. NeuStar will work very closely with the U.S. federal, state, and local governments to enable their requisite e-government initiatives. 

Enhanced Services  

        Several e-government applications and services can be responsibly enabled through NeuStar's coordination and management of the usTLD. The primary
objective of these online application areas is 

D-4

 

to
allow citizens to interact with the government in a direct, secure forum. According to a study by the Council for Excellence in Government, the majority of Americans feel that e-Gov
would have a positive effect on government. Many such initiatives are underway today: motor vehicle administrators allow for license and registration renewals, public safety organizations take payment
for fees and services, the Internal Revenue Service accepts tax forms via their secure site. Future e-government applications enabled by the usTLD addressing mechanism could include: 

	•
	Enabling
direct communication between elected officials and their constituencies,

	•
	Introducing
a naming structure to streamline any processes whereby individuals are required to populate standard forms and submit to a government agency,

	•
	Facilitation
of public forums or "town hall" meetings to open forums for all citizens, including those who are not physically able to attend, and

	•
	Providing
an addressing structure for centralized procurement facilities or exchanges for state and local governments to maximize purchasing power. 

        Because
of the critical nature of e-Government applications, it is crucial that the usTLD administrator have demonstrated technical expertise, real-world
operating experience, an established position as a trusted neutral third party, and the ability to provide a highly reliable and secure environment. 

NeuStar's Enabling Role  

        Because the NeuStar platform is being developed to perform at high levels of service availability and will employ encryption technology, it is a logical domain
space for all U.S. governmental bodies—national, state or local—to develop their critical online initiatives. NeuStar currently manages a mission-critical public resource for
the communications industry (e.g. the public switched network relies on NeuStar numbering databases), and is prepared to do the same for the public sector through administration of the usTLD. 

Recommended Process  

        NeuStar proposes to work with the usTLD Policy Council and the DOC to conduct an outreach program, which will include current e-Government service
providers, to identify ways in which the usTLD addressing scheme can be leveraged to enable e-Gov services that reduce government cost, improve accessibility and productivity, and serve
the American people. 

        NeuStar
will develop a document to assist in the approval process. NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

Directory Services  

Public Need  

        One of the primary enhanced services NeuStar proposes for increased ease of use of the usTLD is directory services. We propose to evaluate, trial, and implement a
series of sophisticated directory search capabilities for services and sites on the usTLD. The primary reason the existing locality-based hierarchical structure is awkward to use is the absence of a
comprehensive search capability for users to locate the service of interest without having to know the exact fully-qualified domain name. While numerous search engines exist in the Internet, none of
them allow the user to pre-select U.S.-based services, specifically ones meeting the Nexus requirement or that are named using the usTLD. Consequently, prospective users must wade through
long and confusing lists of services across the entire Internet to find the specific one of interest. The presentation order and content is dictated by the search sites' commercial policies, not
necessarily the public interest. 

D-5

 

Enhanced Services  

        A directory service for the usTLD would provide not only a separate navigational schema for the TLD while retaining the existing locality-based name structure,
but would provide a usTLD-specific search capability that doesn't currently exist elsewhere, and provide for consistency and uniformity in the listings of usTLD entries. This is extremely important
for government services accessed through the locality structure, as there is no pervasive user-friendly government-service-specific directory today. Commercial search sites intermix
listings for government and commercial sites, obscuring which services are official government services versus similarly listed commercial services, thus confusing potential users and causing
potential security and fraud problems. 

        One
of the first objectives would be to establish a keyword schema for categorization and characterization of the existing usTLD entries, and the primary service associated with each
entry
(URL using the usTLD). The keyword to URL mapping forms the core of the directory, along with appropriate fields from the Whois data. This data can then be searched from the web, using any number of
attributes (service name, offering entity name, associated locality info, e.g. state or county), at a site to be established, e.g. http://www.search.nic.us/. In addition, it is possible to
re-direct web inquires to non-existent (incorrect) usTLD names to the search site to solicit the user to navigate to the site of interest through the directory instead. This
type of mechanism makes the directory an automatic help capability and significantly aids in usTLD usage. Users would be encouraged to add a site to their bookmarks to streamline navigation in the
future. 

        In
addition to a web-based search capability, NeuStar would propose to also provide directory listings online accessible via standard (IETF) directory protocols such as LDAP,
and newly emerging so-called fuzzy search protocols such as CNRP (common name resolution protocol). Lastly, NeuStar could also make the directory database available to commercial search
sites to increase accuracy and usability of usTLD data they have. 

        Lastly,
a comprehensive directory search capability makes it possible to facilitate foreign language navigation to these same sites. In some areas of the U.S. foreign language (e.g.,
Spanish) access is important and even mandated. Keywords and directory listings in other languages in addition to English of the same usTLD sites will facilitate these important local policies. 

NeuStar's Enabling Role  

        The enablement of directory services by the NeuStar thick registry within the usTLD would provide an important mechanism by which both the private and public
sector users could easily find information, products, and services provided by companies within the United States. Furthermore, this capability would allow citizens to easily find public services and
interact with local, state, and Federal government agencies. 

Recommended Process  

        NeuStar proposes to work with the proposed usTLD Policy Council and the DOC to fairly and responsibly implement Directory Service enablers within the usTLD
addressing structure. Both public and private sector directory needs will be pursued. 

        NeuStar
will develop a document to assist in the approval process. NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

D-6

 

Personal Identification Applications  

Public Need  

        Over 116 million Americans are online, and each could utilize a unique personal identifier in their browsing, purchasing, or other use of the Internet.
Effective use of the usTLD, in the interest of the American people, should include protection mechanisms so any American citizen could elect to register a unique personal domain name tied to any
information they wish to associate with themselves for use on the Internet. These names could be the key for streamlining access to information, reducing the need to re-enter
identification information to sites that are not secure, or for dynamic assignment between sites or platforms. 

Enhanced Service  

        The need and market for various forms of globally unique, administered namespaces is well understood within the Industry. The use of "distinguished keys" is a
well-known concept that we all use in various contexts. The most obvious one is the use of Social Security numbers as a "distinguished key" that links data about us in various contexts.
The overuse of the SSN in various industries has created substantial concerns about privacy, formalizing the need for other forms of nationally unique identifiers. As we move online, an addressing
system such as the DNS, which provides a one-to-one unique resolution, is a logical mechanism, and the usTLD a logical extension for U.S. citizens. 

        The
core value proposition is the creation of namespaces directly under the control of consumers that can be "dynamic," in the manner in which they are accessible across a variety of
applications. The product offered to the consumer will be the opportunity to obtain a domain name during the registration process that could be used for: 

	•
	Applications
where personal name and identity is not required or suitable;

	•
	Permissioning
of information established by a custodian of the name-holder, i.e., a parent, to limit access to information; or

	•
	Permissioning
of information from the name-holder to those trying to access their information. 

        The
name, coupled with digital security and encryption technology, could be a single online identifier for U.S. citizens. This identity could be used in a variety of applications and
sites, at home or in the office, with the assurance of confidentiality. 

        An
important element of this service would be the ability of an end user to determine what information is accessible by whom ("permissioning"), and also to decide what organization
stores the data. As a neutral third party, NeuStar is a viable alternative repository for personal information or pointers that would redirect queries to other repositories selected by the end user. 

NeuStar's Enabling Role  

        We believe that optional user-controlled digital identifiers would accelerate the adoption of electronic services in both the private and public
sectors. Given that the usTLD is a public resource utilizing this capability within the usTLD to improve access to public services and to facilitate e-Gov applications including Business
to Government (B2G) is particularly appropriate. 

        NeuStar,
as a part of its existing core businesses, is in possession of confidential and competitive information and follows strict rules to ensure protection of confidential data. A
Code of Conduct that restricts the resale of our data for marketing purposes, and a Whois database design that calls for a two-step process to elicit registrant information, are examples
of our commitment to privacy. From a technology perspective, the extensible fields of the NeuStar Internet registry are fully capable of securely storing (registrant granted) personal data and its
permissioning rights. 

D-7

 

Recommended Process  

        As with any innovation, it is difficult to predict with certainty the degree of acceptance and use; however, in this case, the potential benefits appear to be
compelling. NeuStar is therefore prepared to make the investment required to enable this enhanced utility within the usTLD. We propose to work with the usTLD Policy Council ("the Council") and the DOC
to introduce Personal Identification Services within the usTLD in a fair and responsible manner. 

        NeuStar
will develop a document to assist in the approval process. NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

Location-Based Services  

Public Need  

        Today the Internet is indexed and navigated based primarily on domain name via the URL line of browsers and key word via search engines. Although this has served
the user community well, many users seek information, resources, products, and services that by their very nature would be more conveniently organized by geographic location. Such an enabler could be
applied to, for example: 

	•
	Identify
attractions at a vacation destination,

	•
	Locate
the nearest ATM,

	•
	Find
a nearby plumber,

	•
	Provide
the address of the nearest gas station, or

	•
	Locate
the nearest motor vehicle office. 

        The
need to organize information based on geography is most readily apparent in mobile applications. Knowing where a user is located is not enough to provide useful services. End users,
networks, and applications need a simple way to identify what products, services, and resources are located within the surrounding area. 

        Other
than registering in geographically-oriented hierarchical namespaces (e.g., www.aservice.centreville.va.us), which has proven to be unattractive from a marketing perspective and
impractical for multiple locations, there is there is no agreed upon globally resolvable mechanism for registering a location or multiple locations against a domain name. The location-based service
capability described below provides a practical solution that satisfies an identified user need. 

Enhanced Service  

        In order to facilitate this capability, NeuStar proposes to reserve all of the longitude and latitude coordinates that make up the United States and its
territories under the usTLD. One or more locations would be associated with a domain name, and each location would in turn be associated with its geographic coordinates, which would be stored in the
thick registry database. 

        Location
registration would take place through registrars, resellers, delegees, and other service providers. Registered locations would be automatically geographically coded for
longitude and latitude by the Registry based on physical address. The longitude and latitudes associated with a domain name and relevant key words will be stored in the "thick registry" database.
Resolution by location will take place via API interfaces provided by NeuStar to search engines, geographically oriented portal providers, wireless operators, and other enhanced-applications providers
or through direct query to the registry via client-based software. This would allow an end user to search on a particular key word for a given geographical location (e.g., search on key word "bicycle"
to find all bike shops within 10 miles of 

D-8

 

a
given address). The same location-based service enabler could allow an individual to locate government offices or public services in a particular geography. 

NeuStar's Enabling Role  

        The NeuStar thick registry architecture has the ability to support enhanced applications that require transactional resolution of queries based on parameters
other than domain name. Given the geographic nature of any ccTLD, enabling location-based services within a country code would seem to make perfect sense. NeuStar seeks to enable this enhanced utility
within the usTLD so that usTLD registrars, resellers, delegees, and service providers may offer domain name registrants the ability to register their locations against their domain name at an
additional nominal fee and so the usTLD can be the first to offer this useful and innovative capability. 

Recommended Process  

        As with any innovation it is difficult to predict with certainty the degree of acceptance and use; however, in this case the potential benefits appear to be
compelling. NeuStar is therefore prepared to make the investment required to enable this enhanced utility within the usTLD. We propose to work with the usTLD Policy Council and DOC to introduce
location-based services within the usTLD in a fair and responsible manner. 

        NeuStar
will develop a document to assist in the approval process. NeuStar will comply with the request to have all new services approved by the DOC. 

        Each
of the enhancements described represents a brief sample of the innovations possible within the usTLD. All enhancements will be closely evaluated to ensure that the stability of the
Internet is maintained and that the usTLD is balanced with the goal of increasing utility. 

D-9

   E.    Current State of the usTLD Domain Space  

        NeuStar's thorough understanding of the current state of the usTLD strengthens our ability to effectively manage and enhance the
space.

        NeuStar's understanding of the current usTLD space provides the foundation for solution development that ensures:

	•
	Significant improvement of the integrity of the usTLD

	•
	Innovative, yet responsible improvements are developed and properly executed

	•
	The needs of all current and future stakeholders are addressed

        It
is often said that hindsight is 20/20. This means that with time and experience, we come to understand, in context, the implications of previous decisions. Had anyone been able to
predict the developmental course of the Internet and the effect it would have on people's lives, many issues that currently complicate its use would have been addressed and clarified. The same holds
true for the dot-us top-level domain (usTLD). When the original structure and administrative mechanisms for the usTLD were established, there was nothing to compare it with and
no way to predict its evolution. With the advantage of time, however, it is clear that the complexities of the current structure, combined with the lack of coordination and marketing of the namespace,
have resulted in a space that has not attracted a high level of domain name registration activity and that remains underpopulated and underutilized in comparison with other ccTLDs. 

        Without
an in-depth comprehension of the current usTLD space—its successes and its shortcomings—no administrator could successfully meet the challenge
of
improving the integrity of the usTLD. This comprehension must include a thorough understanding of the naming structure, current administration, technical and operational conditions, and other factors
relating to the usTLD, as well as a general understanding of what makes a ccTLD successful. Policy issues in the usTLD run throughout these issues and are discussed throughout this section and this
proposal. 

        The
usTLD was established in 1985 as the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United States. ccTLDs are based on the two-letter country codes from the
list of countries in ISO-3166. A number of these ccTLDs have been repurposed—used not to serve the individuals, governments, and businesses of the country that they represent
but instead as a globally available alternative to the generic top-level domains. For example, the registry for the dot-cc domain, which began as the ccTLD for Cocos Island,
now advertises dot-cc as the newest alternative to the gTLDs. This type of rebranding may create user confusion and can cause a situation where the ccTLD is not managed in the best
interest of the country that it should represent, thereby significantly diminishing the integrity. 

        This
kind of repurposing has not occurred in the usTLD. Today there are approximately 8,000 subdomain delegations under the usTLD to entities providing services for commercial,
educational, and governmental purposes to registrants physically located in the United States. Individuals, federal government agencies, schools, libraries, museums, and state and local governments
are all registered in the usTLD locality-based hierarchy. 

Naming Structure of the usTLD  

        The original hierarchical structure of the usTLD was defined by Dr. Jon Postel in IETF RFC 1480, "The US Domain." This structure is based upon the
geography of the United States. Second-level domain space is designated for states and U.S. territories and consists of two-letter state abbreviations. For example, the state of
Pennsylvania is designated by pa.us. Within the state name space, there is a further subdivision for locality names—counties, cities, or local names. Further structure is available for
each of the various registering entities listed above, and additional structures not based in national geography (e.g., .fed.us, .isa.us, and .nsn.us), which represent special organizations not
contained within 

E-1

 

a
specific locality, have also been established. Some of the designated structures in the usTLD include, but are not limited to: 

 usTLD Designated Structures  

	Structure
 
	 	Description

	<state>.us	 	No direct registrations currently allowed.
	

state.<state>.us	
 	

Used for state governments (e.g., state.va.us). State agencies may register under this structure.
	

<locality>.<state>.us	
 	

Used for city and county names (e.g., arlington.va.us). Businesses, individuals, and private schools may register under this structure.
	

ci.<locality>.<state>.us	
 	

Used for city governments. Agencies that make up those governments may register under this structure.
	

co.<locality>.<state>.us	
 	

Same as above, for county governments.
	

k12.<state>.us	
 	

Used for public schools. Public school districts may register under this structure.
	

<district>.k12.<state>.us	
 	

Used for public school districts. Public schools may register under this structure.
	

cc.<state>.us	
 	

Used to designate community colleges.
	

tec.<state>.us	
 	

Used to designate technical schools.
	

lib.<state>.us	
 	

Used to designate libraries.
	

fed.us	
 	

Used for federal agencies. Only federal agencies may register under this structure.
	

isa.us	
 	

Used to designate inter-state authorities (ISAs), for joint governmental authorities that are inter-state.
	

nsn.us	
 	

Used to designate Native Sovereign Nations, for example Indian tribes, villages, colonies, and other communities that may span state, regional, and national boundaries.

        Additional
nongeographical domains are also included as part of this structure, as defined either in RFC 1480 or by previous administrators. 

        The
locality-based hierarchy provides structure, name uniqueness, and a geographic reference point for registrants and, although it is regarded by some as unwieldy, there are enterprises
that do value the specificity of the system. Exhibit E-1 demonstrates the basic structure of this hierarchy and shows the number of levels possible in the locality structure. The
second-level domain names shown are a subset of all possible second-level domains, and additional "special" domains, as noted above, exist in this 

E-2

 

space.
Registrations must be made within the hierarchical structure, and no registrations are allowed in the second level. 

        [Exhibit E-1:
The usTLD hierarchy provides structure, name uniqueness, and geographic reference points but is often considered to be unwieldy. Graphic
Omitted: diagram depicting usTLD legacy naming hierarchy.] 

        Designations
for schools provide a good example of this hierarchy. Because many schools share the same name, it is important to distinguish by locality the specific school being
referenced. There might be several Washington High Schools in the United States, but there is likely only one Washington High School in any given school district in the United States. The locality
structure for schools was designed in RFC 1480 to permit distinction between such schools. The k12 designation was created to allow registrations of public and private elementary schools, and the
basic structure for these is k12.<state>.us. Beyond the k12 designation is a designation for a school district, and beyond that, schools may register individual names so that the final
structure becomes <school name>.<district>.k12.<state>.us. Private schools register as <school name>.pvt.k12.<state>.us, but they may also
register under a locality as <school name>.<locality>.<state>.us 

        To
add further complexity, although RFC 1480 defines this structure for registration of schools, the current usTLD administrator has allowed registrations outside of this hierarchy, so
that a school might register directly under the k12 branch (for example, <school name>.k12.<state>.us). Additionally, entities designated as "special service units," which are
discussed but not definitively structured in RFC 1480, may register directly under k12. Similar discrepancies exist under other areas of the hierarchy. For example, a city government would generally
be designated as ci.<city name>.<state>.<us>, and a county government would be co.<city name>.<state>.<us>. In general, these
guidelines have been followed, but not consistently. As a real example, the following table lists some city and county government domains within the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

 Hierarchical Structure of Government Domains Under.va.us  

	City or County Name
 
	 	Fully Qualified Domain

Name
	 	Follows Hierarchical

Structure

	Arlington County	 	co.arlington.va.us	 	Yes
	

City of Alexandria	
 	

ci.alexandria.va.us	
 	

Yes
	

City of Chesapeake	
 	

chesapeake.va.us	
 	

No
	

City of Covington	
 	

covington.va.us	
 	

No
	

City of Falls Church	
 	

ci.falls-church.va.us	
 	

Yes
	

City of Norfolk	
 	

norfolk.va.us	
 	

No
	

Richmond County	
 	

co.richmond.va.us	
 	

Yes

        Although
the existing structures for Chesapeake, Covington, and Norfolk would have existed had these cities used the "ci" structure, it creates public confusion when cities and counties
in the same state follow different naming conventions for their domains. 

Administration of the usTLD  

        Most branches of the usTLD are delegated to a delegated manager, also known as a delegee, or locality delegee. RFC 1480, written in 1993, maintained that a single
registry operator would not be able to assign all of the DNS names under dot-us and, under the administrative guidelines established for the usTLD, included guidelines for selection of
delegated managers. Although some of these 

E-3

 

guidelines
have changed since 1993, the current administrator has continued the practice of delegating subdomains, and the basic requirements have been maintained. 

Delegation Guidelines  

        Delegated managers are typically commercial or public institutions with a presence or interest in the location designated. Individuals and organizations may
request an exclusive delegation from the usTLD administrator to provide a registry and registrar services for a particular subdomain under dot-us. For example, one individual with an
interest in Virginia libraries might request delegation of lib.va.us, and become responsible as the delegated manager for all Virginia library names. Delegees are responsible for providing physical
DNS services and maintaining technical support for registrants. A delegee may also assign further subdelegations to a subdelegee, and that subdelegee is then responsible for providing DNS services and
technical support for registrants under that
subdelegation. For example, a delegee who is responsible for k12.va.us might subdelegate the Wilson district to a subdelegee. That subdelegee would then be responsible for all registrations under
wilson.k12.va.us. 

        Where
registration for a locality has not been delegated, the usTLD administrator itself provides necessary registry and registrar services. Additionally, no delegations are made in the
second level, so that all cases of <state>.us remain under the control of the main registry operator. 

"Locality Squatting"  

        From the beginning, the concern in selecting a delegee for a subdomain has been assessing their ability to carry out the necessary technical and operational
responsibilities in a neutral manner, that is, applying the same set of rules to all requests for a domain name. Although RFC 2916 maintained that delegees have a duty to serve the community, no
requirements were established regarding the physical location of the delegee, and no limits were made on the number of delegations that could be held by a single subdomain registry operator. 

        Because
there is no such restriction, a small number of delegees became responsible for a very large portion of the delegated namespace. In fact, according to the current contact list of
locality delegees, approximately 40% of the delegations are held by 5 delegees, and 54% of the delegations are held by 10 delegees. Additionally, registry operators who have no interest in the
localities themselves, except for a commercial interest, run many of the delegations. The act of running a registry in which the delegee has no legitimate interest, or of refusing to provide services
to legitimate registrants, has come to be known as "locality squatting." 

        In
response, additional guidelines were established in 1997 to ensure that delegations were made to entities with a legitimate interest in the delegated locality. Beginning in
July 1997, it is assumed that for any new delegations or redelegations, the delegee has the written authorization of the legitimate government for that locality to manage the domain name for
that locality. Although this written authorization does not have to be presented at the time of delegation, the delegee might be asked to produce it if the delegation is later contested. Additionally,
the administrative contact on the delegation application must be a government representative. Finally, guidelines have also been added stating that no delegee may be responsible for more than 50
localities in one state or 500 localities in total. 

        Although
these guidelines are meant to promote diversity and ensure that legitimate governments are able to choose their own delegated registry operator, analysis of the zone file
suggests that problems with "locality squatting" persist in the dot-us subdomains. 

Pricing of Registrations  

        Another important administrative issue in the usTLD is that of cost. The current administrator does not charge customers for registration of a domain name, but
they do state that delegees may 

E-4

 

charge
a fee for their services, as long as the fee is small, fair, and applied equally to all customers. The definition of "small" is determined by the delegee. In many cases, the "small" fee
determined by the delegee is larger than fees most registrars charge for a domain name under dot-com, dot-net, or dot-org. Whereas many registrars now charge under
$15 per year to register a domain name under a gTLD, some dot-us delegees charge $25—$30 per year, with additional one-time registration fees. Paired with the long
string that constitutes a dot-us domain name, this additional cost is even more likely to deter individuals and businesses from registering under dot-us. 

Technical Aspects of the usTLD  

        Both RFC 1480 and information available through the current usTLD administrator specify the technical requirements for delegees who are responsible for a
delegated subdomain. Delegees must provide at least two independent, robust, and reliable nameservers in physically separate locations on the Internet, and any changes to these nameservers must be
reported to the domain registry so that they can be reflected in the usTLD zone files. Delegee host computers must also be set up to accept zone transfers from the usTLD registry. All of these
technical requirements are essential for the usTLD to remain a viable registry, and any delegee not following these requirements risks having the delegation revoked. 

Registration Process  

        Another important technical issue is that of ease of registration. That is, the registration process is currently a manual one, with no consistent, automatic
registration process for registrants. Although registrants can fill out and submit an application online, there is no automatic verification of registration. Registrants have no guarantee that their
requested domain name is available and whether that name has been entered into the zone file. Moreover, registration applications can often take several weeks to be processed, and some customers have
stated that their applications have not been processed at all. As compared to registration in a gTLD, this process is unreliable and cumbersome. 

Whois Service  

        Today, another essential component of a successful TLD registry is a central, accurate Whois service. RFC 1480 provided for a Whois database only through the
third level, intending that delegees and subdelegees would eventually run their own Whois databases for their individual branches. Under current administrative practices, the usTLD not only has no
central database that can in turn create a central Whois, there is also no mechanism in place for delegees to provision database information to the central registry. Even if delegees wished to provide
new Whois information to the usTLD administrator, that capability is currently nonexistent. 

        In
order to remedy the lack of Whois information under the usTLD, the current registry operator installed a client/server Rwhois, (referral Whois) protocol and requested that delegees
also operate an Rwhois server for their delegated subdomains. The Rwhois protocol, presented in RFC 1714 in 1994, defines a method for maintaining Whois information on multiple servers while having
the ability to answer queries from any of those servers. If a query were made to the usTLD registry's Rwhois server, that server would either respond with its own data or refer to the delegated
subdomain's server to return the Whois information. 

        Although
the Rwhois solution appears to be a logical one, three problems prevent it from being successful. First, a central Whois is currently the industry standard for Whois services;
Rwhois is generally not considered to be a robust and secure technical solution. Second, the current registry operator has merely requested that delegees install an Rwhois server. Without mandating
installation of Rwhois servers, there is no way to build a complete Whois database. Third, there is no easy-to-use, 

E-5

 

Web-based
method for Rwhois lookups in the namespace, so any Whois information that is available is difficult to find. 

Other Factors  

        The use of the usTLD has only one restriction—it is intended for entities that have a physical presence in the United States. Yet many Internet users
in the United States have little or no knowledge about this namespace. Aside from the individual advertising done by locality delegees, the space is generally not promoted and not advertised. That an
individual or company can register in the usTLD space is not widely known; in fact, there are no widely held perceptions regarding the types of entities registered under the usTLD. 

        For
those individuals who do have knowledge of and wish to register in the dot-us space, inconsistent policies among delegees, the lack of a central Whois, and even the need
to locate a delegee for individual subdomains creates a degree of difficulty that many registrants would rather not encounter. 

        Because
of the comparative complexity of the namespace and the lack of coordination and marketing, the usTLD has not attracted a high level of domain name registration activity and
remains underpopulated in comparison with gTLDs and even other ccTLDs. However, many schools, libraries, state and local governments, and even individuals do retain a domain name within the
dot-us namespace. Those current users of the usTLD find the space to be valuable; in fact, many of them depend on it. 

The ccTLD Environment  

        Many countries have already been successful in building awareness and increasing the use of registrations for their country code, while others have had less
success. The following page displays data collected on relative successes across three other ccTLDs—dot-de (Germany), dot-uk (United Kingdom), and
dot-ca (Canada). These three countries represent differing levels of development in the evolution of their ccTLD space. Based on ccTLD domain name registrations, both Germany and the
United Kingdom are characteristic of countries that have created environments that encourage growth. Both countries have experienced thriving markets and have developed mature organizations with
extensive distribution networks. Canada has recently converted from a hierarchical structure that was loosely managed, to a flatter, less complex hierarchy with a newly formed administrative
organization. 

E-6

 

Success Factors in Administration of other Country Code TLDs  

	Factors
 
	 	Germany (.de)
	 	United Kingdom (.uk)
	 	Canada (.ca)

	Administrative Organization	 	DENIC eG Cooperative	 	Nominet	 	CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority)
	Policies	 	Either the domain name owner or the designated administrator of the site must reside in Germany

Self identification

Can purchase registrations from member organizations only	 	No residency restrictions Second-level domain (SLD) structure requires self identification Can purchase registrations from member organizations only	 	Must meet Canadian presence requirements

Citizen

Residency

Various entities

Documentation required

Can purchase registrations from member organizations only
	

Structure	
 	

Direct registration Can register any name except another TLD name (.arpa, .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .net, .nato, .mil, .org and all country-related TLDs) Cannot register German automobile identification numbers as domain names	
 	

SLD hierarchical structure Commercial—.co.uk Non.commercial—.org.uk Registered.companies only —.plc.uk &.ltd.uk Network Providers—.net.uk Schools—.sch.uk	
 	

Direct Registration Can still register under a geographic hierarchy that was the ccTLD structure until December 1, 2000
	

Price—Wholesale	
 	

US$5—US$10	
 	

US$5—US$10	
 	

US$5—US$10
	

Price—Retail	
 	

Generally ccTLDs are considered to be more expensive than gTLDs	
 	

Generally ccTLDs are considered to be more expensive than gTLDs	
 	

US$25—US$40 for one year
	

Awareness levels and cultural aspects	
 	

Very well known Available and promoted since 1997 Previous campaigns include organizations giving away .de domain names with additional purchase Nationalistic	
 	

..uk stands for United Kingdom—Abbreviation has meaningful brand acceptance

General awareness is high	
 	

CIRA recently became the administrative organization 12.01.00
	

Country Code Domain	
 	

4M names as of 2/2001	
 	

Growing at 28,000/month	
 	

Growing at 20,000/month
	

Name Growth	
 	

Growing at 167,000/month	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

Total population	
 	

83M	
 	

60M	
 	

31M
	

Online population	
 	

20.1M	
 	

20M	
 	

13.3M
	

Population % online	
 	

24%	
 	

33%	
 	

43%

E-7

 

        When
analyzing the ccTLD administration for these three countries in comparison to the current administration of the usTLD, it becomes apparent that five factors have
played an important role in the expansion of the ccTLD space: 

	•
	An
administrative organization with maturity and experience;

	•
	Established
policies that facilitate registration and serve to administer, maintain, and enforce the ccTLD space;

	•
	A
low degree of complexity in utilizing the structure or hierarchy for the ccTLD;

	•
	Appropriate
pricing to the end user; and

	•
	Recognition
of cultural differences and levels of awareness within the country. 

        In
each case, an administrative organization has been assigned to maintain the registry database, and the registry manages a centralized database of information on registered domain
names for that country code, assists with administration of the Internet, and provides information about domain name registrations. Neither Germany, the United Kingdom, nor Canada act as registrars.
Based on the high number of domain name registrations, clearly DENIC, the German administrative organization, has created one of the most successful environments for TLD expansion. DENIC has managed
the deTLD since September of 1997 and has established a wide distribution network that provides extensive opportunities for users to register names with ease. 

        The
policies created to register, administer, and maintain each ccTLD are another contributing factor to the speed of ccTLD growth. Policies that are easily understood and require
minimal enforcement establish an environment that simplifies transactions. Both DENIC and Nominet have established registration policies requiring self-selection or
self-identification and no documentation for registration; in contrast, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, CIRA, requires documentation of compliance before domain names can be
registered. 

        The
cost of registration plays a significant role in the growth of domain name registrations. gTLDs became competitive in late 1999, and until then, there was no wholesale market
opportunity for gTLDs. This has not been true for many ccTLDs. Wholesale prices for ccTLDs in Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada are relatively consistent in the US$5—US$10 range.
With gTLDs fixed at $35 per year, this created a margin opportunity for the members or registrars promoting ccTLDs. With a US$20—US$30 margin opportunity, it was in the best interests of
the registrars to heavily promote ccTLDs. With heavy promotion by the registrars, ccTLDs gained a significant increase in awareness and registrations. 

        Finally,
awareness of the ccTLD, coupled with certain cultural aspects impact user acceptance. The United Kingdom has the helpful advantage of having a meaningful TLD. "uk" resonates
with the user base of customers within the United Kingdom. This contributes to the overall awareness and general acceptance of the country code. "us" has a similar advantage, with clear recognition of
"us" being synonymous with United States. Coupled with strong nationalistic pride, the usTLD should resonate favorably with the citizens of the United States. 

Conclusion  

        The usTLD namespace is underutilized and under-recognized, but it remains a valuable public space. There is room for improvement in any large undertaking, and the
usTLD is no exception. We have presented this extensive analysis of the current state of the usTLD and an analysis of ccTLDs in general, because we believe that the only way to make
improvements—to expand and enhance the space—is to understand its current successes as well as its shortcomings. Throughout every section of this RFQ response, we have
addressed our understanding of the current space along with our plans for its improvement. 

        The
United States is the world's technological leader, and the current state of the usTLD namespace does not positively represent that. By thoroughly studying the current space, and
through our careful plan for improvements, we believe that we can make the usTLD space the model for a widely used, visible, and successful country code top-level domain. 

E-8

  

F.    Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System  

        NeuStar's Centralized usTLD Database and Enhanced Shared Registration System will modernize the usTLD registry and promote registration in
the space.  

        The infrastructure of the usTLD has not evolved along with other leading Internet registries. DNS standards and policies created at the IETF and ICANN have
advanced significantly since the inception of the usTLD and the introduction of RFC 1480, and the usTLD has not kept pace with these advances. Yet it is reasonable for the user community to expect
that the registry will be consistent with appropriate industry standards and policies. An outdated infrastructure causes potential users to question the value of acquiring a name in the usTLD name
space, and most members of the user community have chosen to register names in other TLDs. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar will implement an Enhanced Shared Registraion System to simplify the process for delegated managers and registrars to provision the usTLD
registry

 
	•
	 NeuStar will run a thick registry that stores registrant information in a central usTLD database.

	•
	Whois data for all nameholders, including delegees, subdelegees, and registrants, will be available through a free public, web-based
interface that allows for multiple string and field searches.

        There
are four specific areas where the usTLD infrastructure is lacking. 

	1.
	The
current usTLD administrator has not deployed an automated registration system for the usTLD. The registration process is manual. This makes the process of updating zone files,
creating a central database, tracking changes, and providing a Whois extremely difficult. It also introduces an opportunity for errors.

	2.
	Delegees
and subdelegees are not required to submit registrant information to the current registry. Consequently, there is no centralized, complete, and accurate database of registrant
information for the usTLD.

	3.
	Because
of the hierarchical structure of the usTLD, it was expected that delegees and subdelegees would maintain their own databases and Whois servers. Although some delegees have
followed this recommendation, others have not, and no complete and accurate, centralized Whois service exists for the usTLD. Further, because there is there is no centralized database of registrant
information, a centralized Whois cannot be generated.

	4.
	Although
e-mail addresses are available for third-level delegees, there is little evidence of a central, publicly available or privately held database of all delegees and
subdelegees. 

        If
it is to become the model for the world's country code TLDs, the usTLD must have a robust, secure, and reliable infrastructure equal to or better than any other Internet registry. In
order to modernize the usTLD infrastructure and provide the services and functions outlined in Section B of this proposal, NeuStar will leverage an enhanced shared registration system as shown
in Exhibit F-1, Enhanced SRS, and a centralized usTLD database. This Enhanced SRS and Centralized usTLD database are the central components of NeuStar's usTLD registry, and, in
turn, they create the necessary zone files and Whois service required to round out the usTLD infrastructure. 

        [Exhibit F-1:
Enhanced SRS Data Flow illustrates the data flow for processing requests and the data distribution to external systems. Graphic omitted:
diagram depicting SRS data flow.] 

F-1

 

F.1    Enhanced Shared Registration System  

        As stated above, the manual registration process currently used by the usTLD administrator introduces difficulties into the processes of updating zone files,
creating a centralized database, tracking changes, and providing a centralized Whois service. Currently, registrants have no guarantee that their registrations have been entered into a database or
into the zone file. NeuStar's solution modernizes the registration, so that all of these functions will become automated. 

        There
are a number of methods that could be used to modernize the infrastructure of the usTLD, and nearly all of them are likely to include a Web-based user interface. In
fact, an interface that would allow registrations over the Web would be expected, if not demanded by the user community. However, a Web interface that looks better to users but that has no associated
capability to update the usTLD database or zone files would not solve the timeliness and reliability problems associated with the manual process. This would be unacceptable to registrars in the
expanded name space. They need immediate access to accurate and up-to-date information, and they need to have a machine interface to the registry due to the high volumes of
registrations that they would expect. 

NeuStar's Solution—Modernizing the Registration Process  

        NeuStar's modernization of the usTLD registry infrastructure begins with the implementation of an Enhanced shared registration system (Enhanced SRS). The Enhanced
SRS is enhanced in that it can accommodate competitive registrars in the expanded space as well as delegated managers and registrants on the locality-based space. The term Enhanced SRS refers to a
system that has a mechanized interface to multiple registrars that provides the same service to all of the interconnected registrars. In addition to supporting competitive registrars, NeuStar's
Enhanced Enhanced SRS will support delegated managers that are the only entity allowed to register names in their name space. The Enhanced Enhanced SRS will automate the registration process for all
name holders. 

        Due
to the nature of the usTLD name space, it is necessary to define the three different registration processes, as shown in Exhibit F-2: (1) registrations in
the expanded name space, (2) registrations in the locality-based space where NeuStar is the registrar, and (3) registrations in the locality-based space with existing delegees or
subdelegees. 

Expanded Name Space  

        Registrations in the expanded name space will be very similar to registrations in a generic TLD such as.biz, as shown in Exhibit F-3.
Registrars will be responsible for the registration of names in the expanded name space, and NeuStar will not act as a registrar for that space. In order for registrars to interface over a mechanized
interface with the usTLD registry, NeuStar has developed a protocol called XRP (eXtensible Registry Protocol). This protocol has been developed and is undergoing implementation for the .biz registry.
NeuStar is also an active participant at the IETF Provreg Working Group, which is developing an industry standard protocol for an interface between registrars and a registry. NeuStar will ensure that
XRP is functionally compatible with the standard developed by the IETF Provreg WG. All usTLD-accredited registrars will be provided with an XRP software toolkit, free of charge. 

        [Exhibit F-2:
NeuStar's Enhanced SRS provides automated registration service to both competitive registrars, in the expanded space and delegated managers
in the locality-based space. Profile-based business rules ensure security and integrity for each of the registrars and delegated managers. Graphic Omitted: diagram depicting provisioning interfaces
for access to SRS.] 

        NeuStar
will deploy a thick registry, which means that registrars will submit name, registration, and contact information about registrants to the registry, and the registry will store
that information in the 

F-2

 

central
usTLD database. This information will allow the registry to create a centralized Whois and populate the zone file with the appropriate resource record. 

Locality-Based Name Space Where NeuStar is the Registrar  

        NeuStar will be required to act as a registrar in the locality-based name space in cases of undelegated third-level names. To fulfill this role, NeuStar will
implement a Web-based interface for registrants to register names in that space. This interface will be very similar to the way registrants register names with registrars today in generic
top level domains (gTLD), such as.com. Upon initial registration registrants will be provided with authenticating information that will need to be submitted for future changes and updates to the
registration. This will permit an extra level of security and ensure that the appropriate registrant is modifying the name. 

        [Exhibit F-3:
All Registrars are provided the same level of access to NeuStar's high availability Enhanced SRS. Graphic Omitted: diagram of registrar
access to enhanced SRS.] 

        Just
like in the expanded space NeuStar will gather information about the registrant to populate the central usTLD database, create a Whois record, and update the zone file. In addition,
NeuStar needs to clear the payment and enter the registrant in NeuStar's Registrant database. There is a clear difference between managing a name for a registrar and managing a name for a registrant.
NeuStar understands the importance of treating these two types of registrations differently. 

Locality-Based Name Space for Existing Delegees and Subdelegees  

        Existing delegees and subdelegees will continue to provide registration services to registrants within their designated localities. However, their functions will
be expanded so that NeuStar can store information for all of the registrants in the usTLD name space. Delegees and subdelegees will be responsible for providing NeuStar with registration information
for each name that they register, as well as contact information for each registrant so that NeuStar can update the central usTLD database and create a Whois record for the registrant. If the delegee
or subdelegee chooses to host the registered names on their own name servers then they do not need to provide resource record information to NeuStar. As an additional service, NeuStar will host
resource records in the usTLD zone file created at the registry. In cases where delegees and subdelegees choose to take advantage of this option, they will need to provide NeuStar with the appropriate
resource record information. 

        NeuStar
will provide a secure Web site where delegees and subdelegees will provision this information with the registry. Each delegee and subdelegee will be provided with authenticating
information to ensure that they are modifying records within their name space. However, if a delegee or subdelegee would prefer to interface with the registry over a mechanized interface, they can
choose to implement the XRP interface by downloading the tool kit from the usTLD web site. 

F.2    Centralized usTLD Database  

        As noted earlier in this section, RFC 1480 made no provision for a centralized database and Whois in the usTLD space, in the hopes that delegees and subdelegees
would maintain their own database and Whois. As the domain name system evolved, it became obvious that this was not the best way to maintain and administer such an important public resource. It is
important that the domain name community can easily determine the entities responsible for a domain name. This is important for the proper functioning of the system and the names as well as for
ensuring that the entity responsible for the name is complying with appropriate policies and practices. If that information is not centralized, it is difficult to ensure consistency and accuracy. 

        Additionally,
there is little evidence of a publicly available or privately held database of all delegees and subdelegees. While there is a simple contact list which provides delegated
names and 

F-3

 

email
addresses this is not sufficient for the purposes of ensuring the proper operations of an important public resource. Delegees and subdelegees are clearly held to a higher standard of operations
since they are responsible for managing other names. It is critical that the usTLD administrator and the public have very specific and up-to-date information regarding these
entities. 

        In
an attempt to provide Whois services, the current administrator implemented a Referral Whois (Rwhois) service, in which delegees and subdelegees were asked to install Rwhois, so that
Whois requests could be referred, through the main Rwhois server, down to the individual delegees. This is a solution that could be implemented in both the expanded space as well as the existing
locality space. Registrars would maintain the database and Whois data for their customers in the expanded space and delegees and subdelegees would maintain their customer's data and Whois in the
locality-based space. 

        However,
Rwhois is generally considered by the technical community to be an inferior and unreliable protocol. Rwhois is not widely deployed and therefore not well understood. This is
particularly a problem when the administrator would be relying on potentially thousands of entities (i.e., delegees, subdelegees, and registrars) to deploy and maintain it. A distributed Whois also
creates the likelihood of there being inconsistent policies and treatment of name holders. Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult to monitor the compliance of delegees, subdelegees, and
registrars if the database and Whois were distributed. 

        Since
the database itself is not publicly accessible (only the Whois data is), a distributed architecture would virtually ensure a lack of consistency to the data that is stored and the
manner that it is stored. For example one entity could store data on an Excel spreadsheet where another entity could store data in an Oracle database. One entity could store different data than
another entity. This would make the process of transferring registrants from one entity to another much more difficult. 

        But
the most convincing evidence that a distributed database and Whois approach does not work is the fact that this is the current solution deployed in the usTLD, and it is well
understood that it is not sufficient. 

NeuStar's Solution—A Centralized usTLD Database  

        In an effort to create a centralized Whois, and in order to be able to provide complete information about nameholders, NeuStar will centralize all pertinent
information regarding all names registered in the usTLD name space. There are two broad categories of name holders: (1) registrants and (2) delegated managers, including all delegees,
subdelegees. Registrants will register names through a delegated manager in the locality-based name space, and they will register through competitive registrars in the expanded name space. All name
holders and registrars will be included in the central usTLD database and the central Whois database. 

        The
Centralized usTLD database will be escrowed on a regular basis with an escrow agent that is acceptable to both NeuStar and the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR).
The Centralized usTLD database is the heart of the usTLD registry; the publicly accessible Whois, the delegated manager Whois and the zone file will all be created from this database. Centralizing and
escrowing the registration information will ensure the integrity, security, and reliability of the entire name space. 

        All
Whois information will be free and publicly available over a Web-based interface that will allow for multiple string and field searches. NeuStar will provide a Web site
for this purpose as well as providing access over the IANA-approved port 43. 

        The
following table provides details on the Whois information that will be available through the usTLD Web interface and port 43. 

F-4

 

 
 

Whois Information Under the usTLD    
    

	Registrants in Locality Space
 
	 	 
	 	Delegated Managers in Locality Space
 

	24	 	Name of the domain registered	 	 	 	 
	25	 	Internet Protocol (IP) address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name	 	32.

33.	 	Name of the delegated manager

Delegated Manager ID
	26	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers	 	34.	 	IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation
	27	 	Identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered	 	35.	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers
	28	 	Creation date of the registration manager	 	36.	 	Date of delegation
	29	 	Name and postal address of the domain name holder	 	37.	 	Name and postal address of the delegated manager
	30	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder	 	38.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager
	31	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder	 	39.	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager
	 	 	 	 	40.	 	Web site or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under the delegation

	

Registrants in Expanded Space
 
	
 	

 
	
 	

Registrars in Expanded Space
 

	41.	 	Name of the domain registered	 	48.	 	Name of the registrar
	42	 	IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name	 	49.

50.	 	Registrar ID

Registrar status (e.g., active, pending)
	43	 	Corresponding names of those nameservers	 	51	 	Name and postal address of the registrar
	44	 	Creation date of the registration	 	52	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar
	45	 	Name and postal address of the domain name holder	 	53	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the registrar
	46	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder	 	54	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the billing contact for the registrar
	47	 	Name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder	 	 	 	 

F-5

 

        It
is necessary to divide the methods for provisioning this information into two categories, existing information and new information. The technical and functional interfaces and methods
for provisioning new information are defined earlier in this section. 

        Provisioning
existing information will require an outreach effort to the current delegated managers. The first step is to contact the delegated managers through contact information
provided by the current usTLD Administrator, we will request this information as outlined in our Transition Plan, discussed in Section T. This name and contact information can be supplemented
by writing a script to "walk the tree." Walking the tree refers to the process of performing a recursive search of the usTLD, which gathers zone file information from delegees and subdelegees and
includes all delegations and direct registrations. The zone files of delegated managers include contact information for the delegated manager, and they also include all registrations under the
delegated manager's name space. NeuStar has already starting walking the tree and analyzing the results to develop a database of delegated manager contact information and a database of all of the
names in the usTLD name space, so that NeuStar will be able to initiate our outreach effort beginning on the day of contract award. 

        Once
the delegated managers have been contacted, they will be provided with a list of the information we would expect to receive from them including a list of names for which we believe
they are responsible. We will offer them options as to how they provide us this information. They will be able to provision it on a secure website or they will be able to send us a file in a format
provided by NeuStar. It may be necessary for the delegated manager to contact their registrants for some of the information we will be requesting. This will be an iterative process with regular
contact between NeuStar and the delegated manager until the information is verified. 

        Because
NeuStar will not necessarily be hosting the resource records associated with names registered to delegated managers, it is possible for the delegated manager to register a name
and forget to update NeuStar. In order to ensure that our Centralized usTLD database is accurate and up to date, NeuStar will "walk the tree" continuously and compare the results with information in
that database. If there is a difference, we will contact the delegated manager to correct the discrepancy. 

Conclusion  

        If the usTLD is to be considered on par with or better than the rest of the available top-level domains, its registry must contain accurate and
up-to-date information pertaining to name registrations and name holders. To accumulate this information on an ongoing basis, NeuStar will use standard practices now common in
the domain name registry community. We will provide easy-to-access and easy-to-use tools by which registrants, delegated managers, and registrars can
provide this information to us. Accumulating existing information is simply a matter of using data and tools at our disposal to reach out to the existing name holders. While this will be a time
consuming task, NeuStar welcomes this as a good opportunity to develop a relationship with the existing user community. 

F-6

  

G.    Draft Delegated Managers/Administrator Contract  

        The delegated Managers/Administrators contract will establish clear and comprehensive parameters for the management of the delegated
subdomains

	•
	Agreement establishes mutual obligations of delegated managers and usTLD Administrator

	•
	Establishes mutual performance specifications and performance credits to ensure mutual compliance with minimum technical
requirements

	•
	Promotes greater accountability in locality-based usTLD space

        As
an important part of its work to centralize and enhance the usTLD delegated space, NeuStar intends to establish comprehensive contractual arrangements with all of the usTLD Delegated
Managers. The agreements will establish clear and comprehensive parameters for the management of the delegated subdomains, as well as basic requirements and obligations binding on NeuStar as the usTLD
Administrator and the Delegated Manager. In addition, because the usTLD Administrator will not have a direct contractual arrangement with the registrants, these contracts will include "flow through
obligations", such as the Nexus requirement or the obligation to provide accurate WHOIS data, that the Delegated Managers will be required to enforce in its contracts with its registrants. These legal
relationships will help provide the accountability and administrative certainty necessary to maintain the stable operation of the usTLD. 

        Recognizing
the significant and useful effort that has gone into the development of similar agreements in the ICANN context, these agreements will be patterned after the
Registry-Registrar agreement developed for the new gTLDs by ICANN. These agreements contain certain modifications necessary to address the dynamics and specific requirements of the usTLD. Such changes
have, however, been kept to a minimum. Use of the existing ICANN agreements as templates will establish a sense of consistency
between the usTLD and the DNS at large, as well as providing usTLD users, delegated managers, and registrars a familiar and effective system under which to operate. A template for the Delegated
Manager Agreement is attached hereto. This document will be a standard document signed by all usTLD Delegated Managers and will be finalized upon completion of the compliance report described in
Section B.4.5 of this Proposal. 

WORKING DRAFT DATED JULY 27, 2001  

THIS AGREEMENT IS A TEMPLATE TO SHOW THE BASIC STRUCTURE UNDER WHICH NEUSTAR EXPECTS THAT THE DELEGATED MANAGERS MIGHT OPERATE. THIS
AGREEMENT WILL BE FINALIZED UPON COMPLETION OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT DISCUSSED IN SECTION B.4.5 BASED UPON INFORMATION GATHERED IN THAT PROCESS.  

 
  usTLD ADMINISTRATOR-DELEGATED MANAGER AGREEMENT    
    

        This usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement is made and effective as
of                        , 200  , by and between NeuStar, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1120 Vermont Avenue, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005 ("usTLD Administrator"), and [Delegated
Manager's name], a [jurisdiction and type of organization], with its principal place of
business located at [Delegated Manager's location] ("Delegated Manager"). 

        WHEREAS, usTLD Administrator has been appointed to be the administrator of the usTLD by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology to operate a shared registration system, TLD nameservers, and other equipment for the ".us" top-level domain; 

        WHEREAS, the usTLD Administrator has entered a usTLD Agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology to administer the .us top-level domain 

G-1

 

name
and to operate a shared registration system, TLD nameservers, and other equipment for the ".us" top-level domain 

        WHEREAS, historically the second, third, and in certain cases fourth level sub-domains of the usTLD were geographically and
politically defined pursuant to the Internet Engineering Task Force's RFC 1480 (titled The US Domain at www.ietf.or/rfc/rfc1480.txt?number+1480) ("RFC
1480"); 

        WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RFC 1480 and RFC 1591 (titled Domain Name System Structure and
Delegation at http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt) ("RFC 1591"), in each case as supplemented by the rules and procedures on the.us domain website
(http://www.nic.us), as they may be amended from time to time (".US Domain Policies"), Registrar, along with other registrars, currently acts as a registry and registrar for certain third level and
fourth-level sub-domain names within the.us top-level domain for a particular locality or localities. 

        WHEREAS, pursuant to this Agreement, Delegated Manager wishes to continue to provide services pursuant to RFC 1480 and RFC 1591, as
supplemented by the policies created and administered by the usTLD Administrator. 

        NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, usTLD Administrator and Delegated Manager, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 

1.     DEFINITIONS  

	1.1
	"Agreement"
means this usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement between usTLD Administrator and Delegated Manager, as such may be amended from time to time in the future.

	1.2
	The
"APIs" are the application program interfaces by which Delegated Manager may interact, through the XRP, with the usTLD System.

	1.3
	"Confidential
Information" means all information and materials, including, without limitation, computer software, data, information, databases, protocols, reference implementation and
documentation, and functional and interface specifications provided by one party to this Agreement (the "Disclosing Party") to the other party (the "Receiving Party") and marked or otherwise
identified as "confidential", provided that if a communication is oral, the Disclosing Party will notify the Receiving Party in writing within fifteen (15) days of the disclosure of the
confidential nature of such information.

	1.4
	The
word "Delegated Manager" when appearing with an initial capital letter, refers to [Delegated Manager Name],
a party to this Agreement.

	1.5
	The
word "Delegated Manager" when appearing without an initial capital letter, refers to an entity that contracts with Registrants and with the usTLD Administrator to provide domain
name registration services and collects registration data about the Registrants and submits registration information for entry in the usTLD Database and is party to an Accreditation Agreement with
usTLD Administrator.

	1.6
	"Delegated
Manager Services" means services provided by a Delegated Manager in connection with the usTLD under this Agreement, and includes contracting with Registrants, collecting
registration data about the Registrants, and submitting registration information for entry in the usTLD Database.

	1.7
	The
"Delegated Manager Tool Kit" shall mean the Tool Kit set forth in Exhibit A.

	1.8
	"DNS"
means the Internet domain name system. 

G-2

 

	1.9
	The
"Effective Date" shall be the date first set forth above.

	1.10
	"NIST"
means the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (or any successor agency or governmental unit charged with ultimate responsibility for
the country code top-level domain name for the United States).

	1.11
	"Personal
Data" refers to data about any identified or identifiable natural person.

	1.12
	"Registered
Name" refers to a sub-domain name within the domain of the usTLD, about which usTLD Administrator or an affiliate engaged in providing usTLD Services
maintains data in a usTLD Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.

	1.13
	"Registrant"
means the holder of a Registered Name.

	1.14
	"Term"
means the term of this Agreement, as set forth in Subsection 8.1.

	1.15
	A
"TLD" means a top-level domain of the DNS.

	1.16
	In
order to have to required "U.S. Nexus", a Registrant must be: (a) a natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any
of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place of domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or (b) an entity or organization that is
(i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or territories or (ii) organized or otherwise
constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or (c) an entity or organization (including a federal,
state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United States. "usTLD" means the.us TLD.

	1.17
	"usTLD
Agreement" means the usTLD Agreement between usTLD Administrator and NIST dated [date of usTLD Agreement] for the administration and operation of the
usTLD.

	1.18
	"usTLD
Database" means a database comprised of data about one or more DNS domain names within the domain of the usTLD that is used to generate either DNS resource records that are
published authoritatively or responses to domain-name availability lookup requests or Whois queries, for some or all of those names.

	1.19
	"usTLD
Policy Council" shall mean the United States Policy Advisory Council established by the usTLD Administrator under the usTLD Agreement

	1.20
	"usTLD
Services" means services provided as an integral part of the operation of the usTLD.

	1.21
	The
"usTLD System" means the registry system operated by usTLD Administrator for Registered Names in the usTLD.

	1.22
	"XRP"
means the extensible registry-Delegated Manager protocol used by the usTLD System. 

Other
terms used in this Agreement as defined terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the context in which they are defined. 

2.     OBLIGATIONS OF USTLD ADMINISTRATOR  

	2.1
	Access to usTLD System.    Throughout the Term of this Agreement, usTLD Administrator shall provide Delegated Manager with
access as a Delegated Manager to the usTLD System. Nothing in this Agreement entitles Delegated Manager to enforce any agreement between usTLD Administrator and NIST, and Delegated Manager shall not
be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary under the usTLD Agreement. 

G-3

 

	2.2
	Maintenance of Registrations Sponsored by Delegated Manager.    Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, and requirements
under the usTLD Agreement, and solely if requested by Delegated Manager, usTLD Administrator shall maintain the registrations of Registered Names sponsored by Delegated Manager in the usTLD System so
long as Delegated Manager has paid the Fees required by Subsection 4.1 below and this Agreement remains in effect. Otherwise, Delegated Manager shall maintain the registrations of Registered Names
sponsored by Delegated Manager in the usTLD System.

	2.3
	Provision of Tool Kits; Limited License.

	2.3.1
	Delegated Manager Tool Kit.    If the Delegated Manager requests that the usTLD Administrator maintains the registrations
of Registered Names sponsored by Delegated Manager in the usTLD System, no later than five (5) business days after the Effective Date, usTLD Administrator shall provide to Delegated Manager a
copy of the Delegated Manager Tool Kit, which shall provide sufficient technical specifications to permit Delegated Manager interface with the usTLD System and employ its features that are available
to Delegated Managers, provided that, if the Effective Date occurs prior to the date that usTLD Administrator has made the usTLD Tool Kit available to .us Delegated Managers generally ("Availability
Date"), usTLD Administrator shall provide to Delegated Manager a copy of the usTLD Tool Kit, no later than five (5) business days after the Availability Date. Subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, UsTLD Administrator hereby grants Delegated Manager and Delegated Manager accepts a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide limited license to
use for the Term and purposes of this Agreement, all components owned by or licensed to UsTLD Administrator in and to the RRP, APIs, any reference client software and any other intellectual property
included in the Delegated Manager Tool Kit, as well as updates and redesigns thereof, to provide domain name registration services in the usTLD only and for no other purpose.

	2.3.2
	Limited License.    Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including without limitation Delegated Manager's
timely payment of all Fees owed, usTLD Administrator hereby grants Delegated Manager and Delegated Manager accepts a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide limited license,
to use for the Term and purposes of this Agreement the XRP, APIs and any reference client software included in the Delegated Manager Tool Kits, as well as any updates and redesigns thereof, for
providing domain name Delegated Manager Services in the usTLD only and for no other purpose.

	2.4
	Changes to usTLD System.    usTLD Administrator may in its discretion from time to time make modifications to the XRP, APIs,
or other software or materials licensed hereunder that will modify, revise or augment the features of the usTLD System. usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide
Delegated Manager with at least ninety (90) days notice prior to the implementation of any material changes to the XRP, APIs or software licensed hereunder. usTLD Administrator shall have no
obligation under this Agreement to update, modify, maintain, or repair any XRP, APIs, or other software materials (or any updates or redesigns thereto) licensed under this Agreement to Delegated
Manager.

	2.5
	Engineering and Customer Service Support; Performance Specifications.    usTLD Administrator shall provide Delegated Manager
with engineering and customer service support as set forth in Exhibit B.

	2.6
	Handling of Personal Data.    usTLD Administrator shall notify Delegated Manager of the purposes for which Personal Data
submitted to usTLD Administrator by Delegated Manager is collected, the intended recipients (or categories of recipients) of such Personal Data, and 

G-4

 

the
mechanism for access to and correction of such Personal Data. usTLD Administrator shall take commercially reasonable steps to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure,
alteration or destruction. 

	2.7
	NIST/usTLD Administrator Requirements.    usTLD Administrator's obligations hereunder are subject to modification at any time
as the result of NIST-mandated requirements and NeuStar policies developed by usTLD Administrator through its United States Policy Advisory Council ("usTLD Policy Council") from time to
time. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Delegated Manager shall comply with any such NIST requirements or usTLD Policy Council policies in accordance with the stated
timelines. 

3.     OBLIGATIONS OF DELEGATED MANAGER  

	3.1
	Delegated Manager Responsibility for Customer Support; Participation in Marketing Campaigns/Community Outreach
Programs.    Delegated Manager shall provide (i) support to accept and process orders for Registered Names from proposed Registrants and (ii) customer
service (including domain name record support) and billing and technical support to Registrants. In addition, Delegated Manager will use commercially reasonable efforts to market, either directly or
through authorized re-sellers, Registered Names to potential Registrants and to solicit such potential customers to register for Registered Names, and Delegated Manager will cooperate with
usTLD Administrator in marketing campaigns or community outreach programs that usTLD Administrator may commence from time to time.

	3.2
	Delegated Manager's Registration Agreement; U.S. Nexus Requirements.    At all times during the Term of this Agreement while
it is sponsoring the registration of any Registered Name within the usTLD System, Delegated Manager shall have in effect an electronic or paper registration agreement with each Registrant (a
"Registration Agreement"). Delegated Manager shall, if so requested by usTLD Administrator from time to time, promptly furnish to usTLD Administrator a copy of each general form of Registration
Agreement it uses with Registrants. Delegated Manager shall include in each Registration Agreement those terms specifically required by this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement and other terms
that are consistent with Delegated Manager's obligations to usTLD Administrator under this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement and that will ensure ongoing compliance with both such agreements.
Without limiting the foregoing, the Registration Agreement shall require each Registrant to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it has, and shall continue to have, a bona fide U.S. Nexus in order
to qualify to register and maintain its use of a Registered Name.

	3.3
	Indemnification Required of Registrants.    In its Registration Agreement with each Registrant, Delegated Manager shall
require such Registrant to indemnify, defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders from and against any
and all claims, suits, actions, other proceedings, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any kind, including without limitation reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or relating to
the Registrant's (i) domain name registration and (ii) use of any Registered Name. Each Registration Agreement shall further require that this indemnification obligation survive the
termination or expiration of the Registration Agreement.

	3.4
	Data Submission Requirements.    As part of its registration and sponsorship of Registered Names in the usTLD, Delegated
Manager shall submit complete data (and update such data) as required by technical specifications of the usTLD System that are made available to Delegated Manager from time to time and the
Accreditation Agreement. If the Delegated Manager requests that the usTLD Administrator maintains the Registered Names in the 

G-5

 

usTLD
System, Delegated Manager hereby grants usTLD Administrator a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to such data for propagation of and the provision of
authorized access to the TLD zone files and as otherwise required in usTLD Administrator's operation of the usTLD. 

	3.5
	Security.    Delegated Manager agrees to develop and employ in its domain name registration business all necessary technology
and restrictions to ensure that its connection to the usTLD System is secure. All data exchanged between Delegated Manager's system and the usTLD System shall be protected to avoid unintended
disclosure of information. Delegated Manager agrees to employ the necessary measures to prevent its access to the usTLD System granted hereunder from being used to (1) allow, enable, or
otherwise support, the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than its own existing customers; or
(2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of usTLD Administrator, any other registry operated under an agreement with usTLD Administrator,
or any other Delegated Manager, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations in compliance with this Agreement. In addition, usTLD Administrator may from
time to time require other reasonable security provisions to ensure that the usTLD System is secure, and Delegated Manager will comply with all such provisions.

	3.6
	Resolution of Technical Problems.    Delegated Manager agrees to employ necessary employees, contractors, or agents with
sufficient technical training and experience to respond to and fix all technical problems concerning the use of the XRP and the APIs in conjunction with Delegated Manager's systems. Delegated Manager
agrees that in the event of significant degradation of the usTLD System or other emergency, usTLD Administrator may, in its sole discretion, temporarily suspend access to the usTLD System. Such
temporary suspensions shall be applied in a non-arbitrary manner and shall apply fairly to any Delegated Manager similarly situated, including any affiliates of usTLD Administrator that
serve as Delegated Managers.

	3.7
	Time of Entry of Domain Name Registration.    Delegated Manager agrees that in the event of any dispute concerning the time
of the entry of a domain name registration into the usTLD Database, the time shown in the usTLD System records shall control.

