Preliminary Report | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | 12 March 2026

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.01

The ICANN Board approves the updates to the Process on the recommendation of the OEC, building on over a decade of ICANN org experience managing the Process and working with GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. The ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 5.c, states that each GNSO Stakeholder Group and its associated Constituencies "shall maintain recognition with the ICANN Board." The ICANN Board has interpreted this language to require its approval of any GNSO charter amendments. The OEC oversees GNSO charter amendments through the Process for Amending GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Charters, which the ICANN Board established in 2013.

ICANN org proposed updating the Process in early 2022. The goal of updating the Process was to streamline charter amendments for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, ensuring their continued focus on generic top-level domain policy development. The updates to the Process allow for more in-depth review by ICANN to consider the evolving needs of GNSO community groups. The updates to the Process also provide an opportunity for a GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency to work with ICANN org to establish an appropriate timeline for the effort that is not bound by the Process. Finally, the updates to the Process recognize the continuous evolution of the GNSO and better reflect the review roles of the ICANN Board and ICANN org.

The updates to the Process include a request for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies to inform ICANN org when charter amendment begins rather than when it concludes. This ensures ICANN org can engage with GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies earlier in the Process, serving as a resource about best practices in ICANN community governance. Additionally, the updates to the Process encourage the use of a charter template and an operating procedures template that align with the GNSO Operating Procedures and Recommendation 6.5 (viz., to increase ICANN community group accountability through regular updates to their policies and procedures) from the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability Work Stream 2. The templates include revised sections to address the increasing complexity of governance documents.

Recent governance developments in GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies also served as motivation for updating the Process. At least one GNSO Stakeholder Group has been incorporated as a legal entity in the United States and other GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies have been considering incorporation. Motivations for incorporation, in the United States and in various other countries, include protection from financial and tax liabilities related to the collection of membership dues. This raised broader questions about how ICANN supports the ICANN community, especially when other legal entities are involved.

Shortly after the OEC approved the updates to the Process for Public Comment in July 2022, two GNSO Constituencies and one GNSO Stakeholder Group began work to amend their charters. ICANN org refrained from opening the Public Comment proceeding to avoid changes to the Process while those three GNSO groups were actively working on their charters. This work concluded in early 2025, and ICANN org worked with the OEC to restart the work to update the Process. ICANN org briefed the OEC and conducted a Public Comment proceeding on the updates to the Process. Four submissions, including from the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency, Registrar Stakeholder Group, and Registries Stakeholder Group, expressed support for the updates to the Process. Having reviewed the Public Comment summary report, the OEC recommended that the ICANN Board approve the updates to the Process.

This action is within ICANN's mission "to coordinate the development and implementation of policies … [t]hat are developed through a bottom-up[,] consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems." This action is in the public interest because "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness." It also furthers ICANN Strategic Goal 1.1 to "Ensure Inclusive Stakeholder Representation and Enhance Collaboration."

This action is not expected to have any fiscal impact or any impact on the security, stability, and resilience of the Domain Name System.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which Public Comment was received.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.02 – 2026.03.12.03

ICANN holds a variety of meetings each year, in-person as well as virtually. The business language in which these meetings are conducted is English, with simultaneous interpretation in the remaining languages in the ICANN Language set (Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish), plus Portuguese, when required for GAC sessions, and the local host language when conducting a meeting in a region where the language is spoken. The types of ICANN meetings are:

• ICANN Public Meetings
• ICANN Regional Meetings
• ICANN Prep Week

The ICANN Public Meetings are held three times each year in different regions of the globe to enable attendees from around the world to participate in person. Each ICANN Public Meeting held throughout the year has a different focus and duration. In order throughout the year, the meetings are known as the Community Forum (CF), Policy Forum (PF), and Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Additionally, regional meetings as well as a series of meetings that precede the ICANN Public Meetings, are held to complement ICANN's outreach and community work.

Many community members prefer communication in their native language during the meetings described above. While many are able to follow a discussion or a presentation in English, lack of fluency may prevent them from participating or speaking up during Public Meetings. ICANN's Language Services Department is responsible for bridging this gap by arranging simultaneous interpretation during these meetings. Interpretation supports the global ICANN community and significantly lowers the barrier to participation for those who are not proficient in English. This contributes to improving the effectiveness of the multistakeholder model. Having the ability to communicate in one's language is essential for the success of ICANN's global, multistakeholder community.

