Please be sure to check this web page
for updates immediately before you submit your application.
Reassignment of .org Top-Level Domain:
Responses to Questions
The following are responses to questions received concerning the draft
.org request-for-proposal materials by 13 May 2002 at <email@example.com>.
These questions were submitted by prospective applicants following the
in the [Draft] Application Instructions for the .org Top-Level Domain.
Questions and responses are being posted to provide all prospective applicants
with the same information.
NOTE: Additional responses may be posted. Please
Note regarding requests for data concerning current .org registry:
Several prospective applicants submitted requests for additional information
they consider useful to prepare their applications. ICANN has conferred
with the current operator of the .org top-level domain, VeriSign, Inc.,
regarding obtaining a set of data to be provided to prospective applicants,
and expects that data will be available in approximately one week. Because
of competitive considerations and legal requirements, prospective applicants
will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with VeriSign,
before receiving this non-public data. Any prospective applicant wishing
to obtain this data should send a request for the non-disclosure agreement
to <firstname.lastname@example.org>. ICANN will then send the non-disclosure
agreement to the applicant, which should sign it and return it to ICANN.
To keep the identity of prospective applicants confidential until the
application deadline, ICANN will (in the absence of their apparent breach)
keep the signed non-disclosure agreements until the application deadline,
at which time they will be turned over to VeriSign.
Responses to questions:
Question 1: What sum of US$ will be passed to
the successor registry operator in respect of domains on the .org database
as at 31st December 2002, where registration revenue has been invoiced
or paid to Verisign and where a proportion of that revenue is in respect
of the remaining registration period subsequent to 31st December 2002?
Answer to Question 1: The applicable
legal agreement does not provide for VeriSign to make any payment
to the successor .org registry operator to account for revenues VeriSign
has already received by the turnover date for registration periods in
the future. Correspondingly, it does not provide for the successor registry
operator to make any payment to VeriSign to account for the value of
the existing customer base at turnover.
Question 2: What levels and type of handover support
will be provided to the successor registry, and for what duration, at
no charge? If it is envisaged that handover support would be charged to
the successor registry, please provide an estimate of charges and the
basis on which charges would be made.
Answer to Question 2: Under subsection 5.2.3 of the current
.org Registry Agreement, VeriSign is obligated to cooperate in the transition:
5.1.3 Registry Operator shall make all commercially reasonable efforts
to cooperate with ICANN and the party designated by ICANN as successor
operator to facilitate smooth transition of the operation of the Registry
In addition, VeriSign has agreed to make global resolution and distribution
facilities available to the successor registry operator for one year
at no charge:
5.1.5 Registry Operator further agrees that it will make available
to the party designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org
registry the use of global resolution and distribution facilities,
at no charge until 31 December 2003, and thereafter at a price to
be determined, for so long as Registry Operator is also the operator
of the .com registry.
Question 3: Will the winning respondent have access
to all .org data (including zone file data) in advance of the transition
date? If so, when will such data be made available?
Answer to Question 3: See the above Answer to Question
2. Additional details are not available at this time.
Question 4: Have any specific mechanisms been
established for the winning bidder to make use of VeriSign's domain name
servers for the 12 month period in which VeriSign has agreed to provide
this service? Specifically, has it been determined how zone file updates
will be distributed to the VeriSign name servers?
Answer to Question 4: No specific mechanisms have yet been definitively
established. In general, it is anticipated that updates to the .org
zone would be supplied to a VeriSign-operated distribution master on
an agreed schedule.
Question 5: Subsection
5.5.1 of the [Draft] .org Registry Agreement states "Registry
Operator represents and warrants to ICANN that: it is a corporation duly
organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of Delaware,
USA". Is it required for a prospective .org registry operator to
incorporate in Delaware?
Answer to Question 5: The language regarding Delaware incorporation
was left in the draft (which was prepared based on various existing
registry agreements) by mistake. There is no requirement that the successor
registry operator for .org be incorporated in any particular jurisdiction.
In the finalized model .org Registry Agreement, subsection 5.5.1 has
been modified to read:
5.5. Representations and Warranties of Registry Operator. Registry
Operator represents and warrants to ICANN that:
5.5.1. it is a [type of organization] duly organized, validly existing,
and in good standing under the laws of [jurisdiction of organization] . . . .
