Hello All, I find that the renewal terms for the gtld registry agreements are not the same.
From .biz: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-11may01.h tm
"5.2. Procedure for Subsequent Agreement. 5.2.1. Registry Operator may, no later than eighteen months prior to the initial Expiration Date, submit a written proposal to ICANN for the extension of this Agreement for an additional term (the "Renewal Proposal"). The Renewal Proposal shall contain a detailed report of the Registry Operator's operation of the Registry TLD and include a description of any additional Registry Services, proposed improvements to Registry Services, or changes in price or other terms of service. ICANN shall provide an initial response to the Renewal Proposal within thirty days of receiving it and, during a period of at least six months after receiving the Renewal Proposal, ICANN shall consider the Renewal Proposal and meet with Registry Operator to discuss the Renewal Proposal, but the decision whether to accept the Renewal Proposal shall be in ICANN's sole discretion. 5.2.2. Only after the six-month period described in Subsection 5.2.1 may ICANN call for competing proposals from potential successor registry operators for the Registry TLD. Registry Operator shall be eligible, to the same extent as similarly situated entities, to submit a proposal to such a call. To the extent that the Renewal Proposal demonstrates (i) substantial service in the interests of the Internet community, (ii) enhancement of competition for registration services, and (iii) enhancement of the utility of the DNS, such demonstration shall be among the specific factors considered in ICANN's evaluation of any competing proposals, but the choice from among competing proposals shall be in ICANN's sole discretion." I note that clause 5.2.1 gives "sole discretion" to ICANN to decide whether to accept the renewal proposal - but does not really elaborate on the criteria and basis for the decision. I think it is appopriate for the GNSO to cosnider a uniform process for renewal of an agreement, taking into account the current contaracts for the existing TLDs. It is important from a competition and fairness point of view that operators of more recent TLDs are not disadvantaged by the terms of both the current and proposed .com agreement. While the GNSO is considering this, both ICANN (the legal entity) and the TLD operators should progress using the process defined in their agreements. In other words polcies should be written in such a way that they apply to apply to all gtld operators fairly. Note that we have had a similar issue in the past with respect to the approval process for new registry services. The Board has approved the consensus policy recommended by the GNSO, which now gives ICANN (the legal entity) the appropriate basis for deciding whether to approve a new registry service. Regards, Bruce