While on-site simultaneous interpretation is the default service for ICANN Public Meetings, Language Services also supports regional meetings, webinars, and Prep Week sessions via Remote Simultaneous Interpretation (RSI) to accommodate factors such as location, budget considerations, venue limitations, technical capabilities, and safety issues among others. Both types of interpretation require equipment and technology rental, as well as related technical support to be provided by an outside provider.

[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

Executing a new contract with [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] is now necessary to ensure the continued success of language interpretation at ICANN meetings [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

Per ICANN's sourcing strategy, it is necessary to occasionally revisit the market [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information], ICANN launched a request for proposal (RFP) in 2025 to identify one or more provider(s) qualified to supply interpretation equipment as well as the corresponding technical support related to that equipment.

In addition, the objective of this RFP was also to:

1. Adhere to best practices, including transparency
2. Provide the ICANN community and meeting participants with reliable and cost effective multilingual support during ICANN meetings

After the extensive RFP evaluation process, [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. The decision to select the preferred vendor to support ICANN's needs for interpretation equipment and the corresponding technical support was based predominantly on the following factors:

[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]

ICANN now seeks to enter into a [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] contract with the preferred vendor with a total cost not to exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. The contract does not obligate ICANN to anything, as it is simply an agreement of terms and pricing (rates), not explicit engagement of service. The total expected amount is the estimated spend over the [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] of the contract, based on the planned service to be provided over several meetings/events. [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

Both ICANN staff and the BFC recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO to enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, a new contract with the preferred provider, covering the period of [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN utilizes available funding in the most effective and efficient manner to support the diverse ICANN community to be in the best interests of ICANN and the global Internet community.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY26, and will be accounted for in the FY27 and future ICANN Operations budgets.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.04 – 2026.03.12.05

ICANN's current infrastructure must evolve to keep pace with the rapidly expanding cyber-threat landscape. [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. During this time, ICANN realized notable improvements in threat visibility, defensive capabilities, and the overall security of end-user devices through event and incident escalations.

[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information; Confidential Business Information].

Over the past several years, ICANN has expanded its cybersecurity protection suite by adding individual products, which resulted in multiple separate contracts with the same vendor. ICANN is now seeking to bundle all services into [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

Executing the new single contract with the preferred vendor would total [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] for a [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] term that includes all of the above-mentioned products and services.

The [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] contract is justified by the strategic direction of the ICANN Engineering & IT (E&IT) function to procure best-in-class cybersecurity tooling at a reasonable price point.

The decision to consolidate all products and services of the current provider under a single contract that ICANN uses today was based on several factors. First, ICANN engaged an independent external research firm to assess and benchmark multiple leading providers in the cybersecurity space. [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information].

Consequently, ICANN is now seeking to enter into a [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] contract with the preferred provider with a total cost not to exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. Both ICANN staff and the BFC recommended that the Board authorize the President and CEO to enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, a new contract with the current provider, covering the period of [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. The Board agrees with these recommendations.

This action is within ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is important to ensure that, in carrying out its Mission, ICANN utilizes available funding in the most effective and efficient manner to be in the best interests of ICANN and the global Internet community.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the FY26, and will be accounted for in the FY27 and future ICANN Operations budgets.

Further, this decision is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the domain name system. The decision also supports and increases the information security risk management capabilities of ICANN.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.06 – 2026.03.12.07

In accordance with the Board approval of the revised Investment Policy on 21 November 2025, staff issued an RFP to select asset managers and custodians. After reviewing the proposals of 17 candidates and interviewing eight candidates, ICANN staff determined that three of its current asset managers [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] are best in class and thus should be retained. Due to the expected size of funds to be managed based upon estimates for the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round, staff and the BFC also recommended that ICANN add [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information], as it demonstrated strong market knowledge and capabilities. Furthermore, staff and the BFC recommended that [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] as they demonstrated strong custodian capabilities. Additionally, staff and the BFC recommended that ICANN should retain the custodial services of [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] as it demonstrated strong global custodian services. All firms have demonstrated their ability to perform in compliance with ICANN's Investment Policy. The Board agrees with staff and the BFC's recommendations.

