New gTLD Registry Agreement

Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? After the NGPC approves the revised terms of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, it will serve as the contract between successful New gTLD Applicants and ICANN, and will govern the rights and obligations of New gTLD registry operators. Successful New gTLD applicants would be expected to enter into this agreement before proceeding to the next phase of delegation of the TLD. What is the proposal being considered? The NGPC is considering approving the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement for the New gTLD Program. The New gTLD Registry Agreement reflects months of negotiations on many key issues raised by the community during various public comment forums. In addition, the New gTLD Registry Agreement addresses GAC advice issued on the New gTLD Program, including its most recent advice issued through the Beijing Communiqué. Some of the changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement include: • Publication of Registration Data; Personal Data (Sections 2.5 and 2.18): In response to comments advising that the publication of registration data should be subject to all applicable data protection and regulations (including European Data Protection laws), the latest version of the Registry Agreement (Section 7.13) provides that ICANN and the Working Group (as defined in the Registry Agreement) will mutually cooperate to develop an ICANN procedure for ICANN’s review and consideration of alleged conflicts between applicable laws and provisions of the Registry Agreement. In the meantime, ICANN will review and consider alleged conflicts between applicable laws and the provisions of the registry in a manner similar to ICANN’s Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law. • Public Interest Commitments (Specification 11): Revisions were made to Specification 11 to implement the non-Category 1 safeguard advice in the GAC’s Beijing Communiqué (i.e. safeguards applicable to all strings and Category 2 safeguards). The revisions to Specification 11 will incorporate standardized language that would be included in every New gTLD’s Specification 11 to address the safeguard advice. Applicant-specific PICs will be included on a case-by-case basis to the extent not superseded by or inconsistent with the standard PICs included to address the GAC’s Beijing Communiqué. • Adjustment to Fees (Section 6.5): Taking the public comment into consideration, the fees section was revised to provide that adjustments to fees will become effective as of the first day of the first calendar quarter following ICANN’s notice of the adjustment. • Referrals to Competition Authorities: In response to the public comments, the agreement was modified to provide that ICANN will, when feasible and appropriate, provider registry operators with advance notice prior to referring arrangement to competition authorities. (Section 2.9) • Brand gTLDs: ICANN is currently considering alternative provisions for inclusion in the Registry Agreement for .brand and closed registries, and is working with members of the community to identify appropriate alternative provisions. Following this effort, alternative provisions may be included in the Registry Agreement. The complete Summary of Changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement is attached to this Resolution as Annex 2. A redline of the current agreement as compared to the prevision version dated 29 April 2013 is attached to this Resolution as Annex 3. The Summary and Analysis of Public Comments is available at http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-base-agreement-01jul13-en.pdf. In adopting this Resolution, the NGPC considered the comments and rationale provided for the changes as presented in the Annexes and the Report of Public Comments. What significant materials did the NGPC review? As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following significant materials and documents: • GAC Beijing Communiqué: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf • Public comments in response to broad categories of GAC safeguard advice: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm • Report of Public Comments, New gTLD Board Committee Consideration of GAC Safeguard Advice dated 18 June 2013: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-gac-safeguard-advice-19jun13-en • Public comments on 29 April 2013 version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement: • New gTLD Program Applicant Guidebook: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb What factors did the NGPC find to be significant? The NGPC took into consideration the public comments form the community submitted during the various public comment forums on the New gTLD Registry Agreement. In addition, the NGPC considered the advice offered by the GAC in its Beijing Communiqué and the public comments on the safeguard advice in the GAC’s Beijing Communiqué. The NGPC also considered the New gTLD Program as established in the Applicant Guidebook. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The adoption of the Resolution will permit successful New gTLD applicants to move forward to the contracting phase of the New gTLD Program. This progress will mark another milestone toward the goal of delegating new gTLDs into the root. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? There is no fiscal impact. The fee provisions in the New gTLD Registry Agreement will provide substantial additional resources for ICANN’s compliance and registry engagement services in furtherance of ICANN’s ongoing coordination, security and stability role. The revised agreement clarifies that registry fees will become due upon delegation, which will help fund expected expenditures to support the roll out of new gTLDs. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. The NGPC previously considered issues of security, stability and resiliency of the DNS issue when adopting the New gTLD Program. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN’s Supporting Organizations or ICANN’s Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? On 29 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit input on the proposed final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. The public comment forum closed on 11 June 2013. On 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13- en.htm. The public comment forum closed on 4 June 2013.