Please describe in detail mechanisms that you propose to implement to ensure compliance with ICANN-developed policies and the requirements of the registry agreement.

This Section C19 addresses provisions for compliance with ICANN policies generally and the Model .org Registry Agreement (the “.org Agreement”).

Global Name Registry currently has in place mechanisms to allow for compliance with its current .name TLD Registry Agreement (the “.name Agreement”) and with policies instituted by ICANN. In particular, they are:

1. Dedicated Policy Team.

2. Active Participation in the ICANN Policy-Development Process.

3. Compliance: Training and Other Internal Processes.

This Section 19 highlights the policy and compliance infrastructure and processes that currently maintained for .name, since such infrastructure and processes will provide a strong foundation for compliance with policies and the agreement Global Name Registry would enter into with ICANN in connection with .org.

Dedicated Policy Team

Since operating and administering a generic top-level domain requires a great deal of discipline, attention to detail and rigorous maintenance, Global Name Registry employs a Policy Team which currently consists of two lawyers who actively participate in ICANN community discourse, maintain close contacts with ICANN and generally keep track of the policy-making process. In addition, in evaluating relevant topics of discussion within the ICANN community, the Policy Team continuously solicits advice from its colleagues, particularly in the technical teams within Global Name Registry, in order to have a clear understanding of the issues pertaining to any relevant subject.

For compliance purposes, the Policy Team works closely with the technical, registrar relations and marketing departments within Global Name Registry to ensure that all actions executed by any employee of Global Name Registry are implemented in compliance with the .name Agreement.

The mandate of the Policy Team is to understand Global Name Registry’s obligations and day-to-day requirements under the .name Agreement. With a strong legal background, the Policy Team has been able to understand, implement and explain the .name Agreement and the obligations thereunder to colleagues. In particular, the Policy Team provides support to the company at large by interpreting various provisions of the .name Agreement on a regular basis.

Active Participation in the ICANN Policy-Development Process: To the maximum extent possible, the Policy Team participates in the policy-development process in order to ensure that the ICANN community is aware of the various issues that face gTLD registries in particular. In addition, Global Name Registry believes that it is extremely important to take advantage of the bottom-up public forum into which ICANN has evolved. Global Name Registry believes that active participation can contribute significantly to the adoption and implementation of policies which will be beneficial for the entire community, and which simultaneously should be palatable to relevant parties as a result of such participation.

With respect to the consensus policy to which Global Name Registry is required adhere by the .name Agreement, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”), Global Name Registry has endeavored to ensure that all of its registrars’ terms and conditions contain an agreement by the .name registrant to submit to challenges contemplated by the UDRP. To ensure continued incorporation of relevant terms and conditions which are important to Global Name Registry (including the UDRP), the Policy Team will survey and check, on a routine basis, the terms and conditions published by registrars for use by their registrants.

In launching the .name TLD, Global Name Registry developed and implemented a unique dispute resolution policy, the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “ERDRP”). The standards by which dispute resolution providers must judge whether a claimant is aggrieved under the ERDRP is a simple and objective test, which will discourage the proliferation of cyber-squatting within the .name space. The Policy Team has worked closely with two ICANN-approved dispute resolution providers to put into practice this unique dispute process. Global Name Registry believes that the ERDRP will facilitate the ease with which aggrieved individuals can challenge .name registrations that conflict with their own names. Alternatively, the ERDRP allows legitimate trademark owners to protect with greater ease their intellectual property.

Compliance: Training and Other Internal Processes

The Global Name Registry Policy Team has devised a training program for all new employees, which program each employee must undergo prior to handling any proprietary or sensitive matter relating to the registry’s business. The attached Compliance Manual and Employee Training power point presentation, both of which cover the materials required for employees of Global Name Registry to comply with the .name Agreement are attached as Appendices 32 and 33 to this .org proposal. In accordance with the .name Agreement, Global Name Registry employees are scheduled to undergo refresher training on an annual basis, and between such refresher courses, may be subject to a test to ensure comprehensive understanding of and compliance with the Equivalent Access Policy and Code of Conduct.

In respect of the Equivalent Access Policy, the Policy Team has made it clear to all registry employees that this policy is paramount to a successful relationship with ICANN. Therefore, Global Name Registry has instituted processes by which all registrars receive notifications, updates to software, access to the registry systems, access to customer service and registrar accounts on an equivalent basis. Every employee within Global Name Registry understands the importance of this policy. As a matter of course, regarding any communications and updates to the registrars, employees interfacing with the registrars submit their action plans and communications to the Policy Team before implementing their solutions.

With regard to the Code of Conduct, the Policy Team has trained Global Name Registry employees to understand the importance of treating DNS registry operators and registrars without preferential treatment. In addition, the company has implemented measures to protect proprietary data, such as paper shredders and office policies on safeguarding information. All employees have been instructed to treat such data confidentially unless protected by non-disclosure agreements, which are signed and maintained by the Policy Team on a routine basis.

The Policy Team, together with the various business units of Global Name Registry, has devised and implemented processes by which Global Name Registry employees can vet any issue that might run afoul of the .name Agreement. As one might imagine, issues arise almost daily in the early days of operation of a generic top level domain registry, and it is crucial that the Policy Team be an integral part of the development of the registry and its business.

Part of compliance with the .name Agreement is the provision of various proof-of-concept and monthly reports which track for ICANN the performance of the .name registry. Global Name Registry has implemented procedures to ensure that all relevant facts required by such reports are tracked and that to the extent possible, database systems have been built to provide efficient tracking.

Global Name Registry takes its commitment to security and stability very seriously. Thus, it has implemented badge access, with only select employees having access to the data centers, and enforce such restrictions on a regular basis.

On the technical side, the Global Name Registry technical team has implemented monitors and systems in order to ensure compliance with requisite service level requirements, and to the extent that there are any arrangements with outsourced providers for any of the Global Name Registry operations, steps have been taken to ensure that such outsourced providers are bound to perform in accordance with the service level requirements.

Compliance with the .org Agreement: Since the provisions of the .org Agreement are largely based on the agreement entered into between Global Name Registry and ICANN for .name, Global Name Registry believes that its current policy and compliance structure will lend itself well to ensuring compliance with the .org Agreement.

In particular, Global Name Registry believes that compliance with the base agreement and appendices can be achieved in the following manner:

Base Agreement: Regarding the obligation to provide Registry Services, Global Name Registry will exploit its current and additional sales channels and ensure that current ICANN-accredited registrars with which Global Name Registry has entered into contracts are equipped to sell .org in its new form (EPP). Other provisions of the base agreement are incorporated in the appendices described below.

Appendix C: With regard to functional specifications, Global Name Registry will build a transitional system in accordance with the system that to be described in the Appendix C; to the extent that there are any material deviations, Global Name Registry will consult with ICANN. Global Name Registry believes that its successes to date in working with the current registry operator (including transitioning certain parts of the .name registry to the current registry operator) will aid in a smooth and issue-free transition of the .org registry to Global Name Registry. It is important to note that Global Name Registry will not outsource any portion of the .org registry to the current registry operator in accordance with the purpose of the .org divestiture.

Appendices D and E: Tracking service levels and adhering to specified service level requirements will follow as a result of current tracking of the .name system. In addition, as is the case with .name, to the extent that Global Name Registry outsources any portion of the .org registry, it will continue to require that any such outsourced provider adheres to the requirements set forth in these appendices. Again, no portion of the .org registry will be outsourced to the current operator.

Appendix F: Since Global Name Registry is familiar with the requirements under the .name Registry-Registrar Agreement, it will continue to ensure compliance with any such agreements to the extent that they are executed with ICANN-accredited registrars. Global Name Registry maintains copious records regarding each registrar, always ensuring that each agreement executed by a registrar is in acceptable form and that any issue arising under the registry-registrar agreement is resolved in a reasonable amount of time.

Appendix G: In order to comply with a reasonable pricing structure in the long-run, Global Name Registry will ensure that it devises a pricing structure that will allow Global Name Registry to achieve long-term profitability so that there is no risk of insolvency or other failure of the registry. Global Name Registry will also keep in mind the price of the domain in the context of what is reasonable to registrars and end-consumers.

Appendix H: If Global Name Registry wins the bid for .org, its Policy Team would implement the same manner of compliance training as it currently does for .name. Similar processes, requiring the business units of the registry to obtain sign-off on communications and action plans with respect to the registrars, would be instituted.

Appendix I: The Policy Team would similarly induct employees into the company by making each of them aware of the various obligations under the Code of Conduct. Information about .org would be protected to the same careful extent as employees currently protect .name information.

With respect to both Appendices H and I, the Policy Team would conduct a refresher course (possibly to coincide with a potential re-delegation of .org to Global Name Registry) on both the Equivalent Access Policy and the Code of Conduct, which would highlight the fact that such policy and code equally apply to the operation of .org as well as to .name.

Appendix J: Part of this application is clearly a plan for a transition from the current .org registry operator to Global Name Registry of the .org registry in a manner that will not threaten the security and stability of the Internet or the continued, uninterrupted use by current .org registrants of their domain names. As it is understood that this safe transition is crucial to the continued and uninterrupted operation of .org, Global Name Registry intends to work closely with the current .org registry operator to develop a solid transition plan and to comply with each of such plan’s requirements in the very strictest interpretation. As stated, Global Name Registry’s current relationship with the current .org registry operator has been vetted through the partial transition of the .name registry, and Global Name Registry has managed that relationship successfully, being able to resolve any issues that arose. Global Name Registry believes that it can apply the same successes to a well thought out transition plan in the case of .org.

Appendix K: In negotiating the .org Agreement, Global Name Registry proposes to work with ICANN to make a reasonable determination of names to be reserved from registration.

Appendix N: Regarding zone file access, Global Name Registry proposes to continue to offer the public access to the .org zone file using the same processes currently in place for .name. To the extent that individuals or entities wish to gain access to the .name zone file, Global Name Registry has made available a standard form Zone File Access Agreement on the www.name website, and one of the members on the legal team reviews each such agreement submitted. Following such submission, review and execution, the legal team keeps the Zone File Access Agreements filed and is able to track any abuses.

Appendix O, P and Q: Since Global Name Registry has previously built a Whois specification for .name, it is confident that it can build such a specification for .org and can transition the current thin Whois database into a thick Whois database maintained at the registry level. Obviously, this will not be a process that happens immediately upon transition, but rather it will be a process that is phased in during the early part of the term of the .org Agreement. Global Name Registry believes that propagation of a thick registry will be beneficial to users of the Whois database, since a thick registry provides users with centralized access in respect of the .org top-level domain.

Appendix R and S: To the extent ICANN provides Global Name Registry with a script for data escrow, Global Name Registry will comply with any data escrow requirements.

Appendix T: Global Name Registry has built automated database and manual systems to track the performance of the .name registry in light of the requirements of Appendix T. The Policy Team collects and collates the information required by Appendix T so that Global Name Registry is able to make a timely submission of the Appendix T report on a monthly basis. Global Name Registry would utilize the same processes for .org.

Appendix U: While the Transition Reports have not been enumerated by ICANN, Global Name Registry is confident that it will be able to build upon the automated database and manual systems for .name to track performance of the registry in light of the transition made for .org.

Appendix V: To the extent that Global Name Registry is required by its .name Agreement to comply with consensus policies developed in the ICANN community, Global Name Registry will similarly comply with respect to .org. As stated earlier, Global Name Registry has endeavored to ensure that it and its registrars comply with the existing consensus policy, the UDRP.

Appendix W: In negotiating the .org Agreement, Global Name Registry proposes to work with ICANN to make a reasonable determination of any additional covenants.

Appendix X: In negotiating the .org Agreement, Global Name Registry proposes to work with ICANN to make a reasonable determination of names to be reserved from registration for purposes of its use in pursuing its business in respect of .org.

Appendix Y: Global Name Registry intends to comply with the sanctions appendix of the .org Agreement to the extent that the current sanctions appendix is revised by ICANN in accordance with its current discussions with the gTLD constituency, or as negotiated between Global Name Registry and ICANN.

conclusion

Because of the existing infrastructure built for .name in respect of compliance with ICANN policies and the .name Agreement, Global Name Registry is confident that it can either build upon the existing infrastructure, or alternatively build a similar and parallel infrastructure for .org requirements. In the event that the company finds it necessary to hire additional staff to ensure compliance with ICANN policies and the .org Agreement, additional resources will be added to the Policy Team infrastructure to support such needs.

IV. PROVISIONS FOR EQUIVALENT ACCESS BY ACCREDITED REGISTRARS

C20. <no response required>

The selected successor operator for the .org registry will be required to provide all ICANN-accredited registrars having registry-registrar agreements in effect with equivalent access to registry services through a shared registry system, under which those registrars will provide services (either directly or through resellers) to registrants. This section of the .org Proposal covers the applicant's proposed arrangements for interacting with registrars in a manner that provides equivalent access.

C21. Equivalent Access

Describe in detail your proposed methods of providing registry services on an equivalent basis to all accredited registrars having registry-registrar agreements in effect. Your description should include any measures intended to make registration, technical assistance, and other services available to ICANN-accredited registrars in different time zones and relevant languages. In addition, describe the Registry Code of Conduct and other commitments you propose to make to ensure that all such registrars receive equivalent access to registry services. In preparing your response to this item, you may wish to refer to Appendices H and I of the registry agreements ICANN has entered for unsponsored TLDs (e.g., .biz, .com, .info, and .name).

Currently, Global Name Registry provides equivalent access to registry services in connection with the .name top level domain to all ICANN-accredited registrars which have entered into, and are in good standing with, registry-registrar agreements with Global Name Registry. As described in the response to C19 above, Global Name Registry has implemented a stringent Employee Training Program and Compliance Manual, which educates all employees, consultants, directors and officers as to their obligations under the Equivalent Access Policy for .name.

Assuming the .org ICANN Agreement will require much of the same obligations of the registry in respect of .org, Global Name Registry will simply build upon its existing training program and Compliance Manual to meet its obligations under such agreement. If it is not possible to build upon that foundation, Global Name Registry will simply run parallel processes which track the efforts of the Global Name Registry Policy Team in training employees for .name.

