Tag: registry agreement

ICANN Issues 60-Day Notice to the Effective Date of the Approved Amendment to the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement

ICANN logoToday (1 June), ICANN issued a 60-day notice to the effective date of the approved amendment (“Global Amendment”) to the base New gTLD Registry Agreement (“Registry Agreement”) to all affected registry operators. The effective date of the Global Amendment is 31 July 2017. This 60-day notice follows the approval of the Global Amendment [PDF, 424 KB] by eligible registry operators and the ICANN Board according to the terms of the contract

ICANN logoToday (1 June), ICANN issued a 60-day notice to the effective date of the approved amendment (“Global Amendment”) to the base New gTLD Registry Agreement (“Registry Agreement”) to all affected registry operators. The effective date of the Global Amendment is 31 July 2017. This 60-day notice follows the approval of the Global Amendment [PDF, 424 KB] by eligible registry operators and the ICANN Board according to the terms of the contract.

The process to amend the Registry Agreement began in July 2014 when the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) notified the ICANN organization that it wished to initiate negotiations for contract amendments. The Registry Agreement provides a mechanism for the ICANN organization or the RySG to periodically initiate negotiations to discuss revisions to the Registry Agreement.

The Global Amendment is the result of bilateral negotiations between the ICANN organization and the RySG Working Group as well as a subsequent public comment proceeding. The ICANN organization and the RySG Working Group reviewed the public comments and revised the Global Amendment based on the comments received. The resulting revisions in the Global Amendment focus largely on technical corrections and clarifications with a few substantive changes.

For additional reference materials and details of the process, visit ICANN‘s Global Amendment webpage.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-06-01-en

ICANN Board Approves .Com RA Extension by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association

Internet Commerce Association logoICANN has just released the Approved Board Resolutions from its meeting of Thursday, September 15th, and one of its major actions was to approve the proposed extension of the .Com registry Agreement (RA) through November 2024. The complete text of the Resolution and the rationale for its adoption can be found at the end of this post

Internet Commerce Association logoICANN has just released the Approved Board Resolutions from its meeting of Thursday, September 15th, and one of its major actions was to approve the proposed extension of the .Com registry Agreement (RA) through November 2024. The complete text of the Resolution and the rationale for its adoption can be found at the end of this post.

Wholesale prices of .Com domains are unaffected by the RA extension and remain frozen at $7.85 through the end of November 2018 under the terms of the separate Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the NTIA. As the Department of Justice explained in an August 31st letter to Sen. Ted Cruz, once the RA is extended the NTIA will have full leeway to extend the price freeze through 2024.

ICA had filed a public comment, in which we indicated non-opposition to the proposed extension so long as it did not affect .Com pricing or get tied to policy decisions that should not properly be injected into contract negotiations between ICANN and registries.

As stated in the Executive Summary of ICA’s comment letter:

  • ICA has no objection to the proposed .Com RA extension as it simply provides the same additional six year contract term that Verisign would be entitled to in 2018 under its contractual right of presumptive renewal. It will have the salutary effect of preventing GDD staff from attempting to impose the URS and other new gTLD RPMs on .Com during a time when an active ICANN Working Group is exploring the policy question of whether any of these RPMs should become Consensus Policy applicable to legacy gTLDs.
  • Our non-objection is based on our understanding that the contract term extension will have no impact on the pricing of .Com domains, as the current price freeze they are subject to is contained in the separate Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the NTIA.
  • While we have no general objection to ICANN’s practice of non-interference with the pricing policies of gTLD registries, we do believe that any registry’s abuse of pricing power should weigh against its right of presumptive renewal. We therefore believe that ICANN should amend all registry contracts to make clear that, at a minimum, a registry operator subject to successful government action for violations of antitrust or competition laws should face competitive rebid of its contract. Such amendment would further discourage all gTLD registries from engaging in abusive and anticompetitive market conduct.
  • While the proposed RA extension is justified by the present intermingling of .Com and Root Zone technical operations, given that the related RZMA between ICANN and Verisign contemplates the possibility of future termination or transition, we would urge ICANN to take steps to assure that the intermingling does not continue to such an extent that would make the exercise of those options technically infeasible or contrary to the security and stability of the DNS.

As ICA anticipated, trademark interests such as the International Trademark Association (INTA) and ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) opposed approval of the proposed RA extension unless Verisign committed in advance to adopt the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) created for the new gTLD program. Some new gTLD registry operators took a similar position. The question of whether those RPMs should become applicable to legacy gTLDs like .Com is presently being considered by an ICANN working group reviewing all RPMs in all gTLDs, and it is expected to issue a draft report and recommendations in mid-2017. That GNSO-created policy review group is the proper place for such issues to be transparently studied and decided, rather than in closed door negotiations between ICANN staff and registry operators.

In explaining its decision, the Board noted that some commenters had wanted the Board to specify what additional subjects should be discussed by ICANN and Verisign in potential negotiations between now and 2018, but it refused to do so, explaining:

While the Board acknowledges the suggested changes to the proposed Amendment to specify what provisions will be discussed by the two-year anniversary of the proposed Amendment, the Board notes that the language as drafted in the proposed Amendment balances providing a commitment to engage in negotiations, while providing leeway to consider future topics related to preserving and enhancing the security and stability of the Internet or the TLD in this changing landscape.

