gTLD Applicant
GuidebookVersion 2012-06-04

4 June 2012

Preamble
New gTLD Program BackgroundNew gTLDs have been in the forefront of ICANN’s agenda since its creation. The new gTLD
program will open up the top level of the Internet’s namespace to foster diversity, encourage
competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS.
Currently the namespace consists of 22 gTLDs and over 250 ccTLDs operating on various models.
Each of the gTLDs has a designated “registry operator” and, in most cases, a Registry Agreement
between the operator (or sponsor) and ICANN. The registry operator is responsible for thetechnical operation of the TLD, including all of the names registered in that TLD. The gTLDs areserved by over 900 registrars, who interact with registrants to perform domain name registration andother related services. The new gTLD program will create a means for prospective registry
operators to apply for new gTLDs, and create new options for consumers in the market. When the
program launches its first application round, ICANN expects a diverse set of applications for new
gTLDs, including IDNs, creating significant potential for new uses and benefit to Internet users acrossthe globe.
The program has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN
community. In October 2007, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)—one of thegroups that coordinate global Internet policy at ICANN—formally completed its policy
development work on new gTLDs and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations.
Representatives from a wide variety of stakeholder groups—governments, individuals, civil society,business and intellectual property constituencies, and the technology community—were engaged
in discussions for more than 18 months on such questions as the demand, benefits and risks of newgTLDs, the selection criteria that should be applied, how gTLDs should be allocated, and thecontractual conditions that should be required for new gTLD registries going forward. The
culmination of this policy development process was a decision by the ICANN Board of Directors to
adopt the community-developed policy in June 2008. A thorough brief to the policy process andoutcomes can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds.
ICANN’s work next focused on implementation: creating an application and evaluation process
for new gTLDs that is aligned with the policy recommendations and provides a clear roadmap for
applicants to reach delegation, including Board approval. This implementation work is reflected in
the drafts of the applicant guidebook that were released for public comment, and in the
explanatory papers giving insight into rationale behind some of the conclusions reached on
specific topics. Meaningful community input has led to revisions of the draft applicant guidebook.
In parallel, ICANN has established the resources needed to successfully launch and operate theprogram. This process concluded with the decision by the ICANN Board of Directors in June 2011 tolaunch the New gTLD Program.
For current information, timelines and activities related to the New gTLD Program, please go to
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm.

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 1

4 June 2012

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application ProcessThis module gives applicants an overview of the process for
applying for a new generic top-level domain, and includes
instructions on how to complete and submit anapplication, the supporting documentation an applicant
must submit with an application, the fees required, andwhen and how to submit them.
This module also describes the conditions associated withparticular types of applications, and the stages of theapplication life cycle.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to read andbecome familiar with the contents of this entire module, as
well as the others, before starting the application process
to make sure they understand what is required of them andwhat they can expect at each stage of the application
evaluation process.
For the complete set of the supporting documentation andmore about the origins, history and details of the policy
development background to the New gTLD Program,please see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/.
This Applicant Guidebook is the implementation of Boardapproved consensus policy concerning the introduction of
new gTLDs, and has been revised extensively via publiccomment and consultation over a two-year period.

1.1 Application Life Cycle and Timelines
This section provides a description of the stages that an
application passes through once it is submitted. Somestages will occur for all applications submitted; others will
only occur in specific circumstances. Applicants should beaware of the stages and steps involved in processing
applications received.

1.1.1

Application Submission Dates

The user registration and application submission periods
open at 00:01 UTC 12 January 2012.
The user registration period closes at 23:59 UTC 29 March
2012. New users to TAS will not be accepted beyond thisApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-2

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
time. Users already registered will be able to complete theapplication submission process.
Applicants should be aware that, due to required
processing steps (i.e., online user registration, application
submission, fee submission, and fee reconciliation) andsecurity measures built into the online application system, it
might take substantial time to perform all of the necessary
steps to submit a complete application. Accordingly,
applicants are encouraged to submit their completed
applications and fees as soon as practicable after the
Application Submission Period opens. Waiting until the endof this period to begin the process may not provide
sufficient time to submit a complete application before theperiod closes. Accordingly, new user registrations will not
be accepted after the date indicated above.
The application submission period closes at 23:59 UTC 12
April 2012.
To receive consideration, all applications must be
submitted electronically through the online application
system by the close of the application submission period.
An application will not be considered, in the absence of
exceptional circumstances, if:•

It is received after the close of the application
submission period.

•

The application form is incomplete (either thequestions have not been fully answered or required
supporting documents are missing). Applicants will
not ordinarily be permitted to supplement theirapplications after submission.

•

The evaluation fee has not been paid by thedeadline. Refer to Section 1.5 for fee information.

ICANN has gone to significant lengths to ensure that theonline application system will be available for the durationof the application submission period. In the event that thesystem is not available, ICANN will provide alternative
instructions for submitting applications on its website.

1.1.2

Application Processing Stages

This subsection provides an overview of the stages involvedin processing an application submitted to ICANN. Figure
1-1 provides a simplified depiction of the process. The
shortest and most straightforward path is marked with boldlines, while certain stages that may or may not be

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-3

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processapplicable in any given case are also shown. A brief
description of each stage follows.
Objection
FilingApplication
Submission
PeriodAdministrative
Completeness
Check

Initial
Evaluation

Transition toDelegation

Extended
Evaluation

DisputeResolution

StringContention

Time
Figure 1-1 – Once submitted to ICANN, applications will pass through multiple
stages of processing.

1.1.2.1

Application Submission Period

At the time the application submission period opens, thosewishing to submit new gTLD applications can become
registered users of the TLD Application System (TAS).
After completing the user registration, applicants will supply
a deposit for each requested application slot (see section
1.4), after which they will receive access to the full
application form. To complete the application, users willanswer a series of questions to provide general information,
demonstrate financial capability, and demonstratetechnical and operational capability. The supporting
documents listed in subsection 1.2.2 of this module mustalso be submitted through the online application system as
instructed in the relevant questions.
Applicants must also submit their evaluation fees during thisperiod. Refer to Section 1.5 of this module for additional
information about fees and payments.
Each application slot is for one gTLD. An applicant may
submit as many applications as desired; however, there isno means to apply for more than one gTLD in a single
application.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-4

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Following the close of the application submission period,
ICANN will provide applicants with periodic status updates
on the progress of their applications.

1.1.2.2

Administrative Completeness Check

Immediately following the close of the application
submission period, ICANN will begin checking all
applications for completeness. This check ensures that:•All mandatory questions are answered;•

Required supporting documents are provided in theproper format(s); and•The evaluation fees have been received.

ICANN will post the public portions of all applications
considered complete and ready for evaluation within two
weeks of the close of the application submission period.
Certain questions relate to internal processes orinformation: applicant responses to these questions will not
be posted. Each question is labeled in the application form
as to whether the information will be posted. See posting
designations for the full set of questions in the attachment
to Module 2.
The administrative completeness check is expected to becompleted for all applications in a period of approximately
8 weeks, subject to extension depending on volume. In theevent that all applications cannot be processed within thisperiod, ICANN will post updated process information andan estimated timeline.

1.1.2.3

Comment Period

Public comment mechanisms are part of ICANN’s policy
development, implementation, and operational processes.
As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to:preserving the operational security and stability of theInternet, promoting competition, achieving broad
representation of global Internet communities, anddeveloping policy appropriate to its mission throughbottom-up, consensus-based processes. This necessarily
involves the participation of many stakeholder groups in a
public discussion.
ICANN will open a comment period (the Application
Comment period) at the time applications are publicly
posted on ICANN’s website (refer to subsection 1.1.2.2). This
period will allow time for the community to review andsubmit comments on posted application materials

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-5

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process(referred to as “application comments.”) The comment
forum will require commenters to associate comments withspecific applications and the relevant panel. Applicationcomments received within a 60-day period from theposting of the application materials will be available to theevaluation panels performing the Initial Evaluation reviews.
This period is subject to extension, should the volume of
applications or other circumstances require. To beconsidered by evaluators, comments must be received in
the designated comment forum within the stated time
period.
Evaluators will perform due diligence on the applicationcomments (i.e., determine their relevance to theevaluation, verify the accuracy of claims, analyze
meaningfulness of references cited) and take theinformation provided in these comments into
consideration. In cases where consideration of thecomments has impacted the scoring of the application,
the evaluators will seek clarification from the applicant.
Statements concerning consideration of applicationcomments that have impacted the evaluation decision will
be reflected in the evaluators’ summary reports, which will
be published at the end of Extended Evaluation.
Comments received after the 60-day period will be stored
and available (along with comments received during thecomment period) for other considerations, such as the
dispute resolution process, as described below.
In the new gTLD application process, all applicants should
be aware that comment fora are a mechanism for the
public to bring relevant information and issues to theattention of those charged with handling new gTLD
applications. Anyone may submit a comment in a publiccomment forum.
Comments and the Formal Objection Process: A distinction
should be made between application comments, which
may be relevant to ICANN’s task of determining whether
applications meet the established criteria, and formal
objections that concern matters outside those evaluation
criteria. The formal objection process was created to allow
a full and fair consideration of objections based on certain
limited grounds outside ICANN’s evaluation of applications
on their merits (see subsection 3.2).
Public comments will not be considered as formal
objections. Comments on matters associated with formal
objections will not be considered by panels during Initial
Evaluation. These comments will be available to and may

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-6

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
be subsequently considered by an expert panel during adispute resolution proceeding (see subsection 1.1.2.9).
However, in general, application comments have a very
limited role in the dispute resolution process.
String Contention: Comments designated for theCommunity Priority Panel, as relevant to the criteria in
Module 4, may be taken into account during a Community
Priority Evaluation.
Government Notifications: Governments may provide a
notification using the application comment forum tocommunicate concerns relating to national laws. However,a government’s notification of concern will not in itself bedeemed to be a formal objection. A notification by agovernment does not constitute grounds for rejection of agTLD application. A government may elect to use thiscomment mechanism to provide such a notification, in
addition to or as an alternative to the GAC Early Warning
procedure described in subsection 1.1.2.4 below.
Governments may also communicate directly toapplicants using the contact information posted in theapplication, e.g., to send a notification that an applied-for
gTLD string might be contrary to a national law, and to try
to address any concerns with the applicant.
General Comments: A general public comment forum willremain open through all stages of the evaluation process,to provide a means for the public to bring forward anyother relevant information or issues.

1.1.2.4

GAC Early Warning

Concurrent with the 60-day comment period, ICANN’s
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) may issue a
GAC Early Warning notice concerning an application. This
provides the applicant with an indication that theapplication is seen as potentially sensitive or problematicby one or more governments.
The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formal
objection, nor does it directly lead to a process that can
result in rejection of the application. However, a GAC Early
Warning should be taken seriously as it raises the likelihoodthat the application could be the subject of GAC Advice
on New gTLDs (see subsection 1.1.2.7) or of a formal
objection (see subsection 1.1.2.6) at a later stage in theprocess.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-7

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
A GAC Early Warning typically results from a notice to the
GAC by one or more governments that an application
might be problematic, e.g., potentially violate national law
or raise sensitivities. A GAC Early Warning may be issued forany reason. 1 The GAC may then send that notice to theBoard – constituting the GAC Early Warning. ICANN will
notify applicants of GAC Early Warnings as soon aspracticable after receipt from the GAC. The GAC Early
Warning notice may include a nominated point of contact
for further information.
GAC consensus is not required for a GAC Early Warning to
be issued. Minimally, the GAC Early Warning must be
provided in writing to the ICANN Board, and be clearlylabeled as a GAC Early Warning. This may take the form ofan email from the GAC Chair to the ICANN Board. For GAC
Early Warnings to be most effective, they should include
the reason for the warning and identify the objecting
countries.
Upon receipt of a GAC Early Warning, the applicant may
elect to withdraw the application for a partial refund (seesubsection 1.5.1), or may elect to continue with theapplication (this may include meeting with representatives
from the relevant government(s) to try to address theconcern). To qualify for the refund described in subsection
1.5.1, the applicant must provide notification to ICANN ofits election to withdraw the application within 21 calendar
days of the date of GAC Early Warning delivery to theapplicant.
To reduce the possibility of a GAC Early Warning, allapplicants are encouraged to identify potential sensitivities
in advance of application submission, and to work with therelevant parties (including governments) beforehand to
mitigate concerns related to the application.

1.1.2.5

Initial Evaluation

Initial Evaluation will begin immediately after theadministrative completeness check concludes. All
complete applications will be reviewed during Initial
Evaluation. At the beginning of this period, backgroundscreening on the applying entity and the individuals
named in the application will be conducted. Applications
While definitive guidance has not been issued, the GAC has indicated that strings that could raise sensitivities include those that
"purport to represent or that embody a particular group of people or interests based on historical, cultural, or social components ofidentity, such as nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, belief, culture or particular social origin or group, political opinion, membershipof a national minority, disability, age, and/or a language or linguistic group (non-exhaustive)" and "those strings that refer toparticular sectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to a
population or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse.”
1

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-8

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
must pass this step in conjunction with the Initial Evaluation
reviews.
There are two main elements of the Initial Evaluation:
1. String reviews (concerning the applied-for gTLD
string). String reviews include a determination thatthe applied-for gTLD string is not likely to cause
security or stability problems in the DNS, including
problems caused by similarity to existing TLDs orreserved names.
2. Applicant reviews (concerning the entity applying
for the gTLD and its proposed registry services).
Applicant reviews include a determination ofwhether the applicant has the requisite technical,
operational, and financial capabilities to operate aregistry.
By the conclusion of the Initial Evaluation period, ICANN will
post notice of all Initial Evaluation results. Depending on thevolume of applications received, such notices may beposted in batches over the course of the Initial Evaluation
period.
The Initial Evaluation is expected to be completed for all
applications in a period of approximately 5 months. If thevolume of applications received significantly exceeds 500,
applications will be processed in batches and the 5-monthtimeline will not be met. The first batch will be limited to 500
applications and subsequent batches will be limited to 400
to account for capacity limitations due to managing
extended evaluation, string contention, and otherprocesses associated with each previous batch.
If batching is required, a secondary time-stamp process will
be employed to establish the batches. (Batching priority
will not be given to an application based on the time atwhich the application was submitted to ICANN, nor willbatching priority be established based on a random
selection method.)
The secondary time-stamp process will require applicants
to obtain a time-stamp through a designated process
which will occur after the close of the application
submission period. The secondary time stamp process will
occur, if required, according to the details to be publishedon ICANN’s website. (Upon the Board’s approval of a final
designation of the operational details of the “secondary
timestamp” batching process, the final plan will be added
as a process within the Applicant Guidebook.)

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-9

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
If batching is required, the String Similarity review will becompleted on all applications prior to the establishment ofevaluation priority batches. For applications identified aspart of a contention set, the entire contention set will be
kept together in the same batch.
If batches are established, ICANN will post updated
process information and an estimated timeline.
Note that the processing constraints will limit delegation
rates to a steady state even in the event of an extremely
high volume of applications. The annual delegation rate
will not exceed 1,000 per year in any case, no matter how
many applications are received. 2

1.1.2.6

Objection Filing

Formal objections to applications can be filed on any offour enumerated grounds, by parties with standing to
object. The objection filing period will open after ICANN
posts the list of complete applications as described insubsection 1.1.2.2, and will last for approximately 7 months.
Objectors must file such formal objections directly withdispute resolution service providers (DRSPs), not withICANN. The objection filing period will close following theend of the Initial Evaluation period (refer to subsection
1.1.2.5), with a two-week window of time between theposting of the Initial Evaluation results and the close of theobjection filing period. Objections that have been filed
during the objection filing period will be addressed in thedispute resolution stage, which is outlined in subsection
1.1.2.9 and discussed in detail in Module 3.
All applicants should be aware that third parties have theopportunity to file objections to any application during theobjection filing period. Applicants whose applications are
the subject of a formal objection will have an opportunity
to file a response according to the dispute resolution
service provider’s rules and procedures. An applicant
wishing to file a formal objection to another applicationthat has been submitted would do so within the objection
filing period, following the objection filing procedures inModule 3.
Applicants are encouraged to identify possible regional,
cultural, property interests, or other sensitivities regarding
TLD strings and their uses before applying and, where
See "Delegation Rate Scenarios for New gTLDs" at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds06oct10-en.pdf for additional discussion.
2

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-10

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
possible, consult with interested parties to mitigate any
concerns in advance.

1.1.2.7

Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs

The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC
Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that,to be considered by the Board during the evaluation
process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted
by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early
Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice
process.
If the Board receives GAC Advice on New gTLDs statingthat it is the consensus of the GAC that a particularapplication should not proceed, this will create a strong
presumption for the ICANN Board that the application
should not be approved. If the Board does not act inaccordance with this type of advice, it must provide
rationale for doing so.
See Module 3 for additional detail on the procedures
concerning GAC Advice on New gTLDs.

1.1.2.8

Extended Evaluation

Extended Evaluation is available only to certain applicantsthat do not pass Initial Evaluation.
Applicants failing certain elements of the Initial Evaluation
can request an Extended Evaluation. If the applicant does
not pass Initial Evaluation and does not expressly request
an Extended Evaluation, the application will proceed nofurther. The Extended Evaluation period allows for an
additional exchange of information between theapplicant and evaluators to clarify information containedin the application. The reviews performed in Extended
Evaluation do not introduce additional evaluation criteria.
An application may be required to enter an Extended
Evaluation if one or more proposed registry services raisetechnical issues that might adversely affect the security or
stability of the DNS. The Extended Evaluation period
provides a time frame for these issues to be investigated.
Applicants will be informed if such a review is required by
the end of the Initial Evaluation period.
Evaluators and any applicable experts consulted willcommunicate the conclusions resulting from the additional
review by the end of the Extended Evaluation period.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-11

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
At the conclusion of the Extended Evaluation period,
ICANN will post summary reports, by panel, from the Initialand Extended Evaluation periods.
If an application passes the Extended Evaluation, it canthen proceed to the next relevant stage. If the application
does not pass the Extended Evaluation, it will proceed nofurther.
The Extended Evaluation is expected to be completed for
all applications in a period of approximately 5 months,
though this timeframe could be increased based onvolume. In this event, ICANN will post updated process
information and an estimated timeline.

1.1.2.9

Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution applies only to applicants whose
applications are the subject of a formal objection.
Where formal objections are filed and filing fees paid
during the objection filing period, independent dispute
resolution service providers (DRSPs) will initiate andconclude proceedings based on the objections received.
The formal objection procedure exists to provide a path for
those who wish to object to an application that has been
submitted to ICANN. Dispute resolution service providers
serve as the fora to adjudicate the proceedings based on
the subject matter and the needed expertise.
Consolidation of objections filed will occur whereappropriate, at the discretion of the DRSP.
As a result of a dispute resolution proceeding, either theapplicant will prevail (in which case the application canproceed to the next relevant stage), or the objector will
prevail (in which case either the application will proceed
no further or the application will be bound to a contention
resolution procedure). In the event of multiple objections,an applicant must prevail in all dispute resolution
proceedings concerning the application to proceed to thenext relevant stage. Applicants will be notified by the
DRSP(s) of the results of dispute resolution proceedings.
Dispute resolution proceedings, where applicable, areexpected to be completed for all applications withinapproximately a 5-month time frame. In the event thatvolume is such that this timeframe cannot be
accommodated, ICANN will work with the dispute
resolution service providers to create processing
procedures and post updated timeline information.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-12

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process

1.1.2.10 String Contention
String contention applies only when there is more than one
qualified application for the same or similar gTLD strings.
String contention refers to the scenario in which there ismore than one qualified application for the identical gTLD
string or for similar gTLD strings. In this Applicant Guidebook,“similar” means strings so similar that they create aprobability of user confusion if more than one of the strings
is delegated into the root zone.
Applicants are encouraged to resolve string contention
cases among themselves prior to the string contention
resolution stage. In the absence of resolution by thecontending applicants, string contention cases areresolved either through a community priority evaluation (ifa community-based applicant elects it) or through an
auction.
In the event of contention between applied-for gTLD strings
that represent geographic names, the parties may berequired to follow a different process to resolve thecontention. See subsection 2.2.1.4 of Module 2 for more
information.
Groups of applied-for strings that are either identical orsimilar are called contention sets. All applicants should beaware that if an application is identified as being part of acontention set, string contention resolution procedures will
not begin until all applications in the contention set havecompleted all aspects of evaluation, including dispute
resolution, if applicable.
To illustrate, as shown in Figure 1-2, Applicants A, B, and C
all apply for .EXAMPLE and are identified as a contention
set. Applicants A and C pass Initial Evaluation, but
Applicant B does not. Applicant B requests Extended
Evaluation. A third party files an objection to Applicant C’s
application, and Applicant C enters the dispute resolution
process. Applicant A must wait to see whether Applicants B
and C successfully complete the Extended Evaluation anddispute resolution phases, respectively, before it canproceed to the string contention resolution stage. In thisexample, Applicant B passes the Extended Evaluation, but
Applicant C does not prevail in the dispute resolution
proceeding. String contention resolution then proceeds
between Applicants A and B.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-13

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process

Figure 1-2 – All applications in a contention set must complete all previous
evaluation and dispute resolution stages before string contention
resolution can begin.

Applicants prevailing in a string contention resolution
procedure will proceed toward delegation of the appliedfor gTLDs.
String contention resolution for a contention set isestimated to take from 2.5 to 6 months to complete. The
time required will vary per case because some contention
cases may be resolved in either a community priority
evaluation or an auction, while others may require bothprocesses.

1.1.2.11 Transition to Delegation
Applicants successfully completing all the relevant stages
outlined in this subsection 1.1.2 are required to carry out aseries of concluding steps before delegation of theapplied-for gTLD into the root zone. These steps include
execution of a registry agreement with ICANN andcompletion of a pre-delegation technical test to validate
information provided in the application.
Following execution of a registry agreement, theprospective registry operator must complete technical setup and show satisfactory performance on a set oftechnical tests before delegation of the gTLD into the rootzone may be initiated. If the pre-delegation testing
requirements are not satisfied so that the gTLD can bedelegated into the root zone within the time frame
specified in the registry agreement, ICANN may in its soleand absolute discretion elect to terminate the registryagreement.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-14

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Once all of these steps have been successfully completed,the applicant is eligible for delegation of its applied-for
gTLD into the DNS root zone.
It is expected that the transition to delegation steps can becompleted in approximately 2 months, though this could
take more time depending on the applicant’s level of
preparedness for the pre-delegation testing and thevolume of applications undergoing these steps
concurrently.

1.1.3

Lifecycle Timelines

Based on the estimates for each stage described in thissection, the lifecycle for a straightforward application
could be approximately 9 months, as follows:

2 Months

Administrative Check

5 Months

Initial Evaluation

2 Months

Transition to Delegation

Figure 1-3 – A straightforward application could have an approximate 9-monthlifecycle.

The lifecycle for a highly complex application could bemuch longer, such as 20 months in the example below:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-15

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process

2 Months

Admin Completeness Check
Objection
Filing5 Months

Initial Evaluation

5 Months

2.5 - 6 Months

Extended Evaluation

Dispute Resolution

String Contention [May consist of Community Priority, Auction, or both]

2 Months

Transition to Delegation

Figure 1-4 – A complex application could have an approximate 20-month lifecycle.

1.1.4

Posting Periods

The results of application reviews will be made available tothe public at various stages in the process, as shown below.

PeriodPosting Content

During Administrative
Completeness Check

Public portions of all applications(posted within 2 weeks of the start of
the Administrative CompletenessCheck).

End of Administrative
Completeness Check

Results of Administrative CompletenessCheck.

GAC Early Warning Period

GAC Early Warnings received.

During Initial Evaluation

Status updates for applications
withdrawn or ineligible for further
review.
Contention sets resulting from String
Similarity review.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-16

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
PeriodPosting Content

End of Initial Evaluation

Application status updates with all Initial
Evaluation results.

GAC Advice on New
gTLDs

GAC Advice received.

End of Extended
Evaluation

During Objection
Filing/Dispute Resolution

Application status updates with all
Extended Evaluation results.
Evaluation summary reports from theInitial and Extended Evaluation periods.
Information on filed objections andstatus updates available via Dispute
Resolution Service Provider websites.
Notice of all objections posted by
ICANN after close of objection filing
period.

During Contention
Resolution (Community
Priority Evaluation)

Results of each Community Priority
Evaluation posted as completed.

During Contention
Resolution (Auction)

Results from each auction posted ascompleted.

Transition to Delegation

Registry Agreements posted when
executed.
Pre-delegation testing status updated.

1.1.5

Sample Application Scenarios

The following scenarios briefly show a variety of ways inwhich an application may proceed through the evaluation
process. The table that follows exemplifies various
processes and outcomes. This is not intended to be an
exhaustive list of possibilities. There are other possiblecombinations of paths an application could follow.
Estimated time frames for each scenario are also included,
based on current knowledge. Actual time frames may varydepending on several factors, including the total number

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-17

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processof applications received by ICANN during the application
submission period. It should be emphasized that mostapplications are expected to pass through the process inthe shortest period of time, i.e., they will not go throughextended evaluation, dispute resolution, or string
contention resolution processes. Although most of the
scenarios below are for processes extending beyond ninemonths, it is expected that most applications will complete
the process within the nine-month timeframe.

Scenario
NumberInitial
Evaluation

Extended
Evaluation

Objection(s)FiledStringContention

Approved
for Delegation
Steps

1

Pass

N/A

None

No

Yes

9 months

2

Fail

Pass

None

No

Yes

14
months

3

Pass

N/A

None

Yes

Yes

11.5 – 15months

4

Pass

N/A

Applicantprevails

No

Yes

14
months

5

Pass

N/A

Objector
prevails

N/A

No

12
months

6

Fail

Quit

N/A

N/A

No

7 months

7

Fail

Fail

N/A

N/A

No

12
months

8

Fail

Pass

Applicantprevails

Yes

Yes

16.5 – 20months

9

Fail

Pass

Applicantprevails

Yes

No

14.5 – 18
monthsEstimated
ElapsedTime

Scenario 1 – Pass Initial Evaluation, No Objection, No
Contention – In the most straightforward case, theapplication passes Initial Evaluation and there is no needfor an Extended Evaluation. No objections are filed during
the objection period, so there is no dispute to resolve. As
there is no contention for the applied-for gTLD string, theapplicant can enter into a registry agreement and theapplication can proceed toward delegation of theapplied-for gTLD. Most applications are expected tocomplete the process within this timeframe.
Scenario 2 – Extended Evaluation, No Objection, No
Contention – In this case, the application fails one or more
aspects of the Initial Evaluation. The applicant is eligible forand requests an Extended Evaluation for the appropriateelements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Evaluation. As with Scenario 1, no objections are filed

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-18

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processduring the objection period, so there is no dispute toresolve. As there is no contention for the gTLD string, theapplicant can enter into a registry agreement and theapplication can proceed toward delegation of theapplied-for gTLD.
Scenario 3 – Pass Initial Evaluation, No Objection,
Contention – In this case, the application passes the Initial
Evaluation so there is no need for Extended Evaluation. No
objections are filed during the objection period, so there isno dispute to resolve. However, there are otherapplications for the same or a similar gTLD string, so there iscontention. In this case, the application prevails in thecontention resolution, so the applicant can enter into a
registry agreement and the application can proceed
toward delegation of the applied-for gTLD.
Scenario 4 – Pass Initial Evaluation, Win Objection, No
Contention – In this case, the application passes the Initial
Evaluation so there is no need for Extended Evaluation.
During the objection filing period, an objection is filed on
one of the four enumerated grounds by an objector withstanding (refer to Module 3, Objection Procedures). The
objection is heard by a dispute resolution service provider
panel that finds in favor of the applicant. The applicant
can enter into a registry agreement and the application
can proceed toward delegation of the applied-for gTLD.
Scenario 5 – Pass Initial Evaluation, Lose Objection – In thiscase, the application passes the Initial Evaluation so there
is no need for Extended Evaluation. During the objection
period, multiple objections are filed by one or moreobjectors with standing for one or more of the four
enumerated objection grounds. Each objection is heard bya dispute resolution service provider panel. In this case, thepanels find in favor of the applicant for most of theobjections, but one finds in favor of the objector. As one ofthe objections has been upheld, the application does notproceed.
Scenario 6 – Fail Initial Evaluation, Applicant Withdraws – In
this case, the application fails one or more aspects of theInitial Evaluation. The applicant decides to withdraw theapplication rather than continuing with Extended
Evaluation. The application does not proceed.
Scenario 7 – Fail Initial Evaluation, Fail Extended Evaluation-- In this case, the application fails one or more aspects of
the Initial Evaluation. The applicant requests Extended
Evaluation for the appropriate elements. However, theApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-19

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processapplication fails Extended Evaluation also. The application
does not proceed.
Scenario 8 – Extended Evaluation, Win Objection, PassContention – In this case, the application fails one or more
aspects of the Initial Evaluation. The applicant is eligible forand requests an Extended Evaluation for the appropriateelements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Evaluation. During the objection filing period, an objection
is filed on one of the four enumerated grounds by anobjector with standing. The objection is heard by a dispute
resolution service provider panel that finds in favor of theapplicant. However, there are other applications for thesame or a similar gTLD string, so there is contention. In thiscase, the applicant prevails over other applications in thecontention resolution procedure, the applicant can enter
into a registry agreement, and the application canproceed toward delegation of the applied-for gTLD.
Scenario 9 – Extended Evaluation, Objection, FailContention – In this case, the application fails one or more
aspects of the Initial Evaluation. The applicant is eligible forand requests an Extended Evaluation for the appropriateelements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Evaluation. During the objection filing period, an objection
is filed on one of the four enumerated grounds by anobjector with standing. The objection is heard by a dispute
resolution service provider that finds in favor of theapplicant. However, there are other applications for thesame or a similar gTLD string, so there is contention. In thiscase, another applicant prevails in the contention
resolution procedure, and the application does notproceed.
Transition to Delegation – After an application has
successfully completed Initial Evaluation, and other stages
as applicable, the applicant is required to complete a setof steps leading to delegation of the gTLD, including
execution of a registry agreement with ICANN, andcompletion of pre-delegation testing. Refer to Module 5 fora description of the steps required in this stage.

1.1.6

Subsequent Application Rounds

ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application
rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will bebased on experiences gained and changes required after
this round is completed. The goal is for the next application
round to begin within one year of the close of theapplication submission period for the initial round.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-20

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New
gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone systemafter the first application round, and will defer thedelegations in a second application round until it isdetermined that the delegations resulting from the firstround did not jeopardize root zone system security or
stability.
It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent
application rounds, and that a systemized manner ofapplying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.

1.2 Information for All Applicants
1.2.1

Eligibility

Established corporations, organizations, or institutions ingood standing may apply for a new gTLD. Applications
from individuals or sole proprietorships will not be
considered. Applications from or on behalf of yet-to-beformed legal entities, or applications presupposing thefuture formation of a legal entity (for example, a pending
Joint Venture) will not be considered.
ICANN has designed the New gTLD Program with multiple
stakeholder protection mechanisms. Backgroundscreening, features of the gTLD Registry Agreement, data
and financial escrow mechanisms are all intended toprovide registrant and user protections.
The application form requires applicants to provide
information on the legal establishment of the applying
entity, as well as the identification of directors, officers,
partners, and major shareholders of that entity. The names
and positions of individuals included in the application will
be published as part of the application; other informationcollected about the individuals will not be published.
Background screening at both the entity level and theindividual level will be conducted for all applications toconfirm eligibility. This inquiry is conducted on the basis of
the information provided in questions 1-11 of theapplication form. ICANN may take into accountinformation received from any source if it is relevant to thecriteria in this section. If requested by ICANN, all applicants
will be required to obtain and deliver to ICANN and
ICANN's background screening vendor any consents oragreements of the entities and/or individuals named inquestions 1-11 of the application form necessary to
conduct background screening activities.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-21

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
ICANN will perform background screening in only twoareas: (1) General business diligence and criminal history;and (2) History of cybersquatting behavior. The criteria
used for criminal history are aligned with the “crimes oftrust” standard sometimes used in the banking and financeindustry.
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, applications
from any entity with or including any individual withconvictions or decisions of the types listed in (a) – (m)below will be automatically disqualified from the program.
a. within the past ten years, has been
convicted of any crime related to financial
or corporate governance activities, or has
been judged by a court to have committed
fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has
been the subject of a judicial determinationthat ICANN deems as the substantive
equivalent of any of these;b. within the past ten years, has been
disciplined by any government or industry
regulatory body for conduct involving
dishonesty or misuse of the funds of others;c. within the past ten years has been
convicted of any willful tax-related fraud or
willful evasion of tax liabilities;
d. within the past ten years has been
convicted of perjury, forswearing, failing tocooperate with a law enforcement
investigation, or making false statements toa law enforcement agency or
representative;e. has ever been convicted of any crime
involving the use of computers, telephonysystems, telecommunications or the Internet
to facilitate the commission of crimes;f.

has ever been convicted of any crime
involving the use of a weapon, force, or the
threat of force;g. has ever been convicted of any violent orsexual offense victimizing children, theApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-22

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processelderly, or individuals with disabilities;
h. has ever been convicted of the illegal sale,
manufacture, or distribution ofpharmaceutical drugs, or been convicted
or successfully extradited for any offense
described in Article 3 of the United Nations
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of1988 3;i.

has ever been convicted or successfully
extradited for any offense described in the
United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (allProtocols) 4,5;j.

has been convicted, within the respective
timeframes, of aiding, abetting, facilitating,enabling, conspiring to commit, or failing toreport any of the listed crimes above (i.e.,
within the past 10 years for crimes listed in(a) - (d) above, or ever for the crimes listedin (e) – (i) above);k.

has entered a guilty plea as part of a plea
agreement or has a court case in any
jurisdiction with a disposition of AdjudicatedGuilty or Adjudication Withheld (or regional
equivalents), within the respective
timeframes listed above for any of the listed
crimes (i.e., within the past 10 years forcrimes listed in (a) – (d) above, or ever forthe crimes listed in (e) – (i) above);l.

is the subject of a disqualification imposed
by ICANN and in effect at the time theapplication is considered;m. has been involved in a pattern of adverse,
final decisions indicating that the applicant
3

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.html

4

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.html

It is recognized that not all countries have signed on to the UN conventions referenced above. These conventions are being usedsolely for identification of a list of crimes for which background screening will be performed. It is not necessarily required that an
applicant would have been convicted pursuant to the UN convention but merely convicted of a crime listed under these conventions,to trigger these criteria.
5Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-23

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
or individual named in the application was
engaged in cybersquatting as defined in
the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy (UDRP), the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act(ACPA), or other equivalent legislation, or
was engaged in reverse domain namehijacking under the UDRP or bad faith or
reckless disregard under the ACPA or otherequivalent legislation. Three or more suchdecisions with one occurring in the last four
years will generally be considered toconstitute a pattern.
n. fails to provide ICANN with the identifying
information necessary to confirm identity at
the time of application or to resolve
questions of identity during the backgroundscreening process;o. fails to provide a good faith effort to disclose
all relevant information relating to items (a) –(m).
Background screening is in place to protect the public
interest in the allocation of critical Internet resources, andICANN reserves the right to deny an otherwise qualified
application based on any information identified during thebackground screening process. For example, a final andlegally binding decision obtained by a national law
enforcement or consumer protection authority finding thatthe applicant was engaged in fraudulent and deceptivecommercial practices as defined in the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines for Protecting Consumers from Fraudulent and
Deceptive Commercial Practices Across Borders 6 may
cause an application to be rejected. ICANN may also
contact the applicant with additional questions based on
information obtained in the background screening
process.
All applicants are required to provide complete anddetailed explanations regarding any of the above eventsas part of the application. Background screening
information will not be made publicly available by ICANN.
Registrar Cross-Ownership -- ICANN-accredited registrars
are eligible to apply for a gTLD. However, all gTLD registries
6 http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.html

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-24

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
are required to abide by a Code of Conduct addressing,inter alia, non-discriminatory access for all authorized
registrars. ICANN reserves the right to refer any application
to the appropriate competition authority relative to any
cross-ownership issues.
Legal Compliance -- ICANN must comply with all U.S. laws,
rules, and regulations. One such set of regulations is the
economic and trade sanctions program administered by
the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) of the U.S.
Department of the Treasury. These sanctions have been
imposed on certain countries, as well as individuals andentities that appear on OFAC's List of Specially DesignatedNationals and Blocked Persons (the SDN List). ICANN isprohibited from providing most goods or services toresidents of sanctioned countries or their governmental
entities or to SDNs without an applicable U.S. government
authorization or exemption. ICANN generally will not seek alicense to provide goods or services to an individual orentity on the SDN List. In the past, when ICANN has beenrequested to provide services to individuals or entities thatare not SDNs, but are residents of sanctioned countries,
ICANN has sought and been granted licenses as required.
In any given case, however, OFAC could decide not toissue a requested license.

1.2.2

Required Documents

All applicants should be prepared to submit the following
documents, which are required to accompany eachapplication:
1. Proof of legal establishment – Documentation of theapplicant’s establishment as a specific type of entity inaccordance with the applicable laws of its jurisdiction.
2. Financial statements – Applicants must provide audited
or independently certified financial statements for themost recently completed fiscal year for the applicant.
In some cases, unaudited financial statements may beprovided.
As indicated in the relevant questions, supporting
documentation should be submitted in the original
language. English translations are not required.
All documents must be valid at the time of submission.
Refer to the Evaluation Criteria, attached to Module 2, foradditional details on the requirements for these
documents.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-25

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Some types of supporting documentation are required onlyin certain cases:
1. Community endorsement – If an applicant has
designated its application as community-based (seesection 1.2.3), it will be asked to submit a written
endorsement of its application by one or moreestablished institutions representing the community it
has named. An applicant may submit written
endorsements from multiple institutions. If applicable,
this will be submitted in the section of the application
concerning the community-based designation.
At least one such endorsement is required for acomplete application. The form and content of theendorsement are at the discretion of the party
providing the endorsement; however, the letter must
identify the applied-for gTLD string and the applying
entity, include an express statement of support for theapplication, and supply the contact information of theentity providing the endorsement.
Written endorsements from individuals need not be
submitted with the application, but may be submitted
in the application comment forum.
2. Government support or non-objection – If an applicant
has applied for a gTLD string that is a geographic name(as defined in this Guidebook), the applicant is required
to submit documentation of support for or nonobjection to its application from the relevant
governments or public authorities. Refer to subsection
2.2.1.4 for more information on the requirements forgeographic names. If applicable, this will be submitted
in the geographic names section of the application.
3. Documentation of third-party funding commitments – If
an applicant lists funding from third parties in its
application, it must provide evidence of commitmentby the party committing the funds. If applicable, this will
be submitted in the financial section of the application.

1.2.3

Community-Based Designation

All applicants are required to designate whether theirapplication is community-based.

1.2.3.1

Definitions

For purposes of this Applicant Guidebook, a communitybased gTLD is a gTLD that is operated for the benefit of aclearly delineated community. Designation or non-Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-26

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
designation of an application as community-based isentirely at the discretion of the applicant. Any applicant
may designate its application as community-based;
however, each applicant making this designation is asked
to substantiate its status as representative of thecommunity it names in the application by submission of
written endorsements in support of the application.
Additional information may be requested in the event of acommunity priority evaluation (refer to section 4.2 ofModule 4). An applicant for a community-based gTLD is
expected to:
1. Demonstrate an ongoing relationship with a clearlydelineated community.
2. Have applied for a gTLD string strongly and specificallyrelated to the community named in the application.
3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies
for registrants in its proposed gTLD, including
appropriate security verification procedures,commensurate with the community-based purpose it
has named.
4. Have its application endorsed in writing by one or moreestablished institutions representing the community it
has named.
For purposes of differentiation, an application that has notbeen designated as community-based will be referred tohereinafter in this document as a standard application. A
standard gTLD can be used for any purpose consistent withthe requirements of the application and evaluation criteria,
and with the registry agreement. A standard applicant
may or may not have a formal relationship with an
exclusive registrant or user population. It may or may not
employ eligibility or use restrictions. Standard simply means
here that the applicant has not designated the applicationas community-based.

1.2.3.2

Implications of Application Designation

Applicants should understand how their designation as
community-based or standard will affect application
processing at particular stages, and, if the application is
successful, execution of the registry agreement andsubsequent obligations as a gTLD registry operator, as
described in the following paragraphs.
Objection / Dispute Resolution – All applicants should
understand that a formal objection may be filed against
any application on community grounds, even if theapplicant has not designated itself as community-based or

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-27

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processdeclared the gTLD to be aimed at a particular community.
Refer to Module 3, Objection Procedures.
String Contention – Resolution of string contention may
include one or more components, depending on thecomposition of the contention set and the elections madeby community-based applicants.
•

A settlement between the parties can occur at any
time after contention is identified. The parties will be
encouraged to meet with an objective to settle thecontention. Applicants in contention always havethe opportunity to resolve the contention
voluntarily, resulting in the withdrawal of one ormore applications, before reaching the contention
resolution stage.

•

A community priority evaluation will take place only
if a community-based applicant in a contention set
elects this option. All community-based applicantsin a contention set will be offered this option in theevent that there is contention remaining after theapplications have successfully completed all
previous evaluation stages.

•

An auction will result for cases of contention not
resolved by community priority evaluation or
agreement between the parties. Auction occurs as
a contention resolution means of last resort. If a
community priority evaluation occurs but does notproduce a clear winner, an auction will take place
to resolve the contention.

Refer to Module 4, String Contention Procedures, fordetailed discussions of contention resolution procedures.
Contract Execution and Post-Delegation – A communitybased applicant will be subject to certain post-delegation
contractual obligations to operate the gTLD in a mannerconsistent with the restrictions associated with its
community-based designation. Material changes to thecontract, including changes to the community-based
nature of the gTLD and any associated provisions, may only
be made with ICANN’s approval. The determination ofwhether to approve changes requested by the applicant
will be at ICANN’s discretion. Proposed criteria for
approving such changes are the subject of policy
discussions.
Community-based applications are intended to be anarrow category, for applications where there are

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-28

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processunambiguous associations among the applicant, thecommunity served, and the applied-for gTLD string.
Evaluation of an applicant’s designation as communitybased will occur only in the event of a contention situationthat results in a community priority evaluation. However,any applicant designating its application as communitybased will, if the application is approved, be bound by theregistry agreement to implement the community-based
restrictions it has specified in the application. This is true
even if there are no contending applicants.

1.2.3.3

Changes to Application Designation

An applicant may not change its designation as standard
or community-based once it has submitted a gTLD
application for processing.

1.2.4

Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues
with New gTLDs

All applicants should be aware that approval of an
application and entry into a registry agreement withICANN do not guarantee that a new gTLD will immediately
function throughout the Internet. Past experience indicatesthat network operators may not immediately fully support
new top-level domains, even when these domains havebeen delegated in the DNS root zone, since third-party
software modification may be required and may nothappen immediately.
Similarly, software applications sometimes attempt tovalidate domain names and may not recognize new or
unknown top-level domains. ICANN has no authority or
ability to require that software accept new top-leveldomains, although it does prominently publicize which toplevel domains are valid and has developed a basic tool toassist application providers in the use of current root-zone
data.
ICANN encourages applicants to familiarize themselveswith these issues and account for them in their startup andlaunch plans. Successful applicants may find themselves
expending considerable efforts working with providers toachieve acceptance of their new top-level domains.
Applicants should review
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD-acceptance/ forbackground. IDN applicants should also review thematerial concerning experiences with IDN test strings in theroot zone (see http://idn.icann.org/).

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-29

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process

1.2.5

Notice concerning TLD Delegations

ICANN is only able to create TLDs as delegations in the DNS
root zone, expressed using NS records with any
corresponding DS records and glue records. There is no
policy enabling ICANN to place TLDs as other DNS record
types (such as A, MX, or DNAME records) in the root zone.

1.2.6

Terms and Conditions

All applicants must agree to a standard set of Terms andConditions for the application process. The Terms andConditions are available in Module 6 of this guidebook.

1.2.7

Notice of Changes to Information

If at any time during the evaluation process information
previously submitted by an applicant becomes untrue or
inaccurate, the applicant must promptly notify ICANN via
submission of the appropriate forms. This includes
applicant-specific information such as changes in financial
position and changes in ownership or control of theapplicant.
ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of theapplication in the event of a material change. This could
involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent
application round.
Failure to notify ICANN of any change in circumstancesthat would render any information provided in theapplication false or misleading may result in denial of theapplication.

1.2.8

Voluntary Designation for High Security
Zones

An ICANN stakeholder group has considered developmentof a possible special designation for "High Security ZoneTop Level Domains” (“HSTLDs”). The group’s Final Report
can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/newgtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdf.
The Final Report may be used to inform further work. ICANN
will support independent efforts toward developing
voluntary high-security TLD designations, which may beavailable to gTLD applicants wishing to pursue suchdesignations.

1.2.9

Security and Stability

Root Zone Stability: There has been significant study,
analysis, and consultation in preparation for launch of the

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-30

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
New gTLD Program, indicating that the addition of gTLDs to
the root zone will not negatively impact the security or
stability of the DNS.
It is estimated that 200-300 TLDs will be delegated annually,and determined that in no case will more than 1000 new
gTLDs be added to the root zone in a year. The delegation
rate analysis, consultations with the technical community,
and anticipated normal operational upgrade cycles alllead to the conclusion that the new gTLD delegations will
have no significant impact on the stability of the rootsystem. Modeling and reporting will continue during, andafter, the first application round so that root-scaling
discussions can continue and the delegation rates can be
managed as the program goes forward.
All applicants should be aware that delegation of any new
gTLDs is conditional on the continued absence ofsignificant negative impact on the security or stability of
the DNS and the root zone system (including the process
for delegating TLDs in the root zone). In the event that there
is a reported impact in this regard and processing of
applications is delayed, the applicants will be notified in anorderly and timely manner.

1.2.10 Resources for Applicant Assistance
A variety of support resources are available to gTLD
applicants. Financial assistance will be available to alimited number of eligible applicants. To request financial
assistance, applicants must submit a separate financial
assistance application in addition to the gTLD applicationform.
To be eligible for consideration, all financial assistanceapplications must be received by 23:59 UTC 12 April 2012.
Financial assistance applications will be evaluated andscored against pre-established criteria.
In addition, ICANN maintains a webpage as an
informational resource for applicants seeking assistance,and organizations offering support.
See http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/candidatesupport for details on these resources.

1.2.11 Updates to the Applicant Guidebook
As approved by the ICANN Board of Directors, thisGuidebook forms the basis of the New gTLD Program.
ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable updates andApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-31

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processchanges to the Applicant Guidebook at any time,
including as the possible result of new technical standards,
reference documents, or policies that might be adopted
during the course of the application process. Any such
updates or revisions will be posted on ICANN’s website.

1.3 Information for Internationalized
Domain Name ApplicantsSome applied-for gTLD strings are expected to be
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). IDNs are domainnames including characters used in the local
representation of languages not written with the basic Latinalphabet (a - z), European-Arabic digits (0 - 9), and thehyphen (-). As described below, IDNs require the insertionof A-labels into the DNS root zone.

1.3.1

IDN-Specific Requirements

An applicant for an IDN string must provide information
indicating compliance with the IDNA protocol and othertechnical requirements. The IDNA protocol and its
documentation can be found at
http://icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htm.
Applicants must provide applied-for gTLD strings in the formof both a U-label (the IDN TLD in local characters) and an
A-label.
An A-label is the ASCII form of an IDN label. Every IDN Alabel begins with the IDNA ACE prefix, “xn--”, followed by astring that is a valid output of the Punycode algorithm,
making a maximum of 63 total ASCII characters in length.
The prefix and string together must conform to all
requirements for a label that can be stored in the DNS
including conformance to the LDH (host name) ruledescribed in RFC 1034, RFC 1123, and elsewhere.
A U-label is the Unicode form of an IDN label, which a user
expects to see displayed in applications.
For example, using the current IDN test string in Cyrillic
script, the U-label is <испытание> and the A-label is <xn-80akhbyknj4f>. An A-label must be capable of being
produced by conversion from a U-label and a U-label must
be capable of being produced by conversion from an Alabel.
Applicants for IDN gTLDs will also be required to provide thefollowing at the time of the application:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-32

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
1. Meaning or restatement of string in English. The
applicant will provide a short description of what thestring would mean or represent in English.
2. Language of label (ISO 639-1). The applicant will
specify the language of the applied-for gTLD string,both according to the ISO codes for the representationof names of languages, and in English.
3. Script of label (ISO 15924). The applicant will specify the
script of the applied-for gTLD string, both according to
the ISO codes for the representation of names ofscripts, and in English.
4. Unicode code points. The applicant will list all the code
points contained in the U-label according to its
Unicode form.
5. Applicants must further demonstrate that they havemade reasonable efforts to ensure that the encoded
IDN string does not cause any rendering or operational
problems. For example, problems have been identifiedin strings with characters of mixed right-to-left and leftto-right directionality when numerals are adjacent to
the path separator (i.e., the dot). 7
If an applicant is applying for a string with known issues,
it should document steps that will be taken to mitigate
these issues in applications. While it is not possible toensure that all rendering problems are avoided, it isimportant that as many as possible are identified early
and that the potential registry operator is aware ofthese issues. Applicants can become familiar with theseissues by understanding the IDNA protocol (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htm), and by
active participation in the IDN wiki (seehttp://idn.icann.org/) where some rendering problems
are demonstrated.
6. [Optional] - Representation of label in phonetic
alphabet. The applicant may choose to provide its
applied-for gTLD string notated according to theInternational Phonetic Alphabet(http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/). Note that thisinformation will not be evaluated or scored. The
information, if provided, will be used as a guide to
ICANN in responding to inquiries or speaking of theapplication in public presentations.

7

See examples at http://stupid.domain.name/node/683

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-33

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process

1.3.2

IDN Tables

An IDN table provides the list of characters eligible forregistration in domain names according to the registry’s
policy. It identifies any multiple characters that areconsidered equivalent for domain name registration
purposes (“variant characters”). Variant characters occur
where two or more characters can be usedinterchangeably.
Examples of IDN tables can be found in the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) IDN Repository at
http://www.iana.org/procedures/idn-repository.html.
In the case of an application for an IDN gTLD, IDN tables
must be submitted for the language or script for theapplied-for gTLD string (the “top level tables”). IDN tables
must also be submitted for each language or script inwhich the applicant intends to offer IDN registrations at thesecond or lower levels.
Each applicant is responsible for developing its IDN Tables,
including specification of any variant characters. Tables
must comply with ICANN’s IDN Guidelines 8 and any
updates thereto, including:•Complying with IDN technical standards.

•

Employing an inclusion-based approach (i.e., code
points not explicitly permitted by the registry areprohibited).

•Defining variant characters.

•

Excluding code points not permissible under theguidelines, e.g., line-drawing symbols, pictographic
dingbats, structural punctuation marks.

•

Developing tables and registration policies incollaboration with relevant stakeholders to addresscommon issues.

•

Depositing IDN tables with the IANA Repository for
IDN Practices (once the TLD is delegated).

An applicant’s IDN tables should help guard against user
confusion in the deployment of IDN gTLDs. Applicants arestrongly urged to consider specific linguistic and writing
system issues that may cause problems when characters
are used in domain names, as part of their work of defining
variant characters.
8

See http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/implementation-guidelines.htm

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-34

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
To avoid user confusion due to differing practices across
TLD registries, it is recommended that applicants
cooperate with TLD operators that offer domain nameregistration with the same or visually similar characters.
As an example, languages or scripts are often sharedacross geographic boundaries. In some cases, this cancause confusion among the users of the corresponding
language or script communities. Visual confusion can also
exist in some instances between different scripts (forexample, Greek, Cyrillic and Latin).
Applicants will be asked to describe the process used indeveloping the IDN tables submitted. ICANN may
compare an applicant’s IDN table with IDN tables for thesame languages or scripts that already exist in the IANA
repository or have been otherwise submitted to ICANN. If
there are inconsistencies that have not been explained in
the application, ICANN may ask the applicant to detail therationale for differences. For applicants that wish to
conduct and review such comparisons prior to submitting atable to ICANN, a table comparison tool will be available.
ICANN will accept the applicant’s IDN tables based on thefactors above.
Once the applied-for string has been delegated as a TLD in
the root zone, the applicant is required to submit IDN tables
for lodging in the IANA Repository of IDN Practices. For
additional information, see existing tables at
http://iana.org/domains/idn-tables/, and submission
guidelines at http://iana.org/procedures/idnrepository.html.

1.3.3

IDN Variant TLDs

A variant TLD string results from the substitution of one ormore characters in the applied-for gTLD string with variant
characters based on the applicant’s top level tables.
Each application contains one applied-for gTLD string. The
applicant may also declare any variant strings for the TLD
in its application. However, no variant gTLD strings will bedelegated through the New gTLD Program until variant
management solutions are developed and implemented. 9
Declaring variant strings is informative only and will not
imply any right or claim to the declared variant strings.
The ICANN Board directed that work be pursued on variant management in its resolution on 25 Sep 2010,
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.5.
9Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-35

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
When a variant delegation process is established,applicants may be required to submit additional
information such as implementation details for the variant
TLD management mechanism, and may need toparticipate in a subsequent evaluation process, which
could contain additional fees and review steps.
The following scenarios are possible during the gTLD
evaluation process:a. Applicant declares variant strings to the applied-for
gTLD string in its application. If the application is
successful, the applied-for gTLD string will bedelegated to the applicant. The declared variant
strings are noted for future reference. These
declared variant strings will not be delegated to theapplicant along with the applied-for gTLD string, norwill the applicant have any right or claim to thedeclared variant strings.
Variant strings listed in successful gTLD applications
will be tagged to the specific application andadded to a “Declared Variants List” that will beavailable on ICANN’s website. A list of pending (i.e.,
declared) variant strings from the IDN ccTLD Fast
Track is available at
http://icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/stringevaluation-completion-en.htm.
ICANN may perform independent analysis on the
declared variant strings, and will not necessarily
include all strings listed by the applicant on the
Declared Variants List.
b. Multiple applicants apply for strings that are
identified by ICANN as variants of one another.
These applications will be placed in a contention
set and will follow the contention resolution
procedures in Module 4.
c. Applicant submits an application for a gTLD string
and does not indicate variants to the applied-for
gTLD string. ICANN will not identify variant strings
unless scenario (b) above occurs.
Each variant string declared in the application must also
conform to the string requirements in section 2.2.1.3.2.
Variant strings declared in the application will be reviewed
for consistency with the top-level tables submitted in theapplication. Should any declared variant strings not be

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-36

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
based on use of variant characters according to thesubmitted top-level tables, the applicant will be notified
and the declared string will no longer be considered partof the application.
Declaration of variant strings in an application does notprovide the applicant any right or reservation to aparticular string. Variant strings on the Declared Variants List
may be subject to subsequent additional review per a
process and criteria to be defined.
It should be noted that while variants for second andlower-level registrations are defined freely by the local
communities without any ICANN validation, there may be
specific rules and validation criteria specified for variant
strings to be allowed at the top level. It is expected that thevariant information provided by applicants in the first
application round will contribute to a better understandingof the issues and assist in determining appropriate review
steps and fee levels going forward.

1.4 Submitting an Application
Applicants may complete the application form and submit
supporting documents using ICANN’s TLD Application
System (TAS). To access the system, each applicant mustfirst register as a TAS user.
As TAS users, applicants will be able to provide responses inopen text boxes and submit required supporting
documents as attachments. Restrictions on the size ofattachments as well as the file formats are included in the
instructions on the TAS site.
Except where expressly provided within the question, allapplication materials must be submitted in English.
ICANN will not accept application forms or supporting
materials submitted through other means than TAS (that is,
hard copy, fax, email), unless such submission is inaccordance with specific instructions from ICANN toapplicants.

1.4.1

Accessing the TLD Application System

The TAS site will be accessible from the New gTLD webpage(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm),
and will be highlighted in communications regarding the
opening of the application submission period. Users of TAS
will be expected to agree to a standard set of terms of use

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-37

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Processincluding user rights, obligations, and restrictions in relation
to the use of the system.

1.4.1.1 User Registration
TAS user registration (creating a TAS user profile) requires
submission of preliminary information, which will be used tovalidate the identity of the parties involved in theapplication. An overview of the information collected in
the user registration process is below:

No.

Questions

1

Full legal name of Applicant

2

Principal business address

3

Phone number of Applicant

4

Fax number of Applicant

5

Website or URL, if applicable6

Primary Contact: Name, Title, Address, Phone, Fax,
Email

7

Secondary Contact: Name, Title, Address, Phone,
Fax, Email

8

Proof of legal establishment

9

Trading, subsidiary, or joint venture information

10

Business ID, Tax ID, VAT registration number, or
equivalent of Applicant

11

Applicant background: previous convictions,cybersquatting activities

12

Deposit payment confirmation and payer information

A subset of identifying information will be collected fromthe entity performing the user registration, in addition to theapplicant information listed above. The registered user
could be, for example, an agent, representative, orApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-38

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
employee who would be completing the application on
behalf of the applicant.
The registration process will require the user to request thedesired number of application slots. For example, a user
intending to submit five gTLD applications would complete
five application slot requests, and the system would assign
the user a unique ID number for each of the fiveapplications.
Users will also be required to submit a deposit of USD 5,000
per application slot. This deposit amount will be credited
against the evaluation fee for each application. The
deposit requirement is in place to help reduce the risk offrivolous access to the online application system.
After completing the registration, TAS users will receive
access enabling them to enter the rest of the application
information into the system. Application slots will be
populated with the registration information provided by theapplicant, which may not ordinarily be changed once slots
have been assigned.
No new user registrations will be accepted after 23:59 UTC
29 March 2012.
ICANN will take commercially reasonable steps to protect
all applicant data submitted from unauthorized access,but cannot warrant against the malicious acts of third
parties who may, through system corruption or othermeans, gain unauthorized access to such data.

1.4.1.2 Application Form
Having obtained the requested application slots, theapplicant will complete the remaining applicationquestions. An overview of the areas and questions
contained in the form is shown here:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

No.

Application and String Information

12

Payment confirmation for remaining evaluation fee
amount13

Applied-for gTLD string

14

IDN string information, if applicable

15

IDN tables, if applicable

1-39

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process16

Mitigation of IDN operational or rendering problems,
if applicable

17

Representation of string in International Phonetic
Alphabet (Optional)

18

Mission/purpose of the TLD

19

Is the application for a community-based TLD?

20

If community based, describe elements ofcommunity and proposed policies

21

Is the application for a geographic name? If
geographic, documents of support required

22

Measures for protection of geographic names atsecond level

23

Registry Services: name and full description of all
registry services to be provided
Technical and Operational Questions (External)

24

Shared registration system (SRS) performance

25

EPP

26

Whois

27

Registration life cycle

28

Abuse prevention & mitigation

29

Rights protection mechanisms

30(a)Security
Technical and Operational Questions (Internal)

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

30(b)Security

31

Technical overview of proposed registry32

Architecture

1-40Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
33

Database capabilities

34

Geographic diversity

35

DNS service compliance36

IPv6 reachability

37

Data backup policies and procedures

38

Escrow

39

Registry continuity

40

Registry transition

41

Failover testing

42

Monitoring and fault escalation processes

43

DNSSEC44

IDNs (Optional)
Financial Questions

45

Financial statements

46

Projections template: costs and funding

47

Costs: setup and operating

48

Funding and revenue

49

Contingency planning: barriers, funds, volumes

50

Continuity: continued operations instrument

1.4.2

Customer Service during the Application
Process

Assistance will be available to applicants throughout theapplication process via the Applicant Service Center(ASC). The ASC will be staffed with customer service agents

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-41

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
to answer questions relating to the New gTLD Program, theapplication process, and TAS.

1.4.3

Backup Application Process

If the online application system is not available, ICANN will
provide alternative instructions for submitting applications.

1.5 Fees and Payments
This section describes the fees to be paid by the applicant.
Payment instructions are also included here.

1.5.1

gTLD Evaluation Fee

The gTLD evaluation fee is required from all applicants. Thisfee is in the amount of USD 185,000. The evaluation fee ispayable in the form of a 5,000 deposit submitted at thetime the user requests an application slot within TAS, and apayment of the remaining 180,000 submitted with the full
application. ICANN will not begin its evaluation of an
application unless it has received the full gTLD evaluation
fee by 23:59 UTC 12 April 2012.
The gTLD evaluation fee is set to recover costs associatedwith the new gTLD program. The fee is set to ensure thatthe program is fully funded and revenue neutral and is not
subsidized by existing contributions from ICANN funding
sources, including generic TLD registries and registrars,
ccTLD contributions and RIR contributions.
The gTLD evaluation fee covers all required reviews in Initial
Evaluation and, in most cases, any required reviews inExtended Evaluation. If an extended Registry Services
review takes place, an additional fee will be incurred forthis review (see section 1.5.2). There is no additional fee tothe applicant for Extended Evaluation for geographic
names, technical and operational, or financial reviews.
Refunds -- In certain cases, refunds of a portion of theevaluation fee may be available for applications that arewithdrawn before the evaluation process is complete. An
applicant may request a refund at any time until it has
executed a registry agreement with ICANN. The amount of
the refund will depend on the point in the process at which
the withdrawal is requested, as follows:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Refund Available toApplicant

Percentage of
Evaluation Fee

Amount of Refund

Within 21 calendar
days of a GAC Early80%

USD 148,000

1-42Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Refund Available toApplicant

Percentage of
Evaluation Fee

Amount of Refund

After posting of
applications until
posting of Initial
Evaluation results70%

USD 130,000

After posting Initial
Evaluation results35%

USD 65,000

After the applicant
has completed
Dispute Resolution,
Extended
Evaluation, or String
Contention
Resolution(s)20%

USD 37,000

Warning

After the applicant
has entered into a
registry agreementwith ICANN

None

Thus, any applicant that has not been successful is eligible
for at least a 20% refund of the evaluation fee if it
withdraws its application.
An applicant that wishes to withdraw an application must
initiate the process through TAS. Withdrawal of an
application is final and irrevocable. Refunds will only be
issued to the organization that submitted the original
payment. All refunds are paid by wire transfer. Any banktransfer or transaction fees incurred by ICANN, or any
unpaid evaluation fees, will be deducted from the amount
paid. Any refund paid will be in full satisfaction of ICANN’s
obligations to the applicant. The applicant will have noentitlement to any additional amounts, including forinterest or currency exchange rate changes.
Note on 2000 proof-of-concept round applicants -Participants in ICANN’s proof-of-concept application
process in 2000 may be eligible for a credit toward theevaluation fee. The credit is in the amount of USD 86,000
and is subject to:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-43

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process•

submission of documentary proof by theapplicant that it is the same entity, a
successor in interest to the same entity, oran affiliate of the same entity that applied
previously;•

a confirmation that the applicant was notawarded any TLD string pursuant to the 2000
proof–of-concept application round andthat the applicant has no legal claims
arising from the 2000 proof-of-concept
process; and•submission of an application, which may be
modified from the application originallysubmitted in 2000, for the same TLD stringthat such entity applied for in the 2000
proof-of-concept application round.

Each participant in the 2000 proof-of-concept application
process is eligible for at most one credit. A maximum of
one credit may be claimed for any new gTLD application
submitted according to the process in this guidebook.
Eligibility for this credit is determined by ICANN.

1.5.2

Fees Required in Some Cases

Applicants may be required to pay additional fees incertain cases where specialized process steps areapplicable. Those possible additional fees 10 include:•

Registry Services Review Fee – If applicable, this fee
is payable for additional costs incurred in referring
an application to the Registry Services Technical
Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) for an extended review.
Applicants will be notified if such a fee is due. The
fee for a three-member RSTEP review team isanticipated to be USD 50,000. In some cases, fivemember panels might be required, or there might
be increased scrutiny at a greater cost. The amountof the fee will cover the cost of the RSTEP review. In
the event that reviews of proposed registry services
can be consolidated across multiple applications orapplicants, ICANN will apportion the fees in an
equitable manner. In every case, the applicant will
be advised of the cost before initiation of thereview. Refer to subsection 2.2.3 of Module 2 onRegistry Services review.

The estimated fee amounts provided in this section 1.5.2 will be updated upon engagement of panel service providers andestablishment of fees.

