As part of the new gTLD program, all new gTLD applicants are required to provide a cost estimate for funding critical registry functions on an annual basis in case of registry failure.
Several community members and prospective applicants asked ICANN for further guidelines regarding the calculation of these estimated costs. After analyzing the costs provided from several potential providers who responded to the recent EBERO-RFI (Emergency Back End Registry Operator – Request for Information) (see: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm), ICANN is providing the cost guidance in the table below.
The numbers provided are based on data gleaned from the proposals received, and are for guidance only. None of the costs in the table are identical to the estimates provided by the potential providers. All applicants are expected to complete calculations according to their particular circumstances, and to provide rationale for their cost estimates commensurate with the technical, operational, and financial approach described in the application.
Also note that these are costs only for providing the five critical registry functions identified in this process. These cost guidelines are not representative of the costs needed for running all of the services associated with operating a gTLD.
Applicants should ensure that the financial instrument will cover the costs for the five critical registry functions for a period of three years using the applicantâs projections of domain registrations under management.
Continued Operations Instrument guidance:
|Projected Number of Domains||Estimated 3 Year COI (USD)|
Note: The minimum COI for any new gTLD should be US $18,000. The Maximum COI for any new gTLD need not be more than US $300,000.
Bank rating guidance
The financial instrument must be issued/held by a financial institution rated âAâ or above (or the equivalent) by any of the following rating agencies: A.M. Best, Dominion Bond Rating Service, Egan-Jones, Fitch Ratings, Kroll Bond Rating Agency, Moodyâs, Morningstar, Standard & Poors, and Japan Credit Rating Agency.
If applicant cannot access an âAâ rated financial institution, but a branch or subsidiary exists in the applicantâs local jurisdiction then applicant may use any local institution with a similar or higher rating.
As a last resort applicants may use the highest-rated financial institution in their national jurisdiction, if accepted by ICANN.
Note: For any financial instruments that contemplate ICANN being a party, upon the written request of the applicant, ICANN may (but is not obligated to) execute such agreement prior to submission of the applicant’s application if the agreement is on terms acceptable to ICANN. ICANN encourages applicant to deliver a written copy of any such agreement (only if it requires ICANN’s signature) to ICANN as soon as possible to facilitate ICANN’s review. If the financial instrument requires ICANN’s signature, then the applicant will only receive 3 points for question 50 (for the instrument being “secured and in place”) if ICANN executes the agreement prior to submission of the application. ICANN will determine, in its sole discretion, whether to execute and become a party to a financial instrument.
Why is the Continued Operations Instrument important?
As registrant protection is critical, new gTLD applications are required to provide evidence that the critical registry functions will continue to be performed even if the registry operator fails. The critical functions of a registry which must be supported even if an applicantâs business and/or funding fails are: (1) DNS resolution for registered domain names; (2) operation of the Shared Registration System; (3) provision of Whois service; (4) registry data escrow deposits; and (5) maintenance of a properly signed zone in accordance with DNSSEC requirements. This provides an opportunity for existing registrants in the TLD to maintain existing services dependent on registered domain names, and creates the ability for these registrants to plan for an extended transition where necessary.
ICANNâs core values and bylaws states that preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet should guide ICANNâs decisions and actions. The Continued Operations Instrument requirements are in pursuit of this principle and as a result of the development of ICANNâs Registry Continuity Framework.
Where can I find more information?
The current model proposed by ICANN is outlined in the Applicant Guidebook newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb), in particular please refer to question 50 in the Evaluation Questions and Criteria set forth in Module 2, and Specification 8 of the Registry Agreement.
In April 2009, ICANN published the ICANN gTLD Registry Continuity Plan â www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/. This document depicts a gTLD Registry Continuity Framework developed in collaboration with experienced gTLD, ccTLD registries and members of the technical community.
In May 2010 ICANN published a New Top-Level Domain Explanatory Memorandum “gTLD Registry Transition Processes Model” (RyTP) – www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clean-30may11-en.pdf [PDF, 747 KB]. This document further elaborates on the concept of critical functions required for maintaining Top-Level Domain services and discusses the types of transitions between one Registry Operator and another.
Links to Relevant Information:
- New gTLD Program: www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm
- gTLD Registry Continuity Document Archive: www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/archive-en.htm