The bracketed items will be filled in as appropriate for the selected
Question 6: Would ICANN enter into a contract
with a non-US based company?
Answer to Question 6: Yes. There is no intent to provide any
preference based on an applicant's status as a US-based company.
Question 7: If ICANN only enters into a contract
with a US based company, which US states laws would be acceptable or even
preferred (e.g., California)?
Answer to Question 7: The Model
.org Registry Agreement does not specify a single jurisdiction's
law to apply to all matters under the agreement. It is anticipated that
the laws of different jurisdictions may apply to different issues. For
example, it is likely that the validity, interpretation, and effect
of acts of successor registry operator would be judged according to
the laws of its jurisdiction and the validity, interpretation, and effect
of acts of ICANN would be judged according to the laws of the State
of California, USA.
Question 8: The new TLD agreements are most probably
all based on US law. Would ICANN enter into an agreement based on non-US
law? This question is related to law of the agreement (contract) itself.
Answer to Question 8: ICANN's new TLD agreements do not specify
a single jurisdiction's law to apply to all matters under the agreements.
The agreement between the ICANN and the successor .org registry operator
is expected to have the same provisions relevant to choice of law; see
the Model .org Registry
Question 9: Items
C12-C14 of the .org Proposal Form refer to entities contracted by
the registry to provide facilities or services. Is it requested that contracts
entities are already in force when the bid is submitted or is it sufficient
if bidders attach documentary evidence that such contracts will be entered
if and only if an agreement with ICANN regarding .org registry services
can be concluded?
Answer to Question 9: As stated in item
C14, it is sufficient to "state the scope and terms of the
contract under which the facilities or services will be provided and
attach documentary evidence that the entity has committed to enter into
that contract." The submitted evidence should convincingly demonstrate
a firm commitment to enter into the contract on the stated terms.
Question 10: Subsection
3.14 of the .org Registry Agreement deals with registry-level financial
support of ICANN. In order for an applicant to set up a business case
it is important that price calculations are possible and can be made reliably
for the bid. ICANN is asked to provide reliable details on financial data
Answer to Question 10: The available information on this point
can best be understood by reviewing subsection
3.14 of the Model .org Registry Agreement (be sure to review subsection
3.14.5) and the Proposed
Fiscal Year 2002–2003 Budget, particularly Schedule
Question 11: Item
C17 of the .org Proposal Form requires detailed descriptions of technical
infrastructure, like data base throughput, name server performance data
that can be supplied by a potential bidder only if relevant data from
VeriSign becomes available in time for the bid. (A) Can ICANN ensure that
such data from VeriSign will be available in time? (B) Since a potential
new registry operator will most probably be a well known organization
with registry-skills, does it make sense to request and analyze such detailed
Answer to Question 11(A): ICANN will make good-faith efforts
to facilitate provision of relevant data by VeriSign, which has indicated
that it will cooperate in this regard. There are no guarantees.
Answer to Question 11(B): ICANN believes that provision of this
data is important to evaluation of the applications. Please note that
one factor in evaluating
applications will be: "11. The completeness of the proposals
submitted and the extent to which they demonstrate realistic plans and
Question 12: When is the earliest date to be
expected to start agreement (contractual) negotiations? Can ICANN give
estimates on how much time such agreement processes take (e.g. based on
ICANN's experiences in similar cases)?
Answer to Question 12: ICANN anticipates that negotiations will
begin promptly after a selection is made. Please see the Model
.org Registry Agreement concerning the form of the agreement and
a description of appendices that must be prepared based on the selected
applicants' proposal and other factors. ICANN does not expect this to
be a lengthy process, and delays by the initially selected applicant
may result in an alternative selection being made.
Question 13: If a new .org registry were located
outside of the US, this registry would have to abide by privacy and data
protection law of that country. How will ICANN deal with this issue?
Answer to Question 13: ICANN believes that registry operators
are able to structure their businesses and operations in a way that
allows them to comply with the obligations of their agreements with
ICANN as well as abiding by applicable laws. Please note the various,
quite similar, agreements entered with unsponsored registry operators
located or incorporated in several North American and European jurisdictions.
It should be possible similarly to operate in jurisdictions elsewhere
while complying with the ICANN registry agreements.
Question 14: Item
C41 of the .org Proposal Form states conditions for application of
the endowment and assumes the applicant is familiar with the terms of
the endowment. Where can the terms of the endowment be found?