This action is consistent with ICANN's Mission and is in the public interest as it is vital to ensure the management and safeguarding of the funds ICANN utilizes to carry out its mission in an effective and cost-efficient manner, with the best interests of ICANN and the global Internet community in mind.

The suggested change is not expected to have any fiscal impact, or any impact on the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.08 – 2026.03.12.09

As part of ICANN's Public Meeting strategy, ICANN seeks to host a meeting in a different geographic region (as defined in the ICANN Bylaws) three times a year. ICANN90 is scheduled for 30 October - 4 November 2027. Following a search and evaluation of available venues, the organization identified [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] as a suitable location for the ICANN Public Meeting.

The organization performed a thorough analysis of the available locations that met the Meeting Location Selection Criteria (see https://meetings.icann.org/en/host). This analysis included ICANN's health, safety and security assessment including mitigation plans for ICANN meeting participants. Based on the proposals and analysis, ICANN has identified [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information as the location for ICANN90. Selection of this Asia Pacific location adheres to the geographic rotation guidelines established by the Meeting Strategy Working Group. 

The Board Finance Committee (BFC) has carried out its standard due diligence in reviewing the proposed Board decision to recommend approval to the Board. As part of this diligence, the BFC has reviewed the financial risks associated with the proposed decision and the information provided by the org on the measures in place to mitigate those risks. The BFC has found these financial risks and the mitigation in place reasonable and acceptable.

The Board has reviewed the staff's briefing for the costs of hosting the meeting in [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] and agrees with the BFC's recommendation that the proposal meets the significant factors of the Meeting Location Selection Criteria, as well as the related costs for the facilities selected, for the October/November 2027 ICANN Public Meeting.

ICANN conducts public meetings in support of its mission to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems and acts in the public interest by providing free and open access to anyone wishing to participate, either in person or remotely, in open, transparent, and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes.

There will be a financial impact to ICANN in hosting the meeting and providing travel support as necessary, as well as to the community in incurring costs to travel to the meeting. However, such impact would be faced regardless of the location and venue of the meeting and will be accounted for in the FY28 budget.

This action will have no impact on the security or the stability of the Domain Name System.

This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.

All members of the Board voted by general consent in favor of Resolutions 2026.03.12.01, 2026.03.12.02 – 2026.03.12.03, 2026.03.12.04 – 2026.03.12.05, 2026.03.12.06 – 2026.03.12.07, and 2026.03.12.08 – 2026.03.12.09. The Resolutions carried.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.10 – 2026.03.12.12

Why is the Board addressing the issue?

The RDRS pilot concluded in November 2025. Over the course of two years of operations, the ICANN Board has considered and evaluated input from the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council, RDRS Standing Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), Registrars Stakeholder Group (RrSG), Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), and the ICANN community and extensively reviewed all of the SSAD-related materials including EPDP Phase 2 Final Report, SSAD Operational Design Assessment, RDRS Standing Committee Findings Report, RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis and Public Comment Summary, and Timeline for Urgent Requests Public Comment Summary to determine the next steps for the SSAD recommendations. The Board also directed the ICANN organization, in the resolution adopted in October 2025, to continue operating RDRS for up to two years while policy recommendations for a long-term solution for requests for nonpublic gTLD registration data are adopted, implemented, and aligned with other open policy issues, including the disclosure of underlying data for domains registered under privacy/proxy service providers, as well as a timeline for responses to urgent requests from law enforcement authorities.

What are the proposals being considered?

The ICANN Board plans to not adopt the 18 SSAD policy recommendations as a package. The EPDP Phase 2 team indicated that the Board must consider the recommendations as a single package: "Only in relation to the SSAD related recommendations, the EPDP Team considers these interdependent and as a result, these must be considered as one package by the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board." (See p. 11 of the Final Report.) The Board requests the community to evaluate how to move forward with SSAD policy recommendations.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

The Board has reviewed the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report, SSAD Operational Design Assessment, RDRS Standing Committee Findings Report, RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis and Public Comment Summary, and Timeline for Urgent Requests Public Comment Summary. The Board has also engaged with the Standing Committee and consulted with the GNSO Council on the SSAD policy recommendations, as well as with the GAC on the timeline for urgent requests.