	3.8
	Compliance with Terms and Conditions.    Delegated Manager shall comply with, and shall include in each Registration
Agreement all of the following:

	3.8.1
	Any
NIST standards, policies, procedures, and practices for which usTLD Administrator has monitoring responsibility in accordance with the usTLD Agreement or other arrangement with
NIST and/or ICANN, including without limitation ICANN policies pertaining to open county code TLDs (unless otherwise provided in the usTLD Agreement); and

	3.8.2
	Operational
standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the usTLD as set forth in the usTLD Agreement and as established from time to time by usTLD Administrator and/or the
usTLD Policy Council in a non-arbitrary manner and applicable to all Delegated Managers generally, and consistent with NIST's standards, policies, procedures, and practices. Among usTLD
Administrator's current operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices are those set forth in Exhibit E. Additional or revised usTLD Administrator operational standards, policies,
procedures, and practices for the usTLD shall be effective upon thirty (30) days notice by usTLD Administrator to Delegated Manager. 

G-6

 

	3.9
	Restrictions on Registered Names; Compliance with Law.    In addition to complying with NIST, policies, procedures, and
practices limiting domain names that may be registered, Delegated Manager agrees to comply with applicable statutes and regulations limiting the domain names that may be registered. Further, Delegated
Manager shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations.

	3.12
	Resellers/Sub-Delegated Manager.    Delegated Manager may, in its discretion from time to time, designate one or
more resellers/Sub-Delegated Managers ("Reseller") that will be permitted to provide Delegated Manager Services consistent with those permitted of Delegated Manager under this Agreement.
Delegated Manager shall enter into a written agreement with each of its re-sellers (a "Reseller Agreement"), which will ensure compliance with this Agreement and the Accreditation
Agreement and include sufficient terms and conditions to obligate each Reseller to abide by all terms and conditions and all Delegated Manager obligations set forth in this Agreement (provided that
re-sellers will not be entitled to appoint their own resellers) and the Accreditation Agreement. Delegated Manager shall be primarily liable
for all acts or omissions of its resellers, and usTLD Administrator's obligations under this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement shall not be increased due to Delegated Manager's appointment of
re-sellers. Promptly following the end of each calendar year during the Term of this Agreement (but in no event later than January 30), Delegated Manager shall provide to usTLD
Administrator a complete written list of all of its current resellers. Further, in its Reseller Agreement with each re-seller, Delegated Manager shall require such reseller to indemnify,
defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities,
costs and expenses of any kind, including without limitation reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or relating to any activities of such sub-Delegated Manager. Each such
Reseller Agreement shall further require that this indemnification obligation survive the termination or expiration of that agreement. 

4.     FEES  

	4.1
	Amount of usTLD Administrator Fees.    In the event that the Delegated Manager requests that Registered Names are maintained
by the usTLD Administrator, Delegated Manager agrees to pay usTLD Administrator the fees set forth in Exhibit F for initial and renewal
registrations and other services provided by usTLD Administrator to Delegated Manager (collectively, "Fees"). usTLD Administrator reserves the right to revise the Fees prospectively upon thirty
(30) days notice to Delegated Manager, provided that such adjustments are consistent with the usTLD Agreement.

	4.2
	Payment of usTLD Administrator Fees.    In advance of incurring Fees, Delegated Manager shall establish a letter of credit,
deposit account, or other credit facility accepted by usTLD Administrator, which acceptance will not be unreasonably withheld so long as payment is assured. All Fees are due immediately upon receipt
of applications for initial and renewal registrations, or upon provision of other services provided by usTLD Administrator to Delegated Manager. Payment shall be made via debit or draw down of the
deposit account, letter of credit or other credit facility. usTLD Administrator shall provide monthly invoices to the Delegated Manager.

	4.3
	Non-Payment of Fees.    In the event Delegated Manager has insufficient funds deposited or available through the
letter of credit or credit facility with usTLD Administrator or otherwise fails to pay Fees when due, usTLD Administrator may do any or all of the following: (a) stop accepting new initial or
renewal registrations from Delegated Manager; (b) delete the domain names associated with any negative balance incurred from the usTLD Database; and (c) pursue any other remedy permitted
under this Agreement or at law or in equity. 

G-7

 

5.     CONFIDENTIALITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY  

	5.1
	Use of Confidential Information.    During the Term of this Agreement, a Disclosing Party may be required (or elect) to
disclose Confidential Information to the Receiving Party. Each party's use and disclosure of the Confidential Information shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:

	5.1.1
	The
Receiving Party shall treat as strictly confidential, and use all reasonable efforts to preserve the secrecy and confidentiality of, all Confidential Information, including
implementing reasonable physical security measures and operating procedures.

	5.1.2
	The
Receiving Party agrees that it will use any Confidential Information solely for the purpose of exercising its rights or performing its obligations under this Agreement and for
no other purposes whatsoever.

	5.1.3
	The
Receiving Party shall make no disclosures whatsoever of any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to others; provided, however, that if the Receiving Party is a
corporation, partnership, or other organization, disclosure is permitted to the Receiving Party's officers, employees, contractors and agents who have a demonstrable need to know such Confidential
Information, provided the Receiving Party shall advise such personnel of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and of the procedures required to maintain the confidentiality thereof,
and shall require them to acknowledge in writing that they have read, understand, and agree to be individually bound by the confidentiality terms of this Agreement.

	5.1.4
	The
Receiving Party shall not modify or remove any confidentiality legends and/or copyright notices appearing on any Confidential Information.

	5.1.5
	The
Receiving Party agrees not to prepare, or claim any rights to, any derivative works based on the Confidential Information.

	5.1.6
	Notwithstanding
the foregoing, this Subsection 5.1 imposes no obligation upon the parties with respect to information that (a) is disclosed to a third party with the
Disclosing Party's prior written approval; or (b) is or has entered the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; or (c) is known by the Receiving Party prior to the time of
disclosure (as shown by documentary records to that effect); or (d) is independently developed by the Receiving Party without use of, or reference to, the Confidential Information; or
(e) is made generally available by the Disclosing Party without restriction on disclosure; or (f) Receiving Party receives in good faith from a third party who is not, directly or
indirectly, under an obligation of confidentiality to Disclosing Party with respect to same.

	5.1.7
	In
the event the Receiving Party is required by law, regulation or court order to disclose any Confidential Information, Receiving Party will promptly notify Disclosing Party in
writing prior to making any such disclosure in order to facilitate Disclosing Party seeking a protective order or other appropriate remedy from the proper authority, at the Disclosing Party's expense.
Receiving Party agrees to cooperate with Disclosing Party in seeking such order or other remedy. Receiving Party further agrees that if Disclosing Party is not successful in precluding the requesting
legal body from requiring the disclosure of the Confidential Information, it will furnish only that portion of the Confidential Information which is legally required.

	5.1.8
	The
Receiving Party's duties under this Subsection 5.1 shall expire five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, or earlier upon written agreement of
the parties. 

G-8

  

	5.2
	Intellectual Property.

	5.2.1
	Each
party will continue to independently own its intellectual property, including all patents, patent applications, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks,
know-how, trade secrets, data, proprietary processes, software, and all other forms of intellectual property, and nothing in this agreement shall confer any ownership right whatsoever to
one party in the intellectual property of the other party. In addition, usTLD Administrator, or its suppliers and/or licensees, as the case may be,shall own all right, title and interest in and to the
XRP, API's, Delegated Manager Tool Kits, and any software incorporated into the usTLD System, or any component of any of the foregoing, as well as all intellectual property appurtenant thereto.

	5.2.2
	Subject
only to the limited licenses set forth in Subsections 2.3.2, 3.5, and 5.1.2 above, no commercial use rights or any licenses of any kind under or to any patent, patent
application, copyright, trademark, trade name, service mark, know-how, trade secret, data, proprietary process, software or any other intellectual proprietary rights of any kind are
granted by one party to the other party by this Agreement, or by virtue of any disclosure of any Confidential Information to a Receiving Party under this Agreement. 

6.     INDEMNITIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY  

	6.1
	Indemnification.    Delegated Manager, at its own expense and within thirty (30) days after presentation of a demand
by usTLD Administrator under this Section, will indemnify, defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders
(along with usTLD Administrator, each an "Indemnified Person"), against any claim, suit, action, other proceeding of any kind (a "Claim") brought against that Indemnified Person based on, arising
from, or relating in any way to: (i) any product or service of Delegated Manager; (ii) any agreement, including Delegated Manager's dispute policy, with any Registrant or
re-seller; or (iii) Delegated Manager's domain name registration business, including, but not limited to, Delegated Manager's advertising, domain name application process, systems
and other processes, fees charged, billing practices and customer service, or any other business conducted by Delegated Manager; provided, however, that
in any such case: (a) usTLD Administrator or any other Indemnified Person provides Delegated Manager with reasonable prior notice of any such Claim, and (b) upon Delegated Manager's
written request, usTLD Administrator or any other Indemnified Person will provide to Delegated Manager all available information and assistance reasonably necessary for Delegated Manager to defend
such Claim; provided further that Delegated Manager reimburses usTLD Administrator and such other Indemnified Persons for their actual and reasonable
costs incurred in connection with providing such information and assistance. Delegated Manager will not enter into any settlement or compromise of any such indemnifiable Claim with respect to a
particular Indemnified Person without the prior written consent of such Indemnified Person, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Delegated Manager will pay any and all costs, damages,
liabilities, and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs awarded against or otherwise incurred by usTLD Administrator and other Indemnified Persons in connection
with or arising from any such indemnifiable Claim.

	6.2
	Limitation of Liability.    EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO DELEGATED MANAGER'S INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN ELSEWHERE IN
THIS AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF, OR CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO OR 

G-9

 

ARISING
FROM, THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. 

7.     DISPUTE RESOLUTION  

	7.1
	Dispute Resolution; Governing Law.    Any and all disputes of any nature arising under or in connection with this Agreement,
including requests for specific performance, shall be resolved through binding arbitration conducted as provided in this Section pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").
The arbitration shall be conducted in the English language and shall occur in the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., USA. There shall be three (3) arbitrators: each party shall choose one
arbitrator, who together will select a third; if the two arbitrators are not able to agree on a third arbitrator within fifteen (15) calendar days of the designation of the second arbitrator,
the AAA shall choose the third. The parties shall bear the costs of the arbitration in equal shares, subject to the right of the arbitrators to reallocate the costs in their award as provided in the
AAA rules. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees in connection with the arbitration, and the arbitrators may not reallocate the attorneys' fees in conjunction with their award. The
arbitrators shall render their decision within ninety (90) calendar days of the selection of the third arbitrator. Any litigation brought to enforce an arbitration award shall be brought in a
Commonwealth or federal court in the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA; however, the parties shall also have the right to enforce a judgment of such a court in any court of
competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of aiding the arbitration and/or preserving the rights of a party during the pendency of an arbitration, each party shall have the right to seek temporary or
preliminary injunctive relief from the arbitration panel or any court of competent jurisdiction located in the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA, which shall not be a waiver of
this arbitration agreement. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without regard to any rules or principles of conflicts of law
that might look to any jurisdiction outside Virginia). 

8.     TERM AND TERMINATION  

	8.1
	Term of the Agreement; Revisions.    The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and, unless earlier
terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, shall expire on the last expiration of the usTLD Agreement. In the event that revisions to usTLD Administrator's approved form of usTLD
Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement (such as this one) are approved or adopted by NIST from time to time, Delegated Manager will either execute an amendment substituting the revised agreement in
place of this Agreement or, at its option exercised within thirty (30) days after receiving notice of such amendment, terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to usTLD
Administrator. In the event that usTLD Administrator does not receive such executed amendment or notice of termination from Delegated Manager within such thirty (30) day period, Delegated
Manager shall be deemed to have accepted the provisions of such revised usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement, and as such, shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of such revised
usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement. usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to post such revised form of usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement on its US
website at least thirty (30) days prior to its effective date.

	8.2
	Termination.    This Agreement may be terminated as follows:

	8.2.1
	Termination
For Cause.    In the event that either party materially breaches any of its obligations under this Agreement and such breach is not substantially cured within
thirty (30) calendar days after written notice thereof is given by the other party, then the 

G-10

 

non-breaching
party may, by giving written notice thereof to the other party, terminate this Agreement as of the date specified in such notice of termination. 

	8.2.2
	Termination
at Option of Delegated Manager.    Delegated Manager may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving usTLD Administrator thirty (30) days written
notice of termination.

	8.2.3
	Termination
Upon Loss of Delegated Manager's Accreditation.    This Agreement shall immediately terminate in the event Delegated Manager's accreditation by usTLD
Administrator is terminated or expires without renewal.

	8.2.4
	Termination
in the Event of Termination of usTLD Agreement.    This Agreement shall immediately terminate in the event the usTLD Agreement is terminated or expires without
entry of a subsequent usTLD Agreement with NIST and this Agreement is not assigned under Subsection 9.1.1 below.

	8.2.5
	Termination
in the Event of Insolvency or Bankruptcy.    This Agreement will automatically and immediately terminate if the Delegated Manager is adjudged insolvent or
bankrupt, or if proceedings are instituted by or against Delegated Manager seeking relief, reorganization or arrangement under any laws relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, or seeking any assignment
for the benefit of creditors, or seeking the appointment of a receiver, liquidator or trustee of Delegated Manager's property or assets or the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Delegated
Manager's business.

	8.3
	Effect of Termination.    Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason:

	8.3.1
	usTLD
Administrator will complete the registration of all domain names processed by Delegated Manager prior to the effective date of such expiration or termination, provided that
all Delegated Manager's payments to usTLD Administrator for Fees are current and timely.

	8.3.2
	Delegated
Manager shall immediately transfer its sponsorship of Registered Names to another Delegated Manager in compliance with any procedures established or approved by usTLD
Administrator.

	8.3.3
	All
Confidential Information in the possession of the Receiving Party shall be immediately returned to the Disclosing Party.

	8.3.4
	All
Fees and any other amounts owing to usTLD Administrator shall become immediately due and payable.

	8.4
	Survival.    In the event of termination of this Agreement, the following shall survive: (i) Subsections 2.6, 3.5,
5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.4, 9.2, 9.3.3, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11 and 9.13 and (ii) the indemnification obligations of (a) Registrants under Subsection 3.4 and
(b) resellers under Subsection 3.12. Neither party shall be liable to the other for damages of any sort resulting solely from terminating this Agreement in accordance with its terms. 

9      MISCELLANEOUS  

	9.1
	Assignments.

	9.1.1
	Assignment to Successor usTLD Administrator.    In the event the usTLD Agreement is terminated (and such termination is
deemed final under the usTLD Agreement) or expires without entry by usTLD Administrator and NIST of a subsequent registry agreement, usTLD Administrator's rights under this Agreement may be assigned
to a entity with a subsequent registry agreement covering the usTLD upon NIST's giving Delegated Manager written notice within sixty (60) days of the termination or expiration, 

G-11

 

provided
that the subsequent usTLD Administrator assumes all or substantially all of the duties of usTLD Administrator under this Agreement. 

	9.1.2
	Assignment in Connection with Assignment of usTLD Agreement with NIST.    In the event that the usTLD Agreement for the
usTLD is validly assigned, usTLD Administrator's rights under this Agreement shall be automatically assigned to the assignee of the usTLD Agreement, provided that the assignee assumes all or
substantially all of the duties of usTLD Administrator under this Agreement.

	9.1.3
	Other Assignments.    Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon, the successors and permitted assigns of the parties. Neither party shall assign or transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the
prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that usTLD Administrator shall have the right to assign all its rights and delegate all its
duties under this Agreement to an affiliated organization without such consent.

	9.2
	Notices.    Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be delivered to any party under this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given and received when delivered by hand, by registered mail (return receipt requested), by courier or express delivery service, by
e-mail (against of receipt of confirmation of delivery) or by telecopier (against receipt of answerback confirming delivery) during business hours to the address or telecopier number, or
e-mail address set forth beneath the name of such party below or when delivery as described above is refused by the intended recipient, unless such party has given a notice of a change of
address in writing pursuant to the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice shall be deemed properly given from usTLD Administrator to Delegated Manager at such time as usTLD Administrator
posts any notice, update, modification or other information on its U.S. website, so long as such notice, update, modification or other information is intended for all Delegated Managers generally
(e.g., NIST-mandated revisions to the form usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement). 

If
to Delegated Manager: 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

with
copy to: 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

G-12

 

If
to usTLD Administrator: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Attn: VP of Policy and Industry Relations

phone:

fax:

with
a copy to: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Attn: General Counsel

phone:

fax:

9.3   Representations and Warranties.

	9.3.1
	Delegated Manager.    Delegated Manager represents and warrants that: (1) it is an organization (e.g., corporation,
partnership, limited liability company, government agency) duly formed, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of
the                        , (2) it has all requisite power and authority
to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement (3) it is, and during the Term of this Agreement will continue to be, accredited by usTLD Administrator, (4) the
execution, performance and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by Delegated Manager, (5) no further approval, authorization or consent of any governmental or regulatory
authority is required to be obtained or made by Delegated Manager in order for it to enter into and perform all its obligations under this Agreement.

	9.3.2
	usTLD Administrator.    usTLD Administrator represents and warrants that: (1) it is a corporation duly incorporated,
validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware, (2) it has all requisite corporate power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this
Agreement, (3) the execution, performance and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by usTLD Administrator, and (4) no further approval, authorization or consent of any
governmental or regulatory authority is required to be obtained or made by usTLD Administrator in order for it to enter into and perform all its obligations under this Agreement.

	9.3.3
	Disclaimer of Warranties.    THE XRP, APIs, DELEGATED MANAGER TOOLKIT, usTLD SYSTEM AND ANY COMPONENT THEREOF ARE PROVIDED
"AS-IS" AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. usTLD OPERATOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. usTLD OPERATOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE XRP, APIs, DELEGATED
MANAGER TOOLKIT, usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WILL MEET DELEGATED MANAGER'S REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF XRP, APIs, DELEGATED MANAGER TOOLKITS, THE usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT
THEREOF WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE XRP, APIs, DELEGATED MANAGER 

G-13

 

TOOLKIT,
usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WILL BE CORRECTED. FURTHERMORE, usTLD OPERATOR DOES NOT WARRANT NOR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE XRP, APIs, DELEGATED
MANAGER TOOLKITS, usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF OR RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. SHOULD THE XRP, APIs, DELEGATED MANAGER TOOLKIT,
THE usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF PROVE DEFECTIVE, DELEGATED MANAGER ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION OF DELEGATED MANAGER'S OWN SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE. 

In
the event of any conflict in this Agreement between this Subsection 9.3.3 and any other provision, this Subsection 9.3.3 will govern and control. 

	9.4
	Insurance.    During the Term of this Agreement (including any renewal terms), Delegated Manager shall have in place
US$500,000 in comprehensive legal liability insurance from a reputable insurance provider with an A.M. Best rating of "A" or better. Such insurance shall be used to indemnify and hold harmless
usTLD Administrator and its employees, directors, officers, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stokholders from all costs and damages (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees)
which it may suffer by reason of Delegated Manager's failure to indemnify usTLD Administrator as provided above; provided, however, that Delegated
Manager's indemnity obligations under this Agreement shall not deemed to be limited by the amount of such insurance. Delegated Manager shall provide a
copy of the insurance policy to usTLD Administrator upon usTLD Administrator's request and shall name usTLD Administrator and the other Indemnified Persons as additional insureds under that policy.

	9.5
	Third-Party Beneficiaries.    The parties expressly agree that NIST is an intended third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.
Otherwise, this Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either party to any non-party to this Agreement, including any Registrant or re-seller. Delegated
Manager acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall confer upon Delegated Manager or any person or entity the status of an intended third-party beneficiary of the usTLD Agreement.

	9.6
	Relationship of the Parties.    Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employer-employee or agency
relationship, a partnership or a joint venture between the parties.

	9.7
	Force Majeure.    Except for the non-payment of Fees, neither party shall be liable to the other for any loss or
damage resulting from any cause beyond its reasonable control (a "Force Majeure Event") including, but not limited to, insurrection or civil disorder, war or military operations, national or local
emergency, acts or omissions of government or other competent authority, compliance with any statutory obligation or executive order, industrial disputes of any kind (whether or not involving either
party's employees), fire, lightning, explosion, flood, subsidence, weather of exceptional severity, equipment or facilities shortages which are being experienced by providers of telecommunications
services generally, or other similar force beyond such Party's reasonable control, and acts or omissions of persons for whom neither party is responsible. Upon occurrence of a Force Majeure Event and
to the extent such occurrence interferes with either party's performance of this Agreement, such party shall be excused from performance of its obligations (other than payment obligations) during the
first six (6) months of such interference, provided that such party uses commercially reasonable efforts to avoid or remove such causes of nonperformance as soon as possible. 

G-14

 

	9.8
	Amendments.    Except as otherwise provided herein, no amendment, supplement, or modification of this Agreement or any
provision hereof shall be binding unless executed in writing by authorized signatories of both parties.

	9.9
	Waivers.    No failure on the part of either party to exercise any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement,
and no delay on the part of either party in exercising any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, shall operate as a waiver of such power, right, privilege or remedy; and no single or
partial exercise or waiver of any such power, right, privilege or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof or of any other power, right, privilege or remedy. Neither party shall be
deemed to have waived any claim arising out of this Agreement, or any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, unless the waiver of such claim, power, right, privilege or remedy is
expressly set forth in a written instrument duly executed and delivered on behalf of such party; and any such waiver shall not be applicable or have any effect except in the specific instance in which
it is given.

	9.10
	Attorneys' Fees.    Except as otherwise may be provided in Subsection 7.1 above, if any legal action or other legal
proceeding (including arbitration) relating to the performance under this Agreement or the enforcement of any provision of this Agreement is brought against a party hereto, the prevailing party shall
be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements (in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled).

	9.11
	Construction; Severability.    The parties agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolve against the drafting party shall not be applied in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, references to a number of days shall mean
consecutive calendar days. In the event that any clause or portion thereof in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other portion
of this Agreement, as it is the intent of the parties that this Agreement shall be construed in such fashion as to maintain its existence, validity and enforceability to the greatest extent possible.
In any such event, this Agreement shall be construed as if such clause or portion thereof had never been contained in this Agreement, and there shall be deemed substituted therefor such provision as
will most nearly carry out the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.

	9.12
	Further Assurances.    Each party hereto shall execute and/or cause to be delivered to the other party hereto such
instruments and other documents, and shall take such other actions, as such other party may reasonable request for the purpose of carrying out or evidencing any of the transactions contemplated by
this Agreement.

	9.13
	Entire Agreement.    This Agreement (including its exhibits, which form a part of it) constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes any prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, understandings, proposals or undertakings,
oral or written, with respect to the subject matter expressly set forth herein. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement and the
Accreditation Agreement, the usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Agreement shall govern and control.

	9.14
	Counterparts.    This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

G-15

 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. 

	NeuStar, Inc.	 	[Name of Delegated Manager]
	

By:	
 	

 
	
 	

By:	
 	

 

	Name:	 	 
	 	Name:	 	 

	Title:	 	 
	 	Title:	 	 

G-16

  

 
 

Exhibit A    
    
    Delegated Manager Tool Kit    
    

        usTLD Administrator-Delegated Manager Software Development Kit includes, but is not limited to the following: 

	•
	Reference
client implementations:

	•
	Java

	•
	C++

	•
	PERL

	•
	Interface
definition: XML Schema

	•
	usTLD
Administrator Operational Profile (our extensions)

	•
	Authentication
and Encryption guidelines

	•
	XRP
"feature freeze" drafts

	•
	XRP
test plan and coverage matrix

	•
	Java,
C++ and PERL API documentation 

G-17

  

 
 

Exhibit B    
    
    Engineering and Customer Service Support    
    

        During the Term of this Agreement, usTLD Administrator will provide reasonable telephone and electronic customer support to Delegated Manager, not Registrants or
prospective customers of Delegated Manager, for non-technical issues solely relating to the usTLD System and its operation. usTLD Administrator will provide Delegated Manager with a
telephone number and e-mail address for such support during implementation of the XRP, APIs and any reference client software included in the Delegated Manager Tool Kit. While
e-mail and FAQs are the primary method of help, usTLD Administrator will provide support on a 7-day/24-hour basis. usTLD Administrator will provide a
web-based customer service capability in the future and such web-based support will become the primary method of customer service support to Delegated Manager at such time. 

        The
usTLD Administrator provides a clear, concise and efficient deliberation of customer support responsibilities. Delegated Managers provide support to registrants (i.e., Registrants)
and registries (like usTLD Administrator) provide support for Delegated Managers. This structure allows the usTLD Administrator to focus its support on the highly technical and administratively
complex issues that arise between the usTLD Administrator and the Delegated Manager and to focus on the system operations supporting the usTLD. 

Technical Help Systems  

        usTLD Administrator will provide its Delegated Managers with the following types of technical support: 

	•
	Web-based
self-help services, including:

	•
	Knowledge
bases

	•
	Frequently
asked questions

	•
	White
papers

	•
	Downloads
of XRP client software

	•
	Support
for email messaging

	•
	Telephone
support from a central Help Desk

	•
	Fee-based
consulting services. 

Web Portal  

        usTLD Administrator will implement a secure Web-based multimedia portal to help support Delegated Manager operations. To obtain access to these
Web-based services, a Delegated Manager must register its registrants usTLD Administrator, and must have implemented our security features, including SSL encryption, log in with user ID
and password, and digital certificates for authentication. The home page of the web portal will include a notice to Delegated Managers of planned outages for database maintenance or installation of
software upgrades. usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable effort to post this notification at least thirty (30) days prior to the event in addition to active notification
including phone calls and email. Finally, seven (7) days and again two (2) days prior to the scheduled event, usTLD Administrator will use both an email and a Web-based
notification to remind Delegated Managers of the outage. 

        Non-affiliated
Delegated Managers and the general Internet community may obtain generic information from usTLD Administrator's public website, which will describe the TLD
service offerings and list of Delegated Managers, including Delegated Manager, providing domain-name services. 

G-18

 

Central Help Desk  

        In addition to implementing the website, usTLD Administrator will provide telephone support to Delegated Managers through a central Help Desk. Access to the help
desk telephone support is through an automatic call distributor that routes each call to the next available customer support specialist. usTLD Administrator will authenticate callers by using caller
ID and by requesting a pre-established pass phrase that is different for each Delegated Manager. Requests for assistance may also come to the Help Desk via email, either directly or via
the secure website. The Help Desk's three tiers of support are: 

Tier-1
Support.    Telephone support to Delegated Managers who normally are calling for help with customer domain-name problems and such other issues such as XRP
implementation or billing and collection. Problems that can't be resolved at Tier 1 are escalated to Tier 2. 

Tier-2
Support.    Support provided by members of the technical support team, who are functional experts in all aspects of domain-name registration. In addition to
resolving escalated Tier 1 problems with XRP implementation and billing and collection, Tier 2 staff provides technical support in system tuning and workload processing. 

Tier
3 Support.    Complex problem resolution provided by on-site maintenance technicians, third party systems and software experts, and vendors, depending on the nature of the
problem. 

        In
turn, the Help Desk uses an automated software package to collect call statistics and record service requests and trouble tickets in a help desk database. The help desk database
documents the status of requests and tickets. Each customer-support and technical support specialist uses this problem management process to respond to trouble tickets with a troubleshooting,
diagnosis, and resolution procedure and a root-cause analysis. 

Escalation Policy  

        usTLD Administrator's escalation policy defines procedures and timelines for elevating problems either to functional experts or to management for resolution if
they are not resolved within the escalation-policy time limits. The following table is an overview of the escalation policy. 

	Level
 
	 	Description
	 	Escalation Policy
	 	Notification

	I	 	Catastrophic outage affecting overall registry operations	 	Data-center manager escalates to usTLD Administrator management and Disaster-Recovery Team if not resolved in 15 minutes	 	Web portal and e-mail notifications to all Delegated Managers within 15 minutes; updates every 30 minutes
	II	 	Systems outage affecting one or two Delegated Manager sessions but not the entire system	 	Systems engineer escalates to data-center manager if not resolved in one hour	 	Web-portal notification to all Delegated Managers; hourly updates
	III	 	Technical questions	 	Help Desk customer-support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved in two hours	 	Hourly updates to Delegated Manager via e-mail
	IV	 	Basic questions	 	Help Desk customer-support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved within four hours	 	Hourly updates to Delegated Manager via e-mail

G-19

 

Staffing  

        Initially, usTLD Administrator will staff its Help Desk with a complement of customer service specialists. usTLD Administrator will add staff as necessary to
respond to incoming requests within the performance specification guidelines. Customer-service specialists will obtain assistance from usTLD Administrator's technical staff for any problems that
cannot be resolved in one (1) phone call. 

Test and Evaluation Facility  

        usTLD Administrator will establish an operational test-and-evaluation facility that will be available for Delegated Managers to test their
client XRP system. usTLD Administrator's technical-support team, which consists of functional experts in the processes and technologies for domain-name registration, will support the
Delegated Managers' testing. 

        Once
each new Delegated Manager is satisfied that its system is compatible with the usTLD System, it will schedule a formal acceptance test that will be monitored by usTLD
Administrator's system engineer. After a Delegated Manager has passed the acceptance test, usTLD Administrator will issue its user id, passwords, and digital certificates, and the Delegated Manager
can then begin operations. 

Customer Satisfaction Survey  

        To determine the satisfaction of Delegated Managers with usTLD Services, usTLD Administrator will implement a Web-based customer-satisfaction survey
that will consist of a set of survey questions with responses ranging from one to five on the Likert Scale. usTLD Administrator will tabulate the results and plans to publish them on the website
periodically. 

        To
further verify the quality of usTLD Administrator's customer services, usTLD Administrator anticipates commissioning a bi-annual customer-satisfaction survey by an
independent third party. 

G-20

  

 
 

Exhibit C    
    
    usTLD Administrator's Operational Standards,
  Policies, Procedures, and Practices    
    

I.     Registration Requirements  

        Before the usTLD Administrator will accept applications for registration from a Delegated Manager, all domain name applicants in the.us TLD must: 

	1.
	Enter
into an electronic or paper registration agreement with the Delegated Manager, in accordance with the Accreditation Agreement with usTLD Administrator and this Agreement. Such
electronic or paper registration agreement shall include, at a minimum, the following certifications:

	a)
	The
data provided in the domain name registration application is true, correct, up to date and complete; and

	b)
	The
registrant will keep the information provided above up to date.

	2.
	Certify
in the Registration Agreement that to the best of his, her or its knowledge the domain name registrant has the authority to enter into the Registration Agreement and meets all
the US Nexus Requirement set forth below. 

II.    US Nexus Requirement  

        Registrants in the usTLD must be either: 

	1.
	A
natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place of
domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or

	2.
	An
entity or organization that is (i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or
territories or (ii) organized or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or

	3.
	An
entity or organization (including a federal, state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United States. 

        Whether
a prospective registrant has a "bona fide presence in the United States" will be determined on a case-by-case basis in light of all relevant facts and
circumstances at the time of application for a usTLD domain name. This requirement is intended to ensure that only those individuals or organizations that have a substantive connection to the United
States are permitted to register for usTLD domain names. 

        Factors
that should be considered in determining whether an entity or organization has a bona fide presence in the United States shall include, without limitation, whether such
prospective usTLD domain name registrant: 

	•
	Regularly
performs activities within the United States related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is constituted (e.g., providing services to customers,
conducting regular training activities, attending conferences), provided such activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a usTLD domain name;

	•
	Maintains
an office or other facility in the United States for a business, noncommercial, educational, or governmental purpose and not solely or primarily to permit it to
register for a usTLD domain name; or 

G-21

 

	•
	Derives
a material portion of its revenues or net income from sales to purchasers located in the United States. For these purposes, if a prospective usTLD domain name
registrant's revenues from sales to purchasers located in the United States were at least 5% of such entity's or organization's total revenues or net income for its last completed fiscal year, such
entity or organization will be presumed to have a bona fide presence in the United States. 

        For
purposes of this definition, the terms United States and United States of America shall include all U.S. territories and possessions. 

        It
shall be a continuing requirement that all usTLD domain name registrants maintain the US Nexus Requirement. 

        The
Nexus Requirement will be enforced through an initial screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, as well as a challenge process permitted through the Nexus
Dispute Policy discussed below. The screening by usTLD Administrator will verify that selected field, within the contact information provided, on its face, meets the Nexus Requirement and that the
registrant has certified compliance with the requirement, as well as certified that the nameservers identified are located within the United States. In
the event that the contact information provided does not meet the above requirement, the name requested will be placed on hold within the registry and the registrant will be given an opportunity to
correct any mistake or demonstrate compliance with the Nexus requirement. If no action is taken by the registrant within the 30-day period, the registration will be cancelled and the name
will be returned to available status. If, on the other hand, the registrant is able to demonstrate compliance with the requirement, the name will be registered. 

III.  Nexus Dispute Policy  

        Although the Nexus Requirement will initially be enforced through a usTLD Delegated Manager's screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, and
the registrant will certify that it meets at least one of the Nexus requirements set forth above, usTLD Administrator understands that
disputes may arise as to the authenticity, veracity or accuracy of the registrant's Nexus certification. Therefore, usTLD Administrator, as administrator of the usTLD has devised a Nexus Dispute
Policy ("NDP") which will be administered solely by the usTLD Administrator, or its designated representative. The NDP will provide interested parties with an opportunity to challenge a registration
not complying with the Nexus Requirement. 

        In
the event that a third party wishes to challenge the authenticity or veracity of a .US registrant's United States Nexus, that party may submit a "Nexus Challenge" to the usTLD
Administrator or its authorized representative. The challenger must submit a written statement to the usTLD Administrator via first class mail alleging in specificity evidence to support its
allegation that the registrant fails to meet any of the Nexus Requirements set forth above. 

        Once
a challenge is received by the usTLD Administrator the domain name shall be "locked" by the usTLD Administrator until the matter is resolved. While in a "locked" position, the
registrant may not (i) change any of the contact information for that particular domain name or (ii) transfer the domain name to any third party. 

        In
the event that the usTLD Administrator finds that the challenger has established a prima facie case that the registrant has not met any of the Nexus Requirements, the usTLD
Administrator shall issue a letter to the registrant to submit evidence of compliance with the Nexus Requirements ("Letter"). The registrant shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of the Letter to submit evidence of compliance. If, within the thirty (30) days, the registrant submits evidence establishing any of the Nexus Requirements, the registrant shall be
permitted to keep the domain name. 

        If,
however, the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty days, or (ii) is unable to demonstrate through documentary evidence that it met any of the Nexus
Requirements prior to the 

G-22

 

date
the NDP was invoked, the usTLD Administrator shall issue a finding that the registrant has failed to meet the Nexus Requirements. Upon such a finding, the registrant shall be given a total of
thirty (30) days to cure the US Nexus deficiency. If the registrant is able to demonstrate within (30) days that it has cured such deficiency, the registrant shall be allowed to keep the
domain name. If the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty (30) days, or (ii) is unable to proffer evidence demonstrating compliance with the Nexus Requirements,
the domain name registration shall be deleted from the registry database and the domain name will be placed into the list of available domain names. This process represents the exclusive remedy for an
NDP challenger. 

        usTLD
Administrator reserves the right to modify this NDP at any time with the permission of COTR. usTLD Administrator will post its revised NDP on its Website at least thirty
(30) calendar days before it becomes effective. 

IV.    Reservation  

        usTLD Administrator reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the
integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, in compliance with any dispute resolution
process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of usTLD Administrator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives, employees, and
stockholders; (4) for violations of this Agreement (including its Exhibits); or (5) to correct mistakes made by usTLD Administrator or any Delegated Manager in connection with a domain
name registration. usTLD Administrator also reserves the right to freeze a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 

G-23

  

 
 

Exhibit D    
    
    Registration Fees    
    

	•
	Initial Registration.    The initial registration fee shall be determined by usTLD
Administrator pursuant to the Locality-based usTLD Compliance Report.

	•
	Renewal Fees.    The renewal registration fee shall be determined by usTLD Administrator
pursuant to the Locality-based usTLD Compliance Report.

	•
	Enhanced Whois Service.    Delegated Manager agrees to pay the non-refundable amounts as set forth
below: 

        To
be provided with at least 30 days advance notice: Yearly Subscription Fee Rate, One time Usage Fee 

        NOTE:    usTLD
Administrator reserves the right to revise the Fees prospectively upon thirty (30) days notice to Delegated Manager, provided that such adjustments are
consistent with the usTLD Agreement. 

G-24

   H.    Draft Registrar/Registry Contract  

        NeuStar will establish appropriate legal relationship's with usTLD Accredited Registrars to provide the accountability and administrative
certainty required to maintain the integrity and stability of the usTLD.

	•
	Agreement modeled after ICANN Registry-Registrar business model to encourage rapid competitive acceptance of usTLD

	•
	Establishes mutual obligations of usTLD Administrators and expanded usTLD Registrars

	•
	Establishes Administrator performance specifications and performance credits to ensure Administrator compliance

        As
previously noted in Section G, an important part of its work to centralize and enhance the usTLD delegated space, NeuStar intends to establish comprehensive contractual
arrangements with all of the usTLD Registrar Delegated Managers. The agreements will establish clear and comprehensive parameters for the management of the enhanced usTLD Registrars, as well as set
basic requirements and obligations binding on NeuStar as the usTLD Administrator and the Registrars. In addition, because the usTLD Administrator will not have a direct contractual arrangement with
the registrants, these contracts will include "flow through obligations", such as the Nexus requirement or the obligation to provide accurate Whois data, that the Registrar will be required to enforce
in its contracts with its registrants. These legal relationships will help provide the accountability and administrative certainty necessary to maintain the stable operation of the usTLD. 

        Recognizing
the significant and useful effort that has gone into the development of similar agreements in the ICANN context, these agreements will be patterned after the
Registry-Registrar agreement developed for the new gTLDs by ICANN. As with the agreement with delegated managers, these agreements contain certain modifications necessary to address the dynamics and
specific requirements
of the usTLD. Such changes have, however, been kept to a minimum. Because the shared registry business model developed for the gTLD space has proven successful and given the similarity of the expanded
usTLD to the gTLDs operated under the purview of ICANN, even fewer modifications are warranted The Registry-Registrar Agreement is attached hereto. This document will be a standard document signed by
all usTLD registrars and is subject to further revision and final approval by the Contracting Officer. 

H-1

  

WORKING DRAFT DATED JULY 27, 2001  

(EXPANDED .US SPACE)  

 
  usTLD ADMINISTRATOR-REGISTRAR AGREEMENT    
    

        This usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement is made and effective as
of                        , 200  , by and between NeuStar, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1120 Vermont Avenue, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005 ("usTLD Administrator"), and [Registrar's
name], a [jurisdiction and type of organization], with its principal place of business
located at [Registrar's location] ("Registrar"). 

        WHEREAS, usTLD Administrator has been appointed to be the administrator of the usTLD by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology to operate a shared registration system, TLD nameservers, and other equipment for the ".us" top-level domain; 

        WHEREAS, multiple registrars will provide Internet domain name registration services within the.us top-level domain pursuant
to usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreements substantially similar to this Agreement; 

        WHEREAS, Registrar wishes to act as a registrar for domain names within the.us top-level domain. 

        NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt, adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, usTLD Administrator and Registrar, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 

1.     DEFINITIONS  

	1.1
	"Agreement"
means this usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement between usTLD Administrator and Registrar, as such may be amended from time to time in the future.

	1.2
	The
"APIs" are the application program interfaces by which Registrar may interact, through the XRP, with the usTLD System.

	1.3
	"Confidential
Information" means all information and materials, including, without limitation, computer software, data, information, databases, protocols, reference implementation and
documentation, and functional and interface specifications provided by one party to this Agreement (the "Disclosing Party") to the other party (the "Receiving Party") and marked or otherwise
identified as "confidential", provided that if a communication is oral, the Disclosing Party will notify the Receiving Party in writing within fifteen (15) days of the disclosure of the
confidential nature of such information.

	1.4
	"DNS"
means the Internet domain name system.

	1.5
	The
"Effective Date" shall be the date first set forth above.

	1.6
	"NIST"
means the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (or any successor agency or governmental unit charged with ultimate responsibility for the
country code top-level domain name for the United States).

	1.7
	"Personal
Data" refers to data about any identified or identifiable natural person.

	1.8
	"Registered
Name" refers to a domain name within the domain of the usTLD, about which usTLD Administrator or an affiliate engaged in providing usTLD Services maintains data in a usTLD
Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.

	1.9
	"Registrant"
means the holder of a Registered Name. 

H-2

 

	1.10
	The
word "Registrar" when appearing with an initial capital letter, refers to [Registrar Name], a party to this Agreement.

	1.11
	The
word "registrar" when appearing without an initial capital letter, refers to an entity that contracts with Registrants and with the usTLD Administrator to provide domain name
registration services and collects registration data about the Registrants and submits registration information for entry in the usTLD Database and is party to an Accreditation Agreement with usTLD
Administrator.

	1.12
	"Registrar
Services" means services provided by a registrar in connection with the usTLD under this Agreement, and includes contracting with Registrants, collecting registration data
about the Registrants, and submitting registration information for entry in the usTLD Database.

	1.13
	The
"Registrar Tool Kit" shall mean the Tool Kit set forth in Exhibit A.

	1.14
	"Term"
means the term of this Agreement, as set forth in Subsection 8.1.

	1.15
	A
"TLD" means a top-level domain of the DNS.

	1.16
	In
order to have to required "U.S. Nexus", a Registrant must be: (a) a natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any
of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place of domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or (b) an entity or organization that is
(i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or territories or (ii) organized or otherwise
constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or (c) an entity or organization (including a federal,
state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United States. "usTLD" means the .us TLD.

	1.17
	"usTLD
Agreement" means the usTLD Agreement between usTLD Administrator and NIST dated [date of usTLD Agreement] for the administration and operation of the
usTLD.

	1.18
	"usTLD
Database" means a database comprised of data about one or more DNS domain names within the domain of the usTLD that is used to generate either DNS resource records that are
published authoritatively or responses to domain-name availability lookup requests or Whois queries, for some or all of those names.

	1.19
	"usTLD
Policy Council" shall mean the United States Policy Advisory Council established by the usTLD Administrator under the usTLD Agreement

	1.20
	"usTLD
Services" means services provided as an integral part of the operation of the usTLD.

	1.21
	The
"usTLD System" means the registry system operated by usTLD Administrator for Registered Names in the usTLD.

	1.22
	"XRP"
means the extensible registry-registrar protocol used by the usTLD System. 

        Other
terms used in this Agreement as defined terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the context in which they are defined. 

2.     OBLIGATIONS OF USTLD ADMINISTRATOR  

	2.1
	Access to usTLD System.    Throughout the Term of this Agreement, usTLD Administrator shall provide Registrar with access as
a registrar to the usTLD System. Nothing in this Agreement entitles Registrar to enforce any agreement between usTLD Administrator and 

H-3

 

NIST,
and Registrar shall not be deemed to be a third-party beneficiary under the usTLD Agreement. 

	2.2
	Maintenance of Registrations Sponsored by Registrar.    Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, and requirements under
the usTLD Agreement, usTLD Administrator shall maintain the registrations of Registered Names sponsored by Registrar in the usTLD System so long as Registrar has paid the Fees required by Subsection
4.1 below and this Agreement remains in effect.

	2.3
	Provision of Tool Kits; Limited License.

	2.3.1
	Registrar Tool Kit.    No later than five (5) business days after the Effective Date, usTLD Administrator shall
provide to Registrar a copy of the Registrar Tool Kit, which shall provide sufficient technical specifications to permit registrar interface with the usTLD System and employ its features that are
available to Registrars, provided that, if the Effective Date occurs prior to the date that usTLD Administrator has made the usTLD Tool Kit available to.us registrars generally ("Availability Date"),
usTLD Administrator shall provide to Registrar a copy of the usTLD Tool Kit, no later than five (5) business days after the Availability Date. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, UsTLD Administrator hereby grants Registrar and Registrar accepts a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide limited license to use for the Term and purposes of
this Agreement, all components owned by or licensed to UsTLD Administrator in and to the RRP, APIs, any reference client software and any other intellectual property included in the Registrar Tool
Kit, as well as updates and redesigns thereof, to provide domain name registration services in the usTLD only and for no other purpose.

	2.3.2
	Limited License.    Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including without limitation Registrar's timely
payment of all Fees, usTLD Administrator hereby grants Registrar and Registrar accepts a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide limited license to use for the Term and
purposes of this Agreement the XRP, APIs and any reference client software included in the Registrar Tool Kits, as well as any updates and redesigns thereof, for providing domain name Registrar
Services in the usTLD only and for no other purpose.

	2.4
	Changes to usTLD System.    usTLD Administrator may in its discretion from time to time make modifications to the XRP, APIs,
or other software or materials licensed hereunder that will modify, revise or augment the features of the usTLD System. usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide
Registrar with at least ninety (90) days notice prior to the implementation of any material changes to the XRP, APIs or software licensed hereunder. usTLD Administrator shall have no obligation
under this Agreement to update, modify, maintain, or repair any XRP, APIs, or other software materials (or any updates or redesigns thereto) licensed under this Agreement to Registrar.

	2.5
	Engineering and Customer Service Support; Performance Specifications.    usTLD Administrator shall provide Registrar with
engineering and customer service support as set forth in Exhibit B.

	2.6
	Handling of Personal Data.    usTLD Administrator shall notify Registrar of the purposes for which Personal Data submitted to
usTLD Administrator by Registrar is collected, the intended recipients (or categories of recipients) of such Personal Data, and the mechanism for access to and correction of such Personal Data. usTLD
Administrator shall take commercially reasonable steps to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration or destruction. 

H-4

 

	2.7
	NIST/usTLD Administrator Requirements.    usTLD Administrator's obligations hereunder are subject to modification at any time
as the result of NIST-mandated requirements and NeuStar policies developed by usTLD Administrator through its United States Policy Advisory Council ("usTLD Policy Council") from time to
time. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Registrar shall comply with any such NIST requirements or the usTLD Policy Council (the Council) policies in accordance with the
stated timelines. 

3.     OBLIGATIONS OF REGISTRAR  

	3.1
	Accredited Registrar.    On or prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Registrar shall enter into an accreditation
agreement with usTLD Administrator ("Accreditation Agreement"), the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and during the Term of this
Agreement, Registrar shall maintain in full force and effect its accreditation by usTLD Administrator as a registrar for the usTLD.

	3.2
	Registrar Responsibility for Customer Support; Participation in Marketing Campaigns/Community Outreach Programs.    As
provided for in the Accreditation Agreement, Registrar shall provide (i) support to accept and process orders for Registered Names from proposed Registrants and (ii) customer service
(including domain name record support) and billing and technical support to Registrants. In addition, Registrar will use commercially reasonable efforts to market, either directly or through
authorized re-sellers, Registered Names to potential Registrants and to solicit such potential customers to register for Registered Names, and Registrar will cooperate with usTLD
Administrator in marketing campaigns or community outreach programs that usTLD Administrator may commence from time to time.

	3.3
	Registrar's Registration Agreement; U.S. Nexus Requirements.    At all times during the Term of this Agreement while it is
sponsoring the registration of any Registered Name within the usTLD System, Registrar shall have in effect an electronic or paper registration agreement with each Registrant (a "Registration
Agreement"). Registrar shall, if so requested by usTLD Administrator from time to time, promptly furnish to usTLD Administrator a copy of each general form of Registration Agreement it uses with
Registrants. Registrar shall include in each Registration Agreement those terms specifically required by this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement and other terms that are consistent with
Registrar's obligations to usTLD Administrator under this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement and that will ensure ongoing compliance with both such agreements. Without limiting the foregoing,
the Registration Agreement shall require each Registrant to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it has, and shall continue to have, a bona fide U.S. Nexus in order to qualify to register and
maintain its use of a Registered Name.

	3.4
	Indemnification Required of Registrants.    In its Registration Agreement with each Registrant, Registrar shall require such
Registrant to indemnify, defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders from and against any and all
claims, suits, actions, other proceedings, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any kind, including without limitation reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or relating to the
Registrant's (i) domain name registration and (ii) use of any Registered Name. Each Registration Agreement shall further require that this indemnification obligation survive the
termination or expiration of the Registration Agreement.

	3.5
	Data Submission Requirements.    As part of its registration and sponsorship of Registered Names in the usTLD, Registrar
shall submit complete data (and update such data) as required by technical specifications of the usTLD System that are made available to Registrar from time to time and the Accreditation Agreement.
Registrar hereby grants usTLD Administrator 

H-5

 

a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to such data for propagation of and the provision of authorized access to the TLD zone files and as otherwise required in
usTLD Administrator's operation of the usTLD. 

	3.6
	Security.    Registrar agrees to develop and employ in its domain name registration business all necessary technology and
restrictions to ensure that its connection to the usTLD System is secure. All data exchanged between Registrar's system and the usTLD System shall be protected to avoid unintended disclosure of
information. Registrar agrees to employ the necessary measures to prevent its access to the usTLD System granted hereunder from being used to (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support, the
transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than its own existing customers; or (2) enable high
volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of usTLD Administrator, any other registry operated under an agreement with usTLD Administrator, or any other
registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations in compliance with this Agreement. In addition, usTLD Administrator may from time to time require
other reasonable security provisions to ensure that the usTLD System is secure, and Registrar will comply with all such provisions.

	3.7
	Resolution of Technical Problems.    Registrar agrees to employ necessary employees, contractors, or agents with sufficient
technical training and experience to respond to and fix all technical problems concerning the use of the XRP and the APIs in conjunction with Registrar's systems. Registrar agrees that in the event of
significant degradation of the usTLD System or other emergency, usTLD Administrator may, in its sole discretion, temporarily suspend access to the usTLD System. Such temporary suspensions shall be
applied in a non-arbitrary manner and shall apply fairly to any registrar similarly situated, including any affiliates of usTLD Administrator that serve as registrars.

	3.8
	Time of Entry of Domain Name Registration.    Registrar agrees that in the event of any dispute concerning the time of the
entry of a domain name registration into the usTLD Database, the time shown in the usTLD System records shall control.

	3.9
	Change in Registrar Sponsoring Domain Name.    Registrar may assume sponsorship of a Registrant's existing domain name
registration from another registrar by following the policy set forth in Exhibit D. When transferring sponsorship of a Registered Name to or from
another registrar, Registrar shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit D.

	3.10
	Compliance with Terms and Conditions.    Registrar shall comply with, and shall include in each Registration Agreement all
of the following:

	3.10.1
	Any
NIST standards, policies, procedures, and practices for which usTLD Administrator has monitoring responsibility in accordance with the usTLD Agreement or other arrangement with
NIST and/or ICANN, including without limitation ICANN policies pertaining to open county code TLDs (unless otherwise provided in the usTLD Agreement); and

	3.10.2
	Operational
standards, policies, procedures, and practices for the usTLD as set forth in the usTLD Agreement and as established from time to time by usTLD Administrator and/or the
Council in a non-arbitrary manner and applicable to all registrars generally, and consistent with NIST's standards, policies, procedures, and practices. Among usTLD Administrator's current
operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices are those set forth in Exhibit E. Additional or revised usTLD Administrator operational standards, policies, procedures, and practices
for the usTLD shall be effective upon thirty (30) days notice by usTLD Administrator to Registrar. 

H-6

 

	3.11
	Restrictions on Registered Names; Compliance with Law.    In addition to complying with NIST, policies, procedures, and
practices limiting domain names that may be registered, Registrar agrees to comply with applicable statutes and regulations limiting the domain names that may be registered. Further, Registrar shall
abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations.

	3.12
	Resellers.    Registrar may, in its discretion from time to time, designate one or more resellers that will be permitted to
provide Registrar Services consistent with those permitted of Registrar under this Agreement. Registrar shall enter into a written agreement with each of its re-sellers (a "Reseller
Agreement"), which will ensure compliance with this Agreement and the Accreditation Agreement and include sufficient terms and conditions to obligate each re-seller to abide by all terms
and conditions and all Registrar obligations set forth in this Agreement (provided that re-sellers will not be entitled to appoint their own
resellers) and the Accreditation Agreement. Registrar shall be primarily liable for all acts or omissions of its resellers, and usTLD Administrator's obligations under this Agreement and the
Accreditation Agreement shall not be increased due to Registrar's appointment of re-sellers. Promptly following the end of each calendar year during the Term of this Agreement (but in no
event later than January 30), Registrar shall provide to usTLD Administrator a complete written list of all of its current resellers. Further, in its Reseller Agreement with each
re-seller, Registrar shall require such reseller to indemnify, defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator, and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates,
and stockholders from and against any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any kind, including without limitation reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or relating
to any activities of such sub-registrar. Each such Reseller Agreement shall further require that this indemnification obligation survive the termination or expiration of that agreement. 

4.     FEES  

	4.1
	Amount
of usTLD Administrator Fees.    Registrar agrees to pay usTLD Administrator the fees set forth in Exhibit F for
initial and renewal registrations and other services provided by usTLD Administrator to Registrar (collectively, "Fees"). usTLD Administrator reserves the right to revise the Fees prospectively upon
thirty (30) days notice to Registrar, provided that such adjustments are consistent with the usTLD Agreement.

	4.2
	Payment
of usTLD Administrator Fees.    In advance of incurring Fees, Registrar shall establish a letter of credit, deposit account, or other credit facility accepted by
usTLD Administrator, which acceptance will not be unreasonably withheld so long as payment is assured. All Fees are due immediately upon receipt of applications for initial and renewal registrations,
or upon provision of other services provided by usTLD Administrator to Registrar. Payment shall be made via debit or draw down of the deposit account, letter of credit or other credit facility. usTLD
Administrator shall provide monthly invoices to the Registrar.

	4.3
	Non-Payment
of Fees.    In the event Registrar has insufficient funds deposited or available through the letter of credit or credit facility with usTLD
Administrator or otherwise fails to pay Fees when due, usTLD Administrator may do any or all of the following: (a) stop accepting new initial or renewal registrations from Registrar;
(b) delete the domain names associated with any negative balance incurred from the usTLD Database; and (c) pursue any other remedy permitted under this Agreement or at law or in equity. 

H-7

 

5.     CONFIDENTIALITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY  

	5.1
	Use of Confidential Information.    During the Term of this Agreement, a Disclosing Party may be required (or elect) to
disclose Confidential Information to the Receiving Party. Each party's use and disclosure of the Confidential Information shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:

	5.1.1
	The
Receiving Party shall treat as strictly confidential, and use all reasonable efforts to preserve the secrecy and confidentiality of, all Confidential Information, including
implementing reasonable physical security measures and operating procedures.

	5.1.2
	The
Receiving Party agrees that it will use any Confidential Information solely for the purpose of exercising its rights or performing its obligations under this Agreement and for
no other purposes whatsoever.

	5.1.3
	The
Receiving Party shall make no disclosures whatsoever of any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to others; provided, however, that if the Receiving Party is a
corporation, partnership, or other organization, disclosure is permitted to the Receiving Party's officers, employees, contractors and agents who have a demonstrable need to know such Confidential
Information, provided the Receiving Party shall advise such personnel of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and of the procedures required to maintain the confidentiality thereof,
and shall require them to acknowledge in writing that they have read, understand, and agree to be individually bound by the confidentiality terms of this Agreement.

	5.1.4
	The
Receiving Party shall not modify or remove any confidentiality legends and/or copyright notices appearing on any Confidential Information.

	5.1.5
	The
Receiving Party agrees not to prepare, or claim any rights to, any derivative works based on the Confidential Information.

	5.1.6
	Notwithstanding
the foregoing, this Subsection 5.1 imposes no obligation upon the parties with respect to information that (a) is disclosed to a third party with the
Disclosing Party's prior written approval; or (b) is or has entered the public domain through no fault of the Receiving Party; or (c) is known by the Receiving Party prior to the time of
disclosure (as shown by documentary records to that effect); or (d) is independently developed by the Receiving Party without use of, or reference to, the Confidential Information; or
(e) is made generally available by the Disclosing Party without restriction on disclosure; or (f) Receiving Party receives in good faith from a third party who is not, directly or
indirectly, under an obligation of confidentiality to Disclosing Party with respect to same.

	5.1.7
	In
the event the Receiving Party is required by law, regulation or court order to disclose any Confidential Information, Receiving Party will promptly notify Disclosing Party in
writing prior to making any such disclosure in order to facilitate Disclosing Party seeking a protective order or other appropriate remedy from the proper authority, at the Disclosing Party's expense.
Receiving Party agrees to cooperate with Disclosing Party in seeking such order or other remedy. Receiving Party further agrees that if Disclosing Party is not successful in precluding the requesting
legal body from requiring the disclosure of the Confidential Information, it will furnish only that portion of the Confidential Information which is legally required.

	5.1.8
	The
Receiving Party's duties under this Subsection 5.1 shall expire five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement, or earlier upon written agreement of
the parties. 

H-8

 

	5.2
	Intellectual Property.

	5.2.1
	Each
party will continue to independently own its intellectual property, including all patents, patent applications, copyrights, trademarks, trade names, service marks,
know-how, trade secrets, data, proprietary processes, software, and all other forms of intellectual property, and nothing in this agreement shall confer any ownership right whatsoever to
one party in the intellectual property of the other party. In addition, usTLD Administrator, or its suppliers and/or licensees, as the case may be,shall own all right, title and interest in and to the
XRP, API's, Registrar Tool Kits, and any software incorporated into the usTLD System, or any component of any of the foregoing, as well as all intellectual property appurtenant thereto.

	5.2.2
	Subject
only to the limited licenses set forth in Subsections 2.3.2, 3.5, and 5.1.2 above, no commercial use rights or any licenses of any kind under or to any patent, patent
application, copyright, trademark, trade name, service mark, know-how, trade secret, data, proprietary process, software or any other intellectual proprietary rights of any kind are
granted by one party to the other party by this Agreement, or by virtue of any disclosure of any Confidential Information to a Receiving Party under this Agreement. 

H-9

   6.     INDEMNITIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY  

	6.1
	Indemnification.    Registrar, at its own expense and within thirty (30) days after presentation of a demand by usTLD
Administrator under this Section, will indemnify, defend and hold harmless usTLD Administrator and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders (along with
usTLD Administrator, each an "Indemnified Person"), against any claim, suit, action, other proceeding of any kind (a "Claim") brought against that Indemnified Person based on, arising from, or
relating in any way to: (i) any product or service of Registrar; (ii) any agreement, including Registrar's dispute policy, with any Registrant or re-seller; or
(iii) Registrar's domain name registration business, including, but not limited to, Registrar's advertising, domain name application process, systems and other processes, fees charged, billing
practices and customer service, or any other business conducted by Registrar; provided, however, that in any such case: (a) usTLD Administrator or any other Indemnified Person provides
Registrar with reasonable prior notice of any such Claim, and (b) upon Registrar's written request, usTLD Administrator or any other Indemnified Person will provide to Registrar all available
information and assistance reasonably necessary for Registrar to defend such Claim; provided further that Registrar reimburses usTLD Administrator and such other Indemnified Persons for their actual
and reasonable costs incurred in connection with providing such information and assistance. Registrar will not enter into any settlement or compromise of any such indemnifiable Claim with respect to a
particular Indemnified Person without the prior written consent of such Indemnified Person, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Registrar will pay any and all costs, damages,
liabilities, and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs awarded against or otherwise incurred by usTLD Administrator and other Indemnified Persons in connection
with or arising from any such indemnifiable Claim.

	6.2
	Limitation of Liability.    EXCEPT WITH RESPECT TO REGISTRAR'S INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN ELSEWHERE IN THIS
AGREEMENT, IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR ANY VIOLATIONS OF, OR CAUSES OF ACTION RELATING TO OR
ARISING FROM, THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

	6.3
	Performance Credits.    In the event usTLD Administrator fails to meet the performance specifications set forth in
Appendix G of this Agreement, usTLD Administrator shall provide a credit to Registrar in an amount equal to its proportionate share of applicable performance credits set forth in
Exhibit H of this Agreement. Such performance credits shall constitute the sole and exclusive remedy available to Registrar with regard to usTLD Administrator's failure to meet the performance
specifications. 

7.     DISPUTE RESOLUTION  

	7.1
	Dispute Resolution; Governing Law.    Any and all disputes of any nature arising under or in connection with this Agreement,
including requests for specific performance, shall be resolved through binding arbitration conducted as provided in this Section pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA").
The arbitration shall be conducted in the English language and shall occur in the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., USA. There shall be three (3) arbitrators: each party shall choose one
arbitrator, who together will select a third; if the two arbitrators are not able to agree on a third arbitrator within fifteen (15) calendar days of the designation of the second arbitrator,
the AAA shall choose the third. The parties shall bear the costs of the arbitration in equal shares, subject to the right of the arbitrators to reallocate the costs in their award as provided in the
AAA rules. The parties shall bear their 

H-10

 

own
attorneys' fees in connection with the arbitration, and the arbitrators may not reallocate the attorneys' fees in conjunction with their award. The arbitrators shall render their decision within
ninety (90) calendar days of the selection of the third arbitrator. Any litigation brought to enforce an arbitration award shall be brought in a Commonwealth or federal court in the Eastern
District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA; however, the parties shall also have the right to enforce a judgment of such a court in any court of competent jurisdiction. For the purpose of aiding
the arbitration and/or preserving the rights of a party during the pendency of an arbitration, each party shall have the right to seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief from the arbitration
panel or any court of competent jurisdiction located in the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA, which shall not be a waiver of this arbitration agreement. This Agreement shall be
construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without regard to any rules or principles of conflicts of law that might look to any jurisdiction outside
Virginia). 

8.     TERM AND TERMINATION  

	8.1
	Term of the Agreement; Revisions.    The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and, unless earlier
terminated in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, shall expire on the last expiration of the usTLD Agreement. In the event that revisions to usTLD Administrator's approved form of usTLD
Administrator-Registrar Agreement (such as this one) are approved or adopted by NIST from time to time, Registrar will either execute an amendment substituting the revised agreement in place of this
Agreement or, at its option exercised within thirty (30) days after receiving notice of such amendment, terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to usTLD Administrator. In
the event that usTLD Administrator does not receive such executed amendment or notice of termination from Registrar within such thirty (30) day period, Registrar shall be deemed to have
accepted the provisions of such revised usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement, and as such, shall be bound by all the terms and conditions of such revised usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement.
usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to post such revised form of usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement on its US website at least thirty (30) days prior to its
effective date.