As stated, Global Name Registry has implemented a stringent training program for all employees, consultants, directors and officers of the company so that knowledge and understanding of the Equivalent Access Policy and Code of Conduct with respect to .name is widespread.

To the extent that any employee, consultant, director or officer of the Global Name Registry, or its parent company, GNR Limited, faces an issue that falls under the registry Code of Conduct, each such individual has been instructed to consult with members of the Policy Team in order to resolve any issue that arises, and otherwise to maintain compliance with the Code of Conduct.

Global Name Registry will ensure that it operates as a trusted and neutral third party provider of DNS registry services. The domain names on .org are the means by which organizations, charities, technical communities, companies and individuals all over the world will access, navigate and otherwise benefit from the global Internet. It is vital for the community that the DNS resources are administered in a fair, efficient and neutral manner, to ensure equal access for all parties in the competitive DNS space.

Geographic Diversity – Commitment to Service

Because of the geographic diversity of Global Name Registry’s customers, Global Name Registry employs individuals who speak a wide variety of languages, including Mandarin Chinese, Norwegian, Spanish, Italian, French, German, Taiwanese, Portuguese, and many others. Global Name Registry has solicited from each employee, whether or not directly servicing registrars, his or her list of languages which are spoken and understood.

In addition to ensure customers of rapid responses to questions or issues during any time of day or night, in any time zone, Global Name Registry maintains a 24 by seven operation so that in cases of emergency, registrars in any time zone are taken care of.

Twenty-four by Seven Operation

At any given time, Global Name Registry employees staff the data center and provide technical support to any registrar who needs it. The customer services team at Global Name Registry has established a customer service escalation plan to ensure orderly dealings with multiple customer issues. This escalation plan calls for twenty-four hour service and delineates responsibilities for various managers and officers of Global Name Registry. To the extent that a registrar issue need not be resolved immediately, the customer services team will resolve problems in due course.

Code of Conduct

To ensure the neutral operation of the registry services, Global Name Registry will continue to follow the following Code of Conduct:

1. Other than in connection with the distribution of dividends or other profits to Global Name Registry's members and shareholders, Global Name Registry will not, and will require that its subcontractors do not, directly or indirectly, show any preference or provide any special consideration to any DNS registry operator or ICANN-Accredited Registrars in the .name Registry versus any other DNS registry operator or ICANN-Accredited Registrars in the .name Registry, as those terms are defined by ICANN, including the registry or registrar owned by a member of Global Name Registry.

2. All ICANN-Accredited Registrars in the .name Registry shall have equal access to Registry Services provided by Global Name Registry as set forth in the Registry Equivalent Access Policy.

3. Global Name Registry and its members and subcontractors shall not in any way attempt to warehouse or register domain names in their own right, except for names designated for operational purposes in compliance with Subsections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of the Registry Agreement. In its Monthly Report to ICANN, Global Name Registry shall include a list of all names designated for operational purposes.

4. Any shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, or other related entity of Global Name Registry that also operates as a provider of registrar services shall maintain separate books of account with respect to its registrar operations separate from those of Global Name Registry.

5. Neither Global Name Registry, nor its shareholders, subsidiaries, affiliates, or other related entities shall have access to user data or proprietary information of an ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as necessary for registry management and operations.

6. Global Name Registry will ensure that no user data or proprietary information from any ICANN-Accredited Registrar is disclosed to its affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related entities, except as necessary for registry management and operations.

7. Confidential information about Global Name Registry's business services will not be shared with employees of any DNS registry operator or ICANN-Accredited Registrars, except as necessary for registry management and operations.

8. No member of Global Name Registry's Board of Directors will simultaneously serve on the Board of Directors of an ICANN-Accredited Registrar that obtains Registry Services from Global Name Registry.

9. No employee of Global Name Registry will hold a greater than 5% interest, financial or otherwise in a company that obtains Registry Services from Global Name Registry.

10.No employee of Global Name Registry will also be an employee of any Global Name Registry subsidiary, affiliate or other related entity that also operates as an ICANN-Accredited Registrar.

11.Global Name Registry will ensure that no user data from or proprietary information of any registry operated or controlled by Global Name Registry is disclosed to any other registry operated or controlled by Global Name Registry.

12.Global Name Registry will not attempt to itself determine any entity’s right to a particular domain name, and has no means by which to verify such rights.

Global Name Registry will conduct internal neutrality reviews on a regular basis. In addition, Global Name Registry and ICANN may mutually agree on an independent party ("Neutrality Analyst") that ICANN may hire, at ICANN's expense, to conduct a neutrality review of Global Name Registry, ensuring that Global Name Registry Any shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, or other related entity of Global Name Registry that also operates as a provider of registrar services comply with all the provisions of this Registry Operator Code of Conduct. The neutrality review may be conducted as often as once per year. Global Name Registry will provide the Neutrality Analyst with reasonable access to information and records appropriate to complete the review. The results of the review of the Neutrality Analyst will be provided to ICANN and shall be deemed to be confidential and proprietary information of Global Name Registry and its owners.

This Code of Conduct is set forth in more detail in Appendix 30 to this application.

Measures to Ensure Equivalent Access

Further, Global Name Registry will ensure that all ICANN-accredited registrars enjoy equivalent access to the .org registry systems. This policy encompasses the following areas:

Equivalence

1. Equivalent protocols, connection and security measures

2. Equivalent customer support, administrative and business services

3. Equivalent billing and account management

A Registry Operator void of organisational conflict of interest

1. Organizational structure separate from any registrar

2. Financial separation from any registrar

3. Different locations/premises from any registrar

Security of all data held by Registrar

1. Physical protection of registry, barriers from any Registrar

2. Registry information control, including

a. Training of staff for treatment of proprietary or confidential information

b. Responsibility and ownership of information

c. Limited or non-disclosure of information

d. Safekeeping of information

e. Marking and tracking of information

f. Destruction of information

g. Protection against technical security breaches

h. Protection against human security breaches

This Equivalent Access Policy is set forth in more detail in Appendix 31 to this application. See also C19 for further detail and information on measures to ensure compliance.

C22. <Intentionally moved to separate chapter>

Given the very technical nature of C22, it has been separately bound in a clearly marked part of this .org Proposal.

C23. and C24. Intentionally omitted.

V. PROPOSED REGISTRY SERVICES

C25. Description of each Registry Service

Describe each Registry Service (as defined in subsection 1.16 of the skeleton .org Registry Agreement) that you propose to provide for a fee. For an example of a description of this type, see:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-1-03jul01.htm.

Global Name Registry will use a very similar structure for its offerings of registry services as between .name and .org. The .name registry services description appears below, modified to reflect the differences in offering between .name and .org.

The following Registry Services (as defined) will be offered by Global Name Registry for the .org Registry:

1. Domain Name Registrations

2. Domain Name Renewals

3. Transfers of Sponsorship of Registered Item Registrations

4. Multilingual/International Domain Name Registrations

5. Bulk Transfers

Domain Name Registrations and renewals

Domain names in the .org TLD may be registered and renewed through ICANN-accredited registrars that have Registry-Registrar Agreements (“RRAs”) in effect with Global Name Registry and are qualified (hereafter, “Approved Registrars”), according to the following criteria:

Domain names must be of the format specified for the “Domain name character set” in Part 13 (Character Sets) of this Appendix C.
Domain names must meet the naming conventions for domain names specified in Appendix L, Part 0. Domain names in the .org TLD are registered to the public at the second level, of the type name.org. Some possible names may be reserved, as specified in an appendix to this document (“Reserved Names”) and may not be registered.
In general, domain name registrations in the .org TLD will be made on a first-come, first-served basis.
The initial registration term may be from one to ten years, in one-year increments.
Domain name registrations may be renewed prior to their expiration for a period of years up to ten years (in one-year increments), provided that the expiration date of a domain-name registration can never be more than ten years in the future. A renewal that would set the expiration date further than ten years, but less than eleven years in the future will lead to the expiration date being set to ten years in the future. Any remaining time will be forfeited. A request for renewal that would set the expiration date further than 11 years in the future will be denied.
All domain-name registrations must be made pursuant to the requirements of the Approved Registrar’s RRA with Global Name Registry. Among other things, the RRA requires that the registrar and registrant have a registration agreement.

· The Approved Registrar will collect registration information from the registrant and do quality checking of the data to ensure the validity of the domain-name registration. The registrar must submit through the Shared Registration System complete, accurate, and valid registration data, and must update that data when changes occur.

During their term, domain name registrations will be maintained in the .org Shared Registration System. They will be reported by the .org Whois service, as described in the Whois description. In addition, domain names with registrations including the names and IP addresses (Ipv4) of at least two nameservers will be delegated in the .org TLD zone as described in the DNS section of this application.

Transfer of domain name sponsorship

Domain names in the .org TLD may be transferred to another Approved Registrar’s sponsorship through Approved Registrars and are qualified, according to the following criteria:

· The request for transfer can be made by any Approved Registrar.

· For transfer requests using the EPP protocol, the transfer request must include an authorization identifier to confirm transfer authority. This element contains authorization information associated with the object, or alternatively for domain and email forwarding objects, authorization information associated with the registrant or associated contacts as specified in the EPP drafts.

· The authorization identifier information must not be disclosed to any other Approved Registrar or third party. An Approved Registrar that wishes to transfer an object on behalf of a third party must receive authorization identifier information from the third party before a command can be executed.

· For all transfer requests (including under RRP), the registry will automatically approve all transfer requests that are not explicitly approved or rejected by the current sponsoring registrar within five calendar days of the transfer request. The losing registrar will be notified via e-mail of the automatic transfer.

· Registrar transfer entails a specified extension of the expiry date for the object. The registrar transfer is a billable operation and is charged identically to a renewal for the same extension of the period. This period can be from 1 to 10 years, in one-year increments.

· A domain name cannot be transferred to another registrar within the first 60 days after registration. This also continues to apply if the domain name is renewed during the first 60 days).

· Transfer of the domain name changes the sponsoring Registrar of the domain name, and also changes the subordinate, local hosts (not foreign hosts, on other TLDs) associated with the domain name.

Multilingual/International Domain Name Registrations

Since the current registry operator has previously accommodated certain types of Internationalized domain name (IDN) registrations in the .org TLD, Global Name Registry will grandfather in the existing registrations as made with a specific RACE encoding and keep these in the registry. However, depending on the standards emerging for IDNs, the existing IDN registrations maintained by the current registry operator may or may not be compatible with the new standards. Global Name Registry will work to ensure a smooth migration to any new standard.

Bulk Transfer

A bulk transfer can only be initiated and completed by the registry upon a formal request from ICANN. A bulk transfer is a change in the sponsorship of all objects from one registrar to another. This may happen if a registrar changes name, is acquired by another registrar or otherwise changes or ceases its business as an Approved Registrar.

C26. State the maximum price you propose for each Registry Service identified in item C25.

Registered Name - Initial Registration Fees

State the maximum price you propose for each registry service identified in Item C25.

Global Name Registry proposes to introduce aggressive cost-savings on the initial registration fee for longer-period registrations. The fees set forth in the following table will be the fees charged per registered name, for the respective durations one to 10 years:

Duration of initial registration or renewal (years)	Registrar price (USD)	Equivalent 1 year fee (EQ1Y) in USD
1	$6.00	$6.00
2	$10.50	$5.25
3	$15.00	$5.00
4	$19.00	$4.75
5	$22.00	$4.40
6	$25.00	$4.17
7	$29.00	$4.14
8	$33.00	$4.13
9	$37.00	$4.11
10	$40.00	$4.00

This is also shown in the following charts.

Figure 1: Price reduction for .org

Global Name Registry intends for this aggressive discount on longer-term registrations to incentivize registrants to choose longer-term registrations.

For example, a registration of four years will result in an average 1 year equivalent Initial Registration fee of $4.75, a reduction of 21% from the current $6.00 price.

The graph below illustrates this major price decrease proposed:

Figure 2: Lowering the yearly price

In addition to this price decrease, Global Name Registry will lower the initial registration fees when registry volumes grow. The fee per year that will be charged during the term of the .org ICANN Agreement will depend upon the total number of Registered Names registered at that time in the Registry TLD and shall not exceed the fees set forth in the following table:

Maximum Registered Name Initial Registration Fee for a 1 year registration	Volume Range (Number of Registered Names)
US $6.00	0 to 2,499,999
US $5.70	2,500,000 to 3,999,999
US $5.42	4,000,000 to 5,999,999
US $5.20	6,000,000 +

When prices of 1 year Registrations are reduced as shown in the table above, the longer-term Registrations will be reduced by the same factor.

This means that the average price for a registered name, if due to the discounts on longer term registrations, will go down from today’s $6.00 to $4.12 if the average length of registration goes up to 3 or 4 years from today’s 1.9 years (according to the Morgan Stanley Equity Research report on VeriSign on Sept 21, 2001).

Figure 3: Further lowering of the yearly price when Registry volumes grow

The following shows the effect these major price reductions have on the fee per registered name per year (EQ1Y)

Figure 4: 1 year pricing equivalent per registry volumes

The following graphically shows the price reductions proposed:

Figure 5: Current VeriSign pricing compared to this proposal’s pricing

The actual fees charged per initial registration will be:

As a result of the aggressive price reduction proposed in this proposal, the price of a .org domain name will be between 5-42% cheaper for a Registrar after the transition from VeriSign.

The ICANN-Accredited Registrar sponsoring the Registered Name shall pay the Registered Name Initial Registration Fee and any applicable taxes in full at the time of registration.

Registered Name - Renewal Fees

The fee per year that Global Name Registry will charge at the time of renewal for each Registered Name renewal (the "Registered Name Renewal Fee") in the Registry TLD during the Term of the Registry Agreement will be equivalent to the Registered Name Initial Registration Fee chargeable to ICANN-Accredited Registrars at the time of renewal, and will not exceed the fees described above.

The renewal fees will have the same discounts as the initial registration fees.

The Registered Name Renewal Fees referred to above do not include any direct or indirect taxation that Global Name Registry may be obligated to add on. The ICANN-Accredited Registrar sponsoring the Registered Name shall pay the Registered Name Renewal Fee and any applicable taxes in full at the time of renewal.