The Board also noted the comments that had called for it to impose the new gTLD RPMs as part of this approval, and explained why it had declined to do so:

The Board acknowledges the comments that the .COM Registry Agreement should be brought in line with new safeguards and intellectual property protections found in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Some of the commenters noted that certain legacy gTLD Registry Operators have adopted the general form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement (e.g .PRO, .CAT, .TRAVEL) including the additional enhancements and safeguards, and .COM should be required to do the same. Some suggested that not requiring .COM to be subject to the new enhancements, safeguards, and intellectual property protections in the New gTLD Registry Agreement raises concerns about whether ICANN is adhering to its core values related to non-discriminatory or preferential treatment, serving the public interest, transparency, and competition. The Board notes that the proposed Amendment posted for public comment is a simple extension of the current term of the agreement, and moving to the form of the new gTLD Registry Agreement would require longer discussion and community consultation. Proposing a simple Amendment at this time to extend the term of the .COM registry agreement is intended to maintain the stable, secure, and reliable operations of the .COM TLD.

The Board’s explanation also contains this very relevant language:

The Board acknowledges the comments suggesting that not requiring .COM to be subject to the new enhancements, safeguards, and intellectual property protections in the New gTLD Registry Agreement raises concerns about whether ICANN is adhering to its core values related to non-discriminatory or preferential treatment, serving the public interest, transparency, and competition….When considering the comments and approval of the proposed Amendment, the Board has taken into consideration the relevant core values in order to balance the competing priorities.

The Board further acknowledges comments concerning competitive issues and providing a level playing field. Article II, Section 3 of ICANN’s Bylaws state, “ICANN shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition.” The Board notes the .COM Registry Agreement contains many different terms that are not present in other registry agreements. These unique terms might be considered either favorable or unfavorable depending on one’s point of view. For example, the price control provision in Section 7.3 of the .COM registry agreement tightly controls the ability of the registry operator to raise prices in a manner that is not present in any other registry agreement.

Summing up, ICA commends the Board for not entangling a simple extension of the .Com RA intended to assure the security and stability of the DNS with policy decisions that are being properly addressed in an ongoing ICANN working group. Although the extension commits both ICANN and Verisign to engage in such additional discussions as are necessary for consistency with any changes to, or the termination or expiration of, the Cooperative Agreement between NTIA and Verisign, any such discussions will likely take place after the RPM Review WG has rendered its consensus on whether any of the new gTLD RPMs should become Consensus Policy and, equally important, whether any of them should be modified going forward.

*****

Text of ICANN Board Resolution and Rationale—

 

.COM Registry Agreement Amendment

Whereas, ICANN and Verisign engaged in discussions on a proposed amendment to the 1 December 2012 .COM Registry Agreement (“Amendment”) and agreed to extend the term of the Agreement to 30 November 2024 to coincide with the term of the Root Zone Maintainer Services Agreement in order to enhance the security, stability and resiliency of root zone operations.

Whereas, the proposed Amendment also requires Verisign and ICANN to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to: (1) amend the .COM Registry Agreement by the second anniversary date of the proposed Amendment in order to preserve and enhance the security of the Internet or the TLD; and (2) as may be necessary for consistency with changes to the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the U.S. Department of Commerce. All other terms and conditions in the existing Registry Agreement remain unchanged.

Whereas, ICANN commenced a public comment period from 30 June 2016 to 12 August 2016 <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/com-amendment-2016-06-30-en> on the proposed Amendment. Ninety-nine (99) comment submissions were posted by both individuals and organizations/groups.

Whereas, the Board carefully considered the comments and the staff summary and analysis of comments.

Whereas, ICANN conducted a review of Verisign’s recent performance under the current .COM Registry Agreement and found that Verisign substantially met its contractual requirements.

Resolved (2016.09.15.09), the proposed amendment to the .COM Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/com/com-amend-1-pdf-30jun16-en.pdf> [PDF, 100 KB] is approved, subject to the RZMA being executed, and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Amendment.

Rationale for Resolution 2016.09.15.09

Why the Board is addressing the issue now?

On 1 December 2012, ICANN and Verisign, entered into a Registry Agreement under which Verisign operates the .COM top-level domain. The agreement is set to expire on 30 November 2018. ICANN and Verisign have negotiated a proposed Amendment, which was posted for a 42-day ICANN public comment period between 30 June 2016 and 12 August 2016. At this time, the Board is approving the proposed Amendment for the continued operation of .COM TLD by Verisign.

What is the proposal being considered?