	8.2
	Termination.    This Agreement may be terminated as follows:

	8.2.1
	Termination For Cause.    In the event that either party materially breaches any of its obligations under this Agreement
and such breach is not substantially cured within thirty (30) calendar days after written notice thereof is given by the other party, then the non-breaching party may, by giving
written notice thereof to the other party, terminate this Agreement as of the date specified in such notice of termination.

	8.2.2
	Termination at Option of Registrar.    Registrar may terminate this Agreement at any time by giving usTLD Administrator
thirty (30) days written notice of termination.

	8.2.3
	Termination Upon Loss of Registrar's Accreditation.    This Agreement shall immediately terminate in the event Registrar's
accreditation by usTLD Administrator is terminated or expires without renewal.

	8.2.4
	Termination in the Event of Termination of usTLD Agreement.    This Agreement shall immediately terminate in the event the
usTLD Agreement is terminated or expires without entry of a subsequent usTLD Agreement with NIST and this Agreement is not assigned under Subsection 9.1.1 below.

	8.2.5
	Termination in the Event of Insolvency or Bankruptcy.    This Agreement will automatically and immediately terminate if the
Registrar is adjudged insolvent or bankrupt, or if 

H-11

 

proceedings
are instituted by or against Registrar seeking relief, reorganization or arrangement under any laws relating to insolvency or bankruptcy, or seeking any assignment for the benefit of
creditors, or seeking the appointment of a receiver, liquidator or trustee of Registrar's property or assets or the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Registrar's business. 

	8.3
	Effect of Termination.    Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason:

	8.3.1
	usTLD
Administrator will complete the registration of all domain names processed by Registrar prior to the effective date of such expiration or termination, provided that all
Registrar's payments to usTLD Administrator for Fees are current and timely.

	8.3.2
	Registrar
shall immediately transfer its sponsorship of Registered Names to another registrar in compliance with any procedures established or approved by usTLD Administrator.

	8.3.3
	All
Confidential Information in the possession of the Receiving Party shall be immediately returned to the Disclosing Party.

	8.3.4
	All
Fees and any other amounts owing to usTLD Administrator shall become immediately due and payable.

	8.4
	Survival.    In the event of termination of this Agreement, the following shall survive: (i) Subsections 2.6, 3.5,
5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.4, 9.2, 9.3.3, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11 and 9.13 and (ii) the indemnification obligations of (a) Registrants under Subsection 3.4 and
(b) resellers under Subsection 3.12. Neither party shall be liable to the other for damages of any sort resulting solely from terminating this Agreement in accordance with its terms. 

9.     MISCELLANEOUS  

	9.1
	Assignments.

	9.1.1
	Assignment to Successor usTLD Administrator.    In the event the usTLD Agreement is terminated (and such termination is
deemed final under the usTLD Agreement) or expires without entry by usTLD Administrator and NIST of a subsequent registry agreement, usTLD Administrator's rights under this Agreement may be assigned
to a entity with a subsequent registry agreement covering the usTLD upon NIST's giving Registrar written notice within sixty (60) days of the termination or expiration, provided that the
subsequent usTLD Administrator assumes all or substantially all of the duties of usTLD Administrator under this Agreement.

	9.1.2
	Assignment in Connection with Assignment of usTLD Agreement with NIST.    In the event that the usTLD Agreement for the
usTLD is validly assigned, usTLD Administrator's rights under this Agreement shall be automatically assigned to the assignee of the usTLD Agreement, provided that the assignee assumes all or
substantially all of the duties of usTLD Administrator under this Agreement.

	9.1.3
	Other Assignments.    Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall
inure to the benefit of and be binding upon, the successors and permitted assigns of the parties. Neither party shall assign or transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the
prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that usTLD Administrator shall have the right to assign all its rights and delegate all its
duties under this Agreement to an affiliated organization without such consent. 

H-12

 

	9.2
	Notices.    Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be delivered to any party under this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given and received when delivered by hand, by registered mail (return receipt requested), by courier or express delivery service, by
e-mail (against of receipt of confirmation of delivery) or by telecopier (against receipt of answerback confirming delivery) during business hours to the address or telecopier number, or
e-mail address set forth beneath the name of such party below or when delivery as described above is refused by the intended recipient, unless such party has given a notice of a change of
address in writing pursuant to the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice shall be deemed properly given from usTLD Administrator to Registrar at such time as usTLD Administrator posts any
notice, update, modification or other information on its U.S. website, so long as such notice, update, modification or other information is intended for all registrars generally (e.g.,
NIST-mandated revisions to the form usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement). 

If
to Registrar: 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

with
copy to: 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

If
to usTLD Administrator: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Attn: VP of Policy and Industry Relations

phone:

fax:

with
a copy to: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20005

Attn: General Counsel

phone:

fax:

H-13

 

	9.3
	Representations and Warranties.

	9.3.1
	Registrar.    Registrar represents and warrants that: (1) it is an organization (e.g., corporation, partnership,
limited liability company, government agency) duly formed, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of
the                        , (2) it has all requisite power and authority to execute,
deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement (3) it is, and during the Term of this Agreement will continue to be, accredited by usTLD Administrator, (4) the execution,
performance and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by Registrar, (5) no further approval, authorization or consent of any governmental or regulatory authority is required to be
obtained or made by Registrar in order for it to enter into and perform all its obligations under this Agreement.

	9.3.2
	usTLD Administrator.    usTLD Administrator represents and warrants that: (1) it is a corporation duly incorporated,
validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware, (2) it has all requisite corporate power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this
Agreement, (3) the execution, performance and delivery of this Agreement has been duly authorized by usTLD Administrator, and (4) no further approval, authorization or consent of any
governmental or regulatory authority is required to be obtained or made by usTLD Administrator in order for it to enter into and perform all its obligations under this Agreement.

	9.3.3
	Disclaimer of Warranties.    THE XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR TOOLKIT, usTLD SYSTEM AND ANY COMPONENT THEREOF ARE PROVIDED
"AS-IS" AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. usTLD OPERATOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND/OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
AND CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY OR SATISFACTORY QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. usTLD OPERATOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR
TOOLKIT, usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WILL MEET REGISTRAR'S REQUIREMENTS, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR TOOLKITS, THE usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, OR THAT DEFECTS IN THE XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR TOOLKIT, usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WILL BE CORRECTED. FURTHERMORE, usTLD OPERATOR DOES NOT WARRANT NOR
MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR TOOLKITS, usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF OR RELATED DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY,
RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE. SHOULD THE XRP, APIs, REGISTRAR TOOLKIT, THE usTLD SYSTEM OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF PROVE DEFECTIVE, REGISTRAR ASSUMES THE ENTIRE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR
CORRECTION OF REGISTRAR'S OWN SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE. 

In
the event of any conflict in this Agreement between this Subsection 9.3.3 and any other provision, this Subsection 9.3.3 will govern and control. 

	9.4
	Insurance.    During the Term of this Agreement (including any renewal terms), Registrar shall have in place US$500,000 in
comprehensive legal liability insurance from a reputable insurance provider with an A.M. Best rating of "A" or better. Such insurance shall be used to indemnify and hold harmless usTLD
Administrator and its employees, directors, officers, 

H-14

 

representatives,
agents, affiliates, and stokholders from all costs and damages (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees) which it may suffer by reason of Registrar's failure to
indemnify usTLD Administrator as provided above; provided, however, that Registrar's indemnity obligations under this Agreement shall not deemed to be limited by the amount of such insurance.
Registrar shall provide a copy of the insurance policy to usTLD Administrator upon usTLD Administrator's request and shall name usTLD Administrator and the other Indemnified Persons as additional
insureds under that policy. 

	9.5
	Third-Party Beneficiaries.    The parties expressly agree that NIST is an intended third-party beneficiary of this Agreement.
Otherwise, this Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either party to any non-party to this Agreement, including any Registrant or re-seller. Registrar
acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall confer upon Registrar or any person or entity the status of an intended third-party beneficiary of the usTLD Agreement.

	9.6
	Relationship of the Parties.    Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employer-employee or agency
relationship, a partnership or a joint venture between the parties.

	9.7
	Force Majeure.    Except for the non-payment of Fees, neither party shall be liable to the other for any loss or
damage resulting from any cause beyond its reasonable control (a "Force Majeure Event") including, but not limited to, insurrection or civil disorder, war or military operations, national or local
emergency, acts or omissions of government or other competent authority, compliance with any statutory obligation or executive order, industrial disputes of any kind (whether or not involving either
party's employees), fire, lightning, explosion, flood, subsidence, weather of exceptional severity, equipment or facilities shortages which are being experienced by providers of telecommunications
services generally, or other similar force beyond such Party's reasonable control, and acts or omissions of persons for whom neither party is responsible. Upon occurrence of a Force Majeure Event and
to the extent such occurrence interferes with either party's performance of this Agreement, such party shall be excused from performance of its obligations (other than payment obligations) during the
first six (6) months of such interference, provided that such party uses commercially reasonable efforts to avoid or remove such causes of nonperformance as soon as possible.

	9.8
	Amendments.    Except as otherwise provided herein, no amendment, supplement, or modification of this Agreement or any
provision hereof shall be binding unless executed in writing by authorized signatories of both parties.

	9.9
	Waivers.    No failure on the part of either party to exercise any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement,
and no delay on the part of either party in exercising any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, shall operate as a waiver of such power, right, privilege or remedy; and no single or
partial exercise or waiver of any such power, right, privilege or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof or of any other power, right, privilege or remedy. Neither party shall be
deemed to have waived any claim arising out of this Agreement, or any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, unless the waiver of such claim, power, right, privilege or remedy is
expressly set forth in a written instrument duly executed and delivered on behalf of such party; and any such waiver shall not be applicable or have any effect except in the specific instance in which
it is given.

	9.10
	Attorneys' Fees.    Except as otherwise may be provided in Subsection 7.1 above, if any legal action or other legal
proceeding (including arbitration) relating to the performance under this Agreement or the enforcement of any provision of this Agreement is brought against a party 

H-15

 

hereto,
the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements (in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled). 

	9.11
	Construction; Severability.    The parties agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolve against the drafting party shall not be applied in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, references to a number of days shall mean
consecutive calendar days. In the event that any clause or portion thereof in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the same shall not affect any other portion
of this Agreement, as it is the intent of the parties that this Agreement shall be construed in such fashion as to maintain its existence, validity and enforceability to the greatest extent possible.
In any such event, this Agreement shall be construed as if such clause or portion thereof had never been contained in this Agreement, and there shall be deemed substituted therefore such provision as
will most nearly carry out the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.

	9.12
	Further Assurances.    Each party hereto shall execute and/or cause to be delivered to the other party hereto such
instruments and other documents, and shall take such other actions, as such other party may reasonable request for the purpose of carrying out or evidencing any of the transactions contemplated by
this Agreement.

	9.13
	Entire Agreement.    This Agreement (including its exhibits, which form a part of it) constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes any prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, understandings, proposals or undertakings,
oral or written, with respect to the subject matter expressly set forth herein. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement and the Accreditation
Agreement, the usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement shall govern and control.

	9.14
	Counterparts.    This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but
all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

H-16

 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. 

	NeuStar, Inc.	 	[Name of Registrar]
	

By:	
 	

 
	
 	

By:	
 	

 

	Name:	 	 
	 	Name:	 	 

	Title:	 	 
	 	Title:	 	 

H-17

  

 
 

Exhibit A    
    
    REGISTRAR TOOL KIT    
    

        usTLD Administrator-Registrar Software Development Kit includes, but is not limited to the following: 

	•
	Reference
client implementations:

	•
	Java

	•
	C++

	•
	PERL

	•
	Interface
definition: XML Schema

	•
	usTLD
Administrator Operational Profile (our extensions)

	•
	Authentication
and Encryption guidelines

	•
	XRP
"feature freeze" drafts

	•
	XRP
test plan and coverage matrix

	•
	Java,
C++ and PERL API documentation 

H-18

  

 
 

Exhibit B    
    
    ENGINEERING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPORT    
    

        During the Term of this Agreement, usTLD Administrator will provide reasonable telephone and electronic customer support to Registrar, not Registrants or
prospective customers of Registrar, for non-technical issues solely relating to the usTLD System and its operation. usTLD Administrator will provide Registrar with a telephone number and
e-mail address for such support during implementation of the XRP, APIs and any reference client software included in the Registrar Tool Kit. While e-mail and FAQs are the
primary method of help, usTLD Administrator will provide support on a 7-day/24-hour basis. usTLD Administrator will provide a web-based customer service capability
in the future and such web-based support will become the primary method of customer service support to Registrar at such time. 

        The
usTLD Administrator provides a clear, concise and efficient deliberation of customer support responsibilities. Registrars provide support to registrants (i.e., Registrants) and
registries (like usTLD Administrator) provide support for registrars. This structure allows the usTLD Administrator to focus its support on the highly technical and administratively complex issues
that arise between the usTLD Administrator and the Registrar and to focus on the system operations supporting the usTLD. 

Technical Help Systems  

        usTLD Administrator will provide its registrars with the following types of technical support: 

	•
	Web-based
self-help services, including:

	•
	Knowledge
bases

	•
	Frequently
asked questions

	•
	White
papers

	•
	Downloads
of XRP client software

	•
	Support
for email messaging

	•
	Telephone
support from a central Help Desk

	•
	Fee-based
consulting services. 

Web Portal  

        usTLD Administrator will implement a secure Web-based multimedia portal to help support registrar operations. To obtain access to these
Web-based services, a registrar must register its registrants usTLD Administrator, and must have implemented our security features, including SSL encryption, log in with user ID and
password, and digital certificates for authentication. The home page of the web portal will include a notice to registrars of planned outages for database maintenance or installation of software
upgrades. usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable effort to post this notification at least thirty (30) days prior to the event in addition to active notification including phone
calls and email. usTLD Administrator will also record outage notifications in the help desk database to facilitate compliance with the performance specifications
(Exhibit B-2). Finally, seven (7) days and again two (2) days prior to the scheduled event, usTLD Administrator will
use both an email and a Web-based notification to remind registrars of the outage. 

        Non-affiliated
registrars and the general Internet community may obtain generic information from usTLD Administrator's public website, which will describe the TLD service
offerings and list of registrars, including Registrar, providing domain-name services. 

H-19

 

Central Help Desk  

        In addition to implementing the website, usTLD Administrator will provide telephone support to registrars through a central Help Desk. Access to the help desk
telephone support is through an automatic call distributor that routes each call to the next available customer support specialist. usTLD Administrator will authenticate callers by using caller ID and
by requesting a pre-established pass phrase that is different for each registrar. Requests for assistance may also come to the Help Desk via email, either directly or via the secure
website. The Help Desk's three tiers of support are: 

Tier-1
Support.    Telephone support to registrars who normally are calling for help with customer domain-name problems and such other issues such as XRP
implementation or billing and collection. Problems that can't be resolved at Tier 1 are escalated to Tier 2. 

Tier-2
Support.    Support provided by members of the technical support team, who are functional experts in all aspects of domain-name registration. In addition to
resolving escalated Tier 1 problems with XRP implementation and billing and collection, Tier 2 staff provides technical support in system tuning and workload processing. 

Tier
3 Support.    Complex problem resolution provided by on-site maintenance technicians, third party systems and software experts, and vendors, depending on the nature of the
problem. 

        In
turn, the Help Desk uses an automated software package to collect call statistics and record service requests and trouble tickets in a help desk database. The help desk database
documents the status of requests and tickets. Each customer-support and technical support specialist uses this problem management process to respond to trouble tickets with a troubleshooting,
diagnosis, and resolution procedure and a root-cause analysis. 

Escalation Policy  

        usTLD Administrator's escalation policy defines procedures and timelines for elevating problems either to functional experts or to management for resolution if
they are not resolved within the escalation-policy time limits. The following table is an overview of the escalation policy. 

	Level
 
	 	Description
	 	Escalation Policy
	 	Notification

	I	 	Catastrophic outage affecting overall registry operations	 	Data-center manager escalates to usTLD Administrator management and Disaster-Recovery Team if not resolved in 15 minutes	 	Web portal and e-mail notifications to all Registrars within 15 minutes; updates every 30 minutes
	II	 	Systems outage affecting one or two registrar sessions but not the entire system	 	Systems engineer escalates to data-center manager if not resolved in one hour	 	Web-portal notification to all registrars; hourly updates
	III	 	Technical questions	 	Help Desk customer-support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved in two hours	 	Hourly updates to registrar via e-mail
	IV	 	Basic questions	 	Help Desk customer-support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved within four hours	 	Hourly updates to registrar via e-mail

H-20

 

Staffing  

        Initially, usTLD Administrator will staff its Help Desk with a complement of customer service specialists. usTLD Administrator will add staff as necessary to
respond to incoming requests within the performance specification guidelines. Customer-service specialists will obtain assistance from usTLD Administrator's technical staff for any problems that
cannot be resolved in one (1) phone call. 

Test and Evaluation Facility  

        usTLD Administrator will establish an operational test-and-evaluation facility that will be available for Registrars to test their client
XRP system. usTLD Administrator's technical-support team, which consists of functional experts in the processes and technologies for domain-name registration, will support the registrars'
testing. 

        Once
each new registrar is satisfied that its system is compatible with the usTLD System, it will schedule a formal acceptance test that will be monitored by usTLD Administrator's
system engineer. After a registrar has passed the acceptance test, usTLD Administrator will issue its user id, passwords, and digital certificates, and the registrar can then begin operations. 

Customer Satisfaction Survey  

        To determine the satisfaction of registrars with usTLD Services, usTLD Administrator will implement a Web-based customer-satisfaction survey that will
consist of a set of survey questions with responses ranging from one to five on the Likert Scale. usTLD Administrator will tabulate the results and plans to publish them on the website periodically. 

        To
further verify the quality of usTLD Administrator's customer services, usTLD Administrator anticipates commissioning a bi-annual customer-satisfaction survey by an
independent third party. 

H-21

  

 
 

Exhibit C    
    
    ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT    
    

Initial Working Draft Dated July 27, 2001  

 
  Registrar Accreditation Agreement    
    

        This REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT ("Accreditation Agreement") is by and between NeuStar, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
[Registrar Name], a [Organization type and jurisdiction]
("Registrar"), and shall be deemed made on [DATE], at Washington, D.C., USA. 

	1.
	DEFINITIONS.    For purposes of this Accreditation Agreement, the following definitions shall apply:

	1.1
	"Accredit"
means to identify and set minimum standards for the performance of registration functions, to recognize persons or entities meeting those standards, and to enter into an
accreditation agreement that sets forth the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services.

	1.2
	The
"Effective Date" is                        .

	1.3
	The
"Expiration Date" is                        .

	1.4
	"NeuStar"
or "Registry" means NeuStar, Inc. and its successors and assigns.

	1.5
	"Registered
Name" means domain name within the usTLD.

	1.6
	"Registrant"
means the holder of a Registered Name.

	1.7
	The
word "Registrar," when appearing with an initial capital letter, refers to [Registrar Name], a party to
this Accreditation Agreement.

	1.8
	The
word "registrar," when appearing without an initial capital letter, refers to a person or entity that contracts with a Registrant and with NeuStar and collects registration data
about the Registrant and submits registration information for entry in the Registry Database and is party to an accreditation agreement with NeuStar.

	1.9
	"Registrar
Services" means services provided by a registrar in connection with the usTLD, and includes contracting with Registrant, collecting registration data about the Registrant,
and submitting registration information for entry in the Registry Database.

	1.10
	"Registry
Database" means a database comprised of data about one or more domain names within usTLD that is used to generate either DNS resource records that are published
authoritatively or responses to domain-name availability lookup requests or Whois queries, for some or all of those names.

	1.11
	"Registry
System" means the registry system operated by Registry for Registered Names in the usTLD.

	1.12
	"Term
of this Accreditation Agreement" begins on the Effective Date and continues to the earlier of (a) the Expiration Date, or (b) termination of this Accreditation
Agreement.

	1.13
	"TLD
Zone-File Data" means all data contained in a DNS zone file for the registry, or for any subdomain for which Registry Services are provided and that contains
Registered Names, as provided to nameservers on the Internet. This does not include usTLD domain names hosted by a delegated manager within the usTLD. 

H-22

 

2.     NeuStar OBLIGATIONS.  

	2.1
	Accreditation.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement, Registrar is hereby accredited by NeuStar to act as a
registrar (including to insert and renew registration of Registered Names in the Registry Database) for the usTLD.

	2.2
	Registrar Use of NeuStar Name and Website.    NeuStar hereby grants to Registrar a non-exclusive, worldwide,
royalty-free license during the Term of this Accreditation Agreement (a) to state that it is accredited by NeuStar as a registrar for the usTLD and (b) to link to pages and
documents within the NeuStar web site. No other use of NeuStar's name or website is licensed hereby. This license may not be assigned or sublicensed by Registrar.

	2.3
	General Obligations of NeuStar.    With respect to all matters that impact the rights, obligations, or role of Registrar,
NeuStar shall during the Term of this Accreditation Agreement:

	2.3.1
	not
apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out Registrar for disparate treatment unless justified by
substantial and reasonable cause; and

	2.3.2
	ensure,
through its reconsideration and independent review policies, adequate appeal procedures for Registrar, to the extent it is adversely affected by NeuStar standards, policies,
procedures or practices. 

3.     REGISTRAR OBLIGATIONS.  

	3.1
	Obligations to Provide Registrar Services.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement, Registrar agrees that it will
operate as a registrar for the usTLD in accordance with this Accreditation Agreement and the Registry-Registrar Agreement.

	3.2
	Submission of Registered Name Holder Data to Registry.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement:

	3.2.1
	As
part of its registration of Registered Names in the usTLD, Registrar shall submit to, or shall place in the Registry Database operated by, NeuStar, as the Registry for the usTLD,
the following data elements:

	3.2.1.1
	The
name of the Registered Name being registered;

	3.2.1.2
	The
IP addresses of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name;

	3.2.1.3
	The
corresponding names of those nameservers;

	3.2.1.4
	Unless
automatically generated by the Registry System, the identity of the Registrar;

	3.2.1.5
	Unless
automatically generated by the Registry System, the expiration date of the registration; and

	3.2.1.6
	Any
other data NeuStar, as Registry, requires be submitted to it.

	3.2.2
	Within
five (5) business days after receiving any updates from the Registered Name Holder to the data elements listed in Subsections 3.2.1.2, 3.1.2.3, and 3.2.1.6 for any
Registered Name Registrar sponsors, Registrar shall submit the updated data elements to, or shall place those elements in the Registry Database operated by NeuStar, as Registry.

	3.2.3
	In
order to allow reconstitution of the Registry Database in the event of an otherwise unrecoverable technical failure or a change in the designated NeuStar, as Registry, within ten
(10) days of any such request by NeuStar, Registrar shall submit an electronic 

H-23

 

database
containing the data elements listed in Subsections 3.2.1.1 through 3.2.1.6 for all active records in the registry sponsored by Registrar, in a format specified by NeuStar. 

	3.3
	Public Access to Data on Registered Names.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement:

	3.3.1
	At
its expense, Registrar shall provide an interface to the usTLD Whois. Until NeuStar otherwise specifies by means of a NeuStar adopted specification or policy, the usTLD Whois
shall consist of the following elements:

	3.3.1.1
	The
name of the Registered Name;

	3.3.1.2
	The
names of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the Registered Name;

	3.3.1.3
	The
identity of Registrar (which may be provided through Registrar's website);

	3.3.1.4
	Registrar
ID

	3.3.1.5
	The
original creation date of the registration;

	3.3.1.6
	The
expiration date of the registration;

	3.3.1.7
	The
name and postal address of the Registrant;

	3.3.1.8
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the Registered Name; and

	3.3.1.9
	The
name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the Registered Name.

	3.3.2
	Upon
receiving any updates to the data elements listed in Subsections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3, and 3.3.1.5 through 3.3.1.8 from the Registrant, Registrar shall promptly update its database
and provide such updates to the Registry.

	3.4
	Retention of Registrant and Registration Data.

	3.4.1
	During
the Term of this Accreditation Agreement, Registrar shall maintain its own electronic database, as updated from time to time, containing data for each active Registered Name
sponsored by it within the usTLD. The data for each such registration shall include the elements listed in Subsections 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.8; the name and (where available) postal address,
e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number of the billing contact; and any other Registry Data that Registrar has submitted to the Registry or placed in the Registry Database
under Subsection 3.2.

	3.4.2
	During
the Term of this Accreditation Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, Registrar (itself or by its agent(s)) shall maintain the following records relating to its
dealings with NeuStar, as Registry, and Registrant:

	3.4.2.1
	In
electronic form, the submission date and time, and the content, of all registration data (including updates) submitted in electronic form to NeuStar, as Registry;

	3.4.2.2
	In
electronic, paper, or microfilm form, all written communications constituting registration applications, confirmations,
modifications, or terminations and related correspondence with Registrant, including registration contracts; and

	3.4.2.3
	In
electronic form, records of the accounts of all Registrant with Registrar, including dates and amounts of all payments and refunds. 

H-24

 

	3.4.3
	During
the Term of this Accreditation Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, Registrar shall make these records available for inspection and copying by NeuStar upon
reasonable notice. NeuStar shall not disclose the content of such records except as expressly permitted by a NeuStar specification or policy or as otherwise required by law.

	3.5
	Rights in Data.    Registrar disclaims all rights to exclusive ownership or use of the data elements listed in Subsections
3.2.1.1 through 3.2.1.3 for all Registered Names submitted by Registrar to the Registry Database for, or sponsored by Registrar in, the usTLD. Registrar does not disclaim rights in the data elements
listed in Subsections 3.2.1.4 through 3.2.1.6 and Subsections 3.3.1.3 through 3.3.1.8 concerning active Registered Names sponsored by it in the usTLD, and agrees to grant non-exclusive,
irrevocable, royalty-free licenses to make use of and disclose the data elements listed in Subsections 3.2.1.4 through 3.2.1.6 and 3.3.1.3 through 3.3.1.8 for the purpose of providing a
service or services (such as a Whois service under Subsection 3.3.4) providing interactive, query-based public access. Upon a change in sponsorship from Registrar of any Registered Name in the usTLD,
Registrar acknowledges that the registrar gaining sponsorship shall have the rights of an owner to the data elements listed in Subsections 3.2.1.4 through 3.2.1.6 and 3.3.1.3 through 3.3.1.8
concerning that Registered Name, with Registrar also retaining the rights of an owner in that data. Nothing in this Subsection prohibits Registrar from (1) restricting bulk public access to
data elements in a manner consistent with this Accreditation Agreement and any NeuStar specifications or policies and as required by law or (2) transferring rights it claims in data elements
subject to the provisions of this Subsection.

	3.6
	Data Escrow.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement, on a schedule, under the terms, and in the format specified
by NeuStar, Registrar shall submit an electronic copy of the database described in Subsection 3.4.1 to NeuStar or, at Registrar's election and at its expense, to a reputable escrow agent mutually
approved by Registrar and NeuStar, such approval also not to be unreasonably withheld by either party. The data shall be held under an agreement among Registrar, NeuStar, and the escrow agent (if any)
providing that (1) the data shall be received and held in escrow, with no use other than verification that the deposited data is complete, consistent, and in proper format, until released to
NeuStar; (2) the data shall be released from escrow upon expiration without renewal or termination of this Accreditation Agreement; and (3) NeuStar's rights under the escrow agreement
shall be assigned with any assignment of this Accreditation Agreement. The escrow shall provide that in the event the escrow is released under this Subsection, NeuStar (or its assignee) shall have a
non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to exercise (only for transitional purposes) or have exercised all rights necessary to provide Registrar Services.

	3.7
	Business Dealings, Including with Registrant.

	3.7.1
	In
the event NeuStar adopts a specification or policy, supported by a consensus of NeuStar-Accredited registrars, establishing or approving a code of conduct for NeuStar-Accredited
registrars, Registrar shall abide by that code.

	3.7.2
	Registrar
shall abide by applicable laws and governmental regulations.

	3.7.3
	Registrar
shall not represent to any actual or potential Registrant that Registrar enjoys access to the Registry System that is superior to that of any other Accredited registrar.

	3.7.4
	Registrar
shall not activate any Registered Name unless and until it is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of its registration fee. For this purpose, a
charge to a credit card, general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers, or other mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall be sufficient, 

H-25

 

provided
that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by the Registrant upon activation of the registration. 

	3.7.5
	Registrar
shall register Registered Names to Registrant only for fixed periods. At the conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on behalf of the Registrant to pay a
renewal fee within the time specified in a second notice or reminder shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result in cancellation of the registration. In the event that NeuStar adopts a
specification or policy concerning procedures for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall abide by that specification or policy.

	3.7.6
	Registrar
shall not insert or renew any Registered Name in a manner contrary to a NeuStar policy stating a list or specification of excluded Registered Names that is in effect at
the time of insertion or renewal.

	3.7.7
	Registrar
shall require all Registrant to enter into an electronic or paper registration agreement with Registrar including at least the following provisions:

	3.7.7.1
	The
Registrant shall provide to Registrar accurate and reliable contact details and promptly correct and update them during the term of the Registered Name registration,
including: the full name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and fax number if available of the Registrant; name of authorized person for contact purposes in the case
of an Registrant that is an organization, association, or corporation; and the data elements listed in Subsections 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.7 and 3.3.1.8.

	3.7.7.2
	A
Registrant's willful or grossly negligent provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful or grossly negligent failure promptly to update information provided to
Registrar shall constitute a material breach of the Registrant's Registration Agreement with the registrar and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.

	3.7.7.3
	Enforcement of Accurate Whois Data

	3.7.7.3.1
	Registrar
shall accept written complaints from third parties regarding false and/or inaccurate Whois data of Registrants.

	3.7.7.3.2
	No
later than thirty (30) days after receipt of a written complaint, the Registrar shall conduct an initial investigation into the veracity and accuracy of the contact
details. If the Registrar determines that the information is false, inaccurate or not up to date, Registrar shall issue a letter to the Registrant via e-mail, and regular first class mail,
stating that the information contained in the Registrant's Whois record may be false, inaccurate or not up to date.

	3.7.7.3.3
	The
Registrant shall be required to update its contact information no later than thirty (30) calendar days of the date of such notice. If, within thirty (30) days,
Registrant can either (i) show that it has not provided false or inaccurate contact information or (ii) provide the updated Whois information, then the registrant will be allowed to
maintain its usTLD domain name registration. If, however, after thirty (30) days, the registrant either does not respond to Registrar's notice or is unable to provide true and accurate contact
information, the registrant shall be deemed to have breached its registration agreement and the registrar shall be required to delete the registration.

	3.7.7.3.4
	Registrar
shall not be required to refund any fees paid by the registrant if the registrar terminates a Registrant's registration agreement due to its enforcement of this
provision. 

H-26

 

	3.7.7.4
	Any
Registrant that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registrant of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact
information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the
Registered Name. A Registrant licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses
the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registrant reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

	3.7.7.5
	Registrar
shall provide notice to each new or renewed Registrant stating:

	3.7.7.5.1
	The
purposes for which any personal data collected from the applicant are intended;

	3.7.7.5.2
	The
intended recipients or categories of recipients of the data (including NeuStar, as Registry, and others who will receive the data from NeuStar, as Registry);

	3.7.7.5.3
	Which
data are obligatory and which data, if any, are voluntary; and

	3.7.7.5.4
	How
the Registrant or data subject can access and, if necessary, rectify the data held about them.

	3.7.7.5
	The
Registrant shall consent to the data processing referred to in this Section 3.7.7.4.

	3.7.7.6
	The
Registrant shall represent that notice has been provided equivalent to that described in Subsection 3.7.7.4 to any third-party individuals whose personal data are supplied to
Registrar by the Registrant, and that the Registrant has obtained consent equivalent to that referred to in Subsection 3.7.7.5 of any such third-party individuals.

	3.7.7.7
	Registrar
shall agree that it will not process the personal data collected from the Registrant in a way incompatible with the purposes and other limitations about which it has
provided notice to the Registrant in accordance with Subsection 3.7.7.4 above.

	3.7.7.8
	Registrar
shall agree that it will take reasonable precautions to protect personal data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.

	3.7.7.9
	The
Registrant shall represent that, to the best of the Registrant's knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly
or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.

	3.7.7.10
	For
the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the Registered Name, the Registrant shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable
jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the Registrant's domicile and (2) where Registrar is located.

	3.7.7.11
	The
Registrant shall agree that its registration of the Registered Name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any NeuStar adopted specification or
policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with a NeuStar adopted specification or policy, (1) to correct mistakes by Registrar or the Registry in registering
the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes concerning the Registered Name.

	3.7.7.12
	The
Registrant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Registry and its directors, officers, employees, representatives, agents, affiliates, and stockholders from and 

H-27

 

against
any and all claims, suits, actions, other proceedings, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any kind, including without limitation reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or
relating to the Registrant's (i) domain name registration and (ii) use of any Registered Name.

	3.7.7.13
	Registrar
shall require in its Registration Agreement with each Registrant that such Registrant certify, under penalty of perjury, that it meets the following Nexus Requirements
to qualify to register to use a Registered Name. Registrants in the usTLD must be either:

	3.7.7.13.1
	A
natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place
of domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or

	3.7.7.13.2
	An
entity or organization that is (i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or
territories or (ii) organized or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or

	3.7.7.13.3
	An
entity or organization (including a federal, state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United
States.

	3.7.8
	Registrar
shall abide by any specifications or policies established according to Section 4 requiring reasonable and commercially practicable (a) verification, at the
time of registration, of contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such information. Registrar shall, upon
notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the
event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy.

	3.7.9
	Registrar
shall abide by any NeuStar adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.

	3.7.10
	Nothing
in this Accreditation Agreement prescribes or limits the amount Registrar may charge Registrant for registration of Registered Names.

	3.8
	Domain-Name Dispute Resolution.    During the Term of this Accreditation Agreement, Registrar shall have in place
a policy and procedures for resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names. Until different policies and procedures are established by NeuStar under Section 4, Registrar shall comply with
the United Stated Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP) and the Nexus Dispute Policy ("NDP") identified on Registry's website.

	3.9
	Accreditation Fees.    As a condition of accreditation, Registrar shall pay accreditation fees to NeuStar. These fees consist
of yearly and variable fees.

	3.9.1
	Fixed Accreditation Fee.    Registrar shall pay NeuStar a fixed yearly accreditation fee in an amount established by
NeuStar. The first year's accreditation fee shall be $1,000 for the usTLD. Thereafter, the yearly accreditation fee may be increased by up to ten percent (10%) from the previous year. Payment of the
yearly fixed fee shall be due within thirty (30) days after invoice from NeuStar. 

H-28

 

	3.9.2
	Variable Accreditation Fee.    Registrar shall pay the variable accreditation fees established by NeuStar, provided that in
each case such fees are reasonably allocated among all registrars that contract with NeuStar. Registrar shall pay such fees in a timely manner for so long as all material terms of this Accreditation
Agreement remain in full force and effect, and notwithstanding the pendency of any dispute between Registrar and NeuStar.

	3.9.3
	On
reasonable notice given by NeuStar to Registrar, accountings submitted by Registrar shall be subject to verification by an audit of Registrar's books and records by an
independent third-party that shall preserve the confidentiality of such books and records (other than its findings as to the accuracy of, and any necessary corrections to, the accountings).

	3.10
	Insurance.    Registrar shall maintain in force commercial general liability insurance with policy limits of at least
$500,000 covering liabilities arising from Registrar's registrar business during the term of this Accreditation Agreement. 

4.     PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR REVISION OF SPECIFICATIONS AND POLICIES.  

	4.1
	Registrar's Ongoing Obligation to Comply With New or Revised Specifications and Policies.    During the Term of this
Accreditation Agreement, Registrar shall comply with the terms of this Accreditation Agreement on the schedule set forth in Subsection 4.4, with

	4.1.1
	new
or revised specifications (including forms of agreement to which Registrar is a party) and policies established by NeuStar as Consensus Policies in the manner described in
Subsection 4.3,

	4.1.2
	in
cases where:

	4.1.2.1
	this
Accreditation Agreement expressly provides for compliance with revised specifications or policies established in the manner set forth in one or more subsections of this
Section 4; or

	4.1.2.2
	the
specification or policy concerns one or more topics described in Subsection 4.2.

	4.2
	Manner of Establishment of New and Revised Specifications and Policies

	4.2.1
	"NeuStar
Policies" are those specifications or policies established by NeuStar through the United States Policy Advisory Council ("usPAC").

	4.2.2
	For
all purposes under this Accreditation Agreement, the policies specifically identified by NeuStar on its website for the usTLD <LINK> at the date of this Accreditation
Agreement as having been adopted by NeuStar before the date of this Accreditation Agreement shall be treated in the same manner and have the same effect as "NeuStar Policies". Such NeuStar Policies
are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be binding on Registrar.

	4.3
	Time Allowed for Compliance.    Registrar shall be afforded a reasonable period of time after receiving notice of the
establishment of a specification or policy under Subsection 4.2 in which to comply with that specification or policy, taking into account any urgency involved. 

5.     MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 

	5.1
	Specific Performance.    While this Accreditation Agreement is in effect, either party may seek specific performance of any
provision of this Accreditation Agreement in the manner provided in Section 5.5 below, provided the party seeking such performance is not in material breach of its obligations. 

H-29

 

	5.2
	Termination of Accreditation Agreement by Registrar.    This Accreditation Agreement may be terminated before its expiration
by Registrar by giving NeuStar thirty (30) days written notice. Upon such termination by Registrar, Registrar shall not be entitled to any refund of fees paid to NeuStar pursuant to this
Accreditation Agreement.

	5.3
	Termination of Accreditation Agreement by NeuStar.    This Accreditation Agreement may be terminated before its expiration by
NeuStar in any of the following circumstances:

	5.3.1
	There
was a material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement in Registrar's application for accreditation or any material accompanying the
application.

	5.3.2
	Registrar:

	5.3.2.1
	is
convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense related to financial activities, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have
committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that NeuStar reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses; or

	5.3.2.2
	is
disciplined by the government of its domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others.

	5.3.3
	Any
officer or director of Registrar is convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of
fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that NeuStar deems as the substantive equivalent of any of these; provided, such officer or director is not removed in such circumstances.

	5.3.4
	Registrar
fails to cure any breach of this Accreditation Agreement within fifteen (15) business days after NeuStar gives Registrar notice of the breach.

	5.3.5
	Registrar
fails to comply with a ruling granting specific performance under Subsections 5.1 and 5.5.

	5.3.6
	Registrar
continues acting in a manner that NeuStar has reasonably determined endangers the stability or operational integrity of the Internet or the Registry System after receiving
three (3) days notice of that determination.

	5.3.7
	Registrar
becomes bankrupt or insolvent.

	5.4
	Term of Accreditation Agreement; Renewal; Right to Substitute Updated Accreditation Agreement.    This Accreditation
Agreement shall be effective on the Effective Date and shall have an initial term running until the Expiration Date, unless sooner terminated. Thereafter, if Registrar seeks to continue its
accreditation, it may apply for renewed accreditation, and shall be entitled to renewal provided it meets the NeuStar-adopted specification or policy on accreditation criteria then in effect, is in
compliance with its obligations under this Accreditation Agreement, as it may be amended, and agrees to be bound by terms and conditions of the then-current Registrar accreditation
agreement (which may differ from those of this Accreditation Agreement) that NeuStar adopts in accordance with Subsection 2.3 and Subsection 4.2. In connection with renewed accreditation, Registrar
shall confirm its assent to the terms and conditions of the then-current Registrar accreditation agreement by signing that accreditation agreement. In the event that, during the Term of
this Accreditation Agreement, NeuStar posts on its web site an updated form of registrar accreditation agreement applicable to Accredited registrars, Registrar (provided it has not received
(1) a notice of breach that it has not cured or (2) a notice of termination of this Accreditation Agreement under Subsection 

H-30

 

5.3
above) may elect, by giving NeuStar written notice, to enter an agreement in the updated form in place of this Accreditation Agreement. In the event of such election, Registrar and NeuStar shall
promptly sign a new accreditation agreement that contains the provisions of the updated form posted on the web site, with the length of the term of the substituted agreement as stated in the updated
form posted on the web site, calculated as if it commenced on the date this Accreditation Agreement was made, and this Accreditation Agreement will be deemed terminated. 

	5.5
	Resolution of Disputes Under this Accreditation Agreement; Governing Law.    Disputes arising under or in connection with
this Accreditation Agreement, including (1) disputes arising from NeuStar's failure to renew Registrar's accreditation and (2) requests for specific performance, shall be resolved in a
court of competent jurisdiction or, at the election of either party, by an arbitration conducted as provided in this Subsection 5.5 pursuant to the Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA"). The arbitration shall be conducted in English and shall occur in Washington, D.C., USA. There shall be three (3) arbitrators: each party shall choose one arbitrator; if
those two arbitrators do not agree on a third arbitrator within fifteen (15) calendar days of the designation of the second arbitrator, the AAA shall choose the third. The parties shall bear
the costs of the arbitration in equal shares, subject to the right of the arbitrators to reallocate the costs in their award as provided in the AAA rules. The parties shall bear their own attorneys'
fees in connection with the arbitration, and the arbitrators may not reallocate the attorneys' fees in conjunction with their award. The arbitrators shall render their decision within ninety
(90) days of the of the selection of the third arbitrator. In the event Registrar initiates arbitration to contest the appropriateness of termination of this Accreditation Agreement by NeuStar,
Registrar may at the same time request that the arbitration panel stay the termination until the arbitration decision is rendered, and that request shall have the effect of staying the termination
until the arbitration panel has granted a NeuStar request for specific performance and Registrar has failed to comply with such ruling. In all litigation involving NeuStar concerning this
Accreditation Agreement (whether in a case where arbitration has not been elected or to enforce an arbitration award), jurisdiction and exclusive venue for such litigation shall be in a court located
in the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA; however, the parties shall also have the right to enforce a judgment of such a court in any court of competent jurisdiction. For the
purpose of aiding the arbitration and/or preserving the rights of the parties during the pendency of an arbitration, the parties shall have the right to seek temporary or preliminary injunctive relief
from the arbitration panel or in a court located in the Eastern District of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA, which shall not be a waiver of this arbitration agreement. This Accreditation Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (without regard to any rules or principles of conflicts of law that might look to any jurisdiction
outside Virginia).

	5.6
	Limitations on Monetary Remedies for Violations of this Accreditation Agreement.    NeuStar's aggregate monetary liability
for violations of this Accreditation Agreement shall not exceed the amount of accreditation fees paid by Registrar to NeuStar under Subsection 3.9 of this Accreditation Agreement. Registrar's monetary
liability to NeuStar for violations of this Accreditation Agreement shall be limited to the aggregate amount of accreditation fees previously paid plus those then owing to NeuStar under this
Accreditation Agreement. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT.

	5.7
	Assignment.    Either party may assign or transfer this Accreditation Agreement only with the prior written consent of the
other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, except that 

H-31

 

NeuStar
may, with the written approval of the U.S. Department of Commerce, assign this agreement by giving Registrar written notice of the assignment. 

	5.9
	No Third-Party Beneficiaries.    This Accreditation Agreement shall not be construed to create any obligation by either
NeuStar or Registrar to any non-party to this Accreditation Agreement, including any Registrant.

	5.10
	Notices, Designations, and Specifications.    Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be delivered to any
party under this Accreditation Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given and received when delivered by hand, by registered mail (return receipt requested), by
courier or express delivery service, by e-mail (against of receipt of confirmation of delivery) or by telecopier (against receipt of answerback confirming delivery) during business hours
to the address or telecopier number set forth beneath the name of such party below or when delivery as described above is refused by the intended recipient, unless such party has given a notice of a
change of address in writing pursuant to the foregoing. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice shall be deemed properly given from NeuStar to Registrar at such time as NeuStar posts any notice, update,
modification or other information on its U.S. website, so long as such notice, update, modification or other information is intended for all accredited registrars generally (e.g., adoption of a new
Consensus Policy).. 

If
to Registrar: 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

with
copy to: 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

If
to Registry: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Attn: VP of

phone:

fax:

H-32

 

with
a copy to: 

	NeuStar, Inc.

1120 Vermont Avenue

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Attn: General Counsel

phone:

fax:

	5.11
	Dates and Times.    All dates and times relevant to this Accreditation Agreement or its performance shall be computed based
on the date and time observed in Washington, D.C., USA.

	5.12
	Language.    All notices, designations, and specifications made under this Accreditation Agreement shall be in the English
language.

	5.13
	Amendments and Waivers.    No amendment, supplement, or modification of this Accreditation Agreement or any provision hereof
shall be binding unless executed in writing by both parties. No waiver of any provision of this Accreditation Agreement shall be binding unless evidenced by a writing signed by the party waiving
compliance with such provision. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Accreditation Agreement shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision hereof, nor shall any such waiver
constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided.

	5.14
	Counterparts.    This Accreditation Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

	5.15
	Entire Accreditation Agreement.    Except to the extent (a) expressly provided in a written agreement executed by
both parties concurrently herewith or (b) of written assurances provided by Registrar to NeuStar in connection with its Accreditation, this Accreditation Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement of the parties pertaining to the accreditation of Registrar and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties on
that subject.

	5.16
	Construction; Severability.    The parties agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be
resolve against the drafting party shall not be applied in the construction or interpretation of this Accreditation Agreement. Unless otherwise stated in this Accredition Agreement, references to a
number of days shall mean consecutive calendar days. In the event that any clause or portion thereof in this Accreditation Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
same shall not affect any other portion of this Accreditation Agreement, as it is the intent of the parties that this Accreditation Agreement shall be construed in such fashion as to maintain its
existence, validity and enforceability to the greatest extent possible. In any such event, this Accreditation Agreement shall be construed as if such clause or portion thereof had never been contained
in this Accreditation Agreement, and there shall be deemed substituted therefor such provision as will most nearly carry out the intent of the parties as expressed in this Accreditation Agreement to
the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. 

H-33

 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Accreditation Agreement to be executed in duplicate by their duly authorized representatives. 

	NeuStar, INC.	 	 	 	 
	

By:	
 	

 
	
 	

 	
 	

 
	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	

[Registrar Name]	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

By:	
 	

 
	
 	

 	
 	

 
	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Title:	 	 
	 	 	 	 

H-34

   Working Draft Dated 07-19-01 v1.0  

Registrar Accreditation: Application  

HOW TO APPLY:  

        For your application to be considered, you must send hard copies of the following items to NeuStar: 

        Completed
application. A completed application consists of your responses to the questions set forth in this document, typed or printed out on separate paper and attached to a signed
copy of this application form. 

        All
supporting documents as indicated below and in the Application Instructions. These will generally include an insurance certificate and an independently verified financial statement,
along with any other supporting documents needed to provide complete answers to the questions below. NOTE: Application Instructions will be made available prior to the
commencement of the accreditation process.

        Application
Fee. US $750 (non-refundable). Application fees may be submitted by wire transfer, money order, or bank check, and must be denominated in United States currency.
If you want to pay by wire transfer, please send an email to <                        @NeuStar.com> so we can track your
payment. The following is the bank account information you will need to send
a wire transfer: 

	 	Account number	 	 
	 	 
	 	Routing indicator	 	 
	 	 
	 	[Name of Bank] Branch #	 	 
	 	 
	 	[insert address]	 	 	 	 
	

 	

Telephone [insert telephone number of Bank]	
 	

 

        Completed
applications should be sent by mail or courier directly to NeuStar at the following address: 

NeuStar, Inc.

Registrar Accreditation

1120 Vermont Avenue, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (310) 823-9358 

        NeuStar
accepts applications for registrar accreditation on a rolling basis. There is no deadline for receipt of applications for registrar accreditation. 

        Please
provide the following information on separate paper, answering each request in a numbered paragraph corresponding to the number of the question. If there is no answer available
for a particular question, please indicate that fact next to the number corresponding to the question. In answering the questions set forth below, please give the most complete answer possible,
explaining all capabilities in detail, and attaching, labeling, and referencing all necessary supporting documents at the back of the application. See the Application Instructions for additional
guidance. 

        After
reviewing your answers and supporting materials, we reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to request additional information in order to assess your capabilities to serve as an
accredited registrar. Submission of any such supplemental information shall be subject to the "ATTESTATION OF TRUTHFUL DISCLOSURE" set forth below. 

H-35

 

Registrar Accreditation Application  

GENERAL INFORMATION: 

	1.
	Name
and business address of entity applicant.

	2.
	Type
of business entity (corporation, partnership, etc.).

	3.
	Telephone
number of applicant.

	4.
	Facsimile
number of applicant, if available.

	5.
	E-mail
address of applicant.

	6.
	Name
of contact person.

	7.
	Telephone
number and email address of contact person, if different from 3. and 5., above.

	8.
	Internet
address for your World Wide Web site.

	9.
	Please
list (i) all directors, (ii) all officers, (iii) all relevant managers, and (iv) any persons or entities owning five percent or more of
your current or proposed business entity. 

BUSINESS CAPABILITIES: 

	10.
	Describe
your current business capabilities or comprehensive business plan as specified below.

	a.
	Give
an overview of your current business operations or business plan. (If you are a publicly traded company, this may be done by providing a copy of your most recent annual report.)

	b.
	What
volume of registrations for.us domain names ("UDSNs") do you reasonably project to be able to handle per month?

	c.
	What
management, communication, and information processing systems do you have (or propose to have) to handle your projected volume of registration business per month? Please be
specific.

	d.
	What
management, communication, and information processing systems do you have (or propose to have) to promptly handle USDN holders' requests for changes in registration data? How long
do you anticipate that such requests will take to execute?

	e.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for providing a reliable and readily usable daily backup and archive of all USDN holder and registration data?

	f.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for maintaining electronic copies of all transactions, correspondence, and communications with the shared registration system (SRS)
for at least the length of the registration contract?

	g.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for providing public access on a real-time basis (such as through a Whois service) to the data elements NeuStar has
designated for all active USDN registrations you sponsor in the registry (see Section 3.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement)?

	h.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for providing information systems security procedures to prevent system hacks, break-ins, data tampering, and other
disruptions to your operations?

	i.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for providing USDN holders with continued use of their domain names in the event you go out of business or otherwise cease to
operate as an NeuStar-accredited registrar of USDNs? 

H-36

 

	j.
	Do
you (or will you) have the capacity to engage a sufficient number of qualified employees to handle the registration, update, and customer inquiry volume you projected in question
10.b?

	k.
	What
is your capability (or proposal for capability) for ensuring that the operation of the Internet will not be adversely affected in the event you go out of business or otherwise
cease to operate as an NeuStar-accredited registrar of USDNs?

	l.
	Do
you have commercial general liability insurance? From what insurer? In what amount? If you do not currently have such insurance, how do you propose to obtain it, and in what amount?
Please attach a current and valid certificate of insurance, if you currently hold it. If you do not currently have insurance, please attach a binder or other similar evidence of insurability (or the
intent to insure) from an insurance company.

	m.
	How
much working capital do you have available for the operation of the registrar business? Is this level of liquid capital sufficient for your projected registration volume? Please
attach evidence of working capital (if available, an audited statement for your most recent fiscal period is sufficient).

	n.
	Do
you hold an existing and operational USDN (i.e., "NeuStar.com"), second-level domain under any of the gTLDs (i.e., .biz, .com, .net, etc.) or country code top level domains (i.e.
..au), or third level domain if operating under a country code top level domain (i.e., "cam.ac.uk")? If so, please list all domain names (or third level domains) under which you or your affiliates do
business.

	o.
	Can
you meet all of a registrar's obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ? If there are any provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement you may not be able to
fulfill, please explain the circumstances that prevent you from doing so.

	11.
	Have
you submitted to NeuStar within the past year an accreditation application or material accompanying an accreditation application that NeuStar has found to contain a
material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement? If yes, then please explain the circumstances.

	12.
	Indicate
whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers:

	a.
	within
the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of
fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these;

	b.
	within
the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others;

	c.
	is
currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or

	d.
	is
the subject of a disqualification imposed by NeuStar and in effect at the time of this application. 

If
any of the above events have occurred, please provide details. 

	13.
	Do
you give NeuStar permission to use your company's name and/or logo in its public announcements (including informational web pages) relating to registrar
accreditation? 

PAST ICANN ACCREDITATION 

	14.
	Are
you currently an ICANN-Accredited Registrar for any of the gTLDs? If so, which one(s)? 

H-37

 
	15.
	If
you are not currently accredited by ICANN as a registrar, have you ever previously been accredited by ICANN to serve as a registrar? If so, please explain in detail
the circumstances surrounding the expiration or termination of your prior ICANN accreditation. 

ATTESTATION OF TRUTHFUL DISCLOSURE: 

        By
signing this application, the undersigned Applicant attests that the information contained in this application, and all supporting documents included with this application, are true
and accurate to the best of Applicant's knowledge. By signing this application, the undersigned Applicant gives NeuStar permission to contact third parties, investigate, request and obtain additional
information and documentation, and otherwise verify the information contained in this application. Applicant waives liability on the part of NeuStar for its actions in verifying the information
provided in this application.
Applicant further waives liability on the part of any third parties who provide truthful, material, relevant information about Applicant as requested in this application. 

	 
 Signature	 	 
	 
 Name (please print)	 	 
	 
 Title	 	 
	 
 Name of Applicant Entity	 	 
	 
 Date	 	 

        Please
attach all answers and supporting documents to a signed copy of this application form. Please include the application fee and send directly or by courier to NeuStar at the address
indicated above. 

H-38

  

 
 

EXHIBIT D    
    
    POLICY ON TRANSFER OF SPONSORSHIP OF
  REGISTRATIONS BETWEEN NON-SPONSORING REGISTRARS    
    

A.    Holder-Authorized Transfers.  

Registrar Requirements.  

        The Registration Agreement between each registrar and its Registrant shall include a provision explaining that a Registrant will be prohibited from changing its
registrar during the first 60 days after initial registration of the domain name with the registrar. Beginning on the 61st day after the initial registration with the registrar, the procedures
for change in sponsoring registrar set forth in this policy shall apply. Enforcement shall be the responsibility of the registrar sponsoring the domain name registration. 

        For
each instance where a Registrant wants to change its registrar for an existing domain name (i.e., a domain name that appears in a particular top-level domain zone file),
the gaining registrar shall: 

	1)
	Obtain
express authorization from an individual who has the apparent authority to legally bind the Registrant (as reflected in the database of the losing registrar).

	a)
	The
specific form of the authorization is at the discretion of each gaining registrar.

	b)
	The
gaining registrar shall retain a record of reliable evidence of the authorization.

	2)
	In
those instances when the registrar of record is being changed simultaneously with a transfer of a domain name from one party to another, the gaining registrar shall also obtain
appropriate authorization for the transfer. Such authorization shall include, but not be limited to, one of the following:

	a)
	A
bilateral written agreement between the parties.

	b)
	The
final determination of a binding dispute resolution body.

	c)
	A
court order.

	3)
	Request,
by the transmission of a "transfer" command as specified in the Registrar Tool Kit, that the usTLD Database be changed to reflect the new registrar.

	a)
	Transmission
of a "transfer" command constitutes a representation on the part of the gaining registrar that:

	(1)
	the
requisite authorization has been obtained from the Registrant listed in the database of the losing registrar, and

	(2)
	the
losing registrar will be provided with a copy of the authorization if and when requested. 

        In
those instances when the registrar of record denies the requested change of prospective gaining registrar, the registrar of record shall notify the prospective gaining Registrar that
the request was denied and the reason for the denial. 

        Instances
when the requested change of prospective gaining registrar may be denied include, but are not limited to: 

	1)
	Situations
described in the Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

	2)
	A
pending bankruptcy of the Registrant

	3)
	Dispute
over the identity of the Registrant 

H-39

 

	4)
	Request
to transfer sponsorship occurs within the first 60 days after the initial registration with the registrar of record 

        In
all cases, the losing registrar shall respond to the e-mail notice regarding the transfer request within five (5) days. Failure to respond will result in a default
"approval" of the transfer. 

usTLD Administrator Requirements.  

        Upon receipt of the "transfer" command from the gaining registrar, usTLD Administrator will transmit an e-mail notification to both registrars. 

        usTLD
Administrator shall complete the "transfer" if either: 

	1)
	the
losing registrar expressly "approves" the request, or

	2)
	usTLD
Administrator does not receive a response from the losing registrar within five (5) days. 

        When
the usTLD Database has been updated to reflect the change to the gaining registrar, usTLD Administrator will transmit an email notification to both registrars. 

Records of Registration.  

        Each Registrant shall maintain his, her or its own records appropriate to document and prove the initial domain name registration date, regardless of the number
of registrars with which the Registrant enters into a contract for registration services. 

Effect on Term of Registration.  

        The completion by usTLD Administrator of a holder-authorized transfer under this Part A shall result in a one-year extension of the existing
registration, provided that in no event shall the total unexpired term of a registration exceed ten (10) years. 

B.    Approved Transfers.  

        Transfer of the sponsorship of all the registrations sponsored by one registrar as the result of acquisition of that registrar or its assets by another registrar
may be made according to the following procedure: 

	(a)
	The
acquiring registrar must be accredited by usTLD Administrator for the usTLD under an Accreditation Agreement and must have in effect a usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement with
usTLD Administrator for the usTLD.

	(b)
	usTLD
Administrator shall determine, in its sole discretion, that the transfer would promote the community interest, such as the interest in stability that may be threatened by the
actual or imminent business failure of a registrar. 

        Upon
satisfaction of these two conditions, usTLD Administrator will make the necessary one-time changes in the registry database for no charge for transfers involving 50,000
name registrations or fewer; provided that the data to be transferred to usTLD Administrator is in the form specified by usTLD Administrator ("Approved Format"). If the transfer involves registrations
of more than 50,000 names, and the data to be transferred to usTLD Administrator is in the Approved format, usTLD Administrator will charge the acquiring registrar a one-time flat fee of
US $50,000. If the data to be transferred is not in the Approved Format, the usTLD Administrator may charge a reasonable fee, as determined by the usTLD Administrator, in connection with the cost
associated with reformatting such data. 

        Notwithstanding
anything in the Exhibit E above to the contrary, no transfers will be permitted from a registrar, including
Registrar, to a Sponsoring Registrar. 

H-40

  

 
 

Exhibit E    
    
    USTLD ADMINISTRATOR'S OPERATIONAL STANDARDS,
  POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES    
    

I.     Registration Requirements  

        Before the usTLD Administrator will accept applications for registration from an registrar, all domain name applicants in the .us TLD must: 

	1.
	Enter
into an electronic or paper registration agreement with the registrar, in accordance with the Accreditation Agreement with usTLD Administrator and this Agreement. Such electronic
or paper registration agreement shall include, at a minimum, the following certifications:

	a)
	The
data provided in the domain name registration application is true, correct, up to date and complete; and

	b)
	The
registrant will keep the information provided above up to date.

	2.
	Certify
in the Registration Agreement that to the best of his, her or its knowledge the domain name registrant has the authority to enter into the Registration Agreement and meets all
the US Nexus Requirement set forth below. 

II.    US Nexus Requirement  

        Registrants in the usTLD must be either: 

	1.
	A
natural person (i) who is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States of America or any of its possessions or territories, or (ii) whose primary place of
domicile is in the United States of America or any of its possessions, or

	2.
	An
entity or organization that is (i) incorporated within one of the fifty (50) U.S. states, the District of Columbia, or any of the United States possessions or
territories or (ii) organized or otherwise constituted under the laws of a state of the United States of America, the District of Columbia or any of its possessions or territories, or

	3.
	An
entity or organization (including a federal, state, or local government of the United States, or a political subdivision thereof) that has a bona fide presence in the United States. 

        Whether
a prospective registrant has a "bona fide presence in the United States" will be determined on a case-by-case basis in light of all relevant facts and
circumstances at the time of application for a usTLD domain name. This requirement is intended to ensure that only those individuals or organizations that have a substantive connection to the United
States are permitted to register for usTLD domain names. 

        Factors
that should be considered in determining whether an entity or organization has a bona fide presence in the United States shall include, without limitation, whether such
prospective usTLD domain name registrant: 

	•
	Regularly
performs activities within the United States related to the purposes for which the entity or organization is constituted (e.g., providing services to customers,
conducting regular training activities, attending conferences), provided such activities are not conducted solely or primarily to permit it to register for a usTLD domain name;

	•
	Maintains
an office or other facility in the United States for a business, noncommercial, educational, or governmental purpose and not solely or primarily to permit it to
register for a usTLD domain name; or 

H-41

 

	•
	Derives
a material portion of its revenues or net income from sales to purchasers located in the United States. For these purposes, if a prospective usTLD domain name
registrant's revenues from sales to purchasers located in the United States were at least 5% of such entity's or organization's total revenues or net income for its last completed fiscal year, such
entity or organization will be presumed to have a bona fide presence in the United States. 

        For
purposes of this definition, the terms United States and United States of America shall include all U.S. territories and possessions. 

        It
shall be a continuing requirement that all usTLD domain name registrants maintain the US Nexus Requirement. 

        The
Nexus Requirement will be enforced through an initial screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, as well as a challenge process permitted through the Nexus
Dispute Policy discussed below. The screening by usTLD Administrator will verify that selected field, within the contact information provided, on its face, meets the Nexus Requirement and that the
registrant has certified compliance with the requirement, as well as certified that the nameservers identified are located within the United States. In
the event that the contact information provided does not meet the above requirement, the name requested will be placed on hold within the registry and the registrant will be given an opportunity to
correct any mistake or demonstrate compliance with the Nexus requirement. If no action is taken by the registrant within the 30-day period, the registration will be cancelled and the name
will be returned to available status. If, on the other hand, the registrant is able to demonstrate compliance with the requirement, the name will be registered. 

