How NIXI’s Decision for top level domain

NIXI’s justification for 2 domains per person? National Security

In December 2021, NIXI published an undated notice stating that if any entity wants to register for more than two [dot]in domains, they’ll have to seek written permission from the NIXI CEO. In our RTI request, NIXI responded by stating that the notice was issued for “national security”.

tl;dr

Remember NIXI’s two-domain per-person policy? The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) is the nodal authority for [dot]in domains in India. In December 2021, NIXI published an undated notice stating that if any entity wants to register for more than two of India’s Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) – [dot]in domains, they’ll have to seek written permission from the NIXI CEO. In our RTI request on this notice, NIXI responded with an incomplete response stating that the notice was issued for “national security”. Go figure.

Background

NIXI is a government not-for-profit organization, established in 2003 under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013. One of its key tasks is to set up domestic Network Operation Centers (NOCs) among Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to enable the routing of domestic interest traffic within the country instead of re-routing via NOCs abroad. It results in reduced bandwidth charges for the ISPs and also provides better quality of service due to reduced latency.

NIXI has been authorized as the.IN Registry by the Government of India, since January 2005. The.IN domain names are available to anyone on a first-come-first-served basis. However, in an undated notice published on its website in December 2021, NIXI said that in case an individual registrant submits a request for registering more than two ccTLDs or if a registered accredited company requests for more than a hundred ccTLDs, then written approval of the CEO, NIXI is required.

We asked they refused

After the NIXI order was brought to our notice, we filed an RTI request with them seeking further clarifications and demanding transparency on how permission would be granted for more than two [dot]in domains.

We requested the following information from NIXI:

Request 1: Please provide information regarding the legislation or the power under which the policy changes to seek permission for domain registration after two successful registrations have been notified.

NIXI’s response:

“The new policy is as per the powers available with the Registry under the Registry-Registrar Agreement. (Clause no 9.19).”

Clause 9.19 of the Registry-Registrar Accreditation Agreement states

“9.19 Amendments: This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Notwithstanding anything mentioned here above, IN Registry at its discretion may post/publish new or amended Policies and/or Advisories on the Registry Website from time to time and the Registrar accepts that by virtue of their publication on such a website the Registrar shall deemed to have notice of such new or amended Policies and/or Advisories.”

It defies legal understanding as to how a contractual agreement can empower NIXI to exercise such powers. Clearly, Clause 9.19 can reserve such powers, however, it cannot by itself create them.

Request 2: Please provide information on whether any legal opinion was sought from the Ministry of Law or any other Ministry for the change in policy.

NIXI’s response: “The above decision is taken with respect to National Security.”

Request 3: Please provide information with regard to whether any meetings were conducted to discuss the change in policy. If yes, please provide a list of individuals/ organizations who were a part of those meetings as well as the minutes of the meetings.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

Request 4: Please provide information with regard to whether any third-party consultations were sought for the change in policy. If yes, please provide information with regard to the basis on which these third parties were selected.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

Request 5: Please provide a copy of all documents related to the queries herein specifically any legal opinions, minutes of meetings, and reports related to the change in policy.

NIXI’s response: [no response given]

NIXI refused to provide a response to our request numbers 3, 4, and 5 which is against the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005.

Illegal response

The decision of the PIO, NIXI to decline information without giving proper justification under the RTI, Act 2005 is also in contravention of the Central Information Commission’s decision in CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated July 7, 2006. In this case, the CIC held that:

“Through this Order, the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”

Further, the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, in its judgment in Deputy Commissioner of Police v/s D K Sharma [W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009], dated 15-12-2010 held that:

“6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act.”

Further, S.8(2) of the RTI Act provides that

“Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”

Since our request for information was aimed at furthering public interests and increasing transparency in decision-making, we requested the legal basis of the order, any legal opinion sought, consultations received or requested, and minutes of meetings in which such a decision was taken. However, declining access to such information indicates a lack of transparency on the part of PIO, NIXI.

Challenges

The reasons for mandating written approval of the CEO, of NIXI have not been stated in the original notice published on its website. Further, in response to our RTI request, the PIO has merely stated that [the] “above decision is taken with respect to National Security.” Repeating “national security” as a mantra to defeat transparency, even when not probably emerging from the topic of policy formation, is a growing tendency in decision-making.