The proposed Amendment: (1) extends the term of the .COM Registry Agreement to 30 November 2024 to coincide with the term of the Root Zone Maintainer Services Agreement(RZMA) between ICANN and Verisign; (2) commits Verisign and ICANN to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to amend the .COM Registry Agreement by the second anniversary date of the proposed Amendment in order to preserve and enhance the security of the Internet or theTLD; (3) commits Verisign and ICANN to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to amend the terms of the .COM Registry Agreement as may be necessary for consistency with changes to the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the U.S. Department of Commerce. All other terms and conditions of the existing Registry Agreement remain unchanged.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

ICANN engaged in bilateral negotiations with Verisign to agree to the terms of the proposed Amendment. The proposed Amendment was then published for public comment from 30 June 2016 to 12 August 2016. Following the public comment period, the comments were summarized and analyzed.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

There were 99 comment submissions from individuals and groups/organizations during the 42-day public comment period. Some commenters were generally supportive of the proposed Amendment while others raised concerns. A summary and analysis of the comments is provided below and also posted at <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-com-amendment-09sep16-en.pdf> [PDF, 200 KB].

What significant materials did the Board review?

As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

What factors has the Board found to be significant?

The Board carefully considered the public comments received for the proposed Amendment, along with the summary and analysis of those comments.

The Board acknowledges that some commenters were generally supportive of the proposed Amendment, and some expressed general support but also asked ICANN and/or Verisign to clarify the relationship of the Cooperative Agreement and proposed Amendment, particularly around pricing, and the provisions or topics that would be the subject of good faith negotiations by the second anniversary of the effective date of the proposed Amendment.

While the Board acknowledges the suggested changes to the proposed Amendment to specify what provisions will be discussed by the two-year anniversary of the proposed Amendment, the Board notes that the language as drafted in the proposed Amendment balances providing a commitment to engage in negotiations, while providing leeway to consider future topics related to preserving and enhancing the security and stability of the Internet or the TLD in this changing landscape.

With respect to revising the proposed Amendment to account for potential changes to, or cancelation of the Cooperative Agreement between Verisign and the Department of Commerce, the Board notes that the proposed Amendment already takes into account the Cooperative Agreement. The proposed Amendment includes language, requiring ICANN and Verisign to engage in good faith negotiations to make changes to the .COM Registry Agreement as may be necessary for consistency with changes to, or the termination or expiration of, the Cooperative Agreement.

The Board also acknowledges that there were several comments submitted relating to prices for .COM domain names. Some commenters suggested that the current price cap in the Registry Agreement must remain in place, while others recommended that prices must be reduced. The Board notes that Section 7.3(d) of the .COM Registry Agreement specifies the maximum price that Verisign can charge for registry services. The proposed Amendment does not change this provision.

The Board also acknowledges the comments submitted opposing the presumptive renewal right provision in the .COM Registry Agreement and suggestions that the presumptive renewal right should be taken away if certain events occur, such as an uncured material breach of the Registry Agreement. Others suggested that instead of extending the .COM Registry Agreement, it should be put out for a competitive public tender to ensure that the registrants are charged lower prices. The Board notes that the presumptive right of renewal in Section 4.2 of the .COM Registry Agreement is a provision that is in all of ICANN’s registry agreements. The provision allows a registry operator the right to renew the agreement at its expiration, provided that the registry operator is in good standing at the time of renewal as set forth under the terms of the presumptive renewal provision. This presumptive renewal provision is in place to ensure stability, security, and reliability in the operation of the TLD, i.e., to encourage long-term investment in robust TLD operations. This has served public interest by encouraging investment in the TLD registry infrastructure and improvements in reliability of the TLD operations. ICANN has previously described the rationale for presumptive renewal for registries: “Absent countervailing reasons, there is little public benefit, and some significant potential for disruption, in regular changes of a registry operator. In addition, a significant chance of losing the right to operate the registry after a short period creates adverse incentives to favor short-term gain over long-term investment. On the other hand, the community, acting through ICANN, must have the ability to replace a registry operator that is not adequately serving the community in the operation of a registry.”

The Board acknowledges the comments that the .COM Registry Agreement should be brought in line with new safeguards and intellectual property protections found in the New gTLD Registry Agreement. Some of the commenters noted that certain legacy gTLD Registry Operators have adopted the general form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement (e.g .PRO, .CAT, .TRAVEL) including the additional enhancements and safeguards, and .COM should be required to do the same. Some suggested that not requiring .COM to be subject to the new enhancements, safeguards, and intellectual property protections in the New gTLD Registry Agreement raises concerns about whether ICANN is adhering to its core values related to non-discriminatory or preferential treatment, serving the public interest, transparency, and competition. The Board notes that the proposed Amendment posted for public comment is a simple extension of the current term of the agreement, and moving to the form of the new gTLD Registry Agreement would require longer discussion and community consultation. Proposing a simple Amendment at this time to extend the term of the .COM registry agreement is intended to maintain the stable, secure, and reliable operations of the .COM TLD.

The Board also notes that the proposed Amendment provides a provision that commits ICANN and Verisign to cooperate and negotiate in good faith to amend the .COM Registry Agreement by the second anniversary date of the proposed amendment in order to preserve and enhance the security of the Internet or the TLD. This language was negotiated to provide an opportunity for future discussions that may be needed to discuss potential changes to preserve and enhance the security of the Internet or the .COM TLD.