Fees for Transfers of Sponsorship of Registered Item Registrations

Where the sponsorship of a Registered Item is transferred from one ICANN-Accredited Registrar to another ICANN-Accredited Registrar, Global Name Registry will require the registrar receiving the sponsorship to request (a) a renewal of one year (in the case of using the RRP protocol); or (b) an extension of at least one year (in the case of using the EPP protocol)

In connection with such renewal or extension, Global Name Registry will charge a fee for the requested renewal or extension (a “Renewal Fee”), as such fees are set forth above.

The transfer shall result in an extension according to the renewal request, subject to a ten-year maximum on the future term of any Registered Item registration.

The Renewal Fee and any applicable taxes shall be paid in full at the time of the transfer by the ICANN-Accredited Registrar receiving sponsorship of the Registered Item.

Multilingual/International Domain Name Registrations

During the Term of the Registry Agreement, Global Name Registry would contemplate the introduction of Multilingual Domain Name Registrations, offered through ICANN-Accredited Registrars. The charge for this service will be negotiated with ICANN.

Bulk Transfer Fee

For a bulk transfer approved by ICANN under the Registry-Registrar Agreement, Global Name Registry will charge the gaining registrar US$0 (for transfer of 50,000 combined Registered Items or fewer) or US$50,000 (for transfers of more than 50,000 combined Registered Items).

This amount does not include any direct or indirect taxation that Global Name Registry may be obligated to add on, the payment of which shall be the ICANN-Accredited Registrar’s sole obligation.

C27. Gratis services

Describe each registry service (as defined in subsection 1.16 of the skeleton .org Registry Agreement) that you propose to provide without charging a fee.

The following registry services are some of the services that the Global Name Registry will be providing without charging a fee:

1. Accreditation of ICANN-accredited registrars to do operations in the .org Shared Registry System (As described in Section C17.C11), and creation of toolkit(s) for registrars to connect to the SRS.

2. Modifications of objects in the .org Shared Registry System

3. Registrar Account Management and Registrar Customer Service as pertaining to the .org Registry, and otherwise provisioning to registrars of status information relating to the Registry TLD (As described in Section C17.11)

4. Dissemination of TLD zone files (As described in Section C17.4 and C17.5)

5. Operation of the Registry TLD zone servers (As described in Section C17.4 and C17.5)

6. Dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain-name and nameserver registrations in the Registry TLD, as for example through the proposed .org Whois service (Section C17.8)

C28. technical Performance and Quality of Service

Describe the technical performance (including quality-of-service commitments) you propose to make. See <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appd-29jun01.htm> for an example. The successor operator will be expected to meet the Cross-Network Nameserver Performance Requirements set forth in section 2.1 of the document at the above URL.

Because Global Name Registry currently operates the registry for .name, it is required to comply with certain levels of technical performance and to ensure service satisfactory to ICANN. As such, Global Name Registry has implemented systems and processes, which ensure stability and reliability of registry services, and which will provide a solid foundation upon which Global Name Registry can similarly ensure quality for .org.

The following discussions are based on the .name requirements.

DNS Service.

Global Name Registry considers the DNS Service to be the most critical service of the registry, and will ensure that unavailability times are kept to an absolute minimum. The hardware, software and geographic redundancy built into the DNS Service will reduce unavailability times to a minimum. Since Global Name Registry’s operations stand up to extremely stringent standards as far as service levels are concerned, Global Name Registry also will be able to agree on such standards for the .org registry.

DNS Service Availability = 99.999%. Global Name Registry will provide the above-referenced DNS Service Availability. Global Name Registry will log DNS Service unavailability: (a) when such unavailability is detected by the monitoring tools described in Exhibit A, or (b) once an ICANN-Accredited Registrar reports an occurrence by phone, e-mail or fax as described in the customer support escalation procedures described in Appendix F. Performance will be measured on a monthly basis.

Performance Level. At any time, each nameserver (including a cluster of nameservers addressed at a shared IP address) will be able to handle a load of queries for DNS data that is three times the measured daily peak (averaged over the Monthly Timeframe) of such request on the most loaded nameserver.

Response Time. The DNS Service will meet the Cross-Network Nameserver Performance Requirements as described in this section.

SRS Service. Global Name Registry will provide built-in redundancy into the SRS Service in the form of two databases capable of running the SRS Service. Such redundancy will ensure that SRS Unavailability is kept to an absolute minimum.

SRS Service Availability = 99.4%. Global Name Registry will provide the above-referenced SRS Service Availability. Global Name Registry will log SRS Unavailability once an ICANN-Accredited Registrar reports an occurrence by phone, e-mail or fax as described in the customer support escalation procedures described in Section C17.11. Performance will be measured on a monthly basis.

Performance Level. Global Name Registry will, on average, be capable of processing 40 Transactions per second.

Response Time. The SRS Service will have a worst-case response time of 3 seconds, not including network delays, before it will be considered Unavailable.

Whois Service.

Global Name Registry provides built-in redundancy into the Whois Service in the form of multiple servers running in 2 different data centers. Such redundancy will ensure that unavailability of the Whois Service is kept to an absolute minimum.

Whois Service Availability = 99.4%. Global Name Registry will provide the above-referenced Whois Service Availability. Global Name Registry will log Whois Service unavailability: (a) when such unavailability is detected by the monitoring tools described in Exhibit A, or (b) once an ICANN-Accredited Registrar reports an occurrence by phone, e-mail or fax as described in the customer support escalation procedures described in Appendix F. The committed Performance Specification is 99.4% measured on a monthly basis.

Performance Level. Global Name Registry will offer a Whois Service to query certain domain name information. Whois Service will, on average, be able to handle 200 queries per second.

Response Times. The Whois Service will have a worst-case response time of 1.5 seconds, not including network delays, before it will be considered unavailable.

Quality of Service measurements and commitments

Global Name Registry will monitor the Service Levels in accordance with the following principles.

SRS Service/Component Monitoring: The Monitoring Tools used by Global Name Registry are the following:

TIVOLI Management Environment (TME 10). A suite of distributed systems management products, provides management of network computing resources of many different types from a single point. TME 10 products provide a consistent interface to different operating systems and services, and allow administrators to control users, systems and applications from one desktop. Global Name Registry uses TME 10 to manage and monitor applications, computers, networks and backup.

Big Brother. This tool is designed to let system administrators monitor network, application and computer performance in near real-time, from any web browser, anywhere. Big Brother uses a client-server architecture combined with methods, which both push and pull data. Network testing is done by polling all monitored services from a single machine and reporting these results to a central location.

Global Name Registry uses Big Brother to monitor network, computer and application status.

The Multi Router Traffic Grapher (MRTG). This is a tool to monitor the traffic load on network-links. MRTG generates HTML pages containing GIF images that provide a LIVE visual representation of this traffic. Global Name Registry uses this tool for additional monitoring of services, computers and applications using SNMP.

Performance Monitoring: The System Services run by Global Name Registry will be sampled and tested as to their performance pursuant to the schedule below.

Quality Control measures

· Except in the case of nameserver performance requirements, Global Name Registry will perform monitoring from internally located systems as a means to verify that the availability and performance measurements of this document are being met.

· Global Name Registry will utilize a dedicated Quality Assurance System consisting of data content monitoring tools and “data scrubbing” server(s), which both incrementally and cyclically/periodically verifies that all external services (DNS, Whois, and other applicable services (like the .name MX)) are consistent with the content in the authorative database. These “scrubbing services” ensure that the near-real time update functions perfectly and act as an independent feedback loop verifying all replicated data.

· Global Name Registry will update the Whois Service on a near real time basis. The Whois service database is generated from the master database at the main site, and converted into a format usable by the Whois server by the update server. The Update Server provides near real-time updates to the Whois database. Data is distributed from the update server after registrations have been accepted to the master database. Updates transmitted from the update server will be received at the Whois servers by an update application. All messaging sent between the servers and systems are using an assured delivery method for consistency and security.

· Global Name Registry will notify ICANN-Accredited Registrars in advance when major changes to the Whois Service update schedule occur.

· Global Name Registry will initiate the addition, deletion or other modification of DNS zone information to the master DNS server on a near real-time basis similar to how Whois updates are performed.

· Beginning no later than 120 days after the Commencement-of Service Date, Global Name Registry will publish preliminary weekly System Service performance and availability reports.

· Global Name Registry will provide System Service availability percentages during each Monthly Timeframe as listed in Section 4 - Service Levels (Availability and Performance) to ICANN and to ICANN-Accredited Registrars.

· Global Name Registry will use commercially reasonable efforts to restore the critical systems of the SRS Service within 48 hours in the event of Force Majeure. Further, Global Name Registry will make commercially reasonable efforts to restore full functionality of the SRS Service within 72 hours. Outages due to Force Majeure will not be considered Unavailability.

Summary of Global Name Registry Performance Commitment

Performance Specification Description	SRS	Nameserver	Whois
Service Availability	99.4% per month	99.999% per month across the nameserver constellation	99.4% per month
SRS Transaction processing time	<3 seconds for 95% of the transactions	N/A	N/A
Whois query processing time	N/A	N/A	<1.5 seconds for 95% of the transactions
Planned Outage Duration	8 hours per month	N/A	8 hours per month
Planned Outage Timeframe	0600-1500 GMT Sunday	N/A	0600 – 1500 GMT Sunday
Planned Outage Notification	7 days	N/A	7 days
Extended Planned Outage Duration	12 hours per month	N/A	12 hours per month
Extended Planned Outage Timeframe	0600-1500 GMT Saturday or Sunday	N/A	0600-1500 GMT Saturday or Sunday
Cross-Network Nameserver Performance (CNNP)	N/A	<300ms RTT and 10% packet loss	N/A

As is clear from the chart above, which reflects Global Name Registry’s service level obligations for .name, Global Name Registry will be able to replicate these services for .org.

C29. Intentionally omitted.

VI. ENHANCEMENT OF COMPETITION

C30. Enhancement of competition

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. This section of the .org Proposal concerns the effect on competition of the selection of a successor registry operator.

In November 2000, Global Name Registry was chosen by ICANN as the registry operator for the .name registry. Since launch in January 2002, Global Name Registry has proven its ability to independently build and operate a world-class registry system, experiencing 100% uptime and high levels of registrar satisfaction.

Competition amongst Registries

Currently, Global Name Registry acknowledges that upon commencement of Live SRS for the .name TLD, certain backend services to be provided to registrars by Global Name Registry will be operated by VeriSign Global Registry Services (“VeriSign”). However, in keeping with the intent of ICANN to diversify the provision of registry services, with respect to the .org registry, Global Name Registry will not make any arrangements that are inconsistent with ICANN’s intent and therefore will not outsource any services to VeriSign.

Global Name Registry recognizes that the divestiture of the .org registry from VeriSign to another competent registry operator would clearly contribute to increased competition in the registry services industry, since VeriSign would no longer operate three of the largest generic TLD registries.

As stated, for obvious pro-competitive reasons, Global Name Registry will not outsource any services in connection with .org to the current registry operator, since such outsourcing arrangement would directly contravene the intent and spirit of the .org divestiture. Therefore, assuming a winning .org bid, Global Name Registry will itself, as it did for .name, build upon its existing .name registry to provide registry services in respect of .org. It should be noted that the registry system developed and operated solely by Global Name Registry to date currently has the capacity to hold 50 million domain names. Global Name Registry, therefore, believes that its plans for operating and administering the .org registry are entirely consistent with ICANN’s core principle of encouraging competition in the provision of registry services.

Global Name Registry firmly believes that delegating the .org TLD to a registry other than the current operator would not only benefit Global Name Registry, but would also benefit the registry industry as a whole. With the launch of several new generic TLDs in the last year, each new registry operator faces unique challenges in bringing its new TLD to market. With the transition of the existing and significant .org registry to an established generic TLD registry operator, such registry would be able to leverage its technical expertise in operating a generic TLD on a global scale and its relationships with registrars to operate and sell .org, while also benefiting from added financial stability that would accompany the .org registry. Delegation would further increase the likelihood that the successor registry operator will find its way to longevity in the registry industry and continued contribution to the ICANN community.

In evaluating the various applications for the .org registry, it is important that the ICANN Board place higher value on the applications of existing registry operators, such as Global Name Registry. Global Name Registry will be able to use the experiences that it has had in the last year while launching .name to the benefit of the transition of the .org registry. Lessons learned and processes proven effective regarding the .name registry can be applied to .org while such lessons and processes remain at the forefront of Global Name Registry employees’ minds.

Some may argue that awarding operation of the .org registry to an existing registry operator contradicts the ICANN principle of encouraging competition; however, ICANN should recognize that awarding .org to one of those registry operators, namely Global Name Registry, while not expanding the universe of generic TLD registry operators, will nevertheless continue to foster ICANN’s goal of increasing registry competition. None of the new registry operators maintains a dominant position in the marketplace in the same manner that VeriSign currently does, so a divestiture to any of the existing registry operators still comports with the notion of increased competition.

In this context, Global Name Registry would argue that ICANN should place a higher value on the experience of existing generic TLD registry operators, which will reflect the balance of interests of the entire ICANN community. At this stage, Global Name Registry believes that experience in providing registry services on a global scale will, more importantly, contribute to a safer, smoother transition, and that such a consideration should outweigh the concept of further growing a sufficiently populated space.

A description of the effect on competition by delegation to Global Name Registry follows in the response to C31 below.

Competition amongst Registrars

Simple divestiture of the .org registry has the most direct effect on competition between registry operators. However, divestiture also affects competition amongst registrars. In this regard, it is important to note that since Global Name Registry is not an affiliate of VeriSign, it conducts itself in the utmost partial manner in respect of the VeriSign registrar. In awarding the .org registry operation to Global Name Registry, as with .name, ICANN would not need to concern itself with the potential that the VeriSign registrar would receive preferential treatment with respect to .org.

Increased competition amongst registrars will arise as a result of the manner in which the successor registry operator intends to market and operate the .org TLD. Global Name Registry believes that its programs and vision for .org will enhance considerably competition at the registrar level. For further details, please see the response to C31.