Further, the PIO has declined our request for access to documentation of the meetings in which such a decision was taken. There is also a lack of clarity on the grounds on which the approval request may be granted or denied. The notice merely mentions that “approval of CEO, NIXI will be provided within 24 hours of submission of the request irrespective of weekly off/ holiday.”

In absence of a written procedure developed without consultation with stakeholders in a non-transparent way indicates public disinterest on the part of NIXI. Further, attempts to thwart information sought through right-to-information requests harm the spirit of the RTI Act, of 2005. We have filed a first appeal against the response received to seek clarifications and further transparency in public interests.

ICANN has received a request to redelegate the.IN domain, a country-code top-level domain representing India, to the National Internet Exchange of India. ICANN Staff have assessed the request and provided this report for the ICANN Board of Directors to consider.

Factual Information

Country

The “IN” ISO 3166-1 code is designated for use to represent India, a country located in Asia with a population of approximately 1.2 billion people.

Chronology of events

The.IN domain was initially delegated in the DNS root zone in 1989. The current sponsoring organization is the National Centre for Software Technology (NCST).

In 2002, NCST was merged into the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a scientific research and development institution of the Ministry of Information Technology. No application was made to ICANN to transfer operations.IN to this new entity.

In September 2004, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) received a presentation by Shri R.K. Arora of the Department of Information Technology. They were advised the Department was revamping the.IN Registry by way of bringing necessary policy changes to making the domain name registration system “liberal, efficient and market-friendly”. The minutes of the meeting concluded:

In this context, a Committee consisting of representatives of [the Department], ERNET and NIC went into the details and brought out a report which comprised the following for setting up a new policy framework and implementation plan for .IN Network Information Centre (INNIC):

• major policy elements for .IN registration
• institutional framework for INNIC
• implementation mechanisms for INNIC

It has been decided with the approval of Competent Authority to entrust the responsibility of setting up INNIC for carrying out .IN Registry operation to NIXI Noida as an appropriate organization to deal with this Internet business.

Accordingly, NIXI will set up INNIC at the current premises of STPI Noida where NIXI already has its Internet Exchange point.

On 30 September 2004, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) passed the resolution:

Pursuant to Section 17 and other applicable provisions, if any, of the Companies Act 1956 and subject to confirmation fot he Company Law Board, and the Member of the Company, the main Object Clause of the Memorandum and Article of Association be and is hereby altered by adding the following new Clause after the existing Clause III (A) (4):

To carry on Internet domain name registry operations and related activities.

On 20 November 2004, the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology issued an order that the Department “designates and appoints National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) as . IN Registry for . IN country code top-level domain name”.

NIXI made an announcement on 22 August 2005.IN domain registrations advising “The Government of India has decided that C-DAC will cease providing.IN domain name services on November 30, 2005. C-DAC was the.IN domain registry operator until December 30, 2004, when NIXI took over as the new registry operator.”

By January 2006, C-DAC continued to take responsibility for the.IN domain but no longer had any direct operational role.

In January 2009, C-DAC wrote to ICANN advising that NCST was no longer in existence and had been superseded by C-DAC, and that with effect of 1st January 2005.I had been transferred to NIXI. ICANN responded by advising of the requirements of the redelegation procedure, as well as asking what the relationship between NIXI and C-DAC was in order to identify if the change could be considered non-substantive.

On 18 September 2009, a redelegation request was submitted to ICANN requesting the redelegation of the.IN domain to NIXI.

Proposed Sponsoring Organisation and Contacts

The proposed sponsoring organization is the National Internet Exchange of India, an incorporated company under Indian law. Its registered office is at Incube Business Centre, 5th floor, 18 Nehru Place, New Delhi, India.

The proposed administrative contact is Rajiv Kumar. The administrative contact is understood to be resident in India.

The proposed technical contact is Howard Eland.

Evaluation of the Request

String Eligibility

The top-level domain “IN” is eligible for delegation under ICANN policy, as it is the assigned ISO 3166-1 two-letter code representing the country India.

Public Interest

Demonstrations of significant community deliberation or consultation concerning the transfer of operations from NCST to NIXI in 2004 have not been provided. The transfer was made by decree by the Department of Information Technology. In association with this 2009 request, two organisations — the Internet Services Providers Association of India, and the Cyber Café Association of India, have written contemporary support of the transfer.