10

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-44

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process•

Dispute Resolution Filing Fee – This amount must
accompany any filing of a formal objection andany response that an applicant files to an
objection. This fee is payable directly to theapplicable dispute resolution service provider inaccordance with the provider’s payment
instructions. ICANN estimates that filing fees could
range from approximately USD 1,000 to USD 5,000(or more) per party per proceeding. Refer to theappropriate provider for the relevant amount. Refer
to Module 3 for dispute resolution procedures.

•

Advance Payment of Costs – In the event of aformal objection, this amount is payable directly tothe applicable dispute resolution service provider inaccordance with that provider’s procedures andschedule of costs. Ordinarily, both parties in thedispute resolution proceeding will be required tosubmit an advance payment of costs in an
estimated amount to cover the entire cost of theproceeding. This may be either an hourly fee basedon the estimated number of hours the panelists will
spend on the case (including review of submissions,facilitation of a hearing, if allowed, and preparationof a decision), or a fixed amount. In cases where
disputes are consolidated and there are more than
two parties involved, the advance payment will
occur according to the dispute resolution service
provider’s rules.
The prevailing party in a dispute resolution
proceeding will have its advance payment
refunded, while the non-prevailing party will notreceive a refund and thus will bear the cost of theproceeding. In cases where disputes areconsolidated and there are more than two parties
involved, the refund of fees will occur according to
the dispute resolution service provider’s rules.
ICANN estimates that adjudication fees for aproceeding involving a fixed amount could range
from USD 2,000 to USD 8,000 (or more) per
proceeding. ICANN further estimates that an hourly
rate based proceeding with a one-member panel
could range from USD 32,000 to USD 56,000 (ormore) and with a three-member panel it could
range from USD 70,000 to USD 122,000 (or more).
These estimates may be lower if the panel does notcall for written submissions beyond the objection
and response, and does not allow a hearing. Please

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-45

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
refer to the appropriate provider for the relevant
amounts or fee structures.
•

Community Priority Evaluation Fee – In the eventthat the applicant participates in a community
priority evaluation, this fee is payable as a deposit in
an amount to cover the cost of the panel’s reviewof that application (currently estimated at USD
10,000). The deposit is payable to the provider
appointed to handle community priority
evaluations. Applicants will be notified if such a fee
is due. Refer to Section 4.2 of Module 4 forcircumstances in which a community priority
evaluation may take place. An applicant whoscores at or above the threshold for the community
priority evaluation will have its deposit refunded.

ICANN will notify the applicants of due dates for payment
in respect of additional fees (if applicable). This list does notinclude fees (annual registry fees) that will be payable to
ICANN following execution of a registry agreement.

1.5.3

Payment Methods

Payments to ICANN should be submitted by wire transfer.
Instructions for making a payment by wire transfer will beavailable in TAS. 11
Payments to Dispute Resolution Service Providers should besubmitted in accordance with the provider’s instructions.

1.5.4

Requesting a Remittance Form

The TAS interface allows applicants to request issuance of aremittance form for any of the fees payable to ICANN. This
service is for the convenience of applicants that require an
invoice to process payments.

1.6 Questions about this Applicant
Guidebook
For assistance and questions an applicant may have in theprocess of completing the application form, applicantsshould use the customer support resources available via
the ASC. Applicants who are unsure of the information
being sought in a question or the parameters for
acceptable documentation are encouraged tocommunicate these questions through the appropriate
Wire transfer is the preferred method of payment as it offers a globally accessible and dependable means for internationaltransfer of funds. This enables ICANN to receive the fee and begin processing applications as quickly as possible.

11

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-46

Module 1
Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
support channels before the application is submitted. This
helps avoid the need for exchanges with evaluators toclarify information, which extends the timeframe
associated with processing the application.
Currently, questions may be submitted via<newgtld@icann.org>. To provide all applicants equitable
access to information, ICANN will make all questions andanswers publicly available.
All requests to ICANN for information about the process or
issues surrounding preparation of an application must be
submitted to the ASC. ICANN will not grant requests fromapplicants for personal or telephone consultations
regarding the preparation of an application. Applicantsthat contact ICANN for clarification about aspects of theapplication will be referred to the ASC.
Answers to inquiries will only provide clarification about theapplication forms and procedures. ICANN will not provide
consulting, financial, or legal advice.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1-47

DRAFT - New gTLD Program - Evaluation Process
Application period closes

Applicants
submitapplications andevaluation fees

Applicantsregister in TAS
and pay deposit

ICANN starts
Administrative
Completeness
Check

ICANN ends
Administrative
Completeness
Check

ICANN posts
applications- Application Comment & Early Warning
Periods Open - 60 days

Background
Screening- Objection Period Opens - 7 months

Application period
opens

Application Comment & Early
Warning Periods Close

Applicantreceives Early
Warning?

Yes

Applicantdecision?

Withdraw

Ineligible for further
review

No
Applicants have 21 days from close of
Early Warning Period to decide.

Continue

StringSimilarity

DNS Stability

Technical &Operational
Capability

Geographic
Names

Financial
Capability

Registry
Services

Key
Application ‐ Module 1

IE results posted

Initial Evaluation ‐ Module 2- Objection filing period closes

Extended Evauation ‐ Module 2
Dispute Resolution Proceedings ‐Module 3String Contention ‐ Module 4- Receipt of GAC Advice expected
Board
Consideration

Yes

Is applicant
subject to GAC
Advice?

Transition to Delegation ‐ Module 5

No

Thicker Indicates quickest path to delegation
Line

A

DRAFT - New gTLD Program - Evaluation
Process, Page 2A
Extended Evaluation and
Dispute Resolution will run
concurrently
Applicant passes all elementsof Initial Evaluation?

No

Applicant elects toproceed to Extended
Evaluation (EE)The application can beobjected to based upon any
combination of the four
objection grounds at thesame time. Additionally, theapplication may face multiple
objections on the same
objection ground.

Yes

No
Yes
Applicant enters EE for any
combination of the four
elements below:
Technical & Operational
Financial
Geographic Names
Registry Services

Are there any
objections?

Yes

StringConfusion
proceedings

Applicant passes
all elements of Extended
Evaluation?

Limited Public
Interest
proceedings

Legal Rights
proceedings

No

No

Does applicant clear all
objections?

No

Community
Objection
proceedings

Yes

Yes

Is there string
contention?

No

Ineligible for further
review
Contract
execution
Community
Priority
EvaluationYes

One or more communitybased applicant(s) elected
Community Priority?

No

Are applicants with
contending strings able toself-resolve contention?

Predelegation
check

No

Is there a clear
winner?

No

Auctionproceedings

Yes

Successful
applicant secures
stringDelegation
Yes

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 2

4 June 2012

Module 2
Evaluation ProceduresThis module describes the evaluation procedures andcriteria used to determine whether applied-for gTLDs areapproved for delegation. All applicants will undergo an
Initial Evaluation and those that do not pass all elements
may request Extended Evaluation.
The first, required evaluation is the Initial Evaluation, during
which ICANN assesses an applied-for gTLD string, anapplicant’s qualifications, and its proposed registry
services.
The following assessments are performed in the Initial
Evaluation:••

String Reviews
String similarity



Reserved names

DNS stability

Geographic names

Applicant Reviews


Demonstration of technical and operational
capability

Demonstration of financial capability

Registry services reviews for DNS stability issues

An application must pass all these reviews to pass the Initial
Evaluation. Failure to pass any one of these reviews will
result in a failure to pass the Initial Evaluation.
Extended Evaluation may be applicable in cases in which
an applicant does not pass the Initial Evaluation. See
Section 2.3 below.

2.1

Background Screening

Background screening will be conducted in two areas:(a) General business diligence and criminal history; and(b) History of cybersquatting behavior.
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-2

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

The application must pass both background screening
areas to be eligible to proceed. Background screening
results are evaluated according to the criteria described in
section 1.2.1. Due to the potential sensitive nature of thematerial, applicant background screening reports will not
be published.
The following sections describe the process ICANN will use
to perform background screening.

2.1.1

General business diligence and criminal
history

Applying entities that are publicly traded corporations
listed and in good standing on any of the world’s largest 25
stock exchanges (as listed by the World Federation of
Exchanges) will be deemed to have passed the generalbusiness diligence and criminal history screening. The
largest 25 will be based on the domestic market
capitalization reported at the end of the most recent
1calendar year prior to launching each round.
Before an entity is listed on an exchange, it must undergo
significant due diligence including an investigation by theexchange, regulators, and investment banks. As a publicly
listed corporation, an entity is subject to ongoing scrutiny
from shareholders, analysts, regulators, and exchanges. All
exchanges require monitoring and disclosure of material
information about directors, officers, and other key
personnel, including criminal behavior. In totality, theserequirements meet or exceed the screening ICANN will
perform.
For applicants not listed on one of these exchanges,
ICANN will submit identifying information for the entity,
officers, directors, and major shareholders to aninternational background screening service. The service
provider(s) will use the criteria listed in section 1.2.1 andreturn results that match these criteria. Only publicly
available information will be used in this inquiry.
ICANN is in discussions with INTERPOL to identify ways inwhich both organizations can collaborate in backgroundscreenings of individuals, entities and their identity
documents consistent with both organizations’ rules andregulations. Note that the applicant is expected to disclosepotential problems in meeting the criteria in theapplication, and provide any clarification or explanation at
the time of application submission. Results returned from1

See http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/annual/2010/equity-markets/domestic-market-capitalization

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-3

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

the background screening process will be matched withthe disclosures provided by the applicant and those cases
will be followed up to resolve issues of discrepancies or
potential false positives.
If no hits are returned, the application will generally passthis portion of the background screening.

2.1.2

History of cybersquatting

ICANN will screen applicants against UDRP cases and legal
databases as financially feasible for data that may
indicate a pattern of cybersquatting behavior pursuant tothe criteria listed in section 1.2.1.
The applicant is required to make specific declarations
regarding these activities in the application. Results
returned during the screening process will be matched withthe disclosures provided by the applicant and thoseinstances will be followed up to resolve issues of
discrepancies or potential false positives.
If no hits are returned, the application will generally passthis portion of the background screening.

2.2

Initial Evaluation

The Initial Evaluation consists of two types of review. Each
type is composed of several elements.
String review: The first review focuses on the applied-for
gTLD string to test:•

Whether the applied-for gTLD string is so similar toother strings that it would create a probability ofuser confusion;•

Whether the applied-for gTLD string might adversely
affect DNS security or stability; and•Whether evidence of requisite government
approval is provided in the case of certain
geographic names.

Applicant review: The second review focuses on theapplicant to test:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Whether the applicant has the requisite technical,
operational, and financial capability to operate aregistry; and•Whether the registry services offered by theapplicant might adversely affect DNS security or
stability.

2-4

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

2.2.1

String Reviews

In the Initial Evaluation, ICANN reviews every applied-for
gTLD string. Those reviews are described in greater detail in
the following subsections.

2.2.1.1

String Similarity Review

This review involves a preliminary comparison of eachapplied-for gTLD string against existing TLDs, Reserved
Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and other applied-for
strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user
confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting fromdelegation of many similar strings.
Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, “similar” means strings
so similar that they create a probability of user confusion if
more than one of the strings is delegated into the rootzone.
The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial
Evaluation is intended to augment the objection anddispute resolution process (see Module 3, Dispute
Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of similarity.
This similarity review will be conducted by an independent
String Similarity Panel.

2.2.1.1.1

Reviews Performed

The String Similarity Panel’s task is to identify visual string
similarities that would create a probability of user
confusion.
The panel performs this task of assessing similarities thatwould lead to user confusion in four sets of circumstances,when comparing:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Applied-for gTLD strings against existing TLDs andreserved names;•

Applied-for gTLD strings against other applied-for
gTLD strings;•

Applied-for gTLD strings against strings requested as
IDN ccTLDs; and•Applied-for 2-character IDN gTLD strings against:oEvery other single character.

o

Any other 2-character ASCII string (toprotect possible future ccTLD delegations).

2-5Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

Similarity to Existing TLDs or Reserved Names – This review
involves cross-checking between each applied-for string
and the lists of existing TLD strings and Reserved Names todetermine whether two strings are so similar to one anotherthat they create a probability of user confusion.
In the simple case in which an applied-for gTLD string is
identical to an existing TLD or reserved name, the online
application system will not allow the application to besubmitted.
Testing for identical strings also takes into consideration thecode point variants listed in any relevant IDN table. For
example, protocols treat equivalent labels as alternative
forms of the same label, just as “foo” and “Foo” aretreated as alternative forms of the same label (RFC 3490).
All TLDs currently in the root zone can be found at
http://iana.org/domains/root/db/.
IDN tables that have been submitted to ICANN are
available at http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables/.
Similarity to Other Applied-for gTLD Strings (String
Contention Sets) – All applied-for gTLD strings will be
reviewed against one another to identify any similar strings.
In performing this review, the String Similarity Panel will
create contention sets that may be used in later stages of
evaluation.
A contention set contains at least two applied-for strings
identical or similar to one another. Refer to Module 4, String
Contention Procedures, for more information on contention
sets and contention resolution.
ICANN will notify applicants who are part of a contention
set as soon as the String Similarity review is completed. (Thisprovides a longer period for contending applicants toreach their own resolution before reaching the contention
resolution stage.) These contention sets will also be
published on ICANN’s website.
Similarity to TLD strings requested as IDN ccTLDs -- Appliedfor gTLD strings will also be reviewed for similarity to TLD
strings requested in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/). Should aconflict with a prospective fast-track IDN ccTLD be
identified, ICANN will take the following approach toresolving the conflict.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-6

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

If one of the applications has completed its respective
process before the other is lodged, that TLD will bedelegated. A gTLD application that has successfullycompleted all relevant evaluation stages, including dispute
resolution and string contention, if applicable, and iseligible for entry into a registry agreement will beconsidered complete, and therefore would not bedisqualified by a newly-filed IDN ccTLD request. Similarly, an
IDN ccTLD request that has completed evaluation (i.e., isvalidated) will be considered complete and therefore
would not be disqualified by a newly-filed gTLD
application.
In the case where neither application has completed its
respective process, where the gTLD application does nothave the required approval from the relevant governmentor public authority, a validated request for an IDN ccTLD
will prevail and the gTLD application will not be approved.
The term “validated” is defined in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
Process Implementation, which can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn.
In the case where a gTLD applicant has obtained the
support or non-objection of the relevant government or
public authority, but is eliminated due to contention with astring requested in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process, a fullrefund of the evaluation fee is available to the applicant if
the gTLD application was submitted prior to the publicationof the ccTLD request.
Review of 2-character IDN strings — In addition to theabove reviews, an applied-for gTLD string that is a 2character IDN string is reviewed by the String Similarity
Panel for visual similarity to:a) Any one-character label (in any script), andb) Any possible two-character ASCII combination.
An applied-for gTLD string that is found to be too similar toa) or b) above will not pass this review.

2.2.1.1.2

Review Methodology

The String Similarity Panel is informed in part by analgorithmic score for the visual similarity between eachapplied-for string and each of other existing and appliedfor TLDs and reserved names. The score will provide one
objective measure for consideration by the panel, as partof the process of identifying strings likely to result in user
confusion. In general, applicants should expect that ahigher visual similarity score suggests a higher probability

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-7

Module 2
Evaluation Proceduresthat the application will not pass the String Similarity review.
However, it should be noted that the score is only
indicative and that the final determination of similarity isentirely up to the Panel’s judgment.
The algorithm, user guidelines, and additional backgroundinformation are available to applicants for testing and2
informational purposes. Applicants will have the ability totest their strings and obtain algorithmic results through theapplication system prior to submission of an application.
The algorithm supports the common characters in Arabic,
Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Greek, Japanese, Korean,and Latin scripts. It can also compare strings in different
scripts to each other.
The panel will also take into account variant characters, as
defined in any relevant language table, in its
determinations. For example, strings that are not visuallysimilar but are determined to be variant TLD strings basedon an IDN table would be placed in a contention set.
Variant TLD strings that are listed as part of the application
3
will also be subject to the string similarity analysis.
The panel will examine all the algorithm data and perform
its own review of similarities between strings and whether
they rise to the level of string confusion. In cases of strings in
scripts not yet supported by the algorithm, the panel’s
assessment process is entirely manual.
The panel will use a common standard to test for whether
string confusion exists, as follows:Standard for String Confusion – String confusion exists wherea string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to
deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion
to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that
confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable
Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string
brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find alikelihood of confusion.

2.2.1.1.3 Outcomes of the String Similarity Review
An application that fails the String Similarity review due tosimilarity to an existing TLD will not pass the Initial Evaluation,
2
3

See http://icann.sword-group.com/algorithm/
In the case where an applicant has listed Declared Variants in its application (see subsection 1.3.3), the panel will perform an
analysis of the listed strings to confirm that the strings are variants according to the applicant’s IDN table. This analysis may
include comparison of applicant IDN tables with other existing tables for the same language or script, and forwarding any questions
to the applicant.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-8

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

and no further reviews will be available. Where anapplication does not pass the String Similarity review, theapplicant will be notified as soon as the review iscompleted.
An application for a string that is found too similar toanother applied-for gTLD string will be placed in acontention set.
An application that passes the String Similarity review is still
subject to objection by an existing TLD operator or byanother gTLD applicant in the current application round.
That process requires that a string confusion objection be
filed by an objector having the standing to make such an
objection. Such category of objection is not limited tovisual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type ofsimilarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning)
may be claimed by an objector. Refer to Module 3,
Dispute Resolution Procedures, for more information about
the objection process.
An applicant may file a formal objection against anothergTLD application on string confusion grounds. Such an
objection may, if successful, change the configuration of
the preliminary contention sets in that the two applied-for
gTLD strings will be considered in direct contention with one
another (see Module 4, String Contention Procedures). The
objection process will not result in removal of an
application from a contention set.

2.2.1.2

Reserved Names and Other Unavailable
Strings

Certain names are not available as gTLD strings, asdetailed in this section.

2.2.1.2.1 Reserved Names
All applied-for gTLD strings are compared with the list of
top-level Reserved Names to ensure that the applied-for
gTLD string does not appear on that list.
Top-Level Reserved Names List

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

AFRINICIANA-SERVERS

NRO

ALAC

ICANN

RFC-EDITOR

APNIC

IESG

RIPE

ARIN

IETF

ROOT-SERVERS

ASO

INTERNIC

RSSAC

CCNSO

INVALID

SSAC

EXAMPLE*

IRTF

TEST*

GAC

ISTF

TLD

2-9

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

GNSO

LACNICWHOIS

GTLD-SERVERS

LOCAL

WWW

IAB

LOCALHOST

IANA

NIC

*Note that in addition to the above strings, ICANN will reserve translations of the terms“test” and “example” in multiple languages. The remainder of the strings are reserved
only in the form included above.

If an applicant enters a Reserved Name as its applied-for
gTLD string, the application system will recognize theReserved Name and will not allow the application to besubmitted.
In addition, applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during
the String Similarity review to determine whether they are
similar to a Reserved Name. An application for a gTLD
string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name
will not pass this review.

2.2.1.2.2

Declared Variants

Names appearing on the Declared Variants List (seesection 1.3.3) will be posted on ICANN’s website and will betreated essentially the same as Reserved Names, until suchtime as variant management solutions are developed andvariant TLDs are delegated. That is, an application for agTLD string that is identical or similar to a string on the
Declared Variants List will not pass this review.

2.2.1.2.3

Strings Ineligible for Delegation

The following names are prohibited from delegation as
gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application
rounds may differ according to consideration of further
policy advice.
These names are not being placed on the Top-Level
Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string
similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer tosubsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings arereviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names,
the strings listed in this section are not reserved names andaccordingly are not incorporated into this review.
Applications for names appearing on the list included inthis section will not be approved.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-10

Module 2
Evaluation ProceduresInternational Olympic Committee
OLYMPICOLYMPIAD

OLYMPIQUE

OLYMPIADE

OLYMPISCH

OLÍMPICO

OLIMPÍADA

‫أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ‬‫أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد‬

奥林匹克

奥林匹亚

奧林匹克

奧林匹亞

Ολυμπιακοί

Ολυμπιάδα

올림픽

올림피아드

Олимпийский

Олимпиада

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
1B

REDCROSSREDCRESCENT

REDCRYSTALREDLIONANDSUNMAGENDDAVIDADOMREDSTAROFDAVID

CROIXROUGE

CROIX-ROUGECROISSANTROUGECROISSANT-ROUGE

CRISTALROUGE

CRISTAL-ROUGE‫מגן דוד אדום‬CRUZROJAMEDIALUNAROJACRISTALROJO

Красный Крест

Красный Полумесяц

Красный Кристалл

‫رمحألا بيلصلا‬‫لالهلا رمحألا‬‫ءارمحلا ةرولبلا‬‫ﺍﻟﻛﺭﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺣﻣﺭﺍء‬

紅十字

红十字

紅新月

红新月

紅水晶

红水晶

2.2.1.3

DNS Stability Review

This review determines whether an applied-for gTLD stringmight cause instability to the DNS. In all cases, this will
involve a review for conformance with technical and otherrequirements for gTLD strings (labels). In some exceptional
cases, an extended review may be necessary toinvestigate possible technical stability problems with theapplied-for gTLD string.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-11

Module 2
Evaluation ProceduresNote: All applicants should recognize issues surrounding
invalid TLD queries at the root level of the DNS.
Any new TLD registry operator may experience
unanticipated queries, and some TLDs may experience a
non-trivial load of unanticipated queries. For more
information, see the Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC)’s report on this topic at
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf.
Some publicly available statistics are also available at
http://stats.l.root-servers.org/.
ICANN will take steps to alert applicants of the issues raisedin SAC045, and encourage the applicant to prepare tominimize the possibility of operational difficulties that would
pose a stability or availability problem for its registrants andusers. However, this notice is merely an advisory toapplicants and is not part of the evaluation, unless thestring raises significant security or stability issues as
described in the following section.

2.2.1.3.1

DNS Stability: String Review Procedure

New gTLD labels must not adversely affect the security or
stability of the DNS. During the Initial Evaluation period,
ICANN will conduct a preliminary review on the set of
applied-for gTLD strings to:•ensure that applied-for gTLD strings comply with therequirements provided in section 2.2.1.3.2, and•determine whether any strings raise significant
security or stability issues that may require further
review.

There is a very low probability that extended analysis will benecessary for a string that fully complies with the string
requirements in subsection 2.2.1.3.2 of this module.
However, the string review process provides an additionalsafeguard if unanticipated security or stability issues arise
concerning an applied-for gTLD string.
In such a case, the DNS Stability Panel will perform an
extended review of the applied-for gTLD string during theInitial Evaluation period. The panel will determine whether
the string fails to comply with relevant standards or createsa condition that adversely affects the throughput, response
time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet
servers or end systems, and will report on its findings.
If the panel determines that the string complies with
relevant standards and does not create the conditions

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-12

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

described above, the application will pass the DNS Stability
review.
If the panel determines that the string does not comply
with relevant technical standards, or that it creates a
condition that adversely affects the throughput, response
time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet
servers or end systems, the application will not pass theInitial Evaluation, and no further reviews are available. In
the case where a string is determined likely to cause
security or stability problems in the DNS, the applicant will
be notified as soon as the DNS Stability review iscompleted.

2.2.1.3.2

String Requirements

ICANN will review each applied-for gTLD string to ensurethat it complies with the requirements outlined in thefollowing paragraphs.
If an applied-for gTLD string is found to violate any of theserules, the application will not pass the DNS Stability review.
No further reviews are available.
Part I -- Technical Requirements for all Labels (Strings) – The
technical requirements for top-level domain labels follow.
1.1

1.2

The ASCII label (i.e., the label as transmitted on thewire) must be valid as specified in technicalstandards Domain Names: Implementation andSpecification (RFC 1035), and Clarifications to the
DNS Specification (RFC 2181) and any updates
thereto. This includes the following:
1.1.1

The label must have no more than 63
characters.

1.1.2

Upper and lower case characters aretreated as identical.

The ASCII label must be a valid host name, as
specified in the technical standards DOD Internet
Host Table Specification (RFC 952), Requirements forInternet Hosts — Application and Support (RFC1123), and Application Techniques for Checking
and Transformation of Names (RFC 3696),Internationalized Domain Names in Applications(IDNA)(RFCs 5890-5894), and any updates thereto.
This includes the following:
1.2.1

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

The ASCII label must consist entirely of letters(alphabetic characters a-z), or

2-13

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

1.2.2

The label must be a valid IDNA A-label(further restricted as described in Part II
below).

Part II -- Requirements for Internationalized Domain Names– These requirements apply only to prospective top-leveldomains that contain non-ASCII characters. Applicants forthese internationalized top-level domain labels are
expected to be familiar with the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) IDNA standards, Unicode standards, and theterminology associated with Internationalized Domain
Names.
2.1

2.2

4

The label must be an A-label as defined in IDNA,
converted from (and convertible to) a U-label thatis consistent with the definition in IDNA, and further
restricted by the following, non-exhaustive, list oflimitations:
2.1.1

Must be a valid A-label according to IDNA.

2.1.2

The derived property value of all codepoints
used in the U-label, as defined by IDNA,
must be PVALID or CONTEXT (accompanied
4by unambiguous contextual rules).

2.1.3

The general category of all codepoints, as
defined by IDNA, must be one of (Ll, Lo, Lm,
Mn, Mc).

2.1.4

The U-label must be fully compliant with
Normalization Form C, as described inUnicode Standard Annex #15: Unicode
Normalization Forms. See also examples in
http://unicode.org/faq/normalization.html.

2.1.5

The U-label must consist entirely of
characters with the same directional
property, or fulfill the requirements of the Bidi
rule per RFC 5893.

The label must meet the relevant criteria of theICANN Guidelines for the Implementation ofInternationalised Domain Names. See
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/implementatio

It is expected that conversion tools for IDNA will be available before the Application Submission period begins, and that labels will
be checked for validity under IDNA. In this case, labels valid under the previous version of the protocol (IDNA2003) but not under
IDNA will not meet this element of the requirements. Labels that are valid under both versions of the protocol will meet this elementof the requirements. Labels valid under IDNA but not under IDNA2003 may meet the requirements; however, applicants arestrongly advised to note that the duration of the transition period between the two protocols cannot presently be estimated nor
guaranteed in any specific timeframe. The development of support for IDNA in the broader software applications environment will
occur gradually. During that time, TLD labels that are valid under IDNA, but not under IDNA2003, will have limited functionality.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-14

Module 2
Evaluation Proceduresn-guidelines.htm. This includes the following, nonexhaustive, list of limitations:2.2.1

All code points in a single label must be
taken from the same script as determinedby the Unicode Standard Annex #24:
Unicode Script Property (See
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/).

2.2.2

Exceptions to 2.2.1 are permissible for
languages with established orthographiesand conventions that require thecommingled use of multiple scripts.
However, even with this exception, visuallyconfusable characters from different scripts
will not be allowed to co-exist in a single setof permissible code points unless acorresponding policy and character table
are clearly defined.

Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level
Domains – These requirements apply to all prospective toplevel domain strings applied for as gTLDs.
3.1

Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composedof three or more visually distinct characters. Twocharacter ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid
conflicting with current and future country codes
based on the ISO 3166-1 standard.

3.2

Applied-for gTLD strings in IDN scripts must becomposed of two or more visually distinct
5
characters in the script, as appropriate. Note,however, that a two-character IDN string will not beapproved if:
3.2.1

It is visually similar to any one-characterlabel (in any script); or

3.2.2

It is visually similar to any possible twocharacter ASCII combination.

See the String Similarity review in subsection 2.2.1.1
for additional information on this requirement.

5Note that the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) has made recommendations that this section be revised to allow for
single-character IDN gTLD labels. See the JIG Final Report at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jig-final-report-30mar11-en.pdf.
Implementation models for these recommendations are being developed for community discussion.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-15

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

2.2.1.4

Geographic Names Review

Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate
consideration is given to the interests of governments or
public authorities in geographic names. The requirements
and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process
are described in the following paragraphs. Applicantsshould review these requirements even if they do notbelieve their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. Allapplied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to therequirements in this section, regardless of whether theapplication indicates it is for a geographic name.

2.2.1.4.1

Treatment of Country or Territory Names 6

Applications for strings that are country or territory names
will not be approved, as they are not available under the
New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shallbe considered to be a country or territory name if:

6i.

it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard.

ii.

it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard, or a translation of the long-form
name in any language.

iii.

it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard, or a translation of the short-form
name in any language.

iv.

it is the short- or long-form name association
with a code that has been designated as“exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166
Maintenance Agency.

v.

it is a separable component of a country
name designated on the “Separable
Country Names List,” or is a translation of aname appearing on the list, in any
language. See the Annex at the end of thismodule.

vi.

it is a permutation or transposition of any of
the names included in items (i) through (v).
Permutations include removal of spaces,
insertion of punctuation, and addition orCountry and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent
communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which
are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP,
and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-16

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A
transposition is considered a change in thesequence of the long or short–form name,for example, “RepublicCzech” or“IslandsCayman.”vii.

2.2.1.4.2

it is a name by which a country is commonly
known, as demonstrated by evidence thatthe country is recognized by that name by
an intergovernmental or treaty organization.

Geographic Names Requiring Government
SupportThe following types of applied-for strings are consideredgeographic names and must be accompanied bydocumentation of support or non-objection from therelevant governments or public authorities:
1.

An application for any string that is a
representation, in any language, of the capital city
name of any country or territory listed in the ISO
3166-1 standard.

2.

An application for a city name, where theapplicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD
for purposes associated with the city name.
City names present challenges because city names
may also be generic terms or brand names, and inmany cases city names are not unique. Unlike othertypes of geographic names, there are no
established lists that can be used as objective
references in the evaluation process. Thus, city
names are not universally protected. However, theprocess does provide a means for cities andapplicants to work together where desired.
An application for a city name will be subject to thegeographic names requirements (i.e., will require
documentation of support or non-objection fromthe relevant governments or public authorities) if:(a) It is clear from applicant statements within theapplication that the applicant will use the TLD
primarily for purposes associated with the city
name; andApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-17

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures(b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on
7
official city documents.
3.

An application for any string that is an exact matchof a sub-national place name, such as a county,
province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard.

4.

An application for a string listed as a UNESCO
8
region or appearing on the “Composition ofmacro geographical (continental) regions,geographical sub-regions, and selected economic
9and other groupings” list.
In the case of an application for a string appearing
on either of the lists above, documentation of
support will be required from at least 60% of therespective national governments in the region, andthere may be no more than one written statementof objection to the application from relevant
governments in the region and/or public authorities
associated with the continent or the region.
Where the 60% rule is applied, and there arecommon regions on both lists, the regional
composition contained in the “Composition ofmacro geographical (continental) regions,geographical sub-regions, and selected economic
and other groupings” takes precedence.

An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4
listed above is considered to represent a geographic
name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’sinterest to consult with relevant governments and publicauthorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to
submission of the application, in order to preclude possible
objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning
the string and applicable requirements.
Strings that include but do not match a geographic name(as defined in this section) will not be consideredgeographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, andtherefore will not require documentation of government
support in the evaluation process.

7

City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not relyon the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file aformal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string.

8

See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/.

9

See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-18

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

For each application, the Geographic Names Panel will
determine which governments are relevant based on the
inputs of the applicant, governments, and its own research
and analysis. In the event that there is more than one
relevant government or public authority for the applied-for
gTLD string, the applicant must provide documentation of
support or non-objection from all the relevant governmentsor public authorities. It is anticipated that this may apply tothe case of a sub-national place name.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to:•identify whether its applied-for gTLD string falls into
any of the above categories; and•identify and consult with the relevant governmentsor public authorities; and•identify which level of government support isrequired.

Note: the level of government and which administrative
agency is responsible for the filing of letters of support or
non-objection is a matter for each national administration
to determine. Applicants should consult within the relevant
jurisdiction to determine the appropriate level of support.
The requirement to include documentation of support for
certain applications does not preclude or exempt
applications from being the subject of objections oncommunity grounds (refer to subsection 3.1.1 of Module 3),
under which applications may be rejected based on
objections showing substantial opposition from thetargeted community.

2.2.1.4.3

Documentation Requirements

The documentation of support or non-objection should
include a signed letter from the relevant government or
public authority. Understanding that this will differ acrossthe respective jurisdictions, the letter could be signed by
the minister with the portfolio responsible for domain nameadministration, ICT, foreign affairs, or the Office of the Prime
Minister or President of the relevant jurisdiction; or a senior
representative of the agency or department responsiblefor domain name administration, ICT, foreign affairs, or the
Office of the Prime Minister. To assist the applicant indetermining who the relevant government or publicauthority may be for a potential geographic name, theapplicant may wish to consult with the relevant

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-19

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
10
representative.
The letter must clearly express the government’s or publicauthority’s support for or non-objection to the applicant’s
application and demonstrate the government’s or publicauthority’s understanding of the string being requested
and its intended use.
The letter should also demonstrate the government’s or
public authority’s understanding that the string is beingsought through the gTLD application process and that theapplicant is willing to accept the conditions under which
the string will be available, i.e., entry into a registryagreement with ICANN requiring compliance withconsensus policies and payment of fees. (See Module 5 fora discussion of the obligations of a gTLD registry operator.)
A sample letter of support is available as an attachment tothis module.
Applicants and governments may conduct discussions
concerning government support for an application at any
time. Applicants are encouraged to begin such discussions
at the earliest possible stage, and enable governments tofollow the processes that may be necessary to consider,approve, and generate a letter of support or nonobjection.
It is important to note that a government or public authority
is under no obligation to provide documentation of support
or non-objection in response to a request by an applicant.
It is also possible that a government may withdraw its
support for an application at a later time, including after
the new gTLD has been delegated, if the registry operator
has deviated from the conditions of original support or nonobjection. Applicants should be aware that ICANN has
committed to governments that, in the event of a dispute
between a government (or public authority) and a registry
operator that submitted documentation of support fromthat government or public authority, ICANN will comply
with a legally binding order from a court in the jurisdictionof the government or public authority that has given
support to an application.

2.2.1.4.4

Review Procedure for Geographic Names

A Geographic Names Panel (GNP) will determine whether
each applied-for gTLD string represents a geographic
10

See https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Members

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-20

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

name, and verify the relevance and authenticity of the
supporting documentation where necessary.
The GNP will review all applications received, not only
those where the applicant has noted its applied-for gTLD
string as a geographic name. For any application where
the GNP determines that the applied-for gTLD string is acountry or territory name (as defined in this module), theapplication will not pass the Geographic Names review
and will be denied. No additional reviews will be available.
For any application where the GNP determines that theapplied-for gTLD string is not a geographic name requiring
government support (as described in this module), theapplication will pass the Geographic Names review with noadditional steps required.
For any application where the GNP determines that theapplied-for gTLD string is a geographic name requiring
government support, the GNP will confirm that theapplicant has provided the required documentation fromthe relevant governments or public authorities, and thatthe communication from the government or publicauthority is legitimate and contains the required content.
ICANN may confirm the authenticity of the communicationby consulting with the relevant diplomatic authorities ormembers of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee
for the government or public authority concerned on thecompetent authority and appropriate point of contact
within their administration for communications.
The GNP may communicate with the signing entity of theletter to confirm their intent and their understanding of theterms on which the support for an application is given.
In cases where an applicant has not provided the required
documentation, the applicant will be contacted andnotified of the requirement, and given a limited time frame
to provide the documentation. If the applicant is able toprovide the documentation before the close of the Initial
Evaluation period, and the documentation is found tomeet the requirements, the applicant will pass theGeographic Names review. If not, the applicant will haveadditional time to obtain the required documentation;
however, if the applicant has not produced the required
documentation by the required date (at least 90 calendar
days from the date of notice), the application will beconsidered incomplete and will be ineligible for further
review. The applicant may reapply in subsequent
application rounds, if desired, subject to the fees andrequirements of the specific application rounds.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-21

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

If there is more than one application for a string
representing a certain geographic name as described inthis section, and the applications have requisite
government approvals, the applications will be suspended
pending resolution by the applicants. If the applicants
have not reached a resolution by either the date of theend of the application round (as announced by ICANN), or
the date on which ICANN opens a subsequent application
round, whichever comes first, the applications will berejected and applicable refunds will be available toapplicants according to the conditions described in
section 1.5.
However, in the event that a contention set is composed ofmultiple applications with documentation of support fromthe same government or public authority, the applications
will proceed through the contention resolution procedures
described in Module 4 when requested by the governmentor public authority providing the documentation.
If an application for a string representing a geographic
name is in a contention set with applications for similar
strings that have not been identified as geographicalnames, the string contention will be resolved using thestring contention procedures described in Module 4.

2.2.2

Applicant Reviews

Concurrent with the applied-for gTLD string reviews
described in subsection 2.2.1, ICANN will review theapplicant’s technical and operational capability, its
financial capability, and its proposed registry services.
Those reviews are described in greater detail in thefollowing subsections.

2.2.2.1

Technical/Operational Review

In its application, the applicant will respond to a set ofquestions (see questions 24 – 44 in the Application Form)intended to gather information about the applicant’s
technical capabilities and its plans for operation of the
proposed gTLD.
Applicants are not required to have deployed an actualgTLD registry to pass the Technical/Operational review. It
will be necessary, however, for an applicant todemonstrate a clear understanding and accomplishmentof some groundwork toward the key technical andoperational aspects of a gTLD registry operation.
Subsequently, each applicant that passes the technicalevaluation and all other steps will be required to complete

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-22

Module 2
Evaluation Proceduresa pre-delegation technical test prior to delegation of the
new gTLD. Refer to Module 5, Transition to Delegation, foradditional information.

2.2.2.2 Financial Review
In its application, the applicant will respond to a set ofquestions (see questions 45-50 in the Application Form)intended to gather information about the applicant’s
financial capabilities for operation of a gTLD registry and its
financial planning in preparation for long-term stability of
the new gTLD.
Because different registry types and purposes may justify
different responses to individual questions, evaluators will
pay particular attention to the consistency of an
application across all criteria. For example, an applicant’s
scaling plans identifying system hardware to ensure its
capacity to operate at a particular volume level should beconsistent with its financial plans to secure the necessary
equipment. That is, the evaluation criteria scale with theapplicant plans to provide flexibility.

2.2.2.3 Evaluation Methodology
Dedicated technical and financial evaluation panels willconduct the technical/operational and financial reviews,
according to the established criteria and scoringmechanism included as an attachment to this module.
These reviews are conducted on the basis of theinformation each applicant makes available to ICANN in its
response to the questions in the Application Form.
The evaluators may request clarification or additional
information during the Initial Evaluation period. For eachapplication, clarifying questions will be consolidated andsent to the applicant from each of the panels. The
applicant will thus have an opportunity to clarify or
supplement the application in those areas where a request
is made by the evaluators. These communications will
occur via TAS. Unless otherwise noted, such
communications will include a 2-week deadline for theapplicant to respond. Any supplemental information
provided by the applicant will become part of theapplication.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that thequestions have been fully answered and the required
documentation is attached. Evaluators are entitled, but
not obliged, to request further information or evidence
from an applicant, and are not obliged to take into
account any information or evidence that is not madeApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-23

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

available in the application and submitted by the duedate, unless explicitly requested by the evaluators.

2.2.3

Registry Services Review

Concurrent with the other reviews that occur during theInitial Evaluation period, ICANN will review the applicant’s
proposed registry services for any possible adverse impact
on security or stability. The applicant will be required toprovide a list of proposed registry services in its application.

2.2.3.1

Definitions

Registry services are defined as:
1. operations of the registry critical to the following
tasks: the receipt of data from registrars concerning
registrations of domain names and name servers;
provision to registrars of status information relating
to the zone servers for the TLD; dissemination of TLD
zone files; operation of the registry zone servers; anddissemination of contact and other information
concerning domain name server registrations in the
TLD as required by the registry agreement;
2. other products or services that the registry operator
is required to provide because of the establishmentof a consensus policy; and3. any other products or services that only a registry
operator is capable of providing, by reason of its
designation as the registry operator.
Proposed registry services will be examined to determine ifthey might raise significant stability or security issues.
Examples of services proposed by existing registries can befound at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/. In mostcases, these proposed services successfully pass this inquiry.
Registry services currently provided by gTLD registries canbe found in registry agreement appendices. See
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/agreements.htm.
A full definition of registry services can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html.
For purposes of this review, security and stability aredefined as follows:
Security – an effect on security by the proposed registry
service means (1) the unauthorized disclosure, alteration,
insertion or destruction of registry data, or (2) the
unauthorized access to or disclosure of information orApplicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-24

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

resources on the Internet by systems operating inaccordance with all applicable standards.
Stability – an effect on stability means that the proposed
registry service (1) does not comply with applicablerelevant standards that are authoritative and published bya well-established, recognized, and authoritative standards
body, such as relevant standards-track or best current
practice RFCs sponsored by the IETF, or (2) creates a
condition that adversely affects the throughput, response
time, consistency, or coherence of responses to Internet
servers or end systems, operating in accordance withapplicable relevant standards that are authoritative andpublished by a well-established, recognized andauthoritative standards body, such as relevant standardstrack or best current practice RFCs and relying on registry
operator’s delegation information or provisioning services.

2.2.3.2

Customary Services

The following registry services are customary services
offered by a registry operator:•

Receipt of data from registrars concerning
registration of domain names and name servers•

Dissemination of TLD zone files•

Dissemination of contact or other information
concerning domain name registrations (e.g., port43 WHOIS, Web-based Whois, RESTful Whois)•

DNS Security Extensions

The applicant must describe whether any of these registry
services are intended to be offered in a manner unique tothe TLD.
Any additional registry services that are unique to the
proposed gTLD registry should be described in detail.
Directions for describing the registry services are provided
at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rrs_sample.html.

2.2.3.3

TLD Zone Contents

ICANN receives a number of inquiries about use of various
record types in a registry zone, as entities contemplate
different business and technical models. Permissible zone
contents for a TLD zone are:Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Apex SOA record.

•

Apex NS records and in-bailiwick glue for the TLD’s
DNS servers.

2-25

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures•

NS records and in-bailiwick glue for DNS servers ofregistered names in the TLD.

•DS records for registered names in the TLD.

•

Records associated with signing the TLD zone (i.e.,
RRSIG, DNSKEY, NSEC, and NSEC3).

An applicant wishing to place any other record types into
its TLD zone should describe in detail its proposal in theregistry services section of the application. This will be
evaluated and could result in an extended evaluation todetermine whether the service would create a risk of ameaningful adverse impact on security or stability of the
DNS. Applicants should be aware that a service based on
use of less-common DNS resource records in the TLD zone,
even if approved in the registry services review, might notwork as intended for all users due to lack of application
support.

2.2.3.4

Methodology

Review of the applicant’s proposed registry services will
include a preliminary determination of whether any of the
proposed registry services could raise significant security or
stability issues and require additional consideration.
If the preliminary determination reveals that there may besignificant security or stability issues (as defined insubsection 2.2.3.1) surrounding a proposed service, theapplication will be flagged for an extended review by theRegistry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP), see
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rstep.html). This
review, if applicable, will occur during the Extended
Evaluation period (refer to Section 2.3).
In the event that an application is flagged for extended
review of one or more registry services, an additional fee tocover the cost of the extended review will be due from theapplicant. Applicants will be advised of any additional feesdue, which must be received before the additional review
begins.

2.2.4

Applicant’s Withdrawal of an Application

An applicant who does not pass the Initial Evaluation may
withdraw its application at this stage and request a partial
refund (refer to subsection 1.5 of Module 1).

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-26

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

2.3

Extended Evaluation

An applicant may request an Extended Evaluation if theapplication has failed to pass the Initial Evaluation
elements concerning:•

Geographic names (refer to subsection 2.2.1.4).
There is no additional fee for an extended
evaluation in this instance.

•

Demonstration of technical and operational
capability (refer to subsection 2.2.2.1). There is no
additional fee for an extended evaluation in thisinstance.

•

Demonstration of financial capability (refer tosubsection 2.2.2.2). There is no additional fee for an
extended evaluation in this instance.

•

Registry services (refer to subsection 2.2.3). Notethat this investigation incurs an additional fee (theRegistry Services Review Fee) if the applicant wishes
to proceed. See Section 1.5 of Module 1 for fee andpayment information.

An Extended Evaluation does not imply any change of theevaluation criteria. The same criteria used in the Initial
Evaluation will be used to review the application in light ofclarifications provided by the applicant.
From the time an applicant receives notice of failure topass the Initial Evaluation, eligible applicants will have 15
calendar days to submit to ICANN the Notice of Request
for Extended Evaluation. If the applicant does not explicitly
request the Extended Evaluation (and pay an additional
fee in the case of a Registry Services inquiry) theapplication will not proceed.

2.3.1

Geographic Names Extended Evaluation

In the case of an application that has been identified as ageographic name requiring government support, butwhere the applicant has not provided sufficient evidenceof support or non-objection from all relevant governmentsor public authorities by the end of the Initial Evaluation
period, the applicant has additional time in the Extended
Evaluation period to obtain and submit thisdocumentation.
If the applicant submits the documentation to theGeographic Names Panel by the required date, the GNP
will perform its review of the documentation as detailed in

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-27

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

section 2.2.1.4. If the applicant has not provided the
documentation by the required date (at least 90 calendar
days from the date of the notice), the application will not
pass the Extended Evaluation, and no further reviews areavailable.

2.3.2

Technical/Operational or Financial Extended
Evaluation

The following applies to an Extended Evaluation of an
applicant’s technical and operational capability or
financial capability, as described in subsection 2.2.2.
An applicant who has requested Extended Evaluation willagain access the online application system (TAS) andclarify its answers to those questions or sections on which it
received a non-passing score (or, in the case of an
application where individual questions were passed but
the total score was insufficient to pass Initial Evaluation,
those questions or sections on which additional points are
possible). The answers should be responsive to theevaluator report that indicates the reasons for failure, or
provide any amplification that is not a material change tothe application. Applicants may not use the Extended
Evaluation period to substitute portions of new information
for the information submitted in their original applications,
i.e., to materially change the application.
An applicant participating in an Extended Evaluation on
the Technical / Operational or Financial reviews will havethe option to have its application reviewed by the sameevaluation panelists who performed the review during theInitial Evaluation period, or to have a different set ofpanelists perform the review during Extended Evaluation.
The Extended Evaluation allows an additional exchange of
information between the evaluators and the applicant tofurther clarify information contained in the application. This
supplemental information will become part of theapplication record. Such communications will include a
deadline for the applicant to respond.
ICANN will notify applicants at the end of the Extended
Evaluation period as to whether they have passed. If an
application passes Extended Evaluation, it continues to thenext stage in the process. If an application does not pass
Extended Evaluation, it will proceed no further. No further
reviews are available.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-28

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

2.3.3

Registry Services Extended Evaluation

This section applies to Extended Evaluation of registry
services, as described in subsection 2.2.3.
If a proposed registry service has been referred to theRegistry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) for an
extended review, the RSTEP will form a review team ofmembers with the appropriate qualifications.
The review team will generally consist of three members,
depending on the complexity of the registry service
proposed. In a 3-member panel, the review could be
conducted within 30 to 45 calendar days. In cases where a
5-member panel is needed, this will be identified before
the extended evaluation starts. In a 5-member panel, thereview could be conducted in 45 calendar days or fewer.
The cost of an RSTEP review will be covered by theapplicant through payment of the Registry Services Review
Fee. Refer to payment procedures in section 1.5 of Module
1. The RSTEP review will not commence until payment has
been received.
If the RSTEP finds that one or more of the applicant’s
proposed registry services may be introduced without riskof a meaningful adverse effect on security or stability,
these services will be included in the applicant’s registryagreement with ICANN. If the RSTEP finds that the proposedservice would create a risk of a meaningful adverse effecton security or stability, the applicant may elect to proceedwith its application without the proposed service, orwithdraw its application for the gTLD. In this instance, anapplicant has 15 calendar days to notify ICANN of its intent
to proceed with the application. If an applicant does not
explicitly provide such notice within this time frame, theapplication will proceed no further.

2.4

Parties Involved in Evaluation

A number of independent experts and groups play a partin performing the various reviews in the evaluation process.
A brief description of the various panels, their evaluation
roles, and the circumstances under which they work is
included in this section.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-29

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

2.4.1

Panels and Roles

The String Similarity Panel will assess whether a proposed
gTLD string creates a probability of user confusion due tosimilarity with any reserved name, any existing TLD, any
requested IDN ccTLD, or any new gTLD string applied for in
the current application round. This occurs during the String
Similarity review in Initial Evaluation. The panel may also
review IDN tables submitted by applicants as part of its
work.
The DNS Stability Panel will determine whether a proposed
string might adversely affect the security or stability of the
DNS. This occurs during the DNS Stability String review in
Initial Evaluation.
The Geographic Names Panel will review each application
to determine whether the applied-for gTLD represents ageographic name, as defined in this guidebook. In theevent that the string is a geographic name requiring
government support, the panel will ensure that therequired documentation is provided with the applicationand verify that the documentation is from the relevant
governments or public authorities and is authentic.
The Technical Evaluation Panel will review the technicalcomponents of each application against the criteria in the
Applicant Guidebook, along with proposed registry
operations, in order to determine whether the applicant istechnically and operationally capable of operating a gTLD
registry as proposed in the application. This occurs during
the Technical/Operational reviews in Initial Evaluation, andmay also occur in Extended Evaluation if elected by theapplicant.
The Financial Evaluation Panel will review each application
against the relevant business, financial and organizational
criteria contained in the Applicant Guidebook, todetermine whether the applicant is financially capable ofmaintaining a gTLD registry as proposed in the application.
This occurs during the Financial review in Initial Evaluation,and may also occur in Extended Evaluation if elected by
the applicant.
The Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) will
review proposed registry services in the application todetermine if they pose a risk of a meaningful adverse
impact on security or stability. This occurs, if applicable,
during the Extended Evaluation period.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-30

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

Members of all panels are required to abide by theestablished Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest
guidelines included in this module.

2.4.2

Panel Selection Process

ICANN has selected qualified third-party providers to
perform the various reviews, based on an extensive
11
selection process. In addition to the specific subject
matter expertise required for each panel, specified
qualifications are required, including:•

The provider must be able to convene – or havethe capacity to convene - globally diverse panels
and be able to evaluate applications from all
regions of the world, including applications for IDN
gTLDs.

•The provider should be familiar with the IETF IDNA
standards, Unicode standards, relevant RFCs andthe terminology associated with IDNs.

•

The provider must be able to scale quickly to meetthe demands of the evaluation of an unknown
number of applications. At present it is not known
how many applications will be received, howcomplex they will be, and whether they will be
predominantly for ASCII or non-ASCII gTLDs.

•

The provider must be able to evaluate theapplications within the required timeframes of Initialand Extended Evaluation.

2.4.3

Code of Conduct Guidelines for Panelists

The purpose of the New gTLD Program (“Program”) Codeof Conduct (“Code”) is to prevent real and apparent
conflicts of interest and unethical behavior by any
Evaluation Panelist (“Panelist”).
Panelists shall conduct themselves as thoughtful,competent, well prepared, and impartial professionals
throughout the application process. Panelists are expected
to comply with equity and high ethical standards while
assuring the Internet community, its constituents, and the
public of objectivity, integrity, confidentiality, andcredibility. Unethical actions, or even the appearance ofcompromise, are not acceptable. Panelists are expected11

http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/evaluation-panels-selection-process

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-31

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

to be guided by the following principles in carrying out theirrespective responsibilities. This Code is intended tosummarize the principles and nothing in this Code should
be considered as limiting duties, obligations or legal
requirements with which Panelists must comply.
Bias -- Panelists shall:•

not advance personal agendas or non-ICANN
approved agendas in the evaluation of
applications;•

examine facts as they exist and not be influenced
by past reputation, media accounts, or unverifiedstatements about the applications being
evaluated;•exclude themselves from participating in theevaluation of an application if, to their knowledge,
there is some predisposing factor that could
prejudice them with respect to such evaluation;and•exclude themselves from evaluation activities if they
are philosophically opposed to or are on record as
having made generic criticism about a specific
type of applicant or application.

Compensation/Gifts -- Panelists shall not request or accept
any compensation whatsoever or any gifts of substancefrom the Applicant being reviewed or anyone affiliatedwith the Applicant. (Gifts of substance would include any
gift greater than USD 25 in value).
If the giving of small tokens is important to the Applicant’sculture, Panelists may accept these tokens; however, thetotal of such tokens must not exceed USD 25 in value. If in
doubt, the Panelist should err on the side of caution by
declining gifts of any kind.
Conflicts of Interest -- Panelists shall act in accordance withthe “New gTLD Program Conflicts of Interest Guidelines”(see subsection 2.4.3.1).
Confidentiality -- Confidentiality is an integral part of theevaluation process. Panelists must have access to sensitive
information in order to conduct evaluations. Panelists must
maintain confidentiality of information entrusted to themby ICANN and the Applicant and any other confidential
information provided to them from whatever source,

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-32

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

except when disclosure is legally mandated or has beenauthorized by ICANN. “Confidential information” includes
all elements of the Program and information gathered aspart of the process – which includes but is not limited to:
documents, interviews, discussions, interpretations, andanalyses – related to the review of any new gTLD
application.
Affirmation -- All Panelists shall read this Code prior tocommencing evaluation services and shall certify in writingthat they have done so and understand the Code.

2.4.3.1 Conflict of Interest Guidelines for Panelists
It is recognized that third-party providers may have a large
number of employees in several countries serving
numerous clients. In fact, it is possible that a number ofPanelists may be very well known within the registry /registrar community and have provided professional
services to a number of potential applicants.
To safeguard against the potential for inappropriate
influence and ensure applications are evaluated in an
objective and independent manner, ICANN has
established detailed Conflict of Interest guidelines andprocedures that will be followed by the Evaluation
Panelists. To help ensure that the guidelines areappropriately followed ICANN will:•

Require each Evaluation Panelist (provider
and individual) to acknowledge anddocument understanding of the Conflict ofInterest guidelines.

•

Require each Evaluation Panelist to disclose
all business relationships engaged in at any
time during the past six months.

•

Where possible, identify and secure primaryand backup providers for evaluation panels.

•

In conjunction with the Evaluation Panelists,
develop and implement a process to
identify conflicts and re-assign applications
as appropriate to secondary or contingent
third party providers to perform the reviews.

Compliance Period -- All Evaluation Panelists must comply
with the Conflict of Interest guidelines beginning with the
opening date of the Application Submission period andending with the public announcement by ICANN of the

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-33

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

final outcomes of all the applications from the Applicant inquestion.
Guidelines -- The following guidelines are the minimum
standards with which all Evaluation Panelists must comply.
It is recognized that it is impossible to foresee and cover all
circumstances in which a potential conflict of interest
might arise. In these cases the Evaluation Panelist should
evaluate whether the existing facts and circumstances
would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there isan actual conflict of interest.
Evaluation Panelists and Immediate Family Members:•

Must not be under contract, have or be
included in a current proposal to provide
Professional Services for or on behalf of the
Applicant during the Compliance Period.

•

Must not currently hold or be committed toacquire any interest in a privately-heldApplicant.

•Must not currently hold or be committed toacquire more than 1% of any publicly listed
Applicant’s outstanding equity securities orother ownership interests.

•

Must not be involved or have an interest in ajoint venture, partnership or other businessarrangement with the Applicant.

•Must not have been named in a lawsuit withor against the Applicant.

•Must not be a:oDirector, officer, or employee, or inany capacity equivalent to that of amember of management of the
Applicant;oPromoter, underwriter, or voting
trustee of the Applicant; oroTrustee for any pension or profitsharing trust of the Applicant.

Definitions-Evaluation Panelist: An Evaluation Panelist is any individual
associated with the review of an application. This includes

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-34

Module 2
Evaluation Procedures

any primary, secondary, and contingent third party
Panelists engaged by ICANN to review new gTLD
applications.
Immediate Family Member: Immediate Family Member is a
spouse, spousal equivalent, or dependent (whether or not
related) of an Evaluation Panelist.
Professional Services: include, but are not limited to legal
services, financial audit, financial planning / investment,
outsourced services, consulting services such as business /management / internal audit, tax, information technology,
registry / registrar services.

2.4.3.2 Code of Conduct Violations
Evaluation panelist breaches of the Code of Conduct,whether intentional or not, shall be reviewed by ICANN,
which may make recommendations for corrective action,
if deemed necessary. Serious breaches of the Code may
be cause for dismissal of the person, persons or provider
committing the infraction.
In a case where ICANN determines that a Panelist has
failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, the results ofthat Panelist’s review for all assigned applications will bediscarded and the affected applications will undergo areview by new panelists.
Complaints about violations of the Code of Conduct by aPanelist may be brought to the attention of ICANN via the
public comment and applicant support mechanisms,
throughout the evaluation period. Concerns of applicants
regarding panels should be communicated via thedefined support channels (see subsection 1.4.2). Concernsof the general public (i.e., non-applicants) can be raised
via the public comment forum, as described in Module 1.

2.4.4

Communication Channels

Defined channels for technical support or exchanges of
information with ICANN and with evaluation panels areavailable to applicants during the Initial Evaluation andExtended Evaluation periods. Contacting individual ICANN
staff members, Board members, or individuals engaged by
ICANN to perform an evaluation role in order to lobby for aparticular outcome or to obtain confidential information
about applications under review is not appropriate. In theinterests of fairness and equivalent treatment for all
applicants, any such individual contacts will be referred tothe appropriate communication channels.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

2-35

DRAFT - New gTLD Program – Initial Evaluation and Extended Evaluation
Application is confirmed as complete and ready for evaluation
during Administrative Completeness Check

Background Screening
Third-party provider
reviews applicant’s
background.
Initial Evaluation – String Review

DNS Stability
All strings reviewed andin extraordinary cases,
DNS Stability Panel may
perform extended review
for possible technicalstability issues.

String Similarity
String Similarity Panelreviews applied-for strings
to ensure they are not too
similar to existing TLDs or
Reserved Names.

Initial Evaluation – Applicant Review

Geographic Names
Geographic Names Paneldetermines if applied-for
string is geographic namerequiring government
support.

Panel compares all
applied-for stringsand creates
contention sets.

Technical andOperational Capability
Technical andOperational panel reviews
applicant’s answers toquestions and supporting
documentation.

Financial Capability
Financial panel
reviews applicant’s
answers to questions
and supporting
documentation.

Registry Services
Preliminary review ofapplicant’s registry
services and referral to
RSTEP for further review
during Extended
Evaluation where
necessary

Panel confirms
supporting
documentation
where required.

ICANN will seek to publish contention
sets prior to publication of full IE
results.

No
Extended Evaluation can be for any or
all of the four elements below:
Technical and Operational
Capability
Financial Capability
Geographical Names
Registry Services
But NOT for String Similarity or DNS
Stability

Does applicant pass allelements of Initial Evaluation?

Applicant elects to pursue
Extended Evaluation?

Yes

Yes

Extended Evaluation
process

Applicant continues tosubsequent steps.

No
Ineligible forfurther review

No

Does applicant pass all elementsof Extended Evaluation?

YesAnnex: Separable Country Names List
gTLD application restrictions on country or territory names are tied to listing in property fields ofthe ISO 3166-1 standard. Notionally, the ISO 3166-1 standard has an “English short name” field
which is the common name for a country and can be used for such protections; however, insome cases this does not represent the common name. This registry seeks to add additional
protected elements which are derived from definitions in the ISO 3166-1 standard. An
explanation of the various classes is included below.
Separable Country Names List
Code
ax
as

English Short NameÅland Islands
American Samoa

aoag

AngolaAntigua and Barbuda

auAustraliabobq

Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Sababa

Bosnia and Herzegovina

brBrazilio

British Indian Ocean Territorybn

Brunei Darussalam

cv

Cape VerdekyclCayman Islands
Chile

cc

Cocos (Keeling) IslandscoColombia

km

Comoros

ck
cr
ec
gq

Cook Islands
Costa Rica
EcuadorEquatorial Guinea

Cl.
B1
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

Separable NameÅland
TutuilaSwain’s Island
CabindaAntigua
BarbudaRedonda Island
Lord Howe Island
Macquarie Island
Ashmore Island
Cartier Island
Coral Sea Islands
Bolivia
BonaireSint Eustatius
Saba
BosniaHerzegovina
Fernando de Noronha Island
Martim Vaz Islands
Trinidade Island
Chagos Archipelago
Diego Garcia
Brunei
Negara Brunei DarussalamSão Tiago
São Vicente
Grand Cayman
Easter Island
Juan Fernández Islands
Sala y Gómez Island
San Ambrosio Island
San Félix Island
Cocos Islands
Keeling Islands
Malpelo Island
San Andrés Island
Providencia Island
AnjouanGrande Comore
MohéliRarotonga
Coco Island
Galápagos Islands
Annobón Island
Bioko Island

fk

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)fofj

Faroe Islands
Fiji

pf

French PolynesiatfFrench Southern Territories

gr

Greecegd

Grenadagp

GuadeloupehmHeard Island and McDonald IslandsvaHoly See (Vatican City State)hninHonduras
India

ir
ki

Iran, Islamic Republic ofKiribatikp

my

Korea, Democratic People’s
Republic ofKorea, Republic of
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav
Republic of
MalaysiamhMarshall Islandsmu

Mauritius

fm

Micronesia, Federated States of

kr
la
mk

C
B1
B1
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C

Río Muni
Falkland Islands
Malvinas
Faroe
Vanua Levu
Viti Levu
Rotuma Island
Austral Islands
Gambier Islands
Marquesas Islands
Society Archipelago
TahitiTuamotu Islands
Clipperton Island
Amsterdam Islands
Crozet Archipelago
Kerguelen Islands
Saint Paul Island
Mount Athos**
Southern Grenadine Islands
Carriacou
la Désirade
Marie-Galante
les Saintes
Heard Island
McDonald Islands
Holy See
VaticanSwan Islands
Amindivi Islands
Andaman Islands
Laccadive Islands
Minicoy Island
Nicobar Islands
IranGilbert Islands
TarawaBanabaLine Islands
Kiritimati
Phoenix Islands
Abariringa
Enderbury Island
North Korea

C
B1
B1

South Korea
Laos
**

C
C
C

Sabah
Sarawak
JaluitKwajalein
MajuroAgalega Islands
Cargados Carajos Shoals
Rodrigues Island
Micronesia

C
C
C
B1

md

Moldova, Republic ofncmp

New Caledonia
Northern Mariana Islands

om
pw

Oman
Palau

ps
pg

Palestinian Territory, Occupied
Papua New Guinea

pn

Pitcairnre

Réunionru

Russian FederationshSaint Helena, Ascension, andTristan de Cunhakn

Saint Kitts and Nevis

pm

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

vcSaint Vincent and the Grenadines

ws

Samoa

st

Sao Tome and Principe

sc

Seychellessb

Solomon IslandszaSouth Africa

gsSouth Georgia and the South
Sandwich Islands

C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
A

Caroline Islands (see also pw)
Chuuk
KosraePohnpei
Yap
Moldova
Moldava
Loyalty Islands
Mariana Islands
SaipanMusandam Peninsula
Caroline Islands (see also fm)
Babelthuap
Palestine
Bismarck Archipelago
Northern Solomon Islands
BougainvilleDucie Island
Henderson Island
Oeno Island
Bassas da India
Europa Island
Glorioso Island
Juan de Nova Island
Tromelin Island
RussiaKaliningrad Region
Saint Helena

A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A

Ascension
Tristan de Cunha
Gough Island
Tristan de Cunha Archipelago
Saint Kitts
Nevis
Saint Pierre
MiquelonSaint Vincent
The Grenadines
Northern Grenadine Islands
BequiaSaint Vincent Island
Savai’i
Upolu
Sao Tome
Principe
Mahé
Aldabra Islands
Amirante Islands
Cosmoledo Islands
Farquhar Islands
Santa Cruz Islands
Southern Solomon Islands
GuadalcanalMarion Island
Prince Edward Island
South Georgia

A

South Sandwich Islands

sj

Svalbard and Jan Mayensy

Syrian Arab Republic

twTaiwan, Province of China

tz
tl
to
tt

Tanzania, United Republic ofTimor-Leste
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobagotc

Turks and Caicos Islands

tv
ae
us
um

TuvaluUnited Arab Emirates
United States
United States Minor Outlying
Islandsvu

VanuatuveVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofvg

Virgin Islands, Britishvi

Virgin Islands, US

wf

Wallis and Futuna

ye

Yemen

A
A
C
B1

Svalbard
Jan Mayen
Bear Island
Syria

B1
C
C
B1
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
B1
B2
C

TaiwanPenghu Islands
Pescadores
Tanzania
OecussiTongatapu
TrinidadTobagoTurks Islands
Caicos Islands
Fanafuti
Emirates
America
Baker Island

C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B1
C
B1
C
C
C
C
B1
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C
C

Howland Island
Jarvis Island
Johnston Atoll
Kingman Reef
Midway Islands
Palmyra Atoll
Wake Island
Navassa Island
Efate
Santo
Venezuela
Bird Island
Virgin Islands
AnegadaJost Van Dyke
TortolaVirgin Gorda
Virgin Islands
Saint Croix
Saint JohnSaint Thomas
WallisFutunaHoorn Islands
Wallis Islands
Uvea
Socotra Island

Maintenance
A Separable Country Names Registry will be maintained and published by ICANN Staff.