The Board acknowledges comments asking for confirmation that Verisign will be required to implement future developed consensus policies that may provide for additional safeguards and enhancements. The Board notes that Section 3.1 (b) of the .COM Registry Agreement states that, “At all times during the term of this Agreement and subject to the terms hereof, Registry Operator will fully comply with and implement all Consensus Policies found athttp://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm, as of the Effective Date and as may in the future be developed and adopted in accordance with ICANN’s Bylaws and as set forth below.”

The Board acknowledges the comments that opposed the early renewal of the .COM Registry Agreement and the linkage to the Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA). These comments noted that the root zone maintainer infrastructure should never have become “inextricably intertwined” with Verisign’s .COM operations. Some questioned how linking the two agreements would enhance the security, stability and resiliency of root operations and argued that the linkage represents a single source of failure. These commenters urged ICANN technical staff to begin exploring how some practical separation between root zone and .COM technical operations might be achieved if that eventuality ever arises, and to assure that such action does not pose a threat to the security and stability of the DNS.

The Board notes that Verisign has been providing “registration services” under its Cooperative Agreement with NTIA for many years, which was broadly defined to include root zone maintainer function and .COM Top Level Domain registry services. Given the unified nature of these two functions under the Cooperative Agreement, much of the infrastructure supporting the root zone maintainer function is “intertwined” with Verisign’s TLD operations for .COM. A key component of ensuring security of the root operations was making sure that those operations continued to benefit from its historic association with the .COM operations. This was achieved by the proposed simple extension of the .COM Registry Agreement to coincide with the term of the new RZMA. While the terms of the agreements are linked together in the sense that they would expire at the same time, the agreements do not contain any provisions linking the performance of the obligations under the .COM Registry Agreement with the obligations under the RZMA. In fact, the Root Zone Maintainer Services Agreement (“RZMA”), approved by theICANN Board on 9 August 2016, includes provisions that provide the community the ability – through a consensus-based, community-driven process – to require ICANN to transition the root zone maintainer function to another service provider three years after the effective date of the agreement.

The Board acknowledges the comments suggesting that not requiring .COM to be subject to the new enhancements, safeguards, and intellectual property protections in the New gTLD Registry Agreement raises concerns about whether ICANN is adhering to its core values related to non-discriminatory or preferential treatment, serving the public interest, transparency, and competition.

The Board notes that the Bylaws enumerate core values that should guide the decisions and actions of ICANN in performing its mission, and ICANN takes seriously its commitment to those values. As provided in the Bylaws, the “core values are deliberately expressed in very general terms, so that they may provide useful and relevant guidance in the broadest possible range of circumstances. Because they are not narrowly prescriptive, the specific way in which they apply, individually and collectively, to each new situation will necessarily depend on many factors that cannot be fully anticipated or enumerated; and because they are statements of principle rather than practice, situations will inevitably arise in which perfect fidelity to all eleven core values simultaneously is not possible. Any ICANN body making a recommendation or decision shall exercise its judgment to determine which core values are most relevant and how they apply to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, and to determine, if necessary, an appropriate and defensible balance among competing values.” When considering the comments and approval of the proposed Amendment, the Board has taken into consideration the relevant core values in order to balance the competing priorities.

The Board further acknowledges comments concerning competitive issues and providing a level playing field. Article II, Section 3 of ICANN’s Bylaws state, “ICANN shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition.” The Board notes the .COM Registry Agreement contains many different terms that are not present in other registry agreements. These unique terms might be considered either favorable or unfavorable depending on one’s point of view. For example, the price control provision in Section 7.3 of the .COM registry agreement tightly controls the ability of the registry operator to raise prices in a manner that is not present in any other registry agreement.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

ICANN conducted a review of Verisign’s recent performance under the current .COM Registry Agreement and found that Verisign substantially met its contractual requirements.

The Board’s approval of the proposed Amendment is intended to ensure the continued stable, secure, and reliable operations of the .COM TLD.

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 the Board approves the proposed Amendment.

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 the Board approves the proposed Amendment.

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
http://www.internetcommerce.org/icann-board-approves-com-ra-extension/

Act Now – Just Say “No!” to URS at .Travel – Or It Will Travel to .Com by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association

Internet Commerce Association logoOn May 12th ICANN posted the “Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement” for a period of public comment ending June 21st

Internet Commerce Association logoOn May 12th ICANN posted the “Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement” for a period of public comment ending June 21st.

You’d expect ICANN staff to be on their best behavior right now, during ongoing community efforts to fashion enhanced and binding accountability measures. But instead this proposed Registry Agreement (RA) contains a provision through which staff is trying to preempt community discussion and decide a major policy issue through a contract with a private party. And that very big issue is whether Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) should be a consensus policy applicable to all gTLDs, including incumbents like .Com and .Net.

The starting point for the proposed new .Travel RA was not the prior .Travel RA but the standard registry agreement for new gTLDs. As explained in ICANN’s announcement:

The current Registry Agreement for .TRAVEL, like other registry agreements, provides for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met. It also provides that upon renewal, changes may be made to the terms of the Agreement.

With a view to increase the consistency of registry agreements across all gTLDs, ICANN has proposed that the renewal agreement be based on the approved new gTLD Registry Agreement as updated on 9 January 2014. In order to account for the specific nature of the .TRAVEL TLD, a Sponsored TLD, relevant provisions in the 5 May 2005 Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement have been carried over to this renewal agreement.