The government has been consulted in this process, and consents to the transfer. The current sponsoring organization is an entity of the government, and the government chairs the private-sector organization that is proposed to be the sponsoring organization.

The application is consistent with known applicable local laws within India.

The applicant undertakes to operate the domain in a fair and equitable manner, through a policy that is published on its website.

Operation of the sponsoring organization is overseen by its Board of Directors comprised of the Chairman, the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology; two additional members from the Department; 10 representatives of Internet Service Providers; and one representative from the Indian Institute of Technology.

Based in country

The proposed sponsoring organization is constituted in India. The proposed administrative contact is understood to be resident in India.

Stability

An unauthorized transfer of registry operations, absent completion of the redelegation process, has already been conducted. The transfer between NCST and NIXI occurred in January 2005. As a result, there are no foreseen transfer issues as the de facto operator is already NIXI.

The transfer is deemed uncontested, with the legal successor to the current sponsoring organization consenting to the change.

Competency

For the reasons stated above, the.IN registry has already been operational with NIXI for some time. NIXI is comprised of 13 staff, with registry operations provided by Afilias, a registry services provider that provides service to a number of other top-level domains.

Evaluation Procedure

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is tasked with managing the Domain Name System root zone as part of a set of functions governed by a contract with the U.S. Government.

A subset of top-level domains are designated for the local Internet communities in countries to operate in a way that best suits their local needs. These are known as country-code top-level domains and are assigned by ICANN to responsible trustees (known as “Sponsoring Organisations”) who meet a number of public-interest criteria for eligibility. These criteria largely relate to the level of support the trustee has from their local Internet community, their capacity to ensure stable operation of the domain and their applicability under any relevant local laws.

Through an ICANN department known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), requests are received for delegating new country-code top-level domains and redelegating or revoking existing country-code top-level domains. An investigation is performed on the circumstances pertinent to those requests, and, when appropriate, the requests are implemented. Decisions on whether to implement requests are made by the ICANN Board of Directors, taking into account ICANN’s core mission of ensuring the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems.

Purpose of evaluations

The evaluation of eligibility for country-code top-level domains, and of evaluating responsible trustees charged with operating them, is guided by a number of principles. The objective of the principles is to ensure the secure and stable operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. The evolution of the principles has been documented in “Domain Name System Structure and Delegation” (RFC 1591), “Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation” (ICP-1), and other informational memoranda.

In considering requests to delegate or redelegate country-code top-level domains, input is sought regarding the proposed new Sponsoring Organisation, as well as from persons and organizations that may be significantly affected by the change, particularly those within the nation or territory to which the ccTLD is designated.

The assessment is focused on the capacity of the proposed sponsoring organization to meet the following criteria:

• The domain should be operated within the country, including having its sponsoring organization and administrative contact based in the country.
• The domain should be operated in a way that is fair and equitable to all groups in the local Internet community.
• Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the prospective trustee is the appropriate party to be responsible for the domain, with the desires of the national government taken very seriously.
• The domain must be operated competently, both technically and operationally. Management of the domain should adhere to relevant technical standards and community best practices.
• Risks to the stability of the Internet addressing system must be adequately considered and addressed, particularly with regard to how existing identifiers will continue to function.

Method of evaluation

To assess these criteria, information is requested from the applicant regarding the proposed sponsoring organization and method of operation. In summary, a request template is sought to specify the exact details of the delegation being sought in the root zone. In addition, various documentation is sought describing: the views of the local internet community on the application; the competencies and skills of the trustee to operate the domain; the legal authenticity, status, and character of the proposed trustee; and the nature of government support for the proposal. The view of any current trustee is obtained, and in the event of a redelegation, the transfer plan from the previous sponsoring organization to the new sponsoring organization is also assessed with a view to ensuring the ongoing stable operation of the domain.

After receiving this documentation and input, it is analyzed in relation to existing root zone management procedures, seeking input from parties both related to as well as independent of the proposed sponsoring organization should the information provided in the original application be deficient. The applicant is given the opportunity to cure any deficiencies before a final assessment is made.