Each time the ISO 3166-1 standard is updated with a new entry, this registry will be reappraised
to identify if the changes to the standard warrant changes to the entries in this registry. Appraisal
will be based on the criteria listing in the “Eligibility” section of this document.
Codes reserved by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency do not have any implication on thisregistry, only entries derived from normally assigned codes appearing in ISO 3166-1 are eligible.
If an ISO code is struck off the ISO 3166-1 standard, any entries in this registry deriving from thatcode must be struck.
Eligibility
Each record in this registry is derived from the following possible properties:
Class A:The ISO 3166-1 English Short Name is comprised of multiple, separable
parts whereby the country is comprised of distinct sub-entities. Each ofthese separable parts is eligible in its own right for consideration as acountry name. For example, “Antigua and Barbuda” is comprised of“Antigua” and “Barbuda.”

Class B:The ISO 3166-1 English Short Name (1) or the ISO 3166-1 English Full Name(2) contains additional language as to the type of country the entity is,which is often not used in common usage when referencing thecountry. For example, one such short name is “The Bolivarian Republicof Venezuela” for a country in common usage referred to as“Venezuela.”** Macedonia is a separable name in the context of this list; however,
due to the ongoing dispute listed in UN documents between theHellenic Republic (Greece) and the Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia over the name, no country will be afforded attribution orrights to the name “Macedonia” until the dispute over the name has
been resolved. See http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N93/240/37/IMG/N9324037.pdf.

Class C:The ISO 3166-1 Remarks column containing synonyms of the country
name, or sub-national entities, as denoted by “often referred to as,”“includes”, “comprises”, “variant” or “principal islands”.

In the first two cases, the registry listing must be directly derivative from the English Short Name byexcising words and articles. These registry listings do not include vernacular or other non-official
terms used to denote the country.
Eligibility is calculated in class order. For example, if a term can be derived both from Class A
and Class C, it is only listed as Class A.

Attachment to Module 2
Sample Letter of Government Support[This letter should be provided on official letterhead]

ICANN
Suite 330, 4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Attention: New gTLD Evaluation Process
Subject: Letter for support for [TLD requested]
This letter is to confirm that [government entity] fully supports the application for [TLD] submitted
to ICANN by [applicant] in the New gTLD Program. As the [Minister/Secretary/position] I confirm
that I have the authority of the [x government/public authority] to be writing to you on thismatter. [Explanation of government entity, relevant department, division, office, or agency, andwhat its functions and responsibilities are]
The gTLD will be used to [explain your understanding of how the name will be used by theapplicant. This could include policies developed regarding who can register a name, pricing
regime and management structures.] [Government/public authority/department] has worked
closely with the applicant in the development of this proposal.
The [x government/public authority] supports this application, and in doing so, understands thatin the event that the application is successful, [applicant] will be required to enter into a Registry
Agreement with ICANN. In doing so, they will be required to pay fees to ICANN and comply withconsensus policies developed through the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes.
[Government / public authority] further understands that, in the event of a dispute between[government/public authority] and the applicant, ICANN will comply with a legally binding orderfrom a court in the jurisdiction of [government/public authority].
[Optional] This application is being submitted as a community-based application, and as such itis understood that the Registry Agreement will reflect the community restrictions proposed in theapplication. In the event that we believe the registry is not complying with these restrictions,
possible avenues of recourse include the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure.
[Optional] I can advise that in the event that this application is successful [government/publicauthority] will enter into a separate agreement with the applicant. This agreement will outline
the conditions under which we support them in the operation of the TLD, and circumstances
under which we would withdraw that support. ICANN will not be a party to this agreement, andenforcement of this agreement lies fully with [government/public authority].

[Government / public authority] understands that the Geographic Names Panel engaged by
ICANN will, among other things, conduct due diligence on the authenticity of thisdocumentation. I would request that if additional information is required during this process, that[name and contact details] be contacted in the first instance.
Thank you for the opportunity to support this application.
Yours sincerely
Signature from relevant government/public authority

Attachment to Module 2
Evaluation Questions and Criteria
Since ICANN was founded in 1998 as a not-for-profit, multi-stakeholder organization, one of its
key mandates has been to promote competition in the domain name market. ICANN’s mission
specifically calls for the corporation to maintain and build on processes that will ensurecompetition and consumer interests – without compromising Internet security and stability. This
includes the consideration and implementation of new gTLDs. It is ICANN’s goal to make thecriteria and evaluation as objective as possible.
While new gTLDs are viewed by ICANN as important to fostering choice, innovation andcompetition in domain registration services, the decision to launch these coming new gTLD
application rounds followed a detailed and lengthy consultation process with all constituenciesof the global Internet community.
Any public or private sector organization can apply to create and operate a new gTLD.
However the process is not like simply registering or buying a second-level domain name.
Instead, the application process is to evaluate and select candidates capable of running a
registry, a business that manages top level domains such as, for example, .COM or .INFO. Any
successful applicant will need to meet published operational and technical criteria in order topreserve Internet stability and interoperability.

I.

Principles of the Technical and Financial New gTLD Evaluation CriteriaPrinciples of conservatism. This is the first round of what is to be an ongoing process forthe introduction of new TLDs, including Internationalized Domain Names. Therefore, thecriteria in this round require applicants to provide a thorough and thoughtful analysis of
the technical requirements to operate a registry and the proposed business model.

The criteria and evaluation should be as objective as possible.
With that goal in mind, an important objective of the new TLD process is to diversify
the namespace, with different registry business models and target audiences. In
some cases, criteria that are objective, but that ignore the differences in businessmodels and target audiences of new registries, will tend to make the processexclusionary. For example, the business model for a registry targeted to a small
community need not possess the same robustness in funding and technicalinfrastructure as a registry intending to compete with large gTLDs. Therefore purely
objective criteria such as a requirement for a certain amount of cash on hand will notprovide for the flexibility to consider different business models. The process must
provide for an objective evaluation framework, but allow for adaptation according
to the differing models applicants will present. Within that framework, applicant
responses will be evaluated against the criteria in light of the proposed model.



Therefore the criteria should be flexible: able to scale with the overall businessapproach, providing that the planned approach is consistent and coherent, andcan withstand highs and lows.

A-1



Criteria can be objective in areas of registrant protection, for example:
 Providing for funds to continue operations in the event of a registry failure.
 Adherence to data escrow, registry failover, and continuity planningrequirements.

The evaluation must strike the correct balance between establishing the business andtechnical competence of the applicant to operate a registry (to serve the interests ofregistrants), while not asking for the detailed sort of information or making the judgmentthat a venture capitalist would. ICANN is not seeking to certify business success but
instead seeks to encourage innovation while providing certain safeguards for registrants.



New registries must be added in a way that maintains DNS stability and security.
Therefore, ICANN asks several questions so that the applicant can demonstrate anunderstanding of the technical requirements to operate a registry. ICANN will ask theapplicant to demonstrate actual operational technical compliance prior to delegation.
This is in line with current prerequisites for the delegation of a TLD.

Registrant protection is emphasized in both the criteria and the scoring. Examples of thisinclude asking the applicant to:





II.

Plan for the occurrence of contingencies and registry failure by putting in place
financial resources to fund the ongoing resolution of names while a replacement
operator is found or extended notice can be given to registrants,
Demonstrate a capability to understand and plan for business contingencies toafford some protections through the marketplace,
Adhere to DNS stability and security requirements as described in the technicalsection, andProvide access to the widest variety of services.

Aspects of the Questions Asked in the Application and Evaluation Criteria

The technical and financial questions are intended to inform and guide the applicant in aspectsof registry start-up and operation. The established registry operator should find the questions
straightforward while inexperienced applicants should find them a natural part of planning.
Evaluation and scoring (detailed below) will emphasize:How thorough are the answers? Are they well thought through and do they provide a
sufficient basis for evaluation?



Demonstration of the ability to operate and fund the registry on an ongoing basis:

Funding sources to support technical operations in a manner that ensures stability
and security and supports planned expenses,
Resilience and sustainability in the face of ups and downs, anticipation ofcontingencies,
Funding to carry on operations in the event of failure.

A-2



Demonstration that the technical plan will likely deliver on best practices for a registry
and identification of aspects that might raise DNS stability and security issues.

Ensures plan integration, consistency and compatibility (responses to questions are notevaluated individually but in comparison to others):
 Funding adequately covers technical requirements,
 Funding covers costs,
 Risks are identified and addressed, in comparison to other aspects of the plan.

III. Scoring
Evaluation


The questions, criteria, scoring and evaluation methodology are to be conducted inaccordance with the principles described earlier in section I. With that in mind, globally
diverse evaluation panelists will staff evaluation panels. The diversity of evaluators andaccess to experts in all regions of the world will ensure application evaluations take into
account cultural, technical and business norms in the regions from which applications
originate.

Evaluation teams will consist of two independent panels. One will evaluate theapplications against the financial criteria. The other will evaluate the applications against
the technical & operational criteria. Given the requirement that technical and financial
planning be well integrated, the panels will work together and coordinate informationtransfer where necessary. Other relevant experts (e.g., technical, audit, legal, insurance,
finance) in pertinent regions will provide advice as required.

Precautions will be taken to ensure that no member of the Evaluation Teams will have
any interest or association that may be viewed as a real or potential conflict of interest
with an applicant or application. All members must adhere to the Code of Conduct andConflict of Interest guidelines that are found in Module 2.

Communications between the evaluation teams and the applicants will be through an
online interface. During the evaluation, evaluators may pose a set of clarifying questions
to an applicant, to which the applicant may respond through the interface.

Confidentiality: ICANN will post applications after the close of the application submission
period. The application form notes which parts of the application will be posted.
ScoringResponses will be evaluated against each criterion. A score will be assigned according
to the scoring schedule linked to each question or set of questions. In several questions, 1
point is the maximum score that may be awarded. In several other questions, 2 points areawarded for a response that exceeds requirements, 1 point is awarded for a responsethat meets requirements and 0 points are awarded for a response that fails to meetrequirements. Each question must receive at least a score of “1,” making each a“pass/fail” question.

In the Continuity question in the financial section(see Question #50), up to 3 points areawarded if an applicant provides, at the application stage, a financial instrument thatwill guarantee ongoing registry operations in the event of a business failure. This extra

A-3

point can serve to guarantee passing the financial criteria for applicants who score theminimum passing score for each of the individual criteria. The purpose of this weighting is
to reward applicants who make early arrangements for the protection of registrants andto accept relatively riskier business plans where registrants are protected.
There are 21 Technical & Operational questions. Each question has a criterion andscoring associated with it. The scoring for each is 0, 1, or 2 points as described above.
One of the questions (IDN implementation) is optional. Other than the optional questions,
all Technical & Operational criteria must be scored a 1 or more or the application will failthe evaluation.



The total technical score must be equal to or greater than 22 for the application to pass.
That means the applicant can pass by:

Receiving a 1 on all questions, including the optional question, and a 2 on at least
one mandatory question; orReceiving a 1 on all questions, excluding the optional question and a 2 on at least
two mandatory questions.

This scoring methodology requires a minimum passing score for each question and aslightly higher average score than the per question minimum to pass.


There are six Financial questions and six sets of criteria that are scored by rating theanswers to one or more of the questions. For example, the question concerning registry
operation costs requires consistency between the technical plans (described in theanswers to the Technical & Operational questions) and the costs (described in theanswers to the costs question).



The scoring for each of the Financial criteria is 0, 1 or 2 points as described above withthe exception of the Continuity question, for which up to 3 points are possible. Allquestions must receive at least a 1 or the application will fail the evaluation.



The total financial score on the six criteria must be 8 or greater for the application topass. That means the applicant can pass by:Scoring a 3 on the continuity criteria, orScoring a 2 on any two financial criteria.

Applications that do not pass Initial Evaluation can enter into an extended evaluation
process as described in Module 2. The scoring is the same.

A-4

Applicant
Information#
1

Full legal name of the Applicant (the establishedentity that would enter into a Registry Agreementwith ICANN)

Y

Address of the principal place of business of the
Applicant. This address will be used forcontractual purposes. No Post Office boxes areallowed.
Phone number for the Applicant’s principal placeof business.

Y4

Fax number for the Applicant’s principal place ofbusiness.

Y

5Website or URL, if applicable.

Y

6

Name

Y

Title

Y

Date of birth

N

Country of birthN

AddressN

Phone numberY

Fax number

Y

Email address

Y

Name

Y

Title

Y

Date of birth

N

Country of birthN

AddressN

Phone numberY

Fax number

Y

2

3

Primary Contact forthis Application

Secondary Contact
for this Application

Question

Included inpublicposting

7

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Responses to Questions 1 - 12 are required
for a complete application. Responses are
not scored.

Y

The primary contact is the individual
designated with the primary responsibility
for management of the application, including
responding to tasks in the TLD Application
System (TAS) during the various application
phases. Both contacts listed should also be
prepared to receive inquiries from thepublic.

The secondary contact is listed in the eventthe primary contact is unavailable tocontinue with the application process.

A-5

#Proof of Legal
Establishment

8

9

10
ApplicantBackground11

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Email address

Y(a) Legal form of the Applicant. (e.g., partnership,
corporation, non-profit institution).

Y(b) State the specific national or other jurisdictionthat defines the type of entity identified in 8(a).

Y

In the event of questions regarding proof ofestablishment, the applicant may be asked
for additional details, such as the specificnational or other law applying to this type ofentity(c) Attach evidence of the applicant’s
establishment as the type of entity identified in
Question 8(a) above, in accordance with theapplicable laws identified in Question 8(b).

Y

Applications without valid proof of legal
establishment will not be evaluated further.
Supporting documentation for proof of legal
establishment should be submitted in theoriginal language.

(a) If the applying entity is publicly traded,
provide the exchange and symbol.
(b) If the applying entity is a subsidiary, provide
the parent company.
(c) If the applying entity is a joint venture, list all
joint venture partners.
Business ID, Tax ID, VAT registration number, or
equivalent of the Applicant.
(a) Enter the full name, date and country of birth,contact information (permanent residence), andposition of all directors (i.e., members of theapplicant’s Board of Directors, if applicable).

Y

Scoring
Range

Criteria

ScoringY
Y
NPartialApplicants should be aware that the names
and positions of the individuals listed in
response to this question will be publishedas part of the application. The contact
information listed for individuals is for
identification purposes only and will not be
published as part of the application.
Background checks may be conducted on
individuals named in the applicant’s
response to question 11. Any material
misstatement or misrepresentation (oromission of material information) may cause
the application to be rejected.
The applicant certifies that it has obtained
permission for the posting of the names andpositions of individuals included in thisapplication.

A-6

#

Question

Included inpublicposting(b) Enter the full name, date and country of birth,contact information (permanent residence), andposition of all officers and partners. Officers are
high-level management officials of a corporationor business, for example, a CEO, vice president,
secretary, chief financial officer. Partners would
be listed in the context of a partnership or othersuch form of legal entity.

Partial(c) Enter the full name and contact information of
all shareholders holding at least 15% of shares,
and percentage held by each. For a shareholder
entity, enter the principal place of business. For ashareholder individual, enter the date andcountry of birth and contact information(permanent residence).
(d) For an applying entity that does not havedirectors, officers, partners, or shareholders,enter the full name, date and country of birth,contact information (permanent residence), andposition of all individuals having overall legal or
executive responsibility for the applying entity.
(e) Indicate whether the applicant or any of theindividuals named above:

Partiali. within the past ten years, has been convictedof any crime related to financial or corporate
governance activities, or has been judged by acourt to have committed fraud or breach offiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a
judicial determination that is the substantive
equivalent of any of these;

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

PartialN

ICANN may deny an otherwise qualified
application based on the backgroundscreening process. See section 1.2.1 of theguidebook.

ii. within the past ten years, has been disciplined
by any government or industry regulatory bodyfor conduct involving dishonesty or misuse offunds of others;iii. within the past ten years has been convictedof any willful tax-related fraud or willful evasion of
tax liabilities;
iv. within the past ten years has been convictedof perjury, forswearing, failing to cooperate with alaw enforcement investigation, or making false
statements to a law enforcement agency or
representative;

A-7

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoringv. has ever been convicted of any crime
involving the use of computers, telephonysystems, telecommunications or the Internet tofacilitate the commission of crimes;
vi. has ever been convicted of any crime
involving the use of a weapon, force, or the
threat of force;vii. has ever been convicted of any violent orsexual offense victimizing children, the elderly, or
individuals with disabilities;
viii. has ever been convicted of the illegal sale,
manufacture, or distribution of pharmaceuticaldrugs, or been convicted or successfully
extradited for any offense described in Article 3of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances of 1988;
ix. has ever been convicted or successfully
extradited for any offense described in the United
Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime (all Protocols);
x. has been convicted, within the respective
timeframes, of aiding, abetting, facilitating,enabling, conspiring to commit, or failing toreport any of the listed crimes (i.e., within thepast 10 years for crimes listed in (i) - (iv) above,or ever for the crimes listed in (v) – (ix) above);xi. has entered a guilty plea as part of a plea
agreement or has a court case in any jurisdiction
with a disposition of Adjudicated Guilty or
Adjudication Withheld (or regional equivalents)
within the respective timeframes listed above forany of the listed crimes (i.e., within the past 10
years for crimes listed in (i) – (iv) above, or everfor the crimes listed in (v) – (ix) above);xii. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by
ICANN and in effect at the time of thisapplication.
If any of the above events have occurred, pleaseprovide details.

A-8

#

Evaluation Fee

12

Question(f) Indicate whether the applicant or any of theindividuals named above have been involved inany decisions indicating that the applicant or
individual named in the application was engaged
in cybersquatting, as defined in the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), Anti-cybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (ACPA), or other equivalentlegislation, or was engaged in reverse domainname hijacking under the UDRP or bad faith or
reckless disregard under the ACPA or equivalentlegislation.
(g) Disclose whether the applicant or any of theindividuals named above has been involved inany administrative or other legal proceeding inwhich allegations of intellectual property
infringement relating to registration or use of adomain name have been made. Provide an
explanation related to each such instance.
(h) Provide an explanation for any additional
background information that may be foundconcerning the applicant or any individual namedin the application, which may affect eligibility,
including any criminal convictions not identified
above.
(a) Enter the confirmation information for
payment of the evaluation fee (e.g., wire transfer
confirmation number).

Included inpublicposting

Notes

N

ICANN may deny an otherwise qualified
application based on the backgroundscreening process. See section 1.2.1 of theguidebook for details.

N

ICANN may deny an otherwise qualified
application based on the backgroundscreening process. See section 1.2.1 of theguidebook for details.

Scoring
Range

Criteria

ScoringNN

The evaluation fee is paid in the form of adeposit at the time of user registration, andsubmission of the remaining amount at thetime the full application is submitted. The
information in question 12 is required foreach payment.
The full amount in USD must be received by
ICANN. Applicant is responsible for alltransaction fees and exchange rate
fluctuation.

(b)

Payer nameN(c)

Payer addressN

Fedwire is the preferred wire mechanism;
SWIFT is also acceptable. ACH is notrecommended as these funds will takelonger to clear and could affect timing of theapplication processing.

A-9

#

Applied-for gTLD
string13

14

15

Question

Included inpublicposting(d)Wiring bankN(e)Bank addressN(f)Wire dateN

Provide the applied-for gTLD string. If applying
for an IDN, provide the U-label.

Y(a) If applying for an IDN, provide the A-label(beginning with “xn--“).

Y(b) If an IDN, provide the meaning, or
restatement of the string in English, that is, adescription of the literal meaning of the string in
the opinion of the applicant.
(c) If an IDN, provide the language of the label(both in English and as referenced by ISO-6391).
(d) If an IDN, provide the script of the label (bothin English and as referenced by ISO 15924).

Y(e) If an IDN, list all code points contained in the
U-label according to Unicode form.

Y(a) If an IDN, upload IDN tables for the
proposed registry. An IDN table must include:
1. the applied-for gTLD string relevant to thetables,2. the script or language designator (asdefined in BCP 47),
3. table version number,
4. effective date (DD Month YYYY), and
5. contact name, email address, and phone
number.

Y

Submission of IDN tables in a standards-basedformat is encouraged.

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Responses to Questions 13-17 are notscored, but are used for database andvalidation purposes.
The U-label is an IDNA-valid string ofUnicode characters, including at least one
non-ASCII character.

YYFor example, the string “HELLO” would belisted as U+0048 U+0065 U+006C U+006C
U+006F.
In the case of an application for an IDN
gTLD, IDN tables must be submitted for the
language or script for the applied-for gTLD
string. IDN tables must also be submitted foreach language or script in which theapplicant intends to offer IDN registrations
at the second level (see question 44).
IDN tables should be submitted in amachine-readable format. The model format
described in Section 5 of RFC 4290 would
be ideal. The format used by RFC 3743 is
an acceptable alternative. Variant
generation algorithms that are more
complex (such as those with contextual

A-10

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

rules) and cannot be expressed using thesetable formats should be specified in amanner that could be re-implemented
programmatically by ICANN. Ideally, for any
complex table formats, a reference code
implementation should be provided inconjunction with a description of thegeneration rules.

Mission/Purpose(b) Describe the process used fordevelopment of the IDN tables submitted,
including consultations and sources used.

Y(c) List any variants to the applied-for gTLD
string according to the relevant IDN tables.

Y

16

Describe the applicant's efforts to ensure that
there are no known operational or rendering
problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string.
If such issues are known, describe steps that will
be taken to mitigate these issues in software andother applications.

Y

17

OPTIONAL.
Provide a representation of the label according
to the International Phonetic Alphabet(http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/).
(a) Describe the mission/purpose of yourproposed gTLD.

Y

If provided, this information will be used as a
guide to ICANN in communications
regarding the application.

Y

The information gathered in response to
Question 18 is intended to inform the postlaunch review of the New gTLD Program,from the perspective of assessing therelative costs and benefits achieved in the
expanded gTLD space.

18

Variant TLD strings will not be delegated asa result of this application. Variant strings
will be checked for consistency and, if theapplication is approved, will be entered on a
Declared IDN Variants List to allow for
future allocation once a variant
management mechanism is established forthe top level. Inclusion of variant TLD stringsin this application is for information only andconfers no right or claim to these strings
upon the applicant.

For the application to be considered
complete, answers to this section must be
fulsome and sufficiently quantitative anddetailed to inform future study on plans vs.
results.

A-11

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Scoring
Range

Notes

Criteria

Scoring

The New gTLD Program will be reviewed,
as specified in section 9.3 of the Affirmationof Commitments. This will include
consideration of the extent to which theintroduction or expansion of gTLDs has
promoted competition, consumer trust andconsumer choice, as well as effectivenessof (a) the application and evaluation
process, and (b) safeguards put in place tomitigate issues involved in the introduction
or expansion.
The information gathered in this section will
be one source of input to help inform thisreview. This information is not used as partof the evaluation or scoring of theapplication, except to the extent that the
information may overlap with questions or
evaluation areas that are scored.

(b) How do you expect that your proposed
gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users,
and others?

Y

An applicant wishing to designate thisapplication as community-based should
ensure that these responses are consistent
with its responses for question 20 below.
Answers should address the following points:
i.

What is the goal of yourproposed gTLD in terms ofareas of specialty, service
levels, or reputation?

ii.

What do you anticipate yourproposed gTLD will add to thecurrent space, in terms ofcompetition, differentiation, or
innovation?

iii.

What goals does yourproposed gTLD have in terms
of user experience?

iv.

Provide a complete descriptionof the applicant’s intended
registration policies in supportof the goals listed above.

v.

Will your proposed gTLD
impose any measures for

A-12

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Scoring
Range

Notes

Criteria

Scoring

protecting the privacy orconfidential information ofregistrants or users? If so,please describe any suchmeasures.
Describe whether and in what ways outreachand communications will help to achieve yourprojected benefits.
18

Community-based
Designation

19(c) What operating rules will you adopt toeliminate or minimize social costs (e.g., time
or financial resource costs, as well as
various types of consumer vulnerabilities)?
What other steps will you take to minimize
negative consequences/costs imposed upon
consumers?

Is the application for a community-based TLD?

Y

Y

Answers should address the following points:i.

How will multiple applications
for a particular domain namebe resolved, for example, by
auction or on a first-come/firstserve basis?

ii.

Explain any cost benefits forregistrants you intend to
implement (e.g.,advantageous pricing,introductory discounts, bulk
registration discounts).

iii.

Note that the Registry
Agreement requires that
registrars be offered the option
to obtain initial domain nameregistrations for periods of one
to ten years at the discretion of
the registrar, but no greaterthan ten years. Additionally,
the Registry Agreement
requires advance written
notice of price increases. Do
you intend to make contractual
commitments to registrants
regarding the magnitude ofprice escalation? If so, please
describe your plans.

There is a presumption that the application
is a standard application (as defined in the
Applicant Guidebook) if this question is left
unanswered.

A-13

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Scoring
Range

Notes

Criteria

Scoring

The applicant’s designation as standard orcommunity-based cannot be changed once
the application is submitted.
20(a) Provide the name and full description of thecommunity that the applicant is committing toserve. In the event that this application is
included in a community priority evaluation, it will
be scored based on the community identified in
response to this question. The name of thecommunity does not have to be formally adopted
for the application to be designated ascommunity-based.

Y

Descriptions should include:• How the community is delineatedfrom Internet users generally. Suchdescriptions may include, but are notlimited to, the following:membership, registration, or licensing
processes, operation in a particularindustry, use of a language.
• How the community is structured andorganized. For a community
consisting of an alliance of groups,
details about the constituent parts are
required.
• When the community wasestablished, including the date(s) offormal organization, if any, as well asa description of community activities
to date.
• The current estimated size of thecommunity, both as to membershipand geographic extent.

(b) Explain the applicant’s relationship to thecommunity identified in 20(a).

Y

Explanations should clearly state:• Relations to any community
organizations.
• Relations to the community and its
constituent parts/groups.
• Accountability mechanisms of theapplicant to the community.

(c) Provide a description of the community-based
purpose of the applied-for gTLD.

Y

Descriptions should include:• Intended registrants in the TLD.
• Intended end-users of the TLD.
• Related activities the applicant has
carried out or intends to carry out inservice of this purpose.
• Explanation of how the purpose is ofa lasting nature.

(d) Explain the relationship between the appliedfor gTLD string and the community identified in
20(a).

Y

Responses to Question 20
will be regarded as firm
commitments to the specified
community and reflected in
the Registry Agreement,
provided the application is
successful.
Responses are not scored in
the Initial Evaluation.
Responses may be scored in
a community priority
evaluation, if applicable.
Criteria and scoring
methodology for thecommunity priority evaluation
are described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.

Explanations should clearly state:•

relationship to the established name,
if any, of the community.

A-14

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Scoring
Range

Notes

•
•

Criteria

Scoring

relationship to the identification ofcommunity members.
any connotations the string may havebeyond the community.

(e) Provide a complete description of theapplicant’s intended registration policies insupport of the community-based purpose of theapplied-for gTLD. Policies and enforcement
mechanisms are expected to constitute a
coherent set.

Y

Descriptions should include proposed
policies, if any, on the following:• Eligibility: who is eligible to register asecond-level name in the gTLD, andhow will eligibility be determined.
• Name selection: what types ofsecond-level names may beregistered in the gTLD.
• Content/Use: what restrictions, ifany, the registry operator will impose
on how a registrant may use its
registered name.
• Enforcement: what investigation
practices and mechanisms exist to
enforce the policies above, what
resources are allocated for
enforcement, and what appeal
mechanisms are available toregistrants.

(f) Attach any written endorsements for theapplication from established institutions
representative of the community identified in
20(a). An applicant may submit written
endorsements by multiple institutions, if relevantto the community.

Y

At least one such endorsement is required
for a complete application. The form andcontent of the endorsement are at thediscretion of the party providing theendorsement; however, the letter must
identify the applied-for gTLD string and theapplying entity, include an express
statement support for the application, andthe supply the contact information of theentity providing the endorsement.
Endorsements from institutions not
mentioned in the response to 20(b) shouldbe accompanied by a clear description ofeach such institution's relationship to thecommunity.
Endorsements presented as supporting
documentation for this question should besubmitted in the original language.

A-15

Geographic Names#
21

Question(a) Is the application for a geographic name?

Included inpublicposting

Y

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

An applied-for gTLD string is considered ageographic name requiring government
support if it is: (a) the capital city name of acountry or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1
standard; (b) a city name, where it is clear
from statements in the application that theapplicant intends to use the gTLD for
purposes associated with the city name; (c)a sub-national place name listed in the ISO
3166-2 standard; or (d) a name listed as a
UNESCO region or appearing on the“Composition of macro geographic(continental) or regions, geographic subregions, and selected economic and othergroupings” list. See Module 2 for complete
definitions and criteria.
An application for a country or territory
name, as defined in the Applicant
Guidebook, will not be approved.

Protection of
Geographic Names

22(b) If a geographic name, attach documentationof support or non-objection from all relevant
governments or public authorities.

N

Describe proposed measures for protection ofgeographic names at the second and otherlevels in the applied-for gTLD. This should
include any applicable rules and procedures forreservation and/or release of such names.

Y

See the documentation requirements inModule 2 of the Applicant Guidebook.
Documentation presented in response tothis question should be submitted in theoriginal language.
Applicants should consider and describe
how they will incorporate Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) advice in their
management of second-level domain nameregistrations. See “Principles regarding New
gTLDs” athttps://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/N
ew+gTLDs.
For reference, applicants may draw on
existing methodology developed for the
reservation and release of country names in
the .INFO top-level domain. See the Dot Info
Circular athttps://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/N
ew+gTLDs .
Proposed measures will be posted for publiccomment as part of the application.
However, note that procedures for releaseof geographic names at the second level

A-16

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoringmust be separately approved according toSpecification 5 of the Registry Agreement.
That is, approval of a gTLD application does
not constitute approval for release of any
geographic names under the Registry
Agreement. Such approval must be granted
separately by ICANN.
Registry Services

23

Provide name and full description of all theRegistry Services to be provided. Descriptions
should include both technical and businesscomponents of each proposed service, andaddress any potential security or stability
concerns.
The following registry services are customary
services offered by a registry operator:
A. Receipt of data from registrars concerning
registration of domain names and nameservers.
B. Dissemination of TLD zone files.
C. Dissemination of contact or otherinformation concerning domain nameregistrations (e.g., port-43 WHOIS, Webbased Whois, RESTful Whois service).
D. Internationalized Domain Names, where
offered.
E. DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC).
The applicant must describe whether any ofthese registry services are intended to be offeredin a manner unique to the TLD.
Additional proposed registry services that are
unique to the registry must also be described.

Y

Registry Services are defined as thefollowing: (1) operations of the Registry
critical to the following tasks: (i) the receipt
of data from registrars concerning
registrations of domain names and nameservers; (ii) provision to registrars of status
information relating to the zone servers for
the TLD; (iii) dissemination of TLD zone
files; (iv) operation of the Registry zone
servers; and (v) dissemination of contact
and other information concerning domainname server registrations in the TLD as
required by the Registry Agreement; and (2)other products or services that the Registry
Operator is required to provide because of
the establishment of a Consensus Policy;(3) any other products or services that only
a Registry Operator is capable of providing,by reason of its designation as the Registry
Operator. A full definition of Registry
Services can be found at
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.
html.
Security: For purposes of this Applicant
Guidebook, an effect on security by the
proposed Registry Service means (1) the
unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertionor destruction of Registry Data, or (2) the
unauthorized access to or disclosure of
information or resources on the Internet bysystems operating in accordance withapplicable standards.

Responses are not scored. A
preliminary assessment will
be made to determine if
there are potential security or
stability issues with any of
the applicant's proposed
Registry Services. If any
such issues are identified,the application will bereferred for an extended
review. See the descriptionof the Registry Services
review process in Module 2of the Applicant Guidebook.
Any information contained in
the application may beconsidered as part of theRegistry Services review.
If its application is approved,
applicant may engage in only
those registry services
defined in the application,
unless a new request is
submitted to ICANN inaccordance with the Registry
Agreement.

Stability: For purposes of this Applicant
Guidebook, an effect on stability shall meanthat the proposed Registry Service (1) is notcompliant with applicable relevant standards
that are authoritative and published by awell-established, recognized and

A-17

#

Demonstration ofTechnical &Operational
Capability (External)

24

Question

Shared Registration System (SRS) Performance:
describe• the plan for operation of a robust andreliable SRS. SRS is a critical registryfunction for enabling multiple registrars toprovide domain name registration
services in the TLD. SRS must include
the EPP interface to the registry, as wellas any other interfaces intended to beprovided, if they are critical to thefunctioning of the registry. Please refer tothe requirements in Specification 6(section 1.2) and Specification 10 (SLA
Matrix) attached to the Registry
Agreement; and• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).
A complete answer should include, but is not
limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

A high-level SRS system description;
Representative network diagram(s);Number of servers;
Description of interconnectivity with otherregistry systems;
Frequency of synchronization between
servers; andSynchronization scheme (e.g., hotstandby, cold standby).

Included inpublicpostingY

Notes

authoritative standards body, such as
relevant Standards-Track or Best Current
Practice RFCs sponsored by the IETF, or(2) creates a condition that adversely affects
the throughput, response time, consistency
or coherence of responses to Internet
servers or end systems, operating inaccordance with applicable relevant
standards that are authoritative andpublished by a well-established, recognized
and authoritative standards body, such as
relevant Standards-Track or Best Current
Practice RFCs and relying on Registry
Operator's delegation information orprovisioning.
The questions in this section (24-44) areintended to give applicants an opportunity todemonstrate their technical and operational
capabilities to run a registry. In the eventthat an applicant chooses to outsource one
or more parts of its registry operations, theapplicant should still provide the full detailsof the technical arrangements.
Note that the resource plans provided in thissection assist in validating the technical andoperational plans as well as informing thecost estimates in the Financial section
below.
Questions 24-30(a) are designed to provide
a description of the applicant’s intended
technical and operational approach for
those registry functions that are outwardfacing, i.e., interactions with registrars,
registrants, and various DNS users.
Responses to these questions will be
published to allow review by affectedparties.

ScoringRange

0-1

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer
demonstrates:

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of SRS
that substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Details of a well-developed plan tooperate a robust and reliable SRS;
(3) SRS plans are sufficient to result incompliance with Specification 6 andSpecification 10 to the Registry
Agreement;(4) SRS is consistent with thetechnical, operational and financial
approach described in theapplication; and(5) Demonstrates that adequate
technical resources are already on
hand, or committed or readily
available to carry out this function.

(1) a plan for operating arobust and reliable SRS, oneof the five critical registryfunctions;(2) scalability andperformance consistent withthe overall businessapproach, and planned sizeof the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) evidence of compliancewith Specification 6 (section
1.2) to the Registry
Agreement.

0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A-18

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer
demonstrates:

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of EPP that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capability andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Sufficient evidence that any
proprietary EPP extensions arecompliant with RFCs and provide allnecessary functionalities for theprovision of registry services;(3) EPP interface is consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication; and(4) Demonstrates that technicalresources are already on hand, orcommitted or readily available.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
5 pages. (As a guide, one page contains
approximately 4000 characters).
25

Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP): provide
a detailed description of the interface withregistrars, including how the applicant willcomply with EPP in RFCs 3735 (if applicable),and 5730-5734.

Y0-1(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale consistent withthe overall businessapproach and planned sizeof the registry; and(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section;(4) ability to comply with
relevant RFCs;(5) if applicable, a welldocumented implementationof any proprietary EPP
extensions; and(6) if applicable, howproprietary EPP extensions
are consistent with theregistration lifecycle as
described in Question 27.

If intending to provide proprietary EPP
extensions, provide documentation consistent
with RFC 3735, including the EPP templates andschemas that will be used.
Describe resourcing plans (number anddescription of personnel roles allocated to thisarea).
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 5 pages. If there are proprietary EPP
extensions, a complete answer is also expected
to be no more than 5 pages per EPP extension.

26

Whois: describe• how the applicant will comply with Whois
specifications for data objects, bulk
access, and lookups as defined inSpecifications 4 and 10 to the Registry
Agreement;• how the Applicant's Whois service willcomply with RFC 3912; and• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
A complete answer should include, but is not
limited to:Y

The Registry Agreement (Specification 4)
requires provision of Whois lookup services for
all names registered in the TLD. This is aminimum requirement. Provision for
Searchable Whois as defined in the scoringcolumn is a requirement for achieving a scoreof 2 points.

0-2

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements, (one of thefive critical registryfunctions);(2) a technical plan
scope/scale consistent withthe overall businessapproach and planned sizeof the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in the

2 – exceeds requirements: Response
meets all the attributes for a score of 1
and includes:(1) A Searchable Whois service:
Whois service includes web-based
search capabilities by domain
name, registrant name, postal
address, contact names, registrar
IDs, and Internet Protocol
addresses without arbitrary
limit. Boolean search capabilities
may be offered. The service shall
include appropriate precautions to
avoid abuse of this feature (e.g.,
limiting access to legitimate
authorized users), and the

A-19

#

Question

•
•
•
•
•

Included inpublicposting

Notes

ScoringRange

A high-level Whois system description;
Relevant network diagram(s);IT and infrastructure resources (e.g.,servers, switches, routers and othercomponents);
Description of interconnectivity with otherregistry systems; andFrequency of synchronization between
servers.

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include:• Provision for Searchable Whois
capabilities; and• A description of potential forms of abuseof this feature, how these risks will be
mitigated, and the basis for thesedescriptions.

Criteria

Scoringplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section;(4) ability to comply with
relevant RFCs;(5) evidence of compliancewith Specifications 4 and 10
to the Registry Agreement;and(6) if applicable, a welldocumented implementationof Searchable Whois.

application demonstrates
compliance with any applicableprivacy laws or policies.
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) adequate description of Whois
service that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Evidence that Whois services arecompliant with RFCs, Specifications
4 and 10 to the Registry
Agreement, and any othercontractual requirements including
all necessary functionalities for userinterface;(3) Whois capabilities consistent withthe technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are already on handor readily available to carry out thisfunction.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

Complete answer
demonstrates:

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of theregistration lifecycle that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Details of a fully developed
registration life cycle with definitionof various registration states,transition between the states, andtrigger points;(3) A registration lifecycle that is
consistent with any commitments toregistrants and with technical,
operational, and financial plansdescribed in the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level of

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
5 pages.

27

Registration Life Cycle: provide a detailed
description of the proposed registration lifecyclefor domain names in the proposed gTLD. The
description must:• explain the various registration states
as well as the criteria and proceduresthat are used to change state;• describe the typical registration lifecycleof create/update/delete and allintervening steps such as pending,locked, expired, and transferred that
may apply;• clearly explain any time elements thatare involved - for instance details of
add-grace or redemption grace
periods, or notice periods for renewals
or transfers; and• describe resourcing plans for this
aspect of the criteria (number andY

0-1(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of registration
lifecycles and states;(2) consistency with any
specific commitments madeto registrants as adapted tothe overall businessapproach for the proposed
gTLD; and(3) the ability to comply with
relevant RFCs.

A-20

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

description of personnel roles allocatedto this area).

Scoringresources that are already on handor committed or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

The description of the registration lifecycle
should be supplemented by the inclusion of astate diagram, which captures definitions,explanations of trigger points, and transitions
from state to state.
If applicable, provide definitions for aspects of
the registration lifecycle that are not covered bystandard EPP RFCs.
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 5 pages.
28

Abuse Prevention and Mitigation: Applicantsshould describe the proposed policies andprocedures to minimize abusive registrations andother activities that have a negative impact on
Internet users. A complete answer should
include, but is not limited to:• An implementation plan to establish andpublish on its website a single abuse pointof contact responsible for addressing
matters requiring expedited attention andproviding a timely response to abusecomplaints concerning all names
registered in the TLD through all registrarsof record, including those involving areseller;• Policies for handling complaints regarding
abuse;• Proposed measures for removal of orphan
glue records for names removed from thezone when provided with evidence in
written form that the glue is present inconnection with malicious conduct (seeSpecification 6); and• Resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).
To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must
include measures to promote Whois accuracy aswell as measures from one other area as

Y

Note that, while orphan glue often supports
correct and ordinary operation of the DNS,
registry operators will be required to takeaction to remove orphan glue records (asdefined at
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/s
ac048.pdf) when provided with evidence in
written form that such records are present inconnection with malicious conduct.

0-2Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) Comprehensive abusepolicies, which include
clear definitions of what
constitutes abuse in the
TLD, and proceduresthat will effectively
minimize potential forabuse in the TLD;
(2) Plans are adequately
resourced in theplanned costs detailed
in the financial section;(3) Policies and procedures
identify and address theabusive use ofregistered names atstartup and on an
ongoing basis; and(4) When executed inaccordance with theRegistry Agreement,
plans will result incompliance with
contractual
requirements.

2 – exceeds requirements: Response
meets all the attributes for a score of 1
and includes:(1) Details of measures to promote
Whois accuracy, using measures
specified here or other measurescommensurate in theireffectiveness; and(2) Measures from at least one
additional area to be eligible for 2
points as described in the question.
1 - meets requirements
Response includes:(1) An adequate description of abuse
prevention and mitigation policies
and procedures that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capabilities and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Details of well-developed abusepolicies and procedures;(3) Plans are sufficient to result incompliance with contractual
requirements;(4) Plans are consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach described in theapplication, and any commitments
made to registrants; and(5) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed, or readily available to

A-21

#

Question

described below.
•••

Measures to promote Whois accuracy(can be undertaken by the registry directly
or by registrars via requirements in theRegistry-Registrar Agreement (RRA))
may include, but are not limited to:o Authentication of registrant
information as complete andaccurate at time of registration.
Measures to accomplish this
could include performing
background checks, verifying all
contact information of principals
mentioned in registration data,
reviewing proof of establishment
documentation, and othermeans.
o Regular monitoring ofregistration data for accuracy
and completeness, employing
authentication methods, andestablishing policies andprocedures to address domainnames with inaccurate or
incomplete Whois data; ando If relying on registrars to enforce
measures, establishing policies
and procedures to ensurecompliance, which may include
audits, financial incentives,
penalties, or other means. Notethat the requirements of the RAA
will continue to apply to all
ICANN-accredited registrars.
A description of policies and proceduresthat define malicious or abusive behavior,capture metrics, and establish Service
Level Requirements for resolution,
including service levels for responding tolaw enforcement requests. This may
include rapid takedown or suspension
systems and sharing information
regarding malicious or abusive behavior
with industry partners;
Adequate controls to ensure proper
access to domain functions (can beundertaken by the registry directly or by

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

carry out this function.
0 – fails requirements
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A-22

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer describes
mechanisms designed to:

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes:(1) Identification of rights protection asa core objective, supported by awell-developed plan for rights
protection; and(2) Mechanisms for providing effective
protections that exceed minimum
requirements (e.g., RPMs in
addition to those required in theregistry agreement).
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of RPMs
that substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) A commitment from the applicant toimplement of rights protection
mechanisms sufficient to comply
with minimum requirements inSpecification 7;(3) Plans that are sufficient to result incompliance with contractual
requirements;

registrars via requirements in theRegistry-Registrar Agreement (RRA))
may include, but are not limited to:o Requiring multi-factor
authentication (i.e., strong
passwords, tokens, one-time
passwords) from registrants toprocess update, transfers, anddeletion requests;o Requiring multiple, unique pointsof contact to request and/or
approve update, transfer, anddeletion requests; ando Requiring the notification ofmultiple, unique points of contact
when a domain has been
updated, transferred, or deleted.
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 20 pages.
29

Rights Protection Mechanisms: Applicants mustdescribe how their registry will comply with
policies and practices that minimize abusive
registrations and other activities that affect thelegal rights of others, such as the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
system, and Trademark Claims and Sunrise
services at startup.
A complete answer should include:••

A description of how the registry
operator will implement safeguards
against allowing unqualified
registrations (e.g., registrations made in
violation of the registry’s eligibility
restrictions or policies), and reduce
opportunities for behaviors such as
phishing or pharming. At a minimum,
the registry operator must offer aSunrise period and a Trademark
Claims service during the required time
periods, and implement decisions
rendered under the URS on an ongoingbasis; andA description of resourcing plans for theY

0-2(1) prevent abusive
registrations, and(2) identify and address theabusive use of registerednames on an ongoing basis.

A-23

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

initial implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).

(4) Mechanisms that are consistent
with the technical, operational, andfinancial approach described in theapplication; and(5) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed, or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore a 1.

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include additional measures specific to rights
protection, such as abusive use policies, takedown
procedures, registrant pre-verification, orauthentication procedures, or other covenants.
A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages.
30(a) Security Policy: provide a summary of the
security policy for the proposed registry,including but not limited to:•••indication of any independent assessment
reports demonstrating security
capabilities, and provisions for periodic
independent assessment reports to test
security capabilities;
description of any augmented security
levels or capabilities commensurate with
the nature of the applied for gTLD string,
including the identification of any existing
international or industry relevant security
standards the applicant commits tofollowing (reference site must be
provided);
list of commitments made to registrants
concerning security levels.

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include:•Evidence of an independent assessment
report demonstrating effective security
controls (e.g., ISO 27001).

A summary of the above should be no more than
20 pages. Note that the complete security policy forthe registry is required to be submitted inaccordance with 30(b).

Scoring

Y

Criterion 5 calls for security levels to beappropriate for the use and level of trust
associated with the TLD string, such as, forexample, financial services oriented TLDs.
“Financial services” are activities performedby financial institutions, including: 1) the
acceptance of deposits and other repayable
funds; 2) lending; 3) payment andremittance services; 4) insurance orreinsurance services; 5) brokerage services;6) investment services and activities; 7)
financial leasing; 8) issuance of guarantees
and commitments; 9) provision of financial
advice; 10) portfolio management andadvice; or 11) acting as a financial
clearinghouse. Financial services is used as
an example only; other strings withexceptional potential to cause harm toconsumers would also be expected to
deploy appropriate levels of security.

0-2

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) detailed description ofprocesses and solutions
deployed to manage logicalsecurity across infrastructureand systems, monitoring anddetecting threats andsecurity vulnerabilities andtaking appropriate steps toresolve them;(2) security capabilities are
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical planadequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section;(4) security measures are
consistent with any
commitments made toregistrants regarding security
levels; and(5) security measures areappropriate for the appliedfor gTLD string (Forexample, applications forstrings with unique trust
implications, such as
financial services-oriented
strings, would be expected toprovide a commensurate
level of security).

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes:(1) Evidence of highly developed anddetailed security capabilities, withvarious baseline security levels,
independent benchmarking of
security metrics, robust periodic
security monitoring, and continuous
enforcement; and(2) an independent assessment reportis provided demonstrating effective
security controls are either in placeor have been designed, and arecommensurate with the applied-for
gTLD string. (This could be ISO
27001 certification or other wellestablished and recognized industry
certifications for the registry
operation. If new independent
standards for demonstration ofeffective security controls are
established, such as the High
Security Top Level Domain(HSTLD) designation, this could
also be included. An illustrative
example of an independent
standard is the proposed set of
requirements described in
http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/aba-bits-to-beckstromcrocker-20dec11-en.pdf.)
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes:

A-24

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring(1) Adequate description of security
policies and procedures that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capability andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) A description of adequate security
capabilities, including enforcementof logical access control, threat
analysis, incident response andauditing. Ad-hoc oversight andgovernance and leading practices
being followed;(3) Security capabilities consistent withthe technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application, and any
commitments made to registrants;(4) Demonstrates that an adequatelevel of resources are on hand,committed or readily available tocarry out this function; and(5) Proposed security measures arecommensurate with the nature of
the applied-for gTLD string.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score 1.
Demonstration ofTechnical &Operational
Capability (Internal)30(b) Security Policy: provide the complete security
policy and procedures for the proposed
registry, including but not limited to:• system (data, server, application /services) and network access control,
ensuring systems are maintained in asecure fashion, including details of how
they are monitored, logged and backedup;• resources to secure integrity of updates
between registry systems andnameservers, and between nameservers,
if any;• independent assessment reports
demonstrating security capabilities(submitted as attachments), if any;
• provisioning and other measures thatmitigate risks posed by denial of service
attacks;• computer and network incident response

N

Questions 30(b) – 44 are designed toprovide a description of the applicant’s
intended technical and operational approachfor those registry functions that are internal
to the infrastructure and operations of theregistry. To allow the applicant to provide
full details and safeguard proprietary
information, responses to these questions
will not be published.

A-25

#

Question

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

31

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer
demonstrates:

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes:(1) A description that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capabilities and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Technical plans consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication;(3) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed, or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

policies, plans, and processes;
plans to minimize the risk of unauthorizedaccess to its systems or tampering withregistry data;
intrusion detection mechanisms, a threat
analysis for the proposed registry, thedefenses that will be deployed against
those threats, and provision for periodic
threat analysis updates;
details for auditing capability on all
network access;physical security approach;
identification of department or groupresponsible for the registry’s security
organization;
background checks conducted on security
personnel;
description of the main security threats to
the registry operation that have been
identified; andresourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).

Technical Overview of Proposed Registry:
provide a technical overview of the proposed
registry.
The technical plan must be adequately
resourced, with appropriate expertise andallocation of costs. The applicant will provide
financial descriptions of resources in the next
section and those resources must be reasonably
related to these technical requirements.
The overview should include information on theestimated scale of the registry’s technicaloperation, for example, estimates for the numberof registration transactions and DNS queries permonth should be provided for the first two yearsof operation.
In addition, the overview should account for
geographic dispersion of incoming network trafficsuch as DNS, Whois, and registrar transactions.

N

To the extent this answer is affected by theapplicant's intent to outsource various
registry operations, the applicant should
describe these plans (e.g., taking advantage
of economies of scale or existing facilities).
However, the response must include
specifying the technical plans, estimatedscale, and geographic dispersion as
required by the question.

0-1(1) complete knowledge
and understanding oftechnical aspects of registry
requirements;(2) an adequate level ofresiliency for the registry’s
technical operations;(3) consistency withplanned or currently
deployedtechnical/operational
solutions;(4) consistency with theoverall business approachand planned size of theregistry;(5) adequate resourcing
for technical plan in the

A-26

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

ScoringRange

If the registry serves a highly localized registrant
base, then traffic might be expected to comemainly from one area.

Criteria

Scoringplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(6) consistency withsubsequent technicalquestions.

This high-level summary should not repeat
answers to questions below. Answers should
include a visual diagram(s) to highlightdataflows, to provide context for the overall
technical infrastructure. Detailed diagrams for
subsequent questions should be able to map
back to this high-level diagram(s). The visual
diagram(s) can be supplemented with
documentation, or a narrative, to explain how allof the Technical & Operational components
conform.
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
32

Architecture: provide documentation for thesystem and network architecture that will support
registry operations for the proposed scale of theregistry. System and network architecture
documentation must clearly demonstrate theapplicant’s ability to operate, manage, andmonitor registry systems. Documentation should
include multiple diagrams or other components
including but not limited to:• Detailed network diagram(s) showing the fullinterplay of registry elements, including but
not limited to SRS, DNS, Whois, data
escrow, and registry database functions;• Network and associated systems necessary
to support registry operations, including: Anticipated TCP / IP addressing scheme,
 Hardware (i.e., servers, routers,
networking components, virtual machines
and key characteristics (CPU and RAM,
Disk space, internal network connectivity,and make and model)), Operating system and versions, and Software and applications (with version
information) necessary to support registry
operations, management, and monitoring• General overview of capacity planning,
including bandwidth allocation plans;• List of providers / carriers; and• Resourcing plans for the initialN

0-2

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) detailed and coherent
network architecture;(2) architecture providing
resiliency for registrysystems;(3) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;and(4) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes(1) Evidence of highly developed anddetailed network architecture that isable to scale well above statedprojections for high registration
volumes, thereby significantly
reducing the risk from unexpectedvolume surges and demonstrates
an ability to adapt quickly to support
new technologies and services thatare not necessarily envisaged for
initial registry startup; and(2) Evidence of a highly available,robust, and secure infrastructure.
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of thearchitecture that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capabilities and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Plans for network architecture
describe all necessary elements;(3) Descriptions demonstrate adequate
network architecture providing
robustness and security of the

A-27

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnel roles
allocated to this area).

Scoringregistry;(4) Bandwidth and SLA are consistent
with the technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(5) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand, orcommitted or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include evidence of a network architecture
design that greatly reduces the risk profile of the
proposed registry by providing a level ofscalability and adaptability (e.g., protection
against DDoS attacks) that far exceeds theminimum configuration necessary for the
expected volume.
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
33

Database Capabilities: provide details of
database capabilities including but not limited to:•database software;•storage capacity (both in raw terms [e.g.,
MB, GB] and in number of registrations /registration transactions);•
maximum transaction throughput (in total
and by type of transaction);•
scalability;•
procedures for object creation, editing,and deletion, and user and credential
management;•high availability;•change management procedures;•
reporting capabilities; and•resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).
A registry database data model can be included toprovide additional clarity to this response.
Note: Database capabilities described should be inreference to registry services and not necessarily
related support functions such as Personnel or
Accounting, unless such services are inherently
intertwined with the delivery of registry services.
To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must alsoN

0-2Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of databasecapabilities to meet theregistry technicalrequirements;(2) database capabilities
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;and(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes(1) Highly developed and detailed
description of database capabilities
that are able to scale well above
stated projections for highregistration volumes, thereby
significantly reducing the risk from
unexpected volume surges anddemonstrates an ability to adapt
quickly to support new technologies
and services that are notnecessarily envisaged for registry
startup; and(2) Evidence of comprehensive
database capabilities, including highscalability and redundant databaseinfrastructure, regularly reviewed
operational and reporting
procedures following leading
practices.
1 - meets requirements:
Response includes(1) An adequate description of
database capabilities that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Plans for database capabilities

A-28

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

include evidence of database capabilities that
greatly reduce the risk profile of the proposed
registry by providing a level of scalability andadaptability that far exceeds the minimum
configuration necessary for the expected volume.

describe all necessary elements;(3) Descriptions demonstrate adequate
database capabilities, with databasethroughput, scalability, anddatabase operations with limited
operational governance;(4) Database capabilities are consistent
with the technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(5) Demonstrates that an adequatelevel of resources that are on hand,or committed or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
5 pages.

34

Geographic Diversity: provide a description ofplans for geographic diversity of:a.
b.

name servers, andoperations centers.

Answers should include, but are not limited to:• the intended physical locations ofsystems, primary and back-up
operations centers (including security
attributes), and other infrastructure;• any registry plans to use Anycast orother topological and geographicaldiversity measures, in which case, theconfiguration of the relevant service
must be included;• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
To be eligible for a score of 2, answers mustalso include evidence of a geographic diversity
plan that greatly reduces the risk profile of the
proposed registry by ensuring the continuanceof all vital business functions (as identified in theapplicant’s continuity plan in Question 39) in theevent of a natural or other disaster) at the
principal place of business or point of presence.

ScoringN

0-2Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) geographic diversity ofnameservers and operations
centers;(2) proposed geo-diversity
measures are consistent withthe overall businessapproach and planned sizeof the registry; and(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes(1) Evidence of highly developed
measures for geo-diversity ofoperations, with locations andfunctions to continue all vitalbusiness functions in the event of anatural or other disaster at the
principal place of business or pointof presence; and(2) A high level of availability, security,and bandwidth.
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of
Geographic Diversity that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Plans provide adequate geodiversity of name servers andoperations to continue criticalregistry functions in the event of atemporary outage at the principal
place of business or point ofpresence;(3) Geo-diversity plans are consistent

A-29

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

with technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) Demonstrates adequate resourcesthat are on hand, or committed orreadily available to carry out thisfunction.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 5 pages.

35

DNS Service: describe the configuration andoperation of nameservers, including how theapplicant will comply with relevant RFCs.
All name servers used for the new gTLD must be
operated in compliance with the DNS protocol
specifications defined in the relevant RFCs,
including but not limited to: 1034, 1035, 1982,
2181, 2182, 2671, 3226, 3596, 3597, 3901,
4343, and 4472.
•

•

•

•

Provide details of the intended DNS
Service including, but not limited to: A
description of the DNS services to beprovided, such as query rates to besupported at initial operation, andreserve capacity of the system.
Describe how your nameserver update
methods will change at various scales.
Describe how DNS performance willchange at various scales.
RFCs that will be followed – describe
how services are compliant with RFCs
and if these are dedicated or sharedwith any other functions(capacity/performance) or DNS zones.
The resources used to implement theservices - describe complete server
hardware and software, including
network bandwidth and addressing
plans for servers. Also include
resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
Demonstrate how the system will

Scoring

N

Note that the use of DNS wildcard resource
records as described in RFC 4592 or any
other method or technology for synthesizing
DNS resource records or using redirection
within the DNS by the registry is prohibitedin the Registry Agreement.
Also note that name servers for the newgTLD must comply with IANA Technicalrequirements for authoritative name servers:
http://www.iana.org/procedures/nameserver-requirements.html.

0-1Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) adequate description ofconfigurations ofnameservers andcompliance with respective
DNS protocol-related RFCs;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section;(4) evidence of compliancewith Specification 6 to theRegistry Agreement; and(5) evidence of complete
knowledge andunderstanding of
requirements for DNS
service, one of the fivecritical registry functions.

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes:(1) Adequate description of DNS
service that that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Plans are sufficient to result incompliance with DNS protocols(Specification 6, section 1.1)
and required performance
specifications Specification 10,
Service Level Matrix;(3) Plans are consistent withtechnical, operational, andfinancial approach as describedin the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate levelof resources that are on hand, orcommitted or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A-30

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) evidence of compliancewith Specification 6 to theRegistry Agreement.

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of IPv6
reachability that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) A description of an adequate
implementation plan addressing
requirements for IPv6 reachability,
indicating IPv6 reachability allowing
IPv6 transport in the network over
two independent IPv6 capable
networks in compliance to IPv4
IANA specifications, andSpecification 10;(3) IPv6 plans consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

function - describe how the proposed
infrastructure will be able to deliver the
performance described in Specification
10 (section 2) attached to the Registry
Agreement.
Examples of evidence include:• Server configuration standard (i.e.,planned configuration).
• Network addressing and bandwidth forquery load and update propagation.
• Headroom to meet surges.

36

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages.
IPv6 Reachability: provide a description of plansfor providing IPv6 transport including, but notlimited to:•
How the registry will support IPv6
access to Whois, Web-based Whois
and any other Registration Data
Publication Service as described inSpecification 6 (section 1.5) to theRegistry Agreement.
•
How the registry will comply with therequirement in Specification 6 forhaving at least two nameservers
reachable over IPv6.
• List all services that will be provided
over IPv6, and describe the IPv6
connectivity and provider diversity thatwill be used.
• Resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
A complete answer is expected to be no more than
5 pages.

N

IANA nameserver requirements areavailable at
http://www.iana.org/procedures/nameserver-requirements.html.

0-1

A-31

#
37

Question

Data Backup Policies & Procedures: provide•
details of frequency and procedures forbackup of data,•
hardware, and systems used for backup,•
data format,•
data backup features,•backup testing procedures,•procedures for retrieval of data/rebuild of
database,•storage controls and procedures, and•resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).

Included inpublicposting

N

Notes

ScoringRange

0-1

Criteria

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) detailed backup andretrieval processes
deployed;(2) backup and retrieval
process and frequency are
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;and(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section.

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 5 pages.

38

Data Escrow: describe• how the applicant will comply with thedata escrow requirements documented
in the Registry Data EscrowSpecification (Specification 2 of theRegistry Agreement); and• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
A complete answer is expected to be no more than
5 pagesN

0-1

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of data
escrow, one of the fivecritical registry functions;(2) compliance with
Specification 2 of theRegistry Agreement;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) the escrow arrangement
is consistent with the overallbusiness approach andsize/scope of the registry.

Scoring

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of backup
policies and procedures that
substantially demonstrate theapplicant’s capabilities andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) A description of leading practices
being or to be followed;(3) Backup procedures consistent withthe technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand, orcommitted or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore a 1.
1 – meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of a Data
Escrow process that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Data escrow plans are sufficient toresult in compliance with the Data
Escrow Specification (Specification
2 to the Registry Agreement);(3) Escrow capabilities are consistent
with the technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed, or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 – fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore a 1.

A-32

#
39

Question

Registry Continuity: describe how the applicant
will comply with registry continuity obligations as
described in Specification 6 (section 3) to theregistry agreement. This includes conducting
registry operations using diverse, redundantservers to ensure continued operation of critical
functions in the case of technical failure.

Included inpublicpostingN

The response should include, but is not limited
to, the following elements of the business
continuity plan:•••

Identification of risks and threats tocompliance with registry continuity
obligations;
Identification and definitions of vitalbusiness functions (which may include
registry services beyond the five criticalregistry functions) versus other registryfunctions and supporting operations andtechnology;
Definitions of Recovery Point Objectives
and Recovery Time Objective; andDescriptions of testing plans to promotecompliance with relevant obligations.

•Registry Transition: provide a Service Migration
plan (as described in the Registry Transition
Processes) that could be followed in the event

Scoring0-2Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) detailed description
showing plans forcompliance with registrycontinuity obligations;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) evidence of compliancewith Specification 6 to theRegistry Agreement.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes:(1) Highly developed and detailed
processes for maintaining registrycontinuity; and(2) Evidence of concrete steps, such asa contract with a backup service
provider or a maintained hot site.
1 - meets requirements: Response
includes:(1) Adequate description of a Registry
Continuity plan that substantiallydemonstrates capability andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Continuity plans are sufficient toresult in compliance withrequirements (Specification 6);(3) Continuity plans are consistent withthe technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed readily available to carryout this function.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

0-1

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge and1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of a registry

Vital business functions are functions thatare critical to the success of the operation.
For example, if a registry operator provides
an additional service beyond the five criticalregistry functions, that it deems as central to
its TLD, or supports an operation that iscentral to the TLD, this might be identified
as a vital business function.

A highly detailed plan that provides forleading practice levels of availability; andEvidence of concrete steps such as acontract with a backup provider (inaddition to any currently designatedservice operator) or a maintained hot site.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
15 pages.
40

Criteria

A Recovery Time Objective (RTO) is theduration of time within which a process must
be restored after a business disruption ordisaster to avoid what the entity may deemas unacceptable consequences. For
example, pursuant to the draft Registry
Agreement DNS service must not be down
for longer than 4 hours. At 4 hours ICANN
may invoke the use of an Emergency Back
End Registry Operator to take over thisfunction. The entity may deem this to be an
unacceptable consequence therefore they
may set their RTO to be something lessthan 4 hours and would build continuity
plans accordingly.

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include:•For reference, applicants should review theICANN gTLD Registry Continuity Plan at
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/continuity/
gtld-registry-continuity-plan-25apr09-en.pdf.

ScoringRange

A Recovery Point Objective (RPO) refers to
the point in time to which data should berecovered following a business disruption ordisaster. The RPO allows an organization todefine a window of time before a disruption
or disaster during which data may be lostand is independent of the time it takes to geta system back on-line.If the RPO of acompany is two hours, then when a system
is brought back on-line after adisruption/disaster, all data must be restored
to a point within two hours before thedisaster.

Describe resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing maintenance for,this aspect of the criteria (number anddescription of personnel roles allocated to thisarea).

•

Notes

N

A-33

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

ScoringRangethat it becomes necessary to permanently
transition the proposed gTLD to a new operator.
The plan must take into account, and beconsistent with the vital business functions
identified in the previous question.
Elements of the plan may include, but are notlimited to:•••Criteria

Scoringunderstanding of theRegistry Transition
Processes; and(2) a technical plan
scope/scale consistent withthe overall businessapproach and planned sizeof the registry.

transition plan that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) A description of an adequate
registry transition plan withappropriate monitoring during
registry transition; and(3) Transition plan is consistent withthe technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale consistent withthe overall businessapproach and planned sizeof the registry; and(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section.