Answer to Question 14: The terms of the endowment are currently
stated in subsection
5.1.4 of the VeriSign-ICANN .org Registry Agreement, which states:
5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date, Registry
Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the sum of US $5 million,
to be used by ICANN in it sole discretion to establish an endowment
to be used to fund future operating costs of the non-profit entity
designated by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry. Registry
Operator agrees that such funds, once paid to ICANN, will become the
property of ICANN and/or ICANN's designee, and that Registry Operator
will have no ownership or other rights or interests in such funds
or in the manner in which they are used or disbursed.
Question 15: Specifically, how does ICANN define
Answer to Question 15: Without more context, it is not possible
to formulate an accurate definition of "non-commercial." If
the question relates to the VeriSign endowment, see the Answer
to Question 14.
Question 16: When ICANN refers to a non-profit
entity, is it referring to an entity approved by a regulatory body, such
as the IRS in the case of a 501(c)(3) organization, or is this meant to
mean an organization incorporated as a non-profit organization in whatever
national legal jurisdiction it is based? How important or relevant to
the VeriSign endowment is its tax-exempt status or is simply being an
organization incorporated as a non-profit entity sufficient?
Answer to Question 16: See Answer to Question
14. Applicants should consult their own legal advisors regarding
the relevance of various circumstances to the availability of the VeriSign
Question 17: Concerning point 10 of the Draft
Criteria for Assessing Proposals. Please describe in more detail the "qualification
and use requirements" of the Verisign endowment. Please specify what
sorts of constraints are put on use requirements and any criteria for
assessing appropriate use of the funds for operating cost, capital requirements,
or research & development.
Answer to Question 17: See Answer to Question
Question 18: Transition to new registry: How
does ICANN propose the new registry should deal with registrars currently
contractually bound to VeriSign? Will these contracts terminate in order
for the new registry to start negotiations with registrars?
Answer to Question 18: The current agreements between VeriSign
and registrars will not apply to the relationship between those registrars
and the successor registry operator. The successor registry operator
will be obligated under subsection
3.4 of the registry agreement with ICANN to enter into agreements
with registrars in the form agreed with ICANN. Applicants may wish to
refer to Appendix F of the various unsponsored TLD agreements to ascertain
what types of registry-registrar agreements are acceptably used in other
Question 19: Will the new registry have to negotiate
with all ICANN accredited registrars for new contractual agreements or
will the contracts concluded by ICANN with the accredited registrars be
valid for the new .org registry also?
Answer to Question 19: Please see the Answer to
Question 18 and subsection
3.4 of the Model .org Registry Agreement. Registrars operating in
.org after the turnover will have an Registrar
Accreditation Agreement with ICANN and a separate Registry-Registrar
Agreement with the successor registry operator. Each will be uniform
among the registrars operating in .org.
Question 20: Presentation in Romania: please
provide indication of time to be allocated to each bidder and any key
issues which should be addressed in the bid. Please also provide information
on the purpose of the presentation and on the weight the presentation
will have in the decision-making process.
Answer to Question 20: The details of the presentation(s) in
Bucharest will likely be subject to change once the number of applications
received becomes clear. Please note the following (somewhat revised)
explanation in the Application
Instructions for the .org Top-Level Domain posted on 20 May 2002:
27 June 2002 - This is the date of the ICANN Public Forum to be held
in Bucharest, Romania. A portion of the Public Forum will be devoted
to discussion of the .org applications, including presentations by
the applicants. An additional session for presentations at Bucharest
may also be held on 25 or 26 June 2002. Applicants will be notified
of any such additional session promptly after the application deadline
(currently scheduled for 18 June 2002).
Applicants should periodically check back at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/>,
where additional details will be announced as they become known.
Question 21: For a non-English-language organization
to apply for .org it is difficult to supply some of the requested documents
in English, e.g. business register entry, statutes, business reports etc.
What is the advice given by ICANN for such cases? Would translations of
text be sufficient? Do official documents require signatures by notary
Answer to Question 21: In such cases, an accurate translation
should be submitted. Signatures by notary persons need not be included
on the documents when submitted; if they are required the applicant
will be requested to provide them after submission.