Various technical checks are also performed on the proposed sponsoring organization’s DNS infrastructure to ensure name servers are properly configured and are able to respond to queries for the top-level domain being requested. Should any anomalies be detected, IANA staff will work with the applicant to address the issues.

Assuming all issues are resolved, an assessment is compiled providing all relevant details regarding the proposed sponsoring organization and its suitability to operate the top-level domain being requested. This assessment is submitted to ICANN’s Board of Directors for its determination on whether to proceed with the request.

NIXI’s Decision on Indian Domain

NEW DELHI, INDIA – In a surprising move that has left investors and domain resellers in disbelief, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), the official registrar of Indian domains, decided to eliminate the potential for investment associated with .in domain names.

Unrest in India as the Value of .in Domain Resales Takes a Dive.

The sudden pronouncement had a massive impact, with masses rallying in the streets against it.

Venture Loses High-Income Status

Savvy domain investors have profited by flipping .in names for almost two decades. NIXI’s resolution regarding .in domains endangers Indian domain traders’ profiteering goals.

The story going public exposes public address systems to Bollywood tunes, amplifying energy levels at rallies and shifting protests into celebrations. Turbaned groups in multiple hues can be seen on street demonstrations captured by TV cameras using drone technology.

“Domain reselling was our livelihood. It was akin to unearthing digital gold,” expresses a crestfallen Rajesh’  Momo’ Kumar, a domain investor with a considerable portfolio of valuable .in domains listed for sale on GoDaddy. “Now, it feels as if our rights are being ripped away. It’s tantamount to depriving a South Indian of their beloved masala dosa!”

“Now, it feels as if our rights are being ripped away. It’s tantamount to depriving a South Indian of their beloved masala dosa!”

Rajesh Kumar

India’s Future Economy: Analysis of the Impact

Indian technocrats argue that limiting access to .in domains solely for private or commercial purposes might negatively impact India’s financial prospects and economic growth potential. They contend that this action suppresses the entrepreneurial drive, strengthening India’s domain market.

Amid ongoing protests, is there a chance for resolution or further alternative exploration from domain traders and NIXI itself?

About NIXI and its Policies

Founded under section 8 of the Companies Act 2013, NIXI is a non-profit organization that started on June 19, 2003. The Government of India has empowered NIXI as the.IN Registry since January 2005. India’s.IN domain names, the country’s top-level internet domain is now open for anyone to register on a first-come, first-served basis.

Uncertainly, .IN has a unique role of representation for India in the global assembly. NIXI follows Indian government policies for managing the IN Registry.

The Registrar Accreditation Agreement mandates that registrars must forgo squatting, grabbing, hoarding, infringing upon, auctioning, and drop-catching.IN domain names and avoid high prices. Any engagement leads to the suspension of accreditation, financial penalties, and legal consequences according to Indian laws.

In none of the Terms and Conditions for Registrants, is there any reference to protecting already registered domain names from being auctioned or sold at inflated prices. Though illegal and unfair trade practices regarding.IN/BHARAT domain names are present. NIXI proposed an amendment to include both the Registrant and Registrar in the respective policies and RAA to combat these issues.

Detailed Insight into Future Possibilities

The restriction of .in domains to food, film, and cricket sites might have unexpected consequences. This barrier hinders innovation and shrinks the possibilities available in the Indian digital ecosystem. Until recently, the system was known for its flexibility and inclusion, providing a space for different types of businesses and allowing for innovative expression.

Looking ahead, it seems likely that the Indian digital investment landscape will experience substantial transformation owing to these developments. Domainers and digital entrepreneurs will start to explore opportunities beyond traditional domain reselling. This might increase interest in digital assets such as cryptocurrency and NFTs, which have been profitable in other regions.

Additionally, these changes might cause a reconsideration of regulatory policies. The top-level domain industry and the broader digital community could push for a more flexible and comprehensive domain policy. As evidenced by these protests, a solid public feeling may lead to changes in the regulatory framework.

Adversity offers a chance for growth and change. The diversity and strength of the Indian digital world will play a vital role in managing these emerging regulations. Viewing the influence of these rules on India’s digital investment and entrepreneur ecosystem will be captivating.

The digital world constantly sees change, a testament to the age-old adage. How we respond and adapt to these changes will shape the future of the Indian domaining market.

FAQS