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of a failover
testing plan that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) A description of an adequate failover
testing plan with an appropriate
level of review and analysis of
failover testing results;(3) Failover testing plan is consistent
with the technical, operational, andfinancial approach as described in
the application; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 – fails requirements
Does not meet all the requirements toscore a 1.

Preparatory steps needed for thetransition of critical registry functions;Monitoring during registry transitionand efforts to minimize any
interruption to critical registryfunctions during this time; andContingency plans in the event thatany part of the registry transition isunable to move forward according to
the plan.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages.
41

Failover Testing: provide• a description of the failover testing plan,
including mandatory annual testing of
the plan. Examples may include a
description of plans to test failover ofdata centers or operations to alternate
sites, from a hot to a cold facility,
registry data escrow testing, or othermechanisms. The plan must take into
account and be consistent with the vitalbusiness functions identified in
Question 39; and• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
The failover testing plan should include, but is not
limited to, the following elements:••

Types of testing (e.g., walkthroughs,
takedown of sites) and the frequency of
testing;
How results are captured, what is done

N

0-1

A-34

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) consistency with thecommitments made toregistrants and registrars
regarding system
maintenance.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 andincludes(1) Evidence showing highly developed
and detailed fault
tolerance/monitoring and redundant
systems deployed with real-timemonitoring tools / dashboard(metrics) deployed and reviewed
regularly;(2) A high level of availability that allows
for the ability to respond to faults
through a 24x7 response team.

with the results, and with whom results
are shared;
How test plans are updated (e.g., what
triggers an update, change management
processes for making updates);
Length of time to restore critical registryfunctions;
Length of time to restore all operations,
inclusive of critical registry functions; andLength of time to migrate from one site toanother.

••••

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan10 pages.
42

Monitoring and Fault Escalation Processes:
providea description of the proposed (or actual)arrangements for monitoring criticalregistry systems (including SRS, databasesystems, DNS servers, Whois service,
network connectivity, routers andfirewalls). This description should explain
how these systems are monitored and themechanisms that will be used for fault
escalation and reporting, and should
provide details of the proposed support
arrangements for these registry systems.
resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of the criteria(number and description of personnelroles allocated to this area).

••

To be eligible for a score of 2, answers must also
include:••Meeting the fault tolerance / monitoring
guidelines described
Evidence of commitment to provide a
24x7 fault response team.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages.

N

0-2

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) Adequate description of monitoring
and fault escalation processes that
substantially demonstrates theapplicant’s capability andknowledge required to meet thiselement;(2) Evidence showing adequate fault
tolerance/monitoring systems
planned with an appropriate level ofmonitoring and limited periodic
review being performed;(3) Plans are consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach described in theapplication; and(4) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,

A-35

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoringcommitted or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score 1.
43

DNSSEC: Provide• The registry’s DNSSEC policy statement(DPS), which should include the policies
and procedures the proposed registry
will follow, for example, for signing thezone file, for verifying and accepting DS
records from child domains, and forgenerating, exchanging, and storing
keying material;• Describe how the DNSSEC
implementation will comply with relevant
RFCs, including but not limited to:
RFCs 4033, 4034, 4035, 5910, 4509,
4641, and 5155 (the latter will only berequired if Hashed Authenticated Denialof Existence will be offered); and• resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 5 pages. Note, the DPS is required to besubmitted as part of the applicationN

0-1

Complete answer
demonstrates:(1) complete knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements, one of the fivecritical registry functions;(2) a technical plan
scope/scale that is
consistent with the overallbusiness approach andplanned size of the registry;(3) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section; and(4) an ability to comply with
relevant RFCs.

1 - meets requirements: Response
includes(1) An adequate description of
DNSSEC that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) Evidence that TLD zone files will besigned at time of launch, incompliance with required RFCs,
and registry offers provisioning
capabilities to accept public key
material from registrants throughthe SRS ;(3) An adequate description of key
management procedures in the
proposed TLD, including providing
secure encryption key management(generation, exchange, andstorage);(4) Technical plan is consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication; and(5) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are already on hand,committed or readily available tocarry out this function.
0 - fails requirements:
Does not meet all the requirements toscore 1.

A-36

#
44

Question

OPTIONAL.
IDNs:• State whether the proposed registry will
support the registration of IDN labels in
the TLD, and if so, how. For example,
explain which characters will besupported, and provide the associatedIDN Tables with variant characters
identified, along with a corresponding
registration policy. This includes public
interfaces to the databases such as
Whois and EPP.
• Describe how the IDN implementation
will comply with RFCs 5809-5893 as
well as the ICANN IDN Guidelines at
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/imple
mentation-guidelines.htm.
• Describe resourcing plans for the initial
implementation of, and ongoing
maintenance for, this aspect of thecriteria (number and description of
personnel roles allocated to this area).

Included inpublicpostingN

45

Financial Statements: provide• audited or independently certified
financial statements for the mostrecently completed fiscal year for theapplicant, and• audited or unaudited financial
statements for the most recently ended
interim financial period for the applicant
for which this information may bereleased.
For newly-formed applicants, or where financial
statements are not audited, provide:• the latest available unaudited financial
statements; and• an explanation as to why audited or
independently certified financial
statements are not available.
At a minimum, the financial statements should
be provided for the legal entity listed as theapplicant.

IDNs are an optional service at time oflaunch. Absence of IDN implementation orplans will not detract from an applicant’sscore. Applicants who respond to thisquestion with plans for implementation of
IDNs at time of launch will be scoredaccording to the criteria indicated here.

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

0-1

IDNs are an optional service.
Complete answer
demonstrates: (1) complete
knowledge andunderstanding of this aspectof registry technicalrequirements;(2) a technical plan that is
adequately resourced in theplanned costs detailed in thefinancial section;(3) consistency with thecommitments made toregistrants and thetechnical, operational, andfinancial approach describedin the application;(4) issues regarding use of
scripts are settled and IDN
tables are complete andpublicly available; and(5) ability to comply with
relevant RFCs.

1 - meets requirements for thisoptional element: Response includes(1) Adequate description of IDN
implementation that substantiallydemonstrates the applicant’s
capability and knowledge required
to meet this element;(2) An adequate description of the IDN
procedures, including complete IDN
tables, compliance with IDNA/IDN
guidelines and RFCs, and periodic
monitoring of IDN operations;(3) Evidence of ability to resolve
rendering and known IDN issues orspoofing attacks;(4) IDN plans are consistent with thetechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication; and(5) Demonstrates an adequate level ofresources that are on hand,committed readily available to carryout this function.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

0-1

Audited or independently
certified financial statements
are prepared in accordancewith International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS)
adopted by the International
Accounting Standards Board(IASB) or nationallyrecognized accounting
standards (e.g., GAAP). This
will include a balance sheet
and income statement
reflecting the applicant’s
financial position and resultsof operations, a statement ofshareholders equity/partner
capital, and a cash flow
statement. In the event theapplicant is an entity newly
formed for the purpose of
applying for a gTLD and withlittle to no operating history

1 - meets requirements: Complete
audited or independently certified
financial statements are provided, at thehighest level available in the applicant’s
jurisdiction. Where such audited or
independently certified financial
statements are not available, such as for
newly-formed entities, the applicant has
provided an explanation and has
provided, at a minimum, unaudited
financial statements.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score 1.

IDN tables should be submitted in amachine-readable format. The model format
described in Section 5 of RFC 4290 would
be ideal. The format used by RFC 3743 is
an acceptable alternative. Variant
generation algorithms that are more
complex (such as those with contextual
rules) and cannot be expressed using thesetable formats should be specified in amanner that could be re-implemented
programmatically by ICANN. Ideally, for any
complex table formats, a reference code
implementation should be provided inconjunction with a description of thegeneration rules.

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages plus attachments.
Demonstration of
Financial Capability

Notes

N

The questions in this section (45-50) areintended to give applicants an opportunity todemonstrate their financial capabilities torun a registry.
Supporting documentation for this question
should be submitted in the original
language.

A-37

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

ScoringRange

A complete answer should include:• balance sheet;• income statement;• statement of shareholders equity/partner
capital;• cash flow statement, and• letter of auditor or independentcertification, if applicable.

Projections Template: provide financial
projections for costs and funding using Template
1, Most Likely Scenario (attached).

Scoring(less than one year), theapplicant must submit, at aminimum, pro forma financial
statements including allcomponents listed in thequestion. Where audited or
independently certified
financial statements are notavailable, applicant has
provided an adequate
explanation as to theaccounting practices in its
jurisdiction and has provided,
at a minimum, unaudited
financial statements.

Financial statements are used in the analysis ofprojections and costs.

46

CriteriaN

0-1

Note, if certain services are outsourced, reflect
this in the relevant cost section of the template.

The template is intended to provide commonality
among TLD applications and thereby facilitate
the evaluation process.

Applicant’s description ofprojections development issufficient to show due
diligence.

1 - meets requirements:(1) Financial projections adequately
describe the cost, funding and risks
for the application(2) Demonstrates resources and planfor sustainable operations; and(3) Financial assumptions about theregistry operations, funding andmarket are identified, explained, andsupported.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meetall of the requirements to score a 1.

Costs identified areconsistent with the proposed
registry services, adequately
fund technical requirements,
and are consistent withproposed mission/purpose of
the registry. Costs projected
are reasonable for a registryof size and scope describedin the application. Costs
identified include the funding
costs (interest expenses andfees) related to the continued
operations instrument
described in Question 50
below.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all of the attributes for a score of
1 and:(1) Estimated costs and assumptions
are conservative and consistent with
an operation of the registryvolume/scope/size as described by
the applicant;(2) Estimates are derived from actual
examples of previous or existingregistry operations or equivalent;and(3) Conservative estimates are basedon those experiences and describea range of anticipated costs and use
the high end of those estimates.

Applicant has provided athorough model that
demonstrates a sustainablebusiness (even if break-even
is not achieved through thefirst three years ofoperation).

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages in addition to the template.
47

Costs and capital expenditures: in conjunction withthe financial projections template, describe andexplain:• the expected operating costs andcapital expenditures of setting up andoperating the proposed registry;• any functions to be outsourced, as
indicated in the cost section of thetemplate, and the reasons foroutsourcing;• any significant variances between years
in any category of expected costs; and• a description of the basis / key
assumptions including rationale for thecosts provided in the projections
template. This may include anNThis question is based on the template
submitted in question 46.

0-2

A-38

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

executive summary or summary
outcome of studies, reference data, orother steps taken to develop the
responses and validate any
assumptions made.

Criteria

Key assumptions and theirrationale are clearly
described and may include,
but are not limited to:• Key components ofcapitalexpenditures;• Key components ofoperating costs, unit
operating costs,
headcount, numberoftechnical/operating/equipment units,marketing, andother costs; and• Costs of outsourcing,
if any.

As described in the Applicant Guidebook, theinformation provided will be considered in light ofthe entire application and the evaluation criteria.
Therefore, this answer should agree with theinformation provided in Template 1 to: 1)
maintain registry operations, 2) provide registry
services described above, and 3) satisfy thetechnical requirements described in the
Demonstration of Technical & Operational
Capability section. Costs should include both
fixed and variable costs.
To be eligible for a score of two points, answers
must demonstrate a conservative estimate ofcosts based on actual examples of previous orexisting registry operations with similar approachand projections for growth and costs orequivalent. Attach reference material for such
examples.

Scoring

1 - meets requirements:(1) Cost elements are reasonable andcomplete (i.e., cover all of the
aspects of registry operations:registry services, technicalrequirements and other aspects as
described by the applicant);(2) Estimated costs and assumptions
are consistent and defensible with
an operation of the registryvolume/scope/size as described by
the applicant; and(3) Projections are reasonably alignedwith the historical financial
statements provided in Question 45.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
(b) Describe anticipated ranges in projected
costs. Describe factors that affect those ranges.

N

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
48(a) Funding and Revenue: Funding can bederived from several sources (e.g., existing
capital or proceeds/revenue from operation of
the proposed registry).
Describe:I) How existing funds will provide resources forboth: a) start-up of operations, and b) ongoing
operations;II) the revenue model including projections fortransaction volumes and price (if the applicant
does not intend to rely on registration revenue inorder to cover the costs of the registry's

N

Supporting documentation for this question
should be submitted in the original
language.

0-2

Funding resources areclearly identified andadequately provide forregistry cost projections.
Sources of capital funding
are clearly identified, held
apart from other potential
uses of those funds andavailable. The plan fortransition of funding sourcesfrom available capital torevenue from operations (ifapplicable) is described.

2 - exceeds requirements:
Response meets all the attributes for ascore of 1 and(1) Existing funds (specifically all funds
required for start-up) are quantified,on hand, segregated in an accountavailable only to the applicant for
purposes of the application only, ;(2) If on-going operations are to be atleast partially resourced fromexisting funds (rather than revenue
from on-going operations) thatfunding is segregated and

A-39

#

Question

operation, it must clarify how the funding for theoperation will be developed and maintained in astable and sustainable manner);
III) outside sources of funding (the applicant
must, where applicable, provide evidence of thecommitment by the party committing the funds).
Secured vs unsecured funding should be clearly
identified, including associated sources offunding (i.e., different types of funding, level andtype of security/collateral, and key items) for
each type of funding;IV) Any significant variances between years inany category of funding and revenue; andV) A description of the basis / key assumptions
including rationale for the funding and revenue
provided in the projections template. This may
include an executive summary or summary
outcome of studies, reference data, or othersteps taken to develop the responses andvalidate any assumptions made; andVI) Assurances that funding and revenue
projections cited in this application are consistent
with other public and private claims made topromote the business and generate support.
To be eligible for a score of 2 points, answers
must demonstrate:I)
II)

A conservative estimate of funding andrevenue; andOngoing operations that are notdependent on projected revenue.

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Outside sources of funding
are documented and verified.
Examples of evidence forfunding sources include, but
are not limited to:earmarked for this purpose only inan amount adequate for three years
operation;(3) If ongoing operations are to be atleast partially resourced fromrevenues, assumptions made areconservative and take into
consideration studies, referencedata, or other steps taken todevelop the response and validate
any assumptions made; and(4) Cash flow models are preparedwhich link funding and revenue
assumptions to projected actual
business activity.
1 - meets requirements:(1) Assurances provided that materials
provided to investors and/or lenders
are consistent with the projections
and assumptions included in the
projections templates;(2) Existing funds (specifically all funds
required for start-up) are quantified,committed, identified as available tothe applicant;(3) If on-going operations are to be atleast partially resourced fromexisting funds (rather than revenue
from on-going operations) thatfunding is quantified and its sources
identified in an amount adequate forthree years operation;(4) If ongoing operations are to be atleast partially resourced fromrevenues, assumptions made arereasonable and are directly related
to projected business volumes,
market size and penetration; andExecuted funding
agreements;• A letter of credit;• A commitment
letter; or• A bank statement.
•

Funding commitments may
be conditional on theapproval of the application.
Sources of capital funding
required to sustain registry
operations on an on-goingbasis are identified. The
projected revenues are
consistent with the size andprojected penetration of thetarget markets.
Key assumptions and theirrationale are clearly
described and address, at aminimum:•

A complete answer is expected to be no more than
10 pages.
•

Key components ofthe funding planand their key terms;
andPrice and number ofregistrations.

(5) Projections are reasonably alignedwith the historical financial
statements provided in Question 45.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

A-40

#

Question(b) Describe anticipated ranges in projected
funding and revenue. Describe factors that affectthose ranges.

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

ScoringN

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
49(a) Contingency Planning: describe yourcontingency planning:
•

•

•

N

Identify any projected barriers/risks to
implementation of the businessapproach described in the applicationand how they affect cost, funding,revenue, or timeline in your planning;
Identify the impact of any particularregulation, law or policy that might
impact the Registry Services offering;andDescribe the measures to mitigate thekey risks as described in this question.

A complete answer should include, for eachcontingency, a clear description of the impact toprojected revenue, funding, and costs for the 3year period presented in Template 1 (Most Likely
Scenario).

0-2

Contingencies and risks are
identified, quantified, andincluded in the cost,
revenue, and funding
analyses. Action plans are
identified in the event
contingencies occur. The
model is resilient in the event
those contingencies occur.
Responses address theprobability and resource
impact of the contingencies
identified.

2 - exceeds requirements: Response
meets all attributes for a score of 1 and:
(1) Action plans and operations areadequately resourced in the existingfunding and revenue plan even if
contingencies occur.
1 - meets requirements:(1) Model adequately identifies the key
risks (including operational,
business, legal, jurisdictional,
financial, and other relevant risks);(2) Response gives consideration toprobability and resource impact ofcontingencies identified; and(3) If resources are not available to fundcontingencies in the existing plan,funding sources and a plan for
obtaining them are identified.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

To be eligible for a score of 2 points, answers
must demonstrate that action plans andoperations are adequately resourced in theexisting funding and revenue plan even if
contingencies occur.
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan10 pages.
(b) Describe your contingency planning where
funding sources are so significantly reduced thatmaterial deviations from the implementation
model are required. In particular, describe:• how on-going technical requirements
will be met; and• what alternative funding can bereasonably raised at a later time.

N

Provide an explanation if you do not believe
there is any chance of reduced funding.

A-41

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

Figures provided are basedon an accurate estimate ofcosts. Documented evidence
or detailed plan for ability tofund on-going critical registryfunctions for registrants for aperiod of three years in theevent of registry failure,default or until a successor
operator can be designated.
Evidence of financial
wherewithal to fund thisrequirement prior todelegation. This requirement
must be met prior to or
concurrent with theexecution of the Registry
Agreement.

3 - exceeds requirements:
Response meets all the attributes for ascore of 1 and:(1) Financial instrument is secured andin place to provide for on-going
operations for at least three years in
the event of failure.
1 - meets requirements:(1) Costs are commensurate withtechnical, operational, and financial
approach as described in theapplication; and(2) Funding is identified and instrument
is described to provide for on-going
operations of at least three years in
the event of failure.
0 - fails requirements: Does not meet
all the requirements to score a 1.

Complete a financial projections template(Template 2, Worst Case Scenario)
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages, in addition to the template.
(c) Describe your contingency planningwhere activity volumes so significantly exceed
the high projections that material deviation fromthe implementation model are required. In
particular, how will on-going technicalrequirements be met?

N

A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
50(a) Provide a cost estimate for funding criticalregistry functions on an annual basis, and arationale for these cost estimatescommensurate with the technical,
operational, and financial approachdescribed in the application.
The critical functions of a registry whichmust be supported even if an applicant’sbusiness and/or funding fails are:(1) DNS resolution for registered domain
names
Applicants should consider ranges ofvolume of daily DNS queries (e.g., 0100M, 100M-1B, 1B+), theincremental costs associated withincreasing levels of such queries, andthe ability to meet SLA performance
metrics.
(2) Operation of the Shared Registration
SystemApplicants should consider ranges ofvolume of daily EPP transactions(e.g., 0-200K, 200K-2M, 2M+), theincremental costs associated withN

Registrant protection is critical and thus newgTLD applicants are requested to provide
evidence indicating that the critical functions
will continue to be performed even if theregistry fails. Registrant needs are bestprotected by a clear demonstration that thebasic registry functions are sustained for an
extended period even in the face of registry
failure. Therefore, this section is weighted
heavily as a clear, objective measure toprotect and serve registrants.
The applicant has two tasks associated withadequately making this demonstration ofcontinuity for critical registry functions. First,
costs for maintaining critical registrant
protection functions are to be estimated(Part a). In evaluating the application, theevaluators will adjudge whether the estimate
is reasonable given the systems
architecture and overall business approachdescribed elsewhere in the application.

0-3

The Continuing Operations Instrument (COI)
is invoked by ICANN if necessary to pay for
an Emergency Back End Registry Operator(EBERO) to maintain the five critical registryfunctions for a period of three to five years.
Thus, the cost estimates are tied to the cost
for a third party to provide the functions, not

A-42

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

increasing levels of such queries, andthe ability to meet SLA performance
metrics.

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

to the applicant’s actual in-house or
subcontracting costs for provision of thesefunctions.
Refer to guidelines at
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/an
nouncement-3-23dec11-en.htm regarding
estimation of costs. However, the applicant
must provide its own estimates andexplanation in response to this question.

(3) Provision of Whois service
Applicants should consider ranges ofvolume of daily Whois queries (e.g.,0-100K, 100k-1M, 1M+), theincremental costs associated withincreasing levels of such queries, andthe ability to meet SLA performance
metrics for both web-based and port43 services.
(4) Registry data escrow deposits
Applicants should consider
administration, retention, and transfer
fees as well as daily deposit (e.g., fullor incremental) handling. Costs mayvary depending on the size of the files
in escrow (i.e., the size of the registrydatabase).
(5) Maintenance of a properly signed
zone in accordance with DNSSEC
requirements.
Applicants should consider ranges ofvolume of daily DNS queries (e.g., 0100M, 100M-1B, 1B+), theincremental costs associated withincreasing levels of such queries, andthe ability to meet SLA performance
metrics.
List the estimated annual cost for each of thesefunctions (specify currency used).
A complete answer is expected to be no morethan 10 pages.
(b) Applicants must provide evidence as to how
the funds required for performing these criticalregistry functions will be available andguaranteed to fund registry operations (for theprotection of registrants in the new gTLD) for aN

Second (Part b), methods of securing thefunds required to perform those functions forat least three years are to be described by
the applicant in accordance with the criteria
below. Two types of instruments will fulfill

A-43

#

Question

minimum of three years following the terminationof the Registry Agreement. ICANN has identified
two methods to fulfill this requirement:(i) Irrevocable standby letter of credit (LOC)
issued by a reputable financial institution.
•
The amount of the LOC must be equal toor greater than the amount required to fund theregistry operations specified above for at least
three years. In the event of a draw upon theletter of credit, the actual payout would be tied tothe cost of running those functions.
•
The LOC must name ICANN or its
designee as the beneficiary. Any funds paid out
would be provided to the designee who is
operating the required registry functions.
•
The LOC must have a term of at least five
years from the delegation of the TLD. The LOC
may be structured with an annual expiration date
if it contains an evergreen provision providing forannual extensions, without amendment, for anindefinite number of periods until the issuingbank informs the beneficiary of its final expirationor until the beneficiary releases the LOC as
evidenced in writing. If the expiration dateoccurs prior to the fifth anniversary of thedelegation of the TLD, applicant will be required
to obtain a replacement instrument.
•
The LOC must be issued by a reputablefinancial institution insured at the highest level in
its jurisdiction. Documentation should indicate
by whom the issuing institution is insured (i.e., as
opposed to by whom the institution is rated).
•
The LOC will provide that ICANN or its
designee shall be unconditionally entitled to arelease of funds (full or partial) thereunder upondelivery of written notice by ICANN or its
designee.
•
Applicant should attach an original copy ofthe executed letter of credit or a draft of the letterof credit containing the full terms and conditions.
If not yet executed, the Applicant will be required
to provide ICANN with an original copy of theexecuted LOC prior to or concurrent with theexecution of the Registry Agreement.
•
The LOC must contain at least thefollowing required elements:oIssuing bank and date of issue.
oBeneficiary: ICANN / 4676 Admiralty

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

this requirement. The applicant must identify
which of the two methods is being
described. The instrument is required to bein place at the time of the execution of theRegistry Agreement.
Financial Institution Ratings: The
instrument must be issued or held by afinancial institution with a rating beginningwith “A” (or the equivalent) by any of thefollowing rating agencies: A.M. Best,
Dominion Bond Rating Service, EganJones, Fitch Ratings, Kroll Bond Rating
Agency, Moody’s, Morningstar, Standard &Poor’s, and Japan Credit Rating Agency.
If an applicant cannot access a financial
institution with a rating beginning with “A,”but a branch or subsidiary of such an
institution exists in the jurisdiction of theapplying entity, then the instrument may be
issued by the branch or subsidiary or by alocal financial institution with an equivalentor higher rating to the branch or subsidiary.
If an applicant cannot access any suchfinancial institutions, the instrument may be
issued by the highest-rated financial
institution in the national jurisdiction of theapplying entity, if accepted by ICANN.
Execution by ICANN: For any financial
instruments that contemplate ICANN beinga party, upon the written request of theapplicant, ICANN may (but is not obligatedto) execute such agreement prior to
submission of the applicant's application if
the agreement is on terms acceptable to
ICANN. ICANN encourages applicants todeliver a written copy of any suchagreement (only if it requires ICANN'ssignature) to ICANN as soon as possible tofacilitate ICANN's review. If the financial
instrument requires ICANN's signature, thenthe applicant will receive 3 points forquestion 50 (for the instrument being"secured and in place") only if ICANN
executes the agreement prior to submissionof the application. ICANN will determine, in

A-44

#

QuestionWay, Suite 330 / Marina del Rey, CA 90292 /US, or its designee.
oApplicant’s complete name and address.
o
LOC identifying number.
oExact amount in USD.
oExpiry date.
oAddress, procedure, and required forms
whereby presentation for payment is to be made.
o
Conditions:
Partial drawings from the letter of credit
may be made provided that such payment shall
reduce the amount under the standby letter ofcredit.
All payments must be marked with theissuing bank name and the bank’s standby letterof credit number.

LOC may not be modified, amended, or
amplified by reference to any other document,
agreement, or instrument.

The LOC is subject to the International
Standby Practices (ISP 98) International
Chamber of Commerce (Publication No. 590), or
to an alternative standard that has been
demonstrated to be reasonably equivalent.

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoring

its sole discretion, whether to execute andbecome a party to a financial instrument.
The financial instrument should besubmitted in the original language.

(ii) A deposit into an irrevocable cash escrowaccount held by a reputable financial institution.
•
The amount of the deposit must be equal
to or greater than the amount required to fundregistry operations for at least three years.
•
Cash is to be held by a third party
financial institution which will not allow the funds
to be commingled with the Applicant’s operating
funds or other funds and may only be accessedby ICANN or its designee if certain conditions
are met.
•The account must be held by a reputablefinancial institution insured at the highest level in
its jurisdiction. Documentation should indicate bywhom the issuing institution is insured (i.e., as
opposed to by whom the institution is rated).
•
The escrow agreement relating to theescrow account will provide that ICANN or its
designee shall be unconditionally entitled to arelease of funds (full or partial) thereunder upondelivery of written notice by ICANN or its
designee.
•
The escrow agreement must have a term

A-45

#

Question

Included inpublicposting

Notes

Scoring
Range

Criteria

Scoringof five years from the delegation of the TLD.
•
The funds in the deposit escrow accountare not considered to be an asset of ICANN.
•
Any interest earnings less bank fees areto accrue to the deposit, and will be paid back to
the applicant upon liquidation of the account to
the extent not used to pay the costs andexpenses of maintaining the escrow.
•
The deposit plus accrued interest, lessany bank fees in respect of the escrow, is to be
returned to the applicant if the funds are notused to fund registry functions due to a triggering
event or after five years, whichever is greater.
•
The Applicant will be required to provide
ICANN an explanation as to the amount of thedeposit, the institution that will hold the deposit,
and the escrow agreement for the account at thetime of submitting an application.
•
Applicant should attach evidence of
deposited funds in the escrow account, orevidence of provisional arrangement for depositof funds. Evidence of deposited funds and termsof escrow agreement must be provided to
ICANN prior to or concurrent with the executionof the Registry Agreement.

A-46

Instructions: TLD Applicant – Financial Projections
The application process requires the applicant to submit two cash basis Financial Projections.
The first projection (Template 1) should show the Financial Projections associated with the Most Likely
scenario expected. This projection should include the forecasted registration volume, registration fee,and all costs and capital expenditures expected during the start-up period and during the first three
years of operations. Template 1 relates to Question 46 (Projections Template) in the application.
We also ask that applicants show as a separate projection (Template 2) the Financial Projections
associated with a realistic Worst Case scenario. Template 2 relates to Question 49 (Contingency
Planning) in the application.
For each Projection prepared, please include Comments and Notes on the bottom of the projection (inthe area provided) to provide those reviewing these projections with information regarding:
1. Assumptions used, significant variances in Operating Cash Flows and Capital Expenditures fromyear-to-year;
2. How you plan to fund operations;
3. Contingency planningAs you complete Template 1 and Template 2, please reference data points and/or formulas used in yourcalculations (where appropriate).

Section I – Projected Cash inflows and outflows
Projected Cash Inflows
Lines A and B. Provide the number of forecasted registrations and the registration fee for years 1, 2, and3. Leave the Start-up column blank. The start-up period is for cash costs and capital expenditures only;
there should be no cash projections input to this column.
Line C. Multiply lines A and B to arrive at the Registration Cash Inflow for line C.
Line D. Provide projected cash inflows from any other revenue source for years 1, 2, and 3. For any
figures provided on line D, please disclose the source in the Comments/Notes box of Section I. Note, do
not include funding in Line D as that is covered in Section VI.
Line E. Add lines C and D to arrive at the total cash inflow.
Projected Operating Cash Outflows
Start up costs - For all line items (F thru L) Please describe the total period of time this start-up cost is
expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.

Line F. Provide the projected labor costs for marketing, customer support, and technical support forstart-up, year 1, year 2, and year 3. Note, other labor costs should be put in line L (Other Costs) andspecify the type of labor and associated projected costs in the Comments/Notes box of this section.
Line G. Marketing Costs represent the amount spent on advertising, promotions, and other marketing
activities. This amount should not include labor costs included in Marketing Labor (line F).
Lines H through K. Provide projected costs for facilities, G&A, interests and taxes, and Outsourcing forstart-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Be sure to list the type of activities that are being outsourced.
You may combine certain activities from the same provider as long as an appropriate description of theservices being combined is listed in the Comments/Notes box.
Line L. Provide any other projected operating costs for start-up, year 1, year 2, year 3. Be sure to specify
the type of cost in the Comments/Notes box.
Line M. Add lines F through L to arrive at the total costs for line M.
Line N. Subtract line E from line M to arrive at the projected net operation number for line N.

Section IIa – Breakout of Fixed and Variable Operating Cash Outflows
Line A. Provide the projected variable operating cash outflows including labor and other costs that are
not fixed in nature. Variable operating cash outflows are expenditures that fluctuate in relationship withincreases or decreases in production or level of operations.
Line B. Provide the projected fixed operating cash outflows. Fixed operating cash outflows are
expenditures that do not generally fluctuate in relationship with increases or decreases in production orlevel of operations. Such costs are generally necessary to be incurred in order to operate the base line
operations of the organization or are expected to be incurred based on contractual commitments.
Line C – Add lines A and B to arrive at total Fixed and Variable Operating Cash Outflows for line C. This
must equal Total Operating Cash Outflows from Section I, Line M.

Section IIb – Breakout of Critical Registry Function Operating Cash Outflows
Lines A – E. Provide the projected cash outflows for the five critical registry functions. If these functions
are outsourced, the component of the outsourcing fee representing these functions must be separately
identified and provided. These costs are based on the applicant's cost to manage these functions andshould be calculated separately from the Continued Operations Instrument (COI) for Question 50.
Line F. If there are other critical registry functions based on the applicant’s registry business model thenthe projected cash outflow for this function must be provided with a description added to theComment/Notes box. This projected cash outflow may also be included in the 3-year reserve.
Line G. Add lines A through F to arrive at the Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows.

Section III – Projected Capital Expenditures
Lines A through C. Provide projected hardware, software, and furniture & equipment capital
expenditures for start-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please describe the total period of time thestart-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.
Line D. Provide any projected capital expenditures as a result of outsourcing. This should be included
for start-up and years 1, 2, and 3. Specify the type of expenditure and describe the total period of time
the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box of Section III.
Line E – Please describe “other” capital expenditures in the Comments/Notes box.
Line F. Add lines A through E to arrive at the Total Capital Expenditures.

Section IV – Projected Assets & Liabilities
Lines A through C. Provide projected cash, account receivables, and other current assets for start-up as
well as for years 1, 2, and 3. For Other Current Assets, specify the type of asset and describe the total
period of time the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.
Line D. Add lines A, B, C to arrive at the Total Current Assets.
Lines E through G. Provide projected accounts payable, short-term debt, and other current liabilities forstart-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. For Other Current Liabilities, specify the type of liability anddescribe the total period of time the start-up up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.
Line H. Ad lines E through G to arrive at the total current liabilities.
Lines I through K. Provide the projected fixed assets (PP&E), the 3-year reserve, and long-term assets forstart-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please describe the total period of time the start-up cost is
expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.
Line L. Ad lines I through K to arrive at the total long-term assets.
Line M. Provide the projected long-term debt for start-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please describe
the total period of time the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box

Section V – Projected Cash Flow
Cash flow is driven by Projected Net Operations (Section I), Projected Capital Expenditures (Section III),and Projected Assets & Liabilities (Section IV).
Line A. Provide the projected net operating cash flows for start-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please
describe the total period of time the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.

Line B. Provide the projected capital expenditures for start-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please
describe the total period of time the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box ofSection V.
Lines C through F. Provide the projected change in non-cash current assets, total current liabilities, debt
adjustments, and other adjustments for start-up as well as for years 1, 2, and 3. Please describe the total
period of time the start-up cost is expected to cover in the Comments/Notes box.
Line G. Add lines A through F to arrive at the projected net cash flow for line H.

Section VI – Sources of Funds
Lines A & B. Provide projected funds from debt and equity at start-up. Describe the sources of debt andequity funding as well as the total period of time the start-up is expected to cover in theComments/Notes box. Please also provide evidence the funding (e.g., letter of commitment).
Line C. Add lines A and B to arrive at the total sources of funds for line C.

General Comments – Regarding Assumptions Used, Significant Variances
Between Years, etc.
Provide explanations for any significant variances between years (or expected in years beyond thetimeframe of the template) in any category of costing or funding.

General Comments – Regarding how the Applicant Plans to Fund Operations
Provide general comments explaining how you will fund operations. Funding should be explained indetail in response to question 48.

General Comments – Regarding Contingencies
Provide general comments to describe your contingency planning. Contingency planning should be
explained in detail in response to question 49.

TLD Applicant -- Financial Projections : Sample
In local currency (unless noted otherwise)
Reference / FormulaSec.

Start-up Costs

I) Projected Cash Inflows and Outflows
A) Forecasted registration volume

Year 1-B) Registration fee$C) Registration cash inflows
D) Other cash inflows-

A*B

Year 262,000$Comments / Notes
Provide name of local currency used.

Live / Operational

5.00

Year 381,600$5.50

105,180$

6.05

Registration was forecasted based on recent market surveys
which we have attached and disccused below.
We do not anticipate significant increases in Registration Fees
subsequent to year 3.

-

310,000
35,000448,800
48,000636,33962,000-345,000

496,800

698,339

25,00066,00072,00081,0005,000
32,00040,0007,000
14,00027,50068,00045,00044,00010,000112,000
29,00071,00047,00026,40012,000122,500
29,80074,00049,00031,68014,400136,000
30,760i) Hot site maintenance

5,000

7,500

7,500

7,500

ii) Partial Registry Functions

32,00037,50041,00043,000iii) {list type of activities being outsourced}iv) {list type of activities being outsourced}v) {list type of activities being outsourced}vi) {list type of activities being outsourced}L) Other Operating Costs
M) Total Operating Cash Outflows

12,200199,700

18,000437,000

21,600450,800

25,920493,260(199,700)(92,000)

46,000205,079

92,000195,250

198,930

217,416

Variable Costs:-Start Up equals all labor plus 75% of marketing.
-Years 1 through 3 equal 75% of all labor plus 50% ofMarketing, and 30% of G&A and Other Operating Costs

107,700

241,750

251,870

275,844

Fixed Costs: equals Total Costs less Variable Costs

199,700-

437,000-

450,800-

493,260-

Check that II) C equals I) N.

E) Total Cash Inflows

Projected Operating Cash OutflowsF) Labor:i) Marketing Laborii) Customer Support Laboriii) Technical LaborG) MarketingH) Facilities
I) General & AdministrativeJ) Interest and TaxesK) Outsourcing Operating Costs, if any (list the type of activities being outsourced):N) Projected Net Operating Cash flow

E-M

IIa) Break out of Fixed and Variable Operating Cash Outflows
A) Total Variable Operating Costs

B) Total Fixed Operating Costs
C) Total Operating Cash Outflows= Sec. I) M
CHECK

IIb) Break out of Critical Registry Function Operating Cash Outflows

Other cash inflows represent advertising monies expectedfrom display ads on our website.

Costs are further detailed and explained in response toquestion 47.

Provide a list and associated cost for each outsourced
function.
Outsourcing hot site to ABC Company, cost based on numberof servers hosted and customer support
Outsourced certain registry and other functions to ABC
registry {applicant should list outsourced functions }. Costs foreach year are based on expected domains undermanagement

Note: these are based on the applicant's cost to manage
these functions and should be calculated separately from theContinued Operations Instrument (COI) for Question 50

A) Operation of SRSB) Provision of Whois
C) DNS Resolution for Registered Domain Names
D) Registry Data EscrowE) Maintenance of Zone in accordance with DNSSECF) OtherG) Total Critical Function Cash Outflows

5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000

5,500
6,600
7,700
8,800
9,900

6,050
7,260
8,470
9,680
10,890-35,00038,50042,35098,00032,00043,00021,00018,00022,00016,00024,00014,00058,00011,00016,000----

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

ii)

-

-

-

-

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

iii)

-

-

-

-

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

iv)

-

-

-

-

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

v)

-

-

-

-

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

vi)

-

-

-

-

List and describe each identifiable type of outsourcing.

173,000

61,00054,00085,000668,300

668,300

474,300
70,00040,000584,300

413,300
106,000
60,000579,300

471,679
160,000
80,000711,679

41,000110,000

113,000

125,300

III) Projected Capital ExpendituresA) HardwareB) SoftwareC) Furniture & Other Equipment

D) Outsourcing Capital Expenditures, if any (list the type of capital expenditures)i)E) Other Capital ExpendituresF) Total Capital ExpendituresIV) Projected Assets & Liabilities
A) CashB) Accounts receivableC) Other current assetsD) Total Current Assets
E) Accounts payableF) Short-term Debt
G) Other Current Liabilities
H) Total Current Liabilities
I) Total Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E)= Sec III) F: cumulative
Prior Years + Cur YrJ) 3-year ReserveK) Other Long-term AssetsL) Total Long-term AssetsM) Total Long-term Debt

V) Projected Cash flow (excl. 3-year Reserve)A) Net operating cash flowsB) Capital expendituresC) Change in Non Cash Current Assets
D) Change in Total Current Liabilities= Sec. I) N
= Sec. III) FE= Sec. IV) (B+C):
Prior Yr - Cur Yr= Sec. IV) H:
Cur Yr - Prior Yr= Sec IV) F and M:
Cur Yr - Prior Yr

E) Debt Adjustments
F) Other Adjustments
G) Projected Net Cash flow

41,000110,000

113,000

125,300

173,000

234,000

288,000

373,000

186,000

186,000

186,000

186,000

359,000

420,000

474,000

559,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000(199,700)(173,000)n/a(92,000)(61,000)(110,000)

46,000(54,000)(56,000)

205,079(85,000)(74,000)

41,00069,0003,000

12,300---(331,700)(194,000)(61,000)

58,379n/aCommensurate with Question 24
Commensurate with Question 26
Commensurate with Question 35
Commensurate with Question 38
Commensurate with Question 43-Hardware & Software have a useful life of 3 years-Furniture & other equipment have a useful life of 5 years

Should equal amount calculated for Question 50

Principal payments on the line of credit with XYZ Bank will not
be incurred until Year 5. Interest will be paid as incurred andis reflected in Sec I) J.

The $41k in Start Up Costs represents an offset of the
Accounts Payable reflected in the Projected balance sheet.
Subsequent years are based on changes in Current Liabilities
where Prior Year is subtracted from the Current yearVI) Sources of funds

A) Debt:i) On-hand at time of application

1,000,000ii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet onhandB) Equity:i) On-hand at time of applicationii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet onhandC) Total Sources of funds

1,000,000

See below for comments on funding. Revenues are further
detailed and explained in response to question 48.

-

General Comments (Notes Regarding Assumptions Used, Significant Variances Between Years, etc.):
We expect the number of registrations to grow at approximately 30% per year with an increase in the registration fee of $1 per year for the first three years. These volume assumptions are based on the attached (i) market
data and (ii) published benchmark regsitry growth. Fee assumptions are aligned with the growth plan and anticipated demand based on the regsitration curve. We anticipate our costs will increase at a controlled pace overthe first three years except for marketing costs which will be higher in the start-up and first year as we establish our brand name and work to increase registrations. Operating costs are supported by the attached (i)benchmark report for a basket of similar registries and (ii) a build-up of costs based on our current operations. Our capital expenditures will be greatest in the start-up phase and then our need to invest in computer
hardware and software will level off after the start-up period. Capital expenses are based on contract drafts and discussions held with vendors. We have included and referenced the hardware costs to support theestimates. Our investment in Furniture and Equipment will be greatest in the start-up period as we build our infrastructure and then decrease in the following periods.
Start-up: Our start-up phase is anticpated to comprise [X] months in line with benchmark growth curves indicated by prior start-ups and published market data. Our assumptions were derived from the attached support.

Comments regarding how the Applicant plans to Fund operations:
We have recently negotiated a line of credit with XYZ Bank (a copy of the fully executed line of credit agreement has been included with our application) and this funding will allow us to purchase necessary equipment andpay for employees and other Operating Costs during our start-up period and the first few years of operations. We expect that our business operation will be self funded (i.e., revenue from operations will cover all
anticipated costs and capital expenditures) by the second half of our second year in operation; we also expect to become profitable with positive cash flow in year three.
General Comments regarding contingencies:
Although we expect to be cash flow positive by the end of year 2, the recently negotiated line of credit will cover our operating costs for the first 4 years of operation if necessary. We have also entered into an agreementwith XYZ Co. to assume our registrants should our business model not have the ability to sustain itself in future years. Agreement with XYZ Co. has been included with our application. A full description of risks and a rangeof potential outcomes and impacts are included in our responses to Question 49. These responses have quantified the impacts of certain probabilites and our negotiated funding and action plans as shown, are adequate tofund our our Worst Case ScenerioTemplate 1 ‐ Financial Projections: Most Likely
In local currency (unless noted otherwise)
Reference / FormulaSec.

Start‐up Costs

I) Projected Cash inflows and outflows
A) Forecasted registration volumeB) Registration feeC) Registration cash inflows
D) Other cash inflowsE) Total Cash Inflows‐

Comments / Notes
Provide name of local currency used.

Live / OperationalYear 1

Year 2

Year 3

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Projected Operating Cash OutflowsF) Labor:i) Marketing Laborii) Customer Support Laboriii) Technical LaborG) MarketingH) Facilities
I) General & AdministrativeJ) Interest and TaxesK) Outsourcing Operating Costs, if any (list the type of activities being outsourced):i) {list type of activities being outsourced}ii) {list type of activities being outsourced}iii) {list type of activities being outsourced}iv) {list type of activities being outsourced}v) {list type of activities being outsourced}vi) {list type of activities being outsourced}L) Other Operating costsM) Total Operating Cash Outflows

‐

‐

‐

‐

N) Projected Net Operating Cash flow

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

G) Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows

‐

‐

‐

‐

H) 3‐year Total

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

D) Total Current Assets

‐

‐

‐

‐

H) Total Current Liabilities

‐

‐

‐

‐

I) Total Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E)
J) 3‐year ReserveK) Other Long‐term AssetsL) Total Long‐term Assets

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐

‐

‐

IIa) Break out of Fixed and Variable Operating Cash Outflows
A) Total Variable Operating Costs
B) Total Fixed Operating Costs
C) Total Operating Cash Outflows
CHECKIIb) Break out of Critical Function Operating Cash Outflows
A) Operation of SRSB) Provision of Whois
C) DNS Resolution for Registered Domain Names
D) Registry Data EscrowE) Maintenance of Zone in accordance with DNSSEC

III) Projected Capital ExpendituresA) HardwareB) SoftwareC) Furniture & Other Equipment
D) Outsourcing Capital Expenditures, if any (list the type of capital expenditures)
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
E) Other Capital ExpendituresF) Total Capital ExpendituresIV) Projected Assets & Liabilities
A) CashB) Accounts receivableC) Other current assets

E) Accounts payableF) Short‐term Debt
G) Other Current Liabilities

M) Total Long‐term Debt

V) Projected Cash flow (excl. 3‐year Reserve)A) Net operating cash flows
C) Capital expendituresD) Change in Non Cash Current Assets
E) Change in Total Current Liabilities
F) Debt Adjustments
G) Other Adjustments
H) Projected Net Cash flow

n/a
‐
n/a
‐

VI) Sources of funds
A) Debt:i) On‐hand at time of applicationii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet on‐handB) Equity:i) On‐hand at time of applicationii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet on‐handC) Total Sources of funds‐

General Comments (Notes Regarding Assumptions Used, Significant Variances Between Years, etc.):

Comments regarding how the Applicant plans to Fund operations:

General Comments regarding contingencies:Template 2 ‐ Financial Projections: Worst CaseIn local currency (unless noted otherwise)
Reference / FormulaSec.

Start‐up Costs

I) Projected Cash inflows and outflows
A) Forecasted registration volumeB) Registration feeC) Registration cash inflows
D) Other cash inflowsE) Total Cash Inflows‐

Comments / Notes
Provide name of local currency used.

Live / OperationalYear 1

Year 2

Year 3

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

Projected Operating Cash OutflowsF) Labor:i) Marketing Laborii) Customer Support Laboriii) Technical LaborG) MarketingH) Facilities
I) General & AdministrativeJ) Interest and TaxesK) Outsourcing Operating Costs, if any (list the type of activities being outsourced):i) {list type of activities being outsourced}ii) {list type of activities being outsourced}iii) {list type of activities being outsourced}iv) {list type of activities being outsourced}v) {list type of activities being outsourced}vi) {list type of activities being outsourced}L) Other Operating costsM) Total Operating Cash Outflows

‐

‐

‐

‐

N) Projected Net Operating Cash flow

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

G) Total Critical Registry Function Cash Outflows

‐

‐

‐

‐

H) 3‐year Total

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

D) Total Current Assets

‐

‐

‐

‐

H) Total Current Liabilities

‐

‐

‐

‐

I) Total Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E)
J) 3‐year ReserveK) Other Long‐term AssetsL) Total Long‐term Assets

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐
‐

‐

‐

‐

‐

‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐
‐
‐
‐
‐

‐

‐

‐

IIa) Break out of Fixed and Variable Operating Cash Outflows
A) Total Variable Operating Costs
B) Total Fixed Operating Costs
C) Total Operating Cash Outflows
CHECKIIb) Break out of Critical Function Operating Cash Outflows
A) Operation of SRSB) Provision of Whois
C) DNS Resolution for Registered Domain Names
D) Registry Data EscrowE) Maintenance of Zone in accordance with DNSSEC

III) Projected Capital ExpendituresA) HardwareB) SoftwareC) Furniture & Other Equipment
D) Outsourcing Capital Expenditures, if any (list the type of capital expenditures)
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
E) Other Capital ExpendituresF) Total Capital ExpendituresIV) Projected Assets & Liabilities
A) CashB) Accounts receivableC) Other current assets

E) Accounts payableF) Short‐term Debt
G) Other Current Liabilities

M) Total Long‐term Debt

V) Projected Cash flow (excl. 3‐year Reserve)A) Net operating cash flows
C) Capital expendituresD) Change in Non Cash Current Assets
E) Change in Total Current Liabilities
F) Debt Adjustments
G) Other Adjustments
H) Projected Net Cash flow

n/a
‐
n/a
‐

VI) Sources of funds
A) Debt:i) On‐hand at time of applicationii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet on‐handB) Equity:i) On‐hand at time of applicationii) Contingent and/or committed but not yet on‐handC) Total Sources of funds‐

General Comments (Notes Regarding Assumptions Used, Significant Variances Between Years, etc.):

Comments regarding how the Applicant plans to Fund operations:

General Comments regarding contingencies:

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 3

4 June 2012

Module 3
Objection ProceduresThis module describes two types of mechanisms that may
affect an application:I.

The procedure by which ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee may provide GAC Advice on
New gTLDs to the ICANN Board of Directors
concerning a specific application. This module
describes the purpose of this procedure, and how
GAC Advice on New gTLDs is considered by the
ICANN Board once received.

II.

The dispute resolution procedure triggered by aformal objection to an application by a third party.
This module describes the purpose of the objection
and dispute resolution mechanisms, the grounds for
lodging a formal objection to a gTLD application,
the general procedures for filing or responding to
an objection, and the manner in which dispute
resolution proceedings are conducted.
This module also discusses the guiding principles, orstandards, that each dispute resolution panel will
apply in reaching its expert determination.
All applicants should be aware of the possibility thata formal objection may be filed against any
application, and of the procedures and options
available in the event of such an objection.

3.1

GAC Advice on New gTLDs

ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee was formed toconsider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN asthey relate to concerns of governments, particularly
matters where there may be an interaction between
ICANN's policies and various laws and international
agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.
The process for GAC Advice on New gTLDs is intended toaddress applications that are identified by governments tobe problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national law
or raise sensitivities.
GAC members can raise concerns about any application
to the GAC. The GAC as a whole will consider concerns

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-2

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Proceduresraised by GAC members, and agree on GAC advice toforward to the ICANN Board of Directors.
The GAC can provide advice on any application. For the
Board to be able to consider the GAC advice during theevaluation process, the GAC advice would have to besubmitted by the close of the Objection Filing Period (seeModule 1).
GAC Advice may take one of the following forms:
I. The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the
GAC that a particular application should not proceed.
This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN
Board that the application should not be approved.
II. The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns abouta particular application “dot-example.” The ICANN
Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC
to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Boardis also expected to provide a rationale for its decision.
III. The GAC advises ICANN that an application should notproceed unless remediated. This will raise a strong
presumption for the Board that the application should
not proceed unless there is a remediation method
available in the Guidebook (such as securing theapproval of one or more governments), that is
implemented by the applicant.
Where GAC Advice on New gTLDs is received by the Board
concerning an application, ICANN will publish the Advice
and endeavor to notify the relevant applicant(s) promptly.
The applicant will have a period of 21 calendar days fromthe publication date in which to submit a response to the
ICANN Board.
ICANN will consider the GAC Advice on New gTLDs as soon
as practicable. The Board may consult with independent
experts, such as those designated to hear objections in the
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure, in cases where
the issues raised in the GAC advice are pertinent to one of
the subject matter areas of the objection procedures. The
receipt of GAC advice will not toll the processing of any
application (i.e., an application will not be suspended but
will continue through the stages of the application
process).

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-3

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

3.2

Public Objection and Dispute
Resolution Process

The independent dispute resolution process is designed toprotect certain interests and rights. The process provides apath for formal objections during evaluation of theapplications. It allows a party with standing to have its
objection considered before a panel of qualified experts.
A formal objection can be filed only on four enumerated
grounds, as described in this module. A formal objection
initiates a dispute resolution proceeding. In filing anapplication for a gTLD, the applicant agrees to accept theapplicability of this gTLD dispute resolution process.
Similarly, an objector accepts the applicability of this gTLD
dispute resolution process by filing its objection.
As described in section 3.1 above, ICANN’s Governmental
Advisory Committee has a designated process forproviding advice to the ICANN Board of Directors on
matters affecting public policy issues, and these objection
procedures would not be applicable in such a case. The
GAC may provide advice on any topic and is not limited to
the grounds for objection enumerated in the public
objection and dispute resolution process.

3.2.1

Grounds for Objection

A formal objection may be filed on any one of thefollowing four grounds:
String Confusion Objection – The applied-for gTLD string isconfusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another appliedfor gTLD string in the same round of applications.
Legal Rights Objection – The applied-for gTLD string
infringes the existing legal rights of the objector.
Limited Public Interest Objection – The applied-for gTLD
string is contrary to generally accepted legal norms of
morality and public order that are recognized underprinciples of international law.
Community Objection – There is substantial opposition to
the gTLD application from a significant portion of thecommunity to which the gTLD string may be explicitly or
implicitly targeted.
The rationales for these objection grounds are discussed in
the final report of the ICANN policy development process
for new gTLDs. For more information on this process, see

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-4

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta08aug07.htm.

3.2.2

Standing to Object

Objectors must satisfy standing requirements to have theirobjections considered. As part of the dispute proceedings,
all objections will be reviewed by a panel of experts
designated by the applicable Dispute Resolution Service
Provider (DRSP) to determine whether the objector has
standing to object. Standing requirements for the four
objection grounds are:
Objection groundWho may object

String confusion

Existing TLD operator or gTLD applicant in current round.
In the case where an IDN ccTLD Fast Track request has
been submitted before the public posting of gTLD
applications received, and the Fast Track requestor wishes
to file a string confusion objection to a gTLD application, theFast Track requestor will be granted standing.

Legal rights

Rightsholders

Limited public interest

No limitations on who may file – however, subject to a“quick look” designed for early conclusion of frivolous and/or
abusive objections

Community

Established institution associated with a clearly delineatedcommunity

3.2.2.1

String Confusion Objection

Two types of entities have standing to object:•

An existing TLD operator may file a string confusion
objection to assert string confusion between an
applied-for gTLD and the TLD that it currently
operates.

•

Any gTLD applicant in this application round may
file a string confusion objection to assert string
confusion between an applied-for gTLD and thegTLD for which it has applied, where string
confusion between the two applicants has notalready been found in the Initial Evaluation. That is,an applicant does not have standing to object toanother application with which it is already in acontention set as a result of the Initial Evaluation.

In the case where an existing TLD operator successfully
asserts string confusion with an applicant, the application
will be rejected.
In the case where a gTLD applicant successfully asserts
string confusion with another applicant, the only possible

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-5

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

outcome is for both applicants to be placed in acontention set and to be referred to a contention
resolution procedure (refer to Module 4, String Contention
Procedures). If an objection by one gTLD applicant toanother gTLD application is unsuccessful, the applicants
may both move forward in the process without being
considered in direct contention with one another.

3.2.2.2

Legal Rights Objection

A rightsholder has standing to file a legal rights objection.
The source and documentation of the existing legal rights
the objector is claiming (which may include either
registered or unregistered trademarks) are infringed by theapplied-for gTLD must be included in the filing.
An intergovernmental organization (IGO) is eligible to file alegal rights objection if it meets the criteria for registrationof a .INT domain name 1:a) An international treaty between or among national
governments must have established the organization;andb) The organization that is established must be widely
considered to have independent international legal
personality and must be the subject of and governedby international law.
The specialized agencies of the UN and the organizations
having observer status at the UN General Assembly arealso recognized as meeting the criteria.

3.2.2.3

Limited Public Interest Objection

Anyone may file a Limited Public Interest Objection. Due tothe inclusive standing base, however, objectors are subject
to a “quick look” procedure designed to identify andeliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. An objection
found to be manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of theright to object may be dismissed at any time.
A Limited Public Interest objection would be manifestly
unfounded if it did not fall within one of the categories thathave been defined as the grounds for such an objection(see subsection 3.5.3).
A Limited Public Interest objection that is manifestly
unfounded may also be an abuse of the right to object. An
objection may be framed to fall within one of the1

See also http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy/.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-6

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

accepted categories for Limited Public Interest objections,but other facts may clearly show that the objection is
abusive. For example, multiple objections filed by the sameor related parties against a single applicant may constituteharassment of the applicant, rather than a legitimate
defense of legal norms that are recognized under generalprinciples of international law. An objection that attacks
the applicant, rather than the applied-for string, could be
an abuse of the right to object. 2
The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointmentby the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection.
The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded
and/or an abuse of the right to object would be an Expert
Determination, rendered in accordance with Article 21 of
the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.
In the case where the quick look review does lead to thedismissal of the objection, the proceedings that normallyfollow the initial submissions (including payment of the fulladvance on costs) will not take place, and it is currently
contemplated that the filing fee paid by the applicant
would be refunded, pursuant to Procedure Article 14(e).

3.2.2.4

Community Objection

Established institutions associated with clearly delineatedcommunities are eligible to file a community objection. The
community named by the objector must be a community
strongly associated with the applied-for gTLD string in theapplication that is the subject of the objection. To qualify
for standing for a community objection, the objector must
prove both of the following:

2 The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights offers specific examples of how the term “manifestly ill-founded” hasbeen interpreted in disputes relating to human rights. Article 35(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides: “The
Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 which it considers incompatible with theprovisions of the Convention or the protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of application.” The ECHR
renders reasoned decisions on admissibility, pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention. (Its decisions are published on the Court’s
website http://www.echr.coe.int.) In some cases, the Court briefly states the facts and the law and then announces its decision,
without discussion or analysis. E.g., Decision as to the Admissibility of Application No. 34328/96 by Egbert Peree against theNetherlands (1998). In other cases, the Court reviews the facts and the relevant legal rules in detail, providing an analysis to support
its conclusion on the admissibility of an application. Examples of such decisions regarding applications alleging violations of Article
10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) include: Décision sur la recevabilité de la requête no 65831/01 présentée par Roger
Garaudy contre la France (2003); Décision sur la recevabilité de la requête no 65297/01 présentée par Eduardo Fernando Alves
Costa contre le Portugal (2004).
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights also provides examples of the abuse of the right of application being
sanctioned, in accordance with ECHR Article 35(3). See, for example, Décision partielle sur la recevabilité de la requête no61164/00 présentée par Gérard Duringer et autres contre la France et de la requête no 18589/02 contre la France (2003).

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-7

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

It is an established institution – Factors that may beconsidered in making this determination include, but are
not limited to:•Level of global recognition of the institution;•

Length of time the institution has been in existence;and•Public historical evidence of its existence, such as
the presence of a formal charter or national orinternational registration, or validation by agovernment, inter-governmental organization, or
treaty. The institution must not have been
established solely in conjunction with the gTLD
application process.

It has an ongoing relationship with a clearly delineatedcommunity – Factors that may be considered in making
this determination include, but are not limited to:•

The presence of mechanisms for participation in
activities, membership, and leadership;•

Institutional purpose related to the benefit of theassociated community;•

Performance of regular activities that benefit theassociated community; and•The level of formal boundaries around thecommunity.

The panel will perform a balancing of the factors listed
above, as well as other relevant information, in making its
determination. It is not expected that an objector must
demonstrate satisfaction of each and every factor
considered in order to satisfy the standing requirements.

3.2.3

Dispute Resolution Service Providers

To trigger a dispute resolution proceeding, an objection
must be filed by the posted deadline date, directly with theappropriate DRSP for each objection ground.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

The International Centre for Dispute Resolution has
agreed to administer disputes brought pursuant tostring confusion objections.

•

The Arbitration and Mediation Center of the WorldIntellectual Property Organization has agreed toadminister disputes brought pursuant to legal rights
objections.

3-8

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures•

The International Center of Expertise of theInternational Chamber of Commerce has agreed
to administer disputes brought pursuant to Limited
Public Interest and Community Objections.

ICANN selected DRSPs on the basis of their relevant
experience and expertise, as well as their willingness andability to administer dispute proceedings in the new gTLD
Program. The selection process began with a public call for
expressions of interest 3 followed by dialogue with thosecandidates who responded. The call for expressions ofinterest specified several criteria for providers, including
established services, subject matter expertise, global
capacity, and operational capabilities. An important
aspect of the selection process was the ability to recruit
panelists who will engender the respect of the parties tothe dispute.

3.2.4

Options in the Event of Objection

Applicants whose applications are the subject of an
objection have the following options:
The applicant can work to reach a settlement with theobjector, resulting in withdrawal of the objection or theapplication;
The applicant can file a response to the objection andenter the dispute resolution process (refer to Section 3.2); or
The applicant can withdraw, in which case the objector
will prevail by default and the application will not proceedfurther.
If for any reason the applicant does not file a response toan objection, the objector will prevail by default.

3.2.5

Independent Objector

A formal objection to a gTLD application may also be filedby the Independent Objector (IO). The IO does not act onbehalf of any particular persons or entities, but acts solely inthe best interests of the public who use the global Internet.
In light of this public interest goal, the Independent
Objector is limited to filing objections on the grounds ofLimited Public Interest and Community.

3

See http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21dec07.htm.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-9

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

Neither ICANN staff nor the ICANN Board of Directors has
authority to direct or require the IO to file or not file any
particular objection. If the IO determines that an objection
should be filed, he or she will initiate and prosecute theobjection in the public interest.
Mandate and Scope - The IO may file objections against“highly objectionable” gTLD applications to which no
objection has been filed. The IO is limited to filing two typesof objections: (1) Limited Public Interest objections and (2)Community objections. The IO is granted standing to fileobjections on these enumerated grounds, notwithstanding
the regular standing requirements for such objections (seesubsection 3.1.2).
The IO may file a Limited Public Interest objection against
an application even if a Community objection has been
filed, and vice versa.
The IO may file an objection against an application,
notwithstanding the fact that a String Confusion objection
or a Legal Rights objection was filed.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, the IO is not permitted
to file an objection to an application where an objection
has already been filed on the same ground.
The IO may consider public comment when making an
independent assessment whether an objection is
warranted. The IO will have access to applicationcomments received during the comment period.
In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shallnot object to an application unless at least one commentin opposition to the application is made in the publicsphere.
Selection – The IO will be selected by ICANN, through an
open and transparent process, and retained as anindependent consultant. The Independent Objector will be
an individual with considerable experience and respect in
the Internet community, unaffiliated with any gTLD
applicant.
Although recommendations for IO candidates from thecommunity are welcomed, the IO must be and remain
independent and unaffiliated with any of the gTLD
applicants. The various rules of ethics for judges andinternational arbitrators provide models for the IO todeclare and maintain his/her independence.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-10

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

The IO’s (renewable) tenure is limited to the time necessary
to carry out his/her duties in connection with a single roundof gTLD applications.
Budget and Funding – The IO’s budget would comprise two
principal elements: (a) salaries and operating expenses,
and (b) dispute resolution procedure costs – both of whichshould be funded from the proceeds of new gTLD
applications.
As an objector in dispute resolution proceedings, the IO isrequired to pay filing and administrative fees, as well as
advance payment of costs, just as all other objectors are
required to do. Those payments will be refunded by the
DRSP in cases where the IO is the prevailing party.
In addition, the IO will incur various expenses in presenting
objections before DRSP panels that will not be refunded,
regardless of the outcome. These expenses include thefees and expenses of outside counsel (if retained) and thecosts of legal research or factual investigations.

3.3

Filing Procedures

The information included in this section provides a summaryof procedures for filing:•

Objections; and•Responses to objections.

For a comprehensive statement of filing requirements
applicable generally, refer to the New gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure (“Procedure”) included as an
attachment to this module. In the event of any
discrepancy between the information presented in thismodule and the Procedure, the Procedure shall prevail.
Note that the rules and procedures of each DRSP specificto each objection ground must also be followed. See
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/objectiondispute-resolution.

3.3.1

Objection Filing Procedures

The procedures outlined in this subsection must be followedby any party wishing to file a formal objection to an
application that has been posted by ICANN. Should an
applicant wish to file a formal objection to another gTLD
application, it would follow these same procedures.
•

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

All objections must be filed electronically with theappropriate DRSP by the posted deadline date.

3-11

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

Objections will not be accepted by the DRSPs after
this date.
•

All objections must be filed in English.

•

Each objection must be filed separately. An
objector wishing to object to several applications
must file a separate objection and pay theaccompanying filing fees for each application thatis the subject of an objection. If an objector wishes
to object to an application on more than one
ground, the objector must file separate objections
and pay the accompanying filing fees for eachobjection ground.

Each objection filed by an objector must include:•

The name and contact information of the objector.

•

A statement of the objector’s basis for standing;that is, why the objector believes it meets thestanding requirements to object.

•

A description of the basis for the objection,
including:•

A statement giving the specific ground uponwhich the objection is being filed.

A detailed explanation of the validity of theobjection and why it should be upheld.

Copies of any documents that the objector
considers to be a basis for the objection.

Objections are limited to 5000 words or 20 pages,
whichever is less, excluding attachments.
An objector must provide copies of all submissions to the
DRSP associated with the objection proceedings to theapplicant.
The DRSP will publish, and regularly update a list on its
website identifying all objections as they are filed. ICANN
will post on its website a notice of all objections filed oncethe objection filing period has closed.