As a result, the proposed renewal agreement for .TRAVEL is similar to the terms of a Registry Agreement for a new gTLD that elected for community TLD status and that is not operated by an intergovernmental organization of a government entity… (Emphasis added)

There is one very big problem with that staff-determined “consistency” approach. It would make all domains at .Travel, a legacy gTLD and not a new gTLD, subject to URS, which is not a consensus policy applicable to all gTLDs.  

To that end, the proposed draft RA for .Travel includes, at p. 78, an amended version of Specification 7 (Minimum Requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms) with this provision:

Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Registry Operator will comply with the following dispute resolution mechanisms as they may be revised from time to time:

… the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (“URS”) adopted by ICANN (posted at www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/urs), including the implementation of determinations issued by URS examiners. (Emphasis added)

This is top-down, staff-driven policymaking at its worst and is thoroughly unacceptable.

It appears that ICANN staff, on its own initiative and with no advance consultation with the community, are attempting to impose an “implementation detail” for the new gTLD program into a legacy gTLD renewal contract.

That would effectively convert the URS into a consensus policy without any community discussion of whether it should be, and set a precedent that could bring the URS to .Com, .Net, .Org and all other legacy gTLDs as their own RAs come up for renewal.

It was well understood at the time that the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) were debated and created for the new gTLD program’s Applicant Guidebook that they were to be regarded as “implementation details” for the new gTLD program and not as “consensus policy” applicable to all gTLDs. There was actually an extended debate in which IP interests insisted that they were mere implementation of the program’s general commitment to protecting IP rights and therefore did not require an extended policy development process (PDP) to be made applicable to new gTLDs. That dog won’t hunt for incumbent gTLDs like .Com.

As for considering whether the new gTLD RPMs should someday become consensus policy, ICANN recently closed a comment period on a “Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanism Review” and ICA submitted an extensive comment letter on it. That Draft RPM Report is supposed to be preliminary to a full staff Issues Report on new gTLD RPMs to be delivered to the GNSO Council in late September. Receipt of that Issues Report is expected to inform a discussion of how well all the new RPMs are performing, whether they need to be altered, and – most importantly – whether they should become consensus policies for all gTLDs.

But now ICANN contracting staff, before the policy staff have even delivered their RPM Issues Report, are attempting to preempt that entire consensus policy discussion by imposing the URS on an incumbent gTLD.

This is a prime and disturbing example of top-down, staff-driven policymaking. And it is clear justification for the overdue and badly needed accountability mechanisms that ICANN stakeholders are now fashioning.

We understand that trademark interests would probably support making the URS a consensus policy. We know that many new gTLD registry operators are on the record saying that all the new RA provisions they are subject to, including URS, should be the rules of the road for incumbent registries as well.

As for ICA, we are a long way from establishing our position on that question – but we insist that it occur only after full community debate and consideration of all the potential reverberations of such a decision. That’s what a PDP is for.

This very important decision is one for the entire community to make after informed discussion, not for ICANN staff to make in a manner that preempts the discussion–

  • We need to review the actual performance of the URS, including the quality of arbitration decisions.
  •  We need to see if it is going to be materially changed in any way – especially if it is going to be altered to include a domain transfer option, which could convert it into a $500 vehicle for domain trolls to attempt abusive domain hijacking.
  • And, most important, we have to understand how well it meshes with any contemplated changes in the UDRP, since the receipt of the RPM Issues Report may well kick off a policy development process (PDP) on UDRP reform as well.

ICANN needs to hear from the global Internet community, in significant volume, that imposing the URS on an incumbent gTLD is unacceptable because it would mean that ICANN staff, not the community, is determining that URS should be a consensus policy and thereby undermining the entire bottom-up policy process. Domain suspensions are serious business – in fact they were at the heart of the SOPA proposal that inspired millions of emails to the US Congress in opposition.

This is clearly an issue for domain registrants – registrants at new gTLDs knew that their domains were subject to the Trademark Clearinghouse claims notice system and the URS, but registrants at incumbent gTLDs have never been subject to URS and should only become so if the community decides it should become a consensus policy.

But this should also be an issue for every other ICANN stakeholder and global domain registrant who wants to hold the line against staff-driven usurpation of the community’s right to initiate and make policy decisions.

So get your comments in by June 21st if you want to see the community remain in control of this key policy decision rather than have ICANN staff determine it via private contract negotiations. ICA will be commenting against including the URS in this RA, but we need lots of company.  

Here’s what to do:

  • Prepare a comment to ICANN and send it to comments-travel-renewal-12may15@icann.org by June 21st. Your comment can be in the text of the email or attached as a Word, PDF, or similar document type. A draft comment template is provided below that you can use as is or modify to reflect your personal point of view.
  • Besides sending your own comment, contact at least two other individuals who you think are opposed to having ICANN staff use the contracting process to put the URS in place at incumbent gTLDs, provide a link to this ICA post, and ask them to submit their own comments as well. And ask them to do the same to ensure maximum input to ICANN. And it wouldn’t hurt to also contact other trade associations and public interest groups as well as spread the word on social media.