III.  Nexus Dispute Policy  

        Although the Nexus Requirement will initially be enforced through a usTLD Registrar's screening of the contact information provided by the registrant, and the
registrant will certify that it meets at least one of the Nexus requirements set forth above, usTLD Administrator understands that disputes may
arise as to the authenticity, veracity or accuracy of the registrant's Nexus certification. Therefore, usTLD Administrator, as administrator of the usTLD has devised a Nexus Dispute Policy ("NDP")
which will be administered solely by the usTLD Administrator, or its designated representative. The NDP will provide interested parties with an opportunity to challenge a registration not complying
with the Nexus Requirement. 

        In
the event that a third party wishes to challenge the authenticity or veracity of a.US registrant's United States Nexus, that party may submit a "Nexus Challenge" to the usTLD
Administrator or its authorized representative. The challenger must submit a written statement to the usTLD Administrator via first class mail alleging in specificity evidence to support its
allegation that the registrant fails to meet any of the Nexus Requirements set forth above. 

        Once
a challenge is received by the usTLD Administrator the domain name shall be "locked" by the usTLD Administrator until the matter is resolved. While in a "locked" position, the
registrant may not (i) change any of the contact information for that particular domain name or (ii) transfer the domain name to any third party. 

        In
the event that the usTLD Administrator finds that the challenger has established a prima facie case that the registrant has not met any of the Nexus Requirements, the usTLD
Administrator shall issue a letter to the registrant to submit evidence of compliance with the Nexus Requirements ("Letter"). The registrant shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of the Letter to submit evidence of compliance. If, within the thirty (30) days, the registrant submits evidence establishing any of the Nexus Requirements, the registrant shall be
permitted to keep the domain name. 

        If,
however, the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty days, or (ii) is unable to demonstrate through documentary evidence that it met any of the Nexus
Requirements prior to the 

H-42

 

date
the NDP was invoked, the usTLD Administrator shall issue a finding that the registrant has failed to meet the Nexus Requirements. Upon such a finding, the registrant shall be given a total of
thirty (30) days to cure the US Nexus deficiency. If the registrant is able to demonstrate within (30) days that it has cured such deficiency, the registrant shall be allowed to keep the
domain name. If the registrant either (i) does not respond within the thirty (30) days, or (ii) is unable to proffer evidence demonstrating compliance with the Nexus Requirements,
the domain name registration shall be deleted from the registry database and the domain name will be placed into the list of available domain names. This process represents the exclusive remedy for an
NDP challenger. 

        usTLD
Administrator reserves the right to modify this NDP at any time with the permission of COTR. usTLD Administrator will post its revised NDP on its Website at least thirty
(30) calendar days before it becomes effective. 

IV.    Reservation  

        usTLD Administrator reserves the right to deny, cancel or transfer any registration that it deems necessary, in its discretion; (1) to protect the
integrity and stability of the registry; (2) to comply with any applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, in compliance with any dispute resolution
process; (3) to avoid any liability, civil or criminal, on the part of usTLD Administrator, as well as its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, directors, representatives, employees, and
stockholders; (4) for violations of this Agreement (including its Exhibits); or (5) to correct mistakes made by usTLD Administrator or any registrar in connection with a domain name
registration. usTLD Administrator also reserves the right to freeze a domain name during resolution of a dispute. 

H-43

  

 
 

Exhibit F    
    
    REGISTRATION FEES    
    

	•
	Sunrise Registration.    Registrar agrees to pay the non-refundable fee of $10.00 per domain name for
the first year of registration. For each subsequent year of registration, Registrar shall pay $5.50 per domain name per year.

	•
	Initial Registration.    Registrar agrees to pay the non-refundable fee of $5.50 per year of
registration.

	•
	Renewal Fees.    Registrar agrees to pay the non-refundable fee of $5.50 per domain name per year for
renewals.

	•
	Fees for Transfers of Sponsorship of Domain-Name Registrations    Where the sponsorship of a domain
name is transferred from one registrar to another, usTLD Administrator may require the registrar receiving the sponsorship to request a renewal of one year for the name. In connection with that
extension, usTLD Administrator may charge a Renewal Fee for the requested extension as provided in the renewal schedule set forth above. The transfer shall result in an extension according to the
renewal request, subject to a ten-year maximum on the future term of any domain-name registration. The Renewal Fee shall be paid in full at the time of the transfer by the
registrar receiving sponsorship of the domain name.

	•
	Enhanced Whois Service.    Registrar agrees to pay the non-refundable amounts as set forth below: 

        To
be provided with at least 30 days advance notice: Yearly Subscription Fee Rate, One time Usage Fee 

        NOTE:
usTLD Administrator reserves the right to revise the Fees prospectively upon thirty (30) days notice to Registrar, provided that such adjustments are consistent with the
usTLD Agreement. 

H-44

 
 
 

Exhibit G    
    
    PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS    
    

	1.
	Introduction.    The
attached Performance Specification Matrix ("Matrix") provides a list of performance specifications as they apply to the three Core Services provided by
the usTLD Administrator—SRS, Nameserver, and Whois services.

	2.
	Definitions.    Capitalized
terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.

	2.1
	"Core
Services" refers to the three core services provided by the usTLD System—SRS, Nameserver, and Whois Services.

	2.2
	"Performance
Specification" refers to the specific committed performance service levels as specified herein.

	2.3
	"Performance
Specification Priority" refers to the usTLD Administrator's rating system for Performance Specifications. Some Performance Specifications are more critical to the
operations of the usTLD Administrator than others. Each of the Performance Specifications is rated as C1-mission critical, C2-mission important, C3-mission
beneficial, or C4-mission maintenance.

	2.4
	"Registrar
Community" refers to all the registrars accredited by usTLD Administrator that have executed usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreements with usTLD Administrator for the
usTLD.

	2.5
	"SRS"
refers to the Shared Registration System; the service that the usTLD System provides to the Registrar Community. Specifically, it refers to the ability of registrars to add,
modify, and delete information associated with domain names, nameserver, contacts, and registrar profile information. This service is provided by systems and software maintained in coactive redundant
data centers. The service is available to registrars via an Internet connection.

	2.6
	"Nameserver"
refers to the nameserver function of the usTLD System and the nameservers that resolve DNS queries from Internet users. This service is performed by multiple nameserver
sites that host DNS resource records. The customers of the nameserver service are users of the Internet. The nameservers receive a DNS query, resolve it to the appropriate address, and provide a
response.

	2.7
	"Service
Level Measurement Period" refers to the period of time for which a Performance Specification is measured. Monthly periods are based on calendar months, quarterly periods are
based on calendar quarters, and annual periods are based on calendar years.

	2.8
	"Whois"
refers to the usTLD Administrator's Whois service. The usTLD Administrator will provide contact information related to registered domain names and nameserver through a Whois
service. Any person with access to the Internet can query the usTLD Administrator's Whois service directly (via the usTLD Administrator website) or through a registrar.

	3.
	Performance Specifications.    usTLD Administrator shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide usTLD Services for the
usTLD.

	3.1
	Service Availability.    Service Availability is defined as the time, in minutes, that the usTLD System's Core Services are
responding to its users. Service is unavailable when a service listed in the Matrix is unavailable to all users, that is, when no user can initiate a session with or 

H-45

 

receive
a response from the usTLD System ("Unavailability"). Service Availability is a C1 priority level. 

	3.1.1
	Service Availability is measured as follows: 

Service
Availability % = {[(TM - POM) - UOM] / (TM - POM)}*100 where: 

TM =
Total Minutes in the Service Level Measurement Period (#days*24 hours*60 minutes). 

POM =
Planned Outage Minutes (sum of (i) Planned Outages and (ii) Extended Planned Outages during the Service Level Measurement Period). 

UOM =
Unplanned Outage Minutes (Difference between the total number of minutes of Unavailability during the Service Level Measurement Period minus POM). 

Upon
written request, and at the sole expense of the requesting registrar(s), usTLD Administrator will retain an independent third party (to be selected by usTLD Administrator to perform an
independent calculation of the UOM). The frequency of this audit will be no more than once yearly during the term of the Agreement between usTLD Administrator and the Registrar. 

[This calculation is performed and the results reported for each calendar month for SRS and Whois availability and for each calendar year
for Nameserver availability. Results will be reported periodically to the Registrar Community via e-mail.] 

	3.1.2
	Service Availability—SRS = 99.9% per calendar month. Service Availability as it applies to the SRS refers to the
ability of the SRS to respond to registrars that access and use the SRS through the XRP protocol. SRS Unavailability will be logged with the usTLD Administrator as Unplanned Outage Minutes. The
committed Service Availability for SRS is 99.9% and the Service Level Measurement Period is monthly.

	3.1.3
	Service Availability—Nameserver = 99.999% per calendar year. Service Availability as it applies to the Nameserver
refers to the ability of the Nameserver to resolve a DNS query from an Internet user. Nameserver Unavailability will be logged with the usTLD Administrator as Unplanned Outage Minutes. The committed
Service Availability for Nameserver is 99.999% and the Service Level Measurement Period is annually.

	3.1.4
	Service Availability—Whois = 99.95% per calendar month. Service Availability as it applies to Whois refers to the
ability of all users to access and use the usTLD Administrator's Whois service. Whois Unavailability will be logged with the usTLD Administrator as Unplanned Outage Minutes. The committed Service
Availability for Whois is 99.95% and the Service Level Measurement Period is monthly.

	3.2
	Planned Outage.    High volume data centers like that used in the usTLD System require downtime for regular maintenance.
Allowing for regular maintenance ("Planned Outage") ensures a high level of service for the usTLD System. Planned Outage Performance Specifications are a C4 priority level.

	3.2.1
	Planned Outage Duration.    The Planned Outage Duration defines the maximum allowable time, in hours and minutes, that the
usTLD Administrator is allowed to take the usTLD Services out of service for regular maintenance. Planned Outages are planned in advance and the Registrar Community is provided warning ahead of time.
This Performance Specification, where applicable, has a monthly Service Level Measurement Period. The Planned Outage Duration for the Core Services is as follows:

	3.2.1.1
	Planned
Outage Duration—SRS = 8 hours (480 minutes) per month; 

H-46

 

	3.2.1.2
	Planned
Outage Duration—Nameserver = (no planned outages allowed); and

	3.2.1.3
	Planned
Outage Duration—Whois = 8 hours (480 minutes) per month.

	3.2.2
	Planned Outage Timeframe.    The Planned Outage Timeframe defines the hours and days in which the Planned Outage can occur.
The Planned Outage Timeframe for the Core Services is as follows:

	3.2.2.1
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—SRS = 1201-0800 UTC Sunday;

	3.2.2.2
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—Nameserver =(no planned outages allowed); and

	3.2.2.3
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—Whois = 0600-1400 UTC Sunday.

	3.2.3
	Planned Outage Notification.    The usTLD Administrator will notify all of its registrars of any Planned Outage. The
Planned Outage Notification Performance Specification defines the number of days prior to a Planned Outage that the usTLD Administrator will notify its registrars. The Planned Outage Notification for
the Core Services is as follows:

	3.2.3.1
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—SRS = 3 days;

	3.2.3.2
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—Nameserver =(no planned outages allowed); and

	3.2.3.3
	Planned
Outage Timeframe—Whois = 3 days.

	3.3
	Extended Planned Outage.    In some cases such as software upgrades and platform replacements an extended maintenance
timeframe is required. Extended Planned Outages will be less frequent than regular Planned Outages but their duration will be longer. Extended Planned Outage Performance Specifications are a C4
priority level.

	3.3.1
	Extended Planned Outage Duration.    The Extended Planned Outage Duration defines the maximum allowable time, in hours and
minutes, that the usTLD Administrator is allowed to take the usTLD Services out of service for extended maintenance. Extended Planned Outages are planned in advance and the Registrar Community is
provided warning ahead of time. Extended Planned Outage periods are in addition to any Planned Outages during any Service Level Measurement Period. This Performance Specification, where applicable,
has a Service Level Measurement Period based on a calendar quarter. The Extended Planned Outage Duration for the Core Services is as follows:

	3.3.1.1
	Extended
Planned Outage Duration—SRS = 18 hours (1080 minutes) per calendar quarter;

	3.3.1.2
	Extended
Planned Outage Duration—Nameserver =(no planned outages allowed); and

	3.3.1.3
	Extended
Planned Outage Duration—Whois = 18 hours (1080 minutes) per calendar quarter.

	3.3.2
	Extended Planned Outage Timeframe.    The Extended Planned Outage Timeframe defines the hours and days in which the
Extended Planned Outage can occur. The Extended Planned Outage Timeframe for the Core Services is as follows:

	3.3.2.1
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—SRS = 1201-0800 UTC Saturday or Sunday;

	3.3.2.2
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—Nameserver =(no planned outages allowed); and

	3.3.2.3
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—Whois = 1201-0800 UTC Saturday or Sunday. 

H-47

 

	3.3.3
	Extended Planned Outage Notification.    The usTLD Administrator will notify all of its registrars of any Extended Planned
Outage. The Extended Planned Outage Notification Performance Specification defines the number of days prior to an Extended Planned Outage that the usTLD Administrator will notify its registrars. The
Extended Planned Outage Notification for the Core Services is as follows:

	3.3.3.1
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—SRS = 4 weeks;

	3.3.3.2
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—Nameserver =(no planned outages allowed); and

	3.3.3.3
	Extended
Planned Outage Timeframe—Whois = 4 weeks.

	3.4
	Processing Time.    Processing Time is an important measurement of transaction-based services like those provided by the
usTLD System. The first three Performance Specifications, Service Availability, Planned Outages and Extended Planned Outages, measure the amount of time that the service is available to its users.
Processing Time measures the quality of that service. 

Processing
Time refers to the time that the usTLD Administrator receives a request and sends a response to that request. Since each of the usTLD Services has a unique function the Performance
Specifications for Processing Time are unique to each of the usTLD Services. For example, a Performance Specification for the Nameserver is not applicable to the SRS and Whois, etc. Processing Time
Performance Specifications are a C2 priority level. 

Processing
Time Performance Specifications have a monthly Service Level Measurement Period and will be reported on a monthly basis. The usTLD Administrator will log the processing time for all of the
related transactions, measured from the time it receives the request to the time that it returns a response. 

	3.4.1
	Processing
Time—Add, Modify, Delete = 3 seconds for 95%

	3.4.1.1
	Processing
Time—Add, Modify, and Delete is applicable to the SRS as accessed through the XRP protocol. It measures the processing time for add, modify, and delete
transactions associated with domain names, nameserver, contacts, and registrar profile information.

	3.4.1.2
	The
Performance Specification is 3 seconds for 95% of the transactions processed. That is, 95% of the transactions will take 3 seconds or less from the time the usTLD
Administrator receives the request to the time it provides a response.

	3.4.2
	Processing Time—Query Domain = 1.5 seconds for 95%

	3.4.2.1
	Processing
Time—Query Domain is applicable to the SRS as accessed through the XRP protocol [defined in
Appendix     of the usTLD Agreement]. It measures the processing time for an availability query of a specific domain name.

	3.4.2.2
	The
performance specification is 1.5 seconds for 95% of the transactions. That is, 95% of the transactions will take 1.5 seconds or less from the time the usTLD Administrator
receives the query to the time it provides a response as to the domain name's availability.

	3.4.3
	Processing Time—Whois Query = 1.5 seconds for 95%

	3.4.3.1
	Processing
Time—Whois Query is only applicable to the Whois. It measures the processing time for a Whois Query. 

H-48

 

	3.4.3.2
	The
Performance Specification is 1.5 seconds for 95% of the transactions. That is, 95% of the transactions will take 1.5 seconds or less from the time the Whois receives a query
to the time it responds.

	3.4.4
	Processing
Time—Nameserver Resolution = 1.5 seconds for 95%

	3.4.4.1
	Processing
Time—Nameserver Resolution is only applicable to the Nameserver. It measures the processing time for a DNS query.

	3.4.4.2
	The
Performance Specification is 1.5 seconds for 95% of the transactions. That is, 95% of the transactions will take 1.5 seconds or less from the time Nameserver receives the DNS
query to the time it provides a response.

	3.5
	Update Frequency.    There are two important elements of the usTLD System that are updated frequently and are used by the
general public: Nameserver and Whois. Registrars generate these updates through the SRS. The SRS then updates the Nameserver and the Whois. These will be done on a batch basis. Update Frequency
Performance Specifications are a C3 priority level. 

The
committed Performance Specification with regard to Update Frequency for both the Nameserver and the Whois is 15 minutes for 95% of the transactions. That is, 95% of the updates to the Nameserver
and Whois will be effectuated within 15 minutes. This is measured from the time that the registry confirms the update to the registrar to the time the update appears in the Nameserver and Whois.
Update Frequency Performance Specifications have a monthly Service Level Measurement Period and will be reported on a monthly basis.

	3.5.1
	Update Frequency—Nameserver = 15 minutes for 95%.

	3.5.2
	Update Frequency—Whois = 15 minutes for 95%. 

H-49

 

	 
	 	Performance Specification Description
	 	SRS
	 	Nameserver
	 	Whois

	1	 	Service Availability	 	99.9% per calendar month	 	99.999% per calendar year	 	99.95% per calendar month
	2	 	Processing Time—Add, Modify, Delete	 	3 sec for 95%	 	NA	 	NA
	3	 	Processing Time—Query Domain	 	1.5 sec for 95%	 	NA	 	NA
	4	 	Processing Time—Whois	 	NA	 	NA	 	1.5 sec for 95%
	5	 	Processing Time—Nameserver Resolution	 	NA	 	1.5 sec for 95%	 	NA
	6	 	Update Frequency	 	NA	 	15 min for 95%	 	15 min for 95%
	7	 	Planned Outage—Duration	 	8 hrs per calendar month	 	not allowed	 	8 hrs per calendar month
	8	 	Planned Outage—Timeframe	 	1201 - 0800 EST Sun	 	not allowed	 	1201 - 0800 EST Sun
	9	 	Planned Outage—Notification	 	3 days	 	not allowed	 	3 days
	10	 	Extended Planned Outage—Duration	 	18 hrs per calendar quarter	 	not allowed	 	18 hrs per calendar quarter
	11	 	Extended Planned Outage—Timeframe	 	1201 - 0800 ETC Sat or Sun	 	not allowed	 	1201 - 0800 ETC Sat or Sun
	12	 	Extended Planned Outage—Notification	 	28 days	 	not allowed	 	28 days

H-50

  

 
 

Exhibit H    
    
    SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT    
    

	1.
	Definitions.    Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the definitions ascribed to them in
Exhibit G to the usTLD Administrator-Registrar Agreement.

	2.
	Credits.    If usTLD Administrator fails to meet the Performance Specifications defined in Exhibit G ("Service Level
Exception" or "SLE"), usTLD Administrator shall pay in the aggregate to the Registrar Community a credit according to the tables provided below ("Applicable Credit"). Each Registrar shall only be
entitled to a fraction of the Applicable Credit. Such fractions of the credit specified in the tables to be paid to any individual Registrar will be calculated based upon the number of domain names
that such Registrar added to the usTLD Administrator during the Service Level Measurement Period compared to the total number of domain names added to the usTLD Administrator by all Registrars during
the Service Level Measurement Period in which the SLE occurred. The credit due to Registrar may be paid as an offset to registrations and other fees owed to usTLD Administrator by Registrar. All
credits shall be paid in U.S. Dollars. The following Credit Lookup Matrix indicates the corresponding credit table for which the credits defined in this Appendix will be levied. 

 
 

CREDIT LOOKUP MATRIX    
    

	 
	 	Performance Specification Description
	 	SRS
	 	Nameserver
	 	Whois

	1	 	Service Availability	 	Table C1a	 	Table C1b	 	Table C1a
	2	 	Processing Time—Add, Modify, Delete	 	Table C2	 	NA	 	NA
	3	 	Processing Time—Query Domain	 	Table C2	 	NA	 	NA
	4	 	Processing Time—Whois	 	NA	 	NA	 	Table C2
	5	 	Processing Time—Nameserver Resolution	 	NA	 	Table C2	 	NA
	6	 	Update Frequency	 	NA	 	Table C3	 	Table C3
	7	 	Planned Outage—Duration	 	Table C4b	 	NA	 	Table C4b
	8	 	Planned Outage—Timeframe	 	Table C4a	 	NA	 	Table C4a
	9	 	Planned Outage—Notification	 	Table C4a	 	NA	 	Table C4a
	10	 	Extended Planned Outage—Duration	 	Table C4b	 	NA	 	Table C4b
	11	 	Extended Planned Outage—Timeframe	 	Table C4a	 	NA	 	Table C4a
	12	 	Extended Planned Outage—Notification	 	Table C4a	 	NA	 	Table C4a

        If
one or more SLEs occurs as the direct result of a failure to meet a Performance Specification in a single credit class, usTLD Administrator shall be responsible only for the credit
assessed for the credit class which is the proximate cause for all directly related failures. 

        The
following tables identify total Registrar Community credits due for SLEs in the four credit classes C1-C4. Notwithstanding the credit levels contained in these tables, the total
credits owed by usTLD Administrator under this Agreement shall not exceed $30,000 USD monthly and $360,000 USD annually. The credits contained in Tables C1a-C4 represent the total credits that may be
assessed in a given SLR category in one Service Level Measurement Period. 

	2.1
	C1 Credit Class—If availability of C1 Credit Class components or systems does not meet C1 Performance Specifications in any
given Service Level Measurement Period described in the 

H-51

 

Performance
Specification Matrix in Exhibit G, usTLD Administrator will credit the Registrar Community according to the tables (which amount will be credited to the Registrar on a proportional
basis as set forth above). 

 
 

Table C1a    
    

	SLE
 
	 	< 30 sec.'s
	 	30-60 sec.'s
	 	1-2 min.'s
	 	2-10 min.'s
	 	10-30 min.'s
	 	over 30 min.'s

	Monthly Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	750	 	$	1,500	 	$	2,500	 	$	3,750	 	$	5,000	 	$	6,000

C1a Availability Example:    In a given measurement period, the SRS Availability is 99.87%, which equates to 52 minutes of unplanned downtime.
The usTLD Administrator's Performance Specification for SRS Availability is 99.9%, or 43 minutes of downtime. The Service Level Exception, therefore, is 9 minutes (52-43 minutes), the
difference between the Performance Specification and the actual measured performance. From the Credit Lookup Matrix, we see the relevant SLA is found in Table C1a. In Table C1a, the time interval
(2-10 minutes) has a corresponding credit of $3,750 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

 
 

Table C1b    
    

	SLE
 
	 	< 10 min.'s
	 	10-30 min.'s
	 	30-60 min.'s
	 	1-2 hours
	 	2-4 hours
	 	over 4 hours

	Annual Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	7,500	 	$	15,000	 	$	25,000	 	$	35,000	 	$	50,000	 	$	75,000

C1b Availability Example:    In a given Service Level Measurement Period, the measured Nameserver Availability is 99.990% over a twelve
(12) month period, which equates to 52 minutes of downtime. The usTLD Administrator's Performance Specification for Nameserver Availability is 99.999%, or 5 minutes of downtime per calendar
year. The Service Level Exception, therefore, is 47 minutes (52-5 minutes), the difference between the Performance Specification and the actual measured performance. From the Credit Lookup
Matrix, we see the relevant SLA is found in Table C1b. In Table C1b, the time interval (30-60 minutes) has a corresponding credit of $25,000 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

	2.2
	C2 Credit Class—If processing time for C2 Credit Class services does not meet C2 Service Levels in any given Service Level
Measurement Period, usTLD Administrator will credit the Registrar Community according to the following table (which amount will be credited to the Registrars on a proportional basis as set forth
above). 

 
 

Table C2    
    

	SLE
 
	 	< 2 sec.'s
	 	2-5 sec.'s
	 	5-10 sec.'s
	 	10-20 sec.'s
	 	20-30 sec.'s
	 	over 30 sec.'s

	Monthly Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	375	 	$	750	 	$	1,500	 	$	3,500	 	$	4,000	 	$	7,500

C2 Processing Example:    The Performance Specification for Processing Time for Add, Modify, and Delete is 3 seconds or less for 95% of the
transactions. In a given Service Level Measurement Period 7% of the transactions are greater than 3 seconds. The 5% of those transactions with the longest processing times are not subject to the SLE
calculation 

H-52

 

(3 seconds
for 95%). The SLE is calculated using the average processing time for the 2% of the transactions that are subject to the SLE. If there were 1,000 transactions and they took a total
of 4,000 seconds the average is 4 seconds. That generates an SLE of 1 second (4 seconds-3 seconds). From the Credit Lookup Matrix, we see the relevant SLA is found in Table C2. In Table C2, the SLE
time interval (< 2 seconds) has a corresponding credit $375 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

	2.3
	C3 Credit Class—If update frequency measurements of C3 Credit Class components or systems do not meet C3 Service Levels in
any given Service Level Measurement Period as described in the Performance Specification Matrix in Exhibit G, usTLD Administrator will credit the Registrar Community according to the following
tables (which amount will be credited to the Registrars on a proportional basis as set forth above). 

 
 

Table C3    
    

	SLE
 
	 	< 30 sec.'s
	 	30-60 sec.'s
	 	1-2 min.'s
	 	2-10 min.'s
	 	10-30 min.'s
	 	over 30 min.'s

	Monthly Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	188	 	$	375	 	$	625	 	$	938	 	$	1,250	 	$	1,500

C3 Update Frequency Example:    In a given Service Level Measurement Period, 95% of the updates to the Nameserver take 24 minutes or less to
complete. The corresponding usTLD Administrator's Performance Specification is 15 minutes for 95% of the updates. The SLE, therefore, is 9 minutes. From the Credit Lookup Matrix, we see the relevant
SLA is found in Table C3. The SLE time interval (2-10 minutes) has a corresponding credit of $938 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

	2.4
	C4 Credit Class—If usTLD Administrator fails to comply with C4 Credit Class category Performance Specifications, usTLD
Administrator will credit the Registrar Community according to the following tables (C4a and C4b) (which amount will be credited to the Registrars on a proportional basis as set forth above). 

 
 

Table C4a    
    

	SLE
 
	 	Any

	Monthly Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	500

C4a Planned Outage Notification Example:    In each instance the usTLD Administrator fails to meet the Performance Specifications for
Notification and Timeframe related to Planned Outages and Extended Planned Outages, the usTLD Administrator is subject to the credit in Table C4a. For example, the usTLD Administrator informs the
Registrar Community that it will initiate a Planned Outage of the SRS on the next calendar Sunday (five (5) days advance notice). The corresponding usTLD Administrator's Performance
Specification is 28 days 

H-53

 

notice.
From the Credit Lookup Matrix, we see the relevant SLA is found in Table C4a. This results in a credit of $500 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

 
 

Table C4b    
    

	SLE
 
	 	< 1 hour
	 	1-2 hours
	 	2-4 hours
	 	4-6 hours
	 	6-10 hours
	 	over 10 hours

	Monthly Credit to Registrar Community	 	$	300	 	$	750	 	$	1,200	 	$	2,500	 	$	3,500	 	$	4,000

C4b Planned Outage Example:    In a given Service Level Measurement Period, the actual duration of a planned outage is 11 hours and 20
minutes for the SRS. The corresponding usTLD Administrator's Performance Specification is 8 hours per month for the SRS. The SLE, therefore, is 3 hours and 20 minutes. From the Credit
Lookup Matrix the relevant SLA is found in Table C4b. The SLE time interval (2-4 hours) has a corresponding credit of $1,200 USD to be paid to the Registrar Community. 

	3.
	Receipt of Credits.    In order for Registrars to claim credits, the following procedure must be followed:

	3.1
	usTLD
Administrator shall perform the required measurements in order to obtain the total credits associated with the applicable Service Level Measurement Period. Such measurements and
associated documentation shall be delivered by e-mail to each of the Registrars in the Registrar Community. Such notice shall also include the total credit (if any) to be paid to the
Registrar Community as a result of any outages.

	3.2
	Receipt
of Credit—When the above steps have been completed, the usTLD Administrator shall enter in each Registrar's account balance the amount of credit (if applicable)
that can be used immediately toward registrations in the Registry. 

4.     Obligations.  

	4.1
	Except
in the case of cross-network nameserver performance (which is not a subject of this Service Level Agreement), usTLD Administrator will perform monitoring from internally
located systems as a means to verify that the conditions of the SLA are being met.

	4.2
	Upon
written request, and at the sole expense of the requesting Registrar(s), usTLD Administrator will retain an independent third party to be selected by usTLD Administrator with the
consent of the Registrar(s). The Registrar may, under reasonable terms and conditions, audit the reconciliation records for the purposes of verifying measurements of the Performance Specifications.
The frequency of these audits will be no more than once yearly during the term of the agreement between usTLD Administrator and the Registrar.

	4.3
	usTLD
Administrator's obligations under this SLA are waived during the first 120 days after the date that the expanded space of the usTLD goes "live." ("Commencement of Service
Date").

	4.4
	A
Registrar must report each occurrence of alleged occasion of Unavailability of Core Services to the usTLD Administrator customer service help desk in the manner required by the
usTLD Administrator (i.e., e-mail, fax, telephone) in order for an occurrence to be treated as Unavailable for purposes of the SLE.

	4.5
	In
the event that the Core Services are Unavailable to an individual Registrar, usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to re-establish the affected
Core Services for such Registrar as soon as reasonably practicable. In the event that the 

H-54

 

Unavailability
of Core Services affects all Registrars, the usTLD Administrator is responsible for opening a blanket trouble ticket and immediately notifying all Registrars of the trouble ticket
number and details. 

	4.6
	Both
Registrar and the usTLD Administrator agree to use reasonable commercial good faith efforts to establish the cause of any alleged Core Services Unavailability. If it is mutually
determined to be a usTLD Administrator problem, the issue will become part of the Unplanned Outage minutes.

	4.7
	The
usTLD Administrator will use commercially reasonable efforts to restore the critical systems of the Core Services within 24 hours after the termination of a force majeure
event and restore full system functionality within 48 hours after the termination of a force majeure event. Outages due to a force majeure will not be considered Service Unavailability.

	4.9
	Incident
trouble tickets must be opened within a commercially reasonable period of time. 

5.     Miscellaneous.  

	5.1
	This
Service Level Agreement is independent of any rights, obligations or duties set forth in the usTLD Administrator Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and the usTLD Administrator Agreement, the usTLD Administrator Agreement shall control. 

H-55

   I. Start-up Phase Policies  

        During the start-up phase of the expanded usTLD, NeuStar will establish a set of important policies designed to improve and
maintain the integrity of the usTLD by protecting important intellectual property rights and ensuring that the usTLD serves the U.S. Internet community.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar's start-up policies will ensure a secure, stable and controlled introduction of the expanded usTLD.

	•
	Rather than prescribe policy, NeuStar will seek to develop policy in partnership with the usTLD community.

        During
the expansion of the usTLD, the new administrator will face a number of serious issues similar to those encountered by new gTLDs. These issues include, for example, concerns
regarding cybersquatting, the expected "rush" of registrations at the opening of the expanded TLD space, and the need to enforce registration restrictions such as the requirement in the usTLD that
registrants be residents of the US. The absence of well structured plans to address such issues indicates a likely inability of the would be administrator to handle the complex process of opening to
the public a new TLD space such as the expanded usTLD, and threatens the integrity and ultimately the success of the usTLD. NeuStar has a strong understanding of these issues and has designed
start-up policies and procedures to ensure that the integrity of the usTLD is maintained and improved during the critical start-up phases of the expanded usTLD. 

        NeuStar
will implement the following policies and procedures relevant to the start-up phases of the expanded usTLD: 

	•
	Sunrise Policy—NeuStar will implement a sunrise policy to allow trademark holders and applicants to register
their valuable marks in the usTLD prior to the expanded usTLD being opened to the general public. This process is modeled after the sunrise policies adopted by some of the new ICANN sponsored gTLDs.
The sunrise policy is discussed in detail in Section B.3.3 of this proposal.

	•
	usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (usDRP)—NeuStar understands that to ensure that the usTLD serves the usTLD
community fairly and with a high degree of integrity, strong dispute resolution procedures must be implemented to address concerns and issues under the administrator's policies. Following on the
significant work by ICANN, NeuStar has developed effective, efficient, and fair dispute mechanisms for the usTLD. The usTLD dispute resolution policies are discussed in detail in Section B.3.3
of this proposal.

	•
	US Nexus Requirement—NeuStar will establish a mechanism to ensure that the usTLD serves the US Internet
community. Registrants will be required to show that they are either residents in the US or have a bona fide presence in the US. The US Nexus Requirement is discussed in detail in Section B.3.1
of this proposal.

	•
	Land Rush Process—NeuStar's Land Rush process will ensure that the initial "rush" for name registrations for
valuable second level domains expected when the expanded usTLD is opened for public registration does not overload our system. The US Nexus Requirement is discussed in detail in Section J of
this proposal. 

        Exhibit I-1
illustrates NeuStar's carefully phased and controlled start-up process. 

        NeuStar's
policy approach is thorough and fair, yet is not heavy-handed. The start-up policies outlined herein are the minimum policies required for a secure and stable
start-up of the expanded 

I-1

 

usTLD.
In major part, policy in the usTLD will be developed in collaboration with the usTLD community at large. 

        [Exhibit I-1:
The NeuStar start-up process comprises a carefully phased and controlled introduction of the expanded usTLD to ensure the
integrity and stability of the usTLD and the Internet. Graphic Omitted: timeline for usTLD startup.] 

I-2

 

J. Registration Process  

        To ensure rapid acceptance and vigorous marketing of the usTLD by existing and future registrars, as well as to introduce strong
competition and innovation, NeuStar will implement a stable, straightforward, and familiar initial registration process for the usTLD domain name based upon the proven business model supported by
ICANN.

	•
	NeuStar will follow proven start-up and past start-up registration processes used for new gTLDs to ensure stable and robust
name registration in the expanded usTLD

	•
	The Sunrise Program will provide trademark holders the opportunity to protect their valuable marks

	•
	NeuStar's Land Rush Implementation provides a strong, single solution to the complex problem of heavy registration traffic during the
start-up of the new domain space

	•
	NeuStar's proven ICANN-like registry/registrar name registration model will encourage rapid acceptance of the expanded usTLD, driving use
and innovation of the space

        In
many ways, the expansion and enhancement of the usTLD is not unlike the introduction of a new top level domain. Therefore, a new usTLD administrator must take into account the same
sets of issues and potential problems relevant to the introduction of a new gTLD. To address these issues and concerns, the chosen usTLD administrator will need a high level of experience in the DNS
space, as well as significant resources to ensure stability, integrity, and accuracy of operations in a very dynamic start-up and transition process. NeuStar meets these requirements and
has developed strong solutions for the usTLD expansion. 

        Drawing
on the experience and successes of the shared registry business model developed in the context of the gTLDs, NeuStar will implement for the usTLD a clear and familiar process for
domain name registration. 

        NeuStar's
expansion of the usTLD will comprise a measured, controlled development of the usTLD consistent with the growth and development of the DNS as a whole. Thus, the expanded usTLD
registration processes will be broken into three stages: 

	1.
	The
Sunrise Program,

	2.
	The
Land Rush Implementation, and

	3.
	Post
Start-up Registration Process. 

Sunrise Program  

        The Sunrise program will address the important issue of intellectual property rights in names that will become available in an expanded usTLD space. NeuStar
agrees that it is critical to have a mechanism for dealing with the problem of "cybersquatting." NeuStar's Sunrise Program is described in detail in Section I of this proposal. 

Land Rush Implementation  

        Subsequent to the Sunrise program for intellectual property holders, the next issue to address is the "Land Rush" phenomenon during a TLD's initial
start-up period. This phenomenon, at its most basic level, describes an expected rush of registration requests as potential registrants attempt to capture the most valuable, from their
perspective, names in the usTLD space. The expanded usTLD must be introduced in a manner that manages the technical system issues associated with extremely high traffic volumes. In addition, domain
names must be allocated in an entirely impartial manner so that no party or parties may claim special privileges in registering a domain name in the expanded 

J-1

 

usTLD
space. The principle of neutrality should be the cornerstone of the registry's operation, and it is even more critical during the start-up period. While it is a given that this
principle should underpin the registry's operation in general, this is especially true during the start-up period. 

        It
is extremely difficult to accurately predict the initial volume of registration requests. While some basic assumptions will assist in defining boundaries, any solution to the
start-up issues must take into account a degree of uncertainty and be able to provide contingencies if demand greatly exceeds predictions. Thus, Land Rush represents a significant issue
that the new administrator must deal with immediately upon award by DOC. Indeed, NeuStar submits that the absence of a well-reasoned and comprehensive Land Rush solution in a party's
quotation is an indicator of probable failure of transition and implementation after award. 

        There
are several possible ways to approach the issues raised by the Land Rush phenomenon: 

	1.
	Attempt to compensate for increased volumes with hardware—This approach has several shortcomings, not the least of which is
an exorbitant cost that would seriously impact the price competitiveness of registry services. In addition, it does not take into account the high degree of uncertainty in estimating initial volumes.

	2.
	Use higher price points to control demand—Higher price points would have a significant impact on the perceived fairness of
the process since they would restrict access to registrations—an outcome incompatible with the public resource nature of the usTLD. In addition, it would involve an arbitrary allocation of
price points to domain names.

	3.
	Moderate registrations via a start-up-specific policy—In this scenario, lists of domain names are
submitted to the registry by registrars. These lists are then randomized and processed to create a list containing only one application for each name submitted (i.e., the process would randomly select
one of a number of duplicate requests for a given name, such as "neustar.us"). This initial randomization and processing prevents registrars or registrants from attempting to "game" the Land Rush
system by submitting large numbers of duplicate registration requests to increase the chance that they will be selected as the name registrant in the final random processing. The registrar lists are
then combined into a single file and again randomized. Names are selected for registration from this final list. The strength of this solution is that it will provide an effective means of moderation
regardless of the size of registration volumes. In effect, it will function efficiently whether the demand for registrations is ten or ten million. Moreover, the Land Rush solution ensures complete
impartiality in domain name allocation at the registry level. Hence, this is the solution proposed by NeuStar. 

An Overview of the Land Rush Solution  

        As demonstrated in Exhibit J-1, the Land Rush process will provide an effective and fair method
for ensuring the stability of the new TLD and the Internet during the initial registration period. 

        Phase 1: Communication of the Process—To ensure the smooth implementation of the start-up procedures, NeuStar will
undertake a proactive educational campaign with registrars. This will involve distribution of information kits by e-mail as well as personal contact from the registry customer support
staff and account managers. In this way, registrars will have the opportunity to completely understand the procedures and processes involved in the Land Rush solution. Fortunately, many registrars
already are familiar with this process from the introduction of the new ICANN-sponsored gTLDs. 

        Phase 2: Submission of Registration Lists—Each accredited registrar will provide a list of domain names and registration
details. There will be no minimum or maximum limit for the lists. The registration files will be submitted via a secure transport mechanism before a specified closing time for first submissions.
Registration lists cannot be modified until the first batch is processed and completed. 

J-2

 

        [Exhibit J-1:
The NeuStar Land Rush Process ensures complete impartiality in domain name allocation at the registry level—critical to
maintaining the integrity of the usTLD. Graphic Omitted: flow chart of land rush process.] 

        Phase 3: Randomization of Registrar Submitted Lists—The lists submitted by each registrar will be individually randomized and
processed to eliminate duplicate domain name registration requests (e.g., four different parties request unclesam.us; one of the requests will be selected, and the others will be deleted from the
list). 

        Phase 4: Compilation and Randomization of Registrar Lists—After initial processing, the entire set of registrar lists will be
combined into a single processing file and randomized. 

        Phase 5: Processing of Randomized List—Once the registration system is activated, a domain name will be randomly selected from
the processing list. This domain name will be entered into the registry database. This process repeats until the entire list has been processed. If a chosen domain name is unavailable, then another
name is chosen at random from the list until one of the following occurs: 

	•
	A
successful registration is complete, or

	•
	The
registrar has no more available names on its list. 

        Phase 6: Results—At the end of the list processing, the results of registrations are returned to the registrar. 

        Phase 7: Commencing Normal Registration Procedures—After returning the results of the Land Rush process to the registrars, the
registrars and the public will be advised that the registry will be activated on April 1, 2002 to accept new registrations directly into the registry. 

The Benefits of NeuStar's Land Rush Implementation Approach  

        Incorporating the Land Rush solution into our overall solution provides the following benefits: 

	•
	Neutral
and impartial allocation of domain names during the start-up period,

	•
	Effective
management of technical resource issues,

	•
	Nondiscriminatory
application process for all parties of new domain names,

	•
	Scalable
and effective support for any volume of registrations,

	•
	Inexpensive
solution implementation, and

	•
	Affordable
registration for all members of the Internet community. 

        The
Land Rush solution will moderate the anticipated volume of registration requests without having any significant impact on fairness, stability, or system resources. The NeuStar
solution is fully scalable so that stability is ensured, even if registration volumes greatly exceed predictions. 

Registrant Post Start-up Registration Process and Requirements  

        NeuStar's plan to introduce changes in the usTLD that are designed to bring the usTLD into the global Internet infrastructure mandates that such changes be
consistent wherever possible with the structures already in place in the global Internet community. Such consistency is required to encourage rapid acceptance of the expanded usTLD space by the
Internet community, especially the registrar industry. Strong competition and the rapid uptake of the usTLD will drive the kind of use and innovation of the usTLD desired by the DOC and NeuStar as an
applicant for administrating the space. 

J-3

 

        Therefore,
following the Land Rush period of name registration, NeuStar intends to implement the ICANN registry/registrar business model for the expanded usTLD. This model has proven to
be highly successful yet sufficiently flexible to support any modifications necessary to address specific usTLD requirements. This process will apply also to direct registrations performed by NeuStar
in the locality-based usTLD. 

        In
this model, the application requires the registrants to provide the necessary registration information through registrars who will have a functional interface with the registry.
Registrants will be asked to provide the owner's contact information along with contact information from the administrative, technical, and billing contacts. They will be asked to provide the name and
IP address for a primary and secondary nameserver and to certify that these nameservers are located within the United States to ensure compliance with the usTLD Nexus Requirement. 

        In
addition to these items (which are already required for registrations in the existing generic TLDs, with the exception of the nameserver Nexus certification), the registrant will be
asked to represent, warrant, and acknowledge that it meets the Nexus Requirement. The Nexus Requirement is set forth in Section B.3.1. Prior to acceptance of a registration, the information
provided will be checked to verify that the contact addresses and nameserver addresses meet the Nexus Requirement. If they do not, the registration will be held for a period of 30 days and the
potential registrant will be given an opportunity to prove compliance with the Nexus Requirement. Failure to demonstrate compliance will result in cancellation of the registration. 

Nexus Requirement Enforcement  

        NeuStar will require that registrars obtain from the registrant certification that it meets the Nexus Requirement and the manner in which the requirement is met
(i.e., citizenship, residence, or bona fide
presence). In addition, NeuStar will check selected data provided by the potential registrant to ensure that the contact information establishes the proper US Nexus (e.g., a valid U.S. ZIP code is
provided). NeuStar will also check the information provided for the primary and secondary nameservers identified by the potential registrant. The required certification will form the basis for the
deletion of a registered name through a usTLD dispute resolution process if the information provided is false. A registration will not be made without a completed certification. The dispute resolution
process is discussed in Section B.3.1 

Appeal Process  

        To ensure fairness and neutrality in operations, any individual who is denied a registration will be given an opportunity to ask the usTLD Administrator to review
its decision and also to demonstrate that the requested name meets usTLD domain registration requirements. Upon an adequate showing, the individual will be permitted to register the requested name. As
a general matter, however, NeuStar does not intend to deny initial registrations unless a given registration does not meet the Nexus Requirement as discussed above. 

Registration Cancellation  

        As discussed above, third parties will have the opportunity to challenge registrations, for example for lack of proper US Nexus, through the usTLD Dispute
resolution process discussed in Section B.3.3 

J-4

   K. Outreach to Current Locality-based usTLD Users  

        NeuStar believes that community involvement must be the core of any public service operation. Therefore, NeuStar will develop
user-friendly, flexible, and effective mechanisms for ensuring input and coordination of the current locality-based usTLD users.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	Designed to ensure that current users have a voice in the future success of the usTLD space

	•
	User-friendly mechanisms enable open discussions and facilitate progress

        As
is noted in Section B.4.4, NeuStar is aware that as a result of the comparative complexity of the namespace and the lack of coordination and marketing for the usTLD, the
locality-based usTLD has not attracted a high level of domain name registration activity and remains underpopulated in comparison with other ccTLDs. In particular, almost no effort has been made to
reach out to locality-based users and stakeholders to further develop and improve the space. 

        NeuStar
has a strong legacy of coordinating complex groups of users in the industries that it serves. Successful administration of public resources, whether they are telephone numbers or
domain names, requires strong awareness of constituencies and their needs. NeuStar intends to establish target communication mechanisms, including e-mail listservs, chat services, and
other Internet-based services. In addition, NeuStar will utilize traditional customer outreach, such as user group
meetings, user support representatives, and other support services to maintain close relationships with usTLD stakeholders. These forums will be tailored to allow users and the public to suggest or
recommend additional policies or procedures for the usTLD. 

        To
begin this process, NeuStar will leverage the six-month compliance report process, discussed in detail in Section B.4.5, to develop a strong understanding of
stakeholder desires and concerns and to identify the best way to communicate with each constituency group. 

        Coordination
of all usTLD outreach efforts will ultimately be implemented and developed under the auspices of the usTLD Policy Advisory Council. This council will be very important to
the ongoing development of usTLD policy and public outreach. The structure and duties of this council, as well as the detailed outline of our basic outreach plan, are discussed in detail in
Section B.3.5. 

K-1

   L. Funding for the usTLD  

        Past financial performance, the ability to secure capital, and current financial commitment to the development of a next generation
Internet registry architecture position NeuStar to fully fund the usTLD at no cost to the US government and position it for a low cost to facilitate registrant adoption by the US
public.

HIGHLIGHTS  

        All stakeholders receive best value as a result of: 

	•
	NeuStar's financial stability that ensures full funding of the administration of the usTLD

	•
	NeuStar's offering domain name registrations for the usTLD at highly competitive market prices

        The
administration of the usTLD is a commercial service offering to the United States at large and should therefore be at no cost to the US government. NeuStar complies with the request
in the RFQ that the value of the purchase order related to the coordination and management of the usTLD is $0.00 [cost] to the Department of Commerce, or any other U.S.
government body that would assume control of the contract, as shown in NeuStar's Request For Quotation Standard Form 18 (Rev. 6/95) in the first section of this proposal. 

NeuStar's Financial Stability  

        NeuStar, a privately held corporation, has sufficient capital to fully fund the efforts to coordinate and manage the usTLD outlined herein. As demonstrated in the
attached financial statements, NeuStar was net income positive for the financial year 2000. The original lines of business are net income and cash flow positive going forward, and have seen
substantial growth—revenue has grown from $6 million in 1997 to $67 million in 2000, a CAGR of 126%. These statements illustrate the maturity of the existing registry
businesses we have been operating for over 5 years. 

        NeuStar
recently closed on approximately $50 million in equity capital. This capital will fund the design, implementation, and operation of a next generation Internet registry. In
addition, NeuStar has a very strong balance sheet and is in the process of securing over $50 million of debt financing, the majority of which will be secured by long-term
receivables (a high quality form of security). 

        In
addition to its own fund raising capabilities, NeuStar continues to receive the on-going financial support of its world-class investment partners. NeuStar's majority
owner, Warburg Pincus, is one of the largest private equity firms in the United States. Please refer to the letter immediately following this section from Warburg Pincus that outlines its commitment
to the success of NeuStar's business. 

Registry Fees  

        To ensure that the usTLD is promoted, successful, and that the best value is received for all constituencies, NeuStar proposes competitive market rates for its
next generation registry services related to the coordination and management of the usTLD. Because NeuStar is able to leverage the current Internet registry architecture, many development costs are
effectively shared, and offset the incremental spend required for the usTLD, enabling NeuStar to offer a competitive market price for registrations. 

Delegee and Registrar Fees  

        In its role as administrator of the usTLD, NeuStar will be responsible for accreditation and management of commercial registrars. Currently, no ICANN-accredited
registrars are eligible for selling second-level registrations for the usTLD. The administrator will have the responsibility of establishing 

L-1

 

criteria,
reviewing applications, and integrating accredited registrars to the registry, and managing on-going relations. 

        NeuStar
will follow a similar model to ICANN for selecting registrars and establishing fees to cover administrative expenses. The fees will not exceed those enumerated in the table in
the first year; in the subsequent years, the fees will not increase by more than 10% annually. NeuStar will not charge for the registry interface or the operational testing and evaluation (OT&E). All
fees are presented in the table below: 

 Registrar Fees  

	Application Fee	 	$1,000 (one time)
	XRP License	 	$0
	OT&E	 	$0
	Annual Fixed Fee	 	$1,250 (per year)
	Variable Fee	 	$0.05 (per registration)

        Moreover,
these fees are designed to cover administrative expenses that are directly attributed to usTLD registrar activity, and are not intended to provide an additional revenue stream
for the registry. These fees are implemented to keep the registrant price at a competitive level, further promoting the enhanced utility of the space and driving market adoption. 

Registration Fees (Undelegated Localities)  

        As instructed, the usTLD administrator will act as the registrar for undelegated localities in the locality-based space. In this capacity, and in this space only,
NeuStar will provide direct registration services to the registrant. NeuStar will have a discrete registrar function, one that utilizes standard protocols and interfaces with the registry as all other
registrars. Were NeuStar to offer these domains at the same price per registration as those charged to delegees and usTLD accredited registrars, it would place NeuStar in a position of under cutting
the registrar market rate for domain names. 

        Based
on the incremental work as a registrar and the core principle of enabling adoption, NeuStar proposes the following competitive market rates: 

 Registration Price  

	Locality-based Domain Name Registration	 	$	15.00

        This
price could also be interpreted as our recommended retail rate for registrars and delegees. While NeuStar will place no enforcement mechanisms that restrict pricing at the registrar
or delegee level, it presents this as a guide. 

Registration Fees (to Registrars)  

        NeuStar will levy domain name registrations fees in a neutral and even-handed manner to all delegees and usTLD-accredited registrars. The domain name
registration fee is applicable to all new registrations in NeuStar's usTLD registry. 

        The
usTLD has a legacy, and that legacy comes with an existing base of domain names entered into the registry under varying terms and conditions. NeuStar recognizes that the existing
delegations and domain names, though they may have been handled in a different manner than what we propose herein, have nonetheless created a name space and implied rights that must be protected.
Those parties with legitimate usTLD domain names today, should continue to hold those names, and NeuStar has no 

L-2

 

desire
to remove names from legitimate holders or to levy additional fees from them for what was incurred prior to transition. 

        Thus,
NeuStar recognizes a distinction between the past and the present, and will not charge domain name registration fees for those names in the zone file or applications submitted
prior to the submission of this proposal. The distinction will hold only for existing registrations in the locality structure, and all new additions to that structure will be subject to the registry
fee structure presented below. This solution is deemed the best value for the usTLD community as it does not rely on the new, expanded space to subsidize all of the locality space, provides a starting
point for enactment of new policy, and provides a competitive delegee and registrar environment. 

        To
provide the registry service in a neutral and even-handed fashion on an on-going basis, the domain name registration fees must be comparable for all
registrations. By their very nature, domains at any level of hierarchy under the first level require identical levels of technical and operational support. This is NeuStar's rationale behind
consistent pricing for new additions in the locality structure and the expanded space. 

        All
fees will be charged to the Registrars and delegees at the time of registration, based on the term length of the registration. The registration applies to all new or renewed names in
the registry database (i.e., names under management). The total fee in each instance is equal to the term of the new or
renewed registration multiplied by the annual registration. All fees will be debited from the appropriate registrars account with the registry at the time the registration is entered into the registry
database, as discussed in NeuStar's proposal Section J. The registration fee for the expanded usTLD will be as follows: 

 Price  

	Domain Name Registration	 	$	5.50

        NeuStar
will offer domain name registrations for term lengths, consistent with those available in the gTLD market. Delegees and registrars can offer and select any of the offered
registration terms to registrants during our live operation of the usTLD registry. During the Sunrise period, that period which allows legitimate trade and service mark owners to obtain names
corresponding to their marks, will have a minimum term of registration of 5 years. This will aid in the on-going protection of those trade and service marks. After this period, all
term lengths will be available for registrations. 

        During
the start-up phase of the usTLD, NeuStar will provide enhanced service offerings to further the protection of intellectual property. As discussed in Section B3.3 of
NeuStar's response, we will validate trade and service mark requests against an authoritative database during Sunrise to ensure the validity of those requests. Fees for this enhanced Sunrise phase are
as follows: 

 Price  

	Enhanced Sunrise Fee	 	$	4.50

        This
is a one-time fee, in addition to the standard registration fee, to secure a dot-us domain name during the sunrise phase. The structure is designed to
strengthen the Sunrise process, and further serves to illustrate NeuStar's understanding and willingness to protect intellectual property. NeuStar will not charge any other incremental fees during the
land rush, batch processing phase of start-up. 

        Service
fees for enhanced applications and service offerings are not included in the domain name registration fee, but will be developed in the course of implementation. All will be
competitively priced to suit market needs. 

L-3

 

Optional Hosting Service Fee  

        To minimize administrative burdens on delegated managers, optional hosting relationships can be offered. It is proposed that the usTLD Administrator host resource
records for delegated managers. The price for this hosting service is equivalent to that of a domain name registration, as it is a comparable service to that performed by the Administrator. 

        NeuStar
feels the fees outlined in this section are extremely competitive to the registration prices in the current ccTLD and gTLD markets. These prices are possible because NeuStar is
leveraging existing infrastructure and able to compensate for the increased responsibilities with the coordination and management of the usTLD. NeuStar is investing substantial capital into the
development of a next generation Internet registry that despite having no comparable market, provides competitive pricing to ensure market adoption and use. 

L-4

 

M.    Description of Cost Elements  

        With over five years of experience designing, implementing, and managing mission-critical public resources, NeuStar confidently presents
an illustrative analysis of the costs associated with administration of the usTLD.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar will be responsible to ICAAN for all ccTLD fees

	•
	NeuStar will leverage existing infrastructure and experience to reduce expenses

        The
development of a next-generation, thick Internet Registry architecture is a high-priority, fully funded, NeuStar initiative. NeuStar has developed an Internet
registry business plan with the goal of providing a state-of-the-art, innovative, world-class solution that is reliable and scalable and exceeds customer
expectations. NeuStar has analyzed and enumerated the resources required to design, implement, and operate the usTLD
registry and has evaluated the market research and general demand for TLDs to develop a registration forecast. Factors such as economies of scope and scale, interoperability, and feasibility were
considered in each of the required operational aspects of the registry as well as for the innovations NeuStar is proposing. 

        In
the following section, we provide a qualitative review of the various cost elements associated with operating the registry, managing the existing locality structure, establishing and
administering policies, communicating and working with the Department of Commerce's Contracting Officer and other Internet stakeholders, and developing enhanced service offerings and applications to
increase the demand and utility of the space. 

Expense Estimation  

        NeuStar's technical solution has been designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the RFQ; the costs associated with delivering this service are discussed in
this section. We feel that our past and current experience providing registry services gives us a solid base for generating a resource plan that is realistic and covers all aspects of Registry
operation. NeuStar's strong efforts balance the infrastructure, security, and IP issues with providing the best value for coordination and management of the usTLD. 

        The
costs associated with coordination and management of the usTLD registry are variable with respect to registration volume, SRS queries, Whois queries, innovative designs of the
registry, the number of accredited registrars, modernization of the locality structure, policy formulation, marketing and outreach, and the ability to provide the highest levels of service. NeuStar
has considered each of these determinations when analyzing the costs for each of the resources required to operate a world-class registry. These costs refer to the implementation and transition phases
as well as to the continuing operation of the registry business after launch. The resources required to support the development, operation, and ongoing enhancement of the usTLD were derived by
weighing technical specifications against market demand in the form of anticipated volumes. 

        NeuStar
is currently developing and implementing this registry architecture through its subsidiary, NeuLevel, and will leverage that development design. When analyzing the usTLD
opportunity, proportional allocations are made to develop the stand-alone financial plan (presented in Section N). While there is technical infrastructure to be shared, there are incremental
costs associated with an additional TLD, as well as costs unique to the usTLD. All costs associated with coordination and management of the usTLD are presented below, distinguished by capital
investment and operational spending. 

M-1

 

Capital Investment  

        Hardware estimates are inclusive of all incremental hardware components required for ongoing development and operation of the Registry. Software estimates include
custom software development to support all registry services described throughout this proposal, as well as third-party software purchases. 

        As
discussed in Section O, Proposed Technical Plan, the physical infrastructure for the registry is a highly scalable design built to operate at high performance and availability
levels. The Enhanced Shared Registry System (SRS) data centers are responsible for the core registry functions of adding, modifying, and deleting domain names to the registry. Nameservers that manage
the resolution of domain names to IP addresses are colocated. The quantity of application, name, Web and Whois servers; routers; load balancers; and relevant networking equipment is driven by the zone
root query volume and size, anticipated demand for usTLD registrations, and the thick registry design. 

        The
software design is an equally large-scale and important facet of the development of a next-generation Internet registry. The custom thick registry architecture that is
being developed will provide enhanced service offerings and applications to be seamlessly integrated into the usTLD space. Additionally, this open architecture will allow for ease in scaling the
registry hardware as query and registration volumes increase. Currently, as active members in the IETF, we are developing an open interface registry-registrar protocol that will be available at no
charge to all usTLD-accredited registrars. In addition to this custom development, NeuStar, as a part of its design, will purchase various third-party software packages. 

        The
capital investment NeuStar is currently making in an Internet registry architecture will not only surpass existing performance and security standards but will serve as a means to
promote competition and increase the number of applications available for the usTLD. 

Operating Expenses  

        The management of the usTLD includes developing policy, coordinating the current delegated managers in the locality space, fulfilling the function of registrar
for undelegated names in the locality-based space, accrediting registrars, managing operational and technical aspects of the registry, maintaining high levels of security, maintaining facilities for
infrastructure and registry employees, providing communication between and within all facets of the registry, enhancing the utility of the space through business development, implementing marketing
and outreach programs, and acting as a representative to the ccTLD constituency within ICANN. Each of these items and the cost drivers are explained in the following paragraphs. 

Functional Areas  

        The coordination and management of the usTLD comprises several roles and functions for NeuStar, including transition and integration of new customers, acting as a
registrar for undelegated names in the locality structure, and operating a near-real-time registry, as well as a product development role. As a part of its corporate
philosophy, NeuStar leverages all corporate functions (i.e., finance and accounting, human resources, legal, media relations, and procurement) across all lines of business. 

        The
generation of the compliance report and recommendations will require unique, individual efforts and external subject matter experts. The scope of this effort includes making direct
contact with existing delegees and subdelegees to determine their current technical and operational capabilities, generating an up-to-date database with their contact
information, and determining how a central administrator can share some of their responsibilities. NeuStar will leverage knowledge of large outreach programs gained in its experience of transitioning
the North American Numbering Plan 

M-2

 

Administration
(NANPA) and will solicit the assistance of subject matter experts on the U.S. domain name structure. 

        Formulation
of and monitoring acceptance of policy is another important function that NeuStar will manage as administrator of the usTLD. The policy staff is responsible for coordinating
with the usTLD Policy Council on formation of new policies or modification of existing policy. They will communicate with the requisite parties at ICANN, that is, the ccTLD constituency, the GAC, and
the Intellectual Property Constituency. This group will also be responsible for accreditation of new usTLD registrars. 

        Because
of their sensitive nature, the registry and registrar functions will be handled separately. NeuStar will have dedicated staff that fulfills the function of registrar for
undelegated domains in the locality-based structure of the usTLD; they will not have any responsibilities within the registry operations. This function will act like current registrars with an
XRP-like interface into the registry with which they register domains under that delegation. 

        In
its role as central registry, NeuStar has experience managing technical and operational responsibilities. Experienced staff will manage all networks, systems, databases, and hardware
to meet the service level requirements of the registry. 

        Additionally,
NeuStar will focus a team of individuals on the increased enhancement of the usTLD through the facilitation of new applications and value-added services to increase the
utility of the usTLD. This product development group will coordinate with various public interest groups as well as commercial entities to promote new and innovative extensions to the usTLD. 

Expense Categories  

        New and incremental staffing is required for each functional area of the coordination and management of the usTLD.
Through our existing contract with the Federal Communications Commission, NeuStar has government-approved labor burden rates that are factored to all staff rates to cover all employee-related
benefits; that rate is 33.3%. For each of the staff members, we have modeled to account for all expenses that are applicable for each function. 

        The
Enhanced SRS and two of the nameserver sites will be housed in NeuStar facilities in Virginia and Illinois. A proportional amount of
the space in those data centers is allocated for the Internet registry. In addition to these technical facilities, NeuStar will contract with qualified third parties to host nameservers in
geographically disbursed facilities. All usTLD-related staff will occupy space in one of our U.S.-based facilities. 

        Communications expense is calculated on a cost-per-Megabit rate and is projected to decline on cost at an annual
rate of 15%. This includes all bandwidth and capacity requirements at the SRS data centers and the nameserver sites. NeuStar contracts with multiple communications providers to share its communication
lines rather than being reliant on a single provider. This protects each phase of the system from outage due to a communication provider's backbone outage. 

        Significant
funds are allocated to the marketing and outreach programs for the usTLD, in conjunction with the marketing plan presented in
Section B.2.8 and the outreach programs in Sections B.3.5 This category of expense includes the public relations efforts, the execution of a brand awareness campaign, and any media or
collateral related to the usTLD. 

        In
its role as administrator of the usTLD, NeuStar will be an active member of the ccTLD constituency and abide by all policies and best practices established by ICANN. NeuStar will
participate in meetings and working groups wherever appropriate to protect the value and autonomy of the usTLD. As a member, NeuStar would be responsible for all funding requirements set forth by
ICANN. Currently, there is a formula, composed of a fixed fee and a variable component based on registry 

M-3

 

volume,
to determine quarterly "dues" to ICANN. Additionally, NeuStar will be responsible for a membership fee to the ccTLD constituency. NeuStar has included this funding requirement in the financial
plan. 