3.3.2

Objection Filing FeesAt the time an objection is filed, the objector is required to
pay a filing fee in the amount set and published by therelevant DRSP. If the filing fee is not paid, the DRSP will

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-12

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

dismiss the objection without prejudice. See Section 1.5 ofModule 1 regarding fees.
Funding from ICANN for objection filing fees, as well as foradvance payment of costs (see subsection 3.4.7 below) isavailable to the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).
Funding for ALAC objection filing and dispute resolution
fees is contingent on publication by ALAC of its approved
process for considering and making objections. At aminimum, the process for objecting to a gTLD application
will require: bottom-up development of potential
objections, discussion and approval of objections at theRegional At-Large Organization (RALO) level, and aprocess for consideration and approval of the objection by
the At-Large Advisory Committee.
Funding from ICANN for objection filing fees, as well as foradvance payment of costs, is available to individual
national governments in the amount of USD 50,000 with theguarantee that a minimum of one objection per
government will be fully funded by ICANN where
requested. ICANN will develop a procedure for applicationand disbursement of funds.
Funding available from ICANN is to cover costs payable tothe dispute resolution service provider and made directly
to the dispute resolution service provider; it does not coverother costs such as fees for legal advice.

3.3.3

Response Filing ProceduresUpon notification that ICANN has published the list of all
objections filed (refer to subsection 3.3.1), the DRSPs will
notify the parties that responses must be filed within 30
calendar days of receipt of that notice. DRSPs will not
accept late responses. Any applicant that fails to respondto an objection within the 30-day response period will be in
default, which will result in the objector prevailing.
•

All responses must be filed in English.

•

Each response must be filed separately. That is, anapplicant responding to several objections must filea separate response and pay the accompanying
filing fee to respond to each objection.

•

Responses must be filed electronically.

Each response filed by an applicant must include:•

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

The name and contact information of theapplicant.

3-13

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures•

A point-by-point response to the claims made by
the objector.

•

Any copies of documents that it considers to be abasis for the response.

Responses are limited to 5000 words or 20 pages, whicheveris less, excluding attachments.
Each applicant must provide copies of all submissions to
the DRSP associated with the objection proceedings to theobjector.

3.3.4

Response Filing FeesAt the time an applicant files its response, it is required to
pay a filing fee in the amount set and published by therelevant DRSP, which will be the same as the filing fee paidby the objector. If the filing fee is not paid, the response will
be disregarded, which will result in the objector prevailing.

3.4

Objection Processing Overview

The information below provides an overview of the process
by which DRSPs administer dispute proceedings that havebeen initiated. For comprehensive information, please referto the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure (included as
an attachment to this module).

3.4.1

Administrative Review

Each DRSP will conduct an administrative review of eachobjection for compliance with all procedural rules within 14
calendar days of receiving the objection. Depending on
the number of objections received, the DRSP may ask
ICANN for a short extension of this deadline.
If the DRSP finds that the objection complies withprocedural rules, the objection will be deemed filed, andthe proceedings will continue. If the DRSP finds that theobjection does not comply with procedural rules, the DRSP
will dismiss the objection and close the proceedings
without prejudice to the objector’s right to submit a new
objection that complies with procedural rules. The DRSP’sreview or rejection of the objection will not interrupt thetime limit for filing an objection.

3.4.2

Consolidation of Objections

Once the DRSP receives and processes all objections, at its
discretion the DRSP may elect to consolidate certain
objections. The DRSP shall endeavor to decide upon

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-14

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

consolidation prior to issuing its notice to applicants thatthe response should be filed and, where appropriate, shallinform the parties of the consolidation in that notice.
An example of a circumstance in which consolidation
might occur is multiple objections to the same application
based on the same ground.
In assessing whether to consolidate objections, the DRSP
will weigh the efficiencies in time, money, effort, andconsistency that may be gained by consolidation against
the prejudice or inconvenience consolidation may cause.
The DRSPs will endeavor to have all objections resolved ona similar timeline. It is intended that no sequencing ofobjections will be established.
New gTLD applicants and objectors also will be permitted
to propose consolidation of objections, but it will be at the
DRSP’s discretion whether to agree to the proposal.
ICANN continues to strongly encourage all of the DRSPs toconsolidate matters whenever practicable.

3.4.3

Mediation

The parties to a dispute resolution proceeding areencouraged—but not required—to participate inmediation aimed at settling the dispute. Each DRSP has
experts who can be retained as mediators to facilitate thisprocess, should the parties elect to do so, and the DRSPs
will communicate with the parties concerning this option
and any associated fees.
If a mediator is appointed, that person may not serve on
the panel constituted to issue an expert determination in
the related dispute.
There are no automatic extensions of time associated withthe conduct of negotiations or mediation. The parties may
submit joint requests for extensions of time to the DRSP
according to its procedures, and the DRSP or the panel, if
appointed, will decide whether to grant the requests,
although extensions will be discouraged. Absent
exceptional circumstances, the parties must limit theirrequests for extension to 30 calendar days.
The parties are free to negotiate without mediation at any
time, or to engage a mutually acceptable mediator of
their own accord.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-15

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

3.4.4

Selection of Expert Panels

A panel will consist of appropriately qualified experts
appointed to each proceeding by the designated DRSP.
Experts must be independent of the parties to a dispute
resolution proceeding. Each DRSP will follow its adopted
procedures for requiring such independence, including
procedures for challenging and replacing an expert forlack of independence.
There will be one expert in proceedings involving a string
confusion objection.
There will be one expert, or, if all parties agree, threeexperts with relevant experience in intellectual property
rights disputes in proceedings involving an existing legal
rights objection.
There will be three experts recognized as eminent jurists ofinternational reputation, with expertise in relevant fields asappropriate, in proceedings involving a Limited Public
Interest objection.
There will be one expert in proceedings involving acommunity objection.
Neither the experts, the DRSP, ICANN, nor their respective
employees, directors, or consultants will be liable to any
party in any action for damages or injunctive relief for any
act or omission in connection with any proceeding under
the dispute resolution procedures.

3.4.5

Adjudication

The panel may decide whether the parties shall submit any
written statements in addition to the filed objection andresponse, and may specify time limits for such submissions.
In order to achieve the goal of resolving disputes rapidly
and at reasonable cost, procedures for the production of
documents shall be limited. In exceptional cases, the panel
may require a party to produce additional evidence.
Disputes will usually be resolved without an in-person
hearing. The panel may decide to hold such a hearing only
in extraordinary circumstances.

3.4.6

Expert Determination

The DRSPs’ final expert determinations will be in writing andwill include:•

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

A summary of the dispute and findings;

3-16Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures•

An identification of the prevailing party; and•The reasoning upon which the expert determination
is based.

Unless the panel decides otherwise, each DRSP will publish
all decisions rendered by its panels in full on its website.
The findings of the panel will be considered an expert
determination and advice that ICANN will accept within
the dispute resolution process.

3.4.7

Dispute Resolution Costs

Before acceptance of objections, each DRSP will publish aschedule of costs or statement of how costs will becalculated for the proceedings that it administers under
this procedure. These costs cover the fees and expenses ofthe members of the panel and the DRSP’s administrative
costs.
ICANN expects that string confusion and legal rights
objection proceedings will involve a fixed amount charged
by the panelists while Limited Public Interest andcommunity objection proceedings will involve hourly rates
charged by the panelists.
Within ten (10) calendar days of constituting the panel, the
DRSP will estimate the total costs and request advancepayment in full of its costs from both the objector and theapplicant. Each party must make its advance payment
within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the DRSP’srequest for payment and submit to the DRSP evidence ofsuch payment. The respective filing fees paid by the parties
will be credited against the amounts due for this advancepayment of costs.
The DRSP may revise its estimate of the total costs andrequest additional advance payments from the parties
during the resolution proceedings.
Additional fees may be required in specific circumstances;for example, if the DRSP receives supplemental submissions
or elects to hold a hearing.
If an objector fails to pay these costs in advance, the DRSP
will dismiss its objection and no fees paid by the objector
will be refunded.
If an applicant fails to pay these costs in advance, the
DSRP will sustain the objection and no fees paid by theapplicant will be refunded.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-17

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

After the hearing has taken place and the panel renders its
expert determination, the DRSP will refund the advancepayment of costs to the prevailing party.

3.5

Dispute Resolution Principles(Standards)

Each panel will use appropriate general principles(standards) to evaluate the merits of each objection. The
principles for adjudication on each type of objection are
specified in the paragraphs that follow. The panel may also
refer to other relevant rules of international law inconnection with the standards.
The objector bears the burden of proof in each case.
The principles outlined below are subject to evolution
based on ongoing consultation with DRSPs, legal experts,
and the public.

3.5.1

String Confusion Objection

A DRSP panel hearing a string confusion objection willconsider whether the applied-for gTLD string is likely to resultin string confusion. String confusion exists where a string so
nearly resembles another that it is likely to deceive or cause
confusion. For a likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be
probable, not merely possible that confusion will arise in themind of the average, reasonable Internet user. Mereassociation, in the sense that the string brings another string
to mind, is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion.

3.5.2

Legal Rights Objection

In interpreting and giving meaning to GNSO
Recommendation 3 (“Strings must not infringe the existing
legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable
under generally accepted and internationally recognizedprinciples of law”), a DRSP panel of experts presiding over alegal rights objection will determine whether the potential
use of the applied-for gTLD by the applicant takes unfair
advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of
the objector’s registered or unregistered trademark orservice mark (“mark”) or IGO name or acronym (asidentified in the treaty establishing the organization), or
unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the
reputation of the objector’s mark or IGO name oracronym, or otherwise creates an impermissible likelihoodof confusion between the applied-for gTLD and theobjector’s mark or IGO name or acronym.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-18

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

In the case where the objection is based on trademark
rights, the panel will consider the following non-exclusive
factors:
1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar,
including in appearance, phonetic sound, or meaning,to the objector’s existing mark.
2. Whether the objector’s acquisition and use of rights inthe mark has been bona fide.
3. Whether and to what extent there is recognition in therelevant sector of the public of the sign corresponding
to the gTLD, as the mark of the objector, of theapplicant or of a third party.
4. Applicant’s intent in applying for the gTLD, including
whether the applicant, at the time of application for
the gTLD, had knowledge of the objector’s mark, or
could not have reasonably been unaware of thatmark, and including whether the applicant has
engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby it applied
for or operates TLDs or registrations in TLDs which are
identical or confusingly similar to the marks of others.
5. Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or
has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign
corresponding to the gTLD in connection with a bonafide offering of goods or services or a bona fideprovision of information in a way that does not interferewith the legitimate exercise by the objector of its markrights.
6. Whether the applicant has marks or other intellectual
property rights in the sign corresponding to the gTLD,
and, if so, whether any acquisition of such a right in thesign, and use of the sign, has been bona fide, andwhether the purported or likely use of the gTLD by theapplicant is consistent with such acquisition or use.
7. Whether and to what extent the applicant has beencommonly known by the sign corresponding to thegTLD, and if so, whether any purported or likely use of
the gTLD by the applicant is consistent therewith andbona fide.
8. Whether the applicant’s intended use of the gTLD
would create a likelihood of confusion with theobjector’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,or endorsement of the gTLD.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-19

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

In the case where a legal rights objection has been filed by
an IGO, the panel will consider the following non-exclusive
factors:
1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical or similar,
including in appearance, phonetic sound or meaning,to the name or acronym of the objecting IGO;
2. Historical coexistence of the IGO and the applicant’s
use of a similar name or acronym. Factors considered
may include:a. Level of global recognition of both entities;
b. Length of time the entities have been in
existence;c. Public historical evidence of their existence,
which may include whether the objecting IGO
has communicated its name or abbreviation
under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for theProtection of Industrial Property.
3. Whether and to what extent the applicant has used, or
has made demonstrable preparations to use, the sign
corresponding to the TLD in connection with a bonafide offering of goods or services or a bona fideprovision of information in a way that does not interferewith the legitimate exercise of the objecting IGO’s
name or acronym;
4. Whether and to what extent the applicant has beencommonly known by the sign corresponding to theapplied-for gTLD, and if so, whether any purported or
likely use of the gTLD by the applicant is consistent
therewith and bona fide; and5. Whether the applicant’s intended use of the appliedfor gTLD would create a likelihood of confusion with theobjecting IGO’s name or acronym as to the source,sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the TLD.

3.5.3

Limited Public Interest Objection

An expert panel hearing a Limited Public Interest objection
will consider whether the applied-for gTLD string is contrary
to general principles of international law for morality andpublic order.
Examples of instruments containing such general principles
include:•Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

3-20

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures•

The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR)•

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination Against Women (CEDAW)•The International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination•

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against
Women

•

The International Covenant on Economic, Social,
and Cultural Rights•

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment•

The International Convention on the Protection of
the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of
their Families•

Slavery Convention•

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of
the Crime of Genocide•

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Note that these are included to serve as examples, rather
than an exhaustive list. It should be noted that these
instruments vary in their ratification status. Additionally,
states may limit the scope of certain provisions throughreservations and declarations indicating how they willinterpret and apply certain provisions. National laws notbased on principles of international law are not a valid
ground for a Limited Public Interest objection.
Under these principles, everyone has the right to freedomof expression, but the exercise of this right carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, certain
limited restrictions may apply.
The grounds upon which an applied-for gTLD string may beconsidered contrary to generally accepted legal norms
relating to morality and public order that are recognizedunder principles of international law are:Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action;•

Incitement to or promotion of discrimination based
upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or
national origin, or other similar types of

3-21

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

discrimination that violate generally accepted legal
norms recognized under principles of internationallaw;•

Incitement to or promotion of child pornography orother sexual abuse of children; or•A determination that an applied-for gTLD string
would be contrary to specific principles ofinternational law as reflected in relevantinternational instruments of law.

The panel will conduct its analysis on the basis of theapplied-for gTLD string itself. The panel may, if needed, use
as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as
stated in the application.

3.5.4

Community Objection

The four tests described here will enable a DRSP panel todetermine whether there is substantial opposition from asignificant portion of the community to which the string
may be targeted. For an objection to be successful, theobjector must prove that:•

The community invoked by the objector is a clearlydelineated community; and•Community opposition to the application issubstantial; and•There is a strong association between thecommunity invoked and the applied-for gTLD string;and•The application creates a likelihood of material
detriment to the rights or legitimate interests of asignificant portion of the community to which thestring may be explicitly or implicitly targeted. Eachof these tests is described in further detail below.

Community – The objector must prove that the community
expressing opposition can be regarded as a clearlydelineated community. A panel could balance a numberof factors to determine this, including but not limited to:Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

The level of public recognition of the group as acommunity at a local and/or global level;•

The level of formal boundaries around thecommunity and what persons or entities are
considered to form the community;

3-22

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures•

The length of time the community has been in
existence;•

The global distribution of the community (this may
not apply if the community is territorial); and•The number of people or entities that make up thecommunity.

If opposition by a number of people/entities is found, but
the group represented by the objector is not determined to
be a clearly delineated community, the objection will fail.
Substantial Opposition – The objector must prove
substantial opposition within the community it has identified
itself as representing. A panel could balance a number offactors to determine whether there is substantial
opposition, including but not limited to:•

Number of expressions of opposition relative to thecomposition of the community;•

The representative nature of entities expressing
opposition;•

Level of recognized stature or weight amongsources of opposition;•

Distribution or diversity among sources of
expressions of opposition, including:Regional

Subsectors of community

Leadership of community

Membership of community•

Historical defense of the community in othercontexts; and•Costs incurred by objector in expressing opposition,
including other channels the objector may haveused to convey opposition.

If some opposition within the community is determined, but
it does not meet the standard of substantial opposition, theobjection will fail.
Targeting – The objector must prove a strong association
between the applied-for gTLD string and the community
represented by the objector. Factors that could be

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-23

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Proceduresbalanced by a panel to determine this include but are notlimited to:•Statements contained in application;•

Other public statements by the applicant;•Associations by the public.

If opposition by a community is determined, but there is nostrong association between the community and theapplied-for gTLD string, the objection will fail.
Detriment – The objector must prove that the application
creates a likelihood of material detriment to the rights orlegitimate interests of a significant portion of thecommunity to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly
targeted. An allegation of detriment that consists only of
the applicant being delegated the string instead of theobjector will not be sufficient for a finding of material
detriment.
Factors that could be used by a panel in making thisdetermination include but are not limited to:Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Nature and extent of damage to the reputation of
the community represented by the objector thatwould result from the applicant’s operation of theapplied-for gTLD string;•

Evidence that the applicant is not acting or does
not intend to act in accordance with the interestsof the community or of users more widely, including
evidence that the applicant has not proposed ordoes not intend to institute effective security
protection for user interests;•

Interference with the core activities of thecommunity that would result from the applicant’s
operation of the applied-for gTLD string;•

Dependence of the community represented by theobjector on the DNS for its core activities;•

Nature and extent of concrete or economic
damage to the community represented by theobjector that would result from the applicant’s
operation of the applied-for gTLD string; and•Level of certainty that alleged detrimental
outcomes would occur.

3-24

Module 3
Dispute Resolution Procedures

If opposition by a community is determined, but there is no
likelihood of material detriment to the targeted community
resulting from the applicant’s operation of the applied-for
gTLD, the objection will fail.
The objector must meet all four tests in the standard for theobjection to prevail.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3-25

DRAFT - New gTLD Program – Objection and
Dispute Resolution
No – 7 Days to Correct
Party with standing files objection directlywith Dispute Resolution Service Provider(DRSP) for these grounds:
String Confusion
Legal Rights
Limited Public Interest; and/orCommunity

Objection filing
period opens

Objection filed withcorrect DRSP?

Yes
Objector pays filing fee directly to DRSP
Objections specific to Limited
Public Interest are subject toa “quick look,” designed to
identify and eliminate
frivolous and/or abusive
objections

Administrative
Review ofobjections

Objection
dismissed

No

Objection meetsprocedural rules?

Yes

30 Days

DRSPs notify
applicants ofrelevant
objections

ICANN posts
notice of all
objections filed

DRSP posts
objection details
on its website

Objection filing
period closes

Applicant files
response andpays filing fee
Consolidation of
objections, if
applicable

30 Days

DRSP appoints
panel

10 Days
DRSP sends
estimation of
costs to parties
45 Days

10 Days

Advance paymentof costs due

ExpertDetermination

DRSP and ICANN
update respective
websites to reflect
determination

Applicant proceeds tosubsequent stage

Yes

Does applicant clear
all objections?

No

Applicantwithdraws

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure
These Procedures were designed with an eye toward timely and efficient dispute
resolution. As part of the New gTLD Program, these Procedures apply to all proceedings
administered by each of the dispute resolution service providers (DRSP). Each of the DRSPs
has a specific set of rules that will also apply to such proceedings.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-1

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

NEW GTLD DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
Article 1.

ICANN’s New gTLD Program(a)

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) has
implemented a program for the introduction of new generic Top-Level Domain Names(“gTLDs”) in the internet. There will be a succession of rounds, during which applicants
may apply for new gTLDs, in accordance with terms and conditions set by ICANN.

(b)

The new gTLD program includes a dispute resolution procedure, pursuant to which
disputes between a person or entity who applies for a new gTLD and a person or entity
who objects to that gTLD are resolved in accordance with this New gTLD Dispute
Resolution Procedure (the “Procedure”).

(c)

Dispute resolution proceedings shall be administered by a Dispute Resolution Service
Provider (“DRSP”) in accordance with this Procedure and the applicable DRSP Rules
that are identified in Article 4(b).

(d)

By applying for a new gTLD, an applicant accepts the applicability of this Procedureand the applicable DRSP’s Rules that are identified in Article 4(b); by filing an
objection to a new gTLD, an objector accepts the applicability of this Procedure andthe applicable DRSP’s Rules that are identified in Article 4(b). The parties cannot
derogate from this Procedure without the express approval of ICANN and from theapplicable DRSP Rules without the express approval of the relevant DRSP.

Article 2.

Definitions(a)

The “Applicant” or “Respondent” is an entity that has applied to ICANN for a new gTLD
and that will be the party responding to the Objection.

(b)

The “Objector” is one or more persons or entities who have filed an objection against a
new gTLD for which an application has been submitted.

(c)

The “Panel” is the panel of Experts, comprising one or three “Experts,” that has been
constituted by a DRSP in accordance with this Procedure and the applicable DRSP
Rules that are identified in Article 4(b).

(d)

The “Expert Determination” is the decision upon the merits of the Objection that isrendered by a Panel in a proceeding conducted under this Procedure and theapplicable DRSP Rules that are identified in Article 4(b).

(e)

The grounds upon which an objection to a new gTLD may be filed are set out in full in
Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook. Such grounds are identified in this Procedure,
and are based upon the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains, dated 7 August 2007, issued by the ICANN Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO), as follows:(i)“String Confusion Objection” refers to the objection that the string comprising
the potential gTLD is confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or
another string applied for in the same round of applications.

(ii)“Existing Legal Rights Objection” refers to the objection that the string
comprising the potential new gTLD infringes the existing legal rights of others

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-2

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedurethat are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted andinternationally recognized principles of law.

(f)

(iii)

“Limited Public Interest Objection” refers to the objection that the string
comprising the potential new gTLD is contrary to generally accepted legal
norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized underprinciples of international law.

(iv)

“Community Objection” refers to the objection that there is substantial
opposition to the application from a significant portion of the community towhich the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.

“DRSP Rules” are the rules of procedure of a particular DRSP that have been identified
as being applicable to objection proceedings under this Procedure.

Article 3.

Dispute Resolution Service Providers

The various categories of disputes shall be administered by the following DRSPs:(a)String Confusion Objections shall be administered by the International Centre for
Dispute Resolution.

(b)

Existing Legal Rights Objections shall be administered by the Arbitration and Mediation
Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

(c)Limited Public Interest Objections shall be administered by the International Centre forExpertise of the International Chamber of Commerce.

(d)Community Objections shall be administered by the International Centre for Expertiseof the International Chamber of Commerce.

Article 4.

Applicable Rules(a)

All proceedings before the Panel shall be governed by this Procedure and by the DRSP
Rules that apply to a particular category of objection. The outcome of theproceedings shall be deemed an Expert Determination, and the members of the
Panel shall act as experts.

(b)

The applicable DRSP Rules are the following:

(c)

(i)

For a String Confusion Objection, the applicable DRSP Rules are the ICDR
Supplementary Procedures for ICANN’s New gTLD Program.

(ii)

For an Existing Legal Rights Objection, the applicable DRSP Rules are the WIPO
Rules for New gTLD Dispute Resolution.

(iii)

For a Limited Public Interest Objection, the applicable DRSP Rules are the Rules
for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), as
supplemented by the ICC as needed.

(iv)

For a Community Objection, the applicable DRSP Rules are the Rules forExpertise of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), as supplemented
by the ICC as needed.

In the event of any discrepancy between this Procedure and the applicable DRSP
Rules, this Procedure shall prevail.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-3

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure(d)

The place of the proceedings, if relevant, shall be the location of the DRSP that is
administering the proceedings.

(e)

In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality, and thateach party is given a reasonable opportunity to present its position.

Article 5.

Language(a)

The language of all submissions and proceedings under this Procedure shall be English.

(b)

Parties may submit supporting evidence in its original language, provided and subject
to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, that such evidence isaccompanied by a certified or otherwise official English translation of all relevant text.

Article 6.

Communications and Time Limits(a)

All communications by the Parties with the DRSPs and Panels must be submitted
electronically. A Party that wishes to make a submission that is not available inelectronic form (e.g., evidentiary models) shall request leave from the Panel to do so,and the Panel, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether to accept the
non-electronic submission.

(b)

The DRSP, Panel, Applicant, and Objector shall provide copies to one another of all
correspondence (apart from confidential correspondence between the Panel andthe DRSP and among the Panel) regarding the proceedings.

(c)

For the purpose of determining the date of commencement of a time limit, a notice orother communication shall be deemed to have been received on the day that it istransmitted in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article.

(d)

For the purpose of determining compliance with a time limit, a notice or othercommunication shall be deemed to have been sent, made or transmitted if it isdispatched in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article prior to or on the
day of the expiration of the time limit.

(e)

For the purpose of calculating a period of time under this Procedure, such period shallbegin to run on the day following the day when a notice or other communication isreceived.

(f)Unless otherwise stated, all time periods provided in the Procedure are calculated on
the basis of calendar days

Article 7.

Filing of the Objection(a)

A person wishing to object to a new gTLD for which an application has been
submitted may file an objection (“Objection”). Any Objection to a proposed newgTLD must be filed before the published closing date for the Objection Filing period.

(b)

The Objection must be filed with the appropriate DRSP, using a model form madeavailable by that DRSP, with copies to ICANN and the Applicant.

(c)

The electronic addresses for filing Objections (the specific addresses shall be madeavailable once they are created by providers):(i)

A String Confusion Objection must be filed at: [●].

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-4

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

(d)

(e)

(ii)

An Existing Legal Rights Objection must be filed at: [●].

(iii)

A Limited Public Interest Objection must be filed at: [●].

(iv)

A Community Objection must be filed at: [●].

All Objections must be filed separately:(i)

An Objector who wishes to object to an application on more than one groundmust file separate objections with the appropriate DRSP(s).

(ii)

An Objector who wishes to object to more than one gTLD must file separate
objections to each gTLD with the appropriate DRSP(s).

If an Objection is filed with the wrong DRSP, that DRSP shall promptly notify the
Objector of the error and that DRSP shall not process the incorrectly filed Objection.
The Objector may then cure the error by filing its Objection with the correct DRSP
within seven (7) days of receipt of the error notice, failing which the Objection shall be
disregarded. If the Objection is filed with the correct DRSP within seven (7) days ofreceipt of the error notice but after the lapse of the time for submitting an Objection
stipulation by Article 7(a) of this Procedure, it shall be deemed to be within this time
limit.

Article 8.
(a)Content of the Objection

The Objection shall contain, inter alia, the following information:(i)

The names and contact information (address, telephone number, email
address, etc.) of the Objector;(ii)

A statement of the Objector’s basis for standing; and(iii)

A description of the basis for the Objection, including:(aa)

A statement of the ground upon which the Objection is being filed, as
stated in Article 2(e) of this Procedure;(bb)

An explanation of the validity of the Objection and why the objection
should be upheld.

(b)

The substantive portion of the Objection shall be limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages,
whichever is less, excluding attachments. The Objector shall also describe andprovide copies of any supporting or official documents upon which the Objection isbased.

(c)

At the same time as the Objection is filed, the Objector shall pay a filing fee in theamount set in accordance with the applicable DRSP Rules and include evidence ofsuch payment in the Objection. In the event that the filing fee is not paid within ten (10)days of the receipt of the Objection by the DRSP, the Objection shall be dismissed
without prejudice.

Article 9.
(a)Administrative Review of the Objection

The DRSP shall conduct an administrative review of the Objection for the purpose ofverifying compliance with Articles 5-8 of this Procedure and the applicable DRSP Rules,
and inform the Objector, the Applicant and ICANN of the result of its review within

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-5

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

fourteen (14) days of its receipt of the Objection. The DRSP may extend this time limit
for reasons explained in the notification of such extension.
(b)

If the DRSP finds that the Objection complies with Articles 5-8 of this Procedure and theapplicable DRSP Rules, the DRSP shall confirm that the Objection shall be registered forprocessing.

(c)

If the DRSP finds that the Objection does not comply with Articles 5-8 of this Procedureand the applicable DRSP Rules, the DRSP shall have the discretion to request that any
administrative deficiencies in the Objection be corrected within five (5) days. If the
deficiencies in the Objection are cured within the specified period but after the lapseof the time limit for submitting an Objection stipulated by Article 7(a) of this Procedure,
the Objection shall be deemed to be within this time limit.

(d)

If the DRSP finds that the Objection does not comply with Articles 5-8 of this Procedureand the applicable DRSP Rules, and the deficiencies in the Objection are notcorrected within the period specified in Article 9(c), the DRSP shall dismiss the
Objection and close the proceedings, without prejudice to the Objector’s submissionof a new Objection that complies with this Procedure, provided that the Objection is
filed within the deadline for filing such Objections. The DRSP’s review of the Objection
shall not interrupt the running of the time limit for submitting an Objection stipulated by
Article 7(a) of this Procedure.

(e)Immediately upon registering an Objection for processing, pursuant to Article 9(b), the
DRSP shall post the following information about the Objection on its website: (i) the
proposed string to which the Objection is directed; (ii) the names of the Objector andthe Applicant; (ii) the grounds for the Objection; and (iv) the dates of the DRSP’s
receipt of the Objection.

Article 10.

ICANN’s Dispute Announcement(a)Within thirty (30) days of the deadline for filing Objections in relation to gTLD
applications in a given round, ICANN shall publish a document on its website
identifying all of the admissible Objections that have been filed (the “Dispute
Announcement”). ICANN shall also directly inform each DRSP of the posting of the
Dispute Announcement.

(b)

ICANN shall monitor the progress of all proceedings under this Procedure and shalltake steps, where appropriate, to coordinate with any DRSP in relation to individual
applications for which objections are pending before more than one DRSP.

Article 11.

Response to the Objection(a)Upon receipt of the Dispute Announcement, each DRSP shall promptly send a noticeto: (i) each Applicant for a new gTLD to which one or more admissible Objections
have been filed with that DRSP; and (ii) the respective Objector(s).

(b)

The Applicant shall file a response to each Objection (the “Response”). The Responseshall be filed within thirty (30) days of the transmission of the notice by the DRSP
pursuant to Article 11(a).

(c)

The Response must be filed with the appropriate DRSP, using a model form madeavailable by that DRSP, with copies to ICANN and the Objector.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-6

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure(d)

The Response shall contain, inter alia, the following information:(i)

The names and contact information (address, telephone number, email
address, etc.) of the Applicant; and(ii)

A point-by-point response to the statements made in the Objection.

(e)

The substantive portion of the Response shall be limited to 5,000 words or 20 pages,
whichever is less, excluding attachments. The Applicant shall also describe andprovide copies of any supporting or official documents upon which the Response isbased.

(f)

At the same time as the Response is filed, the Applicant shall pay a filing fee in theamount set and published by the relevant DRSP (which shall be the same as the filingfee paid by the Objector) and include evidence of such payment in the Response. In
the event that the filing fee is not paid within ten (10) days of the receipt of the
Response by the DRSP, the Applicant shall be deemed to be in default, any Response
disregarded and the Objection shall be deemed successful.

(g)

If the DRSP finds that the Response does not comply with Articles 11(c) and (d)(1) of
this Procedure and the applicable DRSP Rules, the DRSP shall have the discretion torequest that any administrative deficiencies in the Response be corrected within five(5) days. If the administrative deficiencies in the Response are cured within thespecified period but after the lapse of the time limit for submitting a Response pursuant
to this Procedure, the Response shall be deemed to be within this time limit.

(g)

If the Applicant fails to file a Response to the Objection within the 30-day time limit, theApplicant shall be deemed to be in default and the Objection shall be deemed
successful. No fees paid by the Applicant will be refunded in case of default.

Article 12.

Consolidation of Objections(a)

The DRSP is encouraged, whenever possible and practicable, and as may be further
stipulated in the applicable DRSP Rules, to consolidate Objections, for example, whenmore than one Objector has filed an Objection to the same gTLD on the samegrounds. The DRSP shall endeavor to decide upon consolidation prior to issuing its
notice pursuant to Article 11(a) and, where appropriate, shall inform the parties of theconsolidation in that notice.

(b)

If the DRSP itself has not decided to consolidate two or more Objections, any
Applicant or Objector may propose the consolidation of Objections within seven (7)days of the notice given by the DRSP pursuant to Article 11(a). If, following such a
proposal, the DRSP decides to consolidate certain Objections, which decision must be
made within 14 days of the notice given by the DRSP pursuant to Article 11(a), thedeadline for the Applicant’s Response in the consolidated proceeding shall be thirty(30) days from the Applicant’s receipt of the DRSP’s notice of consolidation.

(c)

In deciding whether to consolidate Objections, the DRSP shall weigh the benefits (interms of time, cost, consistency of decisions, etc.) that may result from theconsolidation against the possible prejudice or inconvenience that the consolidation
may cause. The DRSP’s determination on consolidation shall be final and not subject
to appeal.

(d)Objections based upon different grounds, as summarized in Article 2(e), shall not be
consolidated.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-7

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

Article 13.

The Panel(a)

The DRSP shall select and appoint the Panel of Expert(s) within thirty (30) days after
receiving the Response.

(b)

Number and specific qualifications of Expert(s):(i)

There shall be one Expert in proceedings involving a String Confusion
Objection.

(ii)

There shall be one Expert or, if all of the Parties so agree, three Experts with
relevant experience in intellectual property rights disputes in proceedings
involving an Existing Legal Rights Objection.

(iii)

There shall be three Experts recognized as eminent jurists of international
reputation, one of whom shall be designated as the Chair. The Chair shall beof a nationality different from the nationalities of the Applicant and of the
Objector, in proceedings involving a Limited Public Interest Objection.

(iv)

There shall be one Expert in proceedings involving a Community Objection.

(c)

All Experts acting under this Procedure shall be impartial and independent of theparties. The applicable DRSP Rules stipulate the manner by which each Expert shallconfirm and maintain their impartiality and independence.

(d)

The applicable DRSP Rules stipulate the procedures for challenging an Expert andreplacing an Expert.

(e)

Unless required by a court of law or authorized in writing by the parties, an Expert shallnot act in any capacity whatsoever, in any pending or future proceedings, whether
judicial, arbitral or otherwise, relating to the matter referred to expert determination
under this Procedure.

Article 14.

Costs

(a)

Each DRSP shall determine the costs for the proceedings that it administers under thisProcedure in accordance with the applicable DRSP Rules. Such costs shall cover thefees and expenses of the members of the Panel, as well as the administrative fees of
the DRSP (the “Costs”).

(b)Within ten (10) days of constituting the Panel, the DRSP shall estimate the total Costs
and request the Objector and the Applicant/Respondent each to pay in advance thefull amount of the Costs to the DRSP. Each party shall make its advance payment of
Costs within ten (10) days of receiving the DRSP’s request for payment and submit to
the DRSP evidence of such payment. The respective filing fees paid by the Parties shallbe credited against the amounts due for this advance payment of Costs.

(c)

The DRSP may revise its estimate of the total Costs and request additional advancepayments from the parties during the proceedings.

(d)Failure to make an advance payment of Costs:(i)

If the Objector fails to make the advance payment of Costs, its Objection shallbe dismissed and no fees that it has paid shall be refunded.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-8

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

(ii)

(e)

If the Applicant fails to make the advance payment of Costs, the Objection will
be deemed to have been sustained and no fees that the Applicant has paid
shall be refunded.

Upon the termination of the proceedings, after the Panel has rendered its Expert
Determination, the DRSP shall refund to the prevailing party, as determined by the
Panel, its advance payment(s) of Costs.

Article 15.

Representation and Assistance(a)

The parties may be represented or assisted by persons of their choice.

(b)

Each party or party representative shall communicate the name, contact informationand function of such persons to the DRSP and the other party (or parties in case of
consolidation).

Article 16.

Negotiation and Mediation(a)

The parties are encouraged, but not required, to participate in negotiations and/or
mediation at any time throughout the dispute resolution process aimed at settling theirdispute amicably.

(b)

Each DRSP shall be able to propose, if requested by the parties, a person who could
assist the parties as mediator.

(c)

A person who acts as mediator for the parties shall not serve as an Expert in a dispute
between the parties under this Procedure or any other proceeding under thisProcedure involving the same gTLD.

(d)

The conduct of negotiations or mediation shall not, ipso facto, be the basis for asuspension of the dispute resolution proceedings or the extension of any deadline
under this Procedure. Upon the joint request of the parties, the DRSP or (after it has
been constituted) the Panel may grant the extension of a deadline or the suspensionof the proceedings. Absent exceptional circumstances, such extension or suspension
shall not exceed thirty (30) days and shall not delay the administration of any otherObjection.

(e)

If, during negotiations and/or mediation, the parties agree on a settlement of thematter referred to the DRSP under this Procedure, the parties shall inform the DRSP,
which shall terminate the proceedings, subject to the parties’ payment obligation
under this Procedure having been satisfied, and inform ICANN and the parties
accordingly.

Article 17.

Additional Written Submissions(a)

The Panel may decide whether the parties shall submit any written statements inaddition to the Objection and the Response, and it shall fix time limits for such
submissions.

(b)

The time limits fixed by the Panel for additional written submissions shall not exceed
thirty (30) days, unless the Panel, having consulted the DRSP, determines thatexceptional circumstances justify a longer time limit.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-9

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure

Article 18.

Evidence

In order to achieve the goal of resolving disputes over new gTLDs rapidly and at reasonable
cost, procedures for the production of documents shall be limited. In exceptional cases, thePanel may require a party to provide additional evidence.

Article 19.

Hearings(a)

Disputes under this Procedure and the applicable DRSP Rules will usually be resolved
without a hearing.

(b)

The Panel may decide, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, to hold ahearing only in extraordinary circumstances.

(c)

In the event that the Panel decides to hold a hearing:(i)

The Panel shall decide how and where the hearing shall be conducted.

(ii)

In order to expedite the proceedings and minimize costs, the hearing shall be
conducted by videoconference if possible.

(iii)

The hearing shall be limited to one day, unless the Panel decides, in
exceptional circumstances, that more than one day is required for the hearing.

(iv)

The Panel shall decide whether the hearing will be open to the public or
conducted in private.

Article 20.

Standards(a)

For each category of Objection identified in Article 2(e), the Panel shall apply thestandards that have been defined by ICANN.

(b)

In addition, the Panel may refer to and base its findings upon the statements anddocuments submitted and any rules or principles that it determines to be applicable.

(c)

The Objector bears the burden of proving that its Objection should be sustained inaccordance with the applicable standards.

Article 21.

The Expert Determination(a)

The DRSP and the Panel shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the Expert
Determination is rendered within forty-five (45) days of the constitution of the Panel. In
specific circumstances such as consolidated cases and in consultation with the DRSP,
if significant additional documentation is requested by the Panel, a brief extension
may be allowed.

(b)

The Panel shall submit its Expert Determination in draft form to the DRSP’s scrutiny as toform before it is signed, unless such scrutiny is specifically excluded by the applicable
DRSP Rules. The modifications proposed by the DRSP to the Panel, if any, shall address
only the form of the Expert Determination. The signed Expert Determination shall be
communicated to the DRSP, which in turn will communicate that Expert Determination
to the Parties and ICANN.

(c)

When the Panel comprises three Experts, the Expert Determination shall be made by amajority of the Experts.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-10

Attachment to Module 3
New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure(d)

The Expert Determination shall be in writing, shall identify the prevailing party and shallstate the reasons upon which it is based. The remedies available to an Applicant or an
Objector pursuant to any proceeding before a Panel shall be limited to the success or
dismissal of an Objection and to the refund by the DRSP to the prevailing party, as
determined by the Panel in its Expert Determination, of its advance payment(s) of
Costs pursuant to Article 14(e) of this Procedure and any relevant provisions of theapplicable DRSP Rules.

(e)

The Expert Determination shall state the date when it is made, and it shall be signed by
the Expert(s). If any Expert fails to sign the Expert Determination, it shall beaccompanied by a statement of the reason for the absence of such signature.

(f)

In addition to providing electronic copies of its Expert Determination, the Panel shallprovide a signed hard copy of the Expert Determination to the DRSP, unless the DRSP
Rules provide for otherwise.

(g)

Unless the Panel decides otherwise, the Expert Determination shall be published in fullon the DRSP’s website.

Article 22.

Exclusion of Liability

In addition to any exclusion of liability stipulated by the applicable DRSP Rules, neither the
Expert(s), nor the DRSP and its employees, nor ICANN and its Board members, employees andconsultants shall be liable to any person for any act or omission in connection with any
proceeding conducted under this Procedure.

Article 23.

Modification of the Procedure(a)

ICANN may from time to time, in accordance with its Bylaws, modify this Procedure.

(b)

The version of this Procedure that is applicable to a dispute resolution proceeding isthe version that was in effect on the day when the relevant application for a new gTLD
is submitted.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

P-11

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 44 June 2012

Module 4
String Contention ProceduresThis module describes situations in which contention overapplied-for gTLD strings occurs, and the methods available
to applicants for resolving such contention cases.

4.1

String Contention

String contention occurs when either:
1. Two or more applicants for an identical gTLD string
successfully complete all previous stages of theevaluation and dispute resolution processes; or
2. Two or more applicants for similar gTLD strings
successfully complete all previous stages of theevaluation and dispute resolution processes, and thesimilarity of the strings is identified as creating aprobability of user confusion if more than one of thestrings is delegated.
ICANN will not approve applications for proposed gTLD
strings that are identical or that would result in user
confusion, called contending strings. If either situation
above occurs, such applications will proceed tocontention resolution through either community priority
evaluation, in certain cases, or through an auction. Bothprocesses are described in this module. A group of
applications for contending strings is referred to as acontention set.
(In this Applicant Guidebook, “similar” means strings sosimilar that they create a probability of user confusion if
more than one of the strings is delegated into the rootzone.)

4.1.1

Identification of Contention Sets

Contention sets are groups of applications containing
identical or similar applied-for gTLD strings. Contention sets
are identified during Initial Evaluation, following review of
all applied-for gTLD strings. ICANN will publish preliminary
contention sets once the String Similarity review iscompleted, and will update the contention sets asnecessary during the evaluation and dispute resolution
stages.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-2

Module 4
String Contention

Applications for identical gTLD strings will be automaticallyassigned to a contention set. For example, if Applicant A
and Applicant B both apply for .TLDSTRING, they will beidentified as being in a contention set. Such testing for
identical strings also takes into consideration the code
point variants listed in any relevant IDN table. That is, two or
more applicants whose applied-for strings or designatedvariants are variant strings according to an IDN tablesubmitted to ICANN would be considered in directcontention with one another. For example, if one applicant
applies for string A and another applies for string B, andstrings A and B are variant TLD strings as defined in Module
1, then the two applications are in direct contention.
The String Similarity Panel will also review the entire pool ofapplied-for strings to determine whether the strings
proposed in any two or more applications are so similarthat they would create a probability of user confusion if
allowed to coexist in the DNS. The panel will make such a
determination for each pair of applied-for gTLD strings. The
outcome of the String Similarity review described in Module
2 is the identification of contention sets among
applications that have direct or indirect contention
relationships with one another.
Two strings are in direct contention if they are identical orsimilar to one another. More than two applicants might be
represented in a direct contention situation: if four different
applicants applied for the same gTLD string, they would all
be in direct contention with one another.
Two strings are in indirect contention if they are both indirect contention with a third string, but not with one
another. The example that follows explains direct andindirect contention in greater detail.
In Figure 4-1, Strings A and B are an example of directcontention. Strings C and G are an example of indirectcontention. C and G both contend with B, but not with one
another. The figure as a whole is one contention set. A
contention set consists of all applications that are linked bystring contention to one another, directly or indirectly.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-3

Module 4
String Contention

Figure 4-1 – This diagram represents one contention set,featuring both directly and indirectly contending strings.
While preliminary contention sets are determined during
Initial Evaluation, the final configuration of the contention
sets can only be established once the evaluation anddispute resolution process stages have concluded. This isbecause any application excluded through those
processes might modify a contention set identified earlier.
A contention set may be augmented, split into two sets, or
eliminated altogether as a result of an Extended Evaluation
or dispute resolution proceeding. The composition of acontention set may also be modified as some applications
may be voluntarily withdrawn throughout the process.
Refer to Figure 4-2: In contention set 1, applications D and
G are eliminated. Application A is the only remaining
application, so there is no contention left to resolve.
In contention set 2, all applications successfully complete
Extended Evaluation and Dispute Resolution, so the originalcontention set remains to be resolved.
In contention set 3, application F is eliminated. Since
application F was in direct contention with E and J, but E
and J are not in contention with one other, the originalcontention set splits into two sets: one containing E and K in
direct contention, and one containing I and J.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-4

Module 4
String Contention

Figure 4-2 – Resolution of string contention cannot begin
until all applicants within a contention set havecompleted all applicable previous stages.
The remaining contention cases must then be resolved
through community priority evaluation or by other means,depending on the circumstances. In the string contention
resolution stage, ICANN addresses each contention set toachieve an unambiguous resolution.
As described elsewhere in this guidebook, cases ofcontention might be resolved by community priority
evaluation or an agreement among the parties. Absent
that, the last-resort contention resolution mechanism will bean auction.

4.1.2

Impact of String Confusion Dispute Resolution
Proceedings on Contention Sets

If an applicant files a string confusion objection against
another application (refer to Module 3), and the panel
finds that user confusion is probable (that is, finds in favor of
the objector), the two applications will be placed in directcontention with each other. Thus, the outcome of adispute resolution proceeding based on a string confusion
objection would be a new contention set structure for the
relevant applications, augmenting the original contention
set.
If an applicant files a string confusion objection against
another application, and the panel finds that string

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-5

Module 4
String Contention

confusion does not exist (that is, finds in favor of the
responding applicant), the two applications will not be
considered in direct contention with one another.
A dispute resolution outcome in the case of a string
confusion objection filed by another applicant will not
result in removal of an application from a previously
established contention set.

4.1.3

Self-Resolution of String Contention

Applicants that are identified as being in contention areencouraged to reach a settlement or agreement among
themselves that resolves the contention. This may occur at
any stage of the process, once ICANN publicly posts theapplications received and the preliminary contention setson its website.
Applicants may resolve string contention in a mannerwhereby one or more applicants withdraw theirapplications. An applicant may not resolve string
contention by selecting a new string or by replacing itself
with a joint venture. It is understood that applicants may
seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve
string contention. However, material changes inapplications (for example, combinations of applicants toresolve contention) will require re-evaluation. This might
require additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent
application round. Applicants are encouraged to resolve
contention by combining in a way that does not materiallyaffect the remaining application. Accordingly, new joint
ventures must take place in a manner that does notmaterially change the application, to avoid being subject
to re-evaluation.

4.1.4

Possible Contention Resolution Outcomes

An application that has successfully completed all previous
stages and is no longer part of a contention set due tochanges in the composition of the contention set (asdescribed in subsection 4.1.1) or self-resolution by
applicants in the contention set (as described in subsection
4.1.3) may proceed to the next stage.
An application that prevails in a contention resolution
procedure, either community priority evaluation or auction,
may proceed to the next stage.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-6

Module 4
String Contention

In some cases, an applicant who is not the outright winnerof a string contention resolution process can still proceed.
This situation is explained in the following paragraphs.
If the strings within a given contention set are all identical,
the applications are in direct contention with each otherand there can only be one winner that proceeds to thenext step.
However, where there are both direct and indirectcontention situations within a set, more than one string may
survive the resolution.
For example, consider a case where string A is incontention with B, and B is in contention with C, but C is notin contention with A. If A wins the contention resolution
procedure, B is eliminated but C can proceed since C is
not in direct contention with the winner and both strings
can coexist in the DNS without risk for confusion.

4.2

Community Priority Evaluation

Community priority evaluation will only occur if a
community-based applicant selects this option.
Community priority evaluation can begin once allapplications in the contention set have completed all
previous stages of the process.
The community priority evaluation is an independent
analysis. Scores received in the applicant reviews are notcarried forward to the community priority evaluation. Eachapplication participating in the community priority
evaluation begins with a score of zero.

4.2.1

Eligibility for Community Priority Evaluation

As described in subsection 1.2.3 of Module 1, all applicants
are required to identify whether their application type is:• Community-based; or• Standard.
Applicants designating their applications as communitybased are also asked to respond to a set of questions in theapplication form to provide relevant information if a
community priority evaluation occurs.
Only community-based applicants are eligible toparticipate in a community priority evaluation.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-7

Module 4
String Contention

At the start of the contention resolution stage, allcommunity-based applicants within remaining contention
sets will be notified of the opportunity to opt for acommunity priority evaluation via submission of a depositby a specified date. Only those applications for which a
deposit has been received by the deadline will be scoredin the community priority evaluation. Following theevaluation, the deposit will be refunded to applicants thatscore 14 or higher.
Before the community priority evaluation begins, theapplicants who have elected to participate may be asked
to provide additional information relevant to thecommunity priority evaluation.

4.2.2

Community Priority Evaluation Procedure

Community priority evaluations for each eligible contention
set will be performed by a community priority panel
appointed by ICANN to review these applications. The
panel’s role is to determine whether any of the communitybased applications fulfills the community priority criteria.
Standard applicants within the contention set, if any, will
not participate in the community priority evaluation.
If a single community-based application is found to meetthe community priority criteria (see subsection 4.2.3 below),that applicant will be declared to prevail in the community
priority evaluation and may proceed. If more than one
community-based application is found to meet the criteria,
the remaining contention between them will be resolved
as follows:

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

In the case where the applications are in indirectcontention with one another (see subsection 4.1.1),
they will both be allowed to proceed to the nextstage. In this case, applications that are in directcontention with any of these community-based
applications will be eliminated.

•

In the case where the applications are in directcontention with one another, these applicants willproceed to an auction. If all parties agree andpresent a joint request, ICANN may postpone theauction for a three-month period while the parties
attempt to reach a settlement before proceeding
to auction. This is a one-time option; ICANN will
grant no more than one such request for each setof contending applications.

4-8

Module 4
String Contention

If none of the community-based applications are found tomeet the criteria, then all of the parties in the contention
set (both standard and community-based applicants) willproceed to an auction.
Results of each community priority evaluation will be
posted when completed.
Applicants who are eliminated as a result of a community
priority evaluation are eligible for a partial refund of thegTLD evaluation fee (see Module 1).

4.2.3

Community Priority Evaluation Criteria

The Community Priority Panel will review and score the one
or more community-based applications having elected thecommunity priority evaluation against four criteria as listed
below.
The scoring process is conceived to identify qualified
community-based applications, while preventing both
“false positives” (awarding undue priority to an applicationthat refers to a “community” construed merely to get asought-after generic word as a gTLD string) and “false
negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community
application). This calls for a holistic approach, taking
multiple criteria into account, as reflected in the process.
The scoring will be performed by a panel and be based on
information provided in the application plus other relevant
information available (such as public information regarding
the community represented). The panel may also perform
independent research, if deemed necessary to reach
informed scoring decisions.
It should be noted that a qualified community application
eliminates all directly contending standard applications,regardless of how well qualified the latter may be. This is afundamental reason for very stringent requirements for
qualification of a community-based application, as
embodied in the criteria below. Accordingly, a finding by
the panel that an application does not meet the scoring
threshold to prevail in a community priority evaluation is notnecessarily an indication the community itself is in someway inadequate or invalid.
The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they
will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has beentaken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative
aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-9

Module 4
String Contention

should only be counted there and should not affect theassessment for other criteria.
An application must score at least 14 points to prevail in acommunity priority evaluation. The outcome will be
determined according to the procedure described insubsection 4.2.2.
Criterion #1: Community Establishment (0-4 points)
A maximum of 4 points is possible on the Community
Establishment criterion:

4

3

2

1

0

Community Establishment
High

Low

As measured by:
A. Delineation (2)210Clearlydelineated,organized, andpre-existing
community.

Clearlydelineated andpre-existing
community, but
not fulfilling therequirements
for a score of2.

Insufficientdelineation andpre-existence fora score of 1.

2

1

0

Community ofconsiderable
size andlongevity.

Community ofeitherconsiderable
size orlongevity, but
not fulfilling therequirements
for a score of2.

Community ofneitherconsiderable size
nor longevity.

B. Extension (2)This section relates to the community as explicitly identified
and defined according to statements in the application.
(The implicit reach of the applied-for string is not

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-10

Module 4
String Contention

considered here, but taken into account when scoringCriterion #2, “Nexus between Proposed String andCommunity.”)
Criterion 1 Definitions

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

“Community” - Usage of the expression“community” has evolved considerably from its
Latin origin – “communitas” meaning “fellowship” –while still implying more of cohesion than a merecommonality of interest. Notably, as “community” isused throughout the application, there should be:(a) an awareness and recognition of a community
among its members; (b) some understanding of thecommunity’s existence prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations werecompleted); and (c) extended tenure or
longevity—non-transience—into the future.

"Delineation" relates to the membership of acommunity, where a clear and straight-forward
membership definition scores high, while anunclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low.

"Pre-existing" means that a community has been
active as such since before the new gTLD policy
recommendations were completed in September
2007.



"Organized" implies that there is at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community, with
documented evidence of community activities.

“Extension” relates to the dimensions of thecommunity, regarding its number of members,
geographical reach, and foreseeable activity
lifetime, as further explained in the following.

"Size" relates both to the number of members andthe geographical reach of the community, and will
be scored depending on the context rather thanon absolute numbers - a geographic location
community may count millions of members in alimited location, a language community may havea million members with some spread over the
globe, a community of service providers may have
"only" some hundred members although wellspread over the globe, just to mention someexamples - all these can be regarded as of"considerable size."

4-11

Module 4
String Contention"Longevity" means that the pursuits of a community
are of a lasting, non-transient nature.



Criterion 1 Guidelines
With respect to “Delineation” and “Extension,” it should be
noted that a community can consist of legal entities (forexample, an association of suppliers of a particularservice), of individuals (for example, a language
community) or of a logical alliance of communities (forexample, an international federation of national
communities of a similar nature). All are viable as such,provided the requisite awareness and recognition of thecommunity is at hand among the members. Otherwise theapplication would be seen as not relating to a realcommunity and score 0 on both “Delineation” and“Extension.”With respect to “Delineation,” if an application satisfactorily
demonstrates all three relevant parameters (delineation,
pre-existing and organized), then it scores a 2.
With respect to “Extension,” if an application satisfactorily
demonstrates both community size and longevity, it scoresa 2.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String andCommunity (0-4 points)
A maximum of 4 points is possible on the Nexus criterion:

4

3

2

1

0

Nexus between String & Community
High

Low

As measured by:
A. Nexus (3)Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

3

2

0

The string
matches thename of thecommunity or
is a well-known
short-form or
abbreviation of
the community

String identifies
the community,
but does not
qualify for ascore of 3.

String nexus
does not fulfill therequirements fora score of 2.

4-12

Module 4
String Contention

3
name.

B.

2

0

Uniqueness (1)10String has noothersignificant
meaningbeyondidentifying thecommunity
described in
the application.

String does not
fulfill therequirement for ascore of 1.

This section evaluates the relevance of the string to thespecific community that it claims to represent.
Criterion 2 Definitions
"Name" of the community means the establishedname by which the community is commonly knownby others. It may be, but does not need to be, thename of an organization dedicated to thecommunity.

“Identify” means that the applied for string closely
describes the community or the community
members, without over-reaching substantiallybeyond the community.

Criterion 2 Guidelines
With respect to “Nexus,” for a score of 3, the essential
aspect is that the applied-for string is commonly known byothers as the identification / name of the community.
With respect to “Nexus,” for a score of 2, the applied-for
string should closely describe the community or thecommunity members, without over-reaching substantiallybeyond the community. As an example, a string could
qualify for a score of 2 if it is a noun that the typicalcommunity member would naturally be called in thecontext. If the string appears excessively broad (such as, forexample, a globally well-known but local tennis club
applying for “.TENNIS”) then it would not qualify for a 2.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-13

Module 4
String Contention

With respect to “Uniqueness,” "significant meaning" relates
to the public in general, with consideration of thecommunity language context added.
"Uniqueness" will be scored both with regard to thecommunity context and from a general point of view. For
example, a string for a particular geographic location
community may seem unique from a general perspective,
but would not score a 1 for uniqueness if it carries anothersignificant meaning in the common language used in therelevant community location. The phrasing "...beyond
identifying the community" in the score of 1 for "uniqueness"
implies a requirement that the string does identify thecommunity, i.e. scores 2 or 3 for "Nexus," in order to beeligible for a score of 1 for "Uniqueness."
It should be noted that "Uniqueness" is only about themeaning of the string - since the evaluation takes place toresolve contention there will obviously be otherapplications, community-based and/or standard, withidentical or confusingly similar strings in the contention set
to resolve, so the string will clearly not be "unique" in thesense of "alone."
Criterion #3: Registration Policies (0-4 points)
A maximum of 4 points is possible on the Registration
Policies criterion:

4

3

2

1

0

Registration Policies
High

Low

As measured by:
A. Eligibility (1)Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

10

Eligibility
restricted tocommunity
members.

Largely
unrestricted
approach toeligibility.

4-14

Module 4
String Contention

B. Name selection (1)10Policies
include nameselection rules
consistent withthe articulated
communitybased purposeof the appliedfor gTLD.

Policies do not
fulfill therequirements fora score of 1.

C. Content and use (1)10Policies
include rules
for content anduse consistent
with thearticulated
communitybased purposeof the appliedfor gTLD.

Policies do not
fulfill therequirements fora score of 1.

D. Enforcement (1)10Policies
include specific
enforcement
measures (e.g.
investigation
practices,penalties,
takedown
procedures)constituting a
coherent set
withappropriate
appealmechanisms.

Policies do not
fulfill therequirements fora score of 1.

This section evaluates the applicant’s registration policies
as indicated in the application. Registration policies are theconditions that the future registry will set for prospective
registrants, i.e. those desiring to register second-leveldomain names under the registry.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-15

Module 4
String Contention

Criterion 3 Definitions•"Eligibility" means the qualifications that entities orindividuals must have in order to be allowed asregistrants by the registry.

•"Name selection" means the conditions that mustbe fulfilled for any second-level domain name tobe deemed acceptable by the registry.

•"Content and use" means the restrictions stipulatedby the registry as to the content provided in andthe use of any second-level domain name in theregistry.

•"Enforcement" means the tools and provisions set
out by the registry to prevent and remedy any
breaches of the conditions by registrants.

Criterion 3 Guidelines
With respect to “Eligibility,” the limitation to community"members" can invoke a formal membership but can also
be satisfied in other ways, depending on the structure andorientation of the community at hand. For example, for ageographic location community TLD, a limitation tomembers of the community can be achieved by requiringthat the registrant's physical address is within theboundaries of the location.
With respect to “Name selection,” “Content and use,” and“Enforcement,” scoring of applications against these subcriteria will be done from a holistic perspective, with due
regard for the particularities of the community explicitly
addressed. For example, an application proposing a TLD
for a language community may feature strict rules
imposing this language for name selection as well as forcontent and use, scoring 1 on both B and C above. It
could nevertheless include forbearance in theenforcement measures for tutorial sites assisting thosewishing to learn the language and still score 1 on D. Morerestrictions do not automatically result in a higher score. The
restrictions and corresponding enforcement mechanisms
proposed by the applicant should show an alignment withthe community-based purpose of the TLD anddemonstrate continuing accountability to the community
named in the application.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-16

Module 4
String Contention

Criterion #4: Community Endorsement (0-4 points)
4

3

2

1

0

Community Endorsement
High

Low

As measured by:
A. Support (2)210Applicant is, orhasdocumented
support from,the recognizedcommunity
institution(s)/memberorganization(s)or hasotherwise
documented
authority torepresent thecommunity.

Documented
support from atleast onegroup with
relevance, but
insufficient
support for ascore of 2.

Insufficient proofof support for ascore of 1.

2

1

0

No oppositionof relevance.

Relevant
opposition fromone group of
non-negligible
size.

Relevant
opposition fromtwo or moregroups of nonnegligible size.

B. Opposition (2)This section evaluates community support and/or
opposition to the application. Support and opposition will
be scored in relation to the communities explicitly
addressed as stated in the application, with due regard forthe communities implicitly addressed by the string.
Criterion 4 Definitions
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04"Recognized" means theinstitution(s)/organization(s) that, throughmembership or otherwise, are clearly recognized by

4-17

Module 4
String Contention

the community members as representative of thecommunity.
"Relevance" and "relevant" refer to the communities
explicitly and implicitly addressed. This means that
opposition from communities not identified in theapplication but with an association to the appliedfor string would be considered relevant.

Criterion 4 Guidelines
With respect to “Support,” it follows that documented
support from, for example, the only national association
relevant to a particular community on a national level
would score a 2 if the string is clearly oriented to thatnational level, but only a 1 if the string implicitly addresses
similar communities in other nations.
Also with respect to “Support,” the plurals in brackets for ascore of 2, relate to cases of multiple
institutions/organizations. In such cases there must be
documented support from institutions/organizations
representing a majority of the overall community
addressed in order to score 2.
The applicant will score a 1 for “Support” if it does not havesupport from the majority of the recognized community
institutions/member organizations, or does not provide fulldocumentation that it has authority to represent thecommunity with its application. A 0 will be scored on“Support” if the applicant fails to provide documentation
showing support from recognized community
institutions/community member organizations, or does notprovide documentation showing that it has the authority torepresent the community. It should be noted, however,that documented support from groups or communities that
may be seen as implicitly addressed but have completely
different orientations compared to the applicant
community will not be required for a score of 2 regarding
support.
To be taken into account as relevant support, such
documentation must contain a description of the process
and rationale used in arriving at the expression of support.
Consideration of support is not based merely on thenumber of comments or expressions of support received.
When scoring “Opposition,” previous objections to theapplication as well as public comments during the same
application round will be taken into account and assessed

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-18

Module 4
String Contention

in this context. There will be no presumption that suchobjections or comments would prevent a score of 2 or leadto any particular score for “Opposition.” To be taken into
account as relevant opposition, such objections orcomments must be of a reasoned nature. Sources of
opposition that are clearly spurious, unsubstantiated, madefor a purpose incompatible with competition objectives, or
filed for the purpose of obstruction will not be considered
relevant.

4.3

Auction: Mechanism of Last Resort

It is expected that most cases of contention will be
resolved by the community priority evaluation, or throughvoluntary agreement among the involved applicants.
Auction is a tie-breaker method for resolving string
contention among the applications within a contention
set, if the contention has not been resolved by othermeans.
An auction will not take place to resolve contention in thecase where the contending applications are for
geographic names (as defined in Module 2). In this case,the applications will be suspended pending resolution by
the applicants.
An auction will take place, where contention has notalready been resolved, in the case where an application
for a geographic name is in a contention set withapplications for similar strings that have not been identified
as geographic names.
In practice, ICANN expects that most contention cases will
be resolved through other means before reaching theauction stage. However, there is a possibility that significant
funding will accrue to ICANN as a result of one or more
auctions. 1
1 The purpose of an auction is to resolve contention in a clear, objective manner. It is planned that costs of the new gTLD program

will offset by fees, so any funds coming from a last resort contention resolution mechanism such as auctions would result (after
paying for the auction process) in additional funding. Any proceeds from auctions will be reserved and earmarked until the uses offunds are determined. Funds must be used in a manner that supports directly ICANN’s Mission and Core Values and also allows
ICANN to maintain its not for profit status.

Possible uses of auction funds include formation of a foundation with a clear mission and a transparent way to allocate funds toprojects that are of interest to the greater Internet community, such as grants to support new gTLD applications or registry operatorsfrom communities in subsequent gTLD rounds, the creation of an ICANN-administered/community-based fund for specific projects
for the benefit of the Internet community, the creation of a registry continuity fund for the protection of registrants (ensuring thatfunds would be in place to support the operation of a gTLD registry until a successor could be found), or establishment of a security
fund to expand use of secure protocols, conduct research, and support standards development organizations in accordance withICANN's security and stability mission.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-19

Module 4
String Contention

4.3.1

Auction Procedures

An auction of two or more applications within a contention
set is conducted as follows. The auctioneer successively
increases the prices associated with applications within thecontention set, and the respective applicants indicate their
willingness to pay these prices. As the prices rise, applicants
will successively choose to exit from the auction. When asufficient number of applications have been eliminated sothat no direct contentions remain (i.e., the remaining
applications are no longer in contention with one anotherand all the relevant strings can be delegated as TLDs), theauction will be deemed to conclude. At the auction’s
conclusion, the applicants with remaining applications will
pay the resulting prices and proceed toward delegation.
This procedure is referred to as an “ascending-clock
auction.”This section provides applicants an informal introduction to
the practicalities of participation in an ascending-clock
auction. It is intended only as a general introduction and is
only preliminary. The detailed set of Auction Rules will beavailable prior to the commencement of any auction
proceedings. If any conflict arises between this moduleand the auction rules, the auction rules will prevail.
For simplicity, this section will describe the situation where acontention set consists of two or more applications for
identical strings.
All auctions will be conducted over the Internet, withparticipants placing their bids remotely using a web-based
software system designed especially for auction. The
auction software system will be compatible with current
versions of most prevalent browsers, and will not require thelocal installation of any additional software.
Auction participants (“bidders”) will receive instructions foraccess to the online auction site. Access to the site will bepassword-protected and bids will be encrypted through
SSL. If a bidder temporarily loses connection to the Internet,that bidder may be permitted to submit its bids in a given
auction round by fax, according to procedures described
The amount of funding resulting from auctions, if any, will not be known until all relevant applications have completed this step.
Thus, a detailed mechanism for allocation of these funds is not being created at present. However, a process can be preestablished to enable community consultation in the event that such funds are collected. This process will include, at a minimum,
publication of data on any funds collected, and public comment on any proposed models.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-20

Module 4
String Contention

in the auction rules. The auctions will generally be
conducted to conclude quickly, ideally in a single day.
The auction will be carried out in a series of auction rounds,
as illustrated in Figure 4-3. The sequence of events is asfollows:
1. For each auction round, the auctioneer will announce
in advance: (1) the start-of-round price, (2) the end-ofround price, and (3) the starting and ending times of
the auction round. In the first auction round, the startof-round price for all bidders in the auction will be USD
0. In later auction rounds, the start-of-round price will be
its end-of-round price from the previous auction round.