Question 22: The solicitation documents appear
to say that on the date the successor operator assumes responsibility
for the .org registry, the number of registered domain names in the .org
database will roughly equal 2.7 million. Applicants are likely to structure
their technical proposals consistent with this figure, with allowances
for variations in the normal course of business. Do any of ICANN's agreements
with the current operator of the .org registry prohibit the operator or
its registrars from artificially inflating domain name registrations through
such measures as, and without limitation, no-cost registrations, low-price
promotional programs, and the bundling of top level domains? Will ICANN
afford the successor operator any allowances or equitable adjustments
if the number of registrations substantially increases as a result of
these measures by the time the successor begins operating the registry?
Answer to Question 22: Please note that the RFP materials do
not indicate how many registered .org names there will be on the turnover
date; all they indicate is that the current number of names is approximately
2.7 million. In the time leading up to the turnover date, that number
could rise or fall, perhaps significantly. Ascertaining the likely change
is a matter for which each applicant is responsible.
ICANN has had discussions with VeriSign Global Registry Services personnel
regarding their plans concerning possible low- or no-cost promotions
of .org registrations before the turnover date. Based on those discussions,
it is unlikely that there will be any registry-level .org price promotions
before the turnover date. In the event there are, ICANN would be willing
to consider adjustments to its contractual terms with the selected successor
Question 23: Does ICANN anticipate a transition
from a thin registry to thick as part of the .org re-delegation, and if
so, in which section of the application would it be appropriate to detail
such a transition?
Answer to Question 23: The decision whether to propose a transition
to a thick registry is a matter left up to the applicant. (This decision
may be relevant to the evaluation of applications. See, for example,
criteria 7 and 8.)
The proposed arrangements should be described in response to the .org
Proposal Form, particularly items C17
and C25-C28. Responses
to other items in the response may also be affected.
Question 24: The IETF is very likely to approve
the core EPP documents as Proposed Standards prior to ICANN's selection
of a new .org registry. If this occurs, then the "135-day interval"
described in Section C22 of the [Draft] .org Proposal Form ICANN will
be within the timeframe of the transition of .org from the current registry
to the new registry (December 2002 to January 2003). The result of this
is that the registry would be required to support both RRP and EPP at
the time of the transition. Is this ICANN's intent? Or is it ICANN's intent
for the registry to support RRP at the time of the transition from the
current registry to the new registry and then at a later time to coordinate
a transition from RRP to EPP as is implied by Criteria 8 of the [Draft]
Criteria for Assessing Proposals?
Answer to Question 24: Without necessarily agreeing with this
question's prediction about IETF actions, ICANN notes that item
C22 has been revised in the finalized .org Proposal Form. It seems
likely that an orderly transition to EPP will entail some period of
support of RRP after the turnover date.
Question 25: In the event that the EPP protocol
is not finalized by the IETF in the near future, would it be allowable
to migrate registrars from RRP to EPP after transition but prior to the
135 days after [EPP] is adopted as a Proposed Standard?
Answer to Question 25: See Answer to Question
24 and item C22
of the finalized .org Proposal Form.
Question 26: Is it allowable for the winning
bidder to discontinue support for the RRP protocol at some point after
Answer to Question 26: See Answer to Question
24 and item C22
of the finalized .org Proposal Form.
Question 27: Item
C50.3 has been revised in the [Draft] .org Proposal Form reads:
C50.3 Business References. A list of significant trade and credit references
of the applicant and each entity identified in item C13.
Does ICANN want simply a list identifying organizations and contact information
for trade and credit references from the applicant and each C13 entity
or should original signed letters from those references be acquired and
attached to the application?
Answer to Question 27: A list of references with contact information
should be submitted. As to the item C13 entities, please see item
Question 28: Concerning question A9 of the Draft
Application Instructions. Can materials be submitted by email instead
of a floppy disk or a CD-ROM? Are PDF and HTML files acceptable as the
two formats submitted? If not, does "common word-processing format"
include Quark XPress 4.0 or do you require Microsoft Word? What other
formats would be acceptable?
Answer to Question 28: Item
A9 of the finalized Application Instructions for the .org Top-Level
Domain has been revised to be more specific.
Question 29: Concerning the Draft .org Registry
Agreement. The existing .org agreement with Verisign includes reference
to an Appendix P, an independent Whois provider. That appendix is not
present in the Draft Agreement. What are ICANN's plans in this area?