        As
a part of normal operations, NeuStar budgets for ongoing hardware and software maintenance. This provides additional support for all
capital expenditures discussed above. 

        As
with the approved labor burden, NeuStar has a government-approved general and administrative rate allocated to all direct expenses that is used in forecasting expenses and generating
a competitive price. That rate is 25%. 

        Each
of the enumerated expenses is critical to the efficient coordination and management of the usTLD. NeuStar's extensive experience operating a mission-critical public resource
uniquely qualifies us to identify and account for each aspect of our responsibilities. Quantitative analysis for these expenses can be found in the financial statement presented in Section N. 

M-4

 

N.    Pro Forma Projections  

        NeuStar's financial plan for the usTLD reflects the variability of the domain name management of an Internet registry and a pricing option
that will pass on economies of scale to registrars and registrants, but that also provides a reasonable profit.

        NeuStar
recognizes the need of the DOC to determine the fairness and reasonableness of registry prices and assess that the users, citizens of the United States, are receiving the best
value. To assist in that assessment, we submit revenue and operating expenses associated with the coordination and management of the usTLD for each of the years in the base term of the DOC's purchase
order. 

        As
a part of our proposal for the coordination and management of the usTLD, NeuStar has developed a comprehensive business plan around the anticipated demand for its
next-generation, thick Internet registry. Additionally, we have introduced creative pricing structures to pass back economies of scale that we realize. The projections presented below are
consistent with the demand enumerated in Section C of NeuStar's response, as well as the technical, operating, and policy functions outlined in Section M. 

        The
expense, both capital and operational, is variable in nature; therefore, the financials presented are a snapshot for a volume range (domain names under management). The incremental
expenses increase as volume increases in the registry; thus, if the volume exceeds that presented in this analysis, the expense will also increase. 

        The
financial statements are prepared in accordance with US GAAP. Revenue is calculated on a straight-line basis over the duration of the registration term. Likewise,
depreciation and amortization are calculated on a straight-line basis, whereby hardware is depreciated over three (3) years and software amortized over five (5) years. All
other expenses are wholly recognized in the period in which they occur. All figures are presented in thousands. 

	 
	 	Contract

Year 1
	 	Contract

Year 2
	 	Contract

Year 3
	 	Contract

Year 4

	Revenue	 	$	2,799.9	 	$	18,959.1	 	$	38,840.2	 	$	49,692.3
	
 Operating	
 	
 	

 	
 	
 	

 	
 	
 	

 	
 	
 	

 
	 	Staffing	 	 	5,151.4	 	 	6,598.2	 	 	8,077.4	 	 	9,269.0
	 	Marketing/Outreach	 	 	10,542.7	 	 	6,442.1	 	 	7,066.1	 	 	7,980.0
	 	Communication	 	 	239.2	 	 	777.6	 	 	1,200.8	 	 	1,559.2
	 	Maintenance	 	 	1,276.7	 	 	1,377.0	 	 	1,427.5	 	 	1,465.1
	 	ICANN	 	 	69.5	 	 	142.4	 	 	132.2	 	 	142.7
	 	Depreciation and Amortization	 	 	1,268.7	 	 	1,380.2	 	 	1,436.3	 	 	1,391.0
	 	Other Direct	 	 	2,259.8	 	 	2,370.7	 	 	2,514.7	 	 	2,640.6
	 	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	

	 	 	Total Operating	 	 	20,808.0	 	 	19,088.0	 	 	21,855.0	 	 	24,447.6
	 	
 G&A	
 	
 	

5,202.0	
 	
 	

4,772.0	
 	
 	

5,463.7	
 	
 	

6,111.9
	 	 	
 Total	
 	
 	

26,010.0	
 	
 	

23,860.0	
 	
 	

27,318.7	
 	
 	

30,559.5
	 	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	

	 	EBIT	 	 	(23,210.1	)	 	(4,901.0	)	 	11,521.5	 	 	19,132.8
	 	 	
	 	
	 	
	 	

        NeuStar
is committed to the financial success of administering the usTLD. The returns NeuStar forecasts here confirm that registry customers are receiving best value for the service
provided. This forecast assumes we will be on a strong trajectory as of year four of the contract to receive an adequate return on our investment. We are confident we will meet or exceed the
objectives of the DOC, to be eligible for the optional renewals that afford this opportunity. 

N-1

 

        NeuStar
believes that the financial plan associated with the usTLD is a key evaluation criterion for determining the feasibility of a project. The usTLD administrator must have: 

	•
	Demonstrable
experience in developing, implementing, and operating a mission-critical public resource to accurately produce a comprehensive business plan;

	•
	Immediate
access to capital to fully fund the coordination and management of the usTLD as well as its enhancements; and

	•
	Assured
access to additional capital as a measure of contingency. 

        NeuStar
fully satisfies all of the aforementioned criteria. 

N-2

   O.    Proposed Technical Plan  

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	Co-active, redundant Enhanced Shared Registration System Data Centers in VA and IL with two-way replication

	•
	Three geographically dispersed nameserver Data Centers (CA, VA, & IL). Each Data Center containing multiple load balanced
nameservers

	•
	High availability cluster architecture with flexibility, scalability, and reliability

	•
	Redundant Database Servers with seamless failover for applications

	•
	Enhanced SRS is sized initially to handle the projected workload but can grow incrementally

	•
	Enhanced SRS application software architecture is standards based, open systems to facilitate cost-effective upgrade

	•
	Rapid Application Development Methodology for new application development

        NeuStar's
proposed technical solution for usTLD operations meets all of the U.S. Department of Commerce's (DOC's) requirements for the existing and expanded usTLD, in addition to
providing numerous improvements and enhancements: 

        Full Existing and Expanded usTLD Space Support—NeuStar will provide support for the existing usTLD space, which will include
support for existing delegees, as well as providing registrar service for new and existing registrants. In addition, NeuStar will provide full registry support to all eligible registrars for the
expanded usTLD space. 

        Database Centralization—NeuStar proposes to implement a Centralized usTLD Database including a Delegated Manager Database and
a centralized Whois. This approach will offer improved consistency and accuracy of data. 

        Improved Reliability—In support of registry, registrar, database, and information services for the usTLD, NeuStar will
implement co-active data centers and a number of nameserver data centers to create a resilient infrastructure protected against outages through redundancy, fault tolerance, and geographic
dispersion. The benefits to the U.S Internet community are improved availability and better access to DNS services. 

        Providing Real-Time Responsiveness—NeuStar will implement near-real-time updates to the
zone files and the Whois database. The benefit to the U.S Internet community is the elimination of delay-caused confusion over domain name registrations. 

        Eliminating Bottlenecks—NeuStar's high-availability cluster architecture provides scalable processing throughput,
dynamic load balancing between the two data centers, and multiple high-speed Internet connections. The benefit to the Internet user and registrar communities is the elimination of registry
bottlenecks. 

        Encouraging Competition—NeuStar will develop and deploy a new, streamlined registry-registrar protocol for the expanded usTLD
space: the eXtensible registry protocol (XRP). The XRP
provides more features and functionality than the existing registry/registrar interface and far greater security. The benefits to the Internet community are greatly improved Internet stability and
increased public confidence. NeuStar will work with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to bring the protocol to standard status. 

        NeuStar's
proposed usTLD technical solution is based on our experience with the Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and with the.biz registry operations. As requested,
Section O.1 provides an overview of our proposed facilities and systems; subsequent sections expand this overview into a comprehensive technical plan for registry operations detailing the
equipment software, hardware, and related technology NeuStar will use to meet the usTLD program objectives and needs. 

O-1

 

O.1    Proposed Technical Facilities and Systems  

        NeuStar proposes world-class redundant Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) Data Centers in Virginia and Illinois and initially three
Nameserver Data Centers, co-located with the Enhanced SRS Data Centers and a standalone in California, that will provide the facilities and infrastructure to host the usTLD Registry. Our
facility locations were selected to give wide geographic separation and provide resilience against natural and man-made disasters. The benefit to the DOC and the Internet community is
reliable, non-stop usTLD registry, registrar, database, and information services operation.

        NeuStar
has developed a redundant facility implementation, high availability cluster server architectures, redundant database technology, and redundant alternate routed network
connectivity that successfully supports mission-critical services today. The Internet community needs to be able to depend on the Internet as a stable, highly available infrastructure for worldwide
collaboration and commerce. 

        In
the subsection that follows, we describe where the NeuStar facilities are located and provide a functional description and physical description of the Enhanced Shared Registration
System (SRS) data center and the nameserver sites. In subsequent subsections, we provide a more detailed system description of each of the systems residing within these facilities. 

O.1.1    Registry Facilities Site Description  

        This section describes NeuStar's proposed usTLD Registry architecture consisting of redundant Enhanced SRS data centers and multiple nameserver sites to provide a
seamless, responsive, and reliable registry service to registrars and Internet users. As shown in Exhibit O-1, our TLD registry redundant Enhanced SRS and nameserver data center
sites are geographically dispersed and interconnected with a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to provide nationwide coverage and protect against natural and man-made disasters and other
contingencies. 

O.1.1.1    Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) Data Center Functional Description  

        High availability registry services can be provided only from facilities that have been designed and built specifically for such a critical operation. The NeuStar
Enhanced SRS data centers incorporate redundant uninterruptible power supplies; high-capacity ventilation and climate control; fire suppression; physical security; firewalls with intrusion
detection; redundant, high availability cluster technology; and redundant network and telecommunications architectures. When selecting the sites, we considered their inherent resistance to natural and
man-made disasters. The functional block diagram of our Enhanced SRS data center is depicted in Exhibit O-2. As can be seen from this exhibit, the Enhanced SRS data
center is highly redundant and designed for no single point of failure. 

        Each
Enhanced SRS data center facility provides the functions listed in the system function directory table below. Descriptions of the Enhanced SRS systems providing these functions are
provided in the next subsection. 

        [Exhibit O-1:
To enhance service availability and reduce the possibility of catastrophic failure, NeuStar will initially deploy three nameservers at sites
in CA, VA, and IL. Two of the namserver sites will be co-located with the co-active pair of Enhanced SRS Data Centers. Graphic Omitted: map depicting data center
locations.] 

        [Exhibit O-2:
NeuStar's Enhanced SRS data centers feature redundant network connectivity, high availability clusters, and replication to a second data
center engineered to provide 99.95% availability and scalability. Graphic Omitted: architectural diagram of the enhanced SRS data center.] 

O-2

 

 Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) Function Directory  

	System Function
	 	Functional Description

	Web Server	 	High capacity Web Servers provide secure Web services and information dissemination. It contains a registry home page to enable registrars to sign in and inquire about account status, get downloads and whitepapers, access
frequently asked questions, obtain self help support, or submit a trouble ticket to the TLD Registry Help Desk.
	

Secure Web Provisioning Interface	
 	

High capacity web servers provide a secure interface for the delegated managers and registrants in the locality space to provision registration data. Delegated managers will be provided with authenticity information that they will need to input to
access their account information. Registrants that utilize NeuStar as a registrar will be provided with similar authenticity information for their registrations. This is to ensure that only that registrant can modify the registration.
	

Protocol (XRP) Servers	
 	

XRP transactions received from registrars undergo front-end processing by the XRP server that manages the XRP session level dialog, performs session level security processing, and strips out transaction records. These XRP transaction records are sent
to the Enhanced SRS data center application server cluster for security authentication and business logic processing.
	

Application Servers	
 	

Processing of the XRP applications business logic, user authentication, posting of inserts, deletes, updates to the master database, and interfaces to authentication, billing and collections, backup, and system/network administration.
	

Centralized usTLD	
 	

The Centralized usTLD database maintains registry data in a multi-threaded, multi-session database
	

Database Servers	
 	

for building data-driven publish and subscribe event notifications and replication to downstream data marts such as the Whois, Delegee, Zone, and Billing and Collection services.
	

Whois Distribution Database	
 	

The Whois Distribution Database is dynamically updated from the Centralized usTLD database and propagates the information to the Whois Database clusters.
	

Whois Database Clusters	
 	

The Whois Database is dynamically updated from the Whois Distribution Database and sits behind the Whois Server clusters. The Whois Database clusters are used to look up records that are not cached by the Whois Servers.
	

Whois Servers	
 	

The Load Balanced Whois Server Clusters receive a high volume of queries from Registrants and Internet users. The Whois service returns information about Registrars, domain names, nameservers, IP addresses, and the associated contacts.
	 	 	 

O-3

 

	

Delegee Whois	
 	

The Delegee Distribution Database is dynamically updated from the Centralized usTLD database and
	

Distribution Database	
 	

propagates the information to the Delegee Database clusters.
	

Delegee Whois Database	
 	

The Delegee Database is dynamically updated from the Delegee Distribution Database and sits behind
	

Clusters	
 	

the Delegee Server clusters. The Delegee Database clusters are used to look up records that are not cached by the Delegee Servers.
	

Delegee Whois Servers	
 	

The Load Balanced Delegee Server Clusters receive a high volume of queries from Registrants and Internet users. The Delegee service returns information about Registrars, domain names, nameservers, IP addresses, and the associated
contacts.
	

Zone Distribution	
 	

The Zone Distribution Database is dynamically updated from the registry Centralized usTLD database
	

Database	
 	

and propagated to the nameserver sites located worldwide. It contains domain names, their associated nameserver names, and the IP addresses for those nameservers.
	

Billing and Collection	
 	

A commercial off-the-shelf system is customized for registry specific eCommerce billing and collection functions that are integrated with XRP transaction processing, the master database and a secure Web server. The system maintains each registrar's
account information by domain name and provides status reports on demand.
	

Authentication Services	
 	

Authentication Service uses commercial X.509 certificates and is used to authenticate the identity of entities interacting with the Enhanced SRS.
	

Backup Server	
 	

Provides backup and restore of each of the various cluster servers and database servers files and provides a shared robotic tape library facility for central backup and recovery.
	

Systems/Network	
 	

Provides system administration and simple network management protocol (SNMP) monitoring of the
	

Management Console	
 	

network, LAN-based servers, cluster servers, network components, and key enterprise applications including the XRP, Web, Whois, Zone, Billing and Collections, Backup/Restore, and database application. Provides threshold and fault event notification
and collects performance statistics.
	

Applications Administration Workstations	
 	

Provides client/server GUI for configuration of Enhanced SRS applications including XRP, Web, Billing and Collection, Database, Authentication, Whois, Zone, etc.
	

Building LAN	
 	

Provides dual redundant switched Gigabit Ethernet LAN-based connectivity for all network devices in the data center
	 	 	 

O-4

 

	

Firewall	
 	

Protects the building LAN from the insecure Internet via a Firewall that provides policy-based IP filtering and network-based intrusion detection services to protect the system from Internet hacking and denial of service attacks.
	

Load Balancers	
 	

Dynamic Feedback Protocol (DFP)—based load balancing of TCP/IP traffic in a server cluster including common protocols such as least connections, weighted least connections, round robin, and weighted round robin.
	

Telecommunications Access	
 	

Dual-homed access links to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Virtual Private Network (VPN) services are used for connectivity to the Internet and the NeuStar Registry Management Network.
	

Central Help Desk	
 	

A single point of contact telephone and Internet-Web help desk provides multi-tier technical support to registrars on technical issues surrounding the Enhanced SRS.

O.1.1.2    Nameserver Sites Functional Description  

        As discussed above, two nameserver sites are co-located at our Enhanced SRS Data Centers and a third nameserver System site is geographically
separated with dual-homed Internet and VPN local access telecommunications links to provide resilience and disaster recovery. The additional nameserver site will be installed in a Data
Center in California. Additional nameserver sites will be introduced as demand warrants. Additional nameserver sites will be introduced as demand warrants. The functional block diagram of our
nameserver sites is depicted in Exhibit O-3. As can be seen from the exhibit, the nameserver sites are configured to be remotely managed and operated "lights out." The hardware
configuration is highly redundant and designed for no single point of failure. 

        [Exhibit O-3:
Redundant network components and high availability nameserver cluster provide scalable high availability. Graphic Omitted: architectural
diagram of nameserver data center.] 

        The
following function directory table lists the nameserver functions. Descriptions of the systems providing these functions are provided in the next subsection. 

O-5

 

 Nameserver Function Directory  

	System Function
 
	 	Functional Description

	Zone Update Database	 	The Enhanced SRS Zone Distribution Database is propagated to the Zone Update Database Servers at the nameserver sites. Information propagated includes domain names, their associated nameserver names, and the IP addresses
for those nameservers.
	

Nameserver	
 	

The nameserver handles resolution of usTLD domain names to their associated nameserver names and to the IP addresses of those nameservers. The nameservers are dynamically updated from the Zone Update Database. Updates are sent over the VPN Registry
Management Network.
	

Building LAN	
 	

Provides dual redundant switched Gigabit Ethernet LAN-based connectivity for all network devices in the data center
	

Firewall	
 	

Protects the building LAN from the insecure Internet via a Firewall that provides policy-based IP filtering and network-based intrusion detection services to protect the system from Internet hacking and denial of service attacks.
	

Load Balancers	
 	

Dynamic Feedback Protocol (DFP)—based load balancing of TCP/IP traffic in a server cluster including common protocols such as least connections, weighted least connections, round robin, and weighted round robin.
	

Telecommunications Access	
 	

Dual-homed access links to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Virtual Private Network (VPN) services are used for connectivity to the Internet and the NeuStar Registry Management Network.

O.1.1.3    Enhanced SRS Data Center and Nameserver Buildings  

        Each NeuStar data center facility is located in a modern, fire-resistant building that offers inherent structural protection from such natural and
man-made disasters as hurricanes, earthquakes, and civil disorder. Sites are not located within a 100-year flood plain. Facilities are protected by a public fire department and
have their internal fire-detection systems connected directly to the fire department. 

O-6

 

        Data
centers are protected from fire by the sprinkler systems of the buildings that house them. Furthermore, each equipment room is protected by a pre-action
fire-suppression system that uses Inergen gas as an extinguishing agent. 

        The
environmental factors at the Enhanced SRS Data Center and nameserver sites are listed in the following table. 

 Environmental Factors at Enhanced SRS Data Center and Nameserver Sites  

	Ventilation and Climate Control	 	Dual redundant HVAC units control temperature and humidity. Either unit will maintain the required environment.
	

Lighting	
 	

2x2-foot ceiling-mounted fluorescent fixtures
	

Control of static electricity	
 	

All equipment-mounting racks are grounded to the building's system, and are equipped with grounding straps that employees wear whenever they work on the equipment.
	

Primary electrical power	
 	

208-volt, 700-amp service distributed through four power panels
	

Backup power supply	
 	

30 minutes of 130-KVA UPS power

1000-KVA generator (Enhanced SRS data center)

250-KVA generator (nameserver data center)
	

Grounding	
 	

All machines are powered by grounded electrical service

A 12-gauge cable under the equipment-room floor connects all equipment racks to the building's electrical-grounding network

Building Security  

        In addition to providing physical security by protecting buildings with security guards, closed circuit TV surveillance video cameras, and intrusion detection
systems, NeuStar vigilantly controls physical access to our facilities. Employees must present badges to gain entrance and must wear their badges at all times while in the facility. Visitors must sign
in to gain entrance. If the purpose of their visit is found to be valid, they are issued a temporary badge; otherwise, they are denied entrance. At all times while they are in the facility, visitors
must display their badges and must be escorted by a NeuStar employee. Sign-in books are maintained for a period of one year. 

Security Personnel  

        On-site security personnel are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to monitor the images from closed-circuit television cameras placed
strategically throughout the facilities. Security personnel are stationed at each building-access point throughout normal working hours; at all other times (6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. and
all day on weekends and major holidays), individuals must use the proper key cards to 

O-7

 

gain
access to the buildings. Further, any room housing sensitive data or equipment is equipped with a self-closing door that can be opened only by individuals who activate a
palm-print reader. Senior facility managers establish the rights of employees to access individual rooms and ensure that each reader is programmed to pass only authorized individuals. The
palm readers compile and maintain a record of individuals who enter controlled rooms. 

O.1.2    Enhanced Shared Registration System Descriptions  

        This section provides system descriptions of the NeuStar Enhanced SRS Data Center sites and the Nameserver Data Center. We provide brief system descriptions and
block diagrams of each functional system within the two sites and their network connectivity. The NeuStar usTLD system architecture's central features are as follows: 

	•
	Co-active
redundant data centers geographically dispersed (with two-way database replication between the centers) to provide mission critical service
availability.

	•
	Nameserver
sites designed with full redundancy, automatic load distribution, and remote management for "lights out" operation.

	•
	A
Virtual Private Network provides a reliable, secure management network and dual-homed connectivity between the data centers and the nameserver sites.

	•
	Each
Enhanced SRS data center and nameserver site uses high availability cluster technology for flexibility, scalability, and high reliability.

	•
	Registry
systems sized initially to handle more than the expected initial workload can grow incrementally to accommodate workload beyond the initial implementation.

	•
	The
usTLD databases use redundant server architecture and are designed for continuous operation with synchronous replication between the primary and secondary databases. 

        NeuStar
is proposing standard, mid-level, and high-end cluster server platforms for installation at each site. The servers are selected for applications depending
on the requirements, storage capacity, throughput, interoperability, availability, and level of security. The generic server platform characteristics are summarized in the following table. 

O-8

 

 Server Platform Description  

	Platform
 
	 	Features
	 	Application

	

Standard Intel Server Clusters	

 	

Rack-mounted Intel 700 Mhz, 32-bit, 2- to 6-way SMP CPUs with 8 GB of ECC memory, CD ROM, four hot-swap disk drives (9-36 MB each), redundant hot swappable power supplies, dual attach 100 BaseT Ethernet Adapter, clustering and event management
software for remote management. Red Hat Linux 6.1	

 	

•    Nameserver Cluster

•    Whois Server Cluster

•    Backup Server

•    Network Management Server

•    Update Servers (Zone/Whois)

•    XRP Server

•    Web Server
	

Mid-level RISC Server Clusters	

 	

RISC 550 Mhz 2- to 8-way SMP, 64-bit CPUs, 32 GB ECC RAM, 72 GB internal disk capacity, 71 TB external RAID, redundant hot swappable power supplies, dual attach Gigabit Ethernet Adapter, clustering and event management software for remote management.
Unix 64-bit operating system	

 	

•    Application Server Cluster

•    Billing & Collection Server

•    Authentication Server

•    Whois Database Server
	

High-end RISC Server Cluster	
 	

RISC 550 MHz CPU, 64-bit 2- to 32-way cross-bar SMP with 8x8 non-blocking multi-ported crossbar, 32 GB ECC RAM, 240 MB/sec channel bandwidth, 288 GB Internal mass storage, up to 50 TB external RAID storage, redundant hot swappable power supplies,
dual attach Gigabit Ethernet Adapter, clustering and event management software for remote management. Unix 64-bit operating system	
 	

Redundant Server for database system

O-9

 

O.1.2.1    Enhanced SRS Data Center System Descriptions  

        As previously shown in Exhibit O-2, the Enhanced SRS data centers provide co-active
fully redundant system configurations with two-way replication over the high-speed VPN Registry Management Network, a co-located complete nameserver cluster, and
dual-homed connectivity to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Descriptions of each of the systems in the Enhanced SRS Data Center site are as follows. 

XRP Server Cluster  

        XRP transactions received from registrars over the Internet undergo front-end processing by the XRP Server which manages the XRP session level dialog,
performs session level security processing, and strips out the transaction records. These XRP transaction records are sent to the Enhanced SRS data center application server cluster for security
authentication and business logic processing. The XRP server is a rack-mounted Intel machine with local disk storage. It off-loads the front end processing of the XRP protocol
and off-loads the extensive communication protocol processing, session management, and SSL security encryption/decryption from the applications servers. The XRP server strips the fields
out of the XML document transaction and builds XRP binary transaction packets that are sent to the application server for initial security authentication and log-on with user ID and
password. Once the user is authenticated, the session is active and the XRP application server performs all business logic processing, billing, collection, and database operations. 

Nameserver  

        A complete nameserver cluster for DNS queries is co-located in each Enhanced SRS data center site. As previously shown in
Exhibit O-3, the nameserver cluster consists of redundant ISP and Virtual Private Network (VPN) local access links to provide alternate routed connectivity to Internet users and
NeuStar's Registry Management Network. Redundant Internet firewalls provide policy-based IP filtering to protect our internal building LAN from intruders and hackers. 

Application Server Cluster  

        The application server cluster is a high availability multiple computer cluster. Each computer within the cluster is a mid-level processor with its
own CPU, RAID disk drives, and dual LAN connections. Processor nodes used in the clusters are RISC symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) architectures scalable in configurations from 2- to
8-way with the processing and storage capacity for very large applications. As depicted in Exhibit O-4, the application server cluster is designed to handle the
registrar transaction workload and provides the business logic processing applications and interfaces to the authentication server, Centralized usTLD database, and billing and collection system. The
application server cluster is front-ended with a TCP/IP load balancer to equitably distribute the processing load across the cluster processors. The cluster manager software monitors hardware and
software components, detects failures, and responds by reallocating resources to support applications processing. The process of detecting a failure and restoring the application service is completely
automatic—no operator intervention is needed. 

Database Server  

        The database server consists of two identical redundant RISC systems that are designed for high-volume, online transaction-processing (OLTP) database
applications. Each server contains high-end RISC processors scalable in configurations from 2-to 32-way SMP. A crossbar-based SMP memory subsystem is capable of
supporting up to 32 GB of memory needed to maintain high OLTP transaction workloads. The storage subsystem supports up to 288 GB of internal RAID storage and up to 50 TB of external RAID storage. The
database management software is based on a parallel database 

O-10

 

architecture
with a redundant server option capable of maintaining 24 × 7 availability. The server supports high availability operations by implementing synchronous
replication. The database enables transparent database failover without any changes to application code or the operating system. Clients connecting to a replicated database are automatically and
transparently connected to the replicated pair of databases. The database replication feature makes it possible to maintain geographically separated data services for multiple sites over a WAN to
provide disaster recovery. 

        A
multi-session, multi-threaded server and dual cache architecture (client/server) provides exceptionally high throughput and fast access to stored objects. A powerful database-driven
publish and subscribe event notification system enables applications such as Whois or Zone Distribution to subscribe to a specific Centralized usTLD database activity (e.g., a domain name insert).
When the domain name insert occurs, an event is generated by the database to be handled as a dynamic update to the Whois and Zone distribution servers. 

        [Exhibit O-4:
High availability cluster provides scalable throughput to handle projected registrar, delegated manager, and registrant transaction workload.
Graphic Omitted: architectural diagram of application server cluster.] 

Whois Distribution Database  

        Certain Centralized usTLD Database events such as a domain name insert, domain name delete, or domain name change, generate a notification to subscriber databases
such as the Whois Distribution Database. Modifications to the Whois Distribution Database are replicated to the Whois Database Clusters. 

Whois Database  

        The Whois architecture gives the flexibility to deploy a Whois database to any number of NeuStar Data Centers. In the initial phase, the Whois infrastructure will
be deployed to the two Enhanced SRS Data Centers. However, in the future, and based on load placed on the initial two Data Centers, additional infrastructure can be deployed to any of the nameserver
Data Centers managed by NeuStar. 

        Each
Whois Database receives replicated updates from the Whois Distribution Database. The initial Whois Database will consist of two mid-level RISC database servers
configured in a high availability cluster with RAID storage and from 2- to 8-way SMP processors. Since data is cached in the Whois Servers, the Whois Database is hit only when
a Whois Server has not cached a request in memory. 

Whois Server Cluster  

        The Whois service is available to anyone and is engineered to handle large volumes of transactions per day. The cluster is a rack-mount Intel
Pentium-based high availability multiple computer cluster that maintains a separate database for domain name registrations and caches commonly requested records. Processor nodes used in the Whois
cluster are standard Intel Pentium SMP machines scalable in configurations from 2- to 6-way SMP with local disk storage. 

        The
Whois database contains information about registrants, associated registrars/delegated manager, domain names, nameservers, IP addresses, and the contacts associated with them. This
is an improvement over the current registry that provides no end-user contact information. The Whois server cluster is front-ended with a load balancer designed to distribute the load
equitably to the servers in the cluster and handle extremely high volumes of queries. The load balancer tracks processor availability and maintains high query processing throughput. 

O-11

 

Delegee Whois Distribution Database  

        Certain Centralized usTLD database events such as a delegation/sub-delegation insert, delegation/sub-delegation delete, or
delegation/sub-delegation change, generate a notification to subscriber databases such as the Delegee Whois Distribution Database. Modifications to the Delegee Whois Distribution Database
are replicated to the Delegee Whois Database Clusters. 

Delegee Whois Database  

        The Delegee architecture gives the flexibility to deploy a Delegee Whois database to any number of NeuStar Data Centers. Initially, the Delegee infrastructure
will be deployed to the two Enhanced SRS Data Centers. However, in the future, and based on load placed on the initial two Data Centers, additional infrastructure can be deployed to any of the
nameserver Data Centers managed by NeuStar. 

        Each
Delegee Whois Database receives replicated updates from the Delegee Whois Distribution Database. The initial Delegee Whois Database will consist of two mid-level RISC
database servers configured in a high availability cluster with RAID storage and from 2- to 8-way SMP processors. Since data are cached in the Delegee Whois Servers, the
Delegee Whois Database is hit only when a Delegee Whois Server has not cached a request in memory. 

Delegee Whois Server Cluster  

        The Delegee Whois service is available to anyone. The cluster consists of rack-mount Intel Pentium-based high availability multiple computer cluster
that maintains a separate database for domain name delegations and caches commonly requested records. Processor nodes used in the Delegee cluster are standard Intel Pentium SMP machines scalable in
configurations from 2- to 6-way SMP with local disk storage. 

        The
Delegee Whois database contains information about delegated managers, domain names, nameservers, IP addresses, and the contacts associated with them. The Delegee Whois server cluster
is front-ended with a load balancer designed to distribute the load equitably to the servers in the cluster and handle extremely high volumes of queries. The load balancer tracks processor
availability and maintains high query processing throughput. 

Zone Distribution Database  

        The Zone Distribution Database is dynamically updated from the Centralized usTLD database using the same technique used for the Whois Distribution Database. The
Zone Distribution Database is propagated to Zone Update Database at the nameserver sites using replication. This approach is far better than the current approach of TLD Zone File updates for.com,.net,
and.org that occur two times per day. 

Billing and Collection Server  

        The Billing and Collection server is a LAN-based mid-level RISC machine in configurations scalable from 2-to 8-way
SMP with the processing and storage capacity for very large enterprise applications. This server runs a commercial off-the-shelf customer relationship management and billing
and collection system that interfaces with the Centralized usTLD database. 

Secure Web Server Cluster  

        A high-capacity secure Web Server cluster is provided to enable secure Web services and information dissemination. It contains a registry home page to
enable registrars to sign in and inquire about account status, get downloads and white papers, access frequently asked questions, obtain 

O-12

 

self-help
support, or submit a trouble ticket to the TLD Registry Help Desk. The Web Server is a rack-mounted Intel machine with local disk storage. 

Authentication Server  

        The authentication server is a LAN-based mid-level RISC machine scalable in configurations from 2- to 8-way SMP
with local RAID storage. This server runs commercial X.509 certificate-based authentication services and is used to authenticate the identity of registrars, delegated managers, and registrants, as
well as NeuStar personnel. In addition, the authentication server supports our secure Web server portal for customer service functions. 

Backup Server  

        The backup server is an Intel Pentium-based SMP server that runs the backup and restore software to backup or restore each of the various cluster servers and
database servers and provide a shared robotic tape library facility. It interfaces to the Intel server clusters and RISC server clusters over a high-speed fiber channel bridge. It
interfaces with the high-end redundant database servers via a disk array and the fiber channel bridge that interconnects to the robotic tape library. It is capable of performing remote
system backup/restore of the nameservers over the VPN-based Registry Management Network. 

System/Network Management Console  

        The system/network management console provides simple network management protocol (SNMP) monitoring of the network, LAN-based servers, cluster
servers, and key enterprise
applications including the XRP, Web, Whois, Zone, Billing and Collections, and database applications. The server is a LAN-based standard Intel Pentium-based SMP machine with local RAID
disk storage and dual attached LAN interconnections. 

Building LAN Backbone  

        The redundant switched Gigabit Ethernet building LAN backbone gives unprecedented network availability via redundant Gigabit Ethernet switches. Devices are dual
attached to each of the gigabit switches to provide a redundant LAN architecture. The building LAN is protected from the insecure Internet via a firewall that provides IP filtering and network-based
intrusion detection services to protect the system from Internet hacking and denial of service attacks. 

Dual-Homed Telecommunications Access  

        We are using dual-homed high-speed Internet local access telecommunications links to two separate ISP providers. These links will be
alternately routed to provide resilience against cable faults and loss of local access telecommunications links. Similarly, the telecommunications access links to our VPN provider for the Registry
management network will be dual-homed and alternate routed. 

O-13

   O.1.2.2    Nameserver Description  

        Two nameserver sites are co-located at our Enhanced SRS Data Centers and the third nameserver cluster site is geographically separated, with
dual-homed Internet and VPN local access telecommunications links to provide resilience and disaster recovery. The additional zone server clusters will be installed in California,
Additional nameserver sites will be installed as demand warrants. The functional block diagram of our nameserver cluster is previously depicted in Exhibit O-3. As can be seen from
the exhibit, the nameserver sites are configured to operate "lights out." The hardware configuration is highly redundant and designed for no single point of failure and exceptionally high throughput.
The following are the nameserver subsystem functions: 

Zone Update Database  

        The Zone Distribution Database at the Enhanced SRS Data Center is propagated to the Zone Update Database using replication. Replication takes place over the VPN
Registry Management Network. The Zone Update Database is not hit when resolving DNS queries; instead, the nameservers update their in-memory database from the Zone Update Database, within
defined service levels. 

Nameserver Cluster  

        The nameserver cluster handles resolution of usTLD domain names to their associated nameserver names and to the IP addresses of those nameservers. The resolution
service can handle in excess of 500 million queries per day, and our load-balanced architecture allows additional servers to be added to any nameserver cluster to allow
on-demand scalability. 

        The
nameserver Cluster is a high availability rack-mounted multiple computer cluster consisting of standard Intel Pentium-based SMP machines configurable from 2-
to 6-way SMP with local disk storage and dual attachment to the LAN. A TCP/IP server load balancer switch is used to distribute the load from Internet users. The server load balancer uses
dynamic feedback protocol to enable servers to provide intelligent feedback to the load balancer to
ensure that traffic is not routed to overutilized servers. The load balancer supports algorithms including least connections, weighted least connections, round-robin, and weighted round-robin. 

Building LAN Backbone  

        A redundant switched Ethernet building LAN backbone maintains high network availability via redundant Ethernet switches. Devices are dual attached to each of the
Ethernet switches to provide a redundant LAN architecture. The building LAN is protected from the insecure Internet via a firewall that provides IP filtering and network-based intrusion detection
services to protect the system from Internet hacking and denial of service attacks. 

O-14

 

        A
summary of the features and benefits of our usTLD system architecture is provided in the following table. 

 usTLD Registry  

	Feature
 
	 	Benefit
 

	Three classes of scalable processor configuration—standard, mid-level, and high-end	 	Provides flexible processing power and scalability to the applications
	

Direct Access Storage up to 50 Terabytes for database applications	
 	

Unmatched storage scalability of the database
	

Switched Gigabit Ethernet Redundant building LAN architecture	
 	

High capacity LAN infrastructure with no bottlenecks
	

Full Redundancy of all critical components with no single point of failure	
 	

Zero downtime and zero impact to users
	

Dual-homed, alternate routed local access links to two separate Internet Service Providers	
 	

Maintains connectivity if one of the ISP's services should experience and outage
	

Dual-homed, VPN connections to the VPN service provider	
 	

Protects against digging accidents that could damage local access cables
	

Redundant parallel database architecture configured for high	
 	

Non-stop database services and throughput scaled to handle
	

OLTP transaction throughput	
 	

all registry operations out of one data center.
	

Load balancing session distribution algorithm (SDA) to intelligently and transparently distribute traffic across servers	
 	

Maximize the number of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) connections managed by a server farm.
	

Separate Whois Server cluster and datamart to process Whois transactions	
 	

Facilitates rapid response to Whois queries.

O.1.3    Registry Network System Description  

        NeuStar is using the Internet to provide connectivity to the Registrars, Delegated Managers, and Registrants (where applicable) and a VPN to provide a secure
Registry Management Network for communications between the Enhanced SRS data centers and the nameserver sites. 

O.1.3.1    Internet Connectivity  

        NeuStar will deploy two 45-MB T-3 local access telecommunications links at each of our data centers, enabling each to provide TLD services
independently of the other. We will provision 5 MBs of capacity on each of the T-3 links. Therefore, we will provision 10 MB into each nameserver site and have up to 90 MB
(2 × 45 MB) of capacity for growth. This should be sufficient growth for at least two years. 

        Connectivity
to each data center will be via redundant routers. For security purposes, the router will be configured to allow only DNS UDP/TCP and BGP4 packets. Each router is connected
to a load 

O-15

 

balancer
that distributes the query load among the nameservers in that site's cluster. These links will be alternately routed to provide resilience against cable faults and loss of local access
telecommunications links. Similarly the telecommunications access links to our VPN provider for the Registry Management Network will be dual-homed and alternate routed. Redundant routers
are used for both Internet and VPN access. 

O.1.3.2    VPN Registry Management Network  

        Each Enhanced SRS Data Center is connected to each of the nameserver sites over a VPN. In addition there are two ATM links that connect the two Enhanced SRS Data
Centers. Like the Internet access, the ATM links will be delivered over a T-3 local access link. Each link will be configured with some fraction of the full 45 MB of bandwidth. At the
nameservers, the two VPN connections will be delivered over a 1.5 MB T-1 local access link. The bandwidth on each of the VPN circuits will be some fraction of the full 1.5 MB. The VPN
Registry Management Network is a secure network used for NeuStar internal registry information exchange. It handles: 

	•
	Nameserver
database replication from the Zone Distribution Database to the Zone Update Database at the nameserver sites,

	•
	Remote
system/network management/backup of the nameservers, and

	•
	Remote
administration of nameservers. 

O.1.4    Registry System Application Software  

        Supporting existing delegees and registrants, as well as planning for the growth associated with domain registration and administration in the expanded usTLD
space, requires vision and a flexible design. NeuStar's vision is to successfully conduct leading-edge software engineering and product development that will address the needs of each of
the usTLD registry's sets of customers. NeuStar's proven record of successful development and implementation of large projects benefits the COTR by reducing technical and schedule risk. 

        NeuStar
software components are developed using open system and software standards to facilitate cost-effective application expansion and upgrade. The functional design
consists of a number of components representing a blend of: 

	•
	Proven
software design and development methodology;

	•
	Change
management and deployment process; and

	•
	Proven,
mission-critical-grade, third-party software products to complement the NeuStar-built software components. 

O.1.4.1    Application Components  

        The following components, illustrated in Exhibit O-5, deliver the Registry application functionality: 

	•
	Protocol
adapters

	•
	Application
server component

	•
	Process
manager

	•
	Processing
engines

	•
	Whois
component

	•
	Delegee
Whois component 

O-16

 

	•
	Datastore

	•
	Web
server (presentation) component

	•
	Billing
and Collections component

	•
	Nameserver
component 

        Further
information regarding these components is presented in the following paragraphs. 

Protocol Adapter Component  

        The protocol adapter component is the software module running on the XRP protocol servers. This component provides the standards based interface between the
Registry and the Registrar or Delegee systems. The XRP protocol will be based on open industry standards such as: 

	•
	XML—NeuStar proposes the introduction of a new standard protocol, the eXtensible Registry Protocol (XRP), based
on XML. This protocol supports system level communication between the Registrar/Delegee and the Registry.

	•
	SSL—X.509 Certificates will be used over an encrypted SSL session to authenticate Registrars/Delegees (in
addition to IP-based and user ID/password security). 

        The
protocol adapters will receive secure, encrypted data from Registrar/Delegee systems. They will convert the verbose external XML message into a compact binary internal message
format, which is delivered to the application server's process manager for processing. When processing is complete, the process manager will send the binary internal message back to the protocol
adapters for conversion to the protocol appropriate for communicating with the external system (i.e., XRP). 

        The
protocol adaptor architecture allows NeuStar to support a simple but powerful XML-based protocol supporting a comprehensive security policy, while eliminating additional
load that would otherwise be placed on the core Enhanced SRS system. 

        [Exhibit O-5:
High-level architecture illustrates a high level view of the Enhanced SRS and the interactions with external systems. Graphic
Omitted: architectural diagram of the registry system.] 

Application Server Component  

        The design of the application server component is modular and flexible to support the requirements and scalable to meet demands placed on the system. The
application server utilizes a stateless architecture that allows scalability simply by adding additional machines to the tier. The core business logic is built into the application server component.
This component manages all back-end resources and performs services such as connection pooling and monitoring. 

        The
process engines defined in this section are some of the major functional components of the system. Process engines will be added and configured to meet the functional requirements. 

        Process Manager—is used to manage the different processes supported by the application, including starting processes in a
specific order at initialization time, monitoring the health of executing processes, restarting failed processes, and starting new processes to address application load requirements. The process
manager mediates processing and information requests from external systems by forwarding requests to the respective process engines. 

        Process Engines—will perform the underlying processing steps or primitives that are involved in performing the operation. The
process engines receive data and parameters from other application 

O-17

 

components,
including the process manager. The process engines access data from databases and update the databases while processing a transaction. The primary process engines are: 

	•
	Domain
Name Administration,

	•
	Registrar/Registrant
Administration,

	•
	Whois
Administration,

	•
	Delegee
Whois Administration,

	•
	Zone
Administration,

	•
	Security,

	•
	Billing
and Grace-period Administration, and

	•
	Logging,
Auditing & Reporting. 

        The
functionality of the primary process engines is explained in detail in Sections O.3 and O.6. 

Whois Component  

        Whois-related modifications to the Centralized usTLD database cause equivalent changes to the subscribing Whois Distribution Database. Updates to the Distribution
Database are replicated to the Whois Database Cluster at each Enhanced SRS Data Center. Machines in the Whois Server Cluster cache common requests in-memory, taking load off the Whois
Database Cluster. Cached items expire after a defined time interval to ensure that Whois data can be guaranteed correct within defined service levels (see Section O.8 for a detailed description
of the Whois capabilities). Exhibit O-6 provides a more detailed application architecture overview. 

        [Exhibit O-6:
The application architecture overview provides a high-level view of the registry processes necessary to support registry
functionality and
interactions with external systems and the Centralized usTLD database. Graphic Omitted: application architecture overview diagram.] 

Delegee Component  

        Delegee-related modifications to the Centralized usTLD database cause equivalent changes to the subscribing Delegee Whois Distribution Database. Updates to the
Distribution Database are replicated to the Delegee Database Cluster at each Enhanced SRS Data Center. Machines in the Delegee Whois Server Cluster cache common requests in-memory, taking
load off the Delegee Whois Database Cluster. Cached items expire after a defined time interval to ensure that Delegee data can be guaranteed correct within defined service levels (see
Section O.9 for a detailed description of the Delegee capabilities). Exhibit O-6 provides a more detailed application architecture overview. 

Datastore  

        The Enhanced SRS architecture includes a co-active databases supporting high availability operations by implementing synchronous replication. This
enables transparent database failover without any changes to application code or the operating system. Clients connecting to a co-active database are automatically and transparently
connected to the co-active pair of databases. 

        The
architecture utilizes a powerful database-driven publish and subscribe event notification system that enables components such as Whois or Zone Distribution to subscribe to specific
Enhanced SRS events. Subscribed events cause dynamic updates to the Whois and Zone distribution servers (see Section O.3 for a detailed description of the Database capabilities). 

O-18

 

Web Server Component  

        NeuStar will provide usTLD Registry functionality via a Web-based, Internet-accessible interface. Expanded usTLD space registrars, as well as existing
usTLD space delegees and registrants will all have the ability to access various registry/registrar functionality via a Web interface. 

        The
guiding principles for the design of the proposed Web Server component are flexibility and security. The Web interface will be accessible over the Internet, using a client Web
browser and will be served up by the Registry Web server clusters at the Enhanced SRS Data Centers. The secure Web servers provide front-end HTTPS (secure Web) protocol handling with
client browsers accessible over the Internet. 

        Some
of the key features of the Registry Web interface architecture include: 

	•
	Extensible
design;

	•
	Open,
non-proprietary, standards-based technology (HTTP + SSL);

	•
	Intuitive
user interface;

	•
	Secure
access;

	•
	Online
help;

	•
	Ease
of navigation; and

	•
	Data
entry type checking (before forwarding requests to the application server tier). 

Billing and Collection System  

        NeuStar will combine our customized B&C methodology that has proved successful in the past with an accounts receivable product to provide comprehensive, secured,
high-quality, scalable, and Web-accessible B&C service. The major components of the system will include: 

	•
	Database,

	•
	Transaction
processor,

	•
	Monitor
and notifier, and

	•
	Report
generator. 

        See
Section O.6 for a detailed description of the Billing and Collection system along with the interfaces, security, and access privileges. 

Nameserver Component  

        Zone-related modifications to the Centralized usTLD database cause equivalent changes to the subscribing Zone Distribution Database. Updates to the
Zone Distribution Database are replicated out to the Zone Update Databases at each nameserver Data Center. Machines in the nameserver cluster reconcile their in-memory database with the
Zone Update Database at regular intervals defined in the service level agreement. The entirety of zone data is held memory resident. 

        Section O.5
explains nameserver architecture in detail, along with the process, software, and advantages. 

O.1.4.2    Registry Software Development Methodology  

        The quick-time-to-market and software technologies required to design and implement the registry software applications dictate
software development methodologies that minimize software development 

O-19

 

and
reduce development time without sacrificing software quality. NeuStar's technical personnel are experts in software applications development of registry and clearinghouse protocols and software
applications used in Internet domain names and phone number registry systems. NeuStar's experience will benefit the COTR by providing software products that meet the functional requirements and
operate reliably. 

        On
the basis of our experience, NeuStar is using Rapid Application Development (RAD) methodology and Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools for registry software applications
development. RAD methodology enables large applications systems to be developed and tested incrementally in planned releases consisting of alpha, beta, and full production versions. We have found that
incremental development of software applications is a key success factor in fielding feature-rich software applications that meet business needs. This is because each incremental build
provides a testable software product that can be demonstrated to users and stakeholders. Changes can be easily incorporated in the next build cycle, and each successive build provides increased
functionality until the full production release is completed, tested, and accepted. NeuStar feels that this approach is ideally suited for allowing new software projects to quickly and fully benefit
from our previously developed software applications. 

RAD Methodology  

        In the RAD methodology there are five phases: 

	1.
	Business Analysis—Focus group and joint application design sessions are used to document the system requirements, business
process flows, business logic, and system data requirements.

	2.
	System Design—Software specifications are developed using object-oriented analysis and object-oriented design CASE tools,
and logical data models are developed using entity relationship diagram data modeling. Meta data are developed for each data entity.

	3.
	Architecture Design—The system hardware and software architecture is designed and documented. Then hardware and software
systems specifications and configurations are developed and finalized for acquisition.

	4.
	Implementation—The applications software is developed for the target hardware platforms and operating system environment
using object-oriented programming languages, database development tools, and fourth-generation languages. Development test beds are built for software testing. The applications software is built and
tested in increments, and the functionality grows with each build, from alpha to beta to full production. The system hardware and software are installed in the planned data centers for rollout and
acceptance of the applications software production release. The Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute's Software Capability Maturity Model (SW-CMM) best practices are
used for project management, requirements management, software configuration control, and software quality assurance.

	5.
	Growth and Maintenance—During this phase, the applications software is successively upgraded in planned build and release
cycles. Software incident reports are addressed in each build and release. Maintenance releases are developed for serious software problems that cannot wait until a planned upgrade release. 

Development Tools and Languages  

        NeuStar is using object-oriented analysis and object-oriented design CASE tools for requirements analysis and detailed software design. We use object-oriented
programming, database development tools, and fourth-generation programming languages for software development. The following table gives examples of tools NeuStar has used in the past and will use on
the usTLD project. 

O-20

 

 usTLD Software Development Tools  

	Development Tool/Language
 
	 	Purpose
 

	CASE Tools	 	NeuStar will utilize CASE tools such as Oracle CASE and Rational Rose. These tools provide full feature object-oriented analysis and design.
	

Java, C++, Delphi, SQL	
 	

NeuStar has extensive experience with, and will utilize, these development languages where appropriate to implement all business logic.
	

CORBA, RMI	
 	

NeuStar has extensive experience with, and will utilize, these Remote object protocols.
	

Java Servlets, Java Server Pages, Cold Fusion,	
 	

NeuStar has extensive experience with, and will utilize, these Web
	

CGI-script, XML, and XSL	
 	

development technologies for building Web sites and thin client applications for distribution to a wide range of users.

O-21

   O.2    Registry-Registrar Model and XRP Protocol  

        In the past, registry/registrar model and their associated protocol is a "thin" (limited amount of data) registry serving a "thick" (more
data) registrar. NeuStar will deploy a "thick registry" model, with contact and authentication details stored centrally at the Registry. Under this model, the business relationships would be
unchanged: registrants would still deal with the registrar, and the registrars would deal with the registry.

        As
part of its thick-registry proposal, NeuStar will deploy, the eXtensible Registry Protocol (XRP). The XRP protocol will accommodate both thin and thick registry models. We do not
anticipate introducing the XRP protocol until after the initial "land rush" period has ended. 

        The
XRP Protocol provides the following benefits: 

	•
	Extensible
protocol based on XML,

	•
	Utilizes
BEEP as a transport protocol,

	•
	Support
for both thick and thin registry models,

	•
	Support
for centralized contact information/centralized Whois,

	•
	Standardized
Whois service (same fields regardless of registrar's Web site),

	•
	Machine
readable Whois format (when specified),

	•
	Extensible
data-field support (registrars can add custom fields to Whois following standardized fields),

	•
	Functionally
complete (exposing all registry data via one interface),

	•
	Secure,

	•
	Non-repudiation
(no deniability),

	•
	Redundant
(duplicate requests have no adverse effect),

	•
	Real-time
XRP functions (e.g., check and register),

	•
	Near
Real-time DNS and Whois updates,

	•
	Support
for IPv6 addresses,

	•
	Standard,
centralized registrant authentication method,

	•
	Extensible
registrant authentication methods (e.g., support for digital certificates),

	•
	Simple
account transfer (between registrars, using centralized authentication),

	•
	Event
broadcasting (ability for registrars to place "listeners' on registry events), and

	•
	Rollback
support (i.e., rollback registrar transfer; not necessarily transactional). 

O-22

 

O.3    NeuStar's Database Capabilities  

        NeuStar will provide, redundant database system capable of managing large databases and high transaction processing loads reliably, with
scalable growth to accommodate change.

        The
database system supports asynchronous replication of data between two co-active Enhanced SRS data centers geographically dispersed. The benefit to the Internet community
is reliable, stable operations and scalable transaction processing throughput to accommodate Internet growth. 

        The
heart of the Enhanced SRS is its database systems, which provide not only simple data storage and retrieval capabilities but also the following capabilities: 

	•
	Persistence—storage and random retrieval of data,

	•
	Concurrency—ability to support multiple users simultaneously,

	•
	Distribution (data replication)—maintenance of relationships across multiple databases,

	•
	Integrity—methods to ensure data are not lost or corrupted (e.g., automatic two-phase commit,
physical and logical log files, and roll-forward recovery),

	•
	Availability—support for 24 × 7 × 365 operations (requires
redundancy, fault tolerance, and on-line maintenance), and

	•
	Scalability—unimpaired performance as the number of users, workload volume, or database size increases. 

        As
applications architectures such as Enhanced SRS become increasingly dependent on distributed client/server communications and processing, system designers must carefully plan where
the bulk of the data processing occurs: on the database server, applications server, or client. Our final design will distribute the processing workload in a way that maximizes scalability and
minimizes downtime. 

        This
proposal section (O.3) is divided into three major subsections: 

        O.3.1 Functional Overview—describes the characteristics of the three primary Centralized usTLD databases (i.e., size,
throughput, and scalability); database procedures and functions for object creation, editing, and deleting; change notifications; transfer procedures; grace-period functions; and reporting. 

        O.3.2 Database System Description—describes the database system components, server platforms, and scalability for the three
primary databases. 

        O.3.3 Security and Access Privileges—describes the access controls for granting and denying users and administrators access to
the databases. 

O.3.1    Functional Overview  

        As shown in Exhibit O-7, NeuStar's registry will include four major databases: 

	•
	Centralized usTLD Database—The primary function of this database is to provide highly reliable persistent storage
for all of the registry information required to provide domain registration services. The Centralized usTLD Database is highly secured, with access limited to authenticated registrars, trusted
application server processes, and the registry's database administrators. The Centralized usTLD Database, includes registrant data, registrar data, delegee data and is used to create the Whois
databases.

	•
	Billing and Collection Database—This database will provide the information required for NeuStar to render billing
and collection (B&C) services to the registrars, delegated managers, and registrants. Access to its data is limited to the trusted B&C system processes and to registry 

O-23

 

database
administrators. Customers can view billing data through a secure Web portal with a B&C Applications Programmer Interface (API). 

	•
	Whois Database—The Whois database is a searchable database that any Internet user can access to view details
pertaining to domain names. The Whois database maintains data about registrants, associated registrars/delegated managers, domain names, nameservers, IP addresses, and the associated contacts. The
Whois database is updated from the Centralized usTLD Database through an intermediate database and replication process.

	•
	Delegee Database—The delegee database maintains data about delegated managers, delegated subdomains, nameservers,
IP addresses, and the associated contacts. The delegee Whois database is created from the delegee database and is a searchable database that any Internet user can access to view details of delegated
subdomains stored in the Enhanced SRS. 

        In
addition to these databases, the registry will maintain various internal databases to support operations such as authorizing login user ids and passwords, authenticating digital
certificates, and maintaining access control lists. 

        In
implementing the Centralized usTLD Database systems, our system designers will carefully analyze the differing requirements for the three major databases and select the optimum
solution for each. Design techniques and considerations will include: 

	•
	Multiple
logical data models that we will optimize for the different types of information that each system needs to serve registrars efficiently;

	•
	Content
that will include data related not only to domain names and domain name registration but also to registrars, registrants, nameservers, Whois servers, and the Billing
and Collection system;

	•
	Differing
volumes of database transactions and database sizes;

	•
	Differing
business needs;

	•
	Differing
performance and availability requirements; and

	•
	Replication
of databases to achieve high availability and facilitate backup/recovery. 

        [Exhibit O-7:
Enhanced SRS Data Flow illustrates the data flow for processing requests and the data distribution to external systems. Graphic Omitted: flow
chart of enhanced SRS data flow.] 

Database Size, Throughput, and Scalability  

        The following table lists design parameters for the initial design of the three major databases. The term  scalability in the table refers
to the database's ultimate capacity expressed as a multiple of the initial design capacity in terms of size and
transaction processing power. NeuStar will closely monitor the overall performance and capacity of the database and will pro-actively make adjustments as 

O-24

 

required
to keep the database performing at optimal levels. Given technological advances, there really is no practical limit to the overall capacity of the database. 

Database Design Parameters  

	Centralized usTLD Database
 
	 	Initial Design Parameter
 

	Domain registrations	 	5 million
	Registrars	 	500
	Size of registration object	 	10 K
	Total data	 	50 G
	Database Management System (DBMS) and logs	 	3 G
	Database indexing	 	200 G
	Total size	 	250 G
	Database throughput	 	TpsC = 1050
	Database scalability	 	100 times in size, 8 times in processing power

	

Billing Database
 
	 	Design Parameter
 

	Billable events per month	 	1 million
	Transaction size	 	1 K
	Transactions per month	 	1 G
	Historical data for 3 months	 	3 G
	Registrars	 	200
	Registrar billing profile	 	30 K
	Total billing-data	 	3 M
	Total data	 	3 G
	DBMS and logs	 	3 G
	Database indexing	 	6 G
	Total size	 	12 G
	Database throughput	 	TpsC = 353
	Database scalability	 	From 2-way to 8-way

	

Whois Database
 
	 	Design Parameter
 

	Domain registrations	 	5 million
	Registrars	 	200
	Size of registration object	 	4 K
	Total data	 	20 G
	DBMS and logs	 	2 G
	Database indexing	 	100 G
	Total size	 	120 G
	Database throughput	 	TpsC = 353
	Database scalability	 	2-way to 8-way

	

Delegee Database
 
	 	Design Parameter
 

	Delegated subdomains	 	50,000
	Delegated managers	 	50,000
	Size of subdomain object	 	4 K
	Total data	 	40 M
	DBMS and logs	 	2 G
	Database indexing	 	200 M
	Total size	 	240 M
	Database throughput	 	TpsC = 353
	Database scalability	 	2-way to 8-way

O-25

 

Past Performance References Information  

	Required Information
 
	 	NeuStar Response
 

	Type of Work	 	Local Number Portability Administration
	

Contract Number or Purchase Order Number	
 	

Master Agreements with seven regional LLCs
	

Duration of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

1996-2006
	

Dollar value of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based with Minimums
	

Type of Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based with Minimum
	

Name and Address of Customer Organization	
 	

NAPM LLC, see below for addresses
	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Michael O'Connor

NAPM Co-Chair

1095 Avenue of the Americas

Room 3429

New York, NY 10036

TN: 212-395-2976

Fax: 212-575-1157

e-mail: michael.o'connor.iii@verizon.com
	

 	
 	

Pamela Connell NAPM Co-Chair

1200 Peachtree St., Promenade I, Suite 22E23

Atlanta, GA 30309

TN: 404-810-4762

Fax: 404-810-6422
 e-mail: phconnell@att.com
	

Information for an Alternative Customer Organization Point of Contact	
 	

Same as above
	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

•	

NeuStar operates the master database that contains the call and signaling/routing registry for North America allowing customers to keep their existing phone numbers when changing local service providers.
	

 	
 	

•	

NeuStar coordinates the porting of local telephone numbers between carriers in North America serving more than 250 service providers daily and porting more than 700,000 numbers each month.
	

 	
 	

•	

NeuStar provides, directly or indirectly, secure host-to-host administration transaction interfaces to the registry for 5,000 service providers.
	

 	
 	

•	

NeuStar operates the service to 29 monthly service level agreements including availability (99.99%), transaction response time, throughput, and help desk telephone call answer times. We pay financial penalties for missing any of these
levels.

O-26

 

Database Procedures and Functions  

        The database system is critical to the processing of Enhanced SRS business transactions. The Centralized usTLD database and B&C databases are accessed during many
registry transactions. If a transaction is completed successfully, the system not only updates these two databases but also the Whois distribution, Delegee distribution and Zone distribution databases
(as necessary). Below is a list of some of the functions performed by the Centralized usTLD Database and the Registry: 

	•
	Object
Creation—Domain name, and nameserver registration.

	•
	Object
Editing—Modifying domain name, information delegee, or nameserver data and creating or modifying associations.

	•
	Object
Deletion—Domain name cancellations.

	•
	Object
Existence and Information Query—Obtain information on domain name, nameserver, or contact name.

	•
	Object
Transfer—Transfer a domain name to a different registrar.

	•
	Automatic
Domain/Subdomain Renewal—Extend a domain name registration for one year.

	•
	Requested
Domain Renewal—Process a renewal request.

	•
	Grace
Period Implementation—Allow various time periods before actions become final.

	•
	Registrar/Delegee/Registrant
Administration—Add, delete, or change to a usTLD Registry user account or billing profile.

	•
	Billing
Notifications—Account-related information sent to registrars, registrants, delegated managers, and designated registry staff.

	•
	Reporting—Account
and billing information that can be viewed online or e-mailed.

	•
	Mass
Updates—Special procedures (e.g., changing a registrar's name on each of its domain name files if it is acquired by another registrar, or changing a
delegated manager's name on each of its delegated subdomains). 

        A
typical mass update is a global change of a registrar's name, which may occur when one registrar purchases another. NeuStar will design procedures for mass database changes initiated
by registrars, delegees, or other authorized entities. 

O.3.2    Database System Description  

        Although the four primary Centralized usTLD databases—Enhanced SRS, Whois, Delegee, and Billing—will differ, depending upon the services
they support, the Enhanced SRS on the whole, will be structured to: 

	•
	Manage
large quantities of data,

	•
	Support
applications that use data models with complex relationships,

	•
	Perform
complex operations on these objects, and

	•
	Process
large volumes of transactions from users. 

        NeuStar
forecasts that, as with most OLTP applications, the anticipated volume of Enhanced SRS transactions will have a high ratio of "reads" to "writes." We will design the databases
and applications by partitioning the workload to improve response times and scalability. 

O-27

 

Centralized usTLD Database  

        The Centralized usTLD Database will support and provide information for primary domain registration services. The following table lists the data stored in the
Centralized usTLD Database. 

 Centralized usTLD Database Data  

	Primary Element
 
	 	Details
 

	Domain Names	 	•	 	Domain Name Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Name Servers
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrar
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrant Data
	

Nameserver	
 	

•	
 	

Nameserver Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated IP Addresses
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrar
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrant Data
	

IP Address	
 	

•	
 	

IP Address Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Nameservers
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrar
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Associated Registrant Data
	

Registrar List	
 	

Registrar Names
	

Registrars	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar Name
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar Contact Details
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar URL (Home page)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar Whois URL (Web Port 80)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar Whois URL (Port 43, if applicable)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrar Attributes (Status)
	

Delegated Manager List	
 	

Delegated Manager Names
	

Delegated Managers	
 	

•	
 	

Delegated Manager Name
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Delegated Manager Contact Details
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Delegated Manager URL (Home page)
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Delegated Manager Attributes (Status)

O-28

 

        NeuStar
will configure the database system to provide appropriate response times. We will plan capacity to ensure that as business requirements increase and demand for domain names
grows, the system will be able to handle the workload within the agreed upon response times. 