Motivations for Enhancing Competition

Global Name Registry believes that the increased competition arising as a result of the divestiture of .org from VeriSign will benefit both the .org end-user community and the DNS community in general. The registry believes that this competitive environment is important because it delivers the following advantages:

· Diversity in the provision of domain name services

· Globalization of domain name services

· Higher quality of domain name services at a lower cost

· Creation of innovative products, services and solutions for .org users

· Increased participation by internationally-based registrars

· Increased diversity of the .org constituency

· Improved .org users’ choice

· Enhanced .org users’ satisfaction with the domain name services received

C31. HOW SELECTION OF GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY WILL POSITIVELY AFFECT COMPETITION

Give your analysis of how selecting your application would affect competition in the provision of registration services at both the registry and registrar level.

If Global Name Registry is selected as the successor registry operator for .org, there will be increased competition both on the registry and the registrar levels.

From the registry perspective, divestiture of the .org registry from VeriSign to a newer registry, Global Name Registry, would clearly enhance the competitive landscape for several reasons, as described below. Global Name Registry believes that the key to enhancing competition amongst registrars lies in the manner in which the successor registry operator interacts and cooperates with the registrar channel, including its vision for .org, and support of, and services to, registrars, also as described below.

Before delving into the positive effects Global Name Registry’s operation of .org will have on the marketplace, it is important to analyze the .org market in the context of the generic TLD space.

The .org Market

Currently, .org occupies 8.5% of the generic TLD market. And while the entire generic TLD market has receded over the last year, .org registrations have diminished more than three times as fast as those on .com. This is attributable to the fact that although the registrars have generated over one million new .org registrations, the rate of discontinued registrations is higher.

Market share of gTLDs (May 2002 figures, source: Zooknic)

The rate of shrinkage on .org and .com from May 2001to May 2002 (source: Zooknic)

These graphics illustrate that the current situation where .org is simply perceived as a “hold-all” has proven unhelpful for end-users with the consequence that registrations on .org have decreased to a much larger extent than .com.

On a global level, it is important to note that the competitive situation between generic TLDs and the ccTLDs is also changing. Since July 1999, notwithstanding the contraction of the generic TLD market, ccTLDs have been steadily gaining market share. Thus, .org must be attractive to its target communities around the world, over-and-above the appeal of more local country-specific domains. The following graph demonstrates the creep by ccTLDs into territory previously held by generic TLDs.

Historical share of the TLD market between gTLDs and ccTLDs

Increased competition amongst registrars is also crucial to an improved marketplace. As ICANN is well aware, the separation of registries and registrars is critical to building a competitive environment because it creates a level playing field for registrars and their affiliate sites to provide domain name services to their customers.

Despite the existence of 152 registrars in the marketplace, there are ten registrars which control 80% of the total market.

Market shares of the top ten TLD registrars

Global Name Registry’s current operation of the .name registry allows the company to maintain good working relationships with registrars which have chosen to sell and market .name. This contributes significantly to Global Name Registry’s understanding of the importance of close registry-registrar cooperation in promoting innovation to improve the competitiveness of the industry as a whole.

As a general matter, the statistics described above lend themselves to the idea that Global Name Registry is the perfect successor registry operator for the .org TLD. As described below, enhanced registry and registrar competition on a variety of aspects will arise as a result.

Registry Competition

As one of what is likely to be few, if any, European registry operators bidding for .name, Global Name Registry believes that granting operation of the .org TLD to Global Name Registry will enhance the competitive landscape for registry operators by:

1. Increasing credibility and provision of registry services by a European registry operator;

2. Building upon an existing registry system built entirely by the technical development team of Global Name Registry, contributing to existing expertise in domain name services;

3. Using its excellence and commitment to customer services, thereby requiring all registry operators to evaluate their services and technical standards and perhaps raising those standards to a new level;

4. Providing ICANN with stronger choices for candidates to step in to operate registries in the face of failure of another registry;

5. Providing a better pricing scheme, which will incentivize registrars to more aggressively sell .org will create the need for registries for other TLDs to evaluate pricing schemes for other TLDs; and

6. Encouraging other registrars to consider other non-traditional partners, expanding the global reach of the DNS.

Re-delegating the .org TLD to Global Name Registry would affect competition in only the most positive light. The European component of Global Name Registry’s character adds a level of geographic diversity to the registry landscape that no other registry can accomplish. In addition, as described below, Global Name Registry’s commitment to excellence in respect of both its registrars and its employees, as well as its continued contributions to the registry services industry will help to elevate expectations regarding registry services generally.

Services by a European Provider

It is likely that Global Name Registry will be one of few, if any, registry operators exclusively based in Europe bidding for the .org registry. With much of the expertise of running an unsponsored, generic TLD registry otherwise limited to registries in the United States, it is a compelling aspect of this application that equally expert Global Name Registry operates in England. Competition should reflect geographic diversity so that other countries and geographic regions, in addition to the United States, can make significant contributions to the Internet community and provide services to internationally based customers, specifically in the most basic realm of registry services.

Granting operation of the .org registry to a European registry, namely Global Name Registry, is critical for ICANN in the context of being perceived by the non-American world as providing ample opportunity for competent European players to actually compete amongst American players. To date, other than Global Name Registry, there has been no other internationally situated registry which has been able to demonstrate its skill and suitability for running an unsponsored generic TLD on a global level.

Global Name Registry believes that limiting the provision of registry services for generic TLDs largely to the United States severely hampers the choices of internationally based entities and citizens in buying registry services from competent providers. If ICANN allows the .org registry to be operated by a European provider, Global Name Registry, the skill required (and possessed currently by Global Name Registry) to operate a generic TLD will only be enhanced. Adding the strength of the .org registry to Global Name Registry’s portfolio, Global Name Registry will have additional credibility in the marketplace, enabling it to offer registry services to other European TLDs, including country code TLDs, which may not operate their TLDs in a cost effective or efficient fashion. This option would provide European and other non-American TLD operators who wish to outsource their backend services to a larger scale operation with options other than VeriSign.

Increasing registry service expertise outside of the United States is especially important in the current day context of random terrorist attacks in the United States. With two registries being located in close proximity outside of the District of Columbia and another in New York City, a significant proportion of the generic TLD operators could be subject to attack, diminishing the aggregate experience of registry operators. Encouraging the England-based Global Name Registry to compete more aggressively in the registry services industry would provide further assurance that a senseless terrorist attack in the United States would not adversely affect the ability of ICANN and its registry constituents to maintain the integrity of the DNS.

Finally, allowing a European registry to undertake the task of operating .org will increase the likelihood that .org will migrate from a predominantly US TLD to one that reflects the needs and desires of the global community. Internationalization of the .org TLD will contribute to increased competition between generic TLDs and ccTLDs, which, as described above, are steadily gaining real estate in the domain name system. Moreover, for ICANN to credibly state that .org, the other TLDs operated by VeriSign and the other new generic TLDs are truly global TLDs, effort should be expended in trying to grow the .org TLD internationally, an effort which Global Name Registry is willing and eager to undertake and upon which it is perfectly situated to execute. Uniquely placed in Europe, Global Name Registry will be able to leverage its European relationships, understanding of the European market, and marketing channels more effectively than those registries based in the United States.

Enhanced Contribution to Industry Expertise

As the operator of .org, Global Name Registry would build upon the solid technical foundation it has built to date with .name and allow for further development of technical expertise in the registry industry.

Global Name Registry has been fortunate to find several program developers and technical operators from geographic backgrounds as diverse as Norway, England, India, Pakistan, the United States, China, and Nigeria. Operating and administering .org would again provide more opportunities for additional technical developers and operators to create and maintain innovative technical systems, since it will likely require Global Name Registry to increase the resources of and commitment to its technical development and operations team.

As such, as the successor registry operator for .org, Global Name Registry would contribute to competition and improvement of the registry industry in yet another respect – enhancing the growth of expertise in registry services internationally, while simultaneously providing talented technicians with occasion to utilize their skills. Chosen as one of 25 leading companies listed in the Time Magazine’s (Europe) Digital 25, Global Name Registry has demonstrated its commitment to helping shape Europe’s technical future. By providing an outlet for premium technical talent based in Europe, Global Name Registry makes a significant contribution in building a foundation for these European and other technicians and engineers to work and live in Europe, maintaining closer ties with their families and homes.

On a more global level, Global Name Registry will help to establish Europe as a source for the truly formidable registry operator and technical provider, and therefore will be deemed as having access to an exceedingly competent technical adviser. To date, the developers at Global Name Registry have provided significant input to various technical discussions which affect the ICANN community and aspects of the DNS. In particular, members of Global Name Registry’s development team have provided valuable feedback on the new protocol, EPP, through its work on the IETF “provreg” working group. In addition, Global Name Registry developers have played the primary role in an opensource project to create an EPP toolkit for use by registrars in connecting with new EPP registry systems. Specifically, such developers have written virtually all of the C++ code for EPP; moreover, they have collaborated to a great extent with another registry provider in helping to develop the java version of the registrar EPP toolkit by providing input on the design and XML usage, as well as on the interoperability aspects of the java toolkit.

European technical talent based in Europe would no longer be compelled to seek the challenges and compensation that registry operators otherwise provide in the United States – they would find sufficient tasks in Europe through Global Name Registry.

Increased Standards

To date, Global Name Registry has operated the .name registry within the parameters of its .name ICANN Agreement and has provided services to its registrar customers at a level which registrars have indicated have surpassed levels of other registry operators. Since signing its .name ICANN Agreement in August 2001, Global Name Registry has maintained close contacts and cooperated well with all of the registrars which have signed registry-registrar agreements and has also encouraged successfully other registrars to become accredited for .name. From the outset, Global Name Registry has maintained a strong commitment to excellence in service of its customers.

Global Name Registry has had few complaints from registrars as to the handling of the rollout of .name. In fact, registrars have remarked that because of such intense attention from Global Name Registry to the registrars, their roll-out and implementation of .name sales have been relatively uncomplicated in the context of other generic TLD launches. Twenty-four by seven customer and technical support, prompt responses and creative resolutions have endeared registrars to Global Name Registry, which likely will increase the demand by registrars for such a quality of services from other registries.

Global Name Registry strives always to provide premium services to its customers and will continue to do so with .org. Such a commitment to providing higher levels of customer service and support to registrars affects competition in only the most positive way – it will encourage other registries to strive to attain the same or better.

Formidable Registries

By divesting VeriSign of the operation of the .org registry, ICANN requires VeriSign to share the benefit that it has received to date from being (or rather, its acquired subsidiary being) the first generic TLD registry to market. Allowing one of the existing registries, which launched new generic TLDs in the last year, namely Global Name Registry, to receive this benefit and to credibly operate the .org registry would increase the strength and viability of another independent registry operator.

Added stability to this independent registry operator, namely Global Name Registry, by virtue of the stream of revenues that accompany transfer of the .org registry will increase the likelihood that ICANN would be able to increase its reliance on at least one additional registry operator to act in the case of another registry’s failure. This reliance will thereby provide a much more sound service to the end-user. In the unfortunate event that one or more of the registries failed, Global Name Registry would have the capacity and experience of transitioning a registry from one to another, as well as of administering a fully operational registry in short order.

Reliability and continuity to the customer are key to providing end-users with virtually infallible and uninterrupted services. The only way this can be achieved is to allow a highly competent registry, namely Global Name Registry, to pick up where VeriSign is leaving off.

Reduced Pricing

As described in Registrar Competition below, incentivizing registrars to sell .org because of lower pricing, and thus potentially increased margins will cause registrars to sell .org more aggressively. Without similar adjustments to pricing within other generic TLDs, other registry operators may suffer a diminution in sales because of stronger attractiveness to registrars of .org. As further described below, relaunching .org with a new vision will also increase attractiveness of the .org TLD, again having a highly competitive effect on other registries. For further details, see Registrar Competition: Reduction in Price.

Non-Traditional Partners Increasing Global Reach

Global Name Registry’s partnership with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies brings a new element of competition to the registry landscape. The non-traditional nature of the partnership will likely encourage other registry operators to “think out of the box” in its alliances to promote their specific TLDs. These new alliances will allow registry operators to reach markets not previously contemplated or addressed.

Registrar Competition

Global Name Registry believes that it can also enhance competition at the registrar level by changing and improving upon the offerings to registrars, as well as to end-users. In particular, in implementing its vision for .org to increase competition at the registrar level, Global Name Registry will:

1. Provide more direct access to a generic TLD registry operator to European registrars, encouraging them to participate more actively in sales of generic TLDs generally;

2. Grow the .org space and make the TLD more desirable to encourage registrars to compete more fiercely in their sales of .org;

3. Continue to commit to excellence in customer service allowing registrars to pass on enhanced services to their customers;

4. Reduce the price of .org TLDs, allowing registrars to compete more directly on price; and

5. Support registrars in their understanding of end-users’ needs and desires, resulting in registrars providing more tailored products and increased competition on offerings.

As a result of the vision and programs Global Name Registry intends to put forward in connection with the .org TLD, competition at the registrar level would clearly be increased.

European Focus

As described above, Global Name Registry’s unique geographic position as the only truly non-American generic TLD registry operator adds significant value to the competitive registry landscape. For the same reason, Global Name Registry believes that it also can further enhance competition at the registrar level. Specifically, registrars located in Europe, and to a certain extent, Asia, will be able to compete more efficiently by having a more active, consistent and informed role in sales of .org TLDs.

The location of Global Name Registry’s operation provides easier access by non-American registrars to a generic TLD registry, greatly enhancing the ability of registrars to conduct business in a more efficient manner. Currently, registrars which operate in time zones other than those of the United States must accommodate the working hours of key personnel at the American registry operators. In stark contrast, registrars based in Europe will benefit from similar working hours, proximity to Global Name Registry for face to face meetings, and familiarity with European issues. Many of these same arguments can be made for registrars based in Asia, the working hours of which overlap to a greater extent with Global Name Registry’s hours more than with American registry operators.

That the .org registry, through Global Name Registry, will be significantly more accessible to European and Asian registrars should not be minimized or underestimated. Such accessibility will increase the penetration of .org outside of the United States, making for a truly global TLD and appeal to a more international community.

Growing the .org Space

Fundamental to increasing competition amongst registries and registrars using .org as a tool, the successor .org registry operator must reverse the current registration recession to return .org to a growth phase. This is important because:

1. With increased desirability of .org, Global Name Registry will be able to exert much greater influence on the registrar channel to promote innovation and competition with significant volumes of new registrants registering .org domain names.