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The GNSO Standing Committee encouraged the GNSO Council to consider modifying parts of the EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations, as referenced on page 13-29 of the RDRS Standing Committee Findings Report. Some community members have expressed concerns about the timeline and pace of work required to align the relevant policies for a timeline for urgent requests, including implementation of law enforcement authentication mechanisms, and requests for underlying customer data for domains using privacy and proxy service providers. Others have stressed the importance of transparent authentication mechanisms and ensuring that the rights of domain name registrants and Internet end users are considered in any system that is developed. Others also noted that resourcing and operational burden should be carefully considered given the original SSAD recommendation concerns, emphasizing that next steps should be deliberate, well-scoped, and explicitly tied to established policy mechanisms.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The ICANN Board reviewed the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report, SSAD Operational Design Assessment, RDRS Standing Committee Findings Report, RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis and Public Comment Summary, and Timeline for Urgent Requests Public Comment Summary. The Board has also engaged with the Standing Committee and the GNSO Council on the anticipated consultation on the SSAD policy recommendations.

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

The expectation that the SSAD recommendations are considered as a package was referenced by the Standing Committee, EDPD Phase 2 Team, and others in the community. As such, the Board is taking action on all 18 recommendations as a package in this resolution in order to trigger the GNSO's Supplemental Recommendation process as defined in the Annex A, Section 9 of the ICANN Bylaws.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

The ICANN Board's plan to not adopt the 18 SSAD policy recommendations is predicated upon the lessons learned from two years of the RDRS pilot, and community feedback that has regularly emphasized the need to revisit the SSAD policy recommendations. In addition, the community expressed positive views of the collaborative experience in revisiting Subsequent Procedures policy recommendations, which the Board also did not adopt, and the procedural flexibility it allowed ICANN org. However some community members (GAC) voiced concerns that some recommendations could be lost should the Board not adopt them at this stage, which is not the Board's intention in choosing not to adopt the recommendations.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

This decision will have no direct fiscal impact or ramification on ICANN, the community or the public. A financial assessment of continued RDRS operations while the community continues its policy work was considered when the Board adopted a resolution in October 2025. That resolution noted that continued operation of the RDRS can be supported with existing ICANN operational resources as the community continues policy work.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There is no negative impact to security, stability, and resiliency of the Domain Name System should the Board not adopt the 18 SSAD policy recommendations. Supplemental Recommendations will offer similar or improved benefits for DNS security, stability and resilience by providing a streamlined mechanism for parties to request access to nonpublic gTLD registration data.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The decision not to adopt the SSAD recommendations and subsequently request Supplemental Recommendations is in the public interest, as it will allow the community to make the modifications necessary to align the recommendations with the relevant policies outlined in the RDRS Policy Alignment Analysis and include the enhancements both the community and ICANN Board have indicated are important for RDRS or a successor system that offers third parties a platform to submit requests for nonpublic registration data to contracted parties.

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?

This decision does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.13

What is the proposal being considered?

The Board is considering an update to the charter for the Nominating Committee (NomCom) Standing Committee, a new body chartered as part of the outcomes of the Second Organizational Review of the Nominating Committee. The Board seeks public comment on proposed updates to the Standing Committee charter that have been developed to make the Standing Committee easier to comprise while still respecting the fundamental purpose of the Standing Committee. Specifically, the proposed updates balance the need for expertise and sustainability in comprising the Standing Committee by:

• Maintaining preference for at least two seats for those who have served previous terms on the NomCom, which maintains the Charter's recognition that prior NomCom service as a preferred qualification for appointment; and
• Broadening the pool of qualified candidates to long-standing ICANN community members that have both: (a) a minimum of five years' active involvement in ICANN; and (b) recent service in one of the ICANN community groups that receive appointments from the NomCom and in a role that included coordination with the NomCom.

The Standing Committee Charter can only be changed after public comment and ICANN Board approval.