Figure 4-3 – Sequence of events during an ascending-clock auction.
2. During each auction round, bidders will be required tosubmit a bid or bids representing their willingness to pay
within the range of intermediate prices between thestart-of-round and end-of-round prices. In this way abidder indicates its willingness to stay in the auction at
all prices through and including the end-of-auction
round price, or its wish to exit the auction at a price lessthan the end-of-auction round price, called the exitbid.
3. Exit is irrevocable. If a bidder exited the auction in aprevious auction round, the bidder is not permitted to
re-enter in the current auction round.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-21

Module 4
String Contention

4. Bidders may submit their bid or bids at any time during
the auction round.
5. Only bids that comply with all aspects of the auction
rules will be considered valid. If more than one valid bid
is submitted by a given bidder within the time limit of
the auction round, the auctioneer will treat the lastvalid submitted bid as the actual bid.
6. At the end of each auction round, bids become thebidders’ legally-binding offers to secure the relevant
gTLD strings at prices up to the respective bid amounts,
subject to closure of the auction in accordance withthe auction rules. In later auction rounds, bids may be
used to exit from the auction at subsequent higher
prices.
7. After each auction round, the auctioneer will disclose
the aggregate number of bidders remaining in theauction at the end-of-round prices for the auction
round, and will announce the prices and times for the
next auction round.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04•

Each bid should consist of a single price associatedwith the application, and such price must be
greater than or equal to the start-of-round price.

•

If the bid amount is strictly less than the end-ofround price, then the bid is treated as an exit bid atthe specified amount, and it signifies the bidder’sbinding commitment to pay up to the bid amount if
its application is approved.

•

If the bid amount is greater than or equal to theend-of-round price, then the bid signifies that thebidder wishes to remain in the auction at all prices
in the current auction round, and it signifies thebidder’s binding commitment to pay up to the endof-round price if its application is approved.
Following such bid, the application cannot be
eliminated within the current auction round.

•

To the extent that the bid amount exceeds theend-of-round price, then the bid is also treated as aproxy bid to be carried forward to the next auction
round. The bidder will be permitted to change theproxy bid amount in the next auction round, andthe amount of the proxy bid will not constrain thebidder’s ability to submit any valid bid amount in
the next auction round.

4-22

Module 4
String Contention•

No bidder is permitted to submit a bid for any
application for which an exit bid was received in aprior auction round. That is, once an application
has exited the auction, it may not return.

•If no valid bid is submitted within a given auction
round for an application that remains in theauction, then the bid amount is taken to be theamount of the proxy bid, if any, carried forwardfrom the previous auction round or, if none, the bid
is taken to be an exit bid at the start-of-round pricefor the current auction round.

8. This process continues, with the auctioneer increasing
the price range for each given TLD string in eachauction round, until there is one remaining bidder atthe end-of-round price. After an auction round in which
this condition is satisfied, the auction concludes andthe auctioneer determines the clearing price. The lastremaining application is deemed the successful
application, and the associated bidder is obligated to
pay the clearing price.
Figure 4-4 illustrates how an auction for five contending
applications might progress.

Figure 4-4 – Example of an auction for five mutually-contending
applications.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-23

Module 4
String Contention•

Before the first auction round, the auctioneer
announces the end-of-round price P1.

•

During Auction round 1, a bid is submitted for eachapplication. In Figure 4-4, all five bidders submit bidsof at least P1. Since the aggregate demand
exceeds one, the auction proceeds to Auction
round 2. The auctioneer discloses that fivecontending applications remained at P1 andannounces the end-of-round price P2.

•

During Auction round 2, a bid is submitted for eachapplication. In Figure 4-4, all five bidders submit bidsof at least P2. The auctioneer discloses that fivecontending applications remained at P2 andannounces the end-of-round price P3.

•

During Auction round 3, one of the bidders submits
an exit bid at slightly below P3, while the other fourbidders submit bids of at least P3. The auctioneer
discloses that four contending applications
remained at P3 and announces the end-of-round
price P4.

•

During Auction round 4, one of the bidders submits
an exit bid midway between P3 and P4, while theother three remaining bidders submit bids of at least
P4. The auctioneer discloses that three contending
applications remained at P4 and announces theend-of-auction round price P5.

•

During Auction round 5, one of the bidders submits
an exit bid at slightly above P4, and one of thebidders submits an exit bid at Pc midway between
P4 and P5. The final bidder submits a bid greaterthan Pc. Since the aggregate demand at P5 does
not exceed one, the auction concludes in Auction
round 5. The application associated with thehighest bid in Auction round 5 is deemed thesuccessful application. The clearing price is Pc, as
this is the lowest price at which aggregate demandcan be met.

To the extent possible, auctions to resolve multiple string
contention situations will be conducted simultaneously.

4.3.1.1

Currency

For bids to be comparable, all bids in the auction will be
submitted in any integer (whole) number of US dollars.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-24

Module 4
String Contention

4.3.1.2Fees

A bidding deposit will be required of applicantsparticipating in the auction, in an amount to be
determined. The bidding deposit must be transmitted bywire transfer to a specified bank account specified by
ICANN or its auction provider at a major international bank,to be received in advance of the auction date. The
amount of the deposit will determine a bidding limit foreach bidder: the bidding deposit will equal 10% of thebidding limit; and the bidder will not be permitted to submit
any bid in excess of its bidding limit.
In order to avoid the need for bidders to pre-commit to aparticular bidding limit, bidders may be given the option of
making a specified deposit that will provide them withunlimited bidding authority for a given application. The
amount of the deposit required for unlimited bidding
authority will depend on the particular contention set andwill be based on an assessment of the possible final prices
within the auction.
All deposits from non-defaulting losing bidders will be
returned following the close of the auction.

4.3.2

Winning Bid Payments

Any applicant that participates in an auction will be
required to sign a bidder agreement that acknowledges its
rights and responsibilities in the auction, including that its
bids are legally binding commitments to pay the amountbid if it wins (i.e., if its application is approved), and to enter
into the prescribed registry agreement with ICANN—
together with a specified penalty for defaulting on
payment of its winning bid or failing to enter into therequired registry agreement.
The winning bidder in any auction will be required to pay
the full amount of the final price within 20 business days ofthe end of the auction. Payment is to be made by wiretransfer to the same international bank account as thebidding deposit, and the applicant’s bidding deposit willbe credited toward the final price.
In the event that a bidder anticipates that it would requirea longer payment period than 20 business days due toverifiable government-imposed currency restrictions, thebidder may advise ICANN well in advance of the auction
and ICANN will consider applying a longer payment period
to all bidders within the same contention set.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-25

Module 4
String Contention

Any winning bidder for whom the full amount of the final
price is not received within 20 business days of the end of
an auction is subject to being declared in default. At theirsole discretion, ICANN and its auction provider may delay
the declaration of default for a brief period, but only if they
are convinced that receipt of full payment is imminent.
Any winning bidder for whom the full amount of the final
price is received within 20 business days of the end of an
auction retains the obligation to execute the required
registry agreement within 90 days of the end of auction.
Such winning bidder who does not execute the agreement
within 90 days of the end of the auction is subject to being
declared in default. At their sole discretion, ICANN and its
auction provider may delay the declaration of default fora brief period, but only if they are convinced that
execution of the registry agreement is imminent.

4.3.3

Post-Default ProceduresOnce declared in default, any winning bidder is subject toimmediate forfeiture of its position in the auction andassessment of default penalties. After a winning bidder isdeclared in default, the remaining bidders will receive anoffer to have their applications accepted, one at a time, indescending order of their exit bids. In this way, the next
bidder would be declared the winner subject to paymentof its last bid price. The same default procedures andpenalties are in place for any runner-up bidder receivingsuch an offer.
Each bidder that is offered the relevant gTLD will be givena specified period—typically, four business days—torespond as to whether it wants the gTLD. A bidder who
responds in the affirmative will have 20 business days tosubmit its full payment. A bidder who declines such an offer
cannot revert on that statement, has no further obligationsin this context and will not be considered in default.
The penalty for defaulting on a winning bid will equal 10%of the defaulting bid. 2 Default penalties will be charged
against any defaulting applicant’s bidding deposit before
the associated bidding deposit is returned.

2 If bidders were given the option of making a specified deposit that provided them with unlimited bidding authority for a given
application and if the winning bidder utilized this option, then the penalty for defaulting on a winning bid will be the lesser of thefollowing: (1) 10% of the defaulting bid, or (2) the specified deposit amount that provided the bidder with unlimited bidding authority.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-26

Module 4
String Contention

4.4 Contention Resolution and Contract
Execution
An applicant that has been declared the winner of acontention resolution process will proceed by entering into
the contract execution step. (Refer to section 5.1 ofModule 5.)
If a winner of the contention resolution procedure has not
executed a contract within 90 calendar days of thedecision, ICANN has the right to deny that application andextend an offer to the runner-up applicant, if any, toproceed with its application. For example, in an auction,
another applicant who would be considered the runner-up
applicant might proceed toward delegation. This offer is at
ICANN’s option only. The runner-up applicant in acontention resolution process has no automatic right to an
applied-for gTLD string if the first place winner does not
execute a contract within a specified time. If the winningapplicant can demonstrate that it is working diligently andin good faith toward successful completion of the steps
necessary for entry into the registry agreement, ICANN may
extend the 90-day period at its discretion. Runner-up
applicants have no claim of priority over the winningapplication, even after what might be an extended periodof negotiation.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4-27

Transition toDelegation

String Contention

IE + EE
Initial Evaluation (IE) Application/+ Dispute ResString Review
Admin Check

DRAFT - New gTLD Program - String Contention

Applicant begins
application process.

Applicant submits
application in TLD
Application System(TAS).

Applicant elects whether to designate
application as community-based.

String Similarity Panel
performs analysis, using
algorithm results, to groupsimilar and identicalstrings into contention
sets.

ICANN runs algorithm
for all applied-for gTLDs
against all otherapplied-for gTLDs.

ICANN publishes list of allcomplete applications.

ICANN communicates theresults of the String
Similarity review, including
contention sets.

IE, Extended Evaluation (EE), and Dispute
Resolution continue. Some applications may notpass certain elements of the review process,which may alter the contention sets.

Is the applied-for gTLD in
a contention set?

Yes

Have one or morecommunity-based
applicant(s) elected
community priority?

Yes

Community
priority
evaluation

Does one clear
winner emerge?

Yes
No

Applicants are encouraged
to self-resolve string
contention anytime prior tothe contention resolution
process.

Applicant enters
Transition toDelegation phase

No

Applicants with
contending strings
participate in auction:
One or more parties
proceed tosubsequent stageNo

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 5

4 June 2012

Module 5
Transition to Delegation
This module describes the final steps required of an
applicant for completion of the process, including
execution of a registry agreement with ICANN andpreparing for delegation of the new gTLD into the root
zone.

5.1

Registry Agreement

All applicants that have successfully completed theevaluation process—including, if necessary, the dispute
resolution and string contention processes—are required toenter into a registry agreement with ICANN before
proceeding to delegation.
After the close of each stage in the process, ICANN will
send a notification to those successful applicants that are
eligible for execution of a registry agreement at that time.
To proceed, applicants will be asked to provide specified
information for purposes of executing the registryagreement:
1. Documentation of the applicant’s continued
operations instrument (see Specification 8 to theagreement).
2. Confirmation of contact information and signatory
to the agreement.
3. Notice of any material changes requested to theterms of the agreement.
4. The applicant must report: (i) any ownershipinterest it holds in any registrar or reseller ofregistered names, (ii) if known, any ownershipinterest that a registrar or reseller of registerednames holds in the applicant, and (iii) if theapplicant controls, is controlled by, or is undercommon control with any registrar or reseller ofregistered names. ICANN retains the right to referan application to a competition authority prior toentry into the registry agreement if it is determinedthat the registry-registrar cross-ownership

5-2
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

arrangements might raise competition issues. For
this purpose "control" (including the terms“controlled by” and “under common control with”)
means the possession, directly or indirectly, of thepower to direct or cause the direction of the
management or policies of a person or entity,
whether through the ownership of securities, as
trustee or executor, by serving as a member of aboard of directors or equivalent governing body, bycontract, by credit arrangement or otherwise.
To ensure that an applicant continues to be a going
concern in good legal standing, ICANN reserves the rightto ask the applicant to submit additional updated
documentation and information before entering into theregistry agreement.
ICANN will begin processing registry agreements one
month after the date of the notification to successful
applicants. Requests will be handled in the order thecomplete information is received.
Generally, the process will include formal approval of theagreement without requiring additional Board review, solong as: the application passed all evaluation criteria;
there are no material changes in circumstances; and there
are no material changes to the base agreement. Theremay be other cases where the Board requests review of an
application.
Eligible applicants are expected to have executed theregistry agreement within nine (9) months of thenotification date. Failure to do so may result in loss ofeligibility, at ICANN’s discretion. An applicant may request
an extension of this time period for up to an additional nine(9) months if it can demonstrate, to ICANN’s reasonablesatisfaction, that it is working diligently and in good faith
toward successfully completing the steps necessary forentry into the registry agreement.
The registry agreement can be reviewed in theattachment to this module. Certain provisions in theagreement are labeled as applicable to governmental
and intergovernmental entities only. Private entities, even if
supported by a government or IGO, would not ordinarilybe eligible for these special provisions.
All successful applicants are expected to enter into theagreement substantially as written. Applicants may request
and negotiate terms by exception; however, this extends

5-3
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

the time involved in executing the agreement. In the eventthat material changes to the agreement are requested,these must first be approved by the ICANN Board of
Directors before execution of the agreement.
ICANN’s Board of Directors has ultimate responsibility for
the New gTLD Program. The Board reserves the right toindividually consider an application for a new gTLD todetermine whether approval would be in the best interestof the Internet community. Under exceptional
circumstances, the Board may individually consider a gTLD
application. For example, the Board might individuallyconsider an application as a result of GAC Advice on New
gTLDs or of the use of an ICANN accountability
mechanism.

5.2

Pre-Delegation Testing

Each applicant will be required to complete predelegation technical testing as a prerequisite todelegation into the root zone. This pre-delegation test must
be completed within the time period specified in theregistry agreement.
The purpose of the pre-delegation technical test is to verify
that the applicant has met its commitment to establish
registry operations in accordance with the technical andoperational criteria described in Module 2.
The test is also intended to indicate that the applicant canoperate the gTLD in a stable and secure manner. Allapplicants will be tested on a pass/fail basis according to
the requirements that follow.
The test elements cover both the DNS server operational
infrastructure and registry system operations. In many cases
the applicant will perform the test elements as instructed
and provide documentation of the results to ICANN todemonstrate satisfactory performance. At ICANN’s
discretion, aspects of the applicant’s self-certification
documentation can be audited either on-site at theservices delivery point of the registry or elsewhere as
determined by ICANN.

5.2.1

Testing Procedures

The applicant may initiate the pre-delegation test bysubmitting to ICANN the Pre-Delegation form andaccompanying documents containing all of the following
information:

5-4
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation•

All name server names and IPv4/IPv6 addresses tobe used in serving the new TLD data;•

If using anycast, the list of names and IPv4/IPv6
unicast addresses allowing the identification ofeach individual server in the anycast sets;•

If IDN is supported, the complete IDN tables used in
the registry system;•

A test zone for the new TLD must be signed at test
time and the valid key-set to be used at the time oftesting must be provided to ICANN in the
documentation, as well as the TLD DNSSEC Policy
Statement (DPS);•

The executed agreement between the selected
escrow agent and the applicant; and•Self-certification documentation as described
below for each test item.

ICANN will review the material submitted and in somecases perform tests in addition to those conducted by theapplicant. After testing, ICANN will assemble a report withthe outcome of the tests and provide that report to theapplicant.
Any clarification request, additional information request, orother request generated in the process will be highlighted
and listed in the report sent to the applicant.
ICANN may request the applicant to complete load tests
considering an aggregated load where a single entity is
performing registry services for multiple TLDs.
Once an applicant has met all of the pre-delegation
testing requirements, it is eligible to request delegation of its
applied-for gTLD.
If an applicant does not complete the pre-delegation
steps within the time period specified in the registryagreement, ICANN reserves the right to terminate theregistry agreement.

5-5Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

5.2.2

Test Elements: DNS Infrastructure

The first set of test elements concerns the DNS infrastructureof the new gTLD. In all tests of the DNS infrastructure, allrequirements are independent of whether IPv4 or IPv6 isused. All tests shall be done both over IPv4 and IPv6, with
reports providing results according to both protocols.
UDP Support -- The DNS infrastructure to which these tests
apply comprises the complete set of servers and network
infrastructure to be used by the chosen providers to deliver
DNS service for the new gTLD to the Internet. The
documentation provided by the applicant must include
the results from a system performance test indicating
available network and server capacity and an estimate of
expected capacity during normal operation to ensurestable service as well as to adequately address Distributed
Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks.
Self-certification documentation shall include data on load
capacity, latency and network reachability.
Load capacity shall be reported using a table, and acorresponding graph, showing percentage of queries
responded against an increasing number of queries per
second generated from local (to the servers) traffic
generators. The table shall include at least 20 data points
and loads of UDP-based queries that will cause up to 10%
query loss against a randomly selected subset of servers
within the applicant’s DNS infrastructure. Responses must
either contain zone data or be NXDOMAIN or NODATA
responses to be considered valid.
Query latency shall be reported in milliseconds as
measured by DNS probes located just outside the borderrouters of the physical network hosting the name servers,
from a network topology point of view.
Reachability will be documented by providing informationon the transit and peering arrangements for the DNS server
locations, listing the AS numbers of the transit providers or
peers at each point of presence and available bandwidth
at those points of presence.
TCP support -- TCP transport service for DNS queries andresponses must be enabled and provisioned for expectedload. ICANN will review the capacity self-certification
documentation provided by the applicant and will perform
TCP reachability and transaction capability tests across a

5-6
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

randomly selected subset of the name servers within theapplicant’s DNS infrastructure. In case of use of anycast,each individual server in each anycast set will be tested.
Self-certification documentation shall include data on load
capacity, latency and external network reachability.
Load capacity shall be reported using a table, and acorresponding graph, showing percentage of queries thatgenerated a valid (zone data, NODATA, or NXDOMAIN)
response against an increasing number of queries per
second generated from local (to the name servers) traffic
generators. The table shall include at least 20 data points
and loads that will cause up to 10% query loss (either due
to connection timeout or connection reset) against arandomly selected subset of servers within the applicant’s
DNS infrastructure.
Query latency will be reported in milliseconds as measured
by DNS probes located just outside the border routers of
the physical network hosting the name servers, from a
network topology point of view.
Reachability will be documented by providing records ofTCP-based DNS queries from nodes external to the network
hosting the servers. These locations may be the same as
those used for measuring latency above.
DNSSEC support -- Applicant must demonstrate support for
EDNS(0) in its server infrastructure, the ability to returncorrect DNSSEC-related resource records such as DNSKEY,RRSIG, and NSEC/NSEC3 for the signed zone, and theability to accept and publish DS resource records fromsecond-level domain administrators. In particular, theapplicant must demonstrate its ability to support the full life
cycle of KSK and ZSK keys. ICANN will review the selfcertification materials as well as test the reachability,
response sizes, and DNS transaction capacity for DNS
queries using the EDNS(0) protocol extension with the“DNSSEC OK” bit set for a randomly selected subset of allname servers within the applicant’s DNS infrastructure. Incase of use of anycast, each individual server in eachanycast set will be tested.
Load capacity, query latency, and reachability shall be
documented as for UDP and TCP above.

5-7
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

5.2.3

Test Elements: Registry Systems

As documented in the registry agreement, registries must
provide support for EPP within their Shared Registration
System, and provide Whois service both via port 43 and a
web interface, in addition to support for the DNS. Thissection details the requirements for testing these registrysystems.
System performance -- The registry system must scale tomeet the performance requirements described inSpecification 10 of the registry agreement and ICANN will
require self-certification of compliance. ICANN will review
the self-certification documentation provided by theapplicant to verify adherence to these minimum
requirements.
Whois support -- Applicant must provision Whois services forthe anticipated load. ICANN will verify that Whois data isaccessible over IPv4 and IPv6 via both TCP port 43 and via
a web interface and review self-certification
documentation regarding Whois transaction capacity.
Response format according to Specification 4 of theregistry agreement and access to Whois (both port 43 andvia web) will be tested by ICANN remotely from various
points on the Internet over both IPv4 and IPv6.
Self-certification documents shall describe the maximum
number of queries per second successfully handled byboth the port 43 servers as well as the web interface,
together with an applicant-provided load expectation.
Additionally, a description of deployed control functions todetect and mitigate data mining of the Whois databaseshall be documented.
EPP Support -- As part of a shared registration service,
applicant must provision EPP services for the anticipatedload. ICANN will verify conformance to appropriate RFCs
(including EPP extensions for DNSSEC). ICANN will also
review self-certification documentation regarding EPP
transaction capacity.
Documentation shall provide a maximum Transaction per
Second rate for the EPP interface with 10 data points
corresponding to registry database sizes from 0 (empty) tothe expected size after one year of operation, as
determined by applicant.

5-8
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

Documentation shall also describe measures taken tohandle load during initial registry operations, such as aland-rush period.
IPv6 support -- The ability of the registry to support registrars
adding, changing, and removing IPv6 DNS records
supplied by registrants will be tested by ICANN. If theregistry supports EPP access via IPv6, this will be tested by
ICANN remotely from various points on the Internet.
DNSSEC support -- ICANN will review the ability of theregistry to support registrars adding, changing, andremoving DNSSEC-related resource records as well as theregistry’s overall key management procedures. In
particular, the applicant must demonstrate its ability tosupport the full life cycle of key changes for child domains.
Inter-operation of the applicant’s secure communication
channels with the IANA for trust anchor material exchange
will be verified.
The practice and policy document (also known as the
DNSSEC Policy Statement or DPS), describing key material
storage, access and usage for its own keys is also reviewed
as part of this step.
IDN support -- ICANN will verify the complete IDN table(s)used in the registry system. The table(s) must comply withthe guidelines in http://iana.org/procedures/idnrepository.html.
Requirements related to IDN for Whois are being
developed. After these requirements are developed,
prospective registries will be expected to comply withpublished IDN-related Whois requirements as part of predelegation testing.
Escrow deposit -- The applicant-provided samples of data
deposit that include both a full and an incremental deposit
showing correct type and formatting of content will be
reviewed. Special attention will be given to the agreementwith the escrow provider to ensure that escrowed data
can be released within 24 hours should it be necessary.
ICANN may, at its option, ask an independent third party todemonstrate the reconstitutability of the registry fromescrowed data. ICANN may elect to test the data releaseprocess with the escrow agent.

5-9
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

5.3

Delegation Process

Upon notice of successful completion of the ICANN predelegation testing, applicants may initiate the process fordelegation of the new gTLD into the root zone database.
This will include provision of additional information andcompletion of additional technical steps required fordelegation. Information about the delegation process isavailable at http://iana.org/domains/root/.

5.4

Ongoing Operations

An applicant that is successfully delegated a gTLD will
become a “Registry Operator.” In being delegated therole of operating part of the Internet’s domain namesystem, the applicant will be assuming a number ofsignificant responsibilities. ICANN will hold all new gTLD
operators accountable for the performance of their
obligations under the registry agreement, and it isimportant that all applicants understand these
responsibilities.

5.4.1

What is Expected of a Registry Operator

The registry agreement defines the obligations of gTLD
registry operators. A breach of the registry operator’s
obligations may result in ICANN compliance actions up to
and including termination of the registry agreement.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to review thefollowing brief description of some of these responsibilities.
Note that this is a non-exhaustive list provided to potential
applicants as an introduction to the responsibilities of aregistry operator. For the complete and authoritative text,
please refer to the registry agreement.
A registry operator is obligated to:Operate the TLD in a stable and secure manner. The registry
operator is responsible for the entire technical operation of
the TLD. As noted in RFC 1591 1:“The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of
operating the DNS service for the domain. That is, theactual management of the assigning of domain names,delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must
be done with technical competence. This includes keeping1

See http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt

5-10
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

the central IR 2 (in the case of top-level domains) or otherhigher-level domain manager advised of the status of thedomain, responding to requests in a timely manner, andoperating the database with accuracy, robustness, andresilience.”
The registry operator is required to comply with relevant
technical standards in the form of RFCs and otherguidelines. Additionally, the registry operator must meet
performance specifications in areas such as system
downtime and system response times (see Specifications 6
and 10 of the registry agreement).
Comply with consensus policies and temporary policies.
gTLD registry operators are required to comply withconsensus policies. Consensus policies may relate to arange of topics such as issues affecting interoperability of
the DNS, registry functional and performance
specifications, database security and stability, or resolutionof disputes over registration of domain names.
To be adopted as a consensus policy, a policy must be
developed by the Generic Names Supporting Organization(GNSO) 3 following the process in Annex A of the ICANN
Bylaws. 4 The policy development process involves
deliberation and collaboration by the various stakeholder
groups participating in the process, with multiple
opportunities for input and comment by the public, andcan take significant time.
Examples of existing consensus policies are the InterRegistrar Transfer Policy (governing transfers of domainnames between registrars), and the Registry Services
Evaluation Policy (establishing a review of proposed new
registry services for security and stability or competition
concerns), although there are several more, as found at
http://www.icann.org/en/general/consensus-policies.htm.
gTLD registry operators are obligated to comply with both
existing consensus policies and those that are developed in
the future. Once a consensus policy has been formally
adopted, ICANN will provide gTLD registry operators with
notice of the requirement to implement the new policy
and the effective date.

2

IR is a historical reference to “Internet Registry,” a function now performed by ICANN.
http://gnso.icann.org
4
http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA
35-11
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

In addition, the ICANN Board may, when required bycircumstances, establish a temporary policy necessary tomaintain the stability or security of registry services or the
DNS. In such a case, all gTLD registry operators will be
required to comply with the temporary policy for thedesignated period of time.
For more information, see Specification 1 of the registryagreement.
Implement start-up rights protection measures. The registry
operator must implement, at a minimum, a Sunrise period
and a Trademark Claims service during the start-up phases
for registration in the TLD, as provided in the registryagreement. These mechanisms will be supported by theestablished Trademark Clearinghouse as indicated by
ICANN.
The Sunrise period allows eligible rightsholders an early
opportunity to register names in the TLD.
The Trademark Claims service provides notice to potential
registrants of existing trademark rights, as well as notice torightsholders of relevant names registered. Registry
operators may continue offering the Trademark Claims
service after the relevant start-up phases have concluded.
For more information, see Specification 7 of the registryagreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse modelaccompanying this module.
Implement post-launch rights protection measures. The
registry operator is required to implement decisions madeunder the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure,
including suspension of specific domain names within theregistry. The registry operator is also required to comply withand implement decisions made according to theTrademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy(PDDRP).
The required measures are described fully in the URS andPDDRP procedures accompanying this module. Registry
operators may introduce additional rights protection
measures relevant to the particular gTLD.
Implement measures for protection of country and territory
names in the new gTLD. All new gTLD registry operators are
required to provide certain minimum protections forcountry and territory names, including an initial reservation
requirement and establishment of applicable rules and

5-12
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

procedures for release of these names. The rules for releasecan be developed or agreed to by governments, the
GAC, and/or approved by ICANN after a community
discussion. Registry operators are encouraged to
implement measures for protection of geographical names
in addition to those required by the agreement, according
to the needs and interests of each gTLD’s particular
circumstances. (See Specification 5 of the registryagreement).
Pay recurring fees to ICANN. In addition to supporting
expenditures made to accomplish the objectives set out in
ICANN’s mission statement, these funds enable the support
required for new gTLDs, including: contractual
compliance, registry liaison, increased registrar
accreditations, and other registry support activities. The
fees include both a fixed component (USD 25,000 annually)
and, where the TLD exceeds a transaction volume, avariable fee based on transaction volume. See Article 6 of
the registry agreement.
Regularly deposit data into escrow. This serves an importantrole in registrant protection and continuity for certain
instances where the registry or one aspect of the registry
operations experiences a system failure or loss of data.
(See Specification 2 of the registry agreement.)
Deliver monthly reports in a timely manner. A registry
operator must submit a report to ICANN on a monthly basis.
The report includes registrar transactions for the month andis used by ICANN for calculation of registrar fees. (See
Specification 3 of the registry agreement.)
Provide Whois service. A registry operator must provide apublicly available Whois service for registered domainnames in the TLD. (See Specification 4 of the registryagreement.)
Maintain partnerships with ICANN-accredited registrars. A
registry operator creates a Registry-Registrar Agreement(RRA) to define requirements for its registrars. This must
include certain terms that are specified in the Registry
Agreement, and may include additional terms specific to
the TLD. A registry operator must provide non-discriminatory
access to its registry services to all ICANN-accredited
registrars with whom it has entered into an RRA, and whoare in compliance with the requirements. This includes
providing advance notice of pricing changes to all

5-13
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegation

registrars, in compliance with the time frames specified in
the agreement. (See Article 2 of the registry agreement.)
Maintain an abuse point of contact. A registry operator
must maintain and publish on its website a single point ofcontact responsible for addressing matters requiring
expedited attention and providing a timely response toabuse complaints concerning all names registered in the
TLD through all registrars of record, including those involving
a reseller. A registry operator must also take reasonable
steps to investigate and respond to any reports from law
enforcement, governmental and quasi-governmental
agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the use of
the TLD. (See Article 2 and Specification 6 of the registryagreement.)
Cooperate with contractual compliance audits. To
maintain a level playing field and a consistent operating
environment, ICANN staff performs periodic audits to assess
contractual compliance and address any resulting
problems. A registry operator must provide documents andinformation requested by ICANN that are necessary to
perform such audits. (See Article 2 of the registryagreement.)
Maintain a Continued Operations Instrument. A registry
operator must, at the time of the agreement, have inplace a continued operations instrument sufficient to fundbasic registry operations for a period of three (3) years. Thisrequirement remains in place for five (5) years after
delegation of the TLD, after which time the registry
operator is no longer required to maintain the continued
operations instrument. (See Specification 8 to the registryagreement.)
Maintain community-based policies and procedures. If theregistry operator designated its application as communitybased at the time of the application, the registry operator
has requirements in its registry agreement to maintain thecommunity-based policies and procedures it specified in its
application. The registry operator is bound by the Registry
Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure with respect todisputes regarding execution of its community-based
policies and procedures. (See Article 2 to the registryagreement.)
Have continuity and transition plans in place. This includes
performing failover testing on a regular basis. In the eventthat a transition to a new registry operator becomes
necessary, the registry operator is expected to cooperate

5-14Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Module 5
Transition to Delegationby consulting with ICANN on the appropriate successor,
providing the data required to enable a smooth transition,and complying with the applicable registry transition
procedures. (See Articles 2 and 4 of the registryagreement.)
Make TLD zone files available via a standardized process.
This includes provision of access to the registry’s zone file tocredentialed users, according to established access, file,and format standards. The registry operator will enter into astandardized form of agreement with zone file users andwill accept credential information for users via aclearinghouse. (See Specification 4 of the registryagreement.)
Implement DNSSEC. The registry operator is required to sign
the TLD zone files implementing Domain Name System
Security Extensions (DNSSEC) in accordance with therelevant technical standards. The registry must accept
public key material from registrars for domain names
registered in the TLD, and publish a DNSSEC Policy
Statement describing key material storage, access, andusage for the registry’s keys. (See Specification 6 of theregistry agreement.)

5.4.2

What is Expected of ICANNICANN will continue to provide support for gTLD registry
operators as they launch and maintain registry operations.
ICANN’s gTLD registry liaison function provides a point ofcontact for gTLD registry operators for assistance on acontinuing basis.
ICANN’s contractual compliance function will perform
audits on a regular basis to ensure that gTLD registry
operators remain in compliance with agreement
obligations, as well as investigate any complaints from thecommunity regarding the registry operator’s adherence toits contractual obligations. See
http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/ for more
information on current contractual compliance activities.
ICANN’s Bylaws require ICANN to act in an open andtransparent manner, and to provide equitable treatment
among registry operators. ICANN is responsible formaintaining the security and stability of the global Internet,
and looks forward to a constructive and cooperative
relationship with future gTLD registry operators infurtherance of this goal.

5-15
Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

Draft – New gTLD Program - Transition to Delegation(Timeframes are estimates only)

Applicant Doc Prep 1 MonthContracting – 1 day to 9 months

Pre-Delegation Testing – 1 to 12 months

Yes

ICANN provides noticeof eligibility to applicant

Applicantpreparesdocumentation
for contracting

Meet process levelauthorization?

ICANN andapplicant execute
registry agreement

No – Material change
to contract requested

Applicant requests
initiation of predelegation process
through TAS
Applicantremedies issues

Includes:- Material changes incircumstances- Continued
Operations
instrument- Designatedcontracting parties

Other, trigger
for Board review

Applicant and
ICANN
negotiate andagree oncontract

No
No
Yes

ICANN
perform predelegation
process

Pass?

Yes
Board reviews
application

Board reviews
changes to baseagreement

Approve?

Applicant requests
initiation of the
IANA delegation
process through
TAS

End

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

New gTLD Agreement
This document contains the registry agreement associated with the Applicant
Guidebook for New gTLDs.
Successful gTLD applicants would enter into this form of registry agreement with ICANN
prior to delegation of the new gTLD. (Note: ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable
updates and changes to this proposed agreement during the course of the application
process, including as the possible result of new policies that might be adopted during thecourse of the application process).

1

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTREGISTRY AGREEMENT
This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ___________ (the“Effective Date”) between Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a California nonprofit
public benefit corporation (“ICANN”), and __________, a _____________ (“Registry Operator”).
ARTICLE 1.
DELEGATION AND OPERATIONOF TOP–LEVEL DOMAIN; REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
1.1
Domain and Designation. The Top-Level Domain to which this Agreement applies is____ (the “TLD”). Upon the Effective Date and until the end of the Term (as defined in Section 4.1),
ICANN designates Registry Operator as the registry operator for the TLD, subject to the requirements andnecessary approvals for delegation of the TLD and entry into the root-zone.
1.2
Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue toencourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-leveldomain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web
applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technicalfeasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement.
1.3

Representations and Warranties.
(a)

Registry Operator represents and warrants to ICANN as follows:(i)
all material information provided and statements made in the registry
TLD application, and statements made in writing during the negotiation of thisAgreement, were true and correct in all material respects at the time made, and suchinformation or statements continue to be true and correct in all material respects as of theEffective Date except as otherwise previously disclosed in writing by Registry Operator
to ICANN;(ii)
Registry Operator is duly organized, validly existing and in goodstanding under the laws of the jurisdiction set forth in the preamble hereto, and Registry
Operator has all requisite power and authority and obtained all necessary approvals toenter into and duly execute and deliver this Agreement; and(iii)
Registry Operator has delivered to ICANN a duly executed instrumentthat secures the funds required to perform registry functions for the TLD in the event of
the termination or expiration of this Agreement (the “Continued Operations Instrument”),
and such instrument is a binding obligation of the parties thereto, enforceable against theparties thereto in accordance with its terms.
(b)
ICANN represents and warrants to Registry Operator that ICANN is a nonprofit
public benefit corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of theState of California, United States of America. ICANN has all requisite power and authority and obtained
all necessary corporate approvals to enter into and duly execute and deliver this Agreement.

2

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTARTICLE 2.
COVENANTS OF REGISTRY OPERATOR
Registry Operator covenants and agrees with ICANN as follows:
2.1
Approved Services; Additional Services. Registry Operator shall be entitled to provide
the Registry Services described in clauses (a) and (b) of the first paragraph of Section 2.1 in thespecification at [see specification 6] (“Specification 6”) and such other Registry Services set forth on
Exhibit A (collectively, the “Approved Services”). If Registry Operator desires to provide any Registry
Service that is not an Approved Service or is a modification to an Approved Service (each, an “Additional
Service”), Registry Operator shall submit a request for approval of such Additional Service pursuant to
the Registry Services Evaluation Policy at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html, as suchpolicy may be amended from time to time in accordance with the bylaws of ICANN (as amended fromtime to time, the “ICANN Bylaws”) applicable to Consensus Policies (the “RSEP”). Registry Operator
may offer Additional Services only with the written approval of ICANN, and, upon any such approval,such Additional Services shall be deemed Registry Services under this Agreement. In its reasonablediscretion, ICANN may require an amendment to this Agreement reflecting the provision of any
Additional Service which is approved pursuant to the RSEP, which amendment shall be in a form
reasonably acceptable to the parties.
2.2
Compliance with Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies. Registry Operator
shall comply with and implement all Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies found at<http://www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm>, as of the Effective Date and as may in the future
be developed and adopted in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, provided such future Consensus
Polices and Temporary Policies are adopted in accordance with the procedure and relate to those topics
and subject to those limitations set forth at [see specification 1]* (“Specification 1”).
2.3
Data Escrow. Registry Operator shall comply with the registry data escrow procedures
posted at [see specification 2]*.
2.4
Monthly Reporting. Within twenty (20) calendar days following the end of eachcalendar month, Registry Operator shall deliver to ICANN reports in the format posted in thespecification at [see specification 3]*.
2.5
Publication of Registration Data. Registry Operator shall provide public access toregistration data in accordance with the specification posted at [see specification 4]* (“Specification 4”).
2.6
Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes inwriting, Registry Operator shall comply with the restrictions on registration of character strings set forthat [see specification 5]* (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may establish policies concerning thereservation or blocking of additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. If Registry
Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the Registry TLD (other than the Second-Level
Reservations for Registry Operations from Specification 5), such registrations must be through an
ICANN accredited registrar. Any such registrations will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section
6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-Level Transaction Fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry
Operator pursuant to Section 6.1.
2.7
Registry Interoperability and Continuity. Registry Operator shall comply with theRegistry Interoperability and Continuity Specifications as set forth in Specification 6.
* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

3

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

2.8
Protection of Legal Rights of Third Parties. Registry Operator must specify, andcomply with, a process and procedures for launch of the TLD and initial registration-related and ongoingprotection of the legal rights of third parties as set forth in the specification at [see specification 7]*(“Specification 7”). Registry Operator may, at its election, implement additional protections of the legal
rights of third parties. Any changes or modifications to the process and procedures required bySpecification 7 following the Effective Date must be approved in advance by ICANN in writing.
Registry Operator must comply with all remedies imposed by ICANN pursuant to Section 2 ofSpecification 7, subject to Registry Operator’s right to challenge such remedies as set forth in theapplicable procedure described therein. Registry Operator shall take reasonable steps to investigate andrespond to any reports from law enforcement and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies ofillegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD. In responding to such reports, Registry Operator
will not be required to take any action in contravention of applicable law.
2.9

Registrars.

(a)Registry Operator must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering
domain names. Registry Operator must provide non-discriminatory access to Registry Services to all
ICANN accredited registrars that enter into and are in compliance with the registry-registrar agreement
for the TLD; provided, that Registry Operator may establish non-discriminatory criteria for qualification
to register names in the TLD that are reasonably related to the proper functioning of the TLD. Registry
Operator must use a uniform non-discriminatory agreement with all registrars authorized to registernames in the TLD. Such agreement may be revised by Registry Operator from time to time; provided,
however, that any such revisions must be approved in advance by ICANN.
(b)
If Registry Operator (i) becomes an Affiliate or reseller of an ICANN accredited
registrar, or (ii) subcontracts the provision of any Registry Services to an ICANN accredited registrar,
registrar reseller or any of their respective Affiliates, then, in either such case of (i) or (ii) above, Registry
Operator will give ICANN prompt notice of the contract, transaction or other arrangement that resulted insuch affiliation, reseller relationship or subcontract, as applicable, including, if requested by ICANN,
copies of any contract relating thereto; provided, that ICANN will not disclose such contracts to any third
party other than relevant competition authorities. ICANN reserves the right, but not the obligation, torefer any such contract, transaction or other arrangement to relevant competition authorities in the eventthat ICANN determines that such contract, transaction or other arrangement might raise competition
issues.
(c)
For the purposes of this Agreement: (i) “Affiliate” means a person or entity that,
directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common
control with, the person or entity specified, and (ii) “control” (including the terms “controlled by” and“under common control with”) means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause
the direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, whether through the ownership ofsecurities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a board of directors orequivalent governing body, by contract, by credit arrangement or otherwise.
2.10

Pricing for Registry Services.

(a)With respect to initial domain name registrations, Registry Operator shall provide
ICANN and each ICANN accredited registrar that has executed the registry-registrar agreement for the
TLD advance written notice of any price increase (including as a result of the elimination of any refunds,
rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs which had the effect of reducing the price charged toregistrars, unless such refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs are of a limited* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

4

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

duration that is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the registrar when offered) of no less than thirty(30) calendar days. Registry Operator shall offer registrars the option to obtain initial domain nameregistrations for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years.
(b)With respect to renewal of domain name registrations, Registry Operator shallprovide ICANN and each ICANN accredited registrar that has executed the registry-registrar agreement
for the TLD advance written notice of any price increase (including as a result of the elimination of any
refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying, Qualified Marketing Programs or other programs which had theeffect of reducing the price charged to registrars) of no less than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days.
Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, with respect to renewal of domain name registrations: (i)Registry Operator need only provide thirty (30) calendar days notice of any price increase if the resulting
price is less than or equal to (A) for the period beginning on the Effective Date and ending twelve (12)months following the Effective Date, the initial price charged for registrations in the TLD, or (B) for
subsequent periods, a price for which Registry Operator provided a notice pursuant to the first sentence of
this Section 2.10(b) within the twelve (12) month period preceding the effective date of the proposed
price increase; and (ii) Registry Operator need not provide notice of any price increase for the impositionof the Variable Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section 6.3. Registry Operator shall offer registrars theoption to obtain domain name registration renewals at the current price (i.e. the price in place prior to any
noticed increase) for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten
years.
(c)
In addition, Registry Operator must have uniform pricing for renewals of
domain name registrations (“Renewal Pricing”). For the purposes of determining Renewal Pricing, theprice for each domain registration renewal must be identical to the price of all other domain nameregistration renewals in place at the time of such renewal, and such price must take into account universal
application of any refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs in place at the time ofrenewal. The foregoing requirements of this Section 2.10(c) shall not apply for (i) purposes ofdetermining Renewal Pricing if the registrar has provided Registry Operator with documentation that
demonstrates that the applicable registrant expressly agreed in its registration agreement with registrar tohigher Renewal Pricing at the time of the initial registration of the domain name following clear andconspicuous disclosure of such Renewal Pricing to such registrant, and (ii) discounted Renewal Pricing
pursuant to a Qualified Marketing Program (as defined below). The parties acknowledge that the purposeof this Section 2.10(c) is to prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed byRegistry Operator without the written consent of the applicable registrant at the time of the initial
registration of the domain and this Section 2.10(c) will be interpreted broadly to prohibit such practices.
For purposes of this Section 2.10(c), a “Qualified Marketing Program” is a marketing program pursuant
to which Registry Operator offers discounted Renewal Pricing, provided that each of the following
criteria is satisfied: (i) the program and related discounts are offered for a period of time not to exceed
one hundred eighty (180) calendar days (with consecutive substantially similar programs aggregated for
purposes of determining the number of calendar days of the program), (ii) all ICANN accredited registrars
are provided the same opportunity to qualify for such discounted Renewal Pricing; and (iii) the intent oreffect of the program is not to exclude any particular class(es) of registrations (e.g., registrations held bylarge corporations) or increase the renewal price of any particular class(es) of registrations. Nothing inthis Section 2.10(c) shall limit Registry Operator’s obligations pursuant to Section 2.10(b).
(d)
Registry Operator shall provide public query-based DNS lookup service for the
TLD (that is, operate the Registry TLD zone servers) at its sole expense.
2.11

Contractual and Operational Compliance Audits.
* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

5

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT(a)
ICANN may from time to time (not to exceed twice per calendar year) conduct,or engage a third party to conduct, contractual compliance audits to assess compliance by Registry
Operator with its representations and warranties contained in Article 1 of this Agreement and its
covenants contained in Article 2 of this Agreement. Such audits shall be tailored to achieve the purposeof assessing compliance, and ICANN will (a) give reasonable advance notice of any such audit, whichnotice shall specify in reasonable detail the categories of documents, data and other information requested
by ICANN, and (b) use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct such audit in such a manner as to notunreasonably disrupt the operations of Registry Operator. As part of such audit and upon request by
ICANN, Registry Operator shall timely provide all responsive documents, data and any other informationnecessary to demonstrate Registry Operator’s compliance with this Agreement. Upon no less than five(5) business days notice (unless otherwise agreed to by Registry Operator), ICANN may, as part of any
contractual compliance audit, conduct site visits during regular business hours to assess compliance byRegistry Operator with its representations and warranties contained in Article 1 of this Agreement and its
covenants contained in Article 2 of this Agreement.
(b)
Any audit conducted pursuant to Section 2.11(a) will be at ICANN’s expense,
unless (i) Registry Operator (A) controls, is controlled by, is under common control or is otherwise
Affiliated with, any ICANN accredited registrar or registrar reseller or any of their respective Affiliates,or (B) has subcontracted the provision of Registry Services to an ICANN accredited registrar or registrar
reseller or any of their respective Affiliates, and, in either case of (A) or (B) above, the audit relates toRegistry Operator’s compliance with Section 2.14, in which case Registry Operator shall reimburse
ICANN for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the portion of the audit related to Registry
Operator’s compliance with Section 2.14, or (ii) the audit is related to a discrepancy in the fees paid by
Registry Operator hereunder in excess of 5% to ICANN’s detriment, in which case Registry Operator
shall reimburse ICANN for all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the entirety of such audit.
In either such case of (i) or (ii) above, such reimbursement will be paid together with the next RegistryLevel Fee payment due following the date of transmittal of the cost statement for such audit.
(c)
Notwithstanding Section 2.11(a), if Registry Operator is found not to be incompliance with its representations and warranties contained in Article 1 of this Agreement or its
covenants contained in Article 2 of this Agreement in two consecutive audits conducted pursuant to thisSection 2.11, ICANN may increase the number of such audits to one per calendar quarter.
(d)
Registry Operator will give ICANN immediate notice of the commencement of
any of the proceedings referenced in Section 4.3(d) or the occurrence of any of the matters specified in
Section 4.3(f).
2.12Continued Operations Instrument. Registry Operator shall comply with the terms andconditions relating to the Continued Operations Instrument set forth in the specification at [seespecification 8].
2.13
Emergency Transition. Registry Operator agrees that in the event that any of theregistry functions set forth in Section 6 of Specification 10 fails for a period longer than the emergency
threshold for such function set forth in Section 6 of Specification 10, ICANN may designate an
emergency interim registry operator of the registry for the TLD (an “Emergency Operator”) in accordancewith ICANN's registry transition process (available at ____________) (as the same may be amended fromtime to time, the “Registry Transition Process”) until such time as Registry Operator has demonstrated to
ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that it can resume operation of the registry for the TLD without thereoccurrence of such failure. Following such demonstration, Registry Operator may transition back into
operation of the registry for the TLD pursuant to the procedures set out in the Registry Transition Process,* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

6

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

provided that Registry Operator pays all reasonable costs incurred (i) by ICANN as a result of thedesignation of the Emergency Operator and (ii) by the Emergency Operator in connection with theoperation of the registry for the TLD, which costs shall be documented in reasonable detail in records thatshall be made available to Registry Operator. In the event ICANN designates an Emergency Operator
pursuant to this Section 2.13 and the Registry Transition Process, Registry Operator shall provide ICANN
or any such Emergency Operator with all data (including the data escrowed in accordance with Section2.3) regarding operations of the registry for the TLD necessary to maintain operations and registryfunctions that may be reasonably requested by ICANN or such Emergency Operator. Registry Operator
agrees that ICANN may make any changes it deems necessary to the IANA database for DNS and
WHOIS records with respect to the TLD in the event that an Emergency Operator is designated pursuant
to this Section 2.13. In addition, in the event of such failure, ICANN shall retain and may enforce its
rights under the Continued Operations Instrument and Alternative Instrument, as applicable.
2.14
Registry Code of Conduct. In connection with the operation of the registry for the
TLD, Registry Operator shall comply with the Registry Code of Conduct as set forth in the specification
at [see specification 9].
2.15
Cooperation with Economic Studies. If ICANN initiates or commissions an economic
study on the impact or functioning of new generic top-level domains on the Internet, the DNS or related
matters, Registry Operator shall reasonably cooperate with such study, including by delivering to ICANN
or its designee conducting such study all data reasonably necessary for the purposes of such study
requested by ICANN or its designee, provided, that Registry Operator may withhold any internal analyses
or evaluations prepared by Registry Operator with respect to such data. Any data delivered to ICANN orits designee pursuant to this Section 2.15 shall be fully aggregated and anonymized by ICANN or its
designee prior to any disclosure of such data to any third party.
2.16
Registry Performance Specifications. Registry Performance Specifications for
operation of the TLD will be as set forth in the specification at [see specification 10]*. Registry Operator
shall comply with such Performance Specifications and, for a period of at least one year, shall keep
technical and operational records sufficient to evidence compliance with such specifications for eachcalendar year during the Term.
2.17
Personal Data. Registry Operator shall (i) notify each ICANN-accredited registrar thatis a party to the registry-registrar agreement for the TLD of the purposes for which data about any
identified or identifiable natural person (“Personal Data”) submitted to Registry Operator by suchregistrar is collected and used under this Agreement or otherwise and the intended recipients (orcategories of recipients) of such Personal Data, and (ii) require such registrar to obtain the consent of eachregistrant in the TLD for such collection and use of Personal Data. Registry Operator shall takereasonable steps to protect Personal Data collected from such registrar from loss, misuse, unauthorized
disclosure, alteration or destruction. Registry Operator shall not use or authorize the use of Personal Data
in a way that is incompatible with the notice provided to registrars.
2.18[Note: For Community-Based TLDs Only] Obligations of Registry Operator to TLD
Community. Registry Operator shall establish registration policies in conformity with the application
submitted with respect to the TLD for: (i) naming conventions within the TLD, (ii) requirements forregistration by members of the TLD community, and (iii) use of registered domain names in conformity
with the stated purpose of the community-based TLD. Registry Operator shall operate the TLD in amanner that allows the TLD community to discuss and participate in the development and modification ofpolicies and practices for the TLD. Registry Operator shall establish procedures for the enforcement ofregistration policies for the TLD, and resolution of disputes concerning compliance with TLD registration* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

7

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

policies, and shall enforce such registration policies. Registry Operator agrees to implement and bebound by the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure as set forth at [insert applicable URL]
with respect to disputes arising pursuant to this Section 2.18.]
ARTICLE 3.
COVENANTS OF ICANNICANN covenants and agrees with Registry Operator as follows:
3.1
Open and Transparent. Consistent with ICANN’s expressed mission and core values,
ICANN shall operate in an open and transparent manner.
3.2
Equitable Treatment. ICANN shall not apply standards, policies, procedures orpractices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate
treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause.
3.3
TLD Nameservers. ICANN will use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that any
changes to the TLD nameserver designations submitted to ICANN by Registry Operator (in a format andwith required technical elements specified by ICANN at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/ will be
implemented by ICANN within seven (7) calendar days or as promptly as feasible following technicalverifications.
3.4
Root-zone Information Publication. ICANN’s publication of root-zone contact
information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts.
Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format
specified from time to time by ICANN at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/.
3.5
Authoritative Root Database. To the extent that ICANN is authorized to set policy
with regard to an authoritative root server system, ICANN shall use commercially reasonable efforts to(a) ensure that the authoritative root will point to the top-level domain nameservers designated byRegistry Operator for the TLD, (b) maintain a stable, secure, and authoritative publicly available databaseof relevant information about the TLD, in accordance with ICANN publicly available policies andprocedures, and (c) coordinate the Authoritative Root Server System so that it is operated and maintainedin a stable and secure manner; provided, that ICANN shall not be in breach of this Agreement and
ICANN shall have no liability in the event that any third party (including any governmental entity orinternet service provider) blocks or restricts access to the TLD in any jurisdiction.
ARTICLE 4.
TERM AND TERMINATION
4.1
Term. The term of this Agreement will be ten years from the Effective Date (as suchterm may be extended pursuant to Section 4.2, the “Term”).
4.2

Renewal.

(a)This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten years upon the
expiration of the initial Term set forth in Section 4.1 and each successive Term, unless:* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

8

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT(i)
Following notice by ICANN to Registry Operator of a fundamental andmaterial breach of Registry Operator’s covenants set forth in Article 2 or breach of its
payment obligations under Article 6 of this Agreement, which notice shall include withspecificity the details of the alleged breach, and such breach has not been cured within
thirty (30) calendar days of such notice, (A) an arbitrator or court has finally determinedthat Registry Operator has been in fundamental and material breach of such covenant(s)or in breach of its payment obligations, and (B) Registry Operator has failed to comply
with such determination and cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days or such othertime period as may be determined by the arbitrator or court; or(ii)
During the then current Term, Registry Operator shall have been foundby an arbitrator (pursuant to Section 5.2 of this Agreement) on at least three (3) separate
occasions to have been in fundamental and material breach (whether or not cured) of
Registry Operator’s covenants set forth in Article 2 or breach of its payment obligations
under Article 6 of this Agreement.
(b)Upon the occurrence of the events set forth in Section 4.2(a) (i) or (ii), theAgreement shall terminate at the expiration of the then current Term.
4.3

Termination by ICANN.

(a)ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if: (i)Registry Operator fails to cure (A) any fundamental and material breach of Registry Operator’s
representations and warranties set forth in Article 1 or covenants set forth in Article 2, or (B) any breachof Registry Operator’s payment obligations set forth in Article 6 of this Agreement, each within thirty(30) calendar days after ICANN gives Registry Operator notice of such breach, which notice will include
with specificity the details of the alleged breach, (ii) an arbitrator or court has finally determined that
Registry Operator is in fundamental and material breach of such covenant(s) or in breach of its payment
obligations, and (iii) Registry Operator fails to comply with such determination and cure such breach
within ten (10) calendar days or such other time period as may be determined by the arbitrator or court.
(b)
ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if
Registry Operator fails to complete all testing and procedures (identified by ICANN in writing to Registry
Operator prior to the date hereof) for delegation of the TLD into the root zone within twelve (12) monthsof the Effective Date. Registry Operator may request an extension for up to additional twelve (12)months for delegation if it can demonstrate, to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction, that Registry Operator is
working diligently and in good faith toward successfully completing the steps necessary for delegation of
the TLD. Any fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN prior to such termination date shall be retainedby ICANN in full.
(c)
ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if (i)Registry Operator fails to cure a material breach of Registry Operator’s obligations set forth in Section
2.12 of this Agreement within thirty (30) calendar days of delivery of notice of such breach by ICANN, or
if the Continued Operations Instrument is not in effect for greater than sixty (60) consecutive calendar
days at any time following the Effective Date, (ii) an arbitrator or court has finally determined that
Registry Operator is in material breach of such covenant, and (iii) Registry Operator fails to cure suchbreach within ten (10) calendar days or such other time period as may be determined by the arbitrator or
court.

* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

9

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT(d)
ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if (i)Registry Operator makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar act, (ii) attachment,
garnishment or similar proceedings are commenced against Registry Operator, which proceedings are amaterial threat to Registry Operator’s ability to operate the registry for the TLD, and are not dismissed
within sixty (60) days of their commencement, (iii) a trustee, receiver, liquidator or equivalent is
appointed in place of Registry Operator or maintains control over any of Registry Operator’s property,(iv) execution is levied upon any property of Registry Operator, (v) proceedings are instituted by oragainst Registry Operator under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or other laws relating to therelief of debtors and such proceedings are not dismissed within thirty (30) days of their commencement,or (vi) Registry Operator files for protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Section
101 et seq., or a foreign equivalent or liquidates, dissolves or otherwise discontinues its operations or theoperation of the TLD.
(e)
ICANN may, upon thirty (30) calendar days’ notice to Registry Operator,
terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 2 of Specification 7, subject to Registry Operator’s right tochallenge such termination as set forth in the applicable procedure described therein.
(f)
ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement if (i)Registry Operator knowingly employs any officer that is convicted of a misdemeanor related to financial
activities or of any felony, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or
breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN reasonably deems as thesubstantive equivalent of any of the foregoing and such officer is not terminated within thirty (30)
calendar days of Registry Operator’s knowledge of the foregoing, or (ii) any member of Registry
Operator’s board of directors or similar governing body is convicted of a misdemeanor related to financial
activities or of any felony, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or
breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN reasonably deems as thesubstantive equivalent of any of the foregoing and such member is not removed from Registry Operator’sboard of directors or similar governing body within thirty (30) calendar days of Registry Operator’s
knowledge of the foregoing.
(g)[Applicable to intergovernmental organizations or governmental entities only.]
ICANN may terminate this Agreement pursuant to Section 7.14.
4.4

Termination by Registry Operator.

(a)Registry Operator may terminate this Agreement upon notice to ICANN if, (i)ICANN fails to cure any fundamental and material breach of ICANN’s covenants set forth in Article 3,
within thirty (30) calendar days after Registry Operator gives ICANN notice of such breach, which notice
will include with specificity the details of the alleged breach, (ii) an arbitrator or court has finallydetermined that ICANN is in fundamental and material breach of such covenants, and (iii) ICANN fails tocomply with such determination and cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days or such other time
period as may be determined by the arbitrator or court.
(b)Registry Operator may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon one
hundred eighty (180) calendar day advance notice to ICANN.
4.5
Transition of Registry upon Termination of Agreement. Upon expiration of the Termpursuant to Section 4.1 or Section 4.2 or any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 4.3 or
Section 4.4, Registry Operator shall provide ICANN or any successor registry operator that may bedesignated by ICANN for the TLD in accordance with this Section 4.5 with all data (including the data
* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

10

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

escrowed in accordance with Section 2.3) regarding operations of the registry for the TLD necessary tomaintain operations and registry functions that may be reasonably requested by ICANN or such successor
registry operator. After consultation with Registry Operator, ICANN shall determine whether or not totransition operation of the TLD to a successor registry operator in its sole discretion and in conformancewith the Registry Transition Process; provided, however, that if Registry Operator demonstrates to
ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, andmaintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distributeor transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate ofRegistry Operator, and (iii) transitioning operation of the TLD is not necessary to protect the public
interest, then ICANN may not transition operation of the TLD to a successor registry operator upon the
expiration or termination of this Agreement without the consent of Registry Operator (which shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed). For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing sentence shallnot prohibit ICANN from delegating the TLD pursuant to a future application process for the delegationof top-level domains, subject to any processes and objection procedures instituted by ICANN inconnection with such application process intended to protect the rights of third parties. Registry Operator
agrees that ICANN may make any changes it deems necessary to the IANA database for DNS and
WHOIS records with respect to the TLD in the event of a transition of the TLD pursuant to this Section
4.5. In addition, ICANN or its designee shall retain and may enforce its rights under the Continued
Operations Instrument and Alternative Instrument, as applicable, regardless of the reason for termination
or expiration of this Agreement.
[Alternative Section 4.5 Transition of Registry upon Termination of Agreement text forintergovernmental organizations or governmental entities or other special circumstances:“Transition of Registry upon Termination of Agreement. Upon expiration of the Termpursuant to Section 4.1 or Section 4.2 or any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 4.3 or
Section 4.4, in connection with ICANN’s designation of a successor registry operator for the TLD,
Registry Operator and ICANN agree to consult each other and work cooperatively to facilitate andimplement the transition of the TLD in accordance with this Section 4.5. After consultation with Registry
Operator, ICANN shall determine whether or not to transition operation of the TLD to a successor
registry operator in its sole discretion and in conformance with the Registry Transition Process. In theevent ICANN determines to transition operation of the TLD to a successor registry operator, upon
Registry Operator’s consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), Registry
Operator shall provide ICANN or such successor registry operator for the TLD with any data regarding
operations of the TLD necessary to maintain operations and registry functions that may be reasonably
requested by ICANN or such successor registry operator in addition to data escrowed in accordance with
Section 2.3 hereof. In the event that Registry Operator does not consent to provide such data, any registrydata related to the TLD shall be returned to Registry Operator, unless otherwise agreed upon by theparties. Registry Operator agrees that ICANN may make any changes it deems necessary to the IANA
database for DNS and WHOIS records with respect to the TLD in the event of a transition of the TLD
pursuant to this Section 4.5. In addition, ICANN or its designee shall retain and may enforce its rights
under the Continued Operations Instrument and Alternative Instrument, as applicable, regardless of thereason for termination or expiration of this Agreement.”]
4.6
Effect of Termination. Upon any expiration of the Term or termination of thisAgreement, the obligations and rights of the parties hereto shall cease, provided that such expiration or
termination of this Agreement shall not relieve the parties of any obligation or breach of this Agreement
accruing prior to such expiration or termination, including, without limitation, all accrued payment
obligations arising under Article 6. In addition, Article 5, Article 7, Section 2.12, Section 4.5, and this* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

11

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

Section 4.6 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, therights of Registry Operator to operate the registry for the TLD shall immediately cease upon any
expiration of the Term or termination of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 5.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
5.1
Cooperative Engagement. Before either party may initiate arbitration pursuant to
Section 5.2 below, ICANN and Registry Operator, following initiation of communications by either party,
must attempt to resolve the dispute by engaging in good faith discussion over a period of at least fifteen(15) calendar days.
5.2
Arbitration. Disputes arising under or in connection with this Agreement, including
requests for specific performance, will be resolved through binding arbitration conducted pursuant to therules of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration
will be conducted in the English language and will occur in Los Angeles County, California. Any
arbitration will be in front of a single arbitrator, unless (i) ICANN is seeking punitive or exemplary
damages, or operational sanctions, or (ii) the parties agree in writing to a greater number of arbitrators. In
either case of clauses (i) or (ii) in the preceding sentence, the arbitration will be in front of threearbitrators with each party selecting one arbitrator and the two selected arbitrators selecting the third
arbitrator. In order to expedite the arbitration and limit its cost, the arbitrator(s) shall establish page limits
for the parties’ filings in conjunction with the arbitration, and should the arbitrator(s) determine that ahearing is necessary, the hearing shall be limited to one (1) calendar day, provided that in any arbitrationin which ICANN is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, or operational sanctions, the hearing may be
extended for one (1) additional calendar day if agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the arbitrator(s)based on the arbitrator(s) independent determination or the reasonable request of one of the parties
thereto. The prevailing party in the arbitration will have the right to recover its costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees, which the arbitrator(s) shall include in the awards. In the event the arbitrators determinethat Registry Operator has been repeatedly and willfully in fundamental and material breach of its
obligations set forth in Article 2, Article 6 or Section 5.4 of this Agreement, ICANN may request thearbitrators award punitive or exemplary damages, or operational sanctions (including without limitationan order temporarily restricting Registry Operator’s right to sell new registrations). In any litigation
involving ICANN concerning this Agreement, jurisdiction and exclusive venue for such litigation will bein a court located in Los Angeles County, California; however, the parties will also have the right toenforce a judgment of such a court in any court of competent jurisdiction.
[Alternative Section 5.2 Arbitration text for intergovernmental organizations or governmental
entities or other special circumstances:“Arbitration. Disputes arising under or in connection with this Agreement, including requests
for specific performance, will be resolved through binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the rules of
the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration will be
conducted in the English language and will occur in Geneva, Switzerland, unless another location ismutually agreed upon by Registry Operator and ICANN. Any arbitration will be in front of a single
arbitrator, unless (i) ICANN is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, or operational sanctions, or (ii)the parties agree in writing to a greater number of arbitrators. In either case of clauses (i) or (ii) in thepreceding sentence, the arbitration will be in front of three arbitrators with each party selecting one
arbitrator and the two selected arbitrators selecting the third arbitrator. In order to expedite the arbitrationand limit its cost, the arbitrator(s) shall establish page limits for the parties’ filings in conjunction with the* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

12

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

arbitration, and should the arbitrator(s) determine that a hearing is necessary, the hearing shall be limited
to one (1) calendar day, provided that in any arbitration in which ICANN is seeking punitive or
exemplary damages, or operational sanctions, the hearing may be extended for one (1) additional calendar
day if agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the arbitrator(s) based on the arbitrator(s) independent
determination or the reasonable request of one of the parties thereto. The prevailing party in thearbitration will have the right to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, which the arbitrator(s)shall include in the awards. In the event the arbitrators determine that Registry Operator has been
repeatedly and willfully in fundamental and material breach of its obligations set forth in Article 2,
Article 6 or Section 5.4 of this Agreement, ICANN may request the arbitrators award punitive or
exemplary damages, or operational sanctions (including without limitation an order temporarily
restricting Registry Operator’s right to sell new registrations). In any litigation involving ICANN
concerning this Agreement, jurisdiction and exclusive venue for such litigation will be in a court locatedin Geneva, Switzerland, unless an another location is mutually agreed upon by Registry Operator and
ICANN; however, the parties will also have the right to enforce a judgment of such a court in any court ofcompetent jurisdiction.”]
5.3
Limitation of Liability. ICANN’s aggregate monetary liability for violations of thisAgreement will not exceed an amount equal to the Registry-Level Fees paid by Registry Operator to
ICANN within the preceding twelve-month period pursuant to this Agreement (excluding the Variable
Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section 6.3, if any). Registry Operator’s aggregate monetary liability to
ICANN for breaches of this Agreement will be limited to an amount equal to the fees paid to ICANN
during the preceding twelve-month period (excluding the Variable Registry-Level Fee set forth in Section
6.3, if any), and punitive and exemplary damages, if any, awarded in accordance with Section 5.2. In no
event shall either party be liable for special, punitive, exemplary or consequential damages arising out ofor in connection with this Agreement or the performance or nonperformance of obligations undertaken inthis Agreement, except as provided in Section 5.2. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement,
neither party makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the services rendered by itself, its
servants or agents, or the results obtained from their work, including, without limitation, any implied
warranty of merchantability, non-infringement or fitness for a particular purpose.
5.4
Specific Performance. Registry Operator and ICANN agree that irreparable damage
could occur if any of the provisions of this Agreement was not performed in accordance with its specificterms. Accordingly, the parties agree that they each shall be entitled to seek from the arbitrator specificperformance of the terms of this Agreement (in addition to any other remedy to which each party isentitled).
ARTICLE 6.
FEES
6.1
Registry-Level Fees. Registry Operator shall pay ICANN a Registry-Level Fee equal to(i) the Registry Fixed Fee of US$6,250 per calendar quarter and (ii) the Registry-Level Transaction Fee.
The Registry-Level Transaction Fee will be equal to the number of annual increments of an initial or
renewal domain name registration (at one or more levels, and including renewals associated with transfersfrom one ICANN-accredited registrar to another, each a “Transaction”), during the applicable calendar
quarter multiplied by US$0.25; provided, however that the Registry-Level Transaction Fee shall not apply
until and unless more than 50,000 Transactions have occurred in the TLD during any calendar quarter or
any four calendar quarter period (the “Transaction Threshold”) and shall apply to each Transaction that
occurred during each quarter in which the Transaction Threshold has been met, but shall not apply to eachquarter in which the Transaction Threshold has not been met. Registry Operator shall pay the Registry* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

13

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

Level Fees on a quarterly basis by the 20th day following the end of each calendar quarter (i.e., on April
20, July 20, October 20 and January 20 for the calendar quarters ending March 31, June 30, September 30
and December 31) of the year to an account designated by ICANN.
6.2
Cost Recovery for RSTEP. Requests by Registry Operator for the approval of
Additional Services pursuant to Section 2.1 may be referred by ICANN to the Registry Services
Technical Evaluation Panel ("RSTEP") pursuant to that process at
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/. In the event that such requests are referred to RSTEP, Registry
Operator shall remit to ICANN the invoiced cost of the RSTEP review within ten (10) business days ofreceipt of a copy of the RSTEP invoice from ICANN, unless ICANN determines, in its sole and absolute
discretion, to pay all or any portion of the invoiced cost of such RSTEP review.
6.3

Variable Registry-Level Fee.

