Page History
- Category: gTLD gTLDs
- Topic: GNSO Recommendations on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs (PDP-Feb06)
- Board meeting date: 23 January 2008
- Resolution number: 2008.01.02
- URL for Board minutes/resolution: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-23jan08.htm
- Status: Completed
Summary
The Board accepted the accepts the GNSO's recommendations on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and directed directs staff to implement the recommendations as outlined in the Council Report to the Board for PDP Feb-06.
Text
Whereas, at its meeting on 9 August 2007, the GNSO Council voted by a supermajority in favor of the recommendations set forth in the GNSO's Final Report on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs (PDP Feb-06).
...
- ICANN to implement recommendations as outlined in the Council Report to the Board for PDP Feb-06.
- Responsible entity: gTLD Registry Liaison
- Due date: as soon as possible after Board approvalNone provided
- Completion date: As noted below in Additional Information, implementation of recommendations does not impose new obligations directly on its contracted parties, but rather proposes operational steps to be taken by ICANN. The operational steps to be taken by ICANN have largely been incorporated to the proposed base registry agreement for new gTLDs that is currently under development in the new gTLD program. 28 May 2010
Other Related Resolutions
- Other resolutions TBD.
Additional Information
Kurt Pritz indicated that this policy recommendation by the GNSO Council regarding gTLD contractual conditions proposes operational steps to be taken by ICANN, and does not impose new obligations directly on its contracted parties. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the policy recommendations. This PDP arose out of discussions surrounding the .com negotiations. Originally, the PDP intended to address the .com registry agreement. Kurt reported that the General Counsel advised that a PDP on one single contract was not an appropriate subject for a policy development effort by the GNSO according to the bylaws so the focus was changed to undertake an analysis of the terms of all registry agreements. Ten policy recommendations were made as a result of the PDP. Staff supports the recommendations which tend to: follow the new gTLD policy recommendations for base contracts, recommend study by ICANN or the GNSO on certain issues, or recommend maintaining certain terms in existing agreements.
The Chair noted that this discussion is the result of work, which started in January two years ago. He asked if staff were able to detect if there were any problems with the recommendations, bearing in mind that the registry constituency has always been opposed to the terms of reference, and whether there is any aspect the Board that the Board should particularly note. He also asked that if the Board accepts the policy recommendations, if there will be opposition from the gTLD registry constituency.
Denise Michel noted that critical points of opposition from the registry constituency revolved around several issues, which were not supported by a GNSO majority and therefore, not included in the policy recommendations.
The Chair accepted that on this basis, the Board could move ahead. The circumstances that gave rise to controversy were the conduct of negotiations of the .com renewal, but these recommendations do not focus on the negotiations of that contract and are focused on setting the scene for future registry contracts.
Bruce Tonkin advised that, having been on GNSO Council at the time, the GNSO discussions moved away from focusing on current gTLD agreements and recognized that the PDP could not change existing contracts. The PDP evolved into recommendations for new baseline agreements going forward for new gTLDs.
Rita Rodin asked specifically about a concern that the recommendations regarding re-bidding registry contracts upon their expiration, whether the recommendations would implemented to consider re-bidding as contracts came up for renewal.
Bruce Tonkin said that with regard to existing gTLD agreements, some agreements have already been renewed with a renewal presumption in them, for example, .BIZ and .INFO and followed the format of .com and have provisions for renewal in them.
Rita Rodin advised that a registry concern, in seeking funding from investors, is that certain investment is based on the premise of a presumption of renewal and asked if that will continue?
Bruce Tonkin advised that he believed this to be the case.
John Jeffrey advised that the 'presumption of renewal' provisions would be briefed according to the GNSO Council work and the staff prepared implementation plans, and additional information would be provided back to the Board after the additional work was completed.
Rita Rodin noted that it seems that the policy recommendations are intended to cover existing and new agreements going forward but some elements are still being determined. John Jeffrey indicated that the Board was not being asked to vote on imposing consensus policies or changes to existing registry agreements.
Susan Crawford asked whether future Board discussion of the new gTLD policy implementation regarding base contracts would include review of the presumptive renewal aspects of this PDP?
John Jeffrey answered that all aspects of these policy recommendations would be discussed in the context of the new gTLD process and the proposals being drafted for changes to form agreements, which would come to the board during the implementation of the new gTLDs policies. Further, Staff will clarify the implementation plans of the approved GNSO policy recommendations and inform the Board, the GNSO and the broader community of the results.
Dennis Jennings noted that while he considered the text on present limitations to consensus policies to be appropriate and should continue, there is a discussion on domain name tasting and attempts to extend this practice may affect DNS security and stability. He questioned if it is it appropriate to maintain those limitations on consensus policy. He noted that he is raising this to be tabled and discussed at some later point.
Denise Michel advised that the BGC GNSO review working group considered limitation on consensus policy, often known as a 'picket fence,' and proposed to re-examine the issue. The Council view was not to make any changes on those limitations.
Bruce Tonkin moved and Roberto Gaetano seconded to adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, at its meeting on 9 August 2007, the GNSO Council voted by a supermajority in favor of the recommendations set forth in the GNSO's Final Report on Contractual Conditions for Existing gTLDs (PDP Feb-06).
Whereas, the implementation of the GNSO's recommendations would not impose any new obligations directly on gTLD registries or registrars under contract with ICANN, but instead would result in certain operational steps to be taken by ICANN, as identified in the Council Report to the Board on PDP Feb-06 posted on 4 October 2007 <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/council-report-to-board-PDP-feb-06-04oct07.pdf>.
- A summary of the changes to the Registry Agreement for New gTLDs is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-of-changes-to-registry-agreement-28may10-en.pdf.
- The resolution does not address funding for the items identified therein.
Explanatory text does not modify or override Resolutions. See Board Resolutions Page for more informationResolved (2008.01.02), the Board accepts the GNSO's recommendations on contractual conditions for existing gTLDs, and directs staff to implement the recommendations as outlined in the Council Report to the Board for PDP Feb-06.