Answer to Question 29: ICANN anticipates that there will be
an Appendix P in the successor .org registry operator's registry
agreement. Please see the Model
.org Registry Agreement posted on 20 May 2002, which has a significantly
expanded discussion of the appendices that are anticipated.
Question 30: Concerning item
B2 of the Draft Application Transmittal Form. What documents would
ICANN like to see that demonstrate the authority to act?
Answer to Question 30: A certificate from the applicant's corporate
secretary is an example. See item
B2 in the finalized .org Application Transmittal Form.
Question 31: Why is the definition of "Registry
Services" different from the definition of that term as set forth
in the current .org Registry Agreement with VeriSign, Inc.?
Answer to Question 31: The definition
of the term "Registry Services" in the model agreement
is identical to the definition of that term used in the .aero, .biz,
.coop, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro agreements. This definition is
used throughout ICANN's registry agreements to distinguish services
provided by a registry operator based on its appointment as the sole
registry operator by ICANN (that therefore implicate ICANN's public-interest
responsibilities) from services provided on a fully competitive basis
(that do not implicate those responsibilities). The definition used
in the VeriSign .org agreement is a version that was discussed earlier
in the negotiations leading up to the new TLD agreements. Legitimate
concerns were raised that this earlier definition could be improved
by providing more specifics as to how to judge whether a particular
service was or was not a "Registry Service". As a result,
the second and third sentences were added to provide additional clarity.
This additional clarity should reduce the potential for disputes, though
it is unlikely to affect the outcome in the case of any particular service.
Question 32: Subsection
1.16 of the model .org registry agreement states that "[i]n determining
whether a service is integral to the operation of the Registry TLD, consideration
will be given to the extent to which the Registry Operator has been materially
advantaged in providing the service by its designation as such under this
Agreement." Why is this a consideration and what is the relationship
between whether a service is integral to the operation of the Registry
TLD and the advantage a Registry Operator may enjoy in providing a service
by virtue of its position?
Answer to Question 32: The purpose of the definition of "Registry
Services" is to distinguish services provided by a registry operator
based on its appointment as the sole registry operator by ICANN (that
therefore implicate ICANN's public-interest responsibilities) from services
provided on a fully competitive basis (that do not implicate those responsibilities).
By virtue of its appointment by ICANN as the authoritative keeper of
a TLD's registry, a registry operator is necessarily accorded a preferential
ability to provide some kinds of services most obviously
the ability to accept registrations from registrars but also services
that are integrated with the registry operation in some way (such as
the VeriSign-proposed Wait-Listing
Service for the .com and .net TLDs). Where a registry operator gains
from its appointment as the sole registry operator a preferential ability
to provide a service, that service is a "Registry Service"
and requirements such as fair and equivalent treatment of all accredited
registrars apply. The extent to which the registry operator's appointment
by ICANN to operate the authoritative TLD registry gives rise to a preferential
ability to provide a service (as discussed in the second sentence of
the definition) is plainly a major consideration in determining whether
the service is "integral" to the operation of the registry
TLD (as discussed in the first sentence of the definition) and thus
a "Registry Service". If no advantage in providing a service
is afforded by ICANN's appointment of the registry operator, then the
service should not be considered "integral" to operation of
Question 33: What is ICANN's interest in controlling
or influencing services which the Registry Operator has been materially
advantaged in providing by virtue of its designation as such under the
Answer to Question 33: Where a registry operator is given a
preferentially advantageous ability to provide a service due to ICANN's
appointment of it as the sole, authoritative keeper of the TLD's registry,
the public trust inherent in ICANN's administration of the DNS root
implies public-interest responsibilities. Placing a particular for-profit,
private interest in a sole-source position to provide a service carries
with it the responsibility on the part of ICANN to ensure the conditions
for provision of the service are compatible with the public interest.
Question 34: What measures will ICANN take to
preserve the integrity of the proposal process?
Answer to Question 34: See the Application
Instructions for the .org Top-Level Domain (concerning the process
for informed consideration of applications) and Reassignment
of .org Top-Level Domain: Criteria for Assessing Proposals (concerning
neutral criteria to be applied).
