Maybe a little context from my end user perspective would explain why I thought it necessary to place the 2026 RA before this group. Follow the link to review the 2013 Base Registry Agreement (RA). Note that it has been incrementally amended over time, culminating in the 2026 RA.

If you spend enough time in the ICANN ecosystem and pay close attention, one thing becomes clear. The contract is what ultimately matters.

Back in the 2012 gTLD round, some of us attempted to advance a view that the contract may, in effect, embody consensus policy. On that basis, we sought to participate more directly in the negotiations. We proposed that At-Large representatives be granted observer status in those negotiations. That proposal was summarily rejected.

The 2026 RA now incorporates a substantial body of consensus policy outcomes, particularly from the SubPro PDP. From my reading, the most material changes include:

• A formal definition of DNS Abuse, with mandatory mitigation obligations across the entire ecosystem—registry, registrar, and registrant
• Introduction of the Predictability Framework to manage unforeseen operational and programmatic issues
• Strengthened Applicant Support mechanisms, including bid credits in contention resolution
• Enhancements to contention resolution, including restrictions on private resolution and the replacement string option (ask Sivas about that and you get a bellyful)
• Expansion of Label Generation Rules (LGRs) to cover 27 scripts
• Introduction of a uniform renewal pricing rule

The At-Large community played a meaningful role in several of these developments. We advocated consistently and at times relentlessly for Applicant Support. Evan Leibovich is indelibly associated with that effort. The record will reflect it.

We were also deeply engaged in debates on data protection and the handling of personally identifiable information (PII), particularly balancing privacy with the end user’s right to know Who[is} responsible when harm occurs. My friend from Australia, Holly Raiche, shouldered a lot of that burden; co-chaired the At-Large WHOIS WG for years.

The 2026 RA now requires registries and registrars to clearly state the purpose of data processing and obliges the Registry to define the legal basis for processing PII.

We are seeing notable improvements in auditability; stronger obligations to maintain technical and operational records with greater expectation of demonstrable compliance.

The 2026 RA appears to move beyond form to enforceability with definitely clearer compliance exposure tied to Spec 11. The record will show I have long argued that the inclusion of PICs in the 2013 RA was not worth a bucket of warm spit, absent meaningful enforcement. That gap now appears to be closing.

The 2026 RA is evidentiary for policy positions hardening into enforceable contractual obligations.

All good. So far.

Carlton