Background and Purpose of the Standing Committee

In the final report of the second Organizational Review of the Nominating Committee (NomCom2 Review), published on 5 June 2018, the independent examiner conducting the review found that there was a lack of continuity in processes across different years within the NomCom, such that the operational performance of each annual NomCom was routinely impacted. The independent examiner recommended that a Standing Committee be formed to suggest and assist in implementing changes to NomCom processes, since the NomCom itself operates on a tight timeline and needs to focus on its recruiting and evaluation activities.

In September 2023, in relation to Recommendation 24 of the NomCom2 Review, the Board approved the standard Bylaws amendments on Article 8 on the implementation of the NomCom Standing Committee and the NomCom Standing Committee Charter, as revised to address public comments.

The NomCom Standing Committee Charter currently defines the Standing Committee composition as five members: four appointed members and one ex-officio observer. The term of all four appointed members shall be three years. The ICANN Board, or a subset thereof, is responsible for the selection of candidates to the NomCom Standing Committee. As the Charter currently stands, the four members are each required to have served one full term on the NomCom. There are also stated preferences for the diversity of Standing Committee members, trying to avoid overlaps in the entities that named the delegates to the NomCom in the first instance.

The purpose of the NomCom Standing Committee is to:

• Support continuous improvement to the NomCom Operating Procedures and associated processes to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the NomCom while enhancing the NomCom's commitment to transparency and accountability to the overall ICANN community.
• Provide continuity across annual NomCom cycles and to build the institutional memory of the NomCom.

The NomCom Standing Committee does not participate in, oversee, or influence the decision-making processes of the annual candidate evaluation and selection activities. The NomCom Standing Committee is also prohibited from participation in, oversight of, or influencing the selection of delegates to serve on the NomCom, which is the sole responsibility of the appointing bodies. The NomCom Standing Committee will not have access to any confidential information available to the NomCom.

The experience in trying to comprise the first iteration of the NomCom Standing Committee demonstrates the limitations of the current eligibility criteria. The first call for expressions of interest to serve on the Standing Committee, issued in December 2024, yielded five responses for the four seats, but did not allow for composition that would meet the diversity expectation of the group. The second call, in February 2025, resulted in four additional applicants. Of the nine applicants, one did not have prior service on the NomCom, and among the remaining, it was still difficult to comprise the Standing Committee to the terms defined in the Charter. The limited pool of candidates available after two calls highlights the need to broaden the eligibility criteria to secure enough qualified candidates while still retaining a preference for NomCom alumni.

Continuing to proceed with a narrowly constituted committee could limit credibility, inclusiveness, and effectiveness, and may constrain the Standing Committee's capacity to fulfill its mandate.

In considering the issues with comprising the Standing Committee, the ICANN Board Governance Committee recommended a path to the Board that could make composition easier while still respecting the purpose for the group. Notably, while the Standing Committee requires some specialization in experiences with the NomCom, there are other sources of experience that could bring both innovation and continuity to the design of NomCom processes. The NomCom serves a unique role that is for the benefit of the broader ICANN community. The NomCom not only receives delegates from across groups in the ICANN community, but it also makes appointments to many of those same groups. While much of the NomCom's processes are internal, there are important community-facing portions of those processes, including coordination with the groups to which the NomCom is making appointments. The experiences of those receiving entities in dealing with the NomCom's recurring processes is very important and is a component of review and improvement that could otherwise be absent from the Standing Committee's work.

As a result, having a narrow expansion of eligibility for Standing Committee members to encompass this community experience could broaden the available pool of applicants to serve on the Standing Committee while also enhancing the impact of the Standing Committee's work. The expansion would allow at least one, but not more than two seats on the Standing Committee to be filled by individuals who have held active roles in coordinating with the NomCom regarding appointments to entities across ICANN.

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

The Board is interested to hear the ICANN community reaction to this proposal through Public Comment.

What significant materials did the Board review?

The Board reviewed the proposed updates to the NomCom Standing Committee Charter.

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

This action can have a positive impact as it is anticipated to reduce the challenges in comprising this important group and ultimately providing better support to the NomCom across different years. The community reaction will be important to identify if there are further impacts.

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are minimal impacts on ICANN and the community in initiating this Public Comment. Ultimately, the Board anticipates that an update to the NomCom Standing Committee charter can better support the ability to actually seat a Standing Committee, which in turn is expected to support better operations of the NomCom.