Question 35: Concerning Appendix
S of the Model .org Registry Agreement on Data Escrow Requirements,
does ICANN maintain a list of approved Data Escrow Providers? What are
the criteria ICANN uses for assessing the suitability of a Data Escrow
Answer to Question 35: ICANN does not maintain a list of approved
data escrow providers, but makes case-by-case assessments based on the
nature and extent of the data escrow to be provided, the reputation
of the proposed provider for technical competence and trustworthy implementation
of escrow instructions, the willingness of the proposed provider to
agree to the escrow conditions, the stability and other circumstances
of the proposed provider, and any other relevant factors that may appear
in a particular situation.
Question 36: Please confirm item
B8 of the .org Application Transmittal Form is not intended to waive
claims against ICANN for disclosing documentation or other information
that has been accorded confidential treatment pursuant the Statement
of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted and any
other applicable procedures. To the extent that item B8 does purport to
disclaim such liability or responsibility, we suggest that the language
of this provision be changed to recognize ICANN's obligation to comply
with its confidentiality requirements.
Answer to Question 36: A parenthetical sentence has been added
to item B8 in the finalized .org
Application Transmittal Form to clarify the relation of that item
to written agreements pursuant the Statement
of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted. As recited
in item B8, the waiver is "[i]n consideration of ICANN's review
of the application."
Question 37: What specific criteria will ICANN
apply in determining whether its general goal of encouraging competition
at the registry level has been satisfied?
Answer to Question 37: The explanation of criterion 3
in the finalized Criteria for Assessing Proposals has been expanded
to provide additional information about how this criterion will be applied.
Question 38: What data will ICANN rely upon in
determining whether its goal of encouraging competition at the registry
level has been satisfied?
Answer to Question 38: The .org
Proposal Form, particularly part
VI, requests data pertinent to this criterion for selection. ICANN
will consider data provided by applicants in response to the .org Proposal
Form as well as other relevant information obtained by other means.
Question 39: Does ICANN intend to conduct discussions
with offerors after their submission of proposals, and if so, under what
Answer to Question 39: For a description of the evaluation process,
please see part IX of Application
Instructions for the .org Top-Level Domain. As noted in item
A39, for example, the evaluation team will as needed gather additional
information from the applicants and other sources.
Question 40: If ICANN intends to conduct discussions
with offerors after their submission of proposals, what measures will
ICANN take to ensure the confidentiality of proposal materials and the
integrity of the proposal process?
Answer to Question 40: ICANN intends to observe the terms of
any written agreements it enters under the procedures stated in part
I of Statement of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted.
The procedures for the evaluation proces are described in part
IX of Application Instructions for the .org Top-Level Domain.
Question 41:What procedures will ICANN use to
clarify any questions it may have with regard to specific proposals?
Answer to Question 41: See Answer to Question
Question 42: What restrictions are there on a
company minority (less that 10%) owned by VeriSign in submitting a proposal
to become the successor operator of .org?
Answer to Question 42: Subsection
5.1.2 of the current .org Registry Agreement between ICANN and VeriSign
5.1.2 Registry Operator [VeriSign] acknowledges and agrees that
upon the earlier of (i) the Expiration Date or (ii) termination of
this Agreement by ICANN pursuant to Subsection 5.4, it will cease
to be the operator of the Registry TLD and neither it nor any affiliated
entity will be eligible to seek to continue to operate the Registry
Our understanding of the circumstances being inquired about is:
a. VeriSign owns (directly or indirectly) less than 10% of the equity
in a prospective applicant, and does not have the ability to exercise
voting power of 10% or more within the prospective applicant;
b. VeriSign does not possess the power to elect more than 10% of
the board of directors (or equivalent governing body) of the prospective
c. VeriSign has no ability, directly or indirectly, to direct or
cause the direction of the management, operations, or policies of
the prospective applicant.
Based on these understandings, ICANN does not believe that Subsection 5.1.2
prohibits the prospective applicant from seeking to become the successor
operator of the .org TLD.
The response above is limited to the effect of Subsection 5.1.2 of
the current .org Registry Agreement. Please note that item
3 of the Criteria for Assessing Proposals generally favors diversity
in the provision of registry services for .com, .net, and .org:
3. Enhancement of competition for registration services.
One of ICANN's core principles is the encouragement of competition
in the provision of registration services at both the registry and
registrar levels. Promotion of that principle will be a criterion.
