Renewal of .ORG Registry Agreement

Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

The current .ORG Registry Agreement expires on 31 August 2013. The proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement was posted for public comment between 21 June 2013 to 12 August 2013. The Board is being asked to approve the renewal .ORG registry Agreement prior to the expiration of the current .ORG Registry Agreement.

What is the proposal being considered?

The changes to the .ORG Registry Agreement and the Appendices fall within several broad categories: (1) changes to promote consistency across registries; (2) changes to include similar provisions from the New gTLD Registry Agreement approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board; (3) changes to update the agreement to reflect changes that have occurred since the current .ORG Registry Agreement was signed (including updating references, technical changes and other updates); and (4) changes to allow PIR to better serve the internet community (including to allow PIR to more quickly address certain imminent threats to the security and stability of the TLD or the Internet).

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

ICANN conducted a public comment period on the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement from 21 June 2013 to 12 August 2013, following which time the comment was summarized and analyzed.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

One member of the community participated in the public comment period and raised comments regarding Whois requirements, access to registry services and rights protection mechanisms.

There was a specific community concern raised, and subsequent letters provided to the Board, regarding the inclusion of a requirement for the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) to be included in the renewed agreement, as well as requiring the Registry Operator to use only Registrars contracted under the 2013 RAA.  In taking this decision, the Board considered the concern that extending the requirement to use the URS to existing gTLDs (which currently is only a requirement for Registry Operators approved through the the New gTLD Program) would possibly be a matter for policy development.  In addition, requiring the imposition of the URS today to millions of domain names may be premature given the implementation schedule for the URS processes.  With regard to the use of Registrars, the renewal agreement includes a term for transition to the exclusive use of Registrars contracted under the 2013 RAA, if certain conditions occur, including if Registrars representing two-thirds of the registrations in the TLD sign the 2013 RAA.  In addition, the Board considered the concerns that requiring this long-operating Registry Operator to immediately transition to the use of Registrars contracted under the 2013 RAA could place the Registry Operator at a disadvantage to other existing gTLD operators that do not have this requirement nor a transitional clause written into their registry agreements.  These issues were also considered with the Registry Operator as part of the development of the renewal agreement.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the proposed .ORG Renewal Registry Agreement and its Appendices <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/org-renewal-21jun13-en.htm>. The Board also reviewed the summary and analysis of public comments.

What factors the Board found to be significant?

The Board carefully considered the public comments and the Staff recommendation with respect to those comments. The Board considered ICANN’s contractual obligations with respect to the current .ORG Registry Agreement in reaching this decision, specifically that the agreement must be renewed absent certain uncured breaches by the registry operator and that certain terms of the renewal are required to conform to existing comparable gTLD registry agreements.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

As part of the renewal process, ICANN conducted a review of PIR’s recent performance under the current .ORG Registry Agreement. The compliance review covered areas including: Timeliness and Content of Monthly Reports; Add Grace Period Limits Policy; Bulk Zone File Requirements; and Payment of Required Fees. PIR was found to have substantially met its contractual requirements (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/org-renewal-21jun13-en.htm).  Evidence indicates that the community can expect such good performance to continue.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There is no significant fiscal impact expected if ICANN approves the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement. The provisions regarding registry-level fees and pricing constraints are for the most part consistent with the New gTLD Registry Agreement and the current comparable gTLDs.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no expected security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS if ICANN approves the proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement. The proposed renewal .ORG Registry Agreement in fact includes terms intended to allow for swifter action in the event of certain threats to the security or stability of the DNS.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which ICANN received public comment.