2. Growth, and addition, of .org to the Global Name Registry portfolio will lead to economies of scale regarding technical provision and marketing expenditure, leading in the long-run to better domain services and cheaper prices.

For the sake of prudence, Global Name Registry has built its business plan for .org on the basis of continued contraction within the .org space. However, Global Name Registry believes that the current generic TLD market shakeout is not a long-term trend. It is probably a positive readjustment due to the number of cyber-squatters currently leaving the market. Over the medium-term, Global Name Registry believes that there are three major opportunity areas to enable .org to return to growth:

1. Getting members for .org’s target communities that currently have no online presence to register on the .org TLD

2. Increasing the penetration of .org outside the United States

3. Reducing the rate of registrant churn in the .org TLD

Migrating offline communities online: Global Name Registry will encourage and help to effect the migration of offline communities online through analysis of the degree of online penetration of the segments. The efforts of Global Name Registry’s .orgcentre, as further described in responses to C35 and C38, will help the registry and the registrars to have a greater understanding of the needs of the .org community and provide them with sufficient resources to develop their presence online.

Increasing the penetration of .org outside the United States: As stated, 67% of .org registrations are attributable to the United States. As a European-based registry, Global Name Registry feels that it is well placed to balance the activities of United States registrants against those of the rest of the world. Global Name Registry’s distribution strategy for .org is designed to make the TLD more attractive at an international level, where it faces intense competition against the ccTLDs. In the long term, Global Name Registry targets a 50-50 split between .org registrations in the United States and those in the rest of the world.

Reducing the rate of registrant churn: Currently, .org registrants maintain domains for an average of between 18 and 24 months (Morgan Stanley Equity Research: Report on VeriSign, September 21, 2001). This implies that year-on-year churn in the TLD is at least 40%. Typically, subscription-based businesses aim to maintain levels of churn below the 20% level. Global Name Registry feels that the .org TLD should be no different and will use concerted efforts to decrease the existing churn rate.

Effectively growing the .org space will allow Global Name Registry enhance competition between registrars, since creating a more dynamic and coveted market will encourage registrars to compete more actively for the resulting increased demand of end-users.

Service level standards

Global Name Registry proposes to offer the following six registry services to .org registrars, as proposed in section C25:

6. Domain Name Registrations

7. Domain Name Renewals

8. Transfers of Sponsorship of Registered Item Registrations

9. Multilingual/International Domain Name Registrations

10.Bulk Transfers

In addition, to ensure competition within the registrar community, Global Name Registry commits to offer an extremely high quality of service to all of its registrars on an equivalent access basis. Global Name Registry will:

· In the same manner as currently done for .name, continue to provide individualized but equitable attention to all registrars who enter into agreements with Global Name Registry to sell .org registrations.

· Offer registrars enhanced service levels by migrating the .org RRP interface to EPP over an 18 month period, while keeping RRP active for registrars’ convenience.

· Propose to increase the quality of zone files and WHOIS data by making updates on a near-real time basis, resulting in zone files and WHOIS records being up to date within 15 minutes of registration or modification.

· Propose to merge the .org registry from a “thin” registry to a “thick” registry, starting by allowing the EPP to handle thick objects while supporting the thin RRP objects, and ensuring stability across the entire migration to have a fully thick registry once registrars have had the time to merge their APIs and re-instate their objects as thick.

· Offer registrars “boiler-plate” web pages and branding for the front-end of their .org registrations and provide significant resources and assistance in marketing to existing and potential .org registrants.

By providing a continued high quality of services to registrars, Global Name Registry believes that it will create a new standard for such services, which will increase the likelihood that registrars will similarly be able to enhance their service standards to their end-users.

Reduction in Price

Global Name Registry believes that by reducing the price of .org registrations, it will increase .org’s appeal to registrars as well as end-users, since it will likely increase registrar margins and potentially decrease prices to end-users. To increase the level of attractiveness of .org registrations to both registrars and end-users, as discussed above, Global Name Registry proposes to introduce two principles to the pricing structure of .org to help stimulate competition for the TLD:

1. Discounting system based on length of registration.

2. Price reduction based on volumetric targets.

First, Global Name Registry will introduce a discounting system based on the length of registration. One-year registrations will be priced the same as VeriSign’s current service at US$6.00/year, whereas ten-year registrations will be subject to a 33% discount and will only cost US$4.00/year. This incentivisztion of long-term registrations will help to extend the average life of .org users, increase margins for registrars, and it should lead to price savings for .org registrants. It is expected that due to this discounting system the average price of a yearly registration will drop to roughly $4.75.

The reduction in .org prices determined by the length of registration

Second, Global Name Registry will introduce a price reduction scheme based on volumetric targets. Prices will be reduced when registrations reach the 2.5 million, 4 million and 6 million marks with an aggregate possible price drop of 13%. Based on Global Name Registry’s forecasts on market growth for .org, the table on the following page illustrates some scenario timescales for these drops:

Price reduction scheme based on volumetric targets

Decreasing the costs of .org registrations, while taking account of the costs of running the .org registry, will likely encourage registrars to focus selling efforts on .org because of increased margins as well as potential domain name registrants to choose to register within the .org space, rather than other, more expensive registrations if registrar cost savings are passed on to the end-user. This will result in reduced prices, and increased competition at both the registry and registrar levels on this basis.

Better Understanding of .org Community

As further described in responses to C35 and C38, Global Name Registry intends to launch the .orgcentre in order to conduct research, provide support and resources to the .org community and glean from the .org community what such support and resources are needed. The .orgcentre

In particular, Global Name Registry will share its learning on the .org community and trends within the .org user base so that registrars have the opportunity to best satisfy users needs and motivations. Through the developments of the .orgcentre, rolling research will be conducted specifically for the purpose of identifying valuable solutions for the user base of .org. The results of this research will be regularly circulated to the registrars, as well as being used as a basis for resource allocation by the .orgcentre.

Providing research data to registrars, assisting them in increased understanding of the .org community, will fuel registrars’ commitments to selling .org.

From the registrant perspective, Global Name Registry believes that the .orgcentre will raise the attractiveness of the .org TLD, since with the purchase and maintenance of the .org TLD, .org registrants will gain access to training programs, administrative resources, advice from other non-commercial entities as well as potentially corporate advisers.

C32. operation of dns registry

State whether the applicant or any entity identified in item C13 operates a DNS registry having more than 500,000 registered names and, if so, provide details.

Global Name Registry operates the DNS registry for the .name TLD, which launched operations on January 15, 2002. The .name registry contains to date about 140,000 registered names (including domain names and email addresses).

However, the .name registry is a thick registry and also contains to date about 170,000 registered contact objects. This differentiation is important when compared a “thin” registry, which contains no contacts. Contacts, like domain names, are propagating objects, in that they are distributed to the Whois servers, while domain names also propagate to DNS servers.

Thus, the total number of indexed, propagating objects in operation by Global Name Registry is 310,000. This number is significant, given that the .name space launched only five months ago.

Global Name Registry does not currently operate a DNS Registry having more than 500,000 registered names, but with the launch of the live SRS system at the end of June 2002, its management is confident that the numbers will grow at rates that well exceed growth rates to date.

C33. Affiliations

Describe in detail 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.

(a) Entities Listed in Section C13

Not applicable. Global Name Registry expects to operate the .org registry on its own, and in any event, without any outsourcing arrangements with the current registry operator.

(b) Any Operator of a DNS Registry Having More Than 500,000 Registered Names

The Global Name Registry, Limited, a limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (“Global Name Registry”), is a wholly owned subsidiary of GNR Limited, a limited company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (“GNR”). Investors in GNR include Carlyle Europe Venture Partners, L.P., Northzone Ventures AS, Four Seasons Venture AS and VeriSign Capital Management, Inc. (“VeriSign”). The balance of the investors or equity holders includes founders and current employees.

VeriSign’s stake in GNR is limited to minority ownership (ie, less than 10%); VeriSign does not occupy a board seat nor possess any other indicia of control in connection with the company’s business. VeriSign therefore has no impact on policies or the corporate strategy of Global Name Registry, as the registry continues to operate as an independent registry operator. Moreover, GNR expects to complete an additional round of financing which will further dilute the stakes held by those investors who choose not to invest additional money into GNR. VeriSign has not expressed a desire to increase its investment in GNR.

In addition to VeriSign’s stake in GNR, GNR, together with Global Name Registry, has entered into a Registry Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) with VeriSign, Inc. in connection with the provision of certain services for the .name registry. The structure of the registry contemplated by this Agreement provides for redundant systems whereby Global Name Registry and VeriSign run virtually identical registry systems in order to ensure robustness and reliability of the .name registry. The Agreement gives VeriSign no ownership, operational control or other rights in the .name registry.

Assuming a winning bid, aside from its role in transitioning the .org registry to Global Name Registry, Global Name Registry will not contract its backend services to VeriSign in connection with the continued operation and maintenance of the .org registry. Clearly, this type of arrangement would contravene the intent and spirit of the entire .org divestiture.

It is important to note, however, that collaboration between Global Name Registry and VeriSign in building the .name registry to include the systems of VeriSign has progressed without significant issue. Each technical team of either company is known to have very high regard for the other. In addition, in building the redundant .name registry systems, the technical teams have developed an effective working relationship and understanding of how the other’s systems and procedures work. Global Name Registry believes that this solid relationship will contribute immensely to the ease of transition in connection with the .org registry.

C34. Intentionally Ommitted

VII. RESPONSIVENESS TO THE NONCOMMERCIAL INTERNET USER COMMUNITY

This section of the proposal will demonstrate that Global Name Registry’s proposal will respond to the needs of the non-commercial Internet user community.

C35. POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO ENSURE RESPONSIVENESS

Describe in detail the mechanisms you propose for ensuring that the policies and practices followed in your operation of the .org registry are responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible. Your description should include any affiliation you propose with representative noncommercial organizations and details (including proposed bylaws or other chartering documents) regarding any governing or advisory groups that you propose.

Definitions of non-commerciality on the .org TLD

To begin this section, Global Name Registry defines “non-commercial” and the “Internet Community.” These definitions will put into context some of the points which are made later in the section and in section C38 (Differentiation).

While we believe that .org is predominantly for non-commercial organizations, a simplistic definition of "non-commercial" is problematic and too restrictive.

Fundamentally, Global Name Registry believes that, with respect to the Internet population, the term “non-commercial” refers to behavioural mode, rather than organizational type or primary function.

In particular, the distinguishing/identifying characteristic is not about the structure of the organization, but rather the way it behaves, and clearly, the moods and modes of the organization can change over time according to the activities of the organizations.

For example, a Fortune 500 corporation that makes a donation to charity is acting in a “non-commercial” mode. Whereas, a charity that sells t-shirts to the public as a fundraising act, is displaying a more “commercial mode.”

Conclusion

So within the .org space, all types of organizations can happily sit together. It is their mode of activity that gives them purpose, rather than their structure.

Our vision is that the .org domain space should be inclusive and impose no eligibility requirements. We propose to rather develop a clear vision to encompass moods and modes that represent the value of non-commercial organizations.

The newly created .org Charter clearly illustrates this point; the following is an extract:

"I support the view that this space is predominantly for non-commercial use, a place where organizations can illustrate their socially responsible policies and activities, a place where individuals and organization’s can support each other, a place which encourages participation to make positive change.” See section C35 (Differentiation).

Clearly, there are many more points on these continua as illustrated by Figure 1.

Figure 7 : Organizations’ activities by mode and function

As an example of this in practice, the following is an extract from Section C38 designed to repurpose .org domains among corporates.

Who comprises the Internet Community?

The “Internet Community” is comprised of the four sections of the domain name supply chain, stating at the registry and flowing through to the end-user communities. Global Name Registry will attempt to be responsive to all four levels of the chain, although it can only directly influence the registrar tier.

Figure 9 :The “Internet Community”

The immediately following section illustrates a segmentation of the broad church of communities within the .org TLD and then, having illustrated their needs, the set of activities with which Global Name Registry proposes to remain responsive to their needs is listed.

The initiatives in this part of the document address primarily the registrant communities discussed below and to a lesser extent the broader Internet community.

Segmentation of the .org registrant communities

This section illustrates the current state of the registrant base of .org. To do this, Global Name Registry:

1. Presents a segmentation analysis of the entire constituency of the TLD

2. Examines the geography of .org

3. Investigates the popular use of the major .org sites; and finally

4. Illustrates the depth of content that can be found on .org sites in comparison to other major TLDs.

An understanding of these four points will then be used develop strategies to continue to grow and support the registered base on .org.

Summary of segmentation

Global Name Registry has used The Open Directory Project’s database of 118,000 unique, active .org sites as a basis for segmenting the constituency. The Open Directory database provides a representative, 5% sample of the 2.3 million active registrations on .org. The segmentation has been done in two ways: firstly, in terms of site type (e.g. charity or local community sites) and, secondly, in terms of country of origin.