As one illustration of this criterion, a major purpose of the reassignment
of the .org registry is to diversify the provision of registry services
by placing the .org registry under different operation than the .com
and .net registries. Consideration will be given to the extent to
which proposed arrangements are consistent with this purpose. As another
illustration, applicants are encouraged to refrain from prohibiting
non-affiliated providers of backend services from offering their services
in connection with other applications.
Under this criterion, the relationship of an applicant with the .net
and .org operator may be relevant even in circumstances where Subsection 5.1.2
of the .org Registry Agreement does not make the applicant ineligible
To provide a proper basis for evaluation, Item
C33 of the .org Proposal Form requests details regarding "all
affiliations, including direct or indirect ownership and contractual
arrangements (including letters of intent) for the past, present, or
future provision of registry services, between (a) the applicant or
any entity identified in item C13 and (b) any operator of a DNS registry
having more than 500,000 registered names." As should be apparent
from its language, this inquiry uses the term "affiliation"
in a broad sense, not limited to situations of substantial ownership
or control. Applicants should respond accordingly, so that ICANN is
enabled to make an informed judgment. In responding, applicants having
such relationships may wish to explain the extent to which the related
party would have the ability to control the operation of the .org registry,
in the event the applicant became the successor operator.
Question 43: I've read the Criteria
for Assessing Proposals that you posted. Can you give me any additional
Answer to Question 43: ICANN intends to consider the eleven
items in the Criteria for Assessing
Proposals in evaluating and selecting from among the proposals that
are received. (It is expected that additional considerations in the
evaluation and selection of proposals may be suggested by analysis and
comparison of the proposals once they are received.) Applicants may
also find it helpful to review the discussion among the ICANN Board
members at the Board meeting in Accra about the .org reassignment. This
occurred in the afternoon of 14 March 2002 and was
recorded by a real-time scribe. For applicants' convenience, the
portion of the discussion about the .org reorganization has
been separately posted.
Question 44: I have some materials I'd like to
send to the ICANN Board about my application. How can I do that?
Answer to Question 44: The procedures for receiving and evaluating
.org applications have been designed to promote transparency. Materials
submitted to ICANN for its consideration should generally (except where
ICANN has agreed in writing to confidential treatment) be available
for review by the public. An in-person
Public Forum will be held in Bucharest and a web-based
public comment forum has been established to receive presentations
from applicants and others with views on particular applications.
The ICANN Board members and staff intend to adhere to these procedures.
Although they are committed to being accessible to the public regarding
ICANN matters, the members of the ICANN Board have asked us to remind
applicants, their supporters, their detractors, and all others to use
the established comment mechanisms so that comments are open for review
by everyone. ICANN Board members/staff will review the comments received
by these mechanisms. Private comments sent directly to Board members
and the staff are neither appropriate nor helpful in this process because
they do not support ICANN's commitment to openness and transparency.
Applicants are requested to demonstrate their sensitivity to the need
for transparency by refrainingand asking their supporters to refrainfrom
attempting direct submissions.
Question 45: May the HTML version of our full
application include links to pdf files containing proposal information,
technical and other attachments or must everything be converted to html?
The html files we would like to submit with the pdf links and appropriate
electronic files attached could be posted easily to the ICANN website.
Answer to Question 45: To enhance public access to the materials
submitted, ICANN seeks to have as much of the material as possible posted
in HTML (character-searchable) format. Both the public and ICANN Board
members/staff will find that a true HTML version makes your submission
easier to review. In all events, documents must be provided in the two
electronic formats described in Item
A9 of the finalized Application Instructions for the .org Top-Level
Items A8.1, A8.2, and A8.3 must also be provided in electronic form
on one or more 3½" floppy diskettes (IBM high density)
or on a CD-ROM (a) in HTML format (merely using Microsoft Word's HTML
conversion features is discouraged) and (b) in one of the following
formats: Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or plaintext.
While .pdf files may be submitted as a third format, please provide
HTML format and one of the formats described in (b) above to the
extent that the nature of the materials permits doing so. See Answer
to Question 46.
Question 46: Can you confirm (1) whether the
CD must include scanned copies of materials such as organizational documents
of entities in C13 that are only provided to the applicant in hard copy
and (2) whether PDFs of scanned documents from external sources (and C13
sources) are acceptable on the CD?
Answer to Question 46: Where organizational documents or other
supporting items are available to the applicant only in paper form,
.pdf files produced by scanning are acceptable.
the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to email@example.com.
©2002 The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.