AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

02 May 2019

Proposed Renewal of .org Registry Agreement

Note: Extension for submission granted to 02 May, immediately after CPWG meeting. See ALAC Statement on Registry Agreements.

Other - Statement now being considered under a new wiki workspace: 

ALAC Statement on Registry Agreement Renewals .org, .biz and .info

Russ Weinstein
globalsupport@icann.org

Hide the information below, please click here 

Brief Overview

Purpose: The purpose of this public comment proceeding is to obtain community input on the .org renewal agreement. The proposed .org renewal agreement is the result of discussions between ICANN and Public Interest Registry, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation – the Registry Operator for the .org top-level domain (TLD).

Current Status: The current .org Registry Agreement (herein referred to as "current .org agreement") will expire on 30 June 2019. Section 4.2 of the current .org agreement provides that it shall be renewed upon the expiration of the initial term set forth in Section 4.1.

Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, ICANN will prepare and publish a summary and analysis of the comments received. The report will be available for the ICANNBoard in its consideration of the proposed .org renewal agreement.

Section I: Description and Explanation

The .org renewal agreement is based on the base generic top level domain (gTLD) Registry Agreement updated on 31 July 2017 (herein referred to as "base registry agreement"). However, in order to account for the specific nature of the .org TLD, relevant provisions in the current .org agreement have been carried over to the .org renewal agreement.

As a result, the .org renewal agreement is substantially similar to the terms of the base registry agreement. Listed below are summaries of both a) provisions in the renewal agreement that are materially different from the current .org agreement, and b) material differences between the .org renewal agreement and the base registry agreement.

  1. Provisions in the proposed .org renewal agreement that are materially different from the current .org registry agreement:
    • Approved Services (Exhibit A): Consistent with all new gTLDs and other "legacy" TLD registry agreement renewals, Exhibit A has been modified to include the following additional or modified approved services: Anti-Abuse, Searchable Whois, Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), .org Single and Two-Character Phased Allocation Program, Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTAPPA), Registry Lock, and an implementation period of 270 calendar days to transition all systems to the requirements of the .org renewal agreement, which is consistent with other legacy TLD registry agreement renewals.
    • Protection of Legal Rights of Third Parties and Minimum Requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms (Section 2.8 and Specification 7 of the proposed renewal agreement): To better conform with the base registry agreement, the .org renewal agreement will be subject to the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) set forth in section 2 of Specification 7, including the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system, the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP), and the Registration Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP). Public Interest Registry is also authorized to develop additional rights protection mechanisms. Section 2.8 of the .org renewal agreement also does not contemplate processes and procedures for launch of the TLD as is consistent with other legacy TLD registry agreement renewals.
    • Public Interest Commitments (Section 2.17 and Specification 11 of the proposed renewal agreement): The Registry Operator has adopted the public interest commitments and applicability of the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP) comparable to new gTLD operators (with the exception of Specification 11 Section 2, which refers to the initial application for the gTLD).
    • Pricing for Domain Name Registrations and Registry Services (Section 2.10 of the proposed renewal agreement): In alignment with the base registry agreement, the price cap provisions in the current .org agreement, which limited the price of registrations and allowable price increases for registrations, are removed from the .org renewal agreement. Protections for existing registrants will remain in place, in line with the base registry agreement. This change will not only allow the .org renewal agreement to better conform with the base registry agreement, but also takes into consideration the maturation of the domain name market and the goal of treating the Registry Operator equitably with registry operators of new gTLDs and other legacy gTLDs utilizing the base registry agreement
    • Fees to be paid to ICANN org (Section 6.1 of the proposed renewal agreement): The .org renewal agreement has been modified to match the fee provisions in the base registry agreement. Accordingly, the registry fixed fee of $6,250 per calendar quarter is proposed for the .org TLD beginning on the .org renewal agreement effective date. The registry-level transaction fee remains at $0.25 for each annual increment of an initial or renewal domain name registration.
    • Misc. Provisions: Various other provisions have been modified, at the request of the Registry Operator and after bilateral negotiations with Registry Operator, to align with terms previously included in the current .org agreement.
  2. Material differences between the proposed renewal agreement for .org and the base gTLD Registry Agreement:
    • Registry Interoperability and Continuity (Section 2.7 and Specification 6 of the base gTLD Registry Agreement): Section 6 of Specification 6 of the base gTLDregistry agreement (Name Collision Occurrence Management) will not apply to the .org TLD as it has been in operation since 1985. This is consistent with other legacy TLD registry agreement renewals.
    • Emergency Transition (Section 2.13 and 2.14 of the proposed renewal agreement) and Continued Operations Instrument (Section 2.12 and Specification 8 of the base gTLD Registry Agreement): In alignment with the base registry agreement, the .org renewal agreement will continue to incorporate the registrant protection provision allowing ICANN to designate an emergency interim registry operator if emergency thresholds for registry functions are reached. However, the Continued Operations Instrument requirement will not apply to the .org TLD as it has been in continuous operation since 1985. As a result, provisions in Section 4.3(b) and (c) of the base registry agreement (Termination by ICANN) are not applicable to the .org TLD and, therefore, not included. This is consistent with other legacy TLDs who have adopted the Emergency Transition provisions.
    • Pass Through Fees related to the Trademark Clearinghouse (Section 6.4 of the base gTLD Registry Agreement): This requirement will not apply to the .org TLDas it has been in continuous operation since 1985. As a result, provisions in Section 6.4 of the base registry agreement are not applicable to the .org TLD and, therefore, are of no force of effect. This is consistent with other legacy TLD registry agreement renewals.
    • Schedule of Reserved Names (Specification 5 of the base gTLD Registry Agreement): The .org renewal agreement amends Section 2 of Specification 5 (Two-Character ASCII Labels) allowing the Registry Operator to allocate two-character labels that were reserved in prior registry agreements. The allocation of two-character labels is subject to the Registration Policy and Post Registrations Complaint Investigation provisions in Appendix A of the Authorization for Release of Letter/Letter Two-Character ASCII Labels at The Second Level issued to all new gTLD registry operators on 13 December 2016. Additionally, the provision on the Registry Operator's use of up to 100 names for the operation and promotion of the TLD (Section 3.2) and the provisions on activation of names relating to International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Section 5) and names relating to Intergovernmental Organizations Section 6) are of no force or effect in the .org renewal agreement.
    • Misc. Provisions: Various other provisions have been modified to remove references to the initial delegation of the TLD, entry into the root zone, statements made in the registry TLD application, and launch of the TLD, as they are not applicable to a legacy TLD.