Global Name Registry has identified ten major site segments within .org. These are:

5. Local communities

6. Religious communities

7. Special interest and “soap box” sites

8. Health and science

9. Arts and culture

10.Computing

11.Charities

12.Sports and hobbies

13.Compassionate corporations

14.Professional communities and unions

1. Local communities

This is the largest segment on .org, representing 36% of all sites. These sites are typically the online expression medium for community groups, projects and initiatives at the town, neighborhood, county or state level. Although these sites often represent small communities, some larger examples from the .org top 1000 sites are:

· council-houston.org – The Houston Council on Alcohol and Drugs;

· louisiananature.org – The Nature Conservancy of Louisiana; or

· botsfordsystem.org – A community information site for healthcare in the county of Botsford in Michigan

2. Religious communities

Ranging from a website for the local parish church through to less-localized sites for preaching and prayer, religious and spiritual sites form about 19% of the .org constituency. There are two religious community websites in the top-ten .orgs in the United States:

· lds.org – The official site of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints;

· newadvent.org – A religious links page

3. Special interests and “soap-box” sites

These sites are where individuals and groups are able to have their say on those issues about which they have strong feelings. This segment includes pressure groups and lobbyists for causes such as the environment, human rights and animal welfare. A couple of the higher profile “soap-box” sites are:

· slashdot.org – “news for nerds” where the public can submit articles on key issues; and

· consumerreports.org – a subscriber site giving access to unbiased consumer reports on goods and services

4. Health and science

Typically, these are sites which give information, possibly offer advice, and disseminate knowledge on areas of health and science. Examples of this segment are:

· kidshealth.org – provides doctor-approved health information about children

· physics.org – an information site created by the Institute of Physics

5. Arts and culture

Some of these sites educate people about art, music, film or theatre. Others are information points for local cultural events and activities. To get a feel for this segment look at:

· Artsmia.org – The Minneapolis Institute of Art site; or

· filmsite.org – a movie criticism site; or

· actorstheatre.org – The Actors Theatre of Louisville, Kentucky

6. Computing

There are a number of high profile open-source coding communities on .org, as well as a myriad of less well-known computing and gaming sites. Good examples are:

· Linux.org – Information site for Linux users;

· Apache.org – The Apache Software Foundation provides support for open-source development projects; and

· esrb.org – a site which rates and reviews computer games

7. Charities

This is probably the most widely identified .org segment, though in fact charities only represent 2% of the total constituency. Some of the most popular charity sites are:

· ifrc.org – The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, partners of Global Name Registry in this proposal; and

· network4good.org – a place to donate and volunteer to worthy causes

8. Sports and hobbies

.org is also the online home for amateur and professional sports clubs and recreational groups, which often are organized at a town or county level. Examples of the segment are:

· aakf.org – The American Amateur Karate Federation;

· gcsa.org – The Graves County Soccer Association in Kentucky; or

· stamps.org – the official sites of The American Philatelic Society, serving stamp collectors since 1886

9. Compassionate corporations

Although these only represent a small proportion of the total .org community, Global Name Registry has noticed that some corporations use a .org address to list their ethical credentials and to cite their charitable donations. 62% of the Fortune 500 own a .org address (source: Legg Mason). As examples, look at:

· aoltimewarnerfoundation.org; and

· schwabfoundation.org

10. Professional communities and unions

These sites are for professional institutes and workers groups to circulate information and collaborate on the creation of new ideas. Some good sites within this segment are:

· apa.org – The American Psychological Association

· icai.org – The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; and

· kctu.org – The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions

Other types of sites which are represented within .org, but which have not been included in Global Name Registry’s main segmentation include adult sites, history and reference sites, and more commercial sites.

An analysis of the relative importance of these segments on .org, in terms are registrars’ sites, is shown on the following page. Note the importance of local communities and religious communities.

Figure 10 :Pie chart of the breakdown of the .org space by segment

Comparing the relative sizes of key site segments on .org, .com and .net, we see that .org holds over 40% of the total number of charity, religious and special interest sites. However, less than 5% of business, adult and shopping sites can be found on .org.

Figure 11 : Comparison of the relative sizes of key segments on .org, .com and .NET

This segmentation illustrates some important features of the sites that make up the constituency of .org:

· They often are the online point of presence for communities, clubs, groups and societies that are predominantly offline entities

· An important feature of .org sites is that they are often nodes within an interlinked network of communities. It is the rich fabric of this interlinked network that creates the “community capital” that makes .org such an important TLD

As opposed to .com sites which often are concerned with “one-to-many” transaction, .org sites are about community identity, information dissemination and fostering collaboration (both online and offline). These sites are “few-to-few” in nature. Even in the case of the “soap box” site belonging to a single person, .org is about self-expression fore the greater good.

Communities In The United States - Did You Know?

Local Communities

· Officially there are 19,440 "places" in the United States (Source: US Census Bureau)

Religious Communities

· 163 million people in the United States are religious

· The Roman Catholic Church is the largest single religion (60 million people)

· There are over 300,000 congregations

Charities

· The are 734,000 registered charities in the Unites States (Source: The Urban Institute Center On Nonprofits And Philanthropy)

The geography of .org

To date, 66% of .org registrations have been made in the United States. The geographical breakdown of .org registrations compared to that of .com and .net is shown below. It is clear that the appeal of .org to date has been more localised within the United States and North America than other gTLDs.

Figure 13: Geographical split of .com, .net and .org (2001 data, source: www.zooknic.com)

An analysis of the location of local community sites on .org demonstrates an even greater North American focus with 87% of these being located in the region.

Figure 14 : Location of local community sites on .org (Source: The Open Directory Project)

Global Name Registry believes that the lack of geographic diversity is an indicator of the current competitive weakness of the .org TLD. The new registry for .org must expand its geographic coverage.

Popular usage of the major .org sites

Global Name Registry commissioned Netvalue, a web-analytics company that runs panels in association with Taylor Nelson Sofres, to generate data on the most popular .org sites in the United States, and as a comparison, in Germany.

The results are fascinating. In the United States in the month of December 2001, .org sites were viewed by 47% of the Internet population (over 38 million unique users). On average, these Internet users spent nearly 20 minutes on .org sites, which is equivalent to about 3% of their total monthly surfing time.

The demographics of .org in the United States users broadly reflect those of the wider Internet-using national population. However, here is slight skew towards middle-aged surfers (35-50 years old), middle-income earners ($1,500-$4,500 per month), and males (who represent 56% of .org users). .org’s attraction to more senior Internet users possibly comes from the more community-oriented content that can be found on this TLD.

Figure 15 :The gender split of .org users in the United States in comparison to the wider Internet community (source: NetValue)

Further graphics illustrating the demographics of .org are given in the appendices to this section.

In the United States, the top ten sites on .org only account for 9% of the total traffic through the TLD, whereas on .com the top ten sites account for over 30% of the total traffic. This lower level of concentration on .org is not surprising as the TLD typically is the home for the wide spectrum of small, special-interest sites as opposed to the large broad-interest sites on .com.

.org website	Description	Unique visitors (‘000s)	Minutes on the site
*Pbs.org*	Not-for-profit broadcaster of educational programming	1,326.25	5.0
*dmoz.org*	Directory site	1,111.24	1.0
*noradsanta.org*	Childrens’ site to track the movements of Santa Claus at Christmas	1,094.40	4.6
*Lds.org*	Religious site	661.81	11.4
*consumerreports.org*	Consumer rights site	639.40	11.1
*thinkquest.org*	Not-for-profit educational organization	639.20	1.6
*pbskids.org*	Not-for-profit broadcaster of childrens’ educational programming	577.41	23.9
*petfinder.org*	Network for adoption of homeless pets	516.59	26.5
*family.org*	Family community site	486.50	11.9
*lp.org*	News network	460.55	9.0
*tgpnow.org*	Adult site	429.05	1.3
*newadvent.org*	Religious sites	427.61	1.9

Table 1:The top ten US .org sites in December 2001 (Source: NetValue)

The usage of .org in Germany is very different than in the United States. In December 2001, only 27% of German Internet users visited sites on .org (4.4 million people), spending a total of eight and a half minutes there. This approximates to just over 1% of these users’ total monthly online time.

In Germany, whilst 60% of Internet users are male, 78% of .org users there are men. There are strong skews towards young surfers (15-24), typically students.

The top three .org sites for German Internet users are charthitz.org – an MP3 exchange site; dmoz.org – the Open Directory Project; and hardcorepornos.org – an adult site.

The German usage of .org seems overall to be much less mature than in the United States, with much more use of the TLD for pornography and copyright infringement sites. This again illustrates the challenge for the new registry to help .org to become mainstream in countries outside the United States.

Content on .org

Using data from Google, Global Name Registry has performed an analysis on the average number of pages per site for the leading TLDs. This provides an insight into the levels of density of information provided by the sites on each of the TLDs.

Figure 16 :The number of pages per domain on each of the major TLDs

The results demonstrate that, whilst the restricted TLDs .edu, and the ccTLDs, .es and .fr, have much larger numbers of pages in each domain, .org leads the unrestricted TLDs in terms of density of content.

This is important because it illustrates the utility of .org websites to the communities that they serve. The successor registry that manages .org must be sensitive to the value of the information used by the members of the wider .org community.

The needs of the .org communities

To be responsive to the .org communities, Global Name Registry must be responsive to their needs. What is clear is that the .org community is composed of fundamental diverse groups with equally diverse sets of needs. What is also clear is that those needs are dynamic.

The needs of the community are very diverse

Consequently, Global Name Registry has mapped the core, augmented and emotional needs of registrants on .org for the purpose initiating policies and practices that meet the needs of the community.

Figure 17 :Illustration of the types of needs experienced by members of the .org community

The needs of the community are dynamic

Typically, the communities on .org will undergo a lifecycle from online birth (i.e. the point of registration on .org) through to becoming a mature, efficient site that fosters community collaboration. In order for the registry to remain continuously responsive, on a regular basis, it must monitor and assess these needs in terms of prevalence and impact within the .org community.

The table below, which is repeated in more detail in the section C38.5 (Promotions and Marketing Communications Strategy), illustrates four distinct life stages through which a typical .org website (or web supported community) might pass.

The four proposed life stages are:

1. An introductory site or community describes an organization that comes on to the Internet for the first time and is looking to purchase a domain.

2. A growth type community is one whose membership and awareness is growing, but is still essentially hub and spoke model i.e. communication is predominantly one way from the centre.

3. A mature dynamic community is one which uses the Internet to the full potential to recruit, communicate with and collaborate with a dynamic membership.

4. An issue site is one which has been set up for a purpose, perhaps lasting only a few months with the purpose of effecting change.

Site/ community lifecycle

Registrant Objectives	“A working site”	“A successful site”	An “efficient site”	“An effective site.” i.e. short term site
Core domain needs	ISP access A memorable/meaningful domain name (i.e. my first choice) Information to decide between TLDs	Basic web community functionality (e.g. Reliability Low cost/ease of content update	Advanced website functionality e.g. content management Reduced operations cost	Instant awareness about an issue Low cost Fast to set up
Community needs	“Community forum”	“Community communication”	“Community collaboration”	“Community action”
Augmented needs	Easy purchase process Availability/ coverage Perceived choice Perceived value Easy installation Step by step process Help and advice (predominantly technical) Member recruitment	Advice (Technical, Marketing, content, recruitment) Awareness generation/ Network of links/banner exchange Membership/ audience generation “Revenues” however measured	Freedom of expression Consultation/ involvement on domain issues Common purpose Brand/reputation protection Differentiation Member churn reduction	Outsourced Viral Ease Awareness generation/ Network of links/banner exchange Membership/ audience generation
Emotional Needs	Security Reassurance Assistance Simplicity	Best practice Improvement Success (Growth)	Credibility Authority Recognition “Worthiness”	Awareness Impact Make a difference!

Table 2 : The site and community lifecycle segmentation which illustrates how a .org community site’s needs will evolve over time and how , if the registry is to remain responsive, it must continuously identify and track those needs

Responsiveness to the non-commercial Internet user community

Global Name Registry has identified six initiatives to help meet these needs of the non-commercial Internet community. They are:

1. Global Name Registry’s ongoing contribution to worthy non-commercial causes

2. The .orgcentre

3. The Causeway Community Foundation

4. The .org Steering committee

5. Partnerships

6. The .org Brand, Vision and Charter

A description of each of the initiatives follows, emphasizing how they are responsive to the needs previously identified and a summary of benefits to the .org community.

1. Global Name Registry ongoing contribution to worthy projects in the
non-commercial community

“A continued financial contribution for the benefit of the .org community”

As part of our commitment to respond to the needs of the non-commercial Internet community within the .org TLD, Global Name Registry will commit to give money from the new .org registry operations to worthy projects from day one.

For the entire term of the.org registry, Global Name Registry will direct 10% of all revenues it receives from .org registrations and re-registrations into the non-commercial Internet community by way of a donation to non-commercial causes: 5% to the .orgcentre, and 5% to the newly created Causeway Community Foundation.

The .orgcentre will be established within six months following start of registry operations.

It is anticipated that the Causeway Community Foundation will be launched one year following the registry handover. Global Name Registry will accrue funds for donation to the Causeway Community Foundation at the point of launch.

In addition to the 10% for the .orgcentre and the Causeway Community Foundation, Global Name Registry will donate 5% of revenues directly to International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for the first two years of operation while the Causeway Community Foundation and .orgcentre are being established and become fully operational.

Global Name Registry has chosen the IFRC as the beneficiary of these funds because of its fit with the principles and vision of the new .org: having truly global reach (over 181 countries), being a non-governmental organization, having unique status has a humanitarian organization (established by The Geneva Convention), engaging unparalleled support (over 97 million volunteers worldwide), and helping a broad range of people and communities in crisis.

In addition, the IFRC is globally respected and recognised, being the third most recognised symbol in the world.

With respect to .org specifically, IFRC will play an integral role in repurposing .org, which is fundamental to Global Name Registry’s .org vision.

It is a fundamental principle of Global Name Registry’s vision for .org that it will commit substantial financial resources to the IFRC, the .orgcentre and the Causeway Community Foundation in order to continuously benefit the non-commercial community.

2. The .orgcentre

One of Global Name Registry’s principle initiatives is the development of the.org centre - an on-line success centre, which turns the needs identified in ongoing research programs into products and services from which the whole .org community can benefit. With 5% of revenues from .org registrations, the .orgcentre will be adequately funded to meet its goals. It may also expand to include other substantial programs if it receives additional funds from the Causeway Community Foundation or the VeriSign endowment.

Figure 18 :The .orgcentre brand

Its aim is to enable any members of the non-commercial Internet community to further their particular purposes by giving them access to (predominantly free) resources; for example skills, training, tools, experience and know-how relating in particular to noncommercial presence online can be accessed via the .orgcentre site. These resources will be drawn from the existing community, corporate partners and friends of Global Name Registry, the Internet community at large and specifically created or sourced by the .org registry for the benefit of the constituency in accordance with the evidence from a formal ongoing research program. (See below).

It is proposed that the majority of these products and services will be free to .org owners, who may register for a free password to this area of the .org centre site. However, it is recognized that, over time, the area may grow to include some added value products or services offered by third parties which members may choose to buy.

There are four types of initiative planned for launch within the first year of operation:

1. The .org Advice Centre

2. The .org Training Centre

3. Travel Scholarships

4. Ongoing research

2a. .org advice centre

As part of the .orgcentre, the .org advice centre gives .org owners the opportunity to gain free advice from individuals, companies or organizations that are willing and able to share beneficial experiences.