Centralized usTLD Database Platform  

        For the Centralized usTLD Database platform, NeuStar will use a business-critical-proven, high-performance, data center computing platform with the
following characteristics: 

	•
	A
high-end online transaction processing (OLTP) server,

	•
	RISC
550 MHz CPU,

	•
	64-bit,
2- to 32-way cross-bar SMP,

	•
	8 × 8
non blocking multi-ported crossbar,

	•
	Up
to 32 GB of memory,

	•
	Up
to 19-GB I/O throughput,

	•
	Maximum
internal storage of 288 GB,

	•
	Maximum
external RAID storage of 50 TB,

	•
	Redundant
hot-swappable power supplies,

	•
	Dual-attach
Gigabit Ethernet Adapter, and

	•
	Event
management software for remote management. 

        The
Centralized usTLD Database server will use the Unix 64-bit operating system with controlled-access security. 

        NeuStar
will have vendor support agreements to keep the systems running and to repair or replace components immediately if problems occur. 

Scalability  

        In planning for growth, NeuStar will design a database system with the ability to add resources on an as-needed basis without interrupting processing.
Because database growth can occur in several areas, we will monitor each of the following parameters and plan for growth accordingly: 

	•
	Physical size—As the physical size of the database increases, so does the need for disk storage. Our database
platform and database will support extending the internal storage capacity to 288 GB and the external capacity to 50 TB. The system will permit online configuration with minimum downtime.

	•
	Memory—As the volume of users increases, so does the need for increased buffer and lock-pool storage.
The database platform will scale up to 32 GB, which is sufficient memory for supporting the system capacity.

	•
	CPUs—To handle increasing volumes of registrar requests, the database platform will scale up to 32 processors. 

Billing Database  

        The Billing database provides information for Billing and Collections services, including: 

	•
	Registrars' billing profiles—accessed and modified by the Registrar Administration function; 

O-29

 

	•
	Registrars' accounts—queried, credited, and debited while processing transactions from registrars;

	•
	Registrants' billing profiles—accessed and modified by the Registrant Administration function;

	•
	Registrants' accounts—queried, credited, and debited while processing transactions from registrars; and

	•
	Catalogs—Pricing information for different transactions; queried during the charging process. 

Billing Database Platform  

        The Billing database platform will have the following characteristics: 

	•
	A
high-end server;

	•
	RISC
550 MHz CPU;

	•
	64-bit,
2- to 6-way SMP with up to 32 GB ECC RAM;

	•
	Scalable
up to 72 GB internal disk capacities and 71 TB external RAID;

	•
	Redundant
hot-swappable power supplies;

	•
	Dual-attach
Gigabit Ethernet Adapter; and

	•
	Event
management software for remote management. 

        The
database server's operating system will be Unix 64-bit. 

        NeuStar
will have vendor support agreements to keep the systems running and to repair or replace components immediately if problems occur. 

Scalability  

        In planning for growth, NeuStar will design a database system with the ability to add resources on an as-needed basis without interrupting processing.
Because database growth can occur in several areas, we will monitor each of the following parameters and plan for growth accordingly: 

	•
	Physical Size—The database and database platform can have their storage capacity extended and systems configured
online with minimum downtime. The database platform will have the ability to scale up to 72 GB capacity, and external storage capacity up to 71 TB.

	•
	Memory—As the volume of users increases, so does the need for increased buffer and lock-pool storage.
The database platform will scale up to 32 GB, which is sufficient memory to support the system capacity.

	•
	CPUs—To handle increasing volumes of registrar requests, the database platform will scale up to 6 processors. 

Whois Database  

        Anyone can query the Whois database. Each database entity includes information on the following items for all Internet domain names registered in the usTLD: 

	•
	Domain
name,

	•
	Nameserver,

	•
	IP
address,

	•
	Registrar/Delegated
Manager, and 

O-30

 

	•
	Registrant
contact information associated with the domain name. 

Whois Database Platform  

        Each Whois server cluster will be supported by a clustered pair of database servers. The Whois database platform will have the following characteristics: 

	•
	A
high-end server;

	•
	RISC
550 MHz CPU;

	•
	64-bit,
2- to 6-way SMP;

	•
	Up
to 32 GB ECC RAM;

	•
	Scalable
to 72 GB internal disk capacity;

	•
	Scalable
to 71 TB external RAID;

	•
	Redundant
hot-swappable power supplies;

	•
	Dual-attach
Gigabit Ethernet Adapter; and

	•
	Event
management software for remote management. 

        The
database server will use the Unix 64-bit operating system with. 

Scalability  

        NeuStar will design the Whois database to grow with increasing demand over time. Because database growth can occur in several areas, we will monitor each of the
following parameters and plan for growth accordingly: 

	•
	Physical Size—The database and database platform can have their storage capacity extended and system configured
online with minimum downtime. The database platform will have the ability to scale up to 72 GB capacity, and external storage capacity to 71 TB.

	•
	Memory—As the volume of users increases, so does the need for increased buffer and lock-pool storage.
The database platform will scale up to 32 GB, sufficient memory to support the system capacity.

	•
	CPUs—To handle increasing volumes of registrar requests, the database platform will scale up to 6 processors. 

Delegee Database  

        Anyone can query the Delegee database. Each database entity includes the following information for all delegated subdomains registered in the usTLD: 

	•
	Subdomain
name,

	•
	Nameserver,

	•
	IP
address,

	•
	Delegated
manager, and

	•
	End-user
contact information associated with the subdomain. 

O-31

 

Delegee Database Platform  

        Each Whois server cluster will be supported by a clustered pair of database servers. The Whois database platform will have the following characteristics: 

	•
	A
high-end server;

	•
	RISC
550 MHz CPU;

	•
	64-bit,
2- to 6-way SMP;

	•
	Up
to 32 GB ECC RAM;

	•
	Scalable
to 72 GB internal disk capacity;

	•
	Scalable
to 71 TB external RAID;

	•
	Redundant
hot-swappable power supplies;

	•
	Dual-attach
Gigabit Ethernet Adapter; and

	•
	Event
management software for remote management. 

        The
database server will use the Unix 64-bit operating system. 

Scalability  

        NeuStar will design the Whois database to grow with increasing demand over time. Because database growth can occur in several areas, we will monitor each of the
following parameters and plan for growth accordingly: 

	•
	Physical Size—The database and database platform can have their storage capacity extended and system configured
online with minimum downtime. The database platform will have ability to scale up to 72 GB capacity, and external storage capacity to 71 TB.

	•
	Memory—As the volume of users increases, so does the need for increased buffer and lock-pool storage.
The database platform will scale up to 32 GB, sufficient memory to support the system capacity.

	•
	CPUs—To handle increasing volumes of registrar requests, the database platform will scale up to 6 processors. 

Database Administration  

        NeuStar personnel who administer and maintain the database will perform their tasks at times and intervals scheduled to ensure maximum system availability.
Typical database-administration tasks include the following: 

	•
	Monitoring
and tuning,

	•
	Creating
and deleting entire databases,

	•
	Starting
and stopping,

	•
	Backing
up and recovering,

	•
	Adding
additional data volumes,

	•
	Defining
clustering strategies,

	•
	Reorganizing,

	•
	Adding
and removing indexes, 

O-32

 

	•
	Evolving
the schema,

	•
	Granting
access,

	•
	Browsing
and querying, and

	•
	Configuring
fault tolerance. 

Database Backup/Restore  

        Proposal Paragraphs O.7 (Data Escrow and Backup) and O.14 (System Recovery Procedures) describe our proven backup/restore processes, which we will employ for the
Enhanced SRS operation. Backup frequency and logging processes will minimize data loss in case of system outage. 

Disaster Recovery  

        Each Centralized usTLD database component will asynchronously replicate its database in the other co-active Enhanced SRS Data Center. As Proposal
Paragraphs O.7 (Data Escrow and Backup) and O.14 (System Recovery Procedures) explain, in the unlikely event of a catastrophic outage at one data center, the Enhanced SRS operations will failover to
the replicate database. 

O.3.3    Database Security and Access Privileges  

        Proposal Paragraph O.10 explains NeuStar's security measures in detail. The major technical security-related controls to ensure data integrity and security
on the database platforms include the following: 

	•
	Server
operating system with access control provides protection against unauthorized access. It employs user ID and password, along with file access control lists.

	•
	Database
security with user profiles enable us to grant or deny access privileges to customers, database users, and database administrators. The controllable level of
granularity extends down to the individual data field.

	•
	NeuStar
will establish security policies and routine logging/auditing/monitoring functions to ensure that there is no unauthorized access. We will periodically review
security to ensure that the system is functioning as needed.

	•
	Access
to the database is via trusted processes on both the application server and the Billing server.

	•
	NeuStar
will establish routine auditing/monitoring features to ensure that there is no unauthorized activity, and we will periodically review our security features to ensure
that the system is functioning as needed. 

O-33

   
..  O.4    Zone File Generation  

        NeuStar proposes generating zone files in near-real-time, thus ensuring timely synchronization of
nameservers.

        The
zone file is a flat database file consisting of the technical information that the DNS requires to function correctly: the domain name, nameserver host name, and IP address. 

        Zone file generation is the term traditionally used to describe the process of generating a zone file from the registry database,
deploying it to the primary root server, and then propagating it out to the secondary servers. 

        However,
NeuStar's model does not periodically generate a zone file and then publish the new file to a set of nameservers. This Proposal describes our process for creating updates for
the nameserver files; Section O.5 contains information about distributing and publishing the updates. To make the two sections complete and self-sufficient, each contains certain
information that is also found in the other. 

Benefits of the Proposed Solution  

        NeuStar's zone file generation and propagation processes will update zone files in near-real time within defined service levels.
Near-real-time updates provide the following significant advantages: 

	•
	They
eliminate the synchronization problems that now occur when information is modified.

	•
	They
enable us to define and monitor service levels for the maximum allowable time between zone file updates. 

O.4.1    Secure Access to Update Zone File Data  

        Under our proposed solution, the Centralized usTLD Database in the Enhanced SRS data centers store all data used to generate and distribute the zone file updates.
For security reasons, neither registrars nor internal data center staff can access this database directly; the application server tier controls all database access. Registrars/Delegees access the
database (through the application servers) using the XRP protocol via the protocol servers. The following procedures govern creating and modifying database information: 

	•
	Registrars
are solely responsible for creating, modifying, and deleting information that update the zone file. The XRP protocol is the only gateway available to registrars
for zone file editing. This protocol is accessed using the NeuStar XRP servers.

	•
	A
registrar gains access to a domain name (and associated nameserver) by registering that domain name or when the appropriate Transfer of Registrar is enacted. For a
Transfer of Registrar, access control is revoked from the losing registrar after the transfer.

	•
	Access
control to zone file data for XRP "Delete/Modify Domain Name" commands is granted only to the registrar/delegee who has management rights over the domain name.

	•
	In
the case of an XRP "Create/Modify/Delete Nameserver" command, access control is granted only to the registrar/delegee that has management rights over the nameserver's
parent domain name (i.e., ns1.neustar.us has the parent domain name neustar.us). 

        Other
proposal sections provide additional security-related information: 

	•
	Section O.5
contains information about deployment security, and 

O-34

 

	•
	Section O.10
contains information about other security issues, including system and network security and access control authentication and authorization. 

Frequency of Zone File Generation  

        NeuStar will generate zone file updates (diffs) at regular intervals within defined service levels. Our solution enables us to meet any reasonable service level
merely by adding incremental hardware items and reconfiguring system software settings. 

        Any
zone file update procedure must not degrade the performance of the core registration system. NeuStar's solution will enable us to agree to service levels that guarantee the zone file
distribution database is updated within defined intervals (initially set to 15 minutes) without adversely affecting core registration operations. 

Logging and Data Backup  

        All zone files and updates are generated using information from the Centralized usTLD database. All updates are recorded as database transaction logs. Proposal
Sections O.7, O.13, and O.14 contain information about the primary database backup and escrow systems, data center replication, and data recovery procedures. 

O.4.2    Zone File Generation Architecture  

        Zone file information is stored in the Centralized usTLD Database (along with all other registry data) and replicated to a zone distribution server. The database
stored on the zone distribution server is in turn replicated out to a database at the nameserver data centers. 

Zone File Replication  

        Each time the zone distribution database is modified, and before the zone file update is replicated out to the nameserver data centers, the system performs a
series of quality assurance checks. If any quality assurance checks raise an alert, operations staff must approve the deployment before the update is sent to the nameservers. The quality assurance
checks include: 

	•
	Greater
than a pre-established maximum number of modifications since the last update, and

	•
	Greater
than a pre-established maximum number of modifications since the last update for a special set of domain names used by key e-commerce sites.
The alert threshold will be much lower for these domain names than for the previous check. 

Standards Compliance  

        Each nameserver will run software that correctly implements the IETF standards for the DNS (RFC1035, RFC2181). 

        NeuStar
expects to implement all applicable best-practice recommendations contained in RFC2870 (Root Nameserver Operational Requirements). 

O-35

 

O.5    Zone File Distribution and Publication  

        NeuStar proposes near-real-time updates of the zone file data, which will facilitate synchronization of the
nameservers as well as the monitoring of service levels.

        This
proposal section (O.5) describes the process of updating zone file information at the various nameserver data centers using information from the zone distribution servers at the two
co-active Enhanced SRS data centers. The preceding proposal section (O.4) describes how the databases on those zone distribution servers are updated. To make the two sections complete and
self-sufficient, each contains certain information that is also found in the other. 

        The
databases on the zone distribution servers will be constantly replicated over a VPN to the zone update database at each nameserver data center. Each nameserver data center will, in
turn, use its zone update database to update its zone file databases. Updating will comply with defined service levels. 

        To
ensure availability and provide scalability and redundancy, each nameserver data center will have a cluster of two or more nameservers behind a load balancer. This configuration
enables NeuStar to rapidly accommodate increases in query load by simply adding servers to the cluster at the affected nameserver data centers. 

Benefits of the Proposed Solution  

        NeuStar's zone file generation and propagation processes will update the zone files in near real time within defined service levels. Near real-time
updates provide the following significant advantages: 

	•
	They
eliminate the synchronization problems that now occur when information is modified.

	•
	They
facilitate the deployment of innovative new technologies, such as dynamic update, because NeuStar will have technical control of the nameservers. 

O.5.1    Locations of Data Centers Housing Zone File Nameservers  

        Exhibit O-1 (shown previously) provides the locations of the three nameservers. We will monitor network utilization and geographic traffic
flows and will deploy new nameservers in additional geographic locations when appropriate. 

        At
the nameserver data centers, a zone update database constantly receives replication update packages from the zone distribution database server at the Enhanced SRS data centers. This
zone update database is not "hit' when the nameservers process requests; the nameservers use it only to update their zone file databases. 

        NeuStar
will deploy a modified version of BIND. It has been modified to remove capabilities not required for TLD root server operations and to speed up the remaining functions. The DNS
software will comply with the latest IETF standards [RFC1035, RFC2181]. 

O.5.2    Zone File Publication/Update Architecture  

        As we introduced in Proposal Paragraph O.4, NeuStar proposes near-real-time update of the zone file. That paragraph discusses how
the zone file information is stored in the Enhanced SRS master database and then replicated to a zone distribution server database. 

        Exhibit O-8
illustrates the zone file distribution process. The database on the zone distribution server at the Enhanced SRS data center is constantly replicated over
our VPN to the zone update database at each nameserver data center. The update packages are compressed, encrypted, and sent with an appended checksum. 

O-36

 

        Every
update package includes a checksum key, which is a generated checksum of the entire database up to and including modifications in that package. Each time a package updates a
nameserver, the checksum is compared to the final state of the zone file data to ensure that the nameserver zone file corresponds to the zone file in the Enhanced SRS data center's database. If the
checksums indicate an error, the nameserver asks the Enhanced SRS data center to replicate a full zone file to the
nameserver. The update package replication process means that the full zone file should never need to be redeployed; however, NeuStar will provide this capability to recover from an unforeseen event.
Should this capability be needed, propagating zone file updates may result in a 60-minute delay. 

        Exhibit O-9
depicts how each nameserver updates its zone file databases from its zone update database. 

Frequency of Zone File Publication/Update  

        Any technical solution that includes real-time DNS updates must recognize that the most important function of the nameservers is responding to DNS
queries. This requirement outweighs real-time updating of the zone file. NeuStar's solution is based on this reality. Our real-time update process includes establishing and
monitoring key parameters. 

        [Exhibit O-8:
NeuStar's process for near real-time updating of the nameserver zone file databases ensures that consistent and timely data are
always available. Graphic Omitted: flow chart of zone file distribution process.] 

        [Exhibit O-9:
Maintaining a zone file database at each nameserver data center allows zone file servers to respond to DNS inquiries by accessing their own
local zone file database. This maximizes efficiency and increases redundancy. Graphic Omitted: diagram depicting nameserver update process.] 

Monitoring and Logging  

        Our central network management system will log all modifications to the Centralized usTLD database, all zone file update actions, and all attempts at intrusion or
other security-related events. 

Standards Compliance  

        Each nameserver will run software that correctly implements the IETF standards for the DNS (RFC1035, RFC2181). 

        NeuStar
expects to implement all applicable best-practice recommendations contained in RFC2870 (Root Nameserver Operational Requirements). 

O-37

 

O.6    Billing and Collection System  

        NeuStar's proven experience in successfully selecting, implementing, and operating complex Billing and Collection (B&C) systems for
communications and domain name registry services ensures that our usTLD registry billing services will be feature rich, accurate, secure, and accessible to the entire customer
base.

        The
B&C system will maintain customers' accounts, create account statements, and audit and track information for both customers and the industry. 

        The
fundamental goal of the system is to maintain the B&C data and create reports that are accurate, accessible, secured, and scalable. B&C will enable detailed transaction-based
charging to the customers, based on extensive resource accounting and usage data recording performed in the Registry System. The B&C system must produce timely and accurate account statements and
billing reports that are accurate, easy to understand, and contain only clearly defined charges from the Catalog of services and prices. Such account statements are ultimately more economical because
they are less likely to provoke costly billing disputes. 

        NeuStar
offers a simple B&C process as depicted in Exhibit O-10. It is based on debit and/or credit card accounts established by each of our clients. We will withdraw
all domain registration service payments from the incurring customer's debit or credit card account on a per-transaction basis. We will provide fee-incurring services (e.g.,
domain registrations, registrar transfers, and domain renewals) for customers only so long as their accounts are in good standing. NeuStar's B&C system will be sufficiently flexible to adapt to
different billable events, grace-period implementations, and pricing structures. 

        NeuStar's
B&C system will be located at the two redundant Enhanced SRS data centers in Virginia and Illinois. These systems will handle the key B&C functions, including: 

	•
	Debiting
and crediting registrars' accounts,

	•
	Initiating
low-balance notifications,

	•
	Performing
credit card transactions,

	•
	Enabling
customers to view their accounts, and

	•
	Tracking
and reporting historical information. 

        [Exhibit O-10:
NeuStar's billing and collection solution will ensure that all usTLD billing and collection requirements are met with the highest level of
service. Graphic Omitted: flow diagram for billing and collection process.] 

O.6.1    Technical Capabilities and Characteristics  

        NeuStar will customize an off-the-shelf product to ensure data processing accuracy, accessibility, flexibility, and scalability to
accommodate increasing transaction volumes and additional billable events. Our finance and technical experts are experienced in customizing systems to evolve smoothly from performing simple to more
complex tasks, and from small-scale to large-scale operations. We selected this solution after conducting a detailed analysis of the options for administering the registry's B&C system. Our proposed
system will: 

	•
	Meet
all registry B&C objectives, including

	•
	Generating
the large amount of detailed resource accounting information needed to support detailed usage-based charging of registrars, delegees, and registrants

	•
	Tracking
and reporting historical information

	•
	Be
cost effective 

O-38

 

	•
	Be
operational within the scheduled implementation dates. 

Billing and Collection System Description  

        Exhibit O-11
illustrates the major components of the B&C system and its interfaces with other Enhanced SRS subsystems. 

        B&C database—This database, which is separate from the Registry's Centralized usTLD Database, contains the data shown in the
following table. Proposal Paragraph O.3 discusses the capabilities, management, administration, and backup of all databases, including the B&C database. This subsection discusses only the
design aspects of the B&C database. 

        Transaction Processor—This processor, which responds to inputs from the external application server and from the B&C
operations GUI, is the only component that has access to update the B&C database. The transaction processor will process transactions in real time, responding to API calls from application servers,
and also will process transaction log files obtained from external servers. The transaction processor has two main subcomponents: 

	•
	Customer Profile Administrator—The component that responds to the customer-administration component of the
application server, and 

O-39

 

	•
	B&C Processor—The component that processes all domain registration related requests and other billable events
from external servers. 

 B&C Database Contents  

	Primary Element
 
	 	Details
	 	Primary Element
	 	Details

	Catalog	 	•	 	Transaction type	 	Transaction data	 	•	 	Transaction ID
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Amount charged	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Customer ID
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Start date	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Transaction type
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

End date	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Start date
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Additional information	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

End date
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Domain name
	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Registrant contact information
	

Customer Information	
 	

•	
 	

Customer name	
 	

Account history	
 	

•	
 	

Customer ID
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Customer ID	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Amount received
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Customer e-mail address	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Date of amount received
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Customer address	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Transaction type
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Preferred payment method	
 	

Account Information	
 	

•	
 	

Customer ID
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Credit card information	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Current Amount
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Account setup date	
 	

User Administration	
 	

•	
 	

User ID
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Operational date	
 	

 	
 	

•	
 	

User role
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

End date	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 

        [Exhibit O-11:
The application architectural overview provides a high-level view of the billing and collection system necessary to support
registry functionality and its interactions with external systems. Graphic Omitted: architectural diagram of billing and collection processes.] 

        Monitor and Notifier—This component monitors the registrars' accounts for sufficient funds and monitors domain name
expirations and renewals. When it detects actionable items, it notifies the transaction processor and the registry's Customer Service organization. 

        Report Generator—This component will generate monthly account statements and various reports, including annual reports. This
is also the component that Customer Service will use to generate custom reports requested by a customer. After generating custom reports in a batch process, the report generator sends them to the FTP
directory, where they are stored for the customer to download. 

O-40

 

Billing and Collection System Interfaces  

        As Exhibit O-11 above indicates, the B&C system will have four types of interfaces: 

        Application Programmer Interfaces (APIs)—That connect billing functionality with selected non-B&C functions of the
registry (e.g., registrar administration, domain registration, accounting system entries, and e-mail processes). The APIs, which connect
to the application server, will provide good query capabilities, triggers for billable events, and a means for customizing or extending B&C functionality. The APIs will enable the B&C system to
perform B&C functions in near real time (i.e., at the same time that the registry system is processing the request). The APIs will be well defined, including parameters used and resultant status
codes. All error codes will be well documented, and B&C activities will be logged for tracking and audit purposes. API functions include the following: 

	•
	Validating
the application using application ID & password,

	•
	Accessing
a customer's account to verify its balance and perform a financial transaction (credit card or debit account),

	•
	Adding
a domain registration,

	•
	Canceling
a domain registration,

	•
	Transferring
a domain registration,

	•
	Requesting
a custom report, and

	•
	Administering
a customer's billing profile. 

        GUI Client—For the B&C system's registry operations personnel, who will use this interface for system administration and
reporting functions, including: 

	•
	Establishing
and administering customer accounts;

	•
	Administering
B&C functionality, including making adjustments; and

	•
	Generating
routine and special reports. 

        Secure Web-based Portal—That enables customers to use readily available Web browsers (Netscape Navigator 4.0 or
above, or Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 or above) to monitor their account balances and view reports over the Internet. Using this interface, customers can view the balance in their debit accounts,
their credit card transactions, and their domain registration records in detail. Customers are granted permissions via the database security features to access data pertaining to their own accounts,
but they cannot access data from other customers' accounts. Customers also are able to select the interface by which the query or report will be delivered; depending upon the type of report or query,
the available interfaces can include on-screen, FTP, or e-mail. The interface will be by way of a secure network using the Enhanced SRS Web server, HTML, and an
off-the-shelf reporting tool. Features of the Web GUI include: 

	•
	Open,
non-proprietary, standards-based GUI technology (http + SSL);

	•
	Economical,
readily available client software for users;

	•
	Secure
access;

	•
	Flexible
design;

	•
	Online
help;

	•
	Consistent
presentation style;

	•
	Ease
of navigation, with menu-type options; and 

O-41

 

	•
	Data
entry checking. 

        Transaction Log Files—Are automatically created by and transferred from external systems such as the application server and
database systems. 

Billing and Collection Procedures  

        The B&C system processes data that are generated during the following three types of procedures: 

	•
	Customer
administration—The B&C system will manage the B&C profile for customers, along with the account and contact information.

	•
	Transactional
services—Actions that trigger a B&C event. Customers' requests result in "transactions" at the application level and "events" in the B&C process.

	•
	Non-transactional
services—Actions including balance forecasting and account balances. 

O-42

 

        The
following tables provide details of each type of process flow. Where they state that the B&C system sends a special notification to a customer, it also sends a copy to the usTLD
Customer Service organization. 

 Registrar Administration  

	Function
 
	 	Billing and Collection Process Flow

	Initial Account Setup	 	Registry receives the registrar's Registry Service Agreement and the license fee.
	

 	
 	

Registry establishes an account in the B&C system, enters all contact information, but account status is non-operational.
	

Operational Account Setup	
 	

Registry verifies registrar's acceptability and invoices for the annual maintenance fee.
	

 	
 	

Registry receives maintenance fee payment and changes account status to operational.
	

 	
 	

Registry notifies registrar to prepay the established debit account or collects credit card information
	

Debit Account Prepayment	
 	

Registry receives customer's payment, opens debit account, and credits received amount to that account.
	

Change in B&C Profile	
 	

Registry receives the request. If registry approves, it updates customer's B&C profile in B&C system.
	

Credit Extension	
 	

Registry receives the request. If registry approves, B&C system extends the credit.
	

Change in Payment Methods	
 	

Registry receives the request. If registry approves request, B&C system records the change.

        The
following are the transactional services recognized by the B&C system: 

	•
	Add
Domain,

	•
	Cancel
Domain,

	•
	Renew
Domain (Customer Request),

	•
	Renew
Domain (Automatic),

	•
	Cancel
after Automatic Renew (Customer Request),

	•
	Transfer
Registrar,

	•
	Mass
Updates, and 

O-43

 

	•
	Custom
Reports. 

        The
following are the non-transactional services recognized by the B&C system: 

	•
	Annual
Maintenance Fee,

	•
	Low
Account Balance,

	•
	Insufficient
Funds,

	•
	Balance
Forecasting,

	•
	Account
replenishment,

	•
	Credit
card transaction failure,

	•
	Monthly
Statements, and

	•
	Online
B&C Reports. 

O.6.2    Security  

        Proposal Paragraph O.10 provides extensive details about security issues, such as system, network, and physical security and specific issues, such as
access control, authentication, and authorization. This subsection discusses only security provisions that are specific to B&C. Like the overall registry system, the B&C system will implement security
at the Network, System, and User levels, as follows: 

        Network-level Security—The primary network-level communications technology underlying the B&C system is the IP protocol. The
only interfaces that have access to the B&C system are the secure Web GUI to monitor account status and the FTP server to download reports. A firewall forms the secure interface between our secure
internal network and the untrusted Internet. Firewalls use filters to permit or deny packet flow on the basis of the origin and/or destination of the packet's addresses and ports. 

        Users
who want to obtain access to the secure Web portal that we provide to the registrars must first obtain access to the secure Web server within the Enhanced SRS. When the user's Web
browser attempts to establish an https (secure Web application protocol) session with the registry, our system initiates the SSL (secure sockets layer). Part of the initialization sequence is a public
key exchange or identification. Once the SSL initialization is complete, it establishes a secure, encrypted channel between the user's Web browser and the registry's Web server, and exchanges digital
certificates to ensure the integrity and authenticity of the session. The use of a secure Web browser/server ensures that no clear text, including passwords, is sent over the public or shared data
network. 

        System-level Security—Secure user login facilities ensure that secure Web server users are fully authorized and authenticated.
The Enhanced SRS secure Web server presents a login menu on the user's Web browser. The login menu includes 20 lines of warning message stating that this is a private computer system and authorization
is required for access. The default warning message will be: "NOTICE: This is a private computer system. Unauthorized access or use may lead to prosecution!" 

        When
users attempt to log in to the secure Web server, they must enter their user ID and their password. The login/password information forwarded back to NeuStar's usTLD Web server is
encrypted through the SSL channel previously established. 

        User-level Security—Every B&C system user (individual and application, external and internal) has a unique user
login account on the system, with unique user identification codes (user IDs) and passwords to authenticate users and an access control list to control their access to system resources and
applications. User profiles are set up and maintained in the database system so that users' access to the B&C system is controlled by their user profile and the access privileges granted therein.
NeuStar 

O-44

 

will
establish and maintain well-defined security procedures for adding and deleting users and modifying their logon account, access control lists, and user profile access privileges,
depending on the user's functional role. The following subsection contains additional information about user roles and privileges. 

O.6.3    Access Privileges  

        The B&C system and network employ multi-tiered access control to ensure that all B&C resources—such as transactions and data—can be
accessed and used only by authorized users. As previously discussed, access to the proposed B&C system via the network is fully secured behind a perimeter firewall and user ID and password system,
while physical access is controlled using electronic keys and palm readers. Once authorized users gain access to the system, their privileges are controled by the operating system access control lists
and the database system user profile that determines what functions, system resources, and data the users are allowed to access and use. Access privileges are broadly defined and controlled for the
following user groups: 

	•
	Registry
employees, and

	•
	usTLD
customers. 

        The
following subparagraphs discuss the access privileges of each group. 

Registry Employees  

        Only internal usTLD registry staff members using cardkeys can gain access to the registry facility. Registry employees who are authorized to access the B&C system
do so using workstations connected through the registry LAN. Except for the system administrators, these employees access the system using the B&C client interface, which will be established
specifically for staff members to perform billing adjustments, maintenance, and related functions. 

        Each
internal user of the B&C system is also associated with a user role that will permit or deny access to different functions in the B&C system. The System Administrator will create
the roles that allow users to access certain functionality. Initially, we expect to define user roles within NeuStar's B&C-operations organization as follows: 

	•
	System
Administrators perform system upgrades, maintenance, and user administration. 

O-45

  

	•
	B&C
System Administrator configures the B&C system (e.g., user groups and their access rights, batch-process schedule, and configurable business rules).

	•
	B&C
System Operator establishes users, monitors back processes, provides system support, and monitors and corrects billing errors.

	•
	Customer
Service personnel view a registrar's billing history and collect information for the B&C manager.

	•
	B&C
clerks create transactions, such as invoices and collections, but do not make adjustments.

	•
	B&C
Manager creates adjustments, catalog changes, and customer changes.

	•
	B&C
Database Administrator performs mass database updates. 

Customers  

        Customers have only view access to their B&C account status, account statements, and reports. They have to contact B&C personnel within the registry's Customer
Support organization for any billing adjustments, custom reports, or special arrangements. 

        Query Capabilities—The Web GUI will provide authorized registrars with the ability to query the B&C database for information.
As previously described, to access the Web GUI, the registrar must obtain network access to the registry Web server and then proceed through the identification and authentication process using a valid
logon ID and password. A registrar's access to the B&C information is limited to his own accounts; the registrar is denied access to the information about any other registrar's account. The Web GUI
supports the following standard queries and reports: 

	•
	List
of all domain names owned by the customer,

	•
	Account
balance,

	•
	Monthly
account statements,

	•
	List
of all domain names with renewal dates within a defined period, and

	•
	Detail
transaction report for defined period. 

        Customers
can submit nonstandard queries or requests for special reports by contacting NeuStar's Customer Service organization via e-mail, phone, or fax. Customer Service
will place any custom reports on a secure FTP server from which the requesting customer can download them. 

        Adjustments—For billing issues or adjustments in profile or account statements, customers must contact NeuStar's Customer
Service organization via e-mail, phone call, or fax. The B&C Manager has the capability to perform any billing adjustments or similar services requested by a customer. 

        Notifications and Statements—The registry will e-mail to each customer a detailed monthly transaction statement,
an account summary, and a detailed list of all fee-incurring charges. In addition, the B&C system will automatically e-mail "Low Account Balance," "Insufficient Funds," and
"Credit Card Transaction Refusal" notifications to any customer when needed. 

O.6.4    Backup and Recovery  

        We will employ the same backup and recovery procedures for the B&C system that we use for the overall registry system. Proposal Paragraph O.7 provides
detail on the following procedures: 

	•
	We
will perform daily backup to DLT tapes, which will be stored in a secure off-site location.

	•
	We
will also perform periodic archives of history files and data, which we will also store in a secure off-site location. 

O-46

 

        If
the B&C system fails (i.e., the API interface to the application returns an "Error status"), a built-in recovery mechanism will ensure that transactions and data are not
lost. The application server will log all undeliverable B&C transactions, with transaction identifiers, to an internal file. After the problem is corrected, the file will be transferred to the B&C
system for processing. 

O.6.5    Billing and Collection Audits  

        NeuStar will provide the infrastructure to collect all data needed for accounting and auditing reports that meet commercially accepted standards and will provide
this data, as appropriate, to COTR-designated auditors. Data will be available for the current fiscal year and for an agreed number of preceding years. NeuStar will assist
COTR-designated auditors by providing all required statements and reports. Annually, NeuStar's internal auditors will audit the registry's B&C system, records, and supporting documentation
to verify the accuracy of billing for usTLD services. 

O-47

 

O.7    Data Escrow and Backup  

        NeuStar will back up the databases in our data centers in Virginia and Illinois and will regularly place escrow copies of the backups in secure
off-site locations. These procedures are essential elements of our realistic plans for continuity of operations in the event of system failures and natural or man-made
disasters. 

        The
goal of any data backup/recovery procedure is full recovery from failures without any loss of data. Data backup strategies handle system hardware failures (e.g., loss of a processor
or one or more disk drives) by reinstalling the data from daily backups, supplemented by the information on the "before" and "after" image-journal backup files that the database creates. 

        The
conventional strategy for guarding against loss of the entire facility because of fire, flood, or other natural or man-made disaster is to provide off-site
escrow of the usTLD data in a secure storage facility. Even when successful, this recovery strategy does not prevent the loss of a certain volume of transactions between the time the data were backed
up and the occurrence of the disaster. Users are subject to denial of service during the time required to recover the data center database and/or reestablish operations at an alternate disaster
recovery site. Relocating the data center normally requires at least 24 hours, and the escrowing of backups often is done only weekly, meaning that a disaster could result in substantial loss
of both services and data. 

        NeuStar's
backup solution goes a step further. We propose two co-active Enhanced SRS data centers, each capable of handling the entire workload should a major system failure
or natural or man-made disaster occur at the other. The transactions from each data center are replicated in real time to the other over redundant high-speed Virtual Private
Network (VPN) telecommunications links. Each Enhanced SRS data center also conducts independent backups, as described in the following paragraph. Since the two Enhanced SRS data centers are
co-active, our backup strategy maintains continuity of operations and enables full recovery of all transactions, even in the event of multiple hardware failures. 

O.7.1    Frequency and Procedures for Backup of Data  

        Each co-active data center independently implements a zero-downtime/zero-impact incremental data backup each day and a full
data backup weekly. We place escrow copies of the backup tapes in a secure off-site storage facility operated by a third party whose business is data escrow. We copy static data (e.g., the
operating systems, DNS software, and applications software) to CD-ROMs for quick reload, should that become necessary. We back up to DLT tape any dynamically changing files (e.g.,
log
files vital to system maintenance and operation, database files, database-journal files, and software configurations). Weekly, we perform full-system backups to DLT tape of all databases
identified in Section O.3 (Enhanced SRS Database, Whois, Billing). 

        Each
data center uses online zero-downtime/zero-impact backup procedures that include the following four steps: 

	1.
	The
database is put into backup mode to guarantee a consistent version of the data on the snapshot copy that is written to a RAID disk array for subsequent (slower speed) copying to
tape. While the database is in backup mode, the XRP, Whois, and Billing applications continue to function and to access the data. The database normally is in backup mode for only about 5 to 10
minutes.

	2.
	The
backup software writes the data to the RAID disk array.

	3.
	The
backup software, which is located on a backup server independent from the application servers, creates the backup DLT Tape copy from the snapshot copy on the RAID disk array.

	4.
	When
the backup is finished, the DLT Tapes are transported to the secure escrow facility. 

O-48

 

O.7.2    Backup Hardware and Software Systems  

        Exhibit O-12 depicts the backup/recovery hardware and software of the Enhanced SRS data centers. Each data center's system includes two backup
servers with DLT robotic tape libraries. The data backup system uses the DLT IV data cartridge and the DLT 5 data format. To achieve zero-downtime/zero-impact backup, we use a
RAID disk array and a high-speed fiber channel bridge interconnect to the robotic tape libraries. The backup server copies not only the database server's backup files to the disk array, as
discussed in the four-step process already described, but also the backup files of the cluster servers.
During the few minutes this process requires, applications still have access to the cluster servers and database server. Then the backup server copies the files to the DLT robotic tape device. 

        Because
of the criticality of the database, NeuStar proposes a fully redundant database management system. We will configure the database system as two independent database
servers—primary and backup—with synchronous replication using two-way commits to maintain database synchronization. If one database server fails, the database
system is sized so that the second server can process the entire load without degradation while the primary server is restored to service. 

        We
will transport both daily incremental backups of dynamically changing data and the weekly full backup to a secure escrow agent to be selected with the concurrence of the COTR. 

        [Exhibit O-12:
Snapshots of NeuStar's Centralized usTLD Database are written to a disk array and then copied to tape library to enable seamless application
processing and continuous database access. Graphic Omitted: flow diagram depicting data center backup system.] 

O.7.3    Procedures for Retrieval of Data and Rebuild of the Database  

        We maintain copies of the DLT tapes holding incremental data backups in a three-tape rotation: 

	•
	One
DLT backup tape is in transit to the secure escrow facility.

	•
	A
second DLT tape is in storage in the secure escrow facility.

	•
	The
third DLT tape is in the data center for reuse. 

        The
full backup tapes are maintained in a two-tape rotation, with one tape at the secure escrow facility and one at the data center for reuse. Copies of the static data
CD-ROMs for the operating systems and applications are also maintained at the escrow facility. 

        Should
the primary database server experience a catastrophic crash that necessitates a lengthy recovery process, data center operations continue seamlessly on the backup database server
that replicates all the data in the primary server. After the failed database server is repaired, we recover its data using the full backup tape and incremental backup tape that is retrieved from the
escrow facility. We first restore the full backup files, and then we restore the incremental files. We then synchronize the recovered database to the primary database. This procedure recovers the
database to the last complete transaction processed by the primary database. 

        This
backup procedure enables NeuStar to meet the service level agreements required for continuous availability and near-zero unplanned downtime, thereby improving the
stability of the Internet, enhancing public confidence, and improving customer satisfaction. 

O-49

 

O.8    Whois Databases for Both Registrars and Delegated Managers  

        NeuStar proposes a central, authoritative Whois service that will provide the Internet community with consistent, timely, and accurate
information about Registrants and delegated Managers.

        Whois
is a database of information about Internet domain names. NeuStar's proposed registry will maintain a state-of-the-art, near
real-time Whois service that will make this information available to registrars and delegees on the common Whois port (Port 43) as well as through a NeuStar public website. With a
simple wrapper around NeuStar's Whois service, these registrars and delegees will have the ability to control their own Whois offering, complete with its own look and feel and branding. Our registry
will store all information relating to Whois data entities, including contact and authentication data. This section covers both the Whois Database (Registrants) and the Delegee Whois database. The
term Whois implies both services 

        The
Whois service is intended as a directory service for registrants, as well as for any other individuals and businesses that want to query details of domain names or related data
stored in the registry. Our Whois data will be available in both conventional and machine-readable format, facilitating automation. 

        In
addition to providing the Whois directory service to registrars and delegees, NeuStar will also have the ability to provide the service directly to the Internet community via our Web
site. 

Benefits of Proposed Solution  

        NeuStar's proposed solution, which centralizes the Whois data and provides its own access, as well as access via registrars and delegees, provides the following
benefits: 

	•
	Central
location for all authoritative usTLD registration data,

	•
	Standard
protocol accessible over port 43 for registrars and delegees,

	•
	Consistent
format (fields and formatting) for all users,

	•
	Machine-readable
format (promotes automation),

	•
	Near
real-time update, and 

O-50

 

O.8.1    Whois Service Functional Description  

        The Whois service will accommodate queries regarding the data entities listed in the following table. 

 Whois Data Entities  

	Entities
 
	 	Fields
 

	Domain names	 	Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

Associated nameservers
	

 	
 	

Associated registrar Associated Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

Associated registrant data
	

Nameserver	
 	

Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

Associated IP addresses
	

 	
 	

Associated registrar Associated
	

 	
 	

Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

Associated registrant data
	

IP Address	
 	

Attributes (Status)
	

 	
 	

Associated nameserver
	

 	
 	

Associated registrar
	

 	
 	

Associated Delegated Manager
	

 	
 	

Associated registrant data
	

Registrar List	
 	

Registrar name
	

Registrars	
 	

Registrar name
	

 	
 	

Registrar contact details
	

 	
 	

Registrar URL (Home page)
	

 	
 	

Registrar Whois URL (Web Port 80)
	

 	
 	

Registrar Whois URL (Web Port 43, if applicable)
	

 	
 	

Attributes (Status)

Machine-Readable Format  

        NeuStar's standardized Whois format will facilitate automated parsing of Whois information.

        Because
the viewable data could be modified over time (e.g., new fields could be added), a robust and formalized encoding mechanism is needed to provide the
non-Registrar/Delegee community with reliable automated access to Whois data. 

        For
example, an organization tracking trademark infringement might want to acquire the Whois data, automatically parse it, and store it in a tracking system. To accommodate such
organizations, the 

O-51

 

Whois
information must be presented in a formal, way that is compatible with automated processing. To accomplish this, we will present the Whois data in a readable format. 

Advanced Search Capabilities  

        Per COTR requirements, the Whois database will support using multiple string and field searching. Boolean searches based on any combination of Whois fields will
be accommodated. 

Data Filtering  

        In order to accommodate any data access restrictions that may arise, either immediately or in the future, NeuStar will implement the capability to filter viewed
data based either on the capabilities/profile of the requestor or the query type. This will allow NeuStar to conform to any data privacy requirements imposed on the Whois data. 

Bulk-Access Program  

        NeuStar proposes to provide a data mart that will give users the ability to download the Whois database, while limiting the recipient's conditions of use. 

        The
proposed data mart bulk-access program would: 

	•
	Reduce
the load that data mining could impose on the core Whois service,

	•
	Contractually
limit subscribers in the ways they can use the data,

	•
	Provide
the entire database in a format that facilitates data mining, such as conducting trademark searches, compiling industry statistics, and providing directory services. 

        Both
the registry and the registrars/delegees will have the ability to conduct the actual bulk-access program. Data will be exposed only within the privacy restrictions
imposed by the usTLD Administrator, or by law. 

        Each
full and incremental data set will consist of an XML document meeting the content and format requirements, as agreed by the Registry and the accessing customers. Once the XML
document is generated, the following preparation steps will be performed: 

	•
	The
XML document will be placed in a file named to reflect the date and whether the file consists of incremental data or full data.

	•
	The
Registry Operator may optionally split the document using the Unix SPLIT command (or equivalent) to produce files no less than 1 GB each (except the final file). If
files are split, an MD5 file (produced with MD5SUM or equivalent) will be included with the resulting files to isolate errors in case of transfer fault. The Registry Operator may optionally compress
the document using the Unix GZIP command (or equivalent) to reduce the file size.

	•
	The
file(s) will then be encrypted and signed using PGP version 6.5.1 or above, with a key of DH/DSS type and 2048-/1024-byte length. The Data
Recipient's public key will be used for the encryption and the Registry Operator's private key will be used for the signature. Public keys will be exchanged between the Registry Operator and the
Designated Recipient by e-mail, physical delivery of floppy diskettes, or other agreed means. 

        Once
prepared, data sets will be provided either by Internet File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or, at the option of either the Registry Operator or the Designated Recipient, by writing the
full data set to DAT tape (or other media mutually agreed by Registry Operator and the Designated Recipient) and sending it to the Designated Recipient by expedited delivery service (such as FedEx or
DHL). 

O-52

 

O.8.2    Whois System Architecture  

        NeuStar will deliver a Whois service that incorporates near-real-time update, scalable infrastructure, and multiple layers of redundancy.
We will initially deploy the Whois servers at the two co-active Enhanced SRS data centers shown previously in Exhibit O-1. The software architecture will enable us to
deploy Whois infrastructure to any number of additional NeuStar data centers. As the registry grows, we will have the ability to deploy additional Whois infrastructure as appropriate to increase
geographic dispersion, enhance the level of service in particular geographic regions, and reduce the load on the Enhanced SRS data centers. 

        Exhibit O-13
illustrates the Whois architecture. At each Whois site, incoming queries are distributed by a load balancer to a cluster of Whois servers that are, in
turn, connected to a backend database cluster. This configuration will provide both redundancy and scalability through the addition of servers to either cluster. 

        Each
Whois server will cache common requests in memory and query the back-end database cluster only on a cache miss. We can configure the duration that Whois information is
cached before being deleted (e.g., 10 minutes); after deletion, the server must query the database for the information. Each Whois server will be configured with at least 2 GB of
high-speed memory, sufficient to hold at least one million of the most commonly queried Whois records. 

        Exhibit O-14
depicts the update of the Whois databases. As the Central usTLD database is updated, the system will also update the Whois distribution database server in
near real time. This database will be replicated to the Whois databases. Replication between data centers always occurs over a VPN or a dedicated link, and the registry will digitally sign update
packages. 

        The
proposed Whois service offers the following benefits: 

	•
	Service
can be scaled by adding servers to each Whois cluster,

	•
	Databases
can be scaled by adding machines to each database cluster,

	•
	Service
can be scaled by deploying Whois infrastructure to additional data centers,

	•
	Inherent
redundancy ensures high availability,

	•
	Update
process ensures near-real-time availability of the latest information, and

	•
	Caching
of common queries provides superb response time. 

        [Exhibit O-13:
As with other Enhanced SRS configurations, NeuStar will provide fault tolerance and easy scalability of the Whois system through redundant
architecture and clustered servers. Graphic Omitted: architectural diagram of Whois server system.] 

        [Exhibit O-14:
The Centralized usTLD Database updates the Whois and Delegee Whois distribution databases in near real-time, and the information
is distributed within a configurable period to the Whois/Delegee database, where it is available for query. Graphic Omitted: flow diagram for Whois update process.] 

O.8.3    Network Speed and Proposed Service Levels  

        The potentially large volume of Whois queries places a significant network connectivity burden on the registry. Based on the assumption that each Whois query will
generate approximately 10 Kbits of network traffic, we will use the following engineering guidelines for provisioning bandwidth: 

	•
	Initially,
we will provide 10 Mbits per data center. The total of 20 Mbits will support approximately 2,000 queries per second (approximately 172 million requests per
day). 

O-53

 

	•
	As
the volume of registrations grows, we will extend the service at a rate of 10 Mbits per one million domain name registration records under our management. For example,
when the registry manages 5 million domain names, we will dedicate 50 Mbits of Whois bandwidth, which will support nearly 450 million Whois queries per day. 

        These
guidelines will be compared with actual usage data and adjusted accordingly. 

        We
will engineer the Whois service to provide the following average service levels: 

	•
	150 million
queries per day (90% cache hits and 10% cache misses, which must be forwarded to a database file). We will increase this query service demand, based on
the total number of domain name registrations managed by the registry, as previously discussed.

	•
	200-millisecond
latency for cache hits (after the request reaches the data center).

	•
	500-millisecond
latency for cache misses (after the request reaches data center). 

        We
will configure the Whois service to limit connections based on the following criteria: 

	•
	1,000
queries per minute from any single IP address,

	•
	20,000
queries per minute for requests originating from designated registrar/delegee subnets, and

	•
	An
"acceptable use" policy that we will negotiate with COTR and the registrar/delegee community. 

        We
will scale the exact number of Whois and database servers deployed in each cluster and at each data center to maintain the specified service levels. 

O-54

 

O.9    System Security  

        NeuStar is currently operating successful data centers for various telecommunications and domain name registry services. This experience has familiarized us with
security risks, as well as with the most current and effective means of thwarting such risks. The COTR can be assured that our comprehensive security provisions will protect the usTLD infrastructure,
operations, and data. 

        Enhanced
Shared Registration System (Enhanced SRS) and nameserver data centers are subject to a wide range of security threats, including hacking, break-ins, data tampering,
denial of service, and physical attacks against the facility. The recent denial-of-service attacks against important government and dot-com sites point to the
technical capabilities of some hackers and the lengths to which they will go to attack the Internet community. Further, because the Registry will contain proprietary data from competing registrars,
security procedures must incorporate user authentication procedures that ensure that each registrar's files are available only to its own personnel. 

        Failure
to address these security threats creates the risks of unscheduled down time and the disruption or denial of services. 

        This
section describes system security features that we will implement in our networks, servers, and applications for the Enhanced SRS data centers and nameserver data centers. 

O.9.1    System Security  

        NeuStar offers the COTR comprehensive system security for our networks, servers, applications, and customer support services. Our security architecture is a
policy-based, multi-tiered structure based on
industry standards and on evolving new IEFT standards for registry-to-registrar security and secure DNS. Our solution integrates the following security features to provide
assurance that multiple security threats or attacks will be unsuccessful: 

	•
	Perimeter
protection for Whois and DNS applications;

	•
	Controlled
access at the server operating systems;

	•
	Applications-level
security features for XRP, Billing & Collection, and customer service applications;

	•
	Connection
security;

	•
	Data
security;

	•
	Intrusion
detection;

	•
	User
identification and authentication;

	•
	Continuity
of operations; and

	•
	Physical
security. 

O-55

   O.9.1.1 Enhanced Shared Registration System Data Center Security  

        The Enhanced SRS provides three layers of security to protect the registry subsystems: (1) network security, (2) server
security, and (3) application security. Each security layer addresses a specific security threat as discussed below.

Network Security  

        Edge routers, firewalls, and load balancers provide perimeter protection for the data center network and applications systems, guarding against unauthorized
access from the Internet. 

	•
	Edge Router—The first security layer is the edge routers, which employ IP-packet filtering.

	•
	Firewall—The second layer of perimeter security is a firewall that provides policy-based IP filtering to protect
against system hacks, break-ins, and denial-of-service attacks. The firewall also includes network-based intrusion detection to protect against Internet hackers.

	•
	Load Balancer—The third layer of protection is provided by load balancers within each data center. Load balancing
protects our application servers from common denial-of-service attacks (e.g., SYN floods, ping floods, and "smurfs" attacks). Security policies can be based on any combination
of source address, destination address, and protocol type or content.

	•
	Virtual Private Network (VPN)—The registry network will use VPN technology to perform database updates at the
nameservers, network-based backup/restore, remote system/network management, and system administration. Our goal is to operate the nameserver data centers sites in a "lights out" (unmanned) mode. VPN
technology achieves secure data transfer through encrypted data communications links. 

Server Security  

        The Enhanced SRS operating systems provide access protection through a user login procedure and through file-level access control lists. These access
control mechanisms perform the following functions: 

	•
	User
account security, which establishes the access capabilities of a specific authenticated user. After authenticating a user, each application's security data tables
control access to information. Access is based not only on user ID but also on the type of application being used (e.g., XRP or Billing and Collection). The application server uses user ID to provide
precise control of access privileges to—and uses of (read, write, and execute)—all system resources: screens, menus, transactions, data fields, database tables, files, records,
print facilities, tape facilities, software tools, and software executables.

	•
	Group-level
security, which establishes the access capabilities of all users within a specific group. All users belong to one or more access control groups. Access control
is identical to that for individual users.

	•
	System
Administration-level security, which restricts access to system administration tools, including the ability to change resource access privileges. Enhanced SRS system
administration staff use dedicated links on an internal LAN/WAN to access administrative functions that are off limits to others. There is no external access to this LAN. All sessions require user
identification by user name and password; access control lists determine what resources a user or user group is allowed to access and use. 

        The
Enhanced SRS operating systems will perform security-relevant logging functions, including: 

	•
	User Login—Whenever a user login is attempted, whether successful or not, the event is logged. The logged
information includes the user ID, time, and device requested. 

O-56

 

	•
	User Accounting—Logs every process executed by every user. The output includes date and time, user ID, point of
entry, process, resources accessed, and result of the operations. This log may be selectively viewed for actions performed by a specific user or users.

	•
	System Logging—This inherent, configurable logging capability permits monitoring the kernel, user processes, mail
system, and authorization system. In addition, the operating system detects when file access privileges have been changed and also audits the use of telnet, finger, rsh, exec, talk, and similar
operations. 

        The
following provisions apply to passwords: 

	•
	Passwords
must be at least six alphanumeric characters in length. At least one character must be alphabetic and at least one must be a numeric or punctuation character.

	•
	If
users forget their password, the system administrator verifies the user's identity and then provides them with a temporary password that enables them to log on only to
the site where users create their own new passwords.

	•
	Passwords
are valid only for a preestablished duration (typically 90 days, but reconfigurable). Prior to password expiration, the system instructs the user to create
a new password.

	•
	When
a user changes his/her password, the system first reauthenticates the existing password and then requires the user to verify the new password before accepting the
change. The system will not accept as a user's new password either of that user's two most recent passwords.

	•
	Passwords
are encrypted and stored in an inaccessible system file. 

Application Security  

        Each Enhanced SRS application will have its own set of security processes and technical controls. The Enhanced SRS applications that interface with the
registrars/delegees/registrants (e.g., the XRP and the secure Web customer service portal) employ the SSL (secure sockets layer) protocol element that uses public-key exchange and RC4
encryption. Public services (e.g., Whois, delegee, DNS queries, and the public Internet Web portal) rely on the previously discussed network perimeter security devices—edge routers,
firewalls, and load balancers—to protect the internal LAN and applications servers. 

	•
	XRP Applications Security—NeuStar's XRP server authenticates against a series of security controls before
granting service, as follows:

	1.
	The
registrar/delegee's host initiates an SSL session with the XRP server.

	2.
	The
XRP server receives the registrar/delegee's private key with the incoming message and authenticates it against their public key, which is stored in the registry's XRP server.

	3.
	After
the XRP server verifies the key exchange, it completes the SSL initialization to establish a secure, encrypted channel between itself and the registrar/delegee's host computer.
This secure, encrypted channel ensures the integrity of the session with registry applications.

	4.
	In
combination with completing the SSL connection, the XRP server authenticates an X.509 digital certificate to verify the registrar/delegee's identity. Digital certificates are
maintained in the Enhanced SRS authentication server database.

	5.
	The
registrar/delegee logs on to the XRP server using a user ID and password that determine access privileges. We will provide each registrar with multiple user IDs and password pairs,
so that each can establish its own group of authorized users. 

O-57

 

	•
	Whois/Delegee Whois Application Security—Although any Internet user has
read-only access to the Whois server, NeuStar's perimeter security mechanisms—edge routers, firewalls, and load balancers—will protect it against
denial-of-service attacks. A designated registry administrator performs common database administration tasks on the Whois and Delegee Whois databases, including monitoring
their performance.

	•
	Nameserver Security—Just as they have with the Whois servers, all Internet users have
read-only access to the nameservers. Similarly, the edge router, firewall, and load balancers protect the nameservers as they do the Whois servers.

	•
	Secure Web Customer Service Portal—The secure Web customer service portal uses the same
security mechanisms employed by the XRP server: SSL session encryption, digital certificates, and user ID and password between the Enhanced SRS secure Web server and the registrars' Web browsers. In
addition, e-mail messages are encrypted with a Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) public-key infrastructure implementation. Digital certificates are maintained in the authentication
server. 

        The
following table summarizes the benefits of each security mechanism that we employ at the data centers to prevent system hacking, break-ins, and
denial-of-service attacks. 

Security Summary  

	Security System Element
 
	 	Features and Benefits

	Server Operating System Security
	

User ID and password; file-level access control lists	
 	

Ensures that the user can access authorized functions, but no others, and can perform only authorized operations within these functions.
	
Database Security
	

User ID and password; user profiles	

 	

Limits database access to preauthorized users with a familiar, easy-to-use method for user authentication.

Retains the last two passwords and disallows their usage, complicating the task of password guessing and cracking.

Rejects simultaneous sessions by an individual user, helping ensure that user IDs and passwords are not shared.

Limits access rights to database objects and functions to a specified user or user group, simplifying the job of user administration.

Rejects unauthorized access attempts and automatically disables identification codes after a preestablished number of unsuccessful attempts, preventing trial-and-error hacking attempts.
	 	 	 

O-58

 

	
Application Security
	

Data encryption (SSL)	
 	

HTTPS encryption ensures that only the intended receiver can read messages between users and the NDR.
	

Digital signatures	
 	

Issued by an authentication server, digital signatures ensure that the incoming data actually have come from the purported sender. This provides nonrepudiation, avoiding disputes over data origin.
	

User ID and password	
 	

Ensures that the user can access authorized functions, but no others, and can perform only authorized operations within these functions
	
Network Security
	

Router	
 	

Permits only UDP/TCP packets to enter the application servers, thus isolating the system from most potentially damaging messages.
	

Firewall	
 	

Guards the secure LAN from the nonsecure Internet by permitting the passage of only packet flows whose origins and destinations comply with preestablished rules.
	

Intrusion detection	
 	

Detects intrusion at the LAN level. Displays an alert at the network operations center workstation and creates a log entry.
	

Load balancer	
 	

Implements security policies to prevent denial of service attacks (e.g., SYN floods, ping floods, and "smurfs").

O.9.1.2 Nameserver Data Center Security  

        NeuStar's approach to nameserver security is a subset of the security mechanisms we employ at the Enhanced SRS data centers. The nameserver data center also
relies on multi-layer perimeter protection, controlled access, enforcement of applications security features, and strong physical security protection. 

Network Security  

        The same mechanisms used for the Enhanced SRS data center are employed at the zone nameserver data centers. Edge routers and firewalls provide perimeter
protection for the data center network and applications systems, guarding against unauthorized access from the Internet. 

	•
	Edge Router—The first security layer is the edge routers, which employ IP-packet filtering to allow
only DNS UDP/TCP packets to pass into and out of the perimeter network.

	•
	Firewall—The second layer of perimeter security is a firewall that provides policy-based IP filtering to protect
against system hacks, break-ins, and denial-of-service attacks. The firewall also includes network-based intrusion detection to protect against Internet hackers.

	•
	Load Balancer—The third layer of protection is server load which protects our application servers from common
denial-of-service attacks
(e.g., SYN floods, ping floods, and "smurfs" attacks). Security policies can be based on any combination of source address, destination address, and protocol type or content.

	•
	Virtual Private Network (VPN)—The registry network will use VPN technology to perform database updates at the
zone nameservers, network-based backup/restore, remote system/network management, and system administration. Our goal is to operate the zone nameserver data center 

O-59

 

sites
in a "lights out" (unmanned) mode. VPN technology achieves secure data transfer through encrypted data communications links. 

Server Security  

        The zone nameserver operating systems provide access protection for remote system administration through a user login procedure and through file-level
access control lists. These access control mechanisms perform the following functions: 

	•
	User
account security establishes the access capabilities of a specific system administration authenticated user. After authenticating the user, the operating system's
access control lists control access to information.

	•
	System
Administrator-level security restricts access to system administration tools, including the ability to change resource access privileges. Nameserver system
administration staff use dedicated links on an internal LAN/WAN to access administrative functions that are off limits to others. There is no external access to this LAN. All sessions require user
identification by user name and password; access control lists determine what resources a user or user group is allowed to access and use. 

        The
zone nameserver operating systems will perform security-relevant logging functions, including: 

	•
	User Login—Whenever a user login is attempted, whether successful or not, the event is
logged. The logged information includes the user ID, time, and device requested.

	•
	User Accounting—Logs every process executed by every user. The output includes date and time, user ID, point of
entry, process, resources accessed, and result of the operations. This log may be selectively viewed for actions performed by a specific user or users.

	•
	System Logging—This inherent, configurable logging capability permits monitoring the kernel, user processes, and
the mail and authorization systems. In addition, the operating system detects when file access privileges have been changed and also audits the use of telnet, finger, rsh, exec, talk, and similar
operations. 

Application Security  

        The zone nameserver essentially enables the public to make DNS queries via the Internet. Public services, such DNS queries, rely on the previously discussed
network perimeter security devices—edge routers, firewalls, and load balancers—to protect the internal LAN and applications servers. 

O.9.2 Physical Security  

        NeuStar vigorously enforces physical security measures, controlling all access to our facilities. Throughout normal working hours, security personnel stationed at
each building entrance verify that employees are displaying proper identification badges, and they control access by nonemployees, who must sign in to gain entrance. The sign-in books are
stored for a period of one year. If the purpose of their visit is found to be valid, nonemployees are issued a temporary badge; otherwise, they are denied entrance. 

        At
all times while they are in the facility, visitors must display their badges and must be escorted by a NeuStar employee. We also strictly enforce the policy that employees must wear
their badges prominently displayed at all times while in the facility. 

        In
addition to providing physical security by protecting buildings with security guards, NeuStar uses a Cassi-Russco security system with Secure Perfect software to manage access
control. The system utilizes proximity card readers with PIN codes for access to the buildings nonpublic areas and biometric 

O-60

 

readers
recognition equipment to control access to the data center. Cameras monitor access points to the building and data center and provide digital recording for archives. All exterior doors are
monitored for status. A panic button has been installed for summoning aid, if it is required. 

        The
following table lists salient facts about our physical security mechanisms. 

NeuStar Physical Security Mechanisms  

	Mechanism
 
	 	Remarks

	

Security guards	
 	

Physically prevent intruder access; verify employee badges
	

Closed-circuit video surveillance cameras	
 	

Extend capabilities of security guards; maintain access records
	

Intrusion detection systems	
 	

Provide audible and visual alarms to notify security personnel in the event of unauthorized entry
	

Identity badges	
 	

Permanent badges for employees; easily recognizable temporary badges for visitors
	

Sign-in registers	
 	

Maintained as permanent records for at least one year
	

Electronic key badges	
 	

Control physical access during off hours; maintain access records
	

Palm readers	
 	

Restrict physical access to mission-critical rooms within our facilities; maintain access records
	

Self-closing doors	
 	

Restrict physical access to mission-critical rooms within our facilities

O-61

 

O.10 Peak Capacities  

        NeuStar proposes a highly scalable Enhanced Shared Registration System (SRS) and nameserver systems that are initially sized for a peak load of three times the
average projected workload. The peak load capacity and built-in scalability of the registry system architecture ensures the COTR that adequate capacity is available during initial peak
usage periods, and that as usage grows over the life of the registry operations, the Enhanced SRS system infrastructure can scale up smoothly without service disruption.