This initiative can be stopped – but that will be best ensured if ICANN gets lots of comments that oppose including the URS in the .Travel RA.

Act now or be prepared to see the same tactic used to impose the URS on .Com, .Net, .Org and other incumbent gTLDs. Don’t complain then if you’re not willing to take a few minutes and speak up now. 

And here’s that draft template for comments: 

To comments-travel-renewal-12may15@icann.org

Dear ICANN:

I am writing in regard to the Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement issued for public comment on May 12, 2015.

I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a modified version of the new gTLD rights protection mechanisms in Specification 7 of the proposed RA, especially Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS).

All the new gTLD RPMs were implementation details of the new gTLD program and are not ICANN consensus policies applicable to all registries and registrars. The URS can become a consensus policy only after a full policy development process (PDP) engaged in by the entire ICANN community of stakeholders. The ICANN community has not even received the new gTLD RPM Issues Report that staff will be providing to the GNSO in September 2015.

Imposing URS on an incumbent gTLD via the contracting process is an absolutely unacceptable staff intervention into the policymaking process. Approval of this draft contract would constitute top-down, staff-driven policymaking in direct violation of ICANN’s stated commitment to the bottom-up, private sector led policy development process.

Therefore, the .Travel renewal RA should be referred for Board consideration only after Specification 7/URS has been removed from the agreement, along with all other provisions derived from the new gTLD RA that are not established consensus policies applicable to incumbent gTLDs.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

Sincerely,

[Name, title, organization]

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
www.internetcommerce.org/no-urs-at-dot-travel/

ICANN: Registry and Registrar WHOIS Service Clarifications

ICANN logoICANN announces clarifications to the WHOIS specifications in ICANN agreements

ICANN logoICANN announces clarifications to the WHOIS specifications in ICANN agreements.

To help support registry and registrar implementation and ease the path for compliance with the specifications, ICANN is announcing clarification to the Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS), which is commonly known as WHOIS. The clarifications are in response to input from both registries and registrars regarding the RDDS specification and intended to aid contracted parties in complying with Registry Agreements (RA) and Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAAs).

The document, “Clarifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement, Specification 4; and the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), Registration Data Directory Service (WHOIS) Specification” is published at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/advisories-2012-02-25-en.

Most of the clarifications apply to both registries and registrars; however, the clarifications described in the second section only apply to registries, while the third section only applies to registrars. ICANN recognizes these clarifications may take some time to implement in active systems and is providing notice that it will begin enforcing compliance with these items as of 12 February 2015. One of the objectives of these clarifications is to retain the ability to easily parse the output. Interested users are encouraged to consider the clarifications when developing parsers for RDDS output.

There are 37 clarifications specified in the advisory, with some being required and others being optional. The document includes, but is not limited to, clarifications relating to formatting guidelines, field definitions, service level requirements, and pre-delegation testing specifications.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-09-12-en

ICANN: Requests for Extension to Execute New gTLD Registry Agreements

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoClause 4 of Section 5.1 of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB) provides that eligible new gTLD applicants are expected to have executed the Registry Agreement within nine (9) months of the notification date, and that a “failure to do so may result in loss of eligibility.” The nine-month period for execution of the Registry Agreement generally commences on receipt of the initial Contracting Information Request (“CIR”) invitation. For applicants who received CIR invitations prior to January 29, 2014, the nine-month period started January 29, 2014 and ends October 29, 2014

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoClause 4 of Section 5.1 of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB) provides that eligible new gTLD applicants are expected to have executed the Registry Agreement within nine (9) months of the notification date, and that a “failure to do so may result in loss of eligibility.” The nine-month period for execution of the Registry Agreement generally commences on receipt of the initial Contracting Information Request (“CIR”) invitation. For applicants who received CIR invitations prior to January 29, 2014, the nine-month period started January 29, 2014 and ends October 29, 2014.

That Section further provides the possibility for an extension to the nine-month deadline if certain criteria are met:

An applicant may request an extension of this time period for up to an additional nine (9) months if it can demonstrate, to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction, that it is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for entry into the registry agreement.

All applicants (including those that wish to qualify as a .Brand TLD) seeking an extension to the nine-month deadline to execute the Registry Agreement must submit an extension request to ICANN prior to the expiration of their deadline as follows:

  • All applicants (including those that wish to qualify as a .Brand TLD) with a deadline of 29 October 2014 to execute the Registry Agreement must submit extension requests by 24 September 2014 to be eligible for an extension.
  • Applicants with deadline dates to execute the Registry Agreement other than 29 October 2014 must submit extension requests at least 45 days prior to the original deadline date to be eligible for an extension.

If extension requests are not submitted by these extension request deadlines, the applicant will not be granted an extension and will be expected to execute the Registry Agreement by the original deadline.

ICANN will inform applicants whether an extension is granted a minimum of 30 days prior to the original deadline to execute the Registry Agreement. Extensions may be granted for periods of less than nine months, and ICANN may notify applicants of interim milestone deadlines, such as: responding to the Contracting Information Request, submitting a compliant COI and/or submitting proposed changes if the applicant wants to negotiate changes to the base Registry Agreement. These interim deadlines must be met to demonstratethat the applicant is working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for entry into the Registry Agreement.