Posted for public comment are both clean and "redline" versions of the .org renewal agreement, and the Addendum to the Registry Agreement that is proposed to be executed by the parties as follows:

Contractual Compliance Review: As part of the renewal process, ICANN conducted a contractual compliance review of the current .org agreement. Public Interest Registry was found to be in compliance with its contractual requirements for the operation of the .org TLD.

Section II: Background

ICANN and Public Interest Registry, a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, entered into a TLDRegistry Agreement on 2 December 2002 for continued operation of the .org top level domain, which was subsequently renewed on 8 December 2006 and 22 August 2013.

In addition to the .org renewal agreement, the registry agreements of several "legacy" gTLDs, namely, .tel, .mobi, .jobs, .travel, .cat and .pro have been renewed based on the base registry agreement as a result of bilateral negotiations between ICANN and the applicable registry operators. These renewed agreements can be viewed at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en.

Section III: Relevant Resources



Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

*24 April 2019 - Gregory Shatan

ALAC Statement on the Proposed Renewal of the .ORG, .BIZ, .INFO and .ASIA Registry Agreements

17 April 2019:

7 Comments

  1. George Kirikos

    From: George Kirikos

    See comments in the discussion held with Glenn, Jonathan and Eduardo last week. Briefly, the URS represents a top-down imposition of new policy, without regards to the bottom-up multi-stakeholder. The RPM PDP working group is reviewing the URS, and one of the key questions is whether or not it should become consensus policy applicable to legacy TLDs. ICANN staff should not be predetermining that outcome by imposing it in contracts negotiated directly with registry operators. As for the pricing issue, those registries can already raise fees by 10% annually, and under a tender process the fees would be below USD $1/yr per domain (e.g. the .in ccTLD had a tender, and the fees were 70 cents/domain/year). Legacy gTLDs are inherently different than new gTLDs, and should not be treated the same with regards to the unlimited fee increases permitted in new gTLD registries (whose registries were bought and paid for). I also agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the Internet Commerce Association, as expressed in a recent letter. These comments are applicable to all 4 registry contracts that are open for public comment (.org, .biz, .info and .asia).


  2. Judith Hellerstein

    George writes that the Proposed .org Renewal Agreement includes Uniform Rapid Suspension (“URS”) when there is currently a discussion going on in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group  on whether the URS should become a Consensus Policy. The question then becomes whether there is any point in continuing to engage in the established “bottom-up multi-stakeholder model” when in the end this process will be ignored by ICANN Legal and the URS will be mandated.

    George suggests that dispute resolutions should not only be in English. It should be in the language of the dispute filed.

  3. Judith Hellerstein

    One thought is to add a requirement to ensure that all domains will work with universal acceptance.

  4. Judith Hellerstein

    George is also very concerned about the price hikes listed in this agreement and thinks that the previous price caps should be continued. 

  5. Judith Hellerstein

    I think that the standardization of all the contracts is a good thing since it allows for transparency and predictability and makes it easier for the community as they only have to focus on one contract instead of many contracts.

  6. Gregory Shatan

    Adding the URS to the .org Registry Agreement is not a "top-down imposition of new policy."  It's not "new policy" at all.  Registries are free to enter into bilateral Registry Agreements that include additional RPMs.  The URS has been added to prior renewal RAs without objection by ALAC.  I understand that the Internet Commerce Association, which represents domain investors, is fiercely opposed to the URS, and this has been their consistent position for the last several years. They have stated this in response to each RA renewal public comment period.  However, ALAC has not opposed the addition of the URS to Registry Agreement renewals, nor has it been opposed to the URS in general.  This is consistent with the interests of end-users, who benefit from the existence of the URS.

    This does not usurp the multistakeholder process, either.  If the RPM WG makes policy recommendations regarding the URS, which are approved by the GNSO Council, these will almost certainly be adopted as policy, and the Registry Agreements revised to reflect it.  The issue of whether the URS should be consensus policy has been a relatively small part of the overall work of the RPM WG, though it is not an unimportant question.  There's no basis for claiming that this process will be ignored by ICANN Legal, which is not the arbiter of such things, anyway.  There's no reason to cast this as an imposition on multistakeholder policy-making, much less a death knell.

  7. Gregory Shatan

    Uncapped pricing is a more nuanced issue.  ALAC has not objected to the base Registry Agreement, or to its use in prior renewals. ALAC did express concern about the 10% price cap in the latest .NET renewal, although this was not a new proposal, but rather a feature of prior .NET agreements.  On the one hand, the possibility of significant price increases for domain names cannot be ignored.  On the other hand, it shouldn't be exaggerated, as ICA does.  The mission of Public Interest Registry should provide considerable comfort in this regard, which is not available for .biz or .info.