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

There are no security, stability or resiliency issues to the Internet's DNS anticipated as a result of this decision.

Is this decision in the public interest and within ICANN's mission?

The initiation of public comment on the NomCom Standing Committee charter advances the public interest by addressing challenges faced in implementing community recommendations. Supporting strong functioning of the NomCom is essential to how ICANN can fulfill its mission, as the NomCom makes key appointments across ICANN.

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?

The next step in the Charter amendment process is to seek public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.14

Today, the Board is taking action to approve the form of registry agreement that successful applicants in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round (2026 Round) would enter into with ICANN as contemplated in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round Applicant Guidebook (Applicant Guidebook). This action is a key step for the planned launch of the 2026 Round on 30 April 2026 as it provides prospective applicants with the form of registry agreement prior to the opening of the application window.

Consistent with the outputs of Topic 36 in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (SubPro Final Report), the 2026 Base RA maintains the structure of the existing Base gTLD Registry Agreement with specifications detailing technical and operational requirements. In addition, the 2026 Base RA:

• includes operational criteria to ensure compliance with ICANN policies;
• has an initial term of a commercially reasonable length (10 years); and
• includes a renewal expectancy.

ICANN org used the Base gTLD RA that was approved by the Board on 21 January 2024 as the starting point to develop the 2026 Base RA. By doing so, the 2026 Base RA incorporates all global amendments to date, including the latest DNS Abuse Global Amendment and the Global Amendment to add Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP).

ICANN org consulted with the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team (SubPro IRT) to ensure the Board-approved policies from the following policy development processes were integrated into the 2026 Base RA as appropriate (PDP Final Reports):

• Final Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
• Phase 1 Final Report on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
• Phase 1 Final Report on the Internationalized Domain Names Expedited Policy Development Process

ICANN also took the opportunity to integrate Consensus Policy obligations (Registration Data Policy and Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs) to ensure this is the most up-to-date 2026 Base RA once available. In addition, the 2026 Base RA includes operational updates based on ICANN's experience since launching the 2012 Round of the New gTLD Program. These operational changes are intended to create efficiencies within ICANN and for registry operators.

The 2026 Base RA also takes into account input received from the various public comment periods, held from 4 June-21 July 2025 and 30 September-17 November 2025 on the full 2026 Base RA then 10 December 2025-27 January 2026 on Specification 14 (Variant TLDs) then 18 December 2025-27 January 2026 on the TMCH Requirements. The reports summarizing and analyzing the public comments are available here.

In addition to the PDP Final Reports and reports of public comments referenced above, the Board also considered the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round Applicant Guidebook in reaching its decision today.

The adoption of this resolution will have a positive impact on the community as it will permit successful applicants to move forward to the contracting phase of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round and eventually toward the goal of delegating new gTLDs into the root zone.

While there are no anticipated fiscal impacts with the Board's approval of the form of agreement for the 2026 Round, as successful applicants sign on to the agreement, there will be fiscal impacts that will be accounted for as part of the annual budget process. The fee provisions in the 2026 Base RA are intended to provide additional resources for ICANN's compliance and registry engagement services in furtherance of ICANN's ongoing coordination, and security and stability role. In addition, the approval of the 2026 Base RA is not expected to create any security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS, and the Board notes that it previously considered issues of security, stability and resiliency of the DNS issue when approving the 2026 Round.

This action by the Board is in the public interest and within ICANN's mission to "coordinate the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System…." and further carries out the Board's previous commitment to opening subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program. As discussed above, the 2026 Base RA has been the subject of several public comment periods.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.15 – 2026.03.12.16

To ensure ICANN does not lose key vendors for contractor services to facilitate resource planning for the processing phase, ICANN has sought approval for extending those contracts to the extent the extensions exceed US$750,000 for these resources through the majority of the processing phase.

Noting that there is uncertainty regarding the number of gTLD applications that will be received in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round, statements of work for these contractor services will be set for specific timeframes (e.g., 6-9 months) to allow adjustments as needed. ICANN maintains the ability of early contract termination should resources not be needed for the full estimated duration. Additionally, plans are being put in place to ensure that knowledge is transferred to ICANN staff as well as succession planning, so that when and where possible and needed, work can be transferred to ICANN staff when the workload allows and necessary skills are available.