Applicants who have been granted an extension must execute the Registry Agreement by the extended deadline, or risk losing eligibility to execute the Registry Agreement with ICANN. In addition, applicants that fail to meet interim milestone deadlines will be at risk of losing eligibility to execute the Registry Agreement with ICANN. If an applicant loses eligibility to execute the Registry Agreement with ICANN, the status of its application will be changed to “Will Not Proceed.”

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-03sep14-en

.WED Registry Agreement Amendment – Introduction of Third Level Domain Sales

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoPurpose (Brief): On 8 October 2013, Atgron, Inc., the registry operator of the .wed TLD, submitted a Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) request to allow the sale of third level domains in the TLD

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoPurpose (Brief): On 8 October 2013, Atgron, Inc., the registry operator of the .wed TLD, submitted a Registry Services Evaluation Policy (RSEP) request to allow the sale of third level domains in the TLD.

As part of its request, Atgron submitted a list [PDF, 407 KB] of approximately 11,000 second-level-domain names in which it would offer these registrations. This RSEP request was posted for public information on the Registry Services Evaluation Policy webpage, available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en.

As provided for by existing consensus policy, ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination on whether the proposal might raise significant competition, security or stability issues. ICANN’s preliminary review (based on the information provided) did not identify any such issues for this request.

Implementation of the proposal would require an amendment to the Exhibit A of the .wed Registry Agreement, which is being posted for public comment.

Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/wed-amendment-2014-06-04-en

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-06-04-en

ICANN Publishes Process to Qualify for Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoToday (14 April), ICANN publishes the process to qualify for Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. This comes on the heels of the 26 March 2014 resolution by the New gTLD Program Committee (“NGPC”) of the ICANN Board approving the new Specification

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoToday (14 April), ICANN publishes the process to qualify for Specification 13 to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. This comes on the heels of the 26 March 2014 resolution by the New gTLD Program Committee (“NGPC”) of the ICANN Board approving the new Specification.

The current form of Specification 13 as approved by the NGPC can be found here [PDF, 80 KB].

The NGPC also approved the possible incorporation of an additional clause into Specification 13, with implementation to take effect no earlier than May 12, 2014, to provide the GNSO Council an opportunity to advise ICANN regarding Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top Level Domains. If the additional clause is incorporated, then Specification 13 would be in the form found here [PDF, 80 KB].

If, as a result of GNSO Council advice or otherwise, Specification 13 is further modified, an applicant for a TLD that has been determined by ICANN to qualify as a .Brand TLD will be offered the opportunity to execute an amendment incorporating such modified Specification 13 as part of the Registry Agreement.

Specification 13 was drafted with input from the community to provide .Brand TLDs certain modifications to the New gTLD Registry Agreement. In order to have Specification 13 incorporated into the New gTLD Registry Agreement, applying entities must meet the following requirements:

  • The TLD string is identical to the textual elements protectable under applicable law, of a registered trademark valid under applicable law;
  • Only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or Trademark Licensees are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records associated with domain names at any level in the TLD;
  • The TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11);
  • Registry Operator has provided ICANN with an accurate and complete copy of such trademark registration.

Applications for Specification 13 will be posted for review and comment by the community. Any comments submitted within 30 days of the posting of the application will be considered by ICANN in making a determination regarding the application. ICANN encourages the community to participate in ICANN’s processes and provide comments.

View the process for Specification 13 here [DOCX, 72 KB].

View applications to qualify for Spec 13 here.

Submit comments on applications for Specification 13 here.

View comments submitted on applications for Specification 13 here.

View the Specification 13 FAQ here [PDF, 359 KB].

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-14apr14-en

ICANN Seeks Comments on Requests for Exemption to the Registry Operator Code of Conduct

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoToday, ICANN posted requests for exemption to the Registry Operator Code of Conduct that it has received for review and comment by the community. The Registry Operator Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines for the Registry Operator relating to certain and limited operations of a registry. All Registry Operators are subjected to the Code of Conduct unless an exemption is granted to the Registry Operator by ICANN

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoToday, ICANN posted requests for exemption to the Registry Operator Code of Conduct that it has received for review and comment by the community. The Registry Operator Code of Conduct is a set of guidelines for the Registry Operator relating to certain and limited operations of a registry. All Registry Operators are subjected to the Code of Conduct unless an exemption is granted to the Registry Operator by ICANN.

The intended purpose of the Registry Operator Code of Conduct is to protect a TLD’s registrants. If a Registry Operator registers all domain names in the TLD exclusively for and to be used only by itself or its Affiliates, upon request of the Registry Operator ICANN may consider and grant the Registry Operator an exemption to the Code of Conduct, provided the TLD is not a “generic string” (as defined in Section 3(d) of Specification 11) and the Registry Operator satisfies all three (3) stated exemption criteria:

  1. All domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for the exclusive use of Registry Operator or its affiliates;
  2. Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an affiliate of Registry Operator; and
  3. Application of the Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.