        To
avoid creating bottlenecks for Enhanced SRS, Whois, and nameserver services, NeuStar will engineer for peak usage volumes. In addition, NeuStar will deploy redundant
co-active Enhanced SRS data centers—a network of nameserver sites that are sized to handle the projected initial peak volumes. Subsequently, we will add additional zone
nameservers to handle the anticipated growth. Our Enhanced SRS, Whois, and nameserver architectures are designed with highly scalable server clusters and connected through networks that can be
smoothly scaled up without disrupting the system. Expansion provisions include the following: 

	•
	Servers
scale from Intel SMP machines to high-end RISC SMP database platforms with shared memory architectures.

	•
	Server
processors scale from 2-way to 6-way SMP for the Intel machines and from 2-way to 32-way SMP for the
high-end RISC database machines.

	•
	The
number of servers in a cluster that uses cluster management software scales from 2-way to 32-way to give near-linear processing
scalability.

	•
	The
number of servers in a cluster that do not use cluster management software can conceivably scale beyond 32 servers.

	•
	The
external telecommunications network connectivity to the Enhanced SRS and nameserver data centers scales from dual T-3 to quad T-3 to hex
T-3 connectivity and more as a function of the Enhanced SRS transaction load and the Whois and DNS query loads.

	•
	The
internal Enhanced SRS and nameserver LANs consist of a switched Gigabit Ethernet backbone fabric with extensive port expandability. 

        This
subsection describes the peak capacities of the Enhanced SRS, Whois, and nameserver subsystems in terms of the network, server, and database platforms' initial sizing and
scalability. NeuStar central backup/recovery, escrow, system/network management, and system administration systems are enterprise-strength hardware and software platforms that can easily handle these
management and administrative functions throughout the entire registry operations lifespan. Additional desktop computers and workstations can be added to accommodate growth in staff and workload as
usage increases and the registry infrastructure grows. Our maintenance support, help desk, and technical support functions are staffed for the initial peak usage period, and staff can be increased to
handle workload surges caused by registry marketing and promotional events. 

        It
should be noted that Delegee database capacity requirements are assumed to be low. For this reason, they have been factored into the Whois database capacity numbers. 

O.10.1 Enhanced SRS Peak Capacity  

        The Enhanced SRS provides the core subsystems that handle registrar transaction-based services, including XRP processing, billing and collection, secure Web
portal, and back-end database system services. This subsection describes the Enhanced SRS subsystems peak capacity in terms of the initial sizing and scalability of the network, server,
and database platforms. 

O-62

 

Network  

        The XRP average steady-state transaction load is projected to be 150 transactions per second (tps), or approximately 13 million transactions per day. Since
peak transactions are six times the average, we designed for a peak transaction load of 900 tps. The average transaction size is 5,000 bits, which translates to a required telecommunication capacity
of 4.5 MBPS. The external communication network connectivity to the Internet is initially sized at two fractional T-3 ISP 20-MBPS local access links, for a total of 40 MBPS to
handle XRP transactions and Whois queries. The registry's VPN between the sites is two T-1 1.544 MBPS. The VPN handles zone database updates, server backup and restore, system/network
management, and system administration functions. 

Server Clusters  

        The XRP server cluster and the associated applications server clusters are front-ended with load balancers that distribute the transaction processing workload
across the servers in each cluster. Distribution algorithms include least connections, weighted least connections, round robin, and weighted round robin. 

        The
XRP server and applications server clusters are initially sized to handle six times the projected steady-state workload, or 900 peak transactions per second. The processing capacity
can grow linearly by adding additional servers to the cluster. The total system capacity is a cluster size of 32 SMP 8-way RISC servers. 

        The
Billing and Collection system is sized to handle 200 peak transactions per second, because not every XRP transaction results in a billable service. 

Database System  

        The database system consists of dual high-end RISC machines, each with 2- to 32-way SMP scalability. The initial processing
capacity of the database system is 4-way SMP, sized in terms of the Transaction Processing Council Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) benchmark of 2500 transactions per second (tpsC). 

        The
database system can grow to handle eight times the initial projected volume of transaction loads. NeuStar will closely monitor system usage and will scale the database capacity
correspondingly. 

O.10.2 Whois Peak Capacity  

        A large percentage of the load on the current registry's Whois server is caused by data mining. NeuStar will increase network bandwidth and add
high-performance database capabilities to the Whois service infrastructure. Our proposed bulk-access services will reduce the Whois load by as much as two-thirds.
This subsection describes the Whois subsystems peak capacity in terms of initial sizing and scalability of the network, server, and database platforms. 

Network  

        The peak Whois transaction rate is estimated to be 2,000 queries per second, with an estimated packet size of 10,000 bits. This produces a maximum load of 20
MBPS. Initially, we will provide communication network connectivity for Whois queries between the Internet and each data center as two fractional T-3 ISP local-access links. Although these
links initially will not be used at full capacity, they ultimately can carry up to 90 MBPS per data center before we upgrade to larger links. 

O-63

 

Whois Server Cluster  

        Our Whois server cluster is front-ended with load balancers to distribute the transaction processing workload across the servers in each cluster. Distribution
algorithms include least connections, weighted least connections, round robin, and weighted round robin. 

        The
Whois server cluster is initially sized to handle 2,000 peak transactions per second. To improve query response time and lighten the load on the database, the Whois servers cache
frequently accessed domain names. 

        The
processing capacity can grow linearly by adding additional servers to the cluster. The total system capacity is a cluster size of 32 SMP 6-way Intel servers. NeuStar will
closely monitor Whois usage and will increase the system's capacity to accommodate increasing demand. 

Database System

        Behind
the Whois/Delegee servers are dual mid-range RISC machines, each with 2- to 8-way SMP scalability. Initial processing capacity will be
4-way SMP at 500 tpsC, scalable to 1,000 tpsC. (tpsC is Transaction Processing Council (TPC) Online Transaction Processing (OLTP) benchmark C workload.) 

        NeuStar
is implementing a Whois bulk-load data mart service that will enable the registrars to provide their customers with OLTP bulk query services for data mining of domain
names. 

O.10.3 DNS Query Peak Capacity  

        During the initial land rush period when registrars are marketing the expanded usTLD domain name extensions, DNS query traffic is expected to be moderate because
of less caching further down the DNS hierarchy. Moreover, the query load will not approach current dot-com/dot-net/dot-org levels until more than five million names
are registered. Although NeuStar is proposing three nameserver sites at roll-out, we will closely monitor the load to project the need to add another site 

        NeuStar's
registry handles DNS queries at the nameservers. This subsection describes the nameservers' peak capacity in terms of the network, server, and database platforms' initial
sizing and scalability. NeuStar's design will easily scale as load increases. 

Network  

        NeuStar anticipates a peak load of 5,000 DNS queries per second at each nameserver data center and estimates the average query package size to be 1,600 bits. This
load produces a required telecommunications network bandwidth for DNS queries of 8 MBPS. To provide this bandwidth, we will provision two fractional T-3 access links to the Internet at
each zone nameserver site. The nameserver data centers will easily process a peak load of 40,000 queries per second with more than 100 percent reserve capacity. 

Zone Nameservers  

        Our DNS nameserver cluster will be front-ended with load balancers to distribute the transaction processing workload across the nameservers in the cluster.
Distribution algorithms include least connections, weighted least connections, round robin, and weighted round robin. 

        The
nameserver cluster is initially sized to handle three times the projected steady-state workload, or 5,000 queries per second. To improve query response, the entire zone will be held
memory resident. 

        Processing
power can grow linearly by adding additional servers to the cluster up to its total system capacity: a cluster size of 32 SMP 6-way Intel servers. NeuStar will
closely monitor system usage and will scale up as required. 

Database System  

        The nameserver database update systems use Intel machines with up to 6-way SMP scalability to perform snapshot replication of updates to the
nameserver database. Since the snapshot replication is triggered at regular intervals, the initial nameserver database update system is sized as a 2-way SMP database server, which is more
than adequate to distribute the zone file updates. 

O-64

   O.11 System Reliability  

        To provide continuous access to usTLD registry data and applications, NeuStar proposes the use of two co-active data centers,
geographically separated and continuously online. Each data center incorporates redundancy and nonstop, high-availability features in its hardware and software configurations.  

        Today, business lives in an environment of global economies, increasing competition, ever-changing technologies and markets, population mobility, and
other uncertainties. It becomes increasingly evident that the ability of a business to quickly and intelligently respond to these changing conditions depends directly on the availability, timeliness,
and integrity of its information resources. The Information Technology industry has responded to this need with a variety of high-availability systems whose costs depend on the size of the
necessary databases and on service-level agreements covering system availability. Thus, a TLD registry's selection of a high-availability solution is not only a significant investment but
also a crucial decision that can determine the registry's success or failure. 

        usTLD
applicants must realize that few businesses can afford to be without access to mission critical applications, nor can they tolerate system failures that lead to excessive downtime
and denial of service. Furthermore, few end users would consider a system to be "available" if system performance drops below some acceptable level or if the system is only available to some subset of
the user community. How useful is the fact that a system can perform a zillion tpm or execute a query in milliseconds without knowing its availability and the cost of achieving its performance and
availability? 

        NeuStar
is proposing two co-active data centers for usTLD registry operations and a network of nameservers. These facilities are geographically dispersed to minimize the
possibility of outages caused by natural or man-made disasters. The nameservers are dual-homed to each data center via a VPN backhaul link. As Exhibit O-15
indicates, the two data centers are interconnected by high-speed, alternate-routed VPN links. The VPN network management system includes a "heartbeat" signal from each data center. If it
detects a failed heartbeat at one data center, it automatically routes all traffic to the other. 

        Each
data center will have redundant network components, high-availability server clusters, and redundant database servers to eliminate single points of failure. All critical
telecommunications access links and network components—routers, firewalls, LAN
switches, and server NIC cards—will be redundant. Anything less would be inadequate to provide the service levels that the COTR and the industry deserve. 

        [Exhibit O-15:
In the event of a disaster at one of NeuStar's two co-active data centers, the other is sized to manage all registry operations
with little or no service degradation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the Internet. Graphic Omitted: diagram depicting connectivity of co-active data centers.] 

O.11.1 Quality of Service and Performance Measurements  

        Neustar understands the importance of quality of service as it pertains to the usTLD. The systems and operations used to be reliable and have a high level of
performance. But quality of service is only a subjective opinion unless one provides objective measures of performance and reliability. For example the Enhanced SRS must have a high level of
availability for the registrars and provide response times. Both of these functions can be measured, monitored and reported. 

        NeuStar
believes Performance Measurements are so important to the proper functioning of the usTLD Administrator we have integrated detailed performance measurements into our usTLD
Administrator Registrar Agreements. Not only have we integrated the measurements into the agreement, but we have included credits to be paid to the registrars if we fail to meet any one of them. 

        For
a detailed description of the performance measurements please see Exhibit G of the usTLD Registrar Contract in Section H of this proposal. For a detailed description of
the Perfomance Credits please see Exhibit H of the same contract in Section H of this Proposal. Section Q of this proposal provides an overview of NeuStar's capabilities and
commitments with regard to Performance Measurements. 

O-65

 

O.12 System Outage Prevention  

        The NeuStar's co-active redundant data centers and high-availability server cluster architecture will maintain
continuous operations with no disruptions in service. The benefit is improved system availability, minimum downtime, and high confidence in the Internet registry services.  

        The Internet community requires outage prevention measures specifically designed to minimize system downtime. Downtime can be categorized as either unplanned or
planned: 

	•
	Unplanned
downtime is caused by failures in external telecommunications, power, or internal network or computer equipment.

	•
	Planned
downtime occurs when the system is unavailable due to scheduled maintenance (e.g., during software or hardware upgrades and system backups). Planned downtime is
normally minimized in two ways:

	•
	By
performing backups, maintenance, and upgrades while the system remains operational (hot), or

	•
	By
reducing the time required to perform tasks that can be performed only while the system is down. 

        In
addition to employing the above measures for minimizing planned downtime, system designers may use redundancy and high-availability system architectures designed to
minimize unplanned outages. Many data management operations will also have disaster recovery agreements with a business continuity provider who provides a disaster recovery site geographically
separated from the operational data center. The intent is to maintain continuity of operations in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. 

        NeuStar
believes these approaches alone, although commendable, are insufficient to meet the high service levels expected by the DOC and the Internet community. For example, the registry
services are so specialized and component intensive that no business continuity provider is likely to be capable of resuming services without a lengthy outage period. We contend that the only way to
provide satisfactory service levels is through a combination of approaches, including: 

	•
	Co-active
redundant data centers with two-way transaction replication,

	•
	High-availability
server cluster architecture,

	•
	Hot
backup/recovery, and

	•
	Automated
disaster recovery provisions. 

Procedures for Problem Detection and Resolution  

        To best meet data center requirements for availability, flexibility, and scalability, NeuStar has designed a high-availability architecture that will
combine multiple computers into a cluster. Nodes in the cluster will be loosely coupled, with each node maintaining its own processor, memory, operating system, and network connectivity. Our
system/network management and cluster management tools will automatically detect and compensate for system and network faults and notify system operators. 

        At
five-minute intervals the network management system will "ping" network devices with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) for availability and poll them for
performance statistics. Event threshold violations or error conditions will initiate a sequence of alerting events, including visual notifications via a topology map, an entry into a trap log of event
records, e-mails to a bulletin board, and notices to technical support staff. The goal is to detect and repair potential problems before services are disrupted. 

O-66

 

        An
SNMP daemon will be configured to periodically check the status and health of vital server processes. In the event of a critical process failure, the SNMP agent will send a trap to
the network management system, initiating an alert to the technical support staff. Our network management software will include remote monitoring and management of operations, so technical support
staff can easily diagnose and troubleshoot network faults, either from the Network Operations Center or remotely. Once a problem is detected, it will be resolved using our proven problem management
process. In conjunction with this problem management process, we will employ proactive performance management and trend analysis processes to do root cause analysis and discover performance and
utilization trends that could lead to potential problems. 

        The
cluster management software will organize multiple nodes (up to 16) into a high-availability cluster that delivers application processing support to
LAN-/WAN-attached clients. The cluster software, which will monitor the health of each node and quickly respond to failures to eliminate application downtime, will
automatically detect and respond to failures in the following components: 

	•
	System
processors,

	•
	System
memory,

	•
	LAN
media and adapters,

	•
	System
processes,

	•
	Applications
processes, and

	•
	Disk
drives. 

        Since
high availability is a primary design goal, a cluster cannot have a single point of failure; accordingly, we will employ RAID mirrored disk drives and multiple LAN connections. The
cluster software will monitor these hardware and software components and respond by allocating new resources when necessary to support applications processing. The process of detecting failures and
restoring the applications service will be completely automated—no operator intervention will be required. 

Redundancy of Data Centers and Systems  

        NeuStar is proposing redundant co-active data centers: one in Virginia and one in Illinois. These data centers will be interconnected by redundant,
high-speed, secure VPN telecommunications links to provide two-way replication of all registry database transactions. A heartbeat monitor will determine the online status of
each data center and enable the services to be provided entirely from the second data center if one is lost. 

        Within
each data center, the system will be redundantly configured so that failure of any system component will leave a configuration of surviving system components capable of executing
the entire workload within 95 percent of the previous performance for at least 90 percent of users. To achieve no-single-point-of-failure
architecture, NeuStar will replicate all components and configure the system for automatic failover. 

        The
following table describes the system architecture redundancy we will employ at each Enhanced SRS data center to meet 99.9+ percent service availability levels. 

O-67

 

System Redundancy Elements  

	Issue
 
	 	Redundancy Solution
 
	 	Benefit
 

	Single failure of a system component	 	Replicate all critical components to eliminate single point of failures	 	The system is capable of executing the entire workload.
	

Maintaining availability of applications	
 	

Stateless N+1 node high-availability processor clusters	
 	

In event of a processor failure, service is not degraded.
	

LAN Interface or cable failure	
 	

Multi-path LAN I/O	
 	

Automatic switchover from one LAN switch to another to restore connectivity
	

Disk controller or cable failure	
 	

Multi-path disk I/O	
 	

Applications take alternate routes
	

Disk storage module failure	
 	

Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID, levels 1, 3, and 5)	
 	

Applications still have access to data in the event of a single disk failure
	

Hardware/software upgrades and additions or changes to the configuration	
 	

N+1 redundancy allows hot repair/upgrade of system components.	
 	

Eliminate downtime due to administrative and maintenance tasks
	

Dynamic processor de-allocation	
 	

Dynamically take a processor out of service to modify the physical and logical configuration of the system.	
 	

Eliminate downtime due to maintenance tasks and component replacement
	

Replace disks	
 	

RAID drives and controllers allow hot plug-in of disk modules	
 	

Eliminate downtime due to maintenance tasks

Hot Repair of System Components  

        Another advantage of system redundancy is that it will enable our maintenance staff to use hot repair or replacement of system components. Keeping the system in
full operation while we perform such common system administration tasks as upgrading the hardware or software or adding to or changing components will eliminate the MTTR
(Mean-Time-To-Repair) factor and will minimize downtime. Hot repair is possible only when major system components are redundant, as in the NeuStar solution. 

Backup Power Supply  

        Each Enhanced SRS and nameserver data center will be provided with UPSs to ride through brief electrical transients and outages. For more than brief outages, each
Enhanced SRS data center will have a 1,000 KVA generator and the nameserver data center will have a 250 KVA generator capable of running the entire data center in the event of a lengthy electrical
blackout. 

Facility Security  

        As discussed in Registry Operator's Proposal Section O.10, NeuStar will vigorously enforce physical security measures that control all access to our
facilities. Throughout normal working hours, security personnel stationed at each building entrance will verify that employees are displaying proper identification badges and will control access by
nonemployees, who must sign in to gain entrance. The 

O-68

 

sign-in
books will be stored for a period of one year. If the purpose of a nonemployee's visit is found to be valid, he or she will be issued a temporary badge; otherwise, entrance will be
denied. At all times while they are in the facility, visitors must display their badges and must be escorted by a NeuStar employee. We will also strictly enforce the policy that employees wear their
badges prominently displayed at all times while in the facility. During off hours (6:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. and all day on weekends and major holidays), individuals must use the proper
electronic key cards to gain access to the building. We will issue electronic key cards only to employees who need access for business purposes. 

        In
addition to being stationed at building entrances during normal working hours, on-site security personnel will be on duty 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to
monitor the images from closed-circuit television cameras placed strategically throughout the facilities. Further, any room housing sensitive data or equipment will be equipped with a
self-closing door that can be opened only by individuals who activate a palm print reader. Senior managers will establish the rights of employees to access individual rooms and ensure that
each reader is programmed to admit only those authorized individuals. We will grant access rights only to individuals whose duties require them to have hands-on contact with the equipment
housed in the controlled space; administrative and customer service staff normally do not require such access. The palm readers will compile and maintain a record of individuals who enter controlled
rooms. The following table lists our physical security mechanisms. 

Physical Security Provisions  

	Mechanism
 
	 	Purpose
 

	Security guards	 	Physically prevent intruder access; verify employee badges
	

Closed-circuit video surveillance cameras	
 	

Extend capabilities of security guards; maintain access records
	

Intrusion detection systems	
 	

Extend capabilities of security guards to building perimeter
	

Identity badges	
 	

Permanent badges for employees; easily recognizable temporary badges for visitors
	

Sign-in registers	
 	

Maintained as permanent records for at least one year
	

Electronic key badges	
 	

Control physical access during off hours; maintain access records
	

Palm readers	
 	

Restrict physical access to mission-critical rooms within our facilities; maintain access records
	

Self-closing doors	
 	

Restrict physical access to mission-critical rooms within our facilities

Technical Security  

        Registry Operator's Proposal Section O.10 also describes the technical security measures that NeuStar proposes. We will use the underlying user ID and
password security features of the XRP, supplemented by system-based Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) services to provide additional security. The following table lists the systems, protocols, and
devices to prevent system hacks, break-ins, data tampering, and denial-of-service attacks. 

O-69

 

Database and Operating System Security  

	Technical Security System Element
	 	Features and Benefits
 

	Access control system: user ID and password, file level access control lists	 	Ensures that the user can access authorized functions, but no others, and can perform only authorized operations within these functions. For example, the registrar of a registered domain name is authorized to query it and
then renew or cancel it or change its nameservers but cannot query domain names held by other registrars.
	

Database: user ID and password, user profiles	
 	

•	

Limits database access to pre-authorized users.
	

 	
 	

•	

Retains the last two passwords and disallows their usage.
	

 	
 	

•	

Rejects simultaneous sessions by an individual user.
	

 	
 	

•	

Stores user profiles.
	

 	
 	

•	

Limits access rights to database objects and functions to a specified user or user group.
	

 	
 	

•	

Rejects unauthorized access attempts. Automatically revokes identification codes after a preestablished number of unsuccessful attempts.
	

 	
 	

•	

Provides an interface to facilitate the online administration of user privileges.
	
E-commerce Security Features
	

SSL v3.0 protocol	
 	

HTTPS encryption ensures that messages between the registry and registrars/delegees can be read only by the intended receiver.
	

Digital signatures	
 	

Issued by an X.509 authentication server, digital signatures ensure that the incoming data actually has come from the purported sender; provides nonrepudiation.
	
Boundary Security Features
	

Router	
 	

Permits only DNS UDP/TCP packets to enter the data center LAN, thus isolating the TLD system from most potentially damaging messages.
	

Firewall	
 	

Guards the secure TLD LAN from the nonsecure Internet by permitting the passage of only packet flows whose origins and destinations comply with preestablished rules.
	

Intrusion detection	
 	

Detects intrusion at the LAN level. Displays an alert at the usTLD network operations workstation and creates a log entry.

Availability of Backup Software, Operating System, and Hardware  

        Registry Operator's Proposal Section O.7 describes our zero-downtime/zero-impact backup process, which will use backup servers,
disk array, and a DLT robotic tape library. The dedicated backup system will be independent of the registry server clusters that run the applications. 

O-70

 

System Monitoring  

        The subsection entitled "Procedures for Problem Detection and Resolution" describes system monitoring capabilities and procedures. Our Network Management System
and specialized element managers will monitor specific routers, LAN switches, server clusters, firewalls, applications, and the backup servers. In addition, the cluster management software will
monitor the status and health of processor, memory, disk, and LAN components in the high-availability cluster. 

Technical Maintenance Staff  

        The NeuStar three-tier customer service approach will ensure that all problems are resolved by the appropriate party in a timely manner. 

        The
Technical Support Group will operate from the Help Desk Network Operations Center (NOC) within the data centers. The group will comprise system administrators, network
administrators, database administrators, security managers, and functional experts in the TLD registry IT systems and applications infrastructure. usTLD registry customers access the Technical Support
Group through the Tier-1 Help Desk. This group will resolve trouble tickets and technical problems that have been escalated to them by the Help Desk Customer Service Agents. If the problem
involves a hardware failure, the Technical Support Group will escalate the problem to our Tier-3 on-site maintenance technicians, third-party maintenance providers, or our
hardware vendors, depending on the nature of the problem. 

Server Locations  

        NeuStar's registry servers will be located in the Enhanced SRS data centers in Virginia and Illinois. Two zone nameserver centers will be collocated with the
registry data centers; the remaining nameserver center will be California, with dual-homed telecommunications links and redundant high-availability servers to provide
resilience and disaster recovery. 

O-71

 

O.13 System Recovery Procedures  

        NeuStar is proposing two co-active Enhanced SRS data centers and a network of nameserver data centers geographically dispersed
to provide redundancy and to enable us to responsibly recover from unplanned system outages, natural disasters, and disruptions caused by human error or interference. The COTR and the Internet
community can be confident that we will respond to unplanned system outages quickly with little or no loss of services.  

        To maintain public confidence in the Internet, the COTR surely desires a high level of system recovery capabilities. Proven industry solutions to the problems of
outages and disaster recovery incorporate high-availability system architectures and fast failover from the primary data center to a mirrored backup. High-availability
solutions minimize downtime with availability of 99.9 percent or greater. Continuously available solutions go a step further with virtually zero downtime, creating an availability of
approximately 99.999 percent (five nines). 

        System
recovery architectures include: 

	•
	Symmetric Replication—The database replication (on the backup or failover system) is identical to the primary
database on the production system because any change made to the primary database is "replicated" in real time on the backup database. Since this is not a "two-phase commit" process, a
small window of vulnerability exists, during which changes made to the primary system could be lost in transit. Replication may increase transaction times, but switching from the primary database to
the backup can be very fast and essentially transparent to end users.

	•
	Standby Databases—A standby database—a special case of replication—at a backup site
originates as an identical copy of the primary database. Changes (updates, inserts, and deletes) to the primary database are recorded in transaction logs that are periodically archived. Archived logs
are delivered to the backup site and applied to the standby database. In a best-case scenario, the standby system is behind (in terms of data currency) the primary system by the number of
changes contained on the current transaction log.

	•
	Remote Data Mirroring—This is the classic disk-mirroring procedure, except it is conducted at a long
distance. Depending on whether hardware or software mirroring is used, the performance impact can vary from minimal to significant. Switchover to the backup site can be quick and virtually transparent
to end users. The loss of data is zero, although a "system crash" type of database recovery is needed. 

        NeuStar's
system recovery solution is based on running mission-critical Enhanced SRS applications at two co-active data centers (separated by nearly 700 miles) with database
replication technology that maintains database synchronization between the two centers. To provide backup for DNS queries, we are implementing multiple nameserver data centers, also physically
separated by long distances. We recognize that system management and recovery are more difficult when the system is spread over a large geographical area; however, two-way replication
between the co-active Enhanced SRS data centers will keep the registry master databases identical. 

O.13.1 Restoring Enhanced SRS Operations in the Event of a System Outage  

        Believing that prevention of failure is better than restoring after failure, and to maximize availability and eliminate the possibility that a single-point
failure could shut down operations, we implemented each of the co-active Enhanced SRS data centers and three nameservers with: 

	•
	Redundant
components with no single point of failure;

	•
	High-availability
cluster architecture; 

O-72

 

	•
	Load
balancers, which are used primarily to distribute the processing load across multiple servers and to defend against common denial-of-service
attacks that can precipitate outages caused by processor overloads;

	•
	Redundant
hardware; and

	•
	Data
backup/restore systems that work together to avoid unplanned outages. (Naturally, the primary function of these systems remains quick recovery, if such an outage should
occur.) 

        The
recovery mechanisms we will implement include: 

	•
	Full
backup and continuous, incremental backup CD-ROMs and DLT tapes are maintained at the data center and at the secure escrow facility. These backups
enable us to recover, rebuild, and return the operating system, application software, and databases to operation.

	•
	Processor
nodes in the cluster are monitored (and controlled) by cluster management software to facilitate recovery of software applications in the event of a processor
failure.

	•
	In
the event of a database failure, redundant database software fails over to the replicated backup database, enabling applications that use database services to recover
operations seamlessly.

	•
	Processors
in high-availability clusters have dual attached ports to network devices and RAID disk arrays, enabling them to recover from a failure in a single
port or disk drive.

	•
	Our
high-availability clusters are sized to run at peak load. If a processor fails, the excess capacity in the cluster handles the full processing workload while
the failed node is repaired or replaced. In essence, this is instantaneous recovery. 

        The
remainder of this subsection describes how we would recover from a system-wide disaster, that is, one that disables an entire data center. Subsection O.14.3
discusses recovery from various types of component failures. 

O-73

   
        Each of the co-active data centers is sized to take over the entire load of the Enhanced SRS operations, and each zone nameserver is dual-homed to each data
center. With this architecture, recovery in the event of a disaster is nearly instantaneous. Sessions that were dropped by the data center that suffered the disaster are simply restarted on the
remaining data center within seconds. The following are the main issues that our disaster recovery strategy solves: 

	•
	Instead
of having a primary and a backup data center, we use two co-active data centers whose data and applications are kept synchronized by
two-phase commit replication. Because the XRP servers are configured to retry failed transactions, neither registrars nor users submitting queries will perceive any degradation in service.

	•
	If
a data center goes off-line, the workload is transparently switched to the remaining data center. The transaction latency is limited to the brief time needed
to replicate the last transaction to the surviving data center.

	•
	Two-way
replication of transactions between the sites keeps each site's databases in a state of currency and synchronization that is consistent with mission
critical availability levels. 

        The
use of co-active data centers with two-way replication between them provides fast, simple disaster recovery that maintains continuity of
operations—even in the event of a major disaster. The resulting zero-downtime/zero-impact system not only solves system recovery problems, it also sustains
confidence in the Internet. The following are the procedures that are followed to restore operations if an Enhanced SRS or nameserver data center experiences a natural or man-made
disaster: 

	•
	Enhanced
SRS or nameserver operations are immediately failed over to the co-active data centers; registry operations proceed uninterrupted, except for those
transactions that were in transit between the two centers.

	•
	We
implement the disaster recovery plan for the failed data center and place the disaster recovery team on alert.

	•
	Within
eight hours, the disaster recovery team is assembled and dispatched to the failed data center to help the local data center personnel stabilize the situation, protect
assets, and resume operations.

	•
	The
disaster recovery team assesses whether the building housing the data center can be used to recover operations.

	•
	If
so, the team contacts disaster recovery specialist firms under contract to NeuStar to secure the facility and begin recovery operations.

	•
	If
not, the team salvages equipment and software assets to the extent possible and procures an alternate data center facility. NeuStar initiates its contingency plan to
reconstruct the data center in the new location, repair and test the salvaged equipment and software, and procure the remaining required components with quick-reaction procedures. 

        Once
the disaster recovery team has stabilized and tested the Enhanced SRS or nameserver equipment, it retrieves the system and application software CD-ROMs and the
database backup tapes from the secure escrow. It then rebuilds the data center using the same recovery procedures that are used for restoring components lost in a more limited failure. (Subsection
O.14.3 describes these procedures.) 

O.13.2 Redundant/Diverse Systems for Providing Service in the Event of an Outage  

        NeuStar is proposing two co-active Enhanced SRS data centers and multiple zone nameserver data centers with high availability clusters and cluster
management software that enables multiple node processors, in conjunction with RAID storage arrays, to quickly recover from failures. The server load 

O-74

 

balancer
and the cluster manager software monitor the health of system processors, system memory, RAID disk arrays, LAN media and adapters, system processes, and application processes. They detect
failures and promptly respond by reallocating resources. 

        Dual
database servers are coupled to a primary and a backup database and RAID configuration to ensure data integrity and access to the database. The database system uses synchronous
replication, with two-way commits to replicate every transaction to the backup database. The process of detecting failures and restoring service is completely automated and occurs within
30 seconds with no operator intervention required. 

O.13.3 Process for Recovery From Various Types of Failures  

        The following table lists the possible types of failures and describes the process for recovery. 

Failures Affecting the Nameserver Sites  

	Failure Type
 
	Recovery Process
 

	Nameserver cluster processor fails	Cluster management software logs out the failed processor and processing continues on the remaining nodes in the cluster.
	

Internet or VPN link fails	

Ongoing sessions are dropped and restarted on the other redundant ISP or VPN access link Ongoing sessions are dropped and restarted on one of the other nameserver sites
	

Edge router, firewall, or load balancer fails	

Ongoing sessions are dropped and restarted on the redundant components.

Failures Affecting the Data Center Applications and Database Server  

	Failure type
 
	Recovery process
 

	Applications cluster processor fails	Cluster management software logs out the failed processor and processing continues on the remaining processors in the cluster.
	

XRP server processor fails	

Registrar session is dropped from the failed server and restarted on the other XRP server
	

Web server processor fails	

Cluster management software logs out the failed processor and processing continues on the remaining processors in the cluster.
	

Database server processor fails	

The operating system automatically distributes load to the remaining SMP processors
	

Database disk drive fails	

Processing automatically continues on the RAID with no data loss
	

Database crashes	

The applications processing continues seamlessly on the backup replicate database
	

Authentication server fails	

Processing automatically continues on the redundant authentication server
	

Whois cluster processor fails	

Cluster management software logs out the failed processor and processing continues on the remaining processors in the cluster
	 	 

O-75

 

	

A Billing server fails	

Processing automatically continues on the redundant B&C server
	

Internet or VPN link fails	

Ongoing sessions are dropped and restarted on the other redundant ISP or VPN access link
	

Router or firewall fails	

Ongoing sessions are dropped and restarted on the remaining redundant router or firewall.

        In all cases of component failure, system recovery is automatic, with zero downtime and zero impact on system users. The remainder of this subsection (O.14.3)
provides additional information about failure recovery considerations for individual components. 

Recovery From a Cluster Processor Failure  

        If one processor in a cluster fails, the cluster manager software logically disconnects that processor. While technicians repair or replace it, applications and
user sessions continue on the remaining cluster processors. After the failed processor is off line, the following procedures are used to recover it: 

	1.
	Testing
and troubleshooting with diagnostic hardware and software to determine the root cause (e.g., hardware [CPU, memory, or network adapter] or software
[system or application subsystem]);

	2.
	Repairing
hardware failures and, if necessary, rebuilding system and applications software from the backup CD-ROM;

	3.
	Testing
the repaired processor and documenting the repairs in the trouble ticket; and

	4.
	Logging
the processor back into the cluster. 

Database System Recovery  

        Our database management system supports continuous operation, including online backup and management utilities, schema evolution, and disk space management. All
routine database maintenance is performed while the database is online. 

        NeuStar's
database server software solution will provide distributed redundancy by implementing synchronous replication from a primary database server to a backup database server. This
solution
includes automatic and transparent database failover to the replicated database without any changes to application code or the operating system. 

        If
a database system node experiences a hardware failure or database corruption, NeuStar technicians use the following recovery procedures: 

	1.
	Test
and troubleshoot with diagnostic hardware and software to determine the root cause (e.g., hardware [CPU, memory, network adapter, or RAID disk array] or
software [operating system, database system, or monitoring software]).

	2.
	Repair
hardware failures and, if necessary, rebuild operating system and applications software from the backup CD-ROM.

	3.
	Test
the repaired processor and document the repairs in the trouble ticket.

	4.
	Restore
the data files by applying (in the correct sequence) the full backup DLT tapes and the incremental backup DLT tapes maintained in the data center. 

O-76

 
	5.
	Log
the processor node back into the redundant server configuration and synchronize the database by applying the after-image journal files until the primary and replicate database are
fully synchronized. The procedure is as follows:

	•
	Recreate
the database directories and supporting file structure,

	•
	Insert
the full backup tape from the escrow facility and restore the base level backup,

	•
	Insert
incremental backup tapes in the correct order to ensure that they are correctly applied to the base level backup, and

	•
	Mount
the roll forward recovery tapes using the log roll forward recovery and apply them to the database. 

O.13.4 Training of Technical Staff Who Will Perform Recovery Procedures  

        NeuStar technical personnel have an average of five years of data center operations experience, encompassing the high-availability cluster technology,
distributed database management systems, and LAN/WAN network management systems that are employed in the recovery process. New hires and transfers to NeuStar's usTLD registry operations will be given
the following training: 

	•
	A
one-week "usTLD System Overview" course;

	•
	Vendor-offered
courses for certification in backup/recovery, cluster management, system management, and network management; and

	•
	On-the-job
training on registry operations, including high-availability cluster management, system backup/recovery, database
backup/recovery, and system/network management. 

O.13.5 Software and Operating Systems for Restoring System Operations  

        NeuStar will use commercially available Unix operating systems, cluster management software, and backup/recovery software to restore the Enhanced SRS and
nameserver systems to operation. In addition to providing synchronous replication of registry transactions to the backup server, our database management system will provide data recovery services
using the DLT tape backup system.
Backup/recovery hardware and software at the Enhanced SRS data center will remotely back up and restore the nameservers over the VPN. 

        All
static applications software and operating systems are backed up to DLT tape volumes and converted to CD-ROM for quick restoration in the event of operating system or
application software failures. Backup copies are maintained in the data center for quick access, with additional copies in the secure escrow facility. 

O.13.6 Hardware Needed To Restore and Run the System  

        The two co-active data centers will house the commercial off-the-shelf, redundant cluster servers and dedicated
backup/recovery servers that are needed to restore the system to operation. 

O.13.7 Backup Electrical Power Systems  

        Each of the two data centers is configured with a UPS battery backup system that provides sufficient power for 30 minutes of operation. Each one also has a
transfer switch connected to 1,000-KVA motor generators that are capable of powering the entire data center for many days without commercial power. 

O-77

 

O.13.8 Projected Time for Restoring the System  

        Two co-active data centers, each with high-availability clusters sized to handle the full projected registry load, provide the Enhanced
SRS services. 

	•
	If
an individual cluster experiences a processor failure, that processor's applications are transferred to another processor within approximately 30 seconds; however, the
remaining processor nodes in the cluster continue applications processing without interruption.

	•
	Since
there are two co-active data centers with two-way database replication to maintain database synchronization, even if a natural or
man-made disaster eliminates one data center, registry services continue with zero downtime and zero impact on users. The only impact is transitional, with dropped sessions to the XRP
server, Whois/Delegee server, and nameservers. Because the protocols re-initiate a failed transaction, even these operations are fully restored in less than 30 seconds with no loss of data
or transactions. 

O.13.9 Testing the System Restoration Process  

        NeuStar will test disaster recovery plans and outage restoration procedures annually to ensure that they can effectively restore system operations. 

O.13.10 Documenting System Outages  

        System problem documentation includes the following: 

	•
	The
system manager and the network manager systems collect performance and utilization statistics on system processors, system memory, LAN media and adapters, routers,
switches, system processes, and applications processes.

	•
	The
automated help desk database contains documentation on trouble tickets, whether they are generated by the system or generated by the Help Desk.

	•
	The
trouble ticket database contains the documentation of the steps taken to resolve trouble tickets.

	•
	The
data center manager collates, analyzes, and reports monthly statistics on help desk activities, system utilization and performance, and outages. 

O.13.11 Documenting System Problems That Could Result in Outages  

        NeuStar's proactive systems management processes include performance management, trend analysis, and capacity planning. These processes analyze system performance
and utilization data to detect bottlenecks and resource utilization issues that could develop into outages. Monthly reports on the three processes keep the data center manager apprised of our
performance against service level agreements and raise awareness of potential problems that could result in outages. 

        In
addition, NeuStar performs root cause analysis of hardware and software failures to determine and analyze the reason for any failure. On the basis of our findings, we work with
vendors to generate hardware service bulletins and software maintenance releases to prevent reoccurrence of these failures. 

O-78

 

O.14 Technical and Other Support  

        In addition to maintaining our central Help Desk and Technical Support Team, NeuStar will offer Web-based self-help support via a
Web-accessible portal, which will enable registrars to access our domain name application process, a knowledge base, and frequently asked questions. 

        NeuStar's
technical support will satisfy several criteria: 

	•
	It
must support all NeuStar-accredited registrars.

	•
	It
must support all current usTLD delegated managers in the existing usTLD locality space.

	•
	It
must support registrants in the existing usTLD locality space.

	•
	To
support the world's different time zones, access must be available worldwide, 24 × 7 × 365.

	•
	It
must accommodate the anticipated land rush when the expanded usTLD space is opened for registration. 

        For
the expanded usTLD space, NeuStar will conform to the ICANN registry model, which provides a clear, concise, and efficient deliberation of customer support responsibilities.
Registrars provide support to registrants, and registries provide support for registrars. This allows the registry to focus its support on the highly technical and administratively complex issues that
arise between the registry and the registrar. 

        For
the existing locality-based space, NeuStar will continue to support usTLD delegated managers and registrants in a manner consistent with the way they are currently supported. 

O.14.1 Technical Help Systems  

        NeuStar will provide the following types of technical support, all available on a 24 × 7 × 365 basis: 

	•
	Web-based
self-help services,

	•
	Knowledge
bases

	•
	Frequently
asked questions

	•
	White
papers

	•
	Downloads
of XRP client software

	•
	Support
for e-mail messaging

	•
	Telephone
support from our central Help Desk, and

	•
	Fee-based
consulting services. 

Web Portal  

        NeuStar will implement a secure Web-based multimedia portal to help support usTLD customer operations. To obtain access to our Web-based
services, customers must have implemented our security features, including SSL encryption, log in with user ID and password, and digital certificates for authentication. 

        The
home page of the Web portal will include a notice to customers of planned outages for database maintenance or installation of software upgrades. This notification will be posted
30 days prior to the event in addition to active notification including phone calls and e-mail. We will also record outage notifications in the help desk database to facilitate
compliance with the service-level agreement. 

O-79

 

Finally,
seven days and again two days prior to the scheduled event, we will use both an e-mail and a Web-based notification to remind registrars of the outage. 

        The
general Internet community may obtain generic information from NeuStar's public Web site, which will describe our usTLD service offerings and list certified registrars and delegated
managers providing domain name services. 

Central Help Desk  

        In addition to implementing the Web site, we will provide telephone support to our registrars through our central Help Desk. Access to the help desk telephone
support is through an automatic call distributor that routes each call to the next available customer support specialist. We will authenticate callers by using caller ID and by requesting a
preestablished pass phrase that is different for each registrar. Requests for assistance may also come to the Help Desk via e-mail, either directly or via the secure Web site. 

        The
Help Desk's three tiers of support are: 

        Tier-1 Support—Telephone support to usTLD Registry customers who normally are calling for help with domain name
problems and other issues such as XRP implementation or billing and collection. Problems that cannot be resolved at Tier 1 are escalated to Tier 2. 

        Tier-2 Support—Support provided by members of the Technical Support Team, who are functional experts in all
aspects of domain name registration. In addition to resolving escalated Tier 1 problems with XRP implementation and billing and collection, Tier 2 staff provide technical support in system tuning and
workload processing. 

        Tier-3 Support—Complex problem resolution provided by on-site maintenance technicians, third-party
systems and software experts, and vendors, depending on the nature of the problem. 

        In
turn, the Help Desk uses an automated software package to collect call statistics and record service requests and trouble tickets in a help desk database. The help desk database
documents the status of requests and tickets, and notifies the Help Desk when an SLA threshold is close to being breached. Each customer support and technical support specialist uses our problem
management process to respond to trouble tickets with a troubleshooting, diagnosis, and resolution procedure and a root-cause analysis. 

Escalation Policy  

        Our escalation policy defines procedures and timelines for elevating problems either to functional experts or to management for resolution if they are not
resolved within the escalation policy time limits. The following table is an overview of our escalation policy. 

O-80

 

Escalation Policy  

	Level
 
	 	Description
 
	 	Escalation Policy
 
	 	Notification
 

	I	 	Catastrophic outage affecting overall registry operations	 	Data center manager escalates to NeuStar management and Disaster Recovery Team if not resolved in 15 minutes	 	Web portal and e-mail notifications to all Registrars within 15 minutes; updates every 30 minutes
	

II	
 	

Systems outage affecting one or two XRP sessions but not the entire system	
 	

Systems engineer escalates to data center manager if not resolved in one hour	
 	

Web portal notification to all customers; hourly updates
	

III	
 	

Technical questions	
 	

Help Desk customer support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved in two hours	
 	

Hourly updates to customer via e-mail
	

IV	
 	

Basic questions	
 	

Help Desk customer support specialist escalates to the systems engineer if not resolved within four hours	
 	

Hourly updates to customer via e-mail

O.14.2 Staffing  

        Initially, NeuStar will staff its Help Desk with a complement of customer service specialists, enabling us to operate three shifts providing
24 × 7 × 365 coverage. We will add staff as necessary to respond to incoming requests within the service level agreement. Customer service
specialists will obtain assistance from NeuStar's technical staff for any problems that cannot be resolved in one phone call. 

O.14.3 Test and Evaluation Facility  

        NeuStar will establish an operational test-and-evaluation facility that will be available
24 × 7 × 365 for registrars and delegees to test their client XRP system. Our Technical Support Team, which consists of functional experts in the
processes and technologies for domain name registration, will support the registrars and delegees. 

        Once
each new registrar/delegee is satisfied that its system is compatible with the registry system, it will schedule a formal acceptance test that will be monitored by our system
engineer. After a registrar/delegee has passed the acceptance test, we will issue its user ID, passwords, and digital certificates, and the registrar/delegee can begin operations. 

O.14.4 Customer Satisfaction Survey  

        To determine customer satisfaction with registry services, NeuStar will implement a Web-based customer satisfaction survey that will consist of a set
of survey questions with responses ranging from one to five on the Likert Scale. We will tabulate the results and publish them on the Web site. 

        To
further verify the quality of our customer services, NeuStar will commission a biannual customer satisfaction survey by an independent third party. 

O-81

   P. Past Performance  

        NeuStar has the requisite and proven capability, administrative and technical experience, and professional integrity to responsibly
administer the usTLD to best serve the public interest while simultaneously enhancing its operation and usage.  

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•	Leading neutral third-party provider of mission-critical, U.S. public resource administration services for the communications industry since 1996
	

•	

Proven experience developing innovative solutions beneficial to the industry as a whole in a highly competitive environment
	

•	

A unique combination of world-class DNS registry and critical infrastructure operations expertise
	

•	

Strong corporate commitment and sound financial position
	

•	

Recipient of Supercomm Award for excellence in OSSs for the design and delivery of the NPAC SMS database

        The usTLD is a critical public resource that is seriously underutilized under its current administration. The United States is one of the world's technological
leaders, and its namespace should be positively perceived by the Internet community and highly regarded among Americans and the rest of the world. In fact, it should be the model of a successful,
widely used ccTLD. Instead, it is regarded as
cumbersome and overly hierarchical. In releasing the previous RFCs and this RFQ, the Department of Commerce has shown its desire to significantly improve the usTLD by bringing it into the global
Internet infrastructure while dramatically improving the awareness, utility, and value of the usTLD for its users. The DOC needs to select a responsible administrator who will meet these objectives
while maintaining and promoting the integrity of the usTLD and the Internet as a whole. All of these objectives can be met only by a vendor that has a proven ability to neutrally administer complex,
mission-critical systems while facilitating competition and progress in a competitive environment. Specifically, the DOC must select a vendor that has, among others, the following technical and
administrative qualifications: 

	•
	A
proven ability to administer complex, mission-critical U.S. public resources in a neutral, even-handed manner;

	•
	The
ability to facilitate controlled, systematic evolution, enhancement, and expansion of the space while preserving the rights of the current namespace users and ensuring
the protection of intellectual property and privacy;

	•
	Strong
working relationships with all stakeholders and experience facilitating progress in an extremely political and competitive environment;

	•
	A
comprehensive understanding of the space's evolution to date and the ability to address the long-term management issues associated with servicing and enhancing
its use;

	•
	Experience
designing, building, and supporting a robust database that requires extensive software development and infrastructure management capacity while ensuring the
security of personal contact data and license holder information;

	•
	The
ability to design and build a database that can scale seamlessly in response to anticipated growth; 

P-1

 

	•
	Experience
which ensures that data can be accessed by multiple users in real-time, that access to data is not hampered by system outages or unnecessary downtime,
and that a secure physical infrastructure is maintained to support all of its operations;

	•
	The
ability to understand, develop, and manage the associated policy issues to protect intellectual property, establish and maintain effective communication with
stakeholders, and promote healthy, robust competition;

	•
	A
proven reputation for fair, impartial policy management equitably supporting all stakeholders to ensure there is no bias or perception of bias; and

	•
	Strong
financial performance and stability. 

        NeuStar
is that vendor. Since 1996, NeuStar has successfully provided such mission-critical services to the U.S. communications industry. NeuStar possesses the strong management,
technical capabilities, strong financial performance, and depth of experience vital for the successful administration of the usTLD. 

        The
following table provides a detailed display of NeuStar's capabilities, as evidenced by our current projects and past performance. 

NeuStar's Capabilities and Qualifications  

	Vendor Qualification
 
	 	 
	 	NeuStar's Experience

	Administration of complex, mission-critical U.S. public resources	 	•	 	NeuStar established processes working with the FCC and state commissions for reclamation of central office codes that have not been activated by service providers.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed databases for the tracking of central office code activity for the U.S.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

In conjunction with the industry and FCC, NeuStar developed a new method for reporting utilization and forecasting of numbering resources (NRUF)
	

Successfully transitioning administration of mission-critical public resources	
 	

•	
 	

Transitioned Telephone number administration from 10 companies with more than 100 local administrators across all 50 states to one central administrator
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Transitioned telephone number inventory from more than 200 local databases to one central database
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Have been contracted to transition telephone number inventory from thousands of local databases across all 50 states to one local database
	

Proven neutrality in all business operations	
 	

•	
 	

In CC Docket No. 92-237, FCC 99-346, NeuStar was found to be in compliance with the neutrality requirements put forth in the NANP Administration Third Report and Order.
	 	 	 	 	 

P-2

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar undergoes a quarterly Neutrality audit performed by Ernst and Young, with a report forwarded to the FCC, NANC, and NAPM LLC. This report covers the findings of the audit regarding compliance with the NeuStar Code of Conduct and Neutrality
Compliance Procedures. NeuStar asserts that it is neutral, and Ernst and Young has agreed in all audit reports.
	

Facilitation of controlled, systematic evolution, enhancement, and expansion of the space.	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar performs the change management administration function for the NPAC SMS on behalf of the telecommunications industry. This includes over 200 change orders resulting in 7 major software releases in 4 years.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar hosts quarterly NPAC operations forums, known as NPAC Cross regional meetings, where issues pertinent to the operation of the NPAC and its downstream systems are discussed and resolved.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar facilitated the transition of state number pooling trials to a national database focusing on a systematic evolution allowing for growth and future enhancements.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar works closely with industry and the FCC to develop enhancements to the existing NANPA process, including expansion of current functions.
	

Experience designing, building, and supporting robust databases	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar designed, built, and expanded the NPAC database from inception to its current support of 17 million ported telephone numbers in the database. The growth rate of the database is currently increasing, having surpassed 1 million
additional records per month earlier this year.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar designed and built the pooling administration system to leverage the existing portability infrastructure. An existing NPAC database was adapted and scaled to support number pooling.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed various NANPA-related databases to enhance functionality and streamline work efforts associated with number administration. This allows for real-time tracking of number assignment, utilization, and forecasting data.
	 	 	 	 	 

P-3

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Leveraging its experience with high-availability, mission critical system in the telecommunications industry, NeuStar is developing the next generation DNS architecture for the.biz registry.
	

Experience that ensures real-time access to multiple users with a minimum of system outages and downtime	
 	

•	
 	

NPAC offers a Low Tech Interface (LTI) dialup access. This capability currently supports over 700 clients, allowing for simultaneous access by over 200 users. This access method is also fully scalable.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

While fully scalable, the NPAC currently supports over 500 dedicated accesses by various service providers.
	

Manage a high availability system to contractual service levels	
 	

•	
 	

The NPAC SMS has 29 contractual service level requirements, developed jointly with the industry, which are reported on monthly.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

The.biz registry has SLAs with several major Channel Partners covering limited system downtime and system performance measures.
	

Comprehensive understanding of the usTLD's evolution	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has monitored proceedings on the usTLD and associated DOC activities.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has subject matter experts on staff who were involved with the original development of the usTLD.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is an active participant in various Internet-related forums such as the IETF and ICANN
	

Strong working relationships with stakeholders	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar holds quarterly cross-regional meetings with LNPA stakeholders.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar holds weekly conference calls with LNP LLCs, the NPAC contracting parties, in addition to holding monthly face-to-face meetings to discuss operational issues.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar actively participates in various industry forums, including LNPA WG, NOWG, IETF, ICANN, and ITU.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar provides assistance to both the telecommunications industry and regulators in an effort to resolve difficulties in the area of number assignment, reporting, etc.
	

Facilitation of progress in a political and competitive environment	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar acted as interim pooling administrator in several states prior to being selected as National Pooling Administrator.
	 	 	 	 	 

P-4

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar facilitates NPA relief planning meetings, resulting in a relief plan which meets the needs of the industry and the regulators.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar provided objective information and assistance to the LNPA WG in an effort to resolve issues facing the entire telecommunications industry.
	

Ability to address long-term management issues	
 	

•	
 	

Developed Number Resource Utilization Forecasting tool, ensuring that appropriate detailed carrier information is collected, stored, analyzed, and properly distributed to appropriate regulatory authorities
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Work closely with INC, NANC, and LNPA WGs to ensure that long term Number Resource Optimization needs are and will continue to be achieved
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Developed long term strategic view of the needs of telecommunication service providers and regulators
	

Experience in building scalable databases that ensure security of personal data	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed, deployed, and supports the Customer Account Management Exchange database, which contains highly proprietary service provider information.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed, deployed, and maintains the Number Portability Administration Center, which contains routing information for all calls placed in the US and Canada.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar maintains physical biometric facility security, with fulltime monitoring, strong physical security, and token authentication for dial-up access.
	

Ability to understand, develop, and manage all associated policy issues	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has an in-depth understanding all federal and state policy issues regarding number administration, in addition to meeting requirements developed by the industry which are seen to be the guidelines under which NANPA operates
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's experience in the policy rich telecommunications regulatory environment provides it with significant insight into the proper means for policy identification and coordination for the Internet.
	 	 	 	 	 

P-5

 

	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is active in ICANN, the IETF and other Internet-related policy and standards bodies. NeuStar has a staff of experts on Internet policy and technical matters. NeuStar policy and legal experts participate heavily in ICANN constituencies'
activities.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has an in-depth understanding of federal and state regulatory processes that are likely to be of prominent importance to Internet policy in the future.
	

Support and drive important technology standards	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar is an active participant at the IETF where important internet technology protocols are developed. We are currently co-chairs of two IETF WGs including the Whois WG.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has authored important IETF draft standards documents including one for a registry-registrar protocol.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar developed and patented the call processing technology used to enable telephone number portability. We patented the technology and made it freely available.
	

Proven reputation for fair, impartial policy management	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has extended its LNPA contract for an additional 3 years over its existing 5-year contract without going through the competitive bid process, with approval by the FCC.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar was selected by various service providers to provide Customer Account Record Exchange service via an in-house-developed database system.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

Through its audit activities regarding NeuStar, Ernst & Young has consistently reported positive compliance to the Code of Conduct and Neutrality Compliance Procedures as approved by the FCC.
	

Strong financial performance and stability	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's existing lines of business are net income and cash flow positive
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar's recent round of equity financing fully funded our business plan; if additional capital is required, our investment partner, Warburg Pincus, stands prepared to fund all NeuStar initiatives.
	

 	
 	

•	
 	

NeuStar has experienced strong revenue growth, from $6M in 1997 to $67M in 2000.

P-6

 

P.1 Registry, Database, and Internet Experience  

        NeuStar combines comprehensive registry operations experience with extensive DNS knowledge to effectively administer the
usTLD.

        Effective,
responsible administration of the usTLD requires that its operator understand the fluid, innovative environment of the Internet and demonstrate proven ability to build and
manage a registry. The usTLD registry operator must have substantial experience and proven credentials in managing a significant public database, the ability to facilitate discussions about standards
development and technical issues between competing parties, and a commitment to the security of proprietary data to ensure competition. In addition, the registry operator must have demonstrable
evidence of its ability to design, build, and maintain a robust, responsive, scalable, and secure database to ensure the highest levels of quality and flexibility in the changing world of global
communications. As an administrator, that operator must also have the ability to develop and manage policy issues, maintain strong working relationships with stakeholders, and control the systematic
evolution, enhancement, and expansion of the usTLD space. 

        NeuStar
is a leader and innovator in these areas and has been instrumental in the effective management, solution development, and policy guidelines for managing critical public
resources. Our administrative roles, as the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, Local Number Portability Administrator, and Pooling Administrator, directly qualify us for a similar role as
the usTLD Administrator. In all of these roles, we provide mission-critical resources to U.S.-based public resources. Furthermore, in all of these roles, we designed a transition plan that allowed us
to smoothly transition and begin operations, either on time or ahead of schedule. 

        NeuStar
has extensive experience in transitioning the administration of mission-critical public resources from multiple geographically dispersed entities to one central administrator.
Our transition of the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) from the legacy operators to NeuStar is a particularly relevant example. In 1997, NeuStar was awarded the responsibility of
administrating telephone numbers for the North American Numbering Plan. Prior to NeuStar's administration, ten large phone companies administered phone numbers across all fifty states. Each company
had multiple local number administrators in each state. Part of NeuStar's responsibility was to transition the administration from over a hundred local administrators. This required an intensely
coordinated effort involving site visits, coordination meetings, and progress reports. It was not uncommon to have to sift through file cabinets to find current and historical inventories. In many
cases, the existing administrators could provide little support because they were new to the job or did not have historical data. Despite the difficulty involved, NeuStar was able to transition the
administration well ahead of schedule. The NANPA registry of telephone number assignments is now a critical element of the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. 

        A
second example involves the transition of telephone number inventory from hundreds of telephone companies with hundreds of different databases to one central database. NeuStar has won
number pooling administration contracts in over 12 different states. Number pooling involves transitioning unused telephone numbers from multiple telephone companies to one central administrator. The
unused numbers can then be redistributed to other telephone companies. This is a very difficult process, because it involves hundreds of phone companies with multiple administrators and different
databases. There is also a public outreach effort that involves assisting the phone companies in taking inventory, and evaluating the inventory for usable numbers. NeuStar has to advise the individual
companies on the format of the data and the process they need to undertake to transition the numbers to us. Once NeuStar has transitioned the inventory, we are responsible for redistributing it in a
neutral, even-handed, yet conservative manner. Recently, NeuStar was awarded the 

P-7

 

contract
to take on this responsibility on a federal level for all 50 states. This will involve over 3,000 different entities. 

        One
of the most significant benefits of a domain name is its portability and free movement between Internet Service Providers. The registry systems developed by NeuStar to administer
telephone numbering are directly analogous to a domain name registry, and parallels exist between the DNS and telephone number portability. For example, the telephone numbering system in North America
is broken down by area codes and a second set of three digits referred to as the NXX or prefix component of a telephone number. It is a hierarchical delegation system similar to the DNS. Prior to
1996, consumers were unable to enjoy the benefits of telephone number portability because of the monopoly environment at the Local Service Provider (LSP) level. In April 1996, NeuStar was
selected by the Illinois Commerce Commission SMS/RFP Subcommittee to develop a Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) and provide turnkey and operational NPAC services initially within
Chicago. The Number Portability Administration Center (NPAC) Service Management System (SMS) is a master registry of routing information that interfaces with the local carrier's administration
systems. The NPAC SMS interfaces directly to Local Exchange Carriers' key operational systems and operation processes. The NPAC SMS developed and maintained by NeuStar coordinates the porting of
telephone numbers between carriers and downloads routing information to carriers' local systems, which in turn update local databases. 

        Since
the introduction of the NPAC, Local Number Portability has revolutionized the U.S. telecommunications industry. Through competitive procurement processes, NeuStar was selected to
provide telephone number registry services for a five-year term in four regions of the United States. The competing vendor was selected in the three remaining U.S. regions and Canada. In
early March 1998, the other three regions—Southeast, Western, and West Coast—terminated their vendor contracts due to poor performance and executed contracts with
NeuStar for NPAC SMS services, with Canada following soon after. Consequently, NeuStar now provides telephone number portability services to all of the United States and Canada, processing in excess
of tens of millions of transactions per day, and serving more than 4,000 service providers across North America. As the operator of the NPAC master telephone registry, NeuStar: 

	•
	Facilitates
technical discussions and standards development between competing carriers,

	•
	Safeguards
sensitive information,

	•
	Ensures
equal and fair access to vital network routing data,

	•
	Provides
impartial data measurement and analysis,

	•
	Coordinates
Local Number Portability implementation and testing,

	•
	Provides
independent and impartial certification of systems and databases,

	•
	Provides
impartial opinions (technical, policy, and schedule) to industry regulators,

	•
	Provides
services under industry agreed-upon guidelines and performance standards, and

	•
	Provides
full billing and collections services to more than 4,000 service providers. 

        All
of these qualifications are directly applicable to the administration of the usTLD. While the NPAC registry perhaps most clearly demonstrates NeuStar's experience in developing and
administering a registry, we have developed similar systems for the management of the North American Numbering Plan, European Telephony Numbering Space, Number Pooling, and the.biz TLD. In short,
NeuStar provides a level of skill and experience in registry operations in the United States that simply cannot be matched. 

P-8

 

P.2 Technical Capabilities  

        NeuStar offers comprehensive technical capabilities in the areas of registry operation, software development, database management, and
standards development. These abilities are founded on expansive experience in all areas related to technical service provision for a critical public resource. NeuStar is the best choice to design,
deliver, and maintain the next-generation domain name registry for the usTLD.

        Any
top-level domain registry operator must be capable of improving the reliability and effectiveness of domain name registration, contribute responsibly to a competitive
environment, and preserve the Internet's continuing stability. In addition, the registry operator must bring the technical know-how to specify and design a solution that ensures the
continuing evolution of the domain name system. 

        There
are many complexities within the DNS and registry environment that require a detailed understanding of the issues and their implications on the technical solution. For instance, a
minor change in policy can have far-reaching implications on how a database needs to behave in order to ensure the integrity and efficiency of domain name registration and administration.
But the usTLD space presents even more complexity because it must accommodate both the current hierarchical locality structure while allowing second-level registrations in the new, expanded space.
Management of the usTLD registry also brings with it an immense responsibility in the secure administration of personal and business contact information. The public sees a country code domain as
having the highest level of integrity, and it is essential that the registry operator understands this and stores all registry data with the highest levels of security. It is vital for the success of
the usTLD that the registry operator understands the entire operating environment and has the experience and ability
to deliver a solution that benefits all relevant stakeholders. NeuStar has the technical capabilities to deliver that solution. 