Organizations are invited to the site to complete a confidential on-line questionnaire, in which they are asked to describe themselves: type of organization, life stage, objectives, activities, successes, needs, existing and required skills and competencies. They are also asked whether they would like to obtain advice from or give advice to other .org owners (or both).

The system is able to automatically categorize the organization’s situation analysis and search and find other organizations that are willing to provide advice having particular expertise or experience in the required areas. This advice is accessed and displayed in two ways:

1. by a series of case studies and papers published on the site and

2. by a list of relevant matched links to the people who have offered to help in these types of circumstances.

In this way many organizations, especially those who operate relatively new .org websites, have access to free expert advice and resources to help them further their purpose.

Figure 19 :Screen shot from the .orgcentre, to illustrate likely functionality

2b. .org training centre

The .org training centre is designed to offer free training courses to all .org owners on a wide variety of topics; these topics will be determined by the results of the rolling research so that the training skills which are most requested will be developed first.

Training is seen as a key initiative to help all .org owners make better use of their sites. It is an enabling resource from which all members can benefit according to their own circumstances and needs.

These free courses may cover such areas as for example: how to raise funds for local community projects, how to build a web site, how to maximize the impact of communications, how to link corporate entities to local projects, effective fundraising techniques, optimizing advertising revenues or how to write an effective business plan for venture capitalists. However, as stated previously, courses will be sponsored and developed by Global Name Registry according to the identified needs of the community.

Clearly the number and range of these courses will grow over time, benefiting more and more of the .org constituents and creating a real point of differentiation between the .org communities and other gTLDs.

The delivery method of these enabling training courses will be determined by the results of the audience research; however, it is anticipated that the largest proportion will be delivered on-line to allow maximum scalability and community penetration and to allow the registry to monitor and publish course attractiveness. Global Name Registry will seek to measure effectiveness of these courses within its rolling research program and by encouraging beneficiaries to feedback experiences via the bulletin areas in the Org Training Centre site.

2c. Encouraging ICANN Participation in Conferences - “Travel Scholarships”

Global Name Registry intends to set aside a proportion of the .orgcentre monies to cover travel and accommodation expenses for a number of community delegates that wish to attend the ICANN conferences.

Details of this scheme are not finalised at this stage; however, it is anticipated that interested parties, that are non-commercial and can demonstrate how they can help their local communities, will be encouraged to apply for travel and accommodation expenses via the Global Name Registry .org website. The number of successful delegate applications will be limited (according to budget), .orgcentre would partner with an existing, recognized organization in this field to undertake the application verification and award process. For example, we would approach Salzburg Seminar, a non-profit international educational organization, which has an affinity for and supports other non-profit organizations, which has considerable experience in this field.

(www.salzburgseminar.org).

Figure 20 :www.salzburg.org ; an example of an organization with considerable experience in the travel grant application verification and award process

In this way the .orgcentre will help to expand the opportunity for non-commercial participation and increase representation in the ICANN activities.

2d. Ongoing Research Program

Such a large, diverse and dynamic population has constantly changing and evolving needs. One of the key initiatives in this proposal is to better understand the needs of the community AND how they evolve over time. Therefore, we propose to sponsor a programme of rolling research to capture the needs and wants of the constituent members and use this information to provide the services that they themselves feel will be most beneficial.

The information will be collected using a variety of opt-in research techniques in order to create results that are as representative as possible. Registrars will be given the opportunity to have an active part in the programme and will be able to benefit from the published aggregated results. These data will be used to help shape the Global Name Registry/Registrar co-marketing programme and will additionally provide valuable insight for the Registrar community to better understand the needs of a large proportion of its customers for its own marketing efforts.

Examples of proposed on and off-line research techniques include: self-completion questionnaires via registrars, representative panels, sponsored surveys, focus groups, on-line “health-checks” on .orgcentre web site.

We believe that giving the community the opportunity to declare which product or marketing initiatives have the most value is fundamental to the ongoing development and growth of the .org space, and is key to ensuring that the Registry (and registrars) put their marketing skills and financial resources to the best use.

Global Name registry has approached Research International, one of the worlds largest research companies for support in the design and execution of the ongoing research programme.

“Research International is the world leader in custom market research services. We work as partners to help clients gain a better understanding of consumers and customers, solve problems, and develop the knowledge to create successful brands and businesses

We are specialists in Consumer Understanding, Branding and Communications, Innovation, Channel Management, Customer Relationships and Service Measurement.

All our work is supported by our continual investment in knowledge management systems, in quality at every stage of our operations, and in innovative research solutions developed by our global network of Marketing Science Centres and by Research International Qualitatif, the world's largest qualitative research group.

We believe that research must move beyond the provision of tactical assistance, and the ability to answer a specific question - important though that is. It must provide a wider marketing knowledge and insight framework that enables businesses to prosper by forging durable links with their customers.”

Table 3 : Research International corporate profile

Funding

The .orgcentre will be funded by Global Name Registry’s substantial commitment to donate 5% of .org registration revenues to these projects. It is anticipated that this will generate revenues between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per year.

The longer-term vision for the .orgcentre is to extend its reach and physical presence to other continents (e.g. Asia, EMEA and South America) to internationalize the use of the .org space. This process will be greatly accelerated if the .orgcentre is successful in its application for the VeriSign endowment.

Specifically, if Global Name Registry, through the .orgcentre receives the VeriSign endowment, Global Name Registry will be able to use those funds to establish .orgcentre functions in other geographic regions.

3. The Causeway Community Foundation

The Causeway Community Foundation will be a new fund created by the registry for the .org community, representing both the interests of the individual constituent members and the community as a whole.

Figure 21: The Causeway Community Foundation logo

Global Name Registry, in its effort to create a special community for non-commercial entities, intends to establish the Causeway Community Foundation and, with funds allocated to the Causeway Community Foundation, intends to distribute monies to certain not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations. It is intended that between five percent of the revenues collected from .org registrations during the term of the .org ICANN Agreement will be allocated to the Causeway Community Foundation and then on to various not-for-profit or non-governmental organizations, and in any event for the benefit of the non-commercial Internet user community.

The Causeway Community Foundation will be administered in large part by a consultant which specializes in the distribution of funds to non-commercial entities, such as the Charities Aid Foundation.

The aim of the Causeway Community Foundation is to create and manage funds that will be allocated to benefit a wide range of “worthy projects” from diverse segments of the community across a wide geographical spread. Such worthy projects must meet criteria established by Global Name Registry through the Causeway Community Foundation, which will require that the non-commercial community receive the benefit of such projects specifically. The foundation will solicit applications from the Internet community for causes which are non profit and Internet-related.

The acceptability and success of applications for these worthy projects will not be judged in isolation by the fund administrator, but developed in conjunction with the .org community by way of a (voluntary) voting system.

The fundamental principles underlying this system are:

· Members of the Internet community should be able to apply for money for Internet-related worthy projects from the Causeway Community Foundation

· .org domain owners should have the opportunity to influence which worthy projects receive money from a .org fund, via a simple voting mechanism

· Applicants must demonstrate that funds will be used for non profit purposes which are Internet related and benefit members of the non-commercial community

Figure 22 :The Causeway Community Foundation homepage - to illustrate proposed functionality.

Global Name Registry voting system implemented for the Causeway Community Foundation has been vetted by the technical team at Global Name Registry, since it is clear that voting in the ICANN community has not been embraced. Global Name Registry believes that its system will not be subject to gaming, and in fact is quite similar to the current consent system that it has implemented for .name. Voters will be authenticated according to their objects on Whois, and only .org registrants will receive keys to vote. This process is illustrated further below.

Managing the Fund - Partnership with a “Charitable Giving” Consultant

The Causeway Community Foundation will be administered in large part by a partner organization, which specializes in the distribution of charitable funds to non-commercial entities. Global Name Registry has had several conversations with consultants of this sort, and intends to finalize an arrangement with such a consultant during the first year of .org operation.

One such organization, a recognised expert in this field, is Charities Aid Foundation (“CAF”), which has expressed interest in supporting this initiative (subject to final discussion and agreement) by managing the fund, handling the application verification process and the selection and awards procedures.

Figure 23 : Charities Aid Foundation

CAF is an international non-governmental organization which provides specialist financial services to other charities and their supporters. With more than 75 years of experience and a global network spanning five continents, CAF is committed to increasing the resources of charities worldwide and helping individual and corporate donors add value to their generosity.

CAF has been helping to increase the financial health of charities across the world for over 75 years. By combining an intimate knowledge of the voluntary sector with extensive financial expertise, CAF provides an unusually diverse range of services. Today they manage more than UK £1.4 billion on behalf of charities in over 20 countries.

Sources of Funds

The principle source of income for the Causeway Community Foundation will be donations from the registry, equal to 5% of revenues from .org registrations and re-registrations each year for the entire term of the agreement.

Once the fund is established and has demonstrated its benefit to the non-commercial Internet community via these grants, the foundation may consider allowing registrants to make voluntary contributions to the fund at the point of registration (and re-registration). Prior to this, the registry would seek the opinion of the .org community and registrars. Clearly, such an initiative could not be introduced prior to EPP protocol implementation.

Foundation Beneficiaries

It is intended that everyone has the opportunity to apply to the Causeway Community Foundation for a grant to support a worthy project, and that all .org owners have the opportunity to vote for the good cause(s) they wish the foundation to support. However, all successful applicants will be encouraged to use a .org domain to illustrate their good cause and report on the community-sponsored project.

The application, voting and selection process is intended to take place twice yearly. The list of applications will be posted on the Causeway Community Foundation web site (applications will be made in a predetermined format and must fulfil certain set criteria- see below).

Figure 24 :The Causeway Community Foundation Guidelines (provided for branding only; substance is set forth in the body of this Section C35)

Causeway Community Foundation – Guidelines for the .org Community

On the next few pages a more detailed description of the key principles of the foundation can be found:

From around 1 January 2004 and for the balance of the .org ICANN Agreement, monies from the Causeway Community Foundation will be disbursed to qualifying organizations who submit applications for grants (each, an “Application”), and which meet certain objectives, all in accordance with criteria established by Global Name Registry and to be administered by CAF or similar expert organization. Applications for monies from the Causeway Community Foundation (“CCF Amounts”) will be solicited by Global Name Registry every six months beginning on 1 January 2004, with the CCF Amounts to be disbursed on or around 30 June 2004 and every six months thereafter (each, a “Period”).

To the extent that donations or Applications do not deplete the Causeway Community Foundation during any given Period, monies which would otherwise be CCF Amounts will be rolled over to support the .orgcentre, a resource which will be designed specifically to help .org registrants. See C38.3.7 for a detailed description of the .orgcentre.

The rules and guidelines for the Causeway Community Foundation for the period beginning 1 January 2004 are contained in the following:

General

1. During any Period, Global Name Registry, through the Causeway Community Foundation and its website at www.causewaycommunity.org, will solicit Applications from qualifying entities (“Applicants”). In determining winning Applications, Causeway Community Foundation, together with CAF (or similar organization), will take into account the votes of .org registrants as described below.

2. Because Global Name Registry will be committing revenues received through .org registrations to the Causeway Community Foundation, each .org registrant will have the opportunity to vote on an Application which the registrant believes should receive the CCF Amounts requested.

3. Following a vote by .org registrants, the CAF (or similar organization) will evaluate the 50 Applications which receive the highest number of votes, with each such Application being required to receive at least 500 votes, or a lesser amount at the sole discretion of Global Name Registry.

Applications

4. Anyone wishing to submit an Application may do so, as long as they meet the Eligibility Criteria set forth below. Applicants need not have registered a .org domain in order to submit an Application and to be considered for CCF Amounts.

5. Applications will be available on the Causeway Community Foundation site at www.causewaycommunity.org.

6. Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:

a. Applications will be accepted from organizations or companies, whether for profit or not, but not from individuals.

b. For-profit companies will be required to illustrate that their proposed project is targeted toward the needs of a non-profit community.

c. Applicants must sign the Application declaration (see below) (the “Declaration”).

d. Applications must include all of the relevant information set forth in the Declaration.

e. Applicants are eligible to submit only one Application per Period.

f. All applications must be submitted in English. Other languages may be added in the future.

7. The Application process for the CCF Amounts will occur over a 120-day period (the first such period to begin on or around 1 January 2004), as follows:

a. Day 1: Applications for CCF Amounts are solicited.

b. Day 45: Deadline for receipt of Applications. Applications will be posted promptly upon receipt. Causeway Community Foundation will issue voting keys to all .org owners, and voting begins for a 45-day period.

c. Day 90: Voting ends.

d. Days 90-120: CAF (or similar organization) reviews the top 100 Applications receiving the requisite number of votes to ensure suitability and validity of Applications.

e. Day 120: Causeway Community Foundation announces winners (30 days after voting ends).

Voting by .org Registrants

8. Any individual or entity owning a .org domain is eligible to vote on Applications to the Causeway Community Foundation. If any .org registrant has submitted an Application during any Period, that .org registrant may use its voting key in support of its own Application.

9. Each .org registrant will receive a voting key, entitling such registrant to one (1) vote during any Period. Each voting key distributed to .org registrants during any Period will expire after its use, and in any event, at the end of the Period.

10.The 50 Applications which receive the highest and requisite number of votes will be submitted to CAF (or similar organization). Which will review each of these Applications against the Review Criteria set forth below and determine whether to disburse the CCF Amount requested in accordance with the Review Criteria set forth below.

11.Voting will be anonymous until voting has concluded. Global Name Registry will publish the results when winners are announced.

12.The maximum CCF Amount available for each Application is $20,000.

Figure 25 :Schematic illustrating proposed voting mechanism

Application Evaluation

13. Applications may be submitted and may request any amount up to a maximum of US$20,000. Once the top 50 Applications qualify, they will be evaluated in the context of other Applications which have requested similar amounts. There will be four (4) categories, broken down by the dollar amount requested:

· Category 1: Applications – between US$1 and US$2,000

· Category 2: Applications - between US$2,001 and US$5,000

· Category 3: Applications - between US$5,001 and US$12,000

· Category 4: Applications - between US$12,001 and US$20,000

14.The Applications receiving the highest number of votes, and in any event, a minimum of 500 votes, or lesser amount in the discretion of Global Name Registry will be submitted for evaluation by CAF (or similar organization).