The exemption requests posted are those that have been submitted to ICANN by Applicants or Registry Operators that believe they satisfy the criteria to receive an exemption to the Code of Conduct. Comments submitted within 30 days of the posting of the exemption requests will be reviewed and considered by ICANN in making a determination regarding the exemption request. ICANN encourages the community to participate in ICANN’s processes and provide comments.

The exemption requests may be viewed at: newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer.

Comments may be submitted to exemption-request@icann.org, and viewed at mm.icann.org/pipermail/exemption-request.

To learn more about the Registry Operator Code of Conduct and the exemption process, please read the Code of Conduct FAQ [PDF, 455 KB].

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18mar14-en

Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of “.Brand” New gTLDs

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a “.Brand TLD“

ICANN new generic Top Level Domains logoICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a “.Brand TLD“.

The proposed draft of Specification 13 [PDF, 80 KB] and the concepts reflected therein have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN’s Board of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the proposal.

ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a position statement [PDF, 83 KB] of the Brand Registry Group in support of the proposed draft.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06dec13-en.htm

Architelos Launches NameSentry Lite for Domain Abuse Monitoring and Compliance Reporting

 

Architelos logo[news release] Architelos, Inc. the premier provider of automated domain name abuse detection and mitigation services, announced today the availability of NameSentrysm Lite. NameSentry Lite is designed for new generic Top Level Domain (gTLDs) operators who expect limited security threats such as phishing, malware, pharming and spam (collectively known as “domain abuse”), but who still require monitoring and notification of such abuses for compliance purposes

 

Architelos logo[news release] Architelos, Inc. the premier provider of automated domain name abuse detection and mitigation services, announced today the availability of NameSentrysm Lite. NameSentry Lite is designed for new generic Top Level Domain (gTLDs) operators who expect limited security threats such as phishing, malware, pharming and spam (collectively known as “domain abuse”), but who still require monitoring and notification of such abuses for compliance purposes.

NameSentry Lite is the entry-level version of the NameSentry abuse detection and mitigation service and is based on NameSentry’s patent-pending technology. NameSentry Lite provides monthly reports summarizing the domains and URLs that were detected as security threats in a given gTLD. The report includes such info as: the domain (and URLs if relevant), detection date, type of abuse, data sources, each domain’s sponsoring registrar, and incident resolution status in some cases. These reports can be used to support contractual compliance with abuse monitoring and notification requirements as set out in ICANN’s Registry Agreement.

NameSentry Lite is ideal for new gTLDs who expect little or no abuse, but still have to manage compliance reporting. Examples include brand gTLDs, “vertically integrated” gTLDs, or even gTLDs balancing abuse monitoring and compliance cost with other launch and operational expenses. Additional product information, FAQs and pricing info are available at www.architelos.com/namesentry.

Over 100 new gTLDs have already signed their Registry Agreement with ICANN. As more sign and prepare for launch, they will have to put in place resources to implement their domain abuse mitigation policies and commitments. One of the earliest gTLDs to launch, Dot Kiwi has already implemented NameSentry and is using it to differentiate Dot Kiwi as a safe and responsible gTLD as part of Dot Kiwi’s overall marketing campaign. “We are excited to be the first gTLD registry to launch with NameSentry’s protective services bundled with Dot Kiwi. We take the issue of abuse detection and mitigation very seriously and considered our options carefully. We found NameSentry to be the best solution for Dot Kiwi and one that would be fitting for the degree of importance we place on registrant and consumer protection. The operational ease and excellence for us means we can deliver on the high standards we set ourselves,” said Tim Johnson, CEO of Dot Kiwi.

Announces Promotional Monthly Subscription Rates in Effect till Jan 31, 2014
The extended NameSentry product suite allows new gTLDs a way to avoid the up-front cost and commitment of building and staffing an in-house manual system for domain abuse mitigation and compliance reporting, in favor of a low-cost and automated subscription based service, with flexible terms. To provide even greater flexibility, Architelos is offering a promotional monthly subscription rate for both NameSentry Lite and NameSentry Portal, in effect till Jan 31, 2014. New gTLDs as well as existing TLDs can now subscribe to any of the NameSentry options with a no-commitment and low-cost monthly plan. “As new gTLDs prepare for launch, we recognize that abuse mitigation and compliance will be an important and costly consideration,” said Alexa Raad, CEO of Architelos. “Our promotional offer of a month-to-month subscription rate is designed to alleviate the cost burden and allow them to focus on other aspects of launch planning.”

About Architelos, Inc.
Architelos, Inc. provides SaaS-based TLD managed services solutions, and strategic consulting for clients in the domain name (DNS) industry. NameSentry℠, a patent-pending abuse detection and mitigation service, is the second SaaS based service launched by the company, after Business Case Builder in 2011. Architelos is unique in having over 30 years of experience in building, launching, and managing multi-million name gTLDs. Clients include new gTLDs, as well as existing generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) and Country Code (ccTLD) registries. Architelos has locations in Leesburg (VA), Los Angeles, (CA), Toronto (Canada) and Dublin (Ireland), as well as data centers in Toronto and Los Angeles. For more info follow Architelos on Twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn.

This Architelos news release was sourced from:
architelos.com/architelos-launches-namesentry-lite-domain-abuse-monitoring-compliance-reporting/