        NeuStar
specializes in developing and operating unique support services for the Internet and communications industries by using innovative solutions employing the highest standards and
practices and by providing services in an impeccably evenhanded fashion as a trusted third party. 

        As
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, NeuStar operates the telephone numbering registry for the North American Numbering Plan as a public numbering resource. NeuStar is
also the Local Number Portability Administrator for the United States and Canada, operating the telephone number routing registry for North America. The integrity and accuracy of these services are
essential for virtually every call placed in North America. 

        The
Number Portability Administration Center Service Management System hosts the routing registry that is used to track network and call routing, SS7 signaling, and billing information
for all telephone numbers in North America. We provide, directly or indirectly, highly secure host-to-host administrative transaction interfaces to this registry for all 5,000
service providers in North America. The service providers' operational support systems (OSSs) require the highest availability standards of our service to manage and operate their networks. 

        Consequently,
we operate this service to 29 monthly service level requirements (SLRs), including availability (99.99%), transaction response time, throughput, and help desk
telephone call answer times, and we pay financial penalties for missing any of these levels. Between our data centers, we provide real-time database replication and server
failover/recovery functions and fully redundant enterprise networking facilities. Our data centers are owned and operated by NeuStar, are staffed 24 × 7 by our own network
operations center personnel, are physically located in the United States, and are secured by both card key and palm print readers. 

        NeuStar
operates its services, including the NPAC SMS, from a unique world-class Internet Protocal network and server infrastructure housed in our own diverse, redundant data centers. We 

P-9

 

operate
highly secure, quad redundant enterprise IP network application servers and support servers (e.g., DNS, NNTP, and RADIUS/SecurID) that provide dedicated access directly to more than 300
communication service providers and indirectly to all 5,000 service providers in North America. At approximately 900 Mbps of aggregate capacity, our IP network provides diverse BGP-4
routed links to external service provider OSSs and network elements. In addition, we support more than 1,000 dial-up or secured Internet users from our customers to access our services via
Web-based interfaces. In case of failure of a service provider's OSS, they may log directly into our Web-based NPAC GUI to provide critical network management functions. All
dial-up users (internal or external) must use a NeuStar-issued SecurID for strong authentication. 

        Each
data center has a completely redundant, hardened, switched VLAN backbone and a redundant set of network access servers and firewalls. All critical application and database servers
are dual-homed to each of these site-based backbones, using a virtual-IP address assigned to each host that is reachable through either NIC port on that host
through either backbone. Each NIC port and backbone link is assigned a 4-IP address subnet to ensure quick detection of NIC/link/port failures and maintain full reachability of that server
without impacting established internal or external communication associations. Certain key services (such as NPAC SMS application and database servers) are implemented using approximately 64 Lucent
(Stratus) hardware fault tolerant HP-UX servers. 

        The
NeuStar network is structured into a series of security rings to provide firewall isolation of traffic from various sources and applications. All Internet-reachable systems are
placed onto one of a series of bastion subnets (bracketed by firewalls) to ensure security of the core network in the unlikely case of a server breach on the bastion network. All external data network
links employ extensive BGP-4 route filtering to ensure that only appropriate internal routes are advertised and that routes to other service providers' networks are not advertised or
reachable. 

        While
extensively using standard, well-known, protocols (e.g., BGP-4), we also employ certain relatively unusual protocols, such as CMIP over IP, which are common
in OSS applications. The NPAC service employs this protocol to provide a distributed, bi-directional, object-oriented application framework for interacting with the registry. Strong
authentication is employed for accepting CMIP associations from service providers' OSSs, with an extensive administrative key management infrastructure to support. Each service provider system is
assigned a list of keys, each at least 660 bits in length. Each and every CMIP provisioning transaction is individually signed to provide the highest in authentication and non-repudiation,
given the potential operational and financial impacts one service provider could cause another. Given the millions of transactions we process every day, we have employed extensive hardware-based
crypto accelerators to ensure the highest performance levels without sacrificing security. Given the industry critical nature of the NPAC service, standardizing access to it from service providers'
OSSs was essential. In 1996 we developed the CMIP interface standards for the NPAC and subsequently placed
them in the public domain. They are now managed under the auspices of a specific industry standards body (the NANC LNPA WG) to whom we provide ongoing secretarial and change management support for
maintenance of the standards. 

        These
levels of standards are highly relevant and appropriate for a DNS registry provider, given the importance of the DOC's usTLD initiatives and the vital need to do so while enhancing
the value of the usTLD and maintaining the stability of the Internet. They exemplify our fluency with both the technical operational security and overall business standards with which
industry-critical services of this kind must be provided in the interest of all industry stakeholders. 

        NeuStar's
technical capabilities have extended even further since taking on the role of.biz registry operator. NeuStar's advanced TLD registration system uses a
high-performance and highly scalable 3-tier architecture. The tiers include a Web/protocol server tier, an application server tier, and a back-end server tier
(e.g., database, billing, credit card payments, and registry server). The registration 

P-10

 

system
has been developed with a custom-built application server and associated infrastructure. Security has been a priority throughout both the software architecture and network design. 

        The
infrastructure has built-in redundancy with multiple servers in the Web/protocol, application, and database tiers and has been engineered for high fault tolerance. In
addition, network devices such as routers, firewalls, and load-balancers have been deployed in a fully redundant configuration. Each tier is configured as a cluster, with failed servers
being automatically removed from the cluster. Capacity planning has been done to scale throughout the environment so that there is plenty of room for future growth. 

        Because
we operate through a channel partner network, we have experience providing integration protocols including http Post, XML, and e-mail templates and using security
mechanisms such as SSL and PGP. NeuStar's research group was an active leader in the development of new industry standards and has participated in the development of an XML-based domain
name registration protocol which has been deployed in our.biz operation. 

        The
scope of NeuStar's experience includes design and development of secure, real-time resource management systems; implementation of high-transaction,
high-availability database solutions; design and management of transcontinental IP networks; and the effective and timely delivery of technical solutions within highly regulated
environments. For all of these reasons, NeuStar is the best choice for developing and delivering a responsible and stable solution for the usTLD registry. 

P.3 Past Performance References  

        NeuStar's solid customer contact references are a reflection of the high regard in which NeuStar is held and are directly attributable to
our commitment to integrity.

        Some
vendors without extensive experience in developing and administering large-scale registry operations might not have the customer contact references needed to successfully meet the
DOC's requirements for the usTLD. Other vendors may have all the necessary references but will lack the neutral third-party component necessary to ensure that all users are dealt with in an equitable
manner and that a broad industry-wide approach to resolving the issues is taken. NeuStar has both. We are proud of our work and the relationships we have with our current customers and
respectfully submit the following past performance references for you to contact at your discretion. Further, we would welcome a site visit by the DOC Contracting Officer and COTR. 

P-11

 

Past Performance References Information  

	Required Information
 
	 	NeuStar Response
 

	Type of Work	 	North American Numbering Plan Administration
	

Contract Number or Purchase Order Number	
 	

FCC 97-372, FCC 99-346
	

Duration of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

November 1997-November 2002
	

Dollar value of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

$24.9M
	

Type of Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Fixed Price
	

Name and Address of Customer Organization	
 	

FCC 445

12th St., SW

Washington, DC 20005
	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Cheryl Callahan

Common Carrier Bureau

FCC

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20045

TN: 202-418-1806

Fax: 202-418-2345

e-mail: ccallaha@fcc.gov
	

Information for an Alternative Customer Organization Point of Contact	
 	

Same as above
	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

•	

NeuStar operates the telephone numbering registry for the North American Numbering Plan as a vital national public numbering resource.
	

 	
 	

•	

Primary functions include the assignment and administration of Numbering Plan Area (NPA) codes, central office codes, Carrier Identification Codes (CIC), and other numbering resources. In addition, NANPA provides area relief planning services and
collects utilization and forecast data for projecting the exhaust of NPAs and the NANP.

P-12

 

Past Performance References Information  

	Required Information
 
	 	NeuStar Response
 

	Type of Work	 	.biz Registry Operations
	

Contract Number or Purchase Order Number	
 	

Registry Agreement between NeuLevel, a majority owned subsidiary of NeuStar and ICANN
	

Duration of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Base: 5 years from commencement of operation

(expected 4Q01)
	

Dollar value of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based: Base Registrations $5.30/year
	

Type of Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based
	

Name and Address of Customer Organization	
 	

ICANN

4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330

Marina del Ray, CA 90292

TN: 310-823-9358

Fax: 310-823-8649

e-mail: icann@icann.org
	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Louis Touton

TN: 310-823-9358
	

Information for an Alternative Customer Organization Point of Contact	
 	

N/A
	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

•	

..biz gTLD ICANN registry operator.
	

 	
 	

•	

Process registrations for domain names.
	

 	
 	

•	

Manages registry databases that facilitate navigation to.biz addresses.
	

 	
 	

•	

Creates centralized zone files.
	

 	
 	

•	

Manages Sunrise and Landrush policies.
	

 	
 	

•	

Addresses intellectual property disputes through mediation.
	

 	
 	

•	

Manages.biz space in accordance with ICANN policies.
	

 	
 	

•	

Works closely with all industry participants.

P-13

 

Past Performance References Information  

	Required Information
 
	 	NeuStar Response
 

	Type of Work	 	National Pooling Administration
	

Contract Number or Purchase Order Number	
 	

CON 01000016
	

Duration of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

6/15/01-6/15/02, with four additional one-year options
	

Dollar value of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

$17,902,666 exclusive of award fee
	

Type of Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Cost-plus-award-fee
	

Name and Address of Customer Organization	
 	

FCC/Contracts and Purchasing Center

445 12th St.,

SW Washington, DC 20005
	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Purchase Order	
 	

Mr. Mark Oakey, (202) 418-0933

Fax: N/A, moakey@fcc.gov
	

Information for an Alternative Customer Organization Point of Contact	
 	

N/A
	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

•	

Pooling Administrator manages the number administration and assignment processes that allocate numbering resources to a shared industry inventory associated with a designated geographic area.
	

 	
 	

•	

Allocates telephone numbers in 1000 number parcels.
	

 	
 	

•	

NeuStar works with the industry to suggest changes and modifications to pooling guidelines and administers number pooling in accordance with industry guidelines.
	

 	
 	

•	

Actively participates in industry forums.
	

 	
 	

•	

Provides help desk support to users.

P-14

 

Past Performance References Information  

	Required Information
 
	 	NeuStar Response
 

	Type of Work	 	European Telephony Numbering Space (ETNS) Administration
	

Contract Number or Purchase Order Number	
 	

Private contract with ERO
	

Duration of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

5 years from first Turnup date 3-1-01
	

Dollar value of the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based
	

Type of Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

Transaction Based
	

Name and Address of Customer Organization	
 	

European RadioCommunication Office (ERO)

Midtermolen 1

DK 2100 Copenhagen
	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

European RadioCommunication Office (ERO)

Vince Humphries

Midtermolen 1

DK 2100 Copenhagen

TN: +45 35250300

e-mail: ero@ero.dk
	

Information for an Alternative Customer Organization Point of Contact	
 	

Same as above
	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract or Purchase Order	
 	

•	

Administrator for European Telephony Numbering Space Service for 43 European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) countries.
	

 	
 	

•	

Maintains a registry of all ETNS numbers.
	

 	
 	

•	

Provides help desk support to users.
	

 	
 	

•	

Tracks and coordinates service providers and serving networks.

P-15

   Q. Performance Measurements  

        NeuStar is committed to providing the highest level of quality and performance to ensure the overall integrity of this mission-critical
service.

HIGHLIGHTS  

        Performance
Measurements are designed to ensure: 

	•
	Objective assessment of NeuStar performance

	•
	High service availability and reliability of system

	•
	Commitment to credits for performance shortfalls—already included in usTLD Administrator Registrar Draft
Agreement

        When
the Department of Commerce selects a vendor, it must consider not only the vendor's cost components and ability to design and develop a system but also the overall quality of the
vendor's products and services. Because NeuStar is in the business of providing mission-critical services, quality is of utmost importance to us. We do not provide systems, we provide service. Our
staff recognizes quality and performance as an ongoing and evolving process that facilitates our commitment to continuous improvement by meeting the demands of our customers and the
ever-changing marketplace. Through education and training opportunities, we promote teamwork, empowerment, leadership, strategic planning, and personnel development. The quality
performance measurement system attributes managed by our staff include reliability, interoperability, availability, responsiveness, effective communication, accuracy, security, and one of our
strongest value-added trademarks—neutrality. 

        NeuStar's
Quality Management Program drives the delivery of all our services. Our performance measurement system, the heart of our Quality Management Program, is managed through
strategic Monthly Operational Reviews (MORs)—meetings of senior and executive management during which progress and results are discussed—as well as through various additional
operational and tactical reviews. In conjunction with our Quality Management Program, NeuStar is committed to constantly improving our services while ensuring high levels of responsiveness to customer
requests. NeuStar continues to work with its customers to identify the key processes required for problem resolution and delivery of quality services, including measures to assess database
performance, accessibility, and staff responsiveness to customer issues. Our Customer Relationship Management (CRM) practices capture aspects of our performance relevant to our customers to ensure
increased competitiveness, greater customer value, and delivery of world-class products and services. In addition, NeuStar's upper management commitment to provide world-class products and services to
our customers on a consistent, timely, and accurate basis is central. 

        NeuStar's
Quality Management Program ensures effective business account management, compliance with standards and applicable Service Level Agreements, and cost-effective
operations analysis while maintaining our competitive business edge within the communications industry. Our program is well administered and supported within NeuStar across all functional groups
including: 

	•
	Service
Delivery,

	•
	Program
Management,

	•
	Information
Technology,

	•
	Software
Engineering,

	•
	Systems
Quality Assurance, and

	•
	Configuration
Management. 

Q-1

 

        NeuStar
is committed to providing a high level of performance to the usTLD community. To that end, NeuStar proposes Performance Measurements related to the operation of the usTLD
registry. The purpose of these Performance Measurements is to ensure that the registry consistently performs at high levels to meet the needs of the industry, to ensure the reliability of this
mission-critical infrastructure, and to ensure stability of the usTLD. Comparable benchmarks for service level agreements are typical for public resources, and the usTLD should be no exception. 

        NeuStar
believes that Performance Measurements are so important to the proper functioning of the usTLD Administrator that we have integrated detailed Performance Measurements into our
usTLD Draft Registry-Registrar Agreements. Not only have we integrated the measurements into the agreements, but we have included credits to be paid to the registrars if we fail to meet any of them. 

        For
a detailed description of the Performance Measurements, please see Exhibit G of the usTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement in Section H of this proposal. For a detailed
description of the Performance Credits, please see Exhibit H of the same agreement. 

        We
believe these measures will provide accurate indicators of NeuStar's progress under the project and assessment of services offered. Further, as required, for the first two years of
the purchase order, we will submit monthly progress reports to the COTR, in writing, detailing the Contractor's progress toward meeting the purchase order SOW requirements. These reports are described
in Section B.2.15, Progress and Quarterly Reporting. 

Q-2

  

R.    Representations and Certifications of Offerors  

 
  REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS OF OFFERORS    
    

1.     52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATIONS (MAR 2001)  

        (a)(1) The
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is 541519 

        (2)   The
small business size standard is $18.0 million. 

        (3)   The
small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a
product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees. 

        (b)   Representations.
(1) The offeror represents as part of its offer that it o is,
ý is not a small business concern. 

        (2)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents, for general statistical purposes, that it o is, o is not, a small disadvantaged
business concern as defined in 13 CFR 124.1002. 

        (3)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a women-owned small business concern. 

        (4)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror
represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a veteran-owned small business concern. 

        (5)   [Complete
only if the offeror represented itself as a veteran-owned small business concern in paragraph (b)(4) of this provision.] The
offeror represents as part of its offer that it o is, o is not a service-disabled
veteran-owned small business concern. 

        (c)   Definitions.
As used in this provision— 

        "Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern"— 

        (1)   Means
a small business concern— 

          (i)  Not
less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than
51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans; and 

         (ii)  The
management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a veteran with permanent and severe
disability, the spouse or permanent caregiver of such veteran. 

        (2)   Service-disabled
veteran means a veteran, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(2), with a disability that is service-connected, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(16). 

        "Small
business concern," means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government
contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria in 13 CFR Part 121 and the size standard in paragraph (a) of this provision. 

        "Veteran-owned
small business concern" means a small business concern— 

        (1)   That
is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women; or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned
by one or more women; and 

R-1

 

        (2)   The
management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more veterans. 

        "Women-owned
small business concern," means a small business concern— 

        (1)   Which
is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned
by one or more women; and 

        (2)   Whose
management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women. 

        (d)   Notice.
(1) If this solicitation is for supplies and has been set aside, in whole or in part, for small business concerns, then the clause in this solicitation
providing notice of the set-aside contains restrictions on the source of the end items to be furnished. 

        (2)   Under
15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm's status as a small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, or women-owned small business concern in order to
obtain a contract to be awarded under the preference programs established pursuant to section 8(a), 8(d), 9, or 15 of the Small
Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program eligibility, shall— 

          (i)  Be
punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both; 

         (ii)  Be
subject to administrative remedies, including suspension and debarment; and 

        (iii)  Be
ineligible for participation in programs conducted under the authority of the Act. 

(End
of provision) 

	2.
	52.203-11 DEV 52.203-11 CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE REGARDING PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS DEVIATION (JAN
1990)

        (a)   The
definitions and prohibitions contained in the clause, at FAR 52.203-12, Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions, included in
this solicitation, are hereby incorporated by reference in paragraph (b) of this certification. 

        (b)   The
offeror, by signing its offer, hereby certifies to the best of his or her knowledge and belief as of December 23, 1989 that— 

        (1)   No
Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress on his or her behalf in connection with the awarding of a contract resulting from this solicitation; 

        (2)   If
any funds other than Federal appropriated funds (including profit or fee received under a covered Federal transaction) have been paid, or will be paid, to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress on his or her behalf
in connection with this solicitation, the offeror must complete and submit with its offer, OMB standard form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, to the Contracting Officer, and 

        (3)   He
or she will include the language of this certification in all subcontract awards at any tier and require that all recipients of subcontract awards in excess of
$100,000 must certify and disclose accordingly. 

        (c)   Submission
of this certification and disclosure is a prerequisite for making or entering into this contract imposed by section 1352, title 31, United States Code.
Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited under this provision or who fails to file or amend this disclosure form to be filed or amended by this provision, must be subject to a civil penalty of
not less than $10,000, and not more than $100,000, for each such failure. 

R-2

 

[End
of Clause] 

R-3

   S.    NeuStar's DUNS Number  

        NeuStar's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, presented below, is also provided on the bottom left-hand corner of the transmittal form. 

11-240-3295  

S-1

   T.    Transition and Project Plan  

        NeuStar's proven program management method-ology ensures the successful implementation of robust, high-availability
mission-critical systems and operations. NeuStar has a long legacy of transitioning administration of public resources to next-generation, open-interface platforms and will
effect a seamless, transparent, and low-risk transition through a thoughtful, deliberate transition plan.

HIGHLIGHTS  

	•
	NeuStar
has provided a detailed and thorough plan for the transition of usTLD, management and modernization of the locality-based space, and implementation of the expanded
space

	•
	NeuStar
applies our proven Program Management methodology to ensure that implementation is on-time, on-budget, and well-communicated and that it lays the foundation for a
successful business

	•
	NeuStar
uses mandatory quality assurance methods and reporting procedures in all functional areas to ensure that the highest level of performance is achieved 

        A
well-thought-out, proven program management methodology is a critical factor for implementing and running a successful TLD registry. Absent this critical
component, the project could easily fail. At NeuStar, we believe, of course, that such easily avoided failure is unacceptable. 

        Another
critical element for the successful implementation of the usTLD, is the need for a smooth, seamless transition from the legacy administrator to the new administrator. Indeed,
from NeuStar's perspective, a successful transition is the most important aspect of this project for maintaining stability and integrity of the usTLD and the Internet and ensuring the highest degree
of service to the United States Internet community. NeuStar has proven our capabilities in transitioning data and services from legacy systems to next-generation,
open-interface platforms numerous times. 

        NeuStar
has extensive experience in transitioning the administration of mission-critical public resources from multiple geographically dispersed entities to one central administrator.
Our transition of the North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) from the legacy operators to NeuStar is a particularly relevant example. In 1997, NeuStar was awarded the responsibility of
administrating telephone numbers for the North American Numbering Plan. Prior to NeuStar's administration, ten large phone companies administered phone numbers across all fifty states. Each company
had multiple local number administrators in each state. Part of NeuStar's responsibility was to transition the administration from over a hundred local administrators. This required an intensely
coordinated effort involving site visits, coordination meetings, and progress reports. It was not uncommon to have to sift through file cabinets to find current and historical inventories. In many
cases, the existing administrators could provide little support because they were new to the job or did not have historical data. Despite the difficulty involved, NeuStar was able to transition the
administration well ahead of schedule. The NANPA registry of telephone number assignments is now a critical element of the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure. 

        A
second example involves the transition of telephone number inventory from hundreds of telephone companies with hundreds of different databases to one central database. NeuStar has won
number pooling administration contracts in over 12 different states. Number pooling involves transitioning unused telephone numbers from multiple telephone companies to one central administrator. The
unused numbers can then be redistributed to other telephone companies. This is a very difficult process, because it involves hundreds of phone companies with multiple administrators and different
databases. There is also a public outreach effort that involves assisting the phone companies in taking inventory, and evaluating the inventory for usable numbers. NeuStar has to advise the individual
companies on the format of the data and the process they need to undertake to 

T-1

 

transition
the numbers to us. Once NeuStar has transitioned the inventory, we are responsible for redistributing it in a neutral, even-handed, yet conservative manner. Recently, NeuStar
was awarded the contract to take on this responsibility on a federal level for all 50 states. This will involve over 3,000 different entities. 

        Because
of our firm belief that effective transition is an indispensable part of our overall project plan for the usTLD, we are presenting a detailed Transition Plan and explanation of
our comprehensive Project Plan. We are proud of our demonstrated ability to effect timely successful transitions of complex systems and are eager to apply our expertise to the usTLD. 

T.1    Transition to New usTLD Administrator  

        NeuStar will leverage our experience in successfully transitioning other mission-critical resources to ensure a smooth and seamless
transition of the usTLD administration.

        The
DOC faces a challenge in selecting a vendor that not only is qualified to build a robust registry system, but also is qualified to transition mission-critical operations and
resources, such as the existing locality-based usTLD. The usTLD domain structure is part of the Internet critical infrastructure, and many U.S. citizens rely upon its being a zero-downtime
operation. NeuStar has faced the challenge of transitioning these kinds of resources and has succeeded in all of our transition and implementation operations. NeuStar submits that no other potential
respondent to the RFQ has the kind of critical transition experience required by this RFQ. 

        The
key requirements for safe transition are careful planning; phased incremental transition stages, and the allocation of sufficient resources to oversee the process, achieve necessary
changes, and recover promptly from any difficulties that may arise. Absolutely crucial is the cooperation of the previous administrator. Our experience as the NANPA and LNPA have proven that
nonresponsiveness from legacy operators hinders progress and is detrimental to both the system and its customers. 

        The
DOC must ensure that it does not select a vendor for the usTLD that underestimates the importance of potential complexity of the transition process. The transition process that we
present here is comprehensive and sufficiently detailed in its incremental approach to transition of an operation involving critical infrastructure, to ensure a seamless and stable transition. 

T.1.1    Requirements for Successful Transition  

        Transition for the usTLD entails a number of different processes. 

	•
	The
first is transitioning existing administration and operation activities without making any policy changes.

	•
	The
second is reviewing and enhancing that existing structure.

	•
	The
third is expanding the structure with new names and services. 

        Because
the first two steps form the framework for the third step, this section focuses on these formative processes. The expansion and further enhancement of the usTLD is addressed
elsewhere in this proposal. Changes to the existing usTLD administration first require the compliance investigation and report that is correctly mandated by the DOC. This is because enhancements
cannot be intelligently specified without having much detail as possible about the current base of delegees and users, and changes need to be pursued as a collaborative effort with the existing usTLD
community. 

        To
initiate the transition process immediately upon award, certain information will be required: 

	•
	The master database—comprises contact and registration details for delegees and, where appropriate, registrants.
During normal operation of a registry, the DNS zone file and Whois file are derived from this master database. 

T-2

 

	•
	Operations information—refers to data that are available as part of the daily operation of the Internet, namely
the DNS zone files of names and addresses and the Whois file that contains essential delegee and registrant contact information.

	•
	Historical information—is necessary for evaluating the rights and obligations of delegees and registrants,
relative to changes made in the usTLD administration as of July 1, 1997. 

        The
specific information items required to initiate the transition process are: 

Requirements for a Successful Transition  

	NeuStar Needs From Current

Administrator
 
	 	Why/Benefits
 

	All contact information for current delegees	 	This information is needed to begin the required compliance investigation and report.
	

Historical information including delegations and re-delegations made after July 1, 1997	
 	

Historical data can put current situation in context. Delegation and re-delegation done after July 1, 1999 requires written proof.
	

Copy of zone file as of award date	
 	

Needed as a development tool to permit production testing prior to operational commitment.
	

All registration data, including but not limited to:	
 	

 
	

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•	

Up-to-date list of all delegees including dates of delegation

Agreements with delegees

Agreements with registrants

Registration information for direct registrants

Policies and understandings, written or otherwise (generally understood)

Previous contracts, understandings, and agreements

Whois information

DNS zone snapshot at transition event	

 	

The complete set of registration data is needed in two phases. The first allows awardees to gain familiarity with the registrations and to prepare registration software. The second permits the awardees' operations databases to be current at the time
of handoff.

Information about delegees and agreements with them are essential for permitting awardees to make contact and understand existing arrangements with delegees.

Information about direct registrants and agreements with them is essential for the same reason.

Copies of existing policies allow NeuStar to continue operations and then introduce changes incrementally. The same is true for obtaining copies of existing databases.
	

Current, internal operational policies and procedures	
 	

Familiarity with existing practices is necessary to continue them and ensure that changes are incremental
	

Data formats	
 	

Essential for automated incorporation of existing data
	

Database administration and query volumes history	
 	

Historical operations data establish the scale of systems and operations to be provided by NeuStar.
	 	 	 	 

T-3

 

	

Final change requests for existing registrations	
 	

New registrations will not occur during transition, but changes to existing registrations may occur
	

Transition assistance from the current administrator	
 	

Assistance from the current contractor is at the core of all transition requirements, since it holds operational data, procedures, and registration agreements.
	

Transition of the www.us Web site from the current administrator to NeuStar	
 	

NeuStar will publish our own Web site for the usTLD, and needs Web site users to be able to easily find the new registry information.
	

Transition Assistance from IANA	
 	

Root server changes will be required to delegate.us to NeuStar

        We
believe that the above required information is reasonable and necessary for a seamless transition that is transparent to registrants and delegees and that will ensure the overall
stability of the usTLD, it operations, and the DNS and the Internet as a whole. 

T.1.2    Time Line for Transition  

        The schedule listed below gives a synopsis of the transition tasks and expected timing of these tasks starting from the award date. Although a quicker process is
possible, the timeline provided is ideal for the proposed transition. 

Transition Timeline  

	Schedule
	 	 
	 	Tasks

	Award Date	 	 	 	NeuStar requests:
	 	 	•	 	Current DNS TLD zone file
	 	 	•	 	Whois contact information file
	 	 	•	 	usTLD registration database
	 	 	•	 	Outreach to delegated managers begins
	 	 	•	 	All information regarding delegees
	 	 	•	 	Notify IANA of award
	

2 days post-award	
 	

 	
 	

NeuStar receives copies of existing:
	 	 	•	 	Zone file
	 	 	•	 	Whois file
	

7 days post-award	
 	

 	
 	

NeuStar receives copies of existing usTLD registration database

NeuStar receives contact information for all delegees, and information as to which delegees have signed a post-1997 delegee agreement

Development begins
	

21 days post-award	
 	

 	
 	

Development complete

Testing begins
	

28 days post-award	
 	

 	
 	

Testing complete

Begin live operations transition
	

35 days post-award	
 	

 	
 	

Complete live operations transition

IANA Delegates .us to NeuStar

T-4

 

T.1.3    Implementation  

        As shown in Exhibit T-1, NeuStar will follow these phases for the successful transition of administration and operations of the usTLD registry: 

	•
	Initiation and familiarization—NeuStar and the previous administrator must meet to arrange the delivery of
necessary data and information, as defined above. NeuStar must become familiar with the existing registry information and data formats in which it is transferred and will use this phase to prepare its
own systems for entry of the registry data. NeuStar has already begun this process by using standard DNS queries to build a database of zone information for the usTLD including the zone files of
delegated managers.

	•
	NeuStar System Initialization—NeuStar will load the provided data into its registry system and commence blind
operation and testing.

	•
	Parallel operations—Once NeuStar receives and loads all necessary data for operation of the usTLD, NeuStar and
the current administrator will run parallel operations for a period of time to ensure that the transition has occurred correctly. For this phase, NeuStar will run parallel DNS and Whois operations but
will not make any changes to current registrations or delegations or accept new registrations or delegations.

	•
	Parallel administration—Both the current administrator and NeuStar should receive any requests to changes in
registrations or delegations, but neither should accept new registrations or delegations during this time.

	•
	Hand-off of administration—The current administrator does not perform any changes to registrations or
delegations. At this point, NeuStar is the sole administrator of these functions, but the DNS and Whois operations remain in parallel.

	•
	Sole administration and operations—IANA delegates.us to NeuStar, the current administrator ends its DNS and Whois
operations, and NeuStar becomes the sole administrator and operator of the usTLD. 

T.1.4    Resources  

        NeuStar's implementation team, discussed in-depth in Section A, will include an dedicated transition team as an integral part of its
operations. This team will have significant experience in transitioning services and will work with the current administrator, delegees, and registrants to ensure that the transition is transparent to
all users and that the stability and integrity of the registry and the Internet is maintained. 

T.2    Project Plan  

        NeuStar's project plan explicitly addresses critical tasks to ensure successful implementation of the usTLD systems and
operation.

        A
well designed project plan will ensure that the usTLD project stays on schedule, management will anticipate necessary changes, strong team communications will be maintained, and
delivery will be on time. NeuStar's usTLD Project Plan outlines all phases and associated tasks required to successfully implement the usTLD systems and operations. 

        Exhibit T-1
provides a high-level Transition and Implementation Timeline. 

        We
will work to a detailed project plan to ensure all objectives are met. This project plan will include all major tasks/subtasks, duration, resources, and dependencies. 

T-5

 

        [Exhibit T-1:
NeuStar will leverage a proven program management approach and detailed project plan to ensure a seamless transition and implementation of
the expanded and enhanced usTLD. Graphic Omitted: high-level usTLD transition and implementation timeline.] 

T-6

 

T.2.1    High-level Task Descriptions  

        The following table provides overview descriptions of the major program responsibilities that NeuStar must successfully perform to meet the usTLD objectives. 

NeuStar Program Responsibilities  

	High-Level Tasks
 
	 	 
	 	Subtasks

	Project Management Project Initiation	 	•	 	Create project charter
	 	 	•	 	Create project notebook
	 	 	•	 	Assign project sponsor
	 	 	•	 	Obtain budget approval
	 	 	•	 	Create staffing plan
	 	 	•	 	Define roles and responsibilities
	 	 	•	 	Conduct initial team and project kickoff meetings
	 	 	•	 	Determine metrics for testing and production environments
	

Project Management Project Planning	
 	

•	
 	

Define scope
	 	 	•	 	Develop Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and initial project schedule
	 	 	•	 	Create communications plan, risk management plan, stakeholder plan, quality plan, procurement plan, resource management plan, and change management plan
	 	 	•	 	Define usTLD product marketing plan
	 	 	•	 	Define usTLD business requirements
	 	 	•	 	Define usTLD outreach program
	 	 	•	 	Attend industry forums
	 	 	•	 	Define legal and policy requirements
	 	 	•	 	Define finance and budget plan
	 	 	•	 	Define administrative and facilities plan
	

Project Management Execution and Control	
 	

•	
 	

Implement locality-based usTLD operation and transition from the current administrator
	 	 	•	 	Modernize locality-based usTLD
	 	 	•	 	Implement expanded usTLD space functions
	 	 	•	 	Registrar accreditation and certification
	 	 	•	 	Sunrise
	 	 	•	 	Landrush
	 	 	•	 	Live expanded usTLD
	 	 	•	 	Deliver Monthly Progress Reports to COTR (For the 1st 2 years and quarterly thereafter)
	 	 	•	 	Deliver six-month Compliance Report
	

Project Management Closing	
 	

•	
 	

Customer acceptance
	 	 	•	 	Project turnover
	

System Development	
 	

•	
 	

Develop and finalize functional specifications
	 	 	•	 	Develop and finalize high-level design
	 	 	•	 	Develop and finalize detail design
	 	 	•	 	Conduct coding and unit test
	 	 	•	 	Data Migration/Population
	

Testing	
 	

•	
 	

Develop system and user test plans
	 	 	•	 	Establish test bed
	 	 	•	 	Develop integration test plan

T-7

 

	High-Level Tasks
	 	 
	 	Subtasks

	
 	
 	

•	
 	

Perform system test
	 	 	•	 	Conduct interface testing
	 	 	•	 	Perform connectivity testing
	 	 	•	 	Perform volume/load testing
	 	 	•	 	Perform end-to-end testing
	 	 	•	 	Perform User Acceptance Test (UAT)
	

Training	
 	

•	
 	

Develop training materials
	 	 	•	 	Conduct internal training sessions
	 	 	•	 	Conduct external training sessions
	

Production and Rollout	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	•	 	Conduct production readiness review (go/no go)
	 	 	•	 	Roll out April 1, 2002

T.2.2    Staffing and Organization  

        The usTLD management team will ensure that its experienced, motivated team and knowledgeable staff are available for successful implementation. It will utilize
work breakdown structures, historical information, and understanding of scope and resource descriptions in determining resource needs. Appropriate staffing for implementation will ensure that
personnel resources are used effectively and efficiently. Periodically, NeuStar Program Management will evaluate the staffing levels and augment resources as necessary to meet the usTLD project
objectives. 

        NeuStar
Program Management will assist with the identification, documentation, and assignment of project roles and reporting relationships. The usTLD project team will provide status
updates on deliverables and resource changes to the Program Management Office. 

T.2.3    Monitoring, Control, and Change Management  

        NeuStar's project monitoring and control processes will be established to ensure that high performance standards are met at both participant and project levels
and to rapidly identify and address any issues
or concerns that may arise during the usTLD project. Through strong schedule performance monitoring and control, unnecessary schedule slippage and cost overrun will be mitigated. In addition,
recognizing the occasional need for changes in project parameters, NeuStar will follow a strict change control process to ensure that necessary change does not undermine project progress. NeuStar's
monitoring and control objective will be to ensure that the activities of all participants are focused on achieving the usTLD project goals and requirements. 

        NeuStar's
change control process follows the major steps in submitting, analyzing, approving, and completing a change control request. All change requests are documented and logged into
a tracking system. Appropriate parties will be notified of the impact analysis and NeuStar's recommendation for action. 

T.2.4    Quality Assurance  

        NeuStar recognizes quality as an ongoing and evolving process that facilitates our commitment to continuous improvement by meeting the demands of our customers
and the ever-changing marketplace. Through education and training opportunities, we promote teamwork, empowerment, leadership, strategic planning, and personnel development. The quality
performance measurement system attributes managed by our staff include reliability, interoperability, availability, responsiveness, effective communication, accuracy, security, and one of our
strongest value-added trademarks—neutrality. Please see Section Q for more details on NeuStar's Quality and Performance Management process. 

T-8

usTLD Request for Quotation Response Compliance Matrix  

	RFQ Section
 
	 
	Requirement
	 	NeuStar Will

Comply
 
	 	Response

Section
 

	

B. Contractor Requirements	

The Contractor must perform the required services for this acquisition as a prime Contractor, not as an agent or subcontractor. (The provision of the required services may be accomplished through coordinating the resources and services provided by
entities other than the prime Contractor.) The Contractor must be (a) incorporated within one of the fifty states of the United States of America or the District of Columbia or (b) organized under a law of a state of the United States of America or
the District of Columbia. The Contractor must possess and maintain through the performance of this acquisition a physical address within the United States and must be able to demonstrate that all primary registry services will remain within the
United States of America (including the District of Columbia).	
 	

 	
 	

B
	

 	

The Contractor may not charge the United States Government for performance of the requirements of this purchase order (the unit price and amount for Line Items 0001, 0002 and 0003 must each be $0.00). However, the Contractor may establish and collect
fees from third parties for performance of the requirements of this purchase order, provided that the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going into effect, which approval will not be withheld unreasonably, provided that the fee
levels are fair and reasonable.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

B.1 Statement of Purpose	

The Department of Commerce seeks to acquire centralized management and coordination of registry, registrar (where specified), database, and information services for the usTLD. In broadest terms, the usTLD was created to provide a locus for
registration of domain names to serve the Internet community of the United States, and is intended to be available to a wide range of registrants. Given the foregoing, the Department seeks quotations that will achieve the following
objectives:	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

B.1	

 	

55.	

Ensure that procedures and a framework of accountability for the delegation and the administration of usTLD evolve into a more robust, certain, and reliable system.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.1	

 	

56.	

Promote increased use of the usTLD by the Internet community of the United States (including small businesses, consumers, Internet users, not-for-profit organizations, and local governments (i.e., state, city, and county), among others), with
residence or a bona fide presence in the United States) through introduction of enhanced services, dissemination of information through advertising and/or other appropriate mechanisms, and simplification of registration services including direct
registration.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

57.	

Create a centrally administered and efficiently managed structure that ensures both registrant/consumer confidence and infrastructure stability through coordination of delegations as well as other appropriate functions.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

58.	

Create a stable, flexible, and balanced environment within the usTLD that is conducive to innovation and that will meet the future demands of potential registrants.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

59.	

Ensure continued stability of the domain name system as a whole and the usTLD, particularly throughout the transition period from the current management structure into the new structure developed and maintained under the Contractor.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

60.	

Manage the usTLD consistent with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' (ICANN) technical management of the DNS.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

61.	

Allow for the adequate protection of intellectual property in the usTLD. This includes, in particular, the implementation of a "sunrise period" that permits qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the expanded
usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider registration, and a dispute resolution procedure to address conflicts between trademarks and domain names arising from "cybersquatting" in the usTLD.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.1	

 	

62.	

Establish and maintain consistent communication between the COTR, the Contractor and ICANN. This includes representation of the usTLD in the ICANN ccTLD constituency and contribution to ICANN's operating costs as apportioned to the usTLD through the
ICANN budget process.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.1	

 	

63.	

Promote robust competition within the usTLD and in particular registration services that will lead to greater choice, new, and better services for users.	
 	

 	
 	

B.1
	

B.2 Core Registry Functions	

 	

The Contractor must provide, at a minimum, the services that are outlined below. This list should not be viewed as exhaustive. The Contractor must provide all systems, software, hardware, facilities, infrastructure, and operation for the following
functions:	
 	

 	
 	

B.2, B.2.1 - B.2.16
	

B.2	

64.	

 	

Operation and maintenance of the primary, authoritative server for the usTLD;	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.1, O.1, O.4, O.5
	

B.2	

65.	

 	

Operation and/or administration of a constellation of secondary servers for the usTLD;	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.2, O.1, O.4, O.5
	

B.2	

66.	

 	

Compilation, generation, and propagation of the usTLD zone file(s);	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.3, F, O.1, O.4, O.5
	

B.2	

67.	

 	

Maintenance of an accurate and up-to-date registration (WHOIS) database for all usTLD registrations;	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.4, F, O.1, O.3
	

B.2	

 	

68.	

Maintenance of an accurate and up-to-date database of usTLD subdelegation managers;	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.5, F, O.1, O.3
	

B.2	

 	

69.	

Establishment of a data escrow for usTLD zone file and domain name registration information, including chain of registration data;	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.6, F, O
	

B.2	

 	

70.	

Compliance with applicable Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and applicable ICANN policies for the functions outlined above; and	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.7, F, O.2
	

B.2	

 	

71.	

Promotion of awareness and registration in the usTLD including maintaining website with up-to-date policy and registration information for the usTLD.	
 	

 	
 	

B.2.8
	

B.3 Core Policy Requirements	

 	

The Contractor must:	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.3	

72.	
Implement United States Nexus Requirement: The Contractor must run the usTLD as a country code top level domain intended to serve the community of Internet users (including end users, business,
 government, and not-for-profit organizations, among others) resident or located with a bona fide presence in the United States, and is not intended to attract or otherwise encourage registrations from outside the United States. In addition to the
current policy set forth in RFC 1480 requiring that usTLD domain name registrations be hosted on computers located within the United States, the Contractor must implement a United States Nexus Requirement in both the locality-based usTLD
structure and the expanded usTLD space.	
 	

 	
 	

B.3.1
	

B.3	

73.	
Adopt ICANN Policies Pertaining to Open ccTLD's: Although the usTLD is intended to serve the Internet community of the United States, and is not intended to encourage registrations from
entities or individuals resident outside the United States, the Contractor must follow the ICANN policies pertaining to open ccTLD's unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer.	
 	

 	
 	

B.3.2
	

B.3	

74.	
Implement a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure and Sunrise Policy. The Contractor must implement a uniform domain name dispute resolution procedure intended to resolve disputes
arising from "cybersquatting" applicable to the usTLD (such policy is intended to be modeled upon the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure, consistent with modifications necessary for such policy to be applicable to the usTLD
specifically). The Contractor must also implement a "Sunrise Policy" that permits qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the expanded usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider
registration.	
 	

 	
 	

B.3.3
	

B.3	

75.	
Abide by Government Advisory Committee Principles: The Contractor must abide by the principles and procedures set forth in the Government Advisory Committee document "Principles for the Delegation and Management of
Country-Code Top Level Domains," unless inconsistent with U.S. law or regulation.	
 	

 	
 	

B.3.4
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.4 Locality-based usTLD Structure Functions	

 	

 	

The Contractor must:	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

B.4	

76.	

 	

Provide Service for Existing Delegees and Registrants: Provide service and support for existing delegees and registrants in the existing, locality-based usTLD structure under current practice, including policies set forth in
RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies.	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.1, F, O
	

B.4	

77.	

 	
Provide Services for Undelegated Third Level Sub-Domains: Provide direct registry and registrar services for all other undelegated third level locality sub-domains, including services for CO
and CI, and undelegated special purpose domains (K12, CC, TEC, LIB, MUS, STATE, DST, COG and GEN).	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

B.4	

78.	

 	

Modernize Locality-Based usTLD processes: The Contractor must modernize and automate the locality-based usTLD delegation and registration process under the control of the usTLD administrator, including the creation of an electronic database to store
historical usTLD registration data.	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.2, F, O
	

B.4	

79.	

 	
Coordinate Current Locality-Based usTLD Users: The Contractor must create a mechanism or mechanisms whereby delegated managers of the usTLD, users of the locality-based usTLD, traditional
usTLD user groups (such as state and local governments, the library community and educational institutions, among others), and other interested parties, can coordinate to discuss usTLD administrative, technical, and policy issues related to the
operation and management of locality-based usTLD structure.	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.4, B.3.5
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.4	

80.	

 	
Investigate Compliance with Current Locality-Based usTLD Policies: The Contractor must conduct an investigation (or commission such an investigation) and submit a report to the COTR, within
six months after purchase order award, evaluating the compliance of existing sub-domain managers with the requirements of RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD policies. Further, the study should include an evaluation of "locality-squatting" issues, or
the practice of registering a locality name without providing a responsive level of service to such locality. Such report must recommend structural, procedural, and policy changes designed to enhance such compliance or improve usTLD registration
services and increase the value of the locality-based usTLD structure to local communities. During this evaluation period, the Contractor must not make any additional locality delegations or transfers unless otherwise directed by the Contracting
Officer.	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.5
	

B.4	

81.	

 	
Develop Database of usTLD Delegated Managers: The Contractor must develop a single database for up-to-date and verified contact information for all delegated managers in the usTLD, including
to locality-level and functional second level (where delegated) administrators and, where applicable, for all sub-delegations made by such locality-level or second level administrators. Such databases should allow for multiple string and field
searching through a free, public, web-based interface, and consist of at least the following elements:	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.6, F, O
	

 	

•	

The name of the delegated manager;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the delegation;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The corresponding names of those nameservers;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The date of delegation;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name and postal address of the delegated manager;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the delegated manager;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the delegated manager; and	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The website or other contact information through which registrations can be accepted under that delegation.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

B.4	

82.	
Develop Registrant WHOIS Database: The Contractor must develop an enhanced searchable WHOIS database that contains, or provides reliable access to, all locality-based usTLD registrants
including the registrants of delegated usTLD managers and, where applicable, registrants located under delegated managers' sub-delegations. Such WHOIS database must allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, public, web-based
interface, and consist of at least the following elements:	
 	

 	
 	

B.4.7, F, O
	

 	

•	

The name of the domain registered;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The Internet Protocol (IP) address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The corresponding names of those nameservers;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The identity of the delegated manager under which the name is registered;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The creation date of the registration;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name and postal address of the domain name holder;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

B.5 Expanded usTLD Space Functions	

The Contractor must not act as a registrar in the expanded usTLD space. Presented below is a non-exhaustive list of elements that the Contractor must incorporate into its procedures and policies for the expanded usTLD structure:	
 	

 	
 	

B.5
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

B.5	

83	
Develop and Implement Shared Registration System: The Contractor must develop and implement a shared registration system whereby qualified competing registrars may register domain names for
their customers in the expanded usTLD space (i.e., example.us). At a minimum, this proposed shared registration system must allow an unlimited number of accredited/licensed registrars to register domain names in the expanded usTLD; provide equivalent
access to the system for all accredited/licensed registrars to register domains and transfer domain name registrations among competing accredited/licensed registrars; update domain name registrations; and provide technical support for
accredited/licensed registrars.	
 	

 	
 	

B.5.1, F, O
	

B.5	

 	

84.	
Accreditation of usTLD Registrars: The Contractor must develop and implement a process describing the manner in which registrars in the expanded usTLD space will be accredited to register
names in the expanded usTLD.	
 	

 	
 	

B.5.2
	

B.5	

 	

85.	
Technical Certification of usTLD Registrars: The Contractor must develop and implement a process for technical certification of registrars in the expanded usTLD space.	
 	

 	
 	

B.5.3, O
	

B.5	

 	

86.	
Develop WHOIS Database: The Contractor must develop an enhanced searchable WHOIS database that contains, or provides reliable access to, all expanded usTLD registrations. Such WHOIS database
must be operated at the registry level (as opposed to at the level of individual accredited registrars) and allow for multiple string and field searching through a free, public, web-based interface, and consist of at least the following
elements:	
 	

 	
 	

B.5.4, F, O
	

 	

•	

The name of the second level domain registered;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The IP address of the primary nameserver and secondary nameserver(s) for the registered domain name;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The corresponding names of those nameservers;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The creation date of the registration;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

•	

The name and postal address of the domain name holder;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the technical contact for the domain name holder; and	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

The name, postal address, e-mail address, voice telephone number, and (where available) fax number of the administrative contact for the domain name holder.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

B.5	

 	

87.	
Community Outreach Plan: The Contractor must develop a public outreach mechanism whereby the public space can suggest or recommend additional policies or procedures for the usTLD that may be
developed or suggest how existing policy should be modified or updated.	
 	

 	
 	

B.5.5, B.3.5

usTLD Request for Quotation Response Compliance Matrix  

	RFQ Section
 
	 
	Requirement
	 	NeuStar Will

Comply
 
	 	Response

Section
 

	C. Reporting Requirements and Deliverables	 	The Contractor must post the following reports on their Internet site in order to facilitate transparency and public access.	 	X	 	B.2.15, B.4.5
	

C.1

Investigational Study (One-Time Report Due Six Months After Purchase Order Award)	

 	

The Contractor must conduct an investigation and submit a written report to the COTR, within six months after purchase order award, evaluating the compliance of existing sub-domain managers with the requirements of RFC 1480 and other documented usTLD
policies. Such report must recommend structural, procedural, or policy changes designed to enhance such compliance and increase the value of the locality-based structure to local communities. During this evaluation period, the Contractor must make no
additional locality delegations unless otherwise directed by the Contracting Officer.	
 	

X	
 	

B.4.5
	

C.2

Progress Reports	

 	

For the first two years of the purchase order, the Contractor must submit monthly progress reports to the COTR, in writing, detailing the Contractor's progress towards meeting the purchase order SOW requirements. Thereafter, such reports must be
provided to the COTR on a quarterly basis.	
 	

 	
 	

 

	

 	

 	

These reports must indicate the status of all major events, as well as major work performed during the month, including technical status, accomplishments, and complications experienced in fulfilling the SOW requirements, and must be submitted in such
detail and form as required by the COTR. Such reports must also provide performance data related to operation of the usTLD including, but not limited to, the following: the total number of registry transactions; the number of new, transferred or
deleted registrations in the usTLD (including cumulative registrations over time); the number of delegated managers and changes in delegated managers in the locality-based usTLD space; the number of registrars accredited to register names in the
expanded usTLD space, including the operational status of those registrars; and any updates or modifications to the shared registration system made by the Contractor.	
 	

X	
 	

B.2.15
	

 	

88.	

52.203-12 DEV 52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS (DEVIATION NOV 1990) (JUN 1997)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    89.	

52.204-6 DATA UNIVERSAL NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER (JUNE 1999)	
 	

X	
 	

S
	

 	

 	

    90.	

52.213-4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS—SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITIONS (OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL ITEMS) (MAR 2001)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    91.	

52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    92.	

52.227-17 RIGHTS IN DATA—SPECIAL WORKS (JUN 1987)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    93.	

1352.233-70 HARMLESS FROM LIABILITY (MARCH 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    94.	

1352.233-71 SERVICE OF PROTESTS (MARCH 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    95.	

1352.252-71 REGULATORY NOTICE (MARCH 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    96.	

52.233-1 I DISPUTES (DEC 1998)—ALTERNATE I (DEC 1991)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    97.	

52.239-1 PRIVACY OR SECURITY SAFEGUARDS (AUG 1996)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

 	

    98.	

1352.201-70 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S AUTHORITY (MARCH 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

    99.	

1352.201-71 CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR) (MARCH 2000)	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

  100.	

ANSWERS TO ANTICIPATED OFFEROR QUESTIONS	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	
Representations and Certifications of Offerors	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

101. 52.219-1 SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM REPRESENTATIONS (MAR 2001)	
 	

X	
 	

R
	

 	

102. 52.203-11 DEV 52.203-11 CERTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE REGARDING PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS DEVIATION (JAN 1990)	
 	

X	
 	

R
	
Instructions for Submitting Quotations	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

Before submitting a quotation, Offerors are encouraged to review the information on the locality-based usTLD structure and registration policies at: http://www.nic.us	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

The Offeror must submit the ORIGINAL VERSION and TWO COPIES of the Quotation to the following address: ATTN JOSEPH L WIDDUP NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 100 BUREAU DR STOP 3571 BLDG 301 RM B129 GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-3571 M/F
SOLICITATION SB1335-01-Q-0740 Each quotation (original and copies) submitted in response to this solicitation must:	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

ATTN JOSEPH L WIDDUP

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

100 BUREAU DR STOP 3571

BLDG 301 RM B 129

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899-3571

M/F SOLICITATION SB1335-01-q-0740	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

 	

Each quotation (original and copies)submitted in response to this solicitation must	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	

 	

A.	

Include resume(s) of key personnel (including education and experience credentials) that would perform and/or manage the requirements of this acquisition.	
 	

X	
 	

A
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

B.	

Describe how the Offeror would satisfy each of the individual requirements described in the "Contractor Requirements" section of the SOW. (In the event that the provision of the required services would be accomplished through coordinating the
resources and services provided by entities other than the prime Contractor, the quotation must explicitly indicate how the Contractor will ensure that the "Contractor Requirements" will be fulfilled.)	
 	

X	
 	

B, B.1—B.16
	

 	

C.	

In light of the "Statement of Purpose" in the SOW, present a detailed narrative describing the Offeror's overall vision for future management of the usTLD, including how the Offeror proposes to make the usTLD more attractive and useful to United
States Internet users and the Offeror's expectations for the number of potential usTLD registrants.	
 	

X	
 	

C
	

 	

D.	

Describe any services or functions, if any, the Offeror proposes to perform as part of usTLD management in addition to those listed in the SOW.	
 	

X	
 	

D
	

 	

E.	

Demonstrate clearly, concisely and accurately, in written narrative form, the Offeror's understanding of the current state of the usTLD domain space.	
 	

X	
 	

E
	

 	

F.	

Describe, for the SOW requirement related to the development of a database of usTLD delegated managers, and the development of registrant WHOIS databases (both for the locality-based usTLD structure and the expanded usTLD space) how the Offeror would
collect the necessary information and the technical and operational specifications of the databases.	
 	

X	
 	

F, B.2.4,B.2.5
	

 	

G.	

Include a proposed draft of any contract(s) that the Offeror proposes to use between itself, as Contractor, and usTLD delegated managers (which may include "flow through" registration agreements to be used by locality-based usTLD registrants)
considered necessary to ensure the stable operation of the locality-based usTLD structure and implement necessary policies. Note: The content of the final version of all such contract(s) must be approved by the Contracting Officer before use by the
Contractor in performance of the resultant purchase order.	
 	

X	
 	

G
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

H.	

Include a proposed draft of any contract(s) that the Offeror proposes to use between itself, as Contractor, and expanded usTLD registrars to ensure the stable operation of the expanded usTLD and implement the necessary policies (which may include
shared registration system license agreements, registrar accreditation agreements, and registrant agreements). Note: The content of the final version of all such contract(s) must be approved by the Contracting Officer before those contract(s) may be
used by the Contractor in performance of the resultant purchase order;	
 	

X	
 	

H
	

 	

I.	

Include written policies (including implementation details) that the Offeror proposes to follow, as Contractor, during the start-up phase of registrations in the usTLD. Such description must include the following considerations:	
 	

X	
 	

I, B.3.1,B.3.3, B.3.5
	

 	

 	

1.	

How the Offeror would design and implement the "Sunrise Policy" that permits qualified trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names in the expanded usTLD space prior to the opening of the expanded usTLD space to wider
registration.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

2.	

How the Offeror would implement a uniform domain name dispute resolution procedure intended to resolve disputes arising from "cybersquatting" applicable to the usTLD (such policy is intended to be modeled upon the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Procedure, consistent with modifications necessary for such a policy to be applicable to the usTLD specifically. Offeror should propose necessary modifications).	
 	

X	
 	

I, B.3.1, B.3.3, B.3.5
	

 	

 	

3.	

How the Offeror proposes to implement and enforce the United States nexus requirement intended to preserve the usTLD for use by the community of United States Internet users.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

4.	

Describe any proposed additional, alternative, or supplemental policies or programs the Offeror considers relevant and essential towards the locality-based usTLD space or the expanded usTLD space.	
 	

 	
 	

 

	

 	

Offerors should also describe additional procedures that address other considerations than those listed above that they consider relevant to their quotation.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

J.	

Address the following considerations in the description of the registration process:	
 	

X	
 	

J
	

 	

 	

1.	

How the Offeror proposes to address the potential initial "rush" for registrations at the opening of the expanded usTLD space.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

2.	

Describe the proposed application process for potential registrants;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

3.	

Describe the proposed mechanisms for ensuring that registrants meet registration requirements;	
 	

X	
 	

J
	

 	

 	

4.	

Describe any proposed appeal process that could be used by the applicant as a result of Contractor denial of registration.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

5.	

Describe any proposed procedure that would permit third parties to seek cancellation of a registration for failure to comply with restrictions imposed by the Contractor.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

K. Describe in detail the proposed mechanisms and community outreach plans for coordinating the current locality-based usTLD users and the mechanism by which the public can suggest or recommend additional policys or procedures for the
usTLD.	
 	

X	
 	

K, B.3.5
	

 	

L.	

Describe, in detail, how the Contractor would fund the requirements of this acquisition at no cost to the United States Government.	
 	

X	
 	

L
	

 	

M.	

Project/estimate and explain annual Contractor costs for this acquisition in such a way to permit the Government to match those costs to specific SOW Contractor Requirements.	
 	

X	
 	

M
	

 	

N.	

Include detailed proposed financial plans, including, if appropriate, the manner in which fees levied for services rendered by the Contractor would be derived, considering cost plus a fair and reasonable profit.	
 	

X	
 	

N
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

O.	

Describe, in detail, the technical facilities, equipment, software, hardware, and related technology that the Offeror would use to meet the requirements of this acquisition.	
 	

X	
 	

O
	

 	

P.	

Include no more than five past performance references for other efforts similar in scope to this acquisition that were either (a) completed by the Offeror (either as a prime Contractor or as a first-tier subcontractor) in the past five years or (b)
currently in process. For each past performance reference, include the following information:	
 	

X	
 	

P
	

 	

 	

1.	

Contract Number/Purchase Order Number;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

2.	

Duration of the Contract/Purchase Order;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

3.	

Dollar Value of Contract/Purchase Order (Broken Down on a Per-Year Basis, if Applicable);	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

4.	

Contract type of Contract/Purchase Order (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, fixed-price with economic price adjustment);	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

5.	

Name and Mailing Address of Customer Organization;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

6.	

Technical Point of Contact at Customer Organization for the Contract/Purchase Order, including Phone Number, Fax Number and Email Address;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

7.	

Information Noted in I.4 above for an Alternate Customer Organization Point of Contact; and	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

8.	

Detailed Description of the Effort Performed by the Contractor/Subcontractor under the Contract/Purchase Order. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a site visit to the Offeror's facility(ies) may also be requested and conducted by DOC
personnel involved in this acquisition. The purpose of this visit would be to gather information relevant to the Offeror's submitted quotation. The Contracting Officer would arrange such a visit at least seven days in advance with the
Offeror.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

Q.	

Describe, in detail, proposed performance measures that will provide accurate indicators of the Contractors progress under the project and assessment of services offered	
 	

X	
 	

Q
	

 	

R.	

Include a completed copy of "Offeror Representations and Certifications" from this solicitation.	
 	

X	
 	

R
	

 	

S.	

The Offeror's Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. (See FAR 52.204-6 on page 16 of this solicitation.)	
 	

X	
 	

S
	
Evaluation Criteria for Award	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

A quotation will only be considered if it is submitted by an organization that is (a) incorporated within one of the fifty states of the United States of America or the District of Columbia or (b) organized under a law of a state of the United States
of America. The Contractor must have a physical address within the United States of America or the District of Columbia and must be able to demonstrate that all primary registry services will remain within the United States of America (including the
District of Columbia).	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

The Government will evaluate quotations submitted in response to this acquisition for services and will award a purchase order to the technically acceptable, responsible Offeror whose quotation represents the best value. Technical excellence and
comprehensiveness of the overall service for usTLD operation is significantly more important than proposed price(s) to.us registrants. The evaluated price for all quotations, in terms of the price paid by the Government, will be $0.00. This
acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures. Under FAR Part 13, solicitations are not required to state the relative order of importance assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, nor are they
required to include subfactors. The evaluation factors are listed below.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

Technical excellence and comprehensiveness of the offered service—For this factor, the Government will evaluate responses to items A through O and item Q in the "INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS."	
 	

N/A	
 	

Information Only
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	

 	

•	

Past performance information—For this factor, the Government will evaluate information obtained from past performance references provided by the Offeror in their quotation in response to item "P" in the "INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS"
section of the solicitation, as well as any other relevant past performance information that the Government obtains about the Offeror from other sources;	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

•	

Reasonableness of proposed price(s) to.us registrants. For this factor, the Government will determine whether the proposed price(s) to the registrants are fair and reasonable considering the level of service(s) to be provided to the.us
registrants.	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	

 	

For the purposes of this solicitation, "best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. In this solicitation, the term "best value"
is not meant to imply that a specific tradeoff process (as described in FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation) will be used by the Government. This acquisition is being conducted under FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition
Procedures.	
 	

 	
 	

 

QuickLinks

ORDER FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS OF OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING QUOTATIONS

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

usTLD Undelegated Name Policy (Interim)

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT USTLD RESERVED NAME REGISTRATION PROCESS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT VALIDATED DOMAIN REGISTRATION PROCESS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION OF CONTRACT

APPENDIX 1 VALIDATED DOMAIN REGISTRATION PROCESS

APPENDIX 2 USTLD FEDERAL RESERVE NAME ALLOCATION PROCESS

APPENDIX 3 PRICING

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

usTLD Federal, State and Local Name Request Registration Process

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

SF 30 Continuation of Block Narrative

Schedule

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Schedule

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

SF 30 Continuation of Block Narrative

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

usTLD ADMINISTRATOR CODE OF CONDUCT

usTLD Dispute-Resolution Policies

usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy

Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules")

HIGHLIGHTS

Whois Information Under the usTLD

usTLD ADMINISTRATOR-DELEGATED MANAGER AGREEMENT

Exhibit A Delegated Manager Tool Kit

Exhibit B Engineering and Customer Service Support

Exhibit C usTLD Administrator's Operational Standards, Policies, Procedures, and Practices

Exhibit D Registration Fees

usTLD ADMINISTRATOR-REGISTRAR AGREEMENT

Exhibit A REGISTRAR TOOL KIT

Exhibit B ENGINEERING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPPORT

Exhibit C ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT

Registrar Accreditation Agreement

EXHIBIT D POLICY ON TRANSFER OF SPONSORSHIP OF REGISTRATIONS BETWEEN NON-SPONSORING REGISTRARS

Exhibit E USTLD ADMINISTRATOR'S OPERATIONAL STANDARDS, POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES

Exhibit F REGISTRATION FEES

Exhibit G PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Exhibit H SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT

CREDIT LOOKUP MATRIX

Table C1a

Table C1b

Table C2

Table C3

Table C4a

Table C4b

REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS OF OFFERORS

Source: [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00086-of-00352.parquet"}, [{"source": "alea-institute/alea-institute/kl3m-data-edgar-agreements/train-00086-of-00352.parquet"}]]