15.A maximum number of qualifying applications will be selected from each category described in item 14 above for evaluation by CAF (or similar), as follows:

· Category 1 = 25 Applications.

· Category 2 = 10 Applications.

· Category 3 = 10 applications.

· Category 4 = 5 Applications.

16. If the aggregate amount of funds in the Causeway Community Foundation is insufficient to fulfil all 50 Applications during any Period, CCF Amounts will be allocated pro rata to the maximum number of winning Applications. For example, if the aggregate amount of funds available from the Causeway Community Foundation in any period is only 85% of the total amount needed to fulfil the needs of all of the winning Applications, each Application will be awarded an amount which is equal to 85% of the total amount requested.

17.The 50 Applications receiving the highest and requisite number of votes will be submitted for evaluation by CAF (or similar). The minimum number of votes is designed to ensure that no one Applicant can successfully game the voting system.

18.CAF (or similar organization) will evaluate the top 50 Applications based on, among other criteria, the following (the “Review Criteria”):

· Is the Applicant a registered not-for-profit or other non-governmental organization in the jurisdiction of its residence, or otherwise would be in accordance with English laws?

· If the applicant is a for-profit entity, does the project serve the needs of a non-commercial community?

· Does the applicant possess the requisite skill and resources to implement the project outlined in its Application?

· Is the Applicant a suitable proponent of the project described?

· Will the plan benefit a community (includes using CCF Amounts toward travel expenses for any community to attend public ICANN meetings)?

· Is the plan benevolent such that it does not cause injury, directly or indirectly, to any individual, entity, community, government, religion, faith, or other group?

· Is there sufficient geographical diversity among the 50 Applications chosen by the .org community?

· Has the applicant demonstrated that the grant will be used for Internet-related purposes?

These Review Criteria may be amended from time to time at the discretion of Global Name Registry, together with the Causeway Community Foundation and CAF (or similar).

19.CAF (or similar), Causeway Community Foundation and Global Name Registry may also determine in their sole discretion that Applications other than the 50 chosen by .org voters are eligible for evaluation to ensure geographic diversity of the Applicants. During any given Period, no one geographic region (among (1) Africa, (2) Asia Pacific, (3) Europe, (4) Latin America/Caribbean, and (5) North America) shall receive more than one third of the CCF Amounts.

20.If, after disbursement of all eligible CCF Amounts during any given Period, there are funds remaining in the Causeway Community Foundation, such funds will be invested in resources for the .org Open Centre, designed exclusively for the benefit and the development of non-profit or non-governmental initiatives. See C38.3.7.

Winning Applications

21.Following evaluation of the Applications against the Review Criteria, the Causeway Community Foundation will disburse one-quarter of the total CCF Amount granted to each of the winning Applications promptly upon the announcement of all winning Applications.

22.Global Name Registry and/or the Causeway Community Foundation will not be obligated to disburse CCF Amounts in the event that it determines that it is illegal to do so.

23.Winning Applicants will be required to publish a report on a .org web site as to the status of their project within three months of the Causeway Community Foundation announcing the winners.

24.The status report will be evaluated by CAF (or similar), and to the extent interested, the .org community.

25.In the absence of material complaints by the .org community or any problems perceived by CAF (or similar), the remaining three quarters of each CCF Amount will be disbursed 120 days following the announcement of all winning Applicants for the relevant Period.

26.If complaints or any problems perceived by CAF (or similar) exist, CCF Amounts will either be (1) disbursed promptly upon resolution of the complaint or problem, or (2) withheld permanently from the Applicant in the event that such CAF (or similar) cannot resolve such complaint or problem. In such circumstances, the Causeway Community Foundation shall not be obligated to disburse any CCF Amounts in respect of disputed Applications.

27.Any of Global Name Registry, the Causeway Community Foundation or CAF (or similar) may also take legal action against the Applicant to recover disbursed funds if it is determined that the Applicant has made material misrepresentations in its Application.

Applicant Declaration for the Purpose of CCF Amounts

1. Applicant agrees that it is applying to the Causeway Community Foundation for a CCF Amount to further an Internet-related worthy project for a community.

2. Applicant represents that this worthy project will not cause injury, directly or indirectly, to any individual, entity, community, government, religion, faith, or other group.

3. Applicant consents to use by Global Name Registry and/or the Causeway Community Foundation of its Application and other details for purposes of publicity and advertising.

4. Applicant understands that all Applications will be posted for a vote by .org registrants.

5. If successful, Applicant will demonstrate the status of the proposed project on a web site using a .org top level domain.

6. Applicant understands that Global Name Registry or the Causeway Community Foundation may take legal action against the Applicant if it is determined that such Applicant made material representations or used bad faith in applying for the CCF Amounts.

Clearly the Causeway Community Foundation will require policy and structure finalisation following the appointment of the new registry, and will be subject to a thorough consultation process and technical implementation procedure. Therefore, Global Name Registry will focus its efforts after successful transition of the .org registry to build the infrastructure for the Causeway Community Fund. Launch of the Causeway Community Foundation is contemplated to take place and be operational within one year following the registry handover.

Importantly however, Global Name Registry will accrue 5% of all .org registration revenues starting from the commencement of .org registry operations, and will hold and donate these funds to the Causeway Community Foundation account prior to the first disbursement period as described above.

It should be noted that Community applications are allocated to bands for two principle reasons: firstly, this will enable a larger number of worthy projects to be fulfilled every year and secondly, it provides an incentive to the smaller local community segments to apply by ensuring that the fund does not simply gravitate towards the larger, more well known causes.

In this way it is estimated that over 100 community worthy projects will be helped by the Causeway Community Foundation every year.

4. Steering committee

Global Name Registry, in an effort to better understand the needs of the non-commercial internet user community, will meet with respected individuals within that community on a regular basis. The ".org Steering Committee" (OSC) will be established as a liaison between the .org registry and the non-commercial constituency of ICANN (or the representative group of the non-commercial community that emerges in any new form that ICANN may take as a result of the current restructuring.

The OSC will be an important channel of communication between the registry and key parts of the non-commercial community. It will promote dialogue, transparency and accountability, as well as provide policy guidance to the registry on issues not otherwise addressed by the ICANN process.

It will be an additional link between the .org registry and ICANN. OSC will also serve as another tool to help the registry assess the changing needs and interests of the diverse .org community.

The OSC will include the leadership of the ICANN's non-commercial constituency and the .org registry, as well as from the .orgcentre and the Causeway Community Foundation. It would meet three to four times a year, by teleconference or in person. The meetings will be open to other members of the non-commercial constituency, as well as members of other ICANN constituencies. The minutes will be published and posted on the .orgcentre website.

The OSC will be the first liaison mechanism of its kind to be created directly between a registry and the ICANN community. It represents another way that Global Name Registry and the IFRC will differentiate operation of .org from its present state, as well as from all other TLDs.

We believe that creation of the OSC is preferable to establishment of a Policy or Advisory Council for several reasons. Done properly, setting up a new council would likely involve complex procedures for selecting and voting upon the members.

Given the increasingly important role that ICANN is playing in policy related to the technical coordination of the Internet, we do not anticipate that there would be many, if any, decisions made without the active involvement of the ICANN community.

Although we are open to further discussion, our initial conclusion is that it would not be practical to set up a new body whose intended role can be met just as effectively by recasting existing resources.

5. Partners

Summary list of partners

Global Name Registry has put in place a number of global partnerships to enable world-class delivery of the initiatives outlined in this document.

Primary partnerships:

Supporting partnerships:

In addition we would seek to call draw on the skills of a number of other expert partners. Examples might include :

· Salzburg Seminar, www.salzburg.com ; an example of an organization with considerable experience in the travel grant application verification and award process

· The Charities Aid Foundation

Why the Red Cross?

Global Name Registry has chosen the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to be a partner for these initiatives because of its fit with the principles and vision of the new .org:

3. commitment to Global Name Registry’s .org vision

4. having truly global reach (over 181 countries)

5. being a non-governmental organization

6. having unique status has a humanitarian organization (established by The Geneva Convention)

7. engaging unparalleled support (over 97 million volunteers worldwide) and

8. helping a broad range of people and communities in crisis.

9. being globally respected and recognised (the third most recognised symbol in the world).

What role will Red Cross play?

The IFRC will support Global Name Registry’s vision for .org and its programs developed to support that vision; in particular, it will:

10.Help promote the new vision for .org globally via their network of organizations in 181 countries

11.Help repurpose .org among the thousands of influential corporations around the world with whom they have relationships

12.Through linking with the IFRC logo, whose emblem is the third most recognized on the planet, provide immediate support and credibility to the newly repurposed .org brand

13.Leverage global sales and marketing resource, and through association and participation with IFRC PR opportunities and debating platforms raise awareness for the objectives and goals of the .org registry

Primary partnerships: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)[1]

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is the world's largest humanitarian, non-commercial organization, providing assistance to than 40 million people irrespective of nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. The Federation's mission is to improve the lives of vulnerable people by mobilizing the power of humanity.

It is a thriving global organization with over 97 million active volunteers worldwide.

There were five founding member Societies: Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. This number has grown over the years and there are now 178 recognized National Societies - one in almost every country in the world. Its first mission was to assist typhus and famine victims in Poland; today it seeks more than 270 million Swiss francs annually to fund 72 humanitarian assistance programmes.

There are seven fundamental principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement:

1. Humanity: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battlefield, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.

2. Impartiality: It makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give priority to the most urgent cases of distress.

3. Neutrality: In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature.

4. Independence: The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.

5. Voluntary Service: It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

6. Unity: There can be only one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work throughout its territory.

7. Universality: The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all Societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide

*Region*	*Appeal*
Africa	23.9 million
Americas	0.4 million
Asia and Pacific	18.1 million
Europe	4.5 million
Middle East/North Africa	2.2 million
Multi regions	5.9 million
Total	55.1 million

Table 4: IFRC appeals 2002, beneficiaries (Swiss Francs)

6. Brand, vision and the .org Charter

These three mechanisms, the brand, vision and the .org charter, have been designed and developed to respond to the needs, values and emotions of the non-commercial mode of the .org constituents.

Figure 26 : The .org brand has been developed in response to the essence of the .org domain in the minds of its constituents

The .org brand is the visual manifestation of the needs and desires of the .org community. The brand is exemplified by the .org vision which encompasses and articulates the values of the community.

Together these mechanisms provide a unifying umbrella which will resonate with the community in emotional terms to create strong affinity.

Figure 27 : The .org vision which encompasses and articulates the values of the .org communities

Having distilled the emotions and perceptions of the community and articulated that in the .org brand visual and vision, the .org Charter represents the communities’ opportunity to illustrate their commitment to the value of .org and participate in the development of its purpose.

Figure 28 : The .org Charter, which represents the communities' opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the values of .org and participate in the development of its purpose.

The benefits of responsiveness – what will have been achieved

Through Global Name Registry’s commitment to responsiveness, Global Name Registry will have:

1. Understood needs and published globally (via the rolling research)

2. Enabled the development of a common purpose for .org through dynamically meeting the needs of the constituency (via the .orgcentre)

3. Enabled .org communities to grow and become more successful (via the .org centre)

4. Encouraged the use of the .org domain space for non-commercial mode activities (via the .org brand and .org charter)

5. Enables approximately 100 good causes to be funded (via the Causeway Community Foundation)

6. Create matchmaking network of trust and reciprocity (via .orgcentre advice centre)

7. Increase participation of the .org community in ICANN policy-making by enabling the disadvantaged to attend meetings (via the travel scholarship)

8. Enabled “wide” participation in the development of purpose of the .org space through the .org Charter

9. Increase geographical diversity (via the .orgcentre, and accelerated by the Endowment)

10.Ensuring responsiveness at all times (via the .org Steering Committee)

C36. EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT FROM THE .ORG COMMUNITY

Submit any evidence that demonstrates support for your proposal among registrants in the .org TLD, particularly those actually using .org domain names for non-commercial purposes. Support from diverse non-commercial entities from across the global Internet community will be considered in the selection.

Global Name Registry and International Federation of the Red Cross (www.ifrc.org) are working together to submit a clear vision for the future .org space.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, with the British Red Cross acting as agent, will coordinate support for the new .org vision.

As part of its support for this application, the Red Cross has agreed to use its corporate relationships and vast sales and marketing skills to propose this repurposing to corporates globally.

Table 5 : Examples of IFRC global corporate relationships

*Corporate*	*Nature of relationship*
*Royal & SunAlliance*	A major international, strategic five year partnership with the Red Cross in 23 countries
*GlaxoSmithKline*	A major supporter of international work, particularly HIV/Aids
*Unilever/Lever Fabergé*	A major long-term relationship, manifesting itself in UK, Ireland, Italy and Germany, with more countries to follow
BP	A long term supporter of British Red Cross work and strategic partner to ICRC/IFRC.
*Virgin*	A new relationship developing with both Virgin Group and Virgin Mobile, driven forward by Richard Branson.
*Nestlé*	A close partner of the Federation and supporter of BRCS events and programmes
*Coinstar*	A major US (Nasdaq-listed) coin collection company now developing a relationship with UK supermarkets and UK charities incl the British Red Cross
*Deutsche Bank*	A relationship developing around sponsorship of prestige BRCS events
*AstraZeneca*	Have supported BRCS for 10+ years, sponsors of the Humanity Awards and major international projects (e.g. Tuberculosis)
*Tesco*	UK's largest supermarket has been a long-term major supporter of British Red Cross emergency appeals.
*Red Cross’s other significant relationships include:* · Barclays Bank · Lastminute.com · Littlewoods (lottery scratchcards) · The Corporation of London · Waitrose · John Lewis · Marks & Spencer · B&Q

In addition to this worldwide corporate programme, the Red Cross will promote this vision where appropriate within its other spheres of influence, for example amongst the wider charity communities, as well as national and international institutions.

The Red Cross has already solicited support from a number of international corporations who have endorsed this principle and the new vision of the .org space. Examples of companies that have already submitted written support (included here) are:

· Nestle UK Ltd

· Ogilvy & Mather Europe

· Virgin

· NFP Synergy

C37 Intentionally Omitted