ICANN's Contracting and Disbursement Policy limits ICANN Officers from contracting for or disbursing more than US$750,000.00 per obligation without Board approval.

The table below shows a breakdown of the services in this request and the not-to-exceed contracts, noting that the amounts include a contingency factor to cover small rate increases. The total approval request for [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] in potential contract and related disbursements is included in the budget estimate.

Vendor and Contractor Role	Service Provided	Target Extension Date	Contract Spend Not to Exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	Sourcing of New gTLD evaluation vendors and establishment of vendor oversight activities.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	Management of the overall 2026 Round program and delivery of training to ICANN staff and vendors.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]		[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]		[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	Development of 2026 round systems and training materials.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]		[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Total			[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]

ICANN Board's approval of entering into these contractual obligations is in the furtherance of ICANN's mission and the support of public interest to support the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system by ensuring that ICANN can timely contract with and pay the Service Providers that are supporting the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round overall budget and set application fee.

This action is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability, or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

Rationale for Resolution 2026.03.12.17 – 2026.03.12.18

Implementation and operation of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round will require a significant number of external vendors (Service Providers) that will perform work throughout the course of the program. Some of these Service Provider contracts likely will exceed US$750,000.

ICANN's Contracting and Disbursement Policy requires Board approval for ICANN to enter into and make disbursements pursuant to contacts with more than US$750,000 per obligation. With the potential level of expenses that ICANN might incur with any one or more of the Service Providers, US$750,000 could be exceeded frequently during the implementation and operations of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round.

Accordingly, to ensure that timely obligations are made and satisfied with the Service Providers, it is appropriate to take this action now and have the Board's advanced approval to undertake contractual obligations for contracts that are not yet ready to review individually, so long as the contract amounts are covered by the previously Board-approved budget amounts. With this action, the President and CEO, or his designee(s), can enter into, and make disbursements in furtherance of, all contracts in Batch #3 of Services Providers so long as the contract and disbursement amounts are included in Batch #3 of the advance contracting and disbursement approval requests.

The table below shows a breakdown of the services included in Batch #3, [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]. The total approval request for up to [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information] in potential contract and related disbursements is included in the budget estimates for 2,000 applications.

2026 Round External Service	Service Provided	Contract Spend Not to Exceed [Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Name Collision: Temporary Delegation	For the purpose of temporary delegation of applied-for strings, provide a zone management system, a reporting tool and servers set up for data collection using the four methods for data collection outlined in appendix 2 of the NCAP2 study report.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Name Collision: Initial Assessment of Applied-for Strings	Identify high-risk strings using both quantitative data from the name collision observatory and qualitative analysis to determine potential end-user impacts. For each assessed string, an Initial Evaluation Report shall be submitted describing the outcome of the assessment, its methodology and the findings.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Name Collision: High Risk String Mitigation Plan Review	Review applicants' mitigation plans for high-risk strings, ensuring effective strategies are in place before being approved for contracting and delegation.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Financial Capability	Assess the financial stability of applicants, ensuring they possess sufficient resources to operate a gTLD registry.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Geographic Names and Reserved Names	Determine whether each applied-for gTLD string represents a Geographic Name, and verify the relevance and authenticity of the supporting documentation where necessary. Evaluate the geographic string check and the geographic verification for those names determined to be geographic. Determine whether an applied-for gTLD string represents a reserved name and verify the relevance and authenticity of the supporting documentation.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Independent Objector	Independent third-party vendor to assess and, where appropriate file objections as part of the New gTLD Program dispute resolution process, which is designed to protect certain interests and rights.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Auctions	Facilitate auctions for contention sets where multiple applicants apply for the same gTLD, ensuring a fair and transparent resolution process.	[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]
Total		[Redacted – Confidential Negotiation Information]

ICANN Board's approval of entering into these contractual obligations is in the furtherance of ICANN's mission and the support of public interest to support the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system by ensuring that ICANN can timely contract with and pay the Service Providers that are supporting the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round in a fiscally responsible and accountable manner.

This decision will have a fiscal impact, but the impact has already been accounted for in the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round overall budget and set application fee.

This action is intended to have a positive impact on the security, stability, or resiliency of the domain name system.

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.