(a)
If the ICANN accredited registrars (as a group) do not approve pursuant to theterms of their registrar accreditation agreements with ICANN the variable accreditation fees establishedby the ICANN Board of Directors for any ICANN fiscal year, upon delivery of notice from ICANN,
Registry Operator shall pay to ICANN a Variable Registry-Level Fee, which shall be paid on a fiscal
quarter basis, and shall accrue as of the beginning of the first fiscal quarter of such ICANN fiscal year.
The fee will be calculated and invoiced by ICANN on a quarterly basis, and shall be paid by Registry
Operator within sixty (60) calendar days with respect to the first quarter of such ICANN fiscal year andwithin twenty (20) calendar days with respect to each remaining quarter of such ICANN fiscal year, ofreceipt of the invoiced amount by ICANN. The Registry Operator may invoice and collect the Variable
Registry-Level Fees from the registrars who are party to a registry-registrar agreement with Registry
Operator (which agreement may specifically provide for the reimbursement of Variable Registry-Level
Fees paid by Registry Operator pursuant to this Section 6.3); provided, that the fees shall be invoiced to
all ICANN accredited registrars if invoiced to any. The Variable Registry-Level Fee, if collectible by
ICANN, shall be an obligation of Registry Operator and shall be due and payable as provided in thisSection 6.3 irrespective of Registry Operator’s ability to seek and obtain reimbursement of such fee fromregistrars. In the event ICANN later collects variable accreditation fees for which Registry Operator has
paid ICANN a Variable Registry-Level Fee, ICANN shall reimburse the Registry Operator an appropriate
amount of the Variable Registry-Level Fee, as reasonably determined by ICANN. If the ICANN
accredited registrars (as a group) do approve pursuant to the terms of their registrar accreditationagreements with ICANN the variable accreditation fees established by the ICANN Board of Directors fora fiscal year, ICANN shall not be entitled to a Variable-Level Fee hereunder for such fiscal year,
irrespective of whether the ICANN accredited registrars comply with their payment obligations to
ICANN during such fiscal year.
(b)
The amount of the Variable Registry-Level Fee will be specified for eachregistrar, and may include both a per-registrar component and a transactional component. The perregistrar component of the Variable Registry-Level Fee shall be specified by ICANN in accordance withthe budget adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors for each ICANN fiscal year. The transactional
component of the Variable Registry-Level Fee shall be specified by ICANN in accordance with thebudget adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors for each ICANN fiscal year but shall not exceed
US$0.25 per domain name registration (including renewals associated with transfers from one ICANNaccredited registrar to another) per year.
6.4
Adjustments to Fees. Notwithstanding any of the fee limitations set forth in this Article
6, commencing upon the expiration of the first year of this Agreement, and upon the expiration of eachyear thereafter during the Term, the then current fees set forth in Section 6.1 and Section 6.3 may be* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

14

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

adjusted, at ICANN’s discretion, by a percentage equal to the percentage change, if any, in (i) the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (1982-1984 = 100) published by theUnited States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, or any successor index (the “CPI”) for themonth which is one (1) month prior to the commencement of the applicable year, over (ii) the CPI
published for the month which is one (1) month prior to the commencement of the immediately prioryear. In the event of any such increase, ICANN shall provide notice to Registry Operator specifying theamount of such adjustment. Any fee adjustment under this Section 6.4 shall be effective as of the firstday of the year in which the above calculation is made.
6.5
Additional Fee on Late Payments. For any payments thirty (30) calendar days or more
overdue under this Agreement, Registry Operator shall pay an additional fee on late payments at the rateof 1.5% per month or, if less, the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
ARTICLE 7.
MISCELLANEOUS
7.1

Indemnification of ICANN.

(a)Registry Operator shall indemnify and defend ICANN and its directors, officers,
employees, and agents (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all third-party claims,
damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or
relating to intellectual property ownership rights with respect to the TLD, the delegation of the TLD toRegistry Operator, Registry Operator’s operation of the registry for the TLD or Registry Operator’s
provision of Registry Services, provided that Registry Operator shall not be obligated to indemnify or
defend any Indemnitee to the extent the claim, damage, liability, cost or expense arose: (i) due to theactions or omissions of ICANN, its subcontractors, panelists or evaluators specifically related to andoccurring during the registry TLD application process (other than actions or omissions requested by or forthe benefit of Registry Operator), or (ii) due to a breach by ICANN of any obligation contained in thisAgreement or any willful misconduct by ICANN. This Section shall not be deemed to require Registry
Operator to reimburse or otherwise indemnify ICANN for costs associated with the negotiation or
execution of this Agreement, or with monitoring or management of the parties’ respective obligations
hereunder. Further, this Section shall not apply to any request for attorney’s fees in connection with any
litigation or arbitration between or among the parties, which shall be governed by Article 5 or otherwise
awarded by a court or arbitrator.
[Alternative Section 7.1(a) text for intergovernmental organizations or governmental entities:“Registry Operator shall use its best efforts to cooperate with ICANN in order to ensure that
ICANN does not incur any costs associated with claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses,
including reasonable legal fees and expenses, arising out of or relating to intellectual property ownershiprights with respect to the TLD, the delegation of the TLD to Registry Operator, Registry Operator’soperation of the registry for the TLD or Registry Operator’s provision of Registry Services, provided that
Registry Operator shall not be obligated to provide such cooperation to the extent the claim, damage,liability, cost or expense arose due to a breach by ICANN of any of its obligations contained in thisAgreement or any willful misconduct by ICANN. This Section shall not be deemed to require Registry
Operator to reimburse or otherwise indemnify ICANN for costs associated with the negotiation or
execution of this Agreement, or with monitoring or management of the parties’ respective obligations
hereunder. Further, this Section shall not apply to any request for attorney’s fees in connection with any* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

15

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

litigation or arbitration between or among the parties, which shall be governed by Article 5 or otherwise
awarded by a court or arbitrator.”](b)
For any claims by ICANN for indemnification whereby multiple registry
operators (including Registry Operator) have engaged in the same actions or omissions that gave rise to
the claim, Registry Operator’s aggregate liability to indemnify ICANN with respect to such claim shall belimited to a percentage of ICANN’s total claim, calculated by dividing the number of total domain names
under registration with Registry Operator within the TLD (which names under registration shall becalculated consistently with Article 6 hereof for any applicable quarter) by the total number of domainnames under registration within all top level domains for which the registry operators thereof areengaging in the same acts or omissions giving rise to such claim. For the purposes of reducing Registry
Operator’s liability under Section 7.1(a) pursuant to this Section 7.1(b), Registry Operator shall have theburden of identifying the other registry operators that are engaged in the same actions or omissions thatgave rise to the claim, and demonstrating, to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction, such other registry
operators’ culpability for such actions or omissions. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event that aregistry operator is engaged in the same acts or omissions giving rise to the claims, but such registry
operator(s) do not have the same or similar indemnification obligations to ICANN as set forth in Section
7.1(a) above, the number of domains under management by such registry operator(s) shall nonetheless be
included in the calculation in the preceding sentence. [Note: This Section 7.1(b) is inapplicable tointergovernmental organizations or governmental entities.]
7.2
Indemnification Procedures. If any third-party claim is commenced that is indemnified
under Section 7.1 above, ICANN shall provide notice thereof to Registry Operator as promptly aspracticable. Registry Operator shall be entitled, if it so elects, in a notice promptly delivered to ICANN,
to immediately take control of the defense and investigation of such claim and to employ and engage
attorneys reasonably acceptable to ICANN to handle and defend the same, at Registry Operator’s solecost and expense, provided that in all events ICANN will be entitled to control at its sole cost and expense
the litigation of issues concerning the validity or interpretation of ICANN’s policies, Bylaws or conduct.
ICANN shall cooperate, at Registry Operator’s cost and expense, in all reasonable respects with Registry
Operator and its attorneys in the investigation, trial, and defense of such claim and any appeal arising
therefrom, and may, at its own cost and expense, participate, through its attorneys or otherwise, in suchinvestigation, trial and defense of such claim and any appeal arising therefrom. No settlement of a claimthat involves a remedy affecting ICANN other than the payment of money in an amount that is fully
indemnified by Registry Operator will be entered into without the consent of ICANN. If Registry
Operator does not assume full control over the defense of a claim subject to such defense in accordancewith this Section 7.2, ICANN will have the right to defend the claim in such manner as it may deem
appropriate, at the cost and expense of Registry Operator and Registry Operator shall cooperate in suchdefense. [Note: This Section 7.2 is inapplicable to intergovernmental organizations or governmental
entities.]
7.3
Defined Terms. For purposes of this Agreement, unless such definitions are amended
pursuant to a Consensus Policy at a future date, in which case the following definitions shall be deemed
amended and restated in their entirety as set forth in such Consensus Policy, Security and Stability shallbe defined as follows:(a)
For the purposes of this Agreement, an effect on “Security” shall mean (1) the
unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertion or destruction of registry data, or (2) the unauthorized accessto or disclosure of information or resources on the Internet by systems operating in accordance with allapplicable standards.
* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

16

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT(b)
For purposes of this Agreement, an effect on “Stability” shall refer to (1) lack ofcompliance with applicable relevant standards that are authoritative and published by a well-establishedand recognized Internet standards body, such as the relevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice
Requests for Comments (“RFCs”) sponsored by the Internet Engineering Task Force; or (2) the creationof a condition that adversely affects the throughput, response time, consistency or coherence of responses
to Internet servers or end systems operating in accordance with applicable relevant standards that are
authoritative and published by a well-established and recognized Internet standards body, such as therelevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice RFCs, and relying on Registry Operator's delegatedinformation or provisioning of services.
7.4
No Offset. All payments due under this Agreement will be made in a timely manner
throughout the Term and notwithstanding the pendency of any dispute (monetary or otherwise) between
Registry Operator and ICANN.
7.5
Change in Control; Assignment and Subcontracting. Neither party may assign thisAgreement without the prior written approval of the other party, which approval will not be unreasonably
withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ICANN may assign this Agreement in conjunction with areorganization or re-incorporation of ICANN to another nonprofit corporation or similar entity organizedin the same legal jurisdiction in which ICANN is currently organized for the same or substantially thesame purposes. For purposes of this Section 7.5, a direct or indirect change of control of Registry
Operator or any material subcontracting arrangement with respect to the operation of the registry for the
TLD shall be deemed an assignment. ICANN shall be deemed to have reasonably withheld its consent toany such a direct or indirect change of control or subcontracting arrangement in the event that ICANN
reasonably determines that the person or entity acquiring control of Registry Operator or entering intosuch subcontracting arrangement (or the ultimate parent entity of such acquiring or subcontracting entity)
does not meet the ICANN-adopted registry operator criteria or qualifications then in effect. In addition,
without limiting the foregoing, Registry Operator must provide no less than thirty (30) calendar days
advance notice to ICANN of any material subcontracting arrangements, and any agreement to subcontract
portions of the operations of the TLD must mandate compliance with all covenants, obligations andagreements by Registry Operator hereunder, and Registry Operator shall continue to be bound by suchcovenants, obligations and agreements. Without limiting the foregoing, Registry Operator must also
provide no less than thirty (30) calendar days advance notice to ICANN prior to the consummation of any
transaction anticipated to result in a direct or indirect change of control of Registry Operator. Suchchange of control notification shall include a statement that affirms that the ultimate parent entity of theparty acquiring such control meets the ICANN-adopted specification or policy on registry operator
criteria then in effect, and affirms that Registry Operator is in compliance with its obligations under thisAgreement. Within thirty (30) calendar days of such notification, ICANN may request additional
information from Registry Operator establishing compliance with this Agreement, in which case Registry
Operator must supply the requested information within fifteen (15) calendar days. If ICANN fails to
expressly provide or withhold its consent to any direct or indirect change of control of Registry Operator
or any material subcontracting arrangement within thirty (30) (or, if ICANN has requested additional
information from Registry Operator as set forth above, sixty (60)) calendar days of the receipt of written
notice of such transaction from Registry Operator, ICANN shall be deemed to have consented to suchtransaction. In connection with any such transaction, Registry Operator shall comply with the RegistryTransition Process.
7.6

Amendments and Waivers.

(a)
If ICANN determines that an amendment to this Agreement (including to theSpecifications referred to herein) and all other registry agreements between ICANN and the Applicable* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

17

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

Registry Operators (the “Applicable Registry Agreements”) is desirable (each, a “Special Amendment”),
ICANN may submit a Special Amendment for approval by the Applicable Registry Operators pursuant to
the process set forth in this Section 7.6, provided that a Special Amendment is not a Restricted
Amendment (as defined below). Prior to submitting a Special Amendment for such approval, ICANN
shall first consult in good faith with the Working Group (as defined below) regarding the form andsubstance of a Special Amendment. The duration of such consultation shall be reasonably determined by
ICANN based on the substance of the Special Amendment. Following such consultation, ICANN may
propose the adoption of a Special Amendment by publicly posting such amendment on its website for noless than thirty (30) calendar days (the “Posting Period”) and providing notice of such amendment by
ICANN to the Applicable Registry Operators in accordance with Section 7.8. ICANN will consider the
public comments submitted on a Special Amendment during the Posting Period (including comments
submitted by the Applicable Registry Operators).
(b)
If, within two (2) calendar years of the expiration of the Posting Period (the“Approval Period”), (i) the ICANN Board of Directors approves a Special Amendment (which may be ina form different than submitted for public comment) and (ii) such Special Amendment receives Registry
Operator Approval (as defined below), such Special Amendment shall be deemed approved (an“Approved Amendment”) by the Applicable Registry Operators (the last date on which such approvals
are obtained is herein referred to as the “Amendment Approval Date”) and shall be effective and deemed
an amendment to this Agreement upon sixty (60) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator(the “Amendment Effective Date”). In the event that a Special Amendment is not approved by the
ICANN Board of Directors or does not receive Registry Operator Approval within the Approval Period,
the Special Amendment will have no effect. The procedure used by ICANN to obtain Registry Operator
Approval shall be designed to document the written approval of the Applicable Registry Operators, which
may be in electronic form.
(c)During the thirty (30) calendar day period following the Amendment Approval
Date, Registry Operator (so long as it did not vote in favor of the Approved Amendment) may apply in
writing to ICANN for an exemption from the Approved Amendment (each such request submitted byRegistry Operator hereunder, an “Exemption Request”). Each Exemption Request will set forth the basis
for such request and provide detailed support for an exemption from the Approved Amendment. An
Exemption Request may also include a detailed description and support for any alternatives to, or avariation of, the Approved Amendment proposed by such Registry Operator. An Exemption Request
may only be granted upon a clear and convincing showing by Registry Operator that compliance with theApproved Amendment conflicts with applicable laws or would have a material adverse effect on the longterm financial condition or results of operations of Registry Operator. No Exemption Request will be
granted if ICANN determines, in its reasonable discretion, that granting such Exemption Request would
be materially harmful to registrants or result in the denial of a direct benefit to registrants. Within ninety(90) calendar days of ICANN’s receipt of an Exemption Request, ICANN shall either approve (whichapproval may be conditioned or consist of alternatives to or a variation of the Approved Amendment) or
deny the Exemption Request in writing, during which time the Approved Amendment will not amend thisAgreement; provided, that any such conditions, alternatives or variations shall be effective and, to theextent applicable, will amend this Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date. If the Exemption
Request is approved by ICANN, the Approved Amendment will not amend this Agreement. If such
Exemption Request is denied by ICANN, the Approved Amendment will amend this Agreement as of theAmendment Effective Date (or, if such date has passed, such Approved Amendment shall be deemed
effective immediately on the date of such denial), provided that Registry Operator may, within thirty (30)
calendar days following receipt of ICANN’s determination, appeal ICANN’s decision to deny the
Exemption Request pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Article 5. The Approved* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

18

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

Amendment will be deemed not to have amended this Agreement during the pendency of the dispute
resolution process. For avoidance of doubt, only Exemption Requests submitted by Registry Operator
that are approved by ICANN pursuant to this Section 7.6(c) or through an arbitration decision pursuant to
Article 5 shall exempt Registry Operator from any Approved Amendment, and no exemption request
granted to any other Applicable Registry Operator (whether by ICANN or through arbitration) shall haveany effect under this Agreement or exempt Registry Operator from any Approved Amendment.
(d)Except as set forth in this Section 7.6, no amendment, supplement or
modification of this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be binding unless executed in writing byboth parties, and nothing in this Section 7.6 shall restrict ICANN and Registry Operator from entering
into bilateral amendments and modifications to this Agreement negotiated solely between the two parties.
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be binding unless evidenced by a writing signed by
the party waiving compliance with such provision. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement
or failure to enforce any of the provisions hereof shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any otherprovision hereof, nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly
provided. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Section 7.6 shall be deemed to limit Registry
Operator’s obligation to comply with Section 2.2.
(e)

For purposes of this Section 7.6, the following terms shall have the following

meanings:(i)“Applicable Registry Operators” means, collectively, the registry
operators of the top-level domains party to a registry agreement that contains a provisionsimilar to this Section 7.6, including Registry Operator.
(ii)“Registry Operator Approval” means the receipt of each of thefollowing: (A) the affirmative approval of the Applicable Registry Operators whose
payments to ICANN accounted for two-thirds of the total amount of fees (converted to
U.S. dollars, if applicable) paid to ICANN by all the Applicable Registry Operators
during the immediately previous calendar year pursuant to the Applicable Registry
Agreements, and (B) the affirmative approval of a majority of the Applicable Registry
Operators at the time such approval is obtained. For avoidance of doubt, with respect toclause (B), each Applicable Registry Operator shall have one vote for each top-leveldomain operated by such Registry Operator pursuant to an Applicable Registry
Agreement.
(iii)“Restricted Amendment” means the following: (i) an amendment ofSpecification 1, (ii) except to the extent addressed in Section 2.10 hereof, an amendmentthat specifies the price charged by Registry Operator to registrars for domain nameregistrations, (iii) an amendment to the definition of Registry Services as set forth in thefirst paragraph of Section 2.1 of Specification 6, or (iv) an amendment to the length of the
Term.
(iv)
“Working Group” means representatives of the Applicable Registry
Operators and other members of the community that ICANN appoints, from time to time,to serve as a working group to consult on amendments to the Applicable Registry
Agreements (excluding bilateral amendments pursuant to Section 7.6(d)).

* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

19

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

7.7
No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement will not be construed to create any
obligation by either ICANN or Registry Operator to any non-party to this Agreement, including any
registrar or registered name holder.
7.8
General Notices. Except for notices pursuant to Section 7.6, all notices to be given
under or in relation to this Agreement will be given either (i) in writing at the address of the appropriate
party as set forth below or (ii) via facsimile or electronic mail as provided below, unless that party has
given a notice of change of postal or email address, or facsimile number, as provided in this agreement.
All notices under Section 7.6 shall be given by both posting of the applicable information on ICANN’s
web site and transmission of such information to Registry Operator by electronic mail. Any change in thecontact information for notice below will be given by the party within thirty (30) calendar days of suchchange. Notices, designations, determinations, and specifications made under this Agreement will be in
the English language. Other than notices under Section 7.6, any notice required by this Agreement will
be deemed to have been properly given (i) if in paper form, when delivered in person or via courier
service with confirmation of receipt or (ii) if via facsimile or by electronic mail, upon confirmation ofreceipt by the recipient’s facsimile machine or email server, provided that such notice via facsimile orelectronic mail shall be followed by a copy sent by regular postal mail service within two (2) businessdays. Any notice required by Section 7.6 will be deemed to have been given when electronically posted
on ICANN’s website and upon confirmation of receipt by the email server. In the event other means ofnotice become practically achievable, such as notice via a secure website, the parties will work together toimplement such notice means under this Agreement.
If to ICANN, addressed to:Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina Del Rey, California 90292
Telephone: 1-310-823-9358
Facsimile: 1-310-823-8649
Attention: President and CEO
With a Required Copy to: General Counsel
Email: (As specified from time to time.)
If to Registry Operator, addressed to:[________________][________________][________________]
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Attention:
With a Required Copy to:
Email: (As specified from time to time.)
7.9
Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including those specifications and documents
incorporated by reference to URL locations which form a part of it) constitutes the entire agreement of theparties hereto pertaining to the operation of the TLD and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings,
negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, between the parties on that subject.
* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

20

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

7.10
English Language Controls. Notwithstanding any translated version of this Agreement
and/or specifications that may be provided to Registry Operator, the English language version of thisAgreement and all referenced specifications are the official versions that bind the parties hereto. In theevent of any conflict or discrepancy between any translated version of this Agreement and the English
language version, the English language version controls. Notices, designations, determinations, andspecifications made under this Agreement shall be in the English language.
7.11
Ownership Rights. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as
establishing or granting to Registry Operator any property ownership rights or interests in the TLD or theletters, words, symbols or other characters making up the TLD string.
7.12
Severability. This Agreement shall be deemed severable; the invalidity or
unenforceability of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceabilityof the balance of this Agreement or of any other term hereof, which shall remain in full force and effect.
If any of the provisions hereof are determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the parties shall negotiate ingood faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible.
7.13
Court Orders. ICANN will respect any order from a court of competent jurisdiction,
including any orders from any jurisdiction where the consent or non-objection of the government was arequirement for the delegation of the TLD. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,
ICANN's implementation of any such order will not be a breach of this Agreement.
[Note: The following section is applicable to intergovernmental organizations or governmental entitiesonly.]
7.14
Entities.

Special Provision Relating to Intergovernmental Organizations or Governmental(a)
ICANN acknowledges that Registry Operator is an entity subject to public
international law, including international treaties applicable to Registry Operator (such public
international law and treaties, collectively hereinafter the “Applicable Laws”). Nothing in this Agreement
and its related specifications shall be construed or interpreted to require Registry Operator to violate
Applicable Laws or prevent compliance therewith. The Parties agree that Registry Operator’s compliancewith Applicable Laws shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement.
(b)
In the event Registry Operator reasonably determines that any provision of thisAgreement and its related specifications, or any decisions or policies of ICANN referred to in thisAgreement, including but not limited to Temporary Policies and Consensus Policies (such provisions,specifications and policies, collectively hereinafter, “ICANN Requirements”), may conflict with orviolate Applicable Law (hereinafter, a “Potential Conflict”), Registry Operator shall provide detailed
notice (a “Notice”) of such Potential Conflict to ICANN as early as possible and, in the case of a Potential
Conflict with a proposed Consensus Policy, no later than the end of any public comment period on suchproposed Consensus Policy. In the event Registry Operator determines that there is Potential Conflict
between a proposed Applicable Law and any ICANN Requirement, Registry Operator shall provide
detailed Notice of such Potential Conflict to ICANN as early as possible and, in the case of a Potential
Conflict with a proposed Consensus Policy, no later than the end of any public comment period on suchproposed Consensus Policy.
(c)
As soon as practicable following such review, the parties shall attempt to resolve
the Potential Conflict by cooperative engagement pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 5.1. In* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

21

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT

addition, Registry Operator shall use its best efforts to eliminate or minimize any impact arising fromsuch Potential Conflict between Applicable Laws and any ICANN Requirement. If, following suchcooperative engagement, Registry Operator determines that the Potential Conflict constitutes an actual
conflict between any ICANN Requirement, on the one hand, and Applicable Laws, on the other hand,then ICANN shall waive compliance with such ICANN Requirement (provided that the parties shallnegotiate in good faith on a continuous basis thereafter to mitigate or eliminate the effects of such noncompliance on ICANN), unless ICANN reasonably and objectively determines that the failure of Registry
Operator to comply with such ICANN Requirement would constitute a threat to the Security and Stabilityof Registry Services, the Internet or the DNS (hereinafter, an “ICANN Determination”). Following
receipt of notice by Registry Operator of such ICANN Determination, Registry Operator shall be afforded
a period of ninety (90) calendar days to resolve such conflict with an Applicable Law. If the conflict with
an Applicable Law is not resolved to ICANN’s complete satisfaction during such period, Registry
Operator shall have the option to submit, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, the matter to binding
arbitration as defined in subsection (d) below. If during such period, Registry Operator does not submit
the matter to arbitration pursuant to subsection (d) below, ICANN may, upon notice to Registry Operator,
terminate this Agreement with immediate effect.
(d)
If Registry Operator disagrees with an ICANN Determination, Registry Operator
may submit the matter to binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2, except that the soleissue presented to the arbitrator for determination will be whether or not ICANN reasonably andobjectively reached the ICANN Determination. For the purposes of such arbitration, ICANN shallpresent evidence to the arbitrator supporting the ICANN Determination. If the arbitrator determines that
ICANN did not reasonably and objectively reach the ICANN Determination, then ICANN shall waive
Registry Operator’s compliance with the subject ICANN Requirement. If the arbitrators or pre-arbitralreferee, as applicable, determine that ICANN did reasonably and objectively reach the ICANN
Determination, then, upon notice to Registry Operator, ICANN may terminate this Agreement withimmediate effect.
(e)
Registry Operator hereby represents and warrants that, to the best of its
knowledge as of the date of execution of this Agreement, no existing ICANN Requirement conflicts withor violates any Applicable Law.
(f)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 7.14, following an ICANN
Determination and prior to a finding by an arbitrator pursuant to Section 7.14(d) above, ICANN may,subject to prior consultations with Registry Operator, take such reasonable technical measures as it deems
necessary to ensure the Security and Stability of Registry Services, the Internet and the DNS. These
reasonable technical measures shall be taken by ICANN on an interim basis, until the earlier of the date ofconclusion of the arbitration procedure referred to in Section 7.14(d) above or the date of complete
resolution of the conflict with an Applicable Law. In case Registry Operator disagrees with suchtechnical measures taken by ICANN, Registry Operator may submit the matter to binding arbitration
pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.2 above, during which process ICANN may continue to take suchtechnical measures. In the event that ICANN takes such measures, Registry Operator shall pay all costs
incurred by ICANN as a result of taking such measures. In addition, in the event that ICANN takes suchmeasures, ICANN shall retain and may enforce its rights under the Continued Operations Instrument andAlternative Instrument, as applicable.

****** Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

22

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENT* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

23

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTIN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives.
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
By:_____________________________[_____________]
President and CEO

Date:[Registry Operator]
By:_____________________________[____________][____________]

Date:* Final text will be posted on ICANN website; agreement reference to be replaced by hyperlink.

24

DRAFT NEW GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTEXHIBIT A
Approved Services

25

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 1
CONSENSUS POLICIES AND TEMPORARY POLICIES SPECIFICATION
1. Consensus Policies.
1.1. “Consensus Policies” are those policies established (1) pursuant to the procedure set forth in
ICANN's Bylaws and due process, and (2) covering those topics listed in Section 1.2 of thisdocument. The Consensus Policy development process and procedure set forth in ICANN's Bylaws
may be revised from time to time in accordance with the process set forth therein.
1.2. Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce,
to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs.
Consensus Policies shall relate to one or more of the following:
1.2.1.

issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate
interoperability, security and/or stability of the Internet or Domain Name System(“DNS”);

1.2.2. functional and performance specifications for the provision of Registry Services;
1.2.3. Security and Stability of the registry database for the TLD;
1.2.4.

registry policies reasonably necessary to implement Consensus Policies relating toregistry operations or registrars;

1.2.5.

resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the useof such domain names); or

1.2.6.

restrictions on cross-ownership of registry operators and registrars or registrar resellers
and regulations and restrictions with respect to registry operations and the use of registry
and registrar data in the event that a registry operator and a registrar or registrar reseller
are affiliated.

1.3. Such categories of issues referred to in Section 1.2 shall include, without limitation:
1.3.1.

principles for allocation of registered names in the TLD (e.g., first-come/first-served,
timely renewal, holding period after expiration);

1.3.2.

prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries orregistrars;

1.3.3.

reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that
may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion
among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical managementof the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names fromregistration); and1.3.4.

maintenance of and access to accurate and up-to-date information concerning domainname registrations; and procedures to avoid disruptions of domain name registrations due
to suspension or termination of operations by a registry operator or a registrar, including
procedures for allocation of responsibility for serving registered domain names in a TLD
affected by such a suspension or termination.

1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not:26

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

1.4.1. prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;
1.4.2. modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or termination of the Registry Agreement;
1.4.3. modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies;
1.4.4. modify the provisions in the registry agreement regarding fees paid by Registry Operator
to ICANN; or
1.4.5. modify ICANN’s obligations to ensure equitable treatment of registry operators and act
in an open and transparent manner.
2. Temporary Policies. Registry Operator shall comply with and implement all specifications or
policies established by the Board on a temporary basis, if adopted by the Board by a vote of at least
two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that such modifications oramendments are justified and that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on
the subject is necessary to maintain the stability or security of Registry Services or the DNS("Temporary Policies").
2.1. Such proposed specification or policy shall be as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve thoseobjectives. In establishing any Temporary Policy, the Board shall state the period of time forwhich the Temporary Policy is adopted and shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy
development process set forth in ICANN's Bylaws.
2.1.1. ICANN shall also issue an advisory statement containing a detailed explanation of its
reasons for adopting the Temporary Policy and why the Board believes such Temporary
Policy should receive the consensus support of Internet stakeholders.
2.1.2. If the period of time for which the Temporary Policy is adopted exceeds 90 days, the Board
shall reaffirm its temporary adoption every 90 days for a total period not to exceed one
year, in order to maintain such Temporary Policy in effect until such time as it becomes a
Consensus Policy. If the one year period expires or, if during such one year period, theTemporary Policy does not become a Consensus Policy and is not reaffirmed by the Board,
Registry Operator shall no longer be required to comply with or implement such
Temporary Policy.
3. Notice and Conflicts. Registry Operator shall be afforded a reasonable period of time following
notice of the establishment of a Consensus Policy or Temporary Policy in which to comply with suchpolicy or specification, taking into account any urgency involved. In the event of a conflict between
Registry Services and Consensus Policies or any Temporary Policy, the Consensus Polices or
Temporary Policy shall control, but only with respect to subject matter in conflict.

27

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 2
DATA ESCROW REQUIREMENTS
Registry Operator will engage an independent entity to act as data escrow agent (“Escrow Agent”) for theprovision of data escrow services related to the Registry Agreement. The following Technical
Specifications set forth in Part A, and Legal Requirements set forth in Part B, will be included in any data
escrow agreement between Registry Operator and the Escrow Agent, under which ICANN must be
named a third-party beneficiary. In addition to the following requirements, the data escrow agreement
may contain other provisions that are not contradictory or intended to subvert the required terms provided
below.
PART A – TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

1.

Deposits. There will be two types of Deposits: Full and Differential. For both types, the universeof Registry objects to be considered for data escrow are those objects necessary in order to offer
all of the approved Registry Services.
1.1 “Full Deposit” will consist of data that reflects the state of the registry as of 00:00:00 UTC oneach Sunday.
1.2 “Differential Deposit” means data that reflects all transactions that were not reflected in the last
previous Full or Differential Deposit, as the case may be. Each Differential Deposit will containall database transactions since the previous Deposit was completed as of 00:00:00 UTC of eachday, but Sunday. Differential Deposits must include complete Escrow Records as specified belowthat were not included or changed since the most recent full or Differential Deposit (i.e., newly
added or modified domain names).

2.

Schedule for Deposits. Registry Operator will submit a set of escrow files on a daily basis asfollows:
2.1 Each Sunday, a Full Deposit must be submitted to the Escrow Agent by 23:59 UTC.
2.2 The other six days of the week, the corresponding Differential Deposit must be submitted to
Escrow Agent by 23:59 UTC.

3.

Escrow Format Specification.
3.1 Deposit’s Format. Registry objects, such as domains, contacts, name servers, registrars, etc. will
be compiled into a file constructed as described in draft-arias-noguchi-registry-data-escrow, see[1]. The aforementioned document describes some elements as optional; Registry Operator will
include those elements in the Deposits if they are available. Registry Operator will use the draft
version available at the time of signing the Agreement, if not already an RFC. Once thespecification is published as an RFC, Registry Operator will implement that specification, no later
than 180 days after. UTF-8 character encoding will be used.

3.2 Extensions. If a Registry Operator offers additional Registry Services that require submission of
additional data, not included above, additional “extension schemas” shall be defined in a case bycase base to represent that data. These “extension schemas” will be specified as described in [1].
Data related to the “extensions schemas” will be included in the deposit file described in section
3.1. ICANN and the respective Registry shall work together to agree on such new objects’ data
escrow specifications.

28NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

4.

Processing of Deposit files. The use of compression is recommended in order to reduce
electronic data transfer times, and storage capacity requirements. Data encryption will be used toensure the privacy of registry escrow data. Files processed for compression and encryption will
be in the binary OpenPGP format as per OpenPGP Message Format - RFC 4880, see [2].
Acceptable algorithms for Public-key cryptography, Symmetric-key cryptography, Hash andCompression are those enumerated in RFC 4880, not marked as deprecated in OpenPGP IANA
Registry, see [3], that are also royalty-free. The process to follow for a data file in original text
format is:(1) The file should be compressed. The suggested algorithm for compression is ZIP as per RFC
4880.
(2) The compressed data will be encrypted using the escrow agent's public key. The suggested
algorithms for Public-key encryption are Elgamal and RSA as per RFC 4880. The suggested
algorithms for Symmetric-key encryption are TripleDES, AES128 and CAST5 as per RFC
4880.
(3) The file may be split as necessary if, once compressed and encrypted is larger than the filesize limit agreed with the escrow agent. Every part of a split file, or the whole file if split is
not used, will be called a processed file in this section.
(4) A digital signature file will be generated for every processed file using the Registry's private
key. The digital signature file will be in binary OpenPGP format as per RFC 4880 [2], andwill not be compressed or encrypted. The suggested algorithms for Digital signatures are
DSA and RSA as per RFC 4880. The suggested algorithm for Hashes in Digital signatures is
SHA256.
(5) The processed files and digital signature files will then be transferred to the Escrow Agent
through secure electronic mechanisms, such as, SFTP, SCP, HTTPS file upload, etc. as
agreed between the Escrow Agent and the Registry Operator. Non-electronic delivery
through a physical medium such as CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, or USB storage devices may be
used if authorized by ICANN.
(6) The Escrow Agent will then validate every (processed) transferred data file using theprocedure described in section 8.

5.

File Naming Conventions. Files will be named according to the following convention:{gTLD}_{YYYY-MM-DD}_{type}_S{#}_R{rev}.{ext} where:
5.1 {gTLD} is replaced with the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the ASCII-compatible form
(A-Label) must be used;
5.2 {YYYY-MM-DD} is replaced by the date corresponding to the time used as a timelinewatermark for the transactions; i.e. for the Full Deposit corresponding to 2009-08-02T00:00Z, thestring to be used would be “2009-08-02”;
5.3 {type} is replaced by:(1) “full”, if the data represents a Full Deposit;(2) “diff”, if the data represents a Differential Deposit;(3) “thin”, if the data represents a Bulk Registration Data Access file, as specified in section 3 ofSpecification 4;
5.4 {#} is replaced by the position of the file in a series of files, beginning with “1”; in case of a lone
file, this must be replaced by “1”.
5.5 {rev} is replaced by the number of revision (or resend) of the file beginning with “0”:5.6 {ext} is replaced by “sig” if it is a digital signature file of the quasi-homonymous file. Otherwise
it is replaced by “ryde”.

29NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

6.

Distribution of Public Keys. Each of Registry Operator and Escrow Agent will distribute its
public key to the other party (Registry Operator or Escrow Agent, as the case may be) via email
to an email address to be specified. Each party will confirm receipt of the other party's public key
with a reply email, and the distributing party will subsequently reconfirm the authenticity of the
key transmitted via offline methods, like in person meeting, telephone, etc. In this way, public
key transmission is authenticated to a user able to send and receive mail via a mail server
operated by the distributing party. Escrow Agent, Registry and ICANN will exchange keys by thesame procedure.

7.

Notification of Deposits. Along with the delivery of each Deposit, Registry Operator will deliver
to Escrow Agent and to ICANN a written statement (which may be by authenticated e-mail) that
includes a copy of the report generated upon creation of the Deposit and states that the Deposit
has been inspected by Registry Operator and is complete and accurate. Registry Operator will
include the Deposit’s "id" and "resend" attributes in its statement. The attributes are explained in
[1].

8.

Verification Procedure.
(1) The signature file of each processed file is validated.
(2) If processed files are pieces of a bigger file, the latter is put together.
(3) Each file obtained in the previous step is then decrypted and uncompressed.
(4) Each data file contained in the previous step is then validated against the format defined in[1].
(5) If [1] includes a verification process, that will be applied at this step.
If any discrepancy is found in any of the steps, the Deposit will be considered incomplete.

9.

References.
[1] Domain Name Data Escrow Specification (work in progress), http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ariasnoguchi-registry-data-escrow[2] OpenPGP Message Format, http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt[3] OpenPGP parameters, http://www.iana.org/assignments/pgp-parameters/pgp-parameters.xhtml

30

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSPART B – LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
1.

Escrow Agent. Prior to entering into an escrow agreement, the Registry Operator must provide
notice to ICANN as to the identity of the Escrow Agent, and provide ICANN with contact
information and a copy of the relevant escrow agreement, and all amendment thereto. In
addition, prior to entering into an escrow agreement, Registry Operator must obtain the consent of
ICANN to (a) use the specified Escrow Agent, and (b) enter into the form of escrow agreement
provided. ICANN must be expressly designated a third-party beneficiary of the escrowagreement. ICANN reserves the right to withhold its consent to any Escrow Agent, escrowagreement, or any amendment thereto, all in its sole discretion.

2.

Fees. Registry Operator must pay, or have paid on its behalf, fees to the Escrow Agent directly. If
Registry Operator fails to pay any fee by the due date(s), the Escrow Agent will give ICANN
written notice of such non-payment and ICANN may pay the past-due fee(s) within ten businessdays after receipt of the written notice from Escrow Agent. Upon payment of the past-due fees by
ICANN, ICANN shall have a claim for such amount against Registry Operator, which Registry
Operator shall be required to submit to ICANN together with the next fee payment due under theRegistry Agreement.

3.

Ownership. Ownership of the Deposits during the effective term of the Registry Agreement shallremain with Registry Operator at all times. Thereafter, Registry Operator shall assign any suchownership rights (including intellectual property rights, as the case may be) in such Deposits to
ICANN. In the event that during the term of the Registry Agreement any Deposit is released
from escrow to ICANN, any intellectual property rights held by Registry Operator in the Deposits
will automatically be licensed on a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, paid-up
basis to ICANN or to a party designated in writing by ICANN.

4.

Integrity and Confidentiality. Escrow Agent will be required to (i) hold and maintain the
Deposits in a secure, locked, and environmentally safe facility, which is accessible only toauthorized representatives of Escrow Agent, (ii) protect the integrity and confidentiality of the
Deposits using commercially reasonable measures and (iii) keep and safeguard each Deposit for
one year. ICANN and Registry Operator will be provided the right to inspect Escrow Agent's
applicable records upon reasonable prior notice and during normal business hours. Registry
Operator and ICANN will be provided with the right to designate a third-party auditor to audit
Escrow Agent’s compliance with the technical specifications and maintenance requirements ofthis Specification 2 from time to time.
If Escrow Agent receives a subpoena or any other order from a court or other judicial tribunal
pertaining to the disclosure or release of the Deposits, Escrow Agent will promptly notify theRegistry Operator and ICANN unless prohibited by law. After notifying the Registry Operator
and ICANN, Escrow Agent shall allow sufficient time for Registry Operator or ICANN tochallenge any such order, which shall be the responsibility of Registry Operator or ICANN;
provided, however, that Escrow Agent does not waive its rights to present its position withrespect to any such order. Escrow Agent will cooperate with the Registry Operator or ICANN tosupport efforts to quash or limit any subpoena, at such party’s expense. Any party requesting
additional assistance shall pay Escrow Agent’s standard charges or as quoted upon submission ofa detailed request.

31

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

5.

Copies. Escrow Agent may be permitted to duplicate any Deposit, in order to comply with theterms and provisions of the escrow agreement.

6.

Release of Deposits. Escrow Agent will make available for electronic download (unlessotherwise requested) to ICANN or its designee, within twenty-four hours, at the Registry
Operator’s expense, all Deposits in Escrow Agent's possession in the event that the Escrow Agent
receives a request from Registry Operator to effect such delivery to ICANN, or receives one of
the following written notices by ICANN stating that:
6.1 the Registry Agreement has expired without renewal, or been terminated; or
6.2 ICANN failed, with respect to (a) any Full Deposit or (b) five Differential Deposits within any
calendar month, to receive, within five calendar days after the Deposit's scheduled delivery date,
notification of receipt from Escrow Agent; (x) ICANN gave notice to Escrow Agent and Registry
Operator of that failure; and (y) ICANN has not, within seven calendar days after such notice,received notice from Escrow Agent that the Deposit has been received; or
6.3 ICANN has received notification from Escrow Agent of failed verification of a Full Deposit or of
failed verification of five Differential Deposits within any calendar month and (a) ICANN gave
notice to Registry Operator of that receipt; and (b) ICANN has not, within seven calendar days
after such notice, received notice from Escrow Agent of verification of a remediated version ofsuch Full Deposit or Differential Deposit; or
6.4 Registry Operator has: (i) ceased to conduct its business in the ordinary course; or (ii) filed forbankruptcy, become insolvent or anything analogous to any of the foregoing under the laws of
any jurisdiction anywhere in the world; or
6.5 Registry Operator has experienced a failure of critical registry functions and ICANN has asserted
its rights pursuant to Section 2.13 of the Registry Agreement; or
6.6 a competent court, arbitral, legislative, or government agency mandates the release of the
Deposits to ICANN.
Unless Escrow Agent has previously released the Registry Operator’s Deposits to ICANN or its
designee, Escrow Agent will deliver all Deposits to ICANN upon termination of the Registry
Agreement or the Escrow Agreement.

7.

Verification of Deposits.
7.1 Within twenty-four hours after receiving each Deposit or corrected Deposit, Escrow Agent mustverify the format and completeness of each Deposit and deliver to ICANN a copy of theverification report generated for each Deposit. Reports will be delivered electronically, as
specified from time to time by ICANN.
7.2 If Escrow Agent discovers that any Deposit fails the verification procedures, Escrow Agent must
notify, either by email, fax or phone, Registry Operator and ICANN of such nonconformity
within twenty-four hours after receiving the non-conformant Deposit. Upon notification of suchverification failure, Registry Operator must begin developing modifications, updates, corrections,and other fixes of the Deposit necessary for the Deposit to pass the verification procedures anddeliver such fixes to Escrow Agent as promptly as possible.

8.

Amendments. Escrow Agent and Registry Operator shall amend the terms of the Escrow
Agreement to conform to this Specification 2 within ten (10) calendar days of any amendment or
modification to this Specification 2. In the event of a conflict between this Specification 2 andthe Escrow Agreement, this Specification 2 shall control.

9.

Indemnity. Registry Operator shall indemnify and hold harmless Escrow Agent and each of its
directors, officers, agents, employees, members, and stockholders ("Escrow Agent Indemnitees")32

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

absolutely and forever from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, suits, liabilities,
obligations, costs, fees, charges, and any other expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, that may be asserted by a third party against any Escrow Agent
Indemnitees in connection with the Escrow Agreement or the performance of Escrow Agent or
any Escrow Agent Indemnitees thereunder (with the exception of any claims based on themisrepresentation, negligence, or misconduct of Escrow Agent, its directors, officers, agents,
employees, contractors, members, and stockholders). Escrow Agent shall indemnify and holdharmless Registry Operator and ICANN, and each of their respective directors, officers, agents,
employees, members, and stockholders ("Indemnitees") absolutely and forever from and against
any and all claims, actions, damages, suits, liabilities, obligations, costs, fees, charges, and anyother expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, that may be asserted
by a third party against any Indemnitee in connection with the misrepresentation, negligence or
misconduct of Escrow Agent, its directors, officers, agents, employees and contractors.

33

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 3
FORMAT AND CONTENT FOR REGISTRY OPERATOR MONTHLY REPORTING
Registry Operator shall provide one set of monthly reports per gTLD to ____________ with the following
content. ICANN may request in the future that the reports be delivered by other means and using otherformats. ICANN will use reasonable commercial efforts to preserve the confidentiality of the information
reported until three months after the end of the month to which the reports relate.
1. Per-Registrar Transactions Report. This report shall be compiled in a comma separated-value
formatted file as specified in RFC 4180. The file shall be named “gTLD-transactions-yyyymm.csv”,
where “gTLD” is the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the A-label shall be used; “yyyymm” is theyear and month being reported. The file shall contain the following fields per registrar:
Field #

Field Name

Description

01

registrar-nameregistrar's full corporate name as registered with IANA

02

iana-id

http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids

03

total-domains

total domains under sponsorship04

total-nameservers

total name servers registered for TLD

05

net-adds-1-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an initial
term of one year (and not deleted within the add grace
period)06

net-adds-2-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an initial
term of two years (and not deleted within the add grace
period)07

net-adds-3-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an initial
term of three years (and not deleted within the add grace
period)08

net-adds-4-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of four years (and not deleted within the
add grace period)

09

net-adds-5-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of five years (and not deleted within the
add grace period)

10

net-adds-6-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of six years (and not deleted within the add
grace period)

11

net-adds-7-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of seven years (and not deleted within the
add grace period)

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

12

net-adds-8-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of eight years (and not deleted within the
add grace period)

13

net-adds-9-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of nine years (and not deleted within the
add grace period)

14

net-adds-10-yr

number of domains successfully registered with an
initial term of ten years (and not deleted within the add
grace period)

15

net-renews-1-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal period of
one year (and not deleted within the renew grace period)

16

net-renews-2-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal period of
two years (and not deleted within the renew grace period)

17

net-renews-3-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal period of
three years (and not deleted within the renew grace period)

18

net-renews-4-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of four years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)

19

net-renews-5-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of five years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)

20

net-renews-6-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of six years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)

21

net-renews-7-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of seven years (and not deleted within the
renew grace period)

22

net-renews-8-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of eight years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)

23

net-renews-9-yr

number of domains successfully renewed either

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of nine years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)
24

net-renews-10-yr

25

number of domains successfully renewed either
automatically or by command with a new renewal
period of ten years (and not deleted within the renew
grace period)transfer-gaining-successfultransfers initiated by this registrar that were ack'd by theother registrar – either by command or automaticallytransfer-gaining-nacked

transfers initiated by this registrar that were n'acked by theother registrartransfer-losing-successfultransfers initiated by another registrar that this registrar
ack'd – either by command or automaticallytransfer-losing-nacked

transfers initiated by another registrar that this registrarn'acked29

transfer-disputed-won

number of transfer disputes in which this registrar prevailed

30

transfer-disputed-lostnumber of transfer disputes this registrar losttransfer-disputed-nodecision

number of transfer disputes involving this registrar with asplit or no decision32

deleted-domains-grace

domains deleted within the add grace period

33

deleted-domains-nograce

domains deleted outside the add grace period

34

restored-domains

domain names restored from redemption period

35

restored-noreport

total number of restored names for which the registrar failed
to submit a restore report

36

agp-exemption-requests

total number of AGP (add grace period) exemption requests

37

agp-exemptions-granted

total number of AGP (add grace period) exemption requests
granted38

agp-exempted-domains

total number of names affected by granted AGP (add grace
period) exemption requests

39

attempted-adds

number of attempted (successful and failed) domain namecreate commands

26
27
28

31

The first line shall include the field names exactly as described in the table above as a “header line” asdescribed in section 2 of RFC 4180. The last line of each report shall include totals for each column
across all registrars; the first field of this line shall read “Totals” while the second field shall be left empty
in that line. No other lines besides the ones described above shall be included. Line breaks shall be<U+000D, U+000A> as described in RFC 4180.

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

2. Registry Functions Activity Report. This report shall be compiled in a comma separated-value
formatted file as specified in RFC 4180. The file shall be named “gTLD-activity-yyyymm.csv”, where“gTLD” is the gTLD name; in case of an IDN-TLD, the A-label shall be used; “yyyymm” is the year andmonth being reported. The file shall contain the following fields:
Field #

Field Name

Description

01

operational-registrars

number of operational registrars at the end of the reporting
period02

ramp-up-registrars

number of registrars that have received a password foraccess to OT&E at the end of the reporting period03

pre-ramp-up-registrars

number of registrars that have requested access, but have
not yet entered the ramp-up period at the end of thereporting period04

zfa-passwords

number of active zone file access passwords at the end of
the reporting period

05

whois-43-queries

number of WHOIS (port-43) queries responded during thereporting period06

web-whois-queries

number of Web-based Whois queries responded during thereporting period, not including searchable Whois

07

searchable-whois-queries

number of searchable Whois queries responded during thereporting period, if offered08

dns-udp-queries-received

number of DNS queries received over UDP transport during
the reporting period09

dns-udp-queries-responded

number of DNS queries received over UDP transport thatwere responded during the reporting period10

dns-tcp-queries-received

number of DNS queries received over TCP transport during
the reporting period11

dns-tcp-queries-responded

number of DNS queries received over TCP transport thatwere responded during the reporting period

12

srs-dom-checknumber of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“check” requests responded during the reporting period

13

srs-dom-create

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“create” requests responded during the reporting period

14

srs-dom-delete

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“delete” requests responded during the reporting period

15

srs-dom-info

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“info” requests responded during the reporting period

16

srs-dom-renew

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain nameNEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS“renew” requests responded during the reporting period
17

srs-dom-rgp-restore-report

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name
RGP “restore” requests responded during the reporting
period18

srs-dom-rgp-restore-request

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name
RGP “restore” requests delivering a restore report
responded during the reporting period

19

srs-dom-transfer-approve

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“transfer” requests to approve transfers responded during
the reporting period

20

srs-dom-transfer-cancel

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“transfer” requests to cancel transfers responded during thereporting period

21

srs-dom-transfer-query

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“transfer” requests to query about a transfer responded
during the reporting period

22

srs-dom-transfer-reject

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“transfer” requests to reject transfers responded during thereporting period

23

srs-dom-transfer-request

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“transfer” requests to request transfers responded during thereporting period

24

srs-dom-update

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) domain name“update” requests (not including RGP restore requests)
responded during the reporting period25

srs-host-checknumber of SRS (EPP and any other interface) host “check”
requests responded during the reporting period

srs-host-create

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) host “create”
requests responded during the reporting period

srs-host-delete

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) host “delete”
requests responded during the reporting period

srs-host-info

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) host “info”
requests responded during the reporting period

srs-host-update

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) host “update”
requests responded during the reporting period

srs-cont-checknumber of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“check” requests responded during the reporting period

srs-cont-create

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“create” requests responded during the reporting period

26
27
28
29
30
31

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

32

srs-cont-delete

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“delete” requests responded during the reporting period

33

srs-cont-info

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact “info”
requests responded during the reporting period

34

srs-cont-transfer-approve

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“transfer” requests to approve transfers responded during
the reporting period

35

srs-cont-transfer-cancel

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“transfer” requests to cancel transfers responded during thereporting period

36

srs-cont-transfer-query

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“transfer” requests to query about a transfer responded
during the reporting period37

srs-cont-transfer-reject

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“transfer” requests to reject transfers responded during thereporting period38

srs-cont-transfer-request

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“transfer” requests to request transfers responded during thereporting period

39

srs-cont-update

number of SRS (EPP and any other interface) contact“update” requests responded during the reporting period

The first line shall include the field names exactly as described in the table above as a “header line” asdescribed in section 2 of RFC 4180. No other lines besides the ones described above shall be included.
Line breaks shall be <U+000D, U+000A> as described in RFC 4180.

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 4
SPECIFICATION FOR REGISTRATION DATA PUBLICATION SERVICES
1. Registration Data Directory Services. Until ICANN requires a different protocol, Registry Operator
will operate a WHOIS service available via port 43 in accordance with RFC 3912, and a web-based
Directory Service at <whois.nic.TLD> providing free public query-based access to at least the following
elements in the following format. ICANN reserves the right to specify alternative formats and protocols,
and upon such specification, the Registry Operator will implement such alternative specification as soon
as reasonably practicable.
1.1. The format of responses shall follow a semi-free text format outline below, followed by ablank line and a legal disclaimer specifying the rights of Registry Operator, and of the user querying thedatabase.
1.2. Each data object shall be represented as a set of key/value pairs, with lines beginning withkeys, followed by a colon and a space as delimiters, followed by the value.
1.3. For fields where more than one value exists, multiple key/value pairs with the same key shallbe allowed (for example to list multiple name servers). The first key/value pair after a blank line should
be considered the start of a new record, and should be considered as identifying that record, and is used togroup data, such as hostnames and IP addresses, or a domain name and registrant information, together.
1.4. Domain Name Data:
1.4.1. Query format: whois EXAMPLE.TLD
1.4.2. Response format:
Domain Name: EXAMPLE.TLD
Domain ID: D1234567-TLD
WHOIS Server: whois.example.tld
Referral URL: http://www.example.tld
Updated Date: 2009-05-29T20:13:00ZCreation Date: 2000-10-08T00:45:00Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2010-10-08T00:44:59Z
Sponsoring Registrar: EXAMPLE REGISTRAR LLC
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 5555555
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverUpdateProhibited
Registrant ID: 5372808-ERL
Registrant Name: EXAMPLE REGISTRANT
Registrant Organization: EXAMPLE ORGANIZATION
Registrant Street: 123 EXAMPLE STREET
Registrant City: ANYTOWN
Registrant State/Province: AP
Registrant Postal Code: A1A1A1Registrant Country: EX

40

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSRegistrant Phone: +1.5555551212
Registrant Phone Ext: 1234
Registrant Fax: +1.5555551213
Registrant Fax Ext: 4321
Registrant Email: EMAIL@EXAMPLE.TLD
Admin ID: 5372809-ERL
Admin Name: EXAMPLE REGISTRANT ADMINISTRATIVE
Admin Organization: EXAMPLE REGISTRANT ORGANIZATION
Admin Street: 123 EXAMPLE STREET
Admin City: ANYTOWN
Admin State/Province: AP
Admin Postal Code: A1A1A1
Admin Country: EX
Admin Phone: +1.5555551212
Admin Phone Ext: 1234
Admin Fax: +1.5555551213
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: EMAIL@EXAMPLE.TLD
Tech ID: 5372811-ERL
Tech Name: EXAMPLE REGISTRAR TECHNICAL
Tech Organization: EXAMPLE REGISTRAR LLC
Tech Street: 123 EXAMPLE STREETTech City: ANYTOWNTech State/Province: AP
Tech Postal Code: A1A1A1Tech Country: EX
Tech Phone: +1.1235551234
Tech Phone Ext: 1234
Tech Fax: +1.5555551213
Tech Fax Ext: 93
Tech Email: EMAIL@EXAMPLE.TLD
Name Server: NS01.EXAMPLEREGISTRAR.TLD
Name Server: NS02.EXAMPLEREGISTRAR.TLD
DNSSEC: signedDelegation
DNSSEC: unsigned>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2009-05-29T20:15:00Z <<<1.5. Registrar Data:
1.5.1. Query format: whois "registrar Example Registrar, Inc."
1.5.2. Response format:
Registrar Name: Example Registrar, Inc.
Street: 1234 Admiralty Way
City: Marina del Rey
State/Province: CA
Postal Code: 90292
Country: US
Phone Number: +1.3105551212
Fax Number: +1.3105551213

41

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSEmail: registrar@example.tld
WHOIS Server: whois.example-registrar.tld
Referral URL: http://www. example-registrar.tld
Admin Contact: Joe Registrar
Phone Number: +1.3105551213
Fax Number: +1.3105551213
Email: joeregistrar@example-registrar.tld
Admin Contact: Jane Registrar
Phone Number: +1.3105551214
Fax Number: +1.3105551213
Email: janeregistrar@example-registrar.tld
Technical Contact: John Geek
Phone Number: +1.3105551215
Fax Number: +1.3105551216
Email: johngeek@example-registrar.tld>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2009-05-29T20:15:00Z <<<1.6. Nameserver Data:
1.6.1. Query format: whois "NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD" or whois "nameserver (IP Address)"
1.6.2. Response format:
Server Name: NS1.EXAMPLE.TLD
IP Address: 192.0.2.123
IP Address: 2001:0DB8::1
Registrar: Example Registrar, Inc.
WHOIS Server: whois.example-registrar.tld
Referral URL: http://www. example-registrar.tld>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2009-05-29T20:15:00Z <<<1.7. The format of the following data fields: domain status, individual and organizational names,
address, street, city, state/province, postal code, country, telephone and fax numbers, email addresses,
date and times should conform to the mappings specified in EPP RFCs 5730-5734 so that the display ofthis information (or values return in WHOIS responses) can be uniformly processed and understood.
1.8. Searchability. Offering searchability capabilities on the Directory Services is optional but ifoffered by the Registry Operator it shall comply with the specification described in this section.
1.8.1. Registry Operator will offer searchability on the web-based Directory Service.
1.8.2. Registry Operator will offer partial match capabilities, at least, on the following
fields: domain name, contacts and registrant’s name, and contact and registrant’s postal address, including
all the sub-fields described in EPP (e.g., street, city, state or province, etc.).
1.8.3. Registry Operator will offer exact-match capabilities, at least, on the following
fields: registrar id, name server name, and name server’s IP address (only applies to IP addresses storedby the registry, i.e., glue records).

42

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

1.8.4. Registry Operator will offer Boolean search capabilities supporting, at least, thefollowing logical operators to join a set of search criteria: AND, OR, NOT.
1.8.5. Search results will include domain names matching the search criteria.
1.8.6. Registry Operator will: 1) implement appropriate measures to avoid abuse of thisfeature (e.g., permitting access only to legitimate authorized users); and 2) ensure the feature is incompliance with any applicable privacy laws or policies.

2. Zone File Access2.1. Third-Party Access2.1.1. Zone File Access Agreement. Registry Operator will enter into an agreement withany Internet user that will allow such user to access an Internet host server or servers designated byRegistry Operator and download zone file data. The agreement will be standardized, facilitated andadministered by a Centralized Zone Data Access Provider (the “CZDA Provider”). Registry Operator
will provide access to zone file data per Section 2.1.3 and do so using the file format described in Section
2.1.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) the CZDA Provider may reject the request for access of any
user that does not satisfy the credentialing requirements in Section 2.1.2 below; (b) Registry Operator
may reject the request for access of any user that does not provide correct or legitimate credentials under
Section 2.1. 2 or where Registry Operator reasonably believes will violate the terms of Section 2.1.5.
below; and, (c) Registry Operator may revoke access of any user if Registry Operator has evidence tosupport that the user has violated the terms of Section 2.1.5.
2.1.2. Credentialing Requirements. Registry Operator, through the facilitation of the
CZDA Provider, will request each user to provide it with information sufficient to correctly identify andlocate the user. Such user information will include, without limitation, company name, contact name,address, telephone number, facsimile number, email address, and the Internet host machine name and IP
address.
2.1.3. Grant of Access. Each Registry Operator will provide the Zone File FTP (or otherRegistry supported) service for an ICANN-specified and managed URL (specifically,<TLD>.zda.icann.org where <TLD> is the TLD for which the registry is responsible) for the user toaccess the Registry’s zone data archives. Registry Operator will grant the user a non-exclusive, nontransferable, limited right to access Registry Operator’s Zone File FTP server, and to transfer a copy of
the top-level domain zone files, and any associated cryptographic checksum files no more than once per
24 hour period using FTP, or other data transport and access protocols that may be prescribed by
ICANN. For every zone file access server, the zone files are in the top-level directory called<zone>.zone.gz, with <zone>.zone.gz.md5 and <zone>.zone.gz.sig to verify downloads. If the Registry
Operator also provides historical data, it will use the naming pattern <zone>-yyyymmdd.zone.gz, etc.
2.1.4. File Format Standard. Registry Operator will provide zone files using a subformat of the standard Master File format as originally defined in RFC 1035, Section 5, including all therecords present in the actual zone used in the public DNS. Sub-format is as follows:
1. Each record must include all fields in one line as: <domain-name> <TTL> <class> <type><RDATA>.
2. Class and Type must use the standard mnemonics and must be in lower case.

43NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

3. TTL must be present as a decimal integer.
4. Use of /X and /DDD inside domain names is allowed.
5. All domain names must be in lower case.
6. Must use exactly one tab as separator of fields inside a record.
7. All domain names must be fully qualified.
8. No $ORIGIN directives.
9. No use of "@" to denote current origin.
10. No use of "blank domain names" at the beginning of a record to continue the use of the domainname in the previous record.
11. No $INCLUDE directives.
12. No $TTL directives.
13. No use of parentheses, e.g., to continue the list of fields in a record across a line boundary.
14. No use of comments.
15. No blank lines.
16. The SOA record should be present at the top and (duplicated at) the end of the zone file.
17. With the exception of the SOA record, all the records in a file must be in alphabetical order.
18. One zone per file. If a TLD divides its DNS data into multiple zones, each goes into a separate
file named as above, with all the files combined using tar into a file called <tld>.zone.tar.

2.1.5. Use of Data by User. Registry Operator will permit user to use the zone file for
lawful purposes; provided that, (a) user takes all reasonable steps to protect against unauthorized access toand use and disclosure of the data, and (b) under no circumstances will Registry Operator be required or
permitted to allow user to use the data to, (i) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by email, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities otherthan user’s own existing customers, or (ii) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send
queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-accredited registrar.
2.1.6. Term of Use. Registry Operator, through CZDA Provider, will provide each user
with access to the zone file for a period of not less than three (3) months. Registry Operator will allow
users to renew their Grant of Access.
2.1.7. No Fee for Access. Registry Operator will provide, and CZDA Provider will
facilitate, access to the zone file to user at no cost.

2.2 Co-operation
2.2.1. Assistance. Registry Operator will co-operate and provide reasonable assistance to
ICANN and the CZDA Provider to facilitate and maintain the efficient access of zone file data bypermitted users as contemplated under this Schedule.
2.3 ICANN Access. Registry Operator shall provide bulk access to the zone files for the TLD to ICANN
or its designee on a continuous basis in the manner ICANN may reasonably specify from time to time.
2.4 Emergency Operator Access. Registry Operator shall provide bulk access to the zone files for the
TLD to the Emergency Operators designated by ICANN on a continuous basis in the manner ICANN
may reasonably specify from time to time.

44

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

3. Bulk Registration Data Access to ICANN
3.1. Periodic Access to Thin Registration Data. In order to verify and ensure the operational
stability of Registry Services as well as to facilitate compliance checks on accredited registrars, Registry
Operator will provide ICANN on a weekly basis (the day to be designated by ICANN) with up-to-date
Registration Data as specified below. Data will include data committed as of 00:00:00 UTC on the day
previous to the one designated for retrieval by ICANN.
3.1.1. Contents. Registry Operator will provide, at least, the following data for all
registered domain names: domain name, domain name repository object id (roid), registrar id(IANA ID), statuses, last updated date, creation date, expiration date, and name server names. For
sponsoring registrars, at least, it will provide: registrar name, registrar repository object id (roid),hostname of registrar Whois server, and URL of registrar.
3.1.2. Format. The data will be provided in the format specified in Specification 2 for
Data Escrow (including encryption, signing, etc.) but including only the fields mentioned in the previous
section, i.e., the file will only contain Domain and Registrar objects with the fields mentioned above.
Registry Operator has the option to provide a full deposit file instead as specified in Specification 2.
3.1.3, Access. Registry Operator will have the file(s) ready for download as of 00:00:00
UTC on the day designated for retrieval by ICANN. The file(s) will be made available for download by
SFTP, though ICANN may request other means in the future.
3.2. Exceptional Access to Thick Registration Data. In case of a registrar failure, deaccreditation, court order, etc. that prompts the temporary or definitive transfer of its domain names toanother registrar, at the request of ICANN, Registry Operator will provide ICANN with up-to-date data
for the domain names of the losing registrar. The data will be provided in the format specified inSpecification 2 for Data Escrow. The file will only contain data related to the domain names of the losing
registrar. Registry Operator will provide the data within 2 business days. Unless otherwise agreed byRegistry Operator and ICANN, the file will be made available for download by ICANN in the samemanner as the data specified in Section 3.1. of this Specification.

45

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 5SCHEDULE OF RESERVED NAMES AT THE SECOND LEVEL IN GTLD REGISTRIES
Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shallreserve (i.e., Registry Operator shall not register, delegate, use or otherwise make available such labels to
any third party, but may register such labels in its own name in order to withhold them from delegation oruse) names formed with the following labels from initial (i.e. other than renewal) registration within the
TLD:
1. Example. The label “EXAMPLE” shall be reserved at the second level and at all other levels within
the TLD at which Registry Operator makes registrations.
2. Two-character labels. All two-character labels shall be initially reserved. The reservation of a twocharacter label string may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with thegovernment and country-code manager. The Registry Operator may also propose release of thesereservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding
country codes.
3. Tagged Domain Names. Labels may only include hyphens in the third and fourth position if they
represent valid internationalized domain names in their ASCII encoding (for example"xn--ndk061n").
4. Second-Level Reservations for Registry Operations. The following names are reserved for use inconnection with the operation of the registry for the TLD. Registry Operator may use them, but uponconclusion of Registry Operator's designation as operator of the registry for the TLD they shall betransferred as specified by ICANN: NIC, WWW, IRIS and WHOIS.
5. Country and Territory Names. The country and territory names contained in the followinginternationally recognized lists shall be initially reserved at the second level and at all other levels
within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations:
5.1.

the short form (in English) of all country and territory names contained on the ISO 31661 list, as updated from time to time, including the European Union, which is
exceptionally reserved on the ISO 3166-1 list, and its scope extended in August 1999 toany application needing to represent the name European Union<http://www.iso.org/iso/support/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/iso-31661_decoding_table.htm#EU>;

5.2.

the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference
Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names, Part III Names of Countries ofthe World; and5.3.

the list of United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages preparedby the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on theStandardization of Geographical Names;

provided, that the reservation of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent
that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), provided, further, that46

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSRegistry Operator may also propose release of these reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s
Governmental Advisory Committee and approval by ICANN.

47

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 6REGISTRY INTEROPERABILITY AND CONTINUITY SPECIFICATIONS
1. Standards Compliance1.1. DNS. Registry Operator shall comply with relevant existing RFCs and those published in the
future by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) including all successor standards, modifications oradditions thereto relating to the DNS and name server operations including without limitation RFCs 1034,
1035, 1982, 2181, 2182, 2671, 3226, 3596, 3597, 4343, and 5966.
1.2. EPP. Registry Operator shall comply with relevant existing RFCs and those published in the
future by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) including all successor standards, modifications oradditions thereto relating to the provisioning and management of domain names using the Extensible
Provisioning Protocol (EPP) in conformance with RFCs 5910, 5730, 5731, 5732, 5733 and 5734. If
Registry Operator implements Registry Grace Period (RGP), it will comply with RFC 3915 and its
successors. If Registry Operator requires the use of functionality outside the base EPP RFCs, Registry
Operator must document EPP extensions in Internet-Draft format following the guidelines described in
RFC 3735. Registry Operator will provide and update the relevant documentation of all the EPP Objects
and Extensions supported to ICANN prior to deployment.
1.3. DNSSEC. Registry Operator shall sign its TLD zone files implementing Domain Name System
Security Extensions (“DNSSEC”). During the Term, Registry Operator shall comply with RFCs 4033,
4034, 4035, 4509 and their successors, and follow the best practices described in RFC 4641 and its
successors. If Registry Operator implements Hashed Authenticated Denial of Existence for DNS Security
Extensions, it shall comply with RFC 5155 and its successors. Registry Operator shall accept public-key
material from child domain names in a secure manner according to industry best practices. Registry shallalso publish in its website the DNSSEC Practice Statements (DPS) describing critical security controls
and procedures for key material storage, access and usage for its own keys and secure acceptance ofregistrants’ public-key material. Registry Operator shall publish its DPS following the format described in“DPS-framework” (currently in draft format, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dpsframework) within 180 days after the “DPS-framework” becomes an RFC.
1.4. IDN. If the Registry Operator offers Internationalized Domain Names (“IDNs”), it shall comply
with RFCs 5890, 5891, 5892, 5893 and their successors. Registry Operator shall comply with the ICANNIDN Guidelines at <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/implementation-guidelines.htm>, as they may beamended, modified, or superseded from time to time. Registry Operator shall publish and keep updated its
IDN Tables and IDN Registration Rules in the IANA Repository of IDN Practices as specified in the
ICANN IDN Guidelines.
1.5. IPv6. Registry Operator shall be able to accept IPv6 addresses as glue records in its Registry
System and publish them in the DNS. Registry Operator shall offer public IPv6 transport for, at least, twoof the Registry’s name servers listed in the root zone with the corresponding IPv6 addresses registeredwith IANA. Registry Operator should follow “DNS IPv6 Transport Operational Guidelines” as describedin BCP 91 and the recommendations and considerations described in RFC 4472. Registry Operator shalloffer public IPv6 transport for its Registration Data Publication Services as defined in Specification 4 ofthis Agreement; e.g. Whois (RFC 3912), Web based Whois. Registry Operator shall offer public IPv6transport for its Shared Registration System (SRS) to any Registrar, no later than six months after
receiving the first request in writing from a gTLD accredited Registrar willing to operate with the SRS
over IPv6.

48

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

2. Registry Services
2.1. Registry Services. “Registry Services” are, for purposes of the Registry Agreement, defined as
the following: (a) those services that are operations of the registry critical to the following tasks: thereceipt of data from registrars concerning registrations of domain names and name servers; provision toregistrars of status information relating to the zone servers for the TLD; dissemination of TLD zone files;
operation of the registry DNS servers; and dissemination of contact and other information concerning
domain name server registrations in the TLD as required by this Agreement; (b) other products or services
that the Registry Operator is required to provide because of the establishment of a Consensus Policy as
defined in Specification 1; (c) any other products or services that only a registry operator is capable ofproviding, by reason of its designation as the registry operator; and (d) material changes to any Registry
Service within the scope of (a), (b) or (c) above.
2.2. Wildcard Prohibition. For domain names which are either not registered, or the registrant has
not supplied valid records such as NS records for listing in the DNS zone file, or their status does notallow them to be published in the DNS, the use of DNS wildcard Resource Records as described in RFCs
1034 and 4592 or any other method or technology for synthesizing DNS Resources Records or using
redirection within the DNS by the Registry is prohibited. When queried for such domain names theauthoritative name servers must return a “Name Error” response (also known as NXDOMAIN), RCODE
3 as described in RFC 1035 and related RFCs. This provision applies for all DNS zone files at all levels in
the DNS tree for which the Registry Operator (or an affiliate engaged in providing Registration Services)maintains data, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.
3. Registry Continuity
3.1. High Availability. Registry Operator will conduct its operations using network andgeographically diverse, redundant servers (including network-level redundancy, end-node level
redundancy and the implementation of a load balancing scheme where applicable) to ensure continued
operation in the case of technical failure (widespread or local), or an extraordinary occurrence or
circumstance beyond the control of the Registry Operator.
3.2. Extraordinary Event. Registry Operator will use commercially reasonable efforts to restore thecritical functions of the registry within 24 hours after the termination of an extraordinary event beyond thecontrol of the Registry Operator and restore full system functionality within a maximum of 48 hours
following such event, depending on the type of critical function involved. Outages due to such an event
will not be considered a lack of service availability.
3.3. Business Continuity. Registry Operator shall maintain a business continuity plan, which will
provide for the maintenance of Registry Services in the event of an extraordinary event beyond thecontrol of the Registry Operator or business failure of Registry Operator, and may include the designationof a Registry Services continuity provider. If such plan includes the designation of a Registry Services
continuity provider, Registry Operator shall provide the name and contact information for such Registry
Services continuity provider to ICANN. In the case of an extraordinary event beyond the control of theRegistry Operator where the Registry Operator cannot be contacted, Registry Operator consents that
ICANN may contact the designated Registry Services continuity provider, if one exists. Registry Operator
shall conduct Registry Services Continuity testing at least once per year.
4. Abuse Mitigation

49

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

4.1. Abuse Contact. Registry Operator shall provide to ICANN and publish on its website its
accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address as well as a primary contact forhandling inquires related to malicious conduct in the TLD, and will provide ICANN with prompt noticeof any changes to such contact details.
4.2. Malicious Use of Orphan Glue Records. Registry Operators shall take action to remove orphan
glue records (as defined at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac048.pdf) when provided withevidence in written form that such records are present in connection with malicious conduct.
5. Supported Initial and Renewal Registration Periods
5.1. Initial Registration Periods. Initial registrations of registered names may be made in the registryin one (1) year increments for up to a maximum of ten (10) years. For the avoidance of doubt, initial
registrations of registered names may not exceed ten (10) years.
5.2. Renewal Periods. Renewal of registered names may be made in one (1) year increments for up toa maximum of ten (10) years. For the avoidance of doubt, renewal of registered names may not extend
their registration period beyond ten (10) years from the time of the renewal.

50

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 7MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS

1. Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere
to any rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) that may be mandated from time to time by
ICANN. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional
RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse anotherparty’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all ICANN mandated and independently
developed RPMs in the registry-registrar agreement entered into by ICANN-accredited registrars
authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance withrequirements established by ICANN each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark
Clearinghouse (posted at [url to be inserted when final Trademark Clearinghouse is adopted]),which may be revised by ICANN from time to time. Registry Operator shall not mandate thatany owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information
aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designatedTrademark Clearinghouse.
2. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Registry Operator will comply with thefollowing dispute resolution mechanisms as they may be revised from time to time:a. the Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
and the Registration Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP)
adopted by ICANN (posted at [urls to be inserted when final procedure isadopted]). Registry Operator agrees to implement and adhere to any
remedies ICANN imposes (which may include any reasonable remedy,
including for the avoidance of doubt, the termination of the Registry
Agreement pursuant to Section 4.3(e) of the Registry Agreement)
following a determination by any PDDRP or RRDRP panel and to bebound by any such determination; andb. the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (“URS”) adopted by ICANN(posted at [url to be inserted]), including the implementation ofdeterminations issued by URS examiners.

51

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 8CONTINUED OPERATIONS INSTRUMENT

1. The Continued Operations Instrument shall (a) provide for sufficient financial resources
to ensure the continued operation of the critical registry functions related to the TLD set
forth in Section [__] of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon
finalization of Applicant Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into thisSpecification 8) for a period of three (3) years following any termination of thisAgreement on or prior to the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date or for a period of one(1) year following any termination of this Agreement after the fifth anniversary of theEffective Date but prior to or on the sixth (6th) anniversary of the Effective Date, and (b)be in the form of either (i) an irrevocable standby letter of credit, or (ii) an irrevocable
cash escrow deposit, each meeting the requirements set forth in Section [__] of the
Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon finalization of Applicant
Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into this Specification 8).
Registry Operator shall use its best efforts to take all actions necessary or advisable tomaintain in effect the Continued Operations Instrument for a period of six (6) years fromthe Effective Date, and to maintain ICANN as a third party beneficiary thereof. Registry
Operator shall provide to ICANN copies of all final documents relating to the Continued
Operations Instrument and shall keep ICANN reasonably informed of material
developments relating to the Continued Operations Instrument. Registry Operator shallnot agree to, or permit, any amendment of, or waiver under, the Continued Operations
Instrument or other documentation relating thereto without the prior written consent of
ICANN (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld). The Continued Operations
Instrument shall expressly state that ICANN may access the financial resources of theContinued Operations Instrument pursuant to Section 2.13 or Section 4.5 [insert forgovernment entity: or Section 7.14] of the Registry Agreement.
2. If, notwithstanding the use of best efforts by Registry Operator to satisfy its obligations
under the preceding paragraph, the Continued Operations Instrument expires or is
terminated by another party thereto, in whole or in part, for any reason, prior to the sixth
anniversary of the Effective Date, Registry Operator shall promptly (i) notify ICANN ofsuch expiration or termination and the reasons therefor and (ii) arrange for an alternative
instrument that provides for sufficient financial resources to ensure the continued
operation of the Registry Services related to the TLD for a period of three (3) years
following any termination of this Agreement on or prior to the fifth anniversary of theEffective Date or for a period of one (1) year following any termination of thisAgreement after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date but prior to or on the sixth (6)anniversary of the Effective Date (an “Alternative Instrument”). Any such Alternative
Instrument shall be on terms no less favorable to ICANN than the Continued Operations
Instrument and shall otherwise be in form and substance reasonably acceptable to
ICANN.
3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Specification 8, at any time,

Registry Operator may replace the Continued Operations Instrument with an alternative

52

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

instrument that (i) provides for sufficient financial resources to ensure the continued
operation of the Registry Services related to the TLD for a period of three (3) years
following any termination of this Agreement on or prior to the fifth anniversary of theEffective Date or for a period one (1) year following any termination of this Agreement
after the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date but prior to or on the sixth (6) anniversaryof the Effective Date, and (ii) contains terms no less favorable to ICANN than theContinued Operations Instrument and is otherwise in form and substance reasonably
acceptable to ICANN. In the event Registry Operation replaces the Continued
Operations Instrument either pursuant to paragraph 2 or this paragraph 3, the terms of thisSpecification 8 shall no longer apply with respect to the original Continuing Operations
Instrument, but shall thereafter apply with respect to such replacement instrument(s).

53NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 9Registry Operator Code of Conduct
1.

In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator
will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor orother related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision ofRegistry Services with respect to the TLD (each, a “Registry Related Party”), to:a. directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration
to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems andrelated registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for suchpreferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on
substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions;b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an
ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management,
operations and purpose of the TLD, provided, that Registry Operator may
reserve names from registration pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Registry
Agreement;c. register names in the TLD or sub-domains of the TLD based upon proprietary
access to information about searches or resolution requests by consumers fordomain names not yet registered (commonly known as, "front-running");d. allow any Affiliated registrar to disclose user data to Registry Operator or any
Registry Related Party, except as necessary for the management andoperations of the TLD, unless all unrelated third parties (including otherregistry operators) are given equivalent access to such user data on
substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions; ore. disclose confidential registry data or confidential information about its
Registry Services or operations to any employee of any DNS services
provider, except as necessary for the management and operations of the TLD,
unless all unrelated third parties (including other registry operators) are given
equivalent access to such confidential registry data or confidential information
on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions.

2.

If Registry Operator or a Registry Related Party also operates as a provider ofregistrar or registrar-reseller services, Registry Operator will, or will cause such
Registry Related Party to, ensure that such services are offered through a legal
entity separate from Registry Operator, and maintain separate books of accounts
with respect to its registrar or registrar-reseller operations.

3.

Registry Operator will conduct internal reviews at least once per calendar year to54

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

ensure compliance with this Code of Conduct. Within twenty (20) calendar days
following the end of each calendar year, Registry Operator will provide the resultsof the internal review, along with a certification executed by an executive officer
of Registry Operator certifying as to Registry Operator’s compliance with thisCode of Conduct, via email to an address to be provided by ICANN. (ICANN
may specify in the future the form and contents of such reports or that the reports
be delivered by other reasonable means.) Registry Operator agrees that ICANN
may publicly post such results and certification.
4.

Nothing set forth herein shall: (i) limit ICANN from conducting investigations ofclaims of Registry Operator’s non-compliance with this Code of Conduct; or (ii)provide grounds for Registry Operator to refuse to cooperate with ICANN
investigations of claims of Registry Operator’s non-compliance with this Code of
Conduct.

5.

Nothing set forth herein shall limit the ability of Registry Operator or any
Registry Related Party, to enter into arms-length transactions in the ordinary
course of business with a registrar or reseller with respect to products and services
unrelated in all respects to the TLD.

6.

Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such
exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if
Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all
domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by,Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell,
distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third
party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of thisCode of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.

55

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSSPECIFICATION 10
REGISTRY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
1. Definitions
1.1. DNS. Refers to the Domain Name System as specified in RFCs 1034, 1035, and related RFCs.
1.2. DNSSEC proper resolution. There is a valid DNSSEC chain of trust from the root trust anchor
to a particular domain name, e.g., a TLD, a domain name registered under a TLD, etc.
1.3. EPP. Refers to the Extensible Provisioning Protocol as specified in RFC 5730 and related RFCs.
1.4. IP address. Refers to IPv4 or IPv6 addresses without making any distinction between the two.
When there is need to make a distinction, IPv4 or IPv6 is used.
1.5. Probes. Network hosts used to perform (DNS, EPP, etc.) tests (see below) that are located atvarious global locations.
1.6. RDDS. Registration Data Directory Services refers to the collective of WHOIS and Web-based
WHOIS services as defined in Specification 4 of this Agreement.
1.7. RTT. Round-Trip Time or RTT refers to the time measured from the sending of the first bit of
the first packet of the sequence of packets needed to make a request until the reception of the last
bit of the last packet of the sequence needed to receive the response. If the client does not receive
the whole sequence of packets needed to consider the response as received, the request will beconsidered unanswered.
1.8. SLR. Service Level Requirement is the level of service expected for a certain parameter being
measured in a Service Level Agreement (SLA).
2. Service Level Agreement Matrix

DNS

RDDS

EPP

Parameter

SLR (monthly basis)

DNS service availability
DNS name server availability
TCP DNS resolution RTT
UDP DNS resolution RTT
DNS update time
RDDS availability
RDDS query RTT
RDDS update time
EPP service availability
EPP session-command RTT
EPP query-command RTT
EPP transform-command RTT

0 min downtime = 100% availability≤ 432 min of downtime (≈ 99%)
≤ 1500 ms, for at least 95% of the queries≤ 500 ms, for at least 95% of the queries≤ 60 min, for at least 95% of the probes≤ 864 min of downtime (≈ 98%)
≤ 2000 ms, for at least 95% of the queries≤ 60 min, for at least 95% of the probes≤ 864 min of downtime (≈ 98%)
≤ 4000 ms, for at least 90% of the commands≤ 2000 ms, for at least 90% of the commands≤ 4000 ms, for at least 90% of the commands

56

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONSRegistry Operator is encouraged to do maintenance for the different services at the times and dates ofstatistically lower traffic for each service. However, note that there is no provision for planned outages orsimilar; any downtime, be it for maintenance or due to system failures, will be noted simply as downtime
and counted for SLA purposes.
3. DNS3.1. DNS service availability. Refers to the ability of the group of listed-as-authoritative nameservers of a particular domain name (e.g., a TLD), to answer DNS queries from DNS probes. For
the service to be considered available at a particular moment, at least, two of the delegated nameservers registered in the DNS must have successful results from “DNS tests” to each of their
public-DNS registered “IP addresses” to which the name server resolves. If 51% or more of the
DNS testing probes see the service as unavailable during a given time, the DNS service will beconsidered unavailable.
3.2. DNS name server availability. Refers to the ability of a public-DNS registered “IP address” ofa particular name server listed as authoritative for a domain name, to answer DNS queries froman Internet user. All the public DNS-registered “IP address” of all name servers of the domainname being monitored shall be tested individually. If 51% or more of the DNS testing probes get
undefined/unanswered results from “DNS tests” to a name server “IP address” during a given
time, the name server “IP address” will be considered unavailable.
3.3. UDP DNS resolution RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of two packets, the UDP DNS
query and the corresponding UDP DNS response. If the RTT is 5 times greater than the time
specified in the relevant SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.
3.4. TCP DNS resolution RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets from the start of the
TCP connection to its end, including the reception of the DNS response for only one DNS query.
If the RTT is 5 times greater than the time specified in the relevant SLR, the RTT will beconsidered undefined.
3.5. DNS resolution RTT. Refers to either “UDP DNS resolution RTT” or “TCP DNS resolution
RTT”.
3.6. DNS update time. Refers to the time measured from the reception of an EPP confirmation to atransform command on a domain name, until the name servers of the parent domain nameanswer “DNS queries” with data consistent with the change made. This only applies for changes
to DNS information.
3.7. DNS test. Means one non-recursive DNS query sent to a particular “IP address” (via UDP or
TCP). If DNSSEC is offered in the queried DNS zone, for a query to be considered answered,
the signatures must be positively verified against a corresponding DS record published in theparent zone or, if the parent is not signed, against a statically configured Trust Anchor. The
answer to the query must contain the corresponding information from the Registry System,otherwise the query will be considered unanswered. A query with a “DNS resolution RTT” 5times higher than the corresponding SLR, will be considered unanswered. The possible results toa DNS test are: a number in milliseconds corresponding to the “DNS resolution RTT” or,undefined/unanswered.
3.8. Measuring DNS parameters. Every minute, every DNS probe will make an UDP or TCP “DNS
test” to each of the public-DNS registered “IP addresses” of the name servers of the domain

57

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

name being monitored. If a “DNS test” result is undefined/unanswered, the tested IP will beconsidered unavailable from that probe until it is time to make a new test.
3.9. Collating the results from DNS probes. The minimum number of active testing probes toconsider a measurement valid is 20 at any given measurement period, otherwise themeasurements will be discarded and will be considered inconclusive; during this situation no
fault will be flagged against the SLRs.
3.10.
Distribution of UDP and TCP queries. DNS probes will send UDP or TCP “DNS test”
approximating the distribution of these queries.
3.11.
Placement of DNS probes. Probes for measuring DNS parameters shall be placed asnear as possible to the DNS resolvers on the networks with the most users across the different
geographic regions; care shall be taken not to deploy probes behind high propagation-delay
links, such as satellite links.
4. RDDS4.1. RDDS availability. Refers to the ability of all the RDDS services for the TLD, to respond toqueries from an Internet user with appropriate data from the relevant Registry System. If 51% ormore of the RDDS testing probes see any of the RDDS services as unavailable during a given
time, the RDDS will be considered unavailable.
4.2. WHOIS query RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets from the start of the TCP
connection to its end, including the reception of the WHOIS response. If the RTT is 5-times ormore the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.
4.3. Web-based-WHOIS query RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets from the start of
the TCP connection to its end, including the reception of the HTTP response for only one HTTP
request. If Registry Operator implements a multiple-step process to get to the information, only
the last step shall be measured. If the RTT is 5-times or more the corresponding SLR, the RTT
will be considered undefined.
4.4. RDDS query RTT. Refers to the collective of “WHOIS query RTT” and “Web-basedWHOIS query RTT”.
4.5. RDDS update time. Refers to the time measured from the reception of an EPP confirmation to atransform command on a domain name, host or contact, up until the servers of the RDDS
services reflect the changes made.
4.6. RDDS test. Means one query sent to a particular “IP address” of one of the servers of one of the
RDDS services. Queries shall be about existing objects in the Registry System and the responses
must contain the corresponding information otherwise the query will be considered unanswered.
Queries with an RTT 5 times higher than the corresponding SLR will be considered asunanswered. The possible results to an RDDS test are: a number in milliseconds corresponding
to the RTT or undefined/unanswered.
4.7. Measuring RDDS parameters. Every 5 minutes, RDDS probes will select one IP address fromall the public-DNS registered “IP addresses” of the servers for each RDDS service of the TLD
being monitored and make an “RDDS test” to each one. If an “RDDS test” result is

58

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

undefined/unanswered, the corresponding RDDS service will be considered as unavailable fromthat probe until it is time to make a new test.
4.8. Collating the results from RDDS probes. The minimum number of active testing probes toconsider a measurement valid is 10 at any given measurement period, otherwise themeasurements will be discarded and will be considered inconclusive; during this situation no
fault will be flagged against the SLRs.
4.9. Placement of RDDS probes. Probes for measuring RDDS parameters shall be placed inside the
networks with the most users across the different geographic regions; care shall be taken not to
deploy probes behind high propagation-delay links, such as satellite links.
5. EPP
5.1. EPP service availability. Refers to the ability of the TLD EPP servers as a group, to respond tocommands from the Registry accredited Registrars, who already have credentials to the servers.
The response shall include appropriate data from the Registry System. An EPP command with
“EPP command RTT” 5 times higher than the corresponding SLR will be considered asunanswered. If 51% or more of the EPP testing probes see the EPP service as unavailable during
a given time, the EPP service will be considered unavailable.
5.2. EPP session-command RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets that includes thesending of a session command plus the reception of the EPP response for only one EPP sessioncommand. For the login command it will include packets needed for starting the TCP session.
For the logout command it will include packets needed for closing the TCP session. EPP sessioncommands are those described in section 2.9.1 of EPP RFC 5730. If the RTT is 5 times or more
the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.
5.3. EPP query-command RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets that includes thesending of a query command plus the reception of the EPP response for only one EPP querycommand. It does not include packets needed for the start or close of either the EPP or the TCP
session. EPP query commands are those described in section 2.9.2 of EPP RFC 5730. If the RTT
is 5-times or more the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered undefined.
5.4. EPP transform-command RTT. Refers to the RTT of the sequence of packets that includes thesending of a transform command plus the reception of the EPP response for only one EPP
transform command. It does not include packets needed for the start or close of either the EPP or
the TCP session. EPP transform commands are those described in section 2.9.3 of EPP RFC
5730. If the RTT is 5 times or more the corresponding SLR, the RTT will be considered
undefined.
5.5. EPP command RTT. Refers to “EPP session-command RTT”, “EPP query-command RTT”
or “EPP transform-command RTT”.
5.6. EPP test. Means one EPP command sent to a particular “IP address” for one of the EPP servers.
Query and transform commands, with the exception of “create”, shall be about existing objects
in the Registry System. The response shall include appropriate data from the Registry System.
The possible results to an EPP test are: a number in milliseconds corresponding to the “EPP
command RTT” or undefined/unanswered.

59

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

5.7. Measuring EPP parameters. Every 5 minutes, EPP probes will select one “IP address“ of the
EPP servers of the TLD being monitored and make an “EPP test”; every time they should
alternate between the 3 different types of commands and between the commands inside eachcategory. If an “EPP test” result is undefined/unanswered, the EPP service will be considered as
unavailable from that probe until it is time to make a new test.
5.8. Collating the results from EPP probes. The minimum number of active testing probes toconsider a measurement valid is 5 at any given measurement period, otherwise the measurements
will be discarded and will be considered inconclusive; during this situation no fault will be
flagged against the SLRs.
5.9. Placement of EPP probes. Probes for measuring EPP parameters shall be placed inside or close
to Registrars points of access to the Internet across the different geographic regions; care shall betaken not to deploy probes behind high propagation-delay links, such as satellite links.
6. Emergency Thresholds
The following matrix presents the Emergency Thresholds that, if reached by any of the services
mentioned above for a TLD, would cause the Emergency Transition of the Critical Functions as specified
in Section 2.13. of this Agreement.
Critical Function

Emergency Threshold

DNS service (all servers)

4-hour downtime / week

DNSSEC proper resolution

4-hour downtime / week

EPP

24-hour downtime / week

RDDS (WHOIS/Web-based
WHOIS)
Data Escrow

24-hour downtime / week
Breach of the Registry Agreement caused by missing escrowdeposits as described in Specification 2, Part B, Section 6.

7. Emergency Escalation
Escalation is strictly for purposes of notifying and investigating possible or potential issues in relation tomonitored services. The initiation of any escalation and the subsequent cooperative investigations do notin themselves imply that a monitored service has failed its performance requirements.
Escalations shall be carried out between ICANN and Registry Operators, Registrars and Registry
Operator, and Registrars and ICANN. Registry Operators and ICANN must provide said emergency
operations departments. Current contacts must be maintained between ICANN and Registry Operatorsand published to Registrars, where relevant to their role in escalations, prior to any processing of an
Emergency Escalation by all related parties, and kept current at all times.
7.1. Emergency Escalation initiated by ICANN
Upon reaching 10% of the Emergency thresholds as described in Section 6, ICANN’s emergency
operations will initiate an Emergency Escalation with the relevant Registry Operator. An Emergency
Escalation consists of the following minimum elements: electronic (i.e., email or SMS) and/or voicecontact notification to the Registry Operator’s emergency operations department with detailed
information concerning the issue being escalated, including evidence of monitoring failures, cooperative
trouble-shooting of the monitoring failure between ICANN staff and the Registry Operator, and the60

NEW GTLD AGREEMENT SPECIFICATIONS

commitment to begin the process of rectifying issues with either the monitoring service or the service
being monitoring.
7.2. Emergency Escalation initiated by Registrars
Registry Operator will maintain an emergency operations departments prepared to handle emergency
requests from registrars. In the event that a registrar is unable to conduct EPP transactions with theRegistry because of a fault with the Registry Service and is unable to either contact (through ICANN
mandated methods of communication) the Registry Operator, or the Registry Operator is unable orunwilling to address the fault, the registrar may initiate an Emergency Escalation to the emergency
operations department of ICANN. ICANN then may initiate an Emergency Escalation with the Registry
Operator as explained above.
7.3. Notifications of Outages and MaintenanceIn the event that a Registry Operator plans maintenance, they will provide related notice to the ICANN
emergency operations department, at least, 24 hours ahead of that maintenance. ICANN’s emergency
operations department will note planned maintenance times, and suspend Emergency Escalation services
for the monitored services during the expected maintenance outage period.
If Registry Operator declares an outage, as per their contractual obligations with ICANN, on services
under SLA and performance requirements, it will notify the ICANN emergency operations department.
During that declared outage, ICANN’s emergency operations department will note and suspend
Emergency Escalation services for the monitored services involved.
8. Covenants of Performance Measurement
8.1. No interference. Registry Operator shall not interfere with measurement Probes, including any
form of preferential treatment of the requests for the monitored services. Registry Operator shall
respond to the measurement tests described in this Specification as it would do with any otherrequest from Internet users (for DNS and RDDS) or registrars (for EPP).
8.2. ICANN testing registrar. Registry Operator agrees that ICANN will have a testing registrar used
for purposes of measuring the SLRs described above. Registry Operator agrees to not provide
any differentiated treatment for the testing registrar other than no billing of the transactions.
ICANN shall not use the registrar for registering domain names (or other registry objects) for
itself or others, except for the purposes of verifying contractual compliance with the conditions
described in this Agreement.

61

TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE
4 JUNE 2012
1.

2.

PURPOSE OF CLEARINGHOUSE
1.1

The Trademark Clearinghouse is a central repository for information to beauthenticated, stored, and disseminated, pertaining to the rights of trademark holders.
ICANN will enter into an arms-length contract with service provider or providers,awarding the right to serve as a Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider, i.e., toaccept, authenticate, validate and facilitate the transmission of information related tocertain trademarks.

1.2

The Clearinghouse will be required to separate its two primary functions: (i)authentication and validation of the trademarks in the Clearinghouse; and (ii) serving asa database to provide information to the new gTLD registries to support pre-launch
Sunrise or Trademark Claims Services. Whether the same provider could serve both
functions or whether two providers will be determined in the tender process.

1.3

The Registry shall only need to connect with one centralized database to obtain theinformation it needs to conduct its Sunrise or Trademark Claims Services regardless ofthe details of the Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider’s contract(s) with ICANN.

1.4

Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider may provide ancillary services, as long as
those services and any data used for those services are kept separate from theClearinghouse database.

1.5

The Clearinghouse database will be a repository of authenticated information anddisseminator of the information to a limited number of recipients. Its functions will be
performed in accordance with a limited charter, and will not have any discretionary
powers other than what will be set out in the charter with respect to authentication andvalidation. The Clearinghouse administrator(s) cannot create policy. Before materialchanges are made to the Clearinghouse functions, they will be reviewed through the
ICANN public participation model.

1.6

Inclusion in the Clearinghouse is not proof of any right, nor does it create any legal
rights. Failure to submit trademarks into the Clearinghouse should not be perceived tobe lack of vigilance by trademark holders or a waiver of any rights, nor can any negative
influence be drawn from such failure.

SERVICE PROVIDERS
2.1

The selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider(s) will be subject topredetermined criteria, but the foremost considerations will be the ability to store,
authenticate, validate and disseminate the data at the highest level of technical stability

and security without interference with the integrity or timeliness of the registration
process or registry operations.
2.2

Functions – Authentication/Validation; Database Administration. Public commentary
has suggested that the best way to protect the integrity of the data and to avoid
concerns that arise through sole-source providers would be to separate the functions of
database administration and data authentication/validation.
2.2.1

One entity will authenticate registrations ensuring the word marks qualify as
registered or are court-validated word marks or word marks that are protectedby statute or treaty. This entity would also be asked to ensure that proof of use
of marks is provided, which can be demonstrated by furnishing a signed
declaration and one specimen of current use.

2.2.2

The second entity will maintain the database and provide Sunrise andTrademark Claims Services (described below).

2.3

Discretion will be used, balancing effectiveness, security and other important factors, todetermine whether ICANN will contract with one or two entities - one to authenticate
and validate, and the other to, administer in order to preserve integrity of the data.

2.4

Contractual Relationship.
2.4.1

The Clearinghouse shall be separate and independent from ICANN. It will
operate based on market needs and collect fees from those who use its
services. ICANN may coordinate or specify interfaces used by registries andregistrars, and provide some oversight or quality assurance function to ensure
rights protection goals are appropriately met.

2.4.2

The Trademark Clearinghouse Service Provider(s) (authenticator/validator andadministrator) will be selected through an open and transparent process toensure low costs and reliable, consistent service for all those utilizing theClearinghouse services.

2.4.3

The Service Provider(s) providing the authentication of the trademarks
submitted into the Clearinghouse shall adhere to rigorous standards andrequirements that would be specified in an ICANN contractual agreement.

2.4.4

The contract shall include service level requirements, customer service
availability (with the goal of seven days per week, 24 hours per day, 365 days
per year), data escrow requirements, and equal access requirements for all
persons and entities required to access the Trademark Clearinghouse database.

Clearinghouse - 2

2.4.52.5.

Service Provider Requirements. The Clearinghouse Service Provider(s) should utilize
regional marks authentication service providers (whether directly or through subcontractors) to take advantage of local experts who understand the nuances of the
trademark in question. Examples of specific performance criteria details in the contract
award criteria and service-level-agreements are:
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3

2.5.4

2.5.5
2.5.6
2.5.7

2.5.8

3.

To the extent practicable, the contract should also include indemnification byService Provider for errors such as false positives for participants such as
Registries, ICANN, Registrants and Registrars.

provide 24 hour accessibility seven days a week (database administrator);
employ systems that are technically reliable and secure (databaseadministrator);use globally accessible and scalable systems so that multiple marks frommultiple sources in multiple languages can be accommodated and sufficiently
cataloged (database administrator and validator);
accept submissions from all over the world - the entry point for trademark
holders to submit their data into the Clearinghouse database could be regional
entities or one entity;
allow for multiple languages, with exact implementation details to be
determined;
provide access to the Registrants to verify and research Trademark Claims
Notices;have the relevant experience in database administration, validation orauthentication, as well as accessibility to and knowledge of the various relevant
trademark laws (database administrator and authenticator); andensure through performance requirements, including those involving interface
with registries and registrars, that neither domain name registration timeliness,nor registry or registrar operations will be hindered (database administrator).

CRITERIA FOR TRADEMARK INCLUSION IN CLEARINGHOUSE
3.1

The trademark holder will submit to one entity – a single entity for entry will facilitate
access to the entire Clearinghouse database. If regional entry points are used, ICANN
will publish an information page describing how to locate regional submission points.
Regardless of the entry point into the Clearinghouse, the authentication procedures
established will be uniform.

3.2

The standards for inclusion in the Clearinghouse are:
3.2.1
3.2.2

Nationally or regionally registered word marks from all jurisdictions.
Any word mark that has been validated through a court of law or other judicial
proceeding.
Clearinghouse - 3

3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5

Any word mark protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is
submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion.
Other marks that constitute intellectual property.
Protections afforded to trademark registrations do not extend to applications
for registrations, marks within any opposition period or registered marks thatwere the subject of successful invalidation, cancellation or rectification
proceedings.

3.3

The type of data supporting entry of a registered word mark into the Clearinghousemust include a copy of the registration or the relevant ownership information, including
the requisite registration number(s), the jurisdictions where the registrations haveissued, and the name of the owner of record.

3.4

Data supporting entry of a judicially validated word mark into the Clearinghouse must
include the court documents, properly entered by the court, evidencing the validation ofa given word mark.

3.5

Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of word marks protected by a statute ortreaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to the Clearinghouse for inclusion,must include a copy of the relevant portion of the statute or treaty and evidence of its
effective date.

3.6

Data supporting entry into the Clearinghouse of marks that constitute intellectual
property of types other than those set forth in sections 3.2.1-3.2.3 above shall be
determined by the registry operator and the Clearinghouse based on the services any
given registry operator chooses to provide.

3.7

Registrations that include top level extensions such as “icann.org” or “.icann” as theword mark will not be permitted in the Clearinghouse regardless of whether that markhas been registered or it has been otherwise validated or protected (e.g., if a markexisted for icann.org or .icann, neither will not be permitted in the Clearinghouse).

3.8

All mark holders seeking to have their marks included in the Clearinghouse will be
required to submit a declaration, affidavit, or other sworn statement that the
information provided is true and current and has not been supplied for an improper
purpose. The mark holder will also be required to attest that it will keep theinformation supplied to the Clearinghouse current so that if, during the time the mark is
included in the Clearinghouse, a registration gets cancelled or is transferred to anotherentity, or in the case of a court- or Clearinghouse-validated mark the holder abandonsuse of the mark, the mark holder has an affirmative obligation to notify the
Clearinghouse. There will be penalties for failing to keep information current.
Moreover, it is anticipated that there will be a process whereby registrations can be

Clearinghouse - 4

removed from the Clearinghouse if it is discovered that the marks are procured by fraud
or if the data is inaccurate.
3.9

4.

As an additional safeguard, the data will have to be renewed periodically by any markholder wishing to remain in the Clearinghouse. Electronic submission should facilitate
this process and minimize the cost associated with it. The reason for periodic
authentication is to streamline the efficiencies of the Clearinghouse and the information
the registry operators will need to process and limit the marks at issue to the ones thatare in use.

USE OF CLEARINGHOUSE DATA
4.1

All mark holders seeking to have their marks included in the Clearinghouse will have toconsent to the use of their information by the Clearinghouse. However, such consent
would extend only to use in connection with the stated purpose of the Trademark
Clearinghouse Database for Sunrise or Trademark Claims services. The reason for such aprovision would be to presently prevent the Clearinghouse from using the data in otherways without permission. There shall be no bar on the Trademark Clearinghouse
Service Provider or other third party service providers providing ancillary services on a
non-exclusive basis.

4.2

In order not to create a competitive advantage, the data in the Trademark
Clearinghouse should be licensed to competitors interested in providing ancillary
services on equal and non-discriminatory terms and on commercially reasonable terms
if the mark holders agree. Accordingly, two licensing options will be offered to the markholder: (a) a license to use its data for all required features of the Trademark
Clearinghouse, with no permitted use of such data for ancillary services either by theTrademark Clearinghouse Service Provider or any other entity; or (b) license to use its
data for the mandatory features of the Trademark Clearinghouse and for any ancillary
uses reasonably related to the protection of marks in new gTLDs, which would include alicense to allow the Clearinghouse to license the use and data in the Trademark
Clearinghouse to competitors that also provide those ancillary services. The specificimplementation details will be determined, and all terms and conditions related to theprovision of such services shall be included in the Trademark Clearinghouse Service
Provider’s contract with ICANN and subject to ICANN review.

4.3

Access by a prospective registrant to verify and research Trademark Claims Notices shallnot be considered an ancillary service, and shall be provided at no cost to the Registrant.
Misuse of the data by the service providers would be grounds for immediate
termination.

Clearinghouse - 55.

DATA AUTHENTICATION AND VALIDATION GUIDELINES
5.1

5.2

6.

One core function for inclusion in the Clearinghouse would be to authenticate that thedata meets certain minimum criteria. As such, the following minimum criteria aresuggested:
5.1.1

An acceptable list of data authentication sources, i.e. the web sites of patentand trademark offices throughout the world, third party providers who can
obtain information from various trademark offices;

5.1.2

Name, address and contact information of the applicant is accurate, current andmatches that of the registered owner of the trademarks listed;

5.1.3

Electronic contact information is provided and accurate;

5.1.4

The registration numbers and countries match the information in the respective
trademark office database for that registration number.

For validation of marks by the Clearinghouse that were not protected via a court,
statute or treaty, the mark holder shall be required to provide evidence of use of themark in connection with the bona fide offering for sale of goods or services prior toapplication for inclusion in the Clearinghouse. Acceptable evidence of use will be asigned declaration and a single specimen of current use, which might consist of labels,tags, containers, advertising, brochures, screen shots, or something else that evidences
current use.

MANDATORY RIGHTS PROTECTION MECHANISMS
All new gTLD registries will be required to use the Trademark Clearinghouse to support its prelaunch or initial launch period rights protection mechanisms (RPMs). These RPMs, at aminimum, must consist of a Trademark Claims service and a Sunrise process.
6.1

Trademark Claims service
6.1.1

New gTLD Registry Operators must provide Trademark Claims services during an
initial launch period for marks in the Trademark Clearinghouse. This launch
period must occur for at least the first 60 days that registration is open forgeneral registration.

6.1.2

A Trademark Claims service is intended to provide clear notice to theprospective registrant of the scope of the mark holder’s rights in order tominimize the chilling effect on registrants (Trademark Claims Notice). A form
that describes the required elements is attached. The specific statement by

Clearinghouse - 6

prospective registrant warrants that: (i) the prospective registrant has received
notification that the mark(s) is included in the Clearinghouse; (ii) the prospective
registrant has received and understood the notice; and (iii) to the best of theprospective registrant’s knowledge, the registration and use of the requested
domain name will not infringe on the rights that are the subject of thenotice.

6.2

6.1.3

The Trademark Claims Notice should provide the prospective registrant access to
the Trademark Clearinghouse Database information referenced in the Trademark
Claims Notice to enhance understanding of the Trademark rights being claimed by
the trademark holder. These links (or other sources) shall be provided in real time
without cost to the prospective registrant. Preferably, the Trademark Claims Notice
should be provided in the language used for the restof the interaction with the registrar or registry, but it is anticipated that at thevery least in the most appropriate UN-sponsored language (as specified by theprospective registrant or registrar/registry).

6.1.4

If the domain name is registered in the Clearinghouse, the registrar (again
through an interface with the Clearinghouse) will promptly notify the markholders(s) of the registration after it is effectuated.

6.1.5

The Trademark Clearinghouse Database will be structured to report to registries
when registrants are attempting to register a domain name that is considered an“Identical Match” with the mark in the Clearinghouse. “Identical Match” means thatthe domain name consists of the complete and identical textual elements of themark. In this regard: (a) spaces contained within a mark that are either replaced byhyphens (and vice versa) or omitted; (b) only certain special characters contained
within a trademark are spelled out with appropriate words describing it (@ and &);(c) punctuation or special characters contained within a mark that are unable to be
used in a second-level domain name may either be (i) omitted or (ii) replaced by
spaces, hyphens or underscores and still be considered identical matches; and (d) no
plural and no “marks contained” would qualify for inclusion.

Sunrise service
6.2.1

Sunrise registration services must be offered for a minimum of 30 days during the
pre-launch phase and notice must be provided to all trademark holders in the
Clearinghouse if someone is seeking a sunrise registration. This notice will be
provided to holders of marks in the Clearinghouse that are an Identical Match to thename to be registered during Sunrise.

6.2.2

Sunrise Registration Process. For a Sunrise service, sunrise eligibility requirements(SERs) will be met as a minimum requirement, verified by Clearinghouse data, andClearinghouse - 7

incorporate a Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP).

7.

6.2.3

The proposed SERs include: (i) ownership of a mark (that satisfies the criteria in
section 7.2 below), (ii) optional registry elected requirements re: international classof goods or services covered by registration; (iii) representation that all provided
information is true and correct; and (iv) provision of data sufficient to document
rights in the trademark.

6.2.4

The proposed SDRP must allow challenges based on at least the following four
grounds: (i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did
not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the
trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; (ii) the
domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise
registration; (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise
registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had notbeen court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or (iv) the trademark
registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did
not issue on or before the effective date of the Registry Agreement and was notapplied for on or before ICANN announced the applications received.

6.2.5

The Clearinghouse will maintain the SERs, validate and authenticate marks, asapplicable, and hear challenges.

PROTECTION FOR MARKS IN CLEARINGHOUSE
The scope of registered marks that must be honored by registries in providing Trademarks
Claims services is broader than those that must be honored by registries in Sunrise services.
7.1

For Trademark Claims services - Registries must recognize and honor all word marks thathave been or are: (i) nationally or regionally registered; (ii) court-validated; or (iii)
specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the mark is submitted to
the Clearinghouse for inclusion. No demonstration of use is required.

7.2

8.

For Sunrise services - Registries must recognize and honor all word marks: (i) nationallyor regionally registered and for which proof of use – which can be a declaration and asingle specimen of current use – was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark
Clearinghouse; or (ii) that have been court-validated; or (iii) that are specificallyprotected by a statute or treaty currently in effect and that was in effect on or before 26
June 2008.

COSTS OF CLEARINGHOUSE

Costs should be completely borne by the parties utilizing the services. Trademark holders will pay toregister the Clearinghouse, and registries will pay for Trademark Claims and Sunrise services. Registrars
and others who avail themselves of Clearinghouse services will pay the Clearinghouse directly.

Clearinghouse - 8

TRADEMARK NOTICE[In English and the language of the registration agreement]
You have received this Trademark Notice because you have applied for a domain namewhich matches at least one trademark record submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse.
You may or may not be entitled to register the domain name depending on your intended
use and whether it is the same or significantly overlaps with the trademarks listed below.
Your rights to register this domain name may or may not be protected as noncommercial
use or “fair use” by the laws of your country. [in bold italics or all caps]

Please read the trademark information below carefully, including the trademarks,
jurisdictions, and goods and service for which the trademarks are registered. Please beaware that not all jurisdictions review trademark applications closely, so some of the
trademark information below may exist in a national or regional registry which does notconduct a thorough or substantive review of trademark rights prior to registration.
If you have questions, you may want to consult an attorney or legal expert on
trademarks and intellectual property for guidance.
If you continue with this registration, you represent that, you have received and you
understand this notice and to the best of your knowledge, your registration and use of therequested domain name will not infringe on the trademark rights listed below.
The following [number] Trademarks are listed in the Trademark Clearinghouse:
1. Mark: Jurisdiction: Goods: [click here for more if maximum character count is exceeded]
International Class of Goods and Services or Equivalent if applicable: Trademark
Registrant: Trademark Registrant Contact:[with links to the TM registrations as listed in the TM Clearinghouse]
2. Mark: Jurisdiction: Goods: [click here for more if maximum character count is exceeded]
International Class of Goods and Services or Equivalent if applicable: Trademark
Registrant:
Trademark Registrant Contact:****** [with links to the TM registrations as listed in the TM Clearinghouse]
X. 1. Mark: Jurisdiction: Goods: [click here for more if maximum character count isexceeded] International Class of Goods and Services or Equivalent if applicable: Trademark
Registrant: Trademark Registrant Contact:

Clearinghouse - 9

UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION SYSTEM (“URS”)
4 JUNE 2012
DRAFT PROCEDURE
1.

Complaint
1.1

Filing the Complainta) Proceedings are initiated by electronically filing with a URS Provider a Complaint
outlining the trademark rights and the actions complained of entitling thetrademark holder to relief.
b) Each Complaint must be accompanied by the appropriate fee, which is underconsideration. The fees will be non-refundable.
c) One Complaint is acceptable for multiple related companies against one Registrant,
but only if the companies complaining are related. Multiple Registrants can be
named in one Complaint only if it can be shown that they are in some way related.
There will not be a minimum number of domain names imposed as a prerequisite tofiling.

1.2

Contents of the Complaint
The form of the Complaint will be simple and as formulaic as possible. There will be a
Form Complaint. The Form Complaint shall include space for the following:
1.2.1

Name, email address and other contact information for the Complaining Party(Parties).

1.2.2

Name, email address and contact information for any person authorized to act
on behalf of Complaining Parties.

1.2.3

Name of Registrant (i.e. relevant information available from Whois) and Whois
listed available contact information for the relevant domain name(s).

1.2.4

The specific domain name(s) that are the subject of the Complaint. For eachdomain name, the Complainant shall include a copy of the currently available
Whois information and a description and copy, if available, of the offending
portion of the website content associated with each domain name that is the
subject of the Complaint.

1.2.5

The specific trademark/service marks upon which the Complaint is based andpursuant to which the Complaining Parties are asserting their rights to them, forwhich goods and in connection with what services.

1.2.6

A statement of the grounds upon which the Complaint is based setting forth
facts showing that the Complaining Party is entitled to relief, namely:1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to aword mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national orregional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has beenvalidated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protectedby a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
a. Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which
can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce- was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse)b. Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint.
and1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domainname; and1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A non-exclusive list of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration
and use by the Registrant include:a.

Registrant has registered or acquired the domain nameprimarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwisetransferring the domain name registration to the complainant
who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to acompetitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration inexcess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related tothe domain name; orb.

Registrant has registered the domain name in order to preventthe trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the markin a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; orc.

Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the
purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; ord.

By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally
attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users toRegistrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating alikelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to thesource, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s
web site or location or of a product or service on that web siteor location.

URS-2

1.2.7A box in which the Complainant may submit up to 500 words of explanatory
free form text.

1.2.8. An attestation that the Complaint is not being filed for any improper basis andthat there is a sufficient good faith basis for filing the Complaint.

2.

3.

4.

Fees
2.1

URS Provider will charge fees to the Complainant. Fees are thought to be in the range of
USD 300 per proceeding, but will ultimately be set by the Provider.

2.2

Complaints listing fifteen (15) or more disputed domain names registered by the sameregistrant will be subject to a Response Fee which will be refundable to the prevailingparty. Under no circumstances shall the Response Fee exceed the fee charged to theComplainant.

Administrative Review
3.1

Complaints will be subjected to an initial administrative review by the URS Provider forcompliance with the filing requirements. This is a review to determine that theComplaint contains all of the necessary information, and is not a determination as towhether a prima facie case has been established.

3.2

The Administrative Review shall be conducted within two (2) business days ofsubmission of the Complaint to the URS Provider.

3.3

Given the rapid nature of this Procedure, and the intended low level of required fees,
there will be no opportunity to correct inadequacies in the filing requirements.

3.4

If a Complaint is deemed non-compliant with filing requirements, the Complaint will bedismissed without prejudice to the Complainant filing a new complaint. The initial filingfee shall not be refunded in these circumstances.

Notice and Locking of Domain
4.1

Upon completion of the Administrative Review, the URS Provider must immediately
notify the registry operator (via email) (“Notice of Complaint”) after the Complaint has
been deemed compliant with the filing requirements. Within 24 hours of receipt of the
Notice of Complaint from the URS Provider, the registry operator shall “lock” thedomain, meaning the registry shall restrict all changes to the registration data, includingtransfer and deletion of the domain names, but the name will continue to resolve. The
registry operator will notify the URS Provider immediately upon locking the domainname (”Notice of Lock”).

4.2

Within 24 hours after receiving Notice of Lock from the registry operator, the URS
Provider shall notify the Registrant of the Complaint, sending a hard copy of the Noticeof Complaint to the addresses listed in the Whois contact information, and providing anelectronic copy of the Complaint, advising of the locked status, as well as the potential
URS-3

effects if the Registrant fails to respond and defend against the Complaint. Notices
must be clear and understandable to Registrants located globally. The Notice ofComplaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider into the predominantlanguage used in the registrant’s country or territory.

5.

4.3

All Notices to the Registrant shall be sent through email, fax (where available) andpostal mail. The Complaint and accompanying exhibits, if any, shall be served
electronically.

4.4

The URS Provider shall also electronically notify the registrar of record for the domainname at issue via the addresses the registrar has on file with ICANN.

The Response
5.1

A Registrant will have 14 calendar days from the date the URS Provider sent its Notice ofComplaint to the Registrant to electronically file a Response with the URS Provider.
Upon receipt, the Provider will electronically send a copy of the Response, andaccompanying exhibits, if any, to the Complainant.

5.2

No filing fee will be charged if the Registrant files its Response prior to being declared in
default or not more than thirty (30) days following a Determination. For Responses filed
more than thirty (30) days after a Determination, the Registrant should pay a reasonable
non-refundable fee for re-examination, plus a Response Fee as set forth in section 2.2
above if the Complaint lists twenty-six (26) or more disputed domain names against thesame registrant. The Response Fee will be refundable to the prevailing party.

5.3

Upon request by the Registrant, a limited extension of time to respond may be grantedby the URS Provider if there is a good faith basis for doing so. In no event shall theextension be for more than seven (7) calendar days.

5.4

The Response shall be no longer than 2,500 words, excluding attachments, and thecontent of the Response should include the following:
5.4.1

Confirmation of Registrant data.

5.4.2

Specific admission or denial of each of the grounds upon which the Complaint isbased.

5.4.3

Any defense which contradicts the Complainant’s claims.

5.4.4

A statement that the contents are true and accurate.

5.5

In keeping with the intended expedited nature of the URS and the remedy afforded to a
successful Complainant, affirmative claims for relief by the Registrant will not be
permitted except for an allegation that the Complainant has filed an abusive Complaint.

5.6

Once the Response is filed, and the URS Provider determines that the Response iscompliant with the filing requirements of a Response (which shall be on the same day),URS-4

the Complaint, Response and supporting materials will immediately be sent to aqualified Examiner, selected by the URS Provider, for review and Determination. All
materials submitted are considered by the Examiner.
5.7

The Response can contain any facts refuting the claim of bad faith registration by settingout any of the following circumstances:
5.7.1

Before any notice to Registrant of the dispute, Registrant’s use of, ordemonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding
to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods orservices; or

5.7.2

Registrant (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly
known by the domain name, even if Registrant has acquired no trademark orservice mark rights; or

5.7.3

Registrant is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name, without intent
for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish thetrademark or service mark at issue.

Such claims, if found by the Examiner to be proved based on its evaluation of allevidence, shall result in a finding in favor of the Registrant.
5.8

5.9

The Registrant may also assert Defenses to the Complaint to demonstrate that theRegistrant’s use of the domain name is not in bad faith by showing, for example, one of
the following:
5.8.1

The domain name is generic or descriptive and the Registrant is making fair useof it.

5.8.2

The domain name sites are operated solely in tribute to or in criticism of aperson or business that is found by the Examiner to be fair use.

5.8.3

Registrant’s holding of the domain name is consistent with an express term of awritten agreement entered into by the disputing Parties and that is still in effect.

5.8.4

The domain name is not part of a wider pattern or series of abusive registrations
because the Domain Name is of a significantly different type or character toother domain names registered by the Registrant.

Other factors for the Examiner to consider:
5.9.1

Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domainnames, are of themselves not indicia of bad faith under the URS. Such conduct,
however, may be abusive in a given case depending on the circumstances of the
dispute. The Examiner must review each case on its merits.

5.9.2

Sale of traffic (i.e. connecting domain names to parking pages and earning clickper-view revenue) does not in and of itself constitute bad faith under the URS.
URS-5

Such conduct, however, may be abusive in a given case depending on thecircumstances of the dispute. The Examiner will take into account:
5.9.2.1. the nature of the domain name;
5.9.2.2. the nature of the advertising links on any parking page associated withthe domain name; and5.9.2.3. that the use of the domain name is ultimately the Registrant’s
responsibility.

6.

7.

Default
6.1

If at the expiration of the 14-day answer period (or extended period if granted), theRegistrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default.

6.2

In either case, the Provider shall provide Notice of Default via email to the Complainant
and Registrant, and via mail and fax to Registrant. During the Default period, theRegistrant will be prohibited from changing content found on the site to argue that it is
now a legitimate use and will also be prohibited from changing the Whois information.

6.3

All Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim.

6.4

If after Examination in Default cases, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant,Registrant shall have the right to seek relief from Default via de novo review by filing a
Response at any time up to six months after the date of the Notice of Default. The
Registrant will also be entitled to request an extension of an additional six months if theextension is requested before the expiration of the initial six-month period.

6.5

If a Response is filed after: (i) the Respondent was in Default (so long as the Response isfiled in accordance with 6.4 above); and (ii) proper notice is provided in accordance with
the notice requirements set forth above, the domain name shall again resolve to theoriginal IP address as soon as practical, but shall remain locked as if the Response had
been filed in a timely manner before Default. The filing of a Response after Default is
not an appeal; the case is considered as if responded to in a timely manner.

6.5

If after Examination in Default case, the Examiner rules in favor of Registrant, theProvider shall notify the Registry Operator to unlock the name and return full control ofthe domain name registration to the Registrant.

Examiners
7.1

One Examiner selected by the Provider will preside over a URS proceeding.

7.2

Examiners should have demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark
law, and shall be trained and certified in URS proceedings. Specifically, Examiners shallbe provided with instructions on the URS elements and defenses and how to conduct
the examination of a URS proceeding.
URS-6

7.3

8.

Examiners used by any given URS Provider shall be rotated to the extent feasible to avoid“forum or examiner shopping.” URS Providers are strongly encouraged to work equallywith all certified Examiners, with reasonable exceptions (such as language needs, nonperformance, or malfeasance) to be determined on a case by case analysis.

Examination Standards and Burden of Proof
8.1

The standards that the qualified Examiner shall apply when rendering its Determination
are whether:
8.1.2 The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i)for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and thatis in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii)that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty currently in effect and thatwas in effect at the time the URS Complaint is filed; and8.1.2.1

Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which canbe a declaration and one specimen of current use – was submitted to,and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse.

8.1.2.2 Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint.
8.1.2 The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and8.1.3 The domain was registered and is being used in a bad faith.
8.2

The burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence.

8.3

For a URS matter to conclude in favor of the Complainant, the Examiner shall render aDetermination that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Such Determination may
include that: (i) the Complainant has rights to the name; and (ii) the Registrant has norights or legitimate interest in the name. This means that the Complainant must present
adequate evidence to substantiate its trademark rights in the domain name (e.g.,
evidence of a trademark registration and evidence that the domain name was registeredand is being used in bad faith in violation of the URS).

8.4

If the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not met its burden, or that genuine issuesof material fact remain in regards to any of the elements, the Examiner will reject theComplaint under the relief available under the URS. That is, the Complaint shall bedismissed if the Examiner finds that evidence was presented or is available to the
Examiner to indicate that the use of the domain name in question is a non-infringing use
or fair use of the trademark.

8.5

Where there is any genuine contestable issue as to whether a domain name registration
and use of a trademark are in bad faith, the Complaint will be denied, the URS
proceeding will be terminated without prejudice, e.g., a UDRP, court proceeding or
URS-7

another URS may be filed. The URS is not intended for use in any proceedings with open
questions of fact, but only clear cases of trademark abuse.
8.6

9.

10.

To restate in another way, if the Examiner finds that all three standards are satisfied byclear and convincing evidence and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the
Examiner shall issue a Determination in favor of the Complainant. If the Examiner findsthat any of the standards have not been satisfied, then the Examiner shall deny therelief requested, thereby terminating the URS proceeding without prejudice to theComplainant to proceed with an action in court of competent jurisdiction or under the
UDRP.

Determination
9.1

There will be no discovery or hearing; the evidence will be the materials submitted with
the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire record
used by the Examiner to make a Determination.

9.2

If the Complainant satisfies the burden of proof, the Examiner will issue a Determinationin favor of the Complainant. The Determination will be published on the URS Provider’swebsite. However, there should be no other preclusive effect of the Determination
other than the URS proceeding to which it is rendered.

9.3

If the Complainant does not satisfy the burden of proof, the URS proceeding isterminated and full control of the domain name registration shall be returned to theRegistrant.

9.4

Determinations resulting from URS proceedings will be published by the service provider
in a format specified by ICANN.

9.5

Determinations shall also be emailed by the URS Provider to the Registrant, theComplainant, the Registrar, and the Registry Operator, and shall specify the remedy andrequired actions of the registry operator to comply with the Determination.

9.6

To conduct URS proceedings on an expedited basis, examination should begin
immediately upon the earlier of the expiration of a fourteen (14) day Response period(or extended period if granted), or upon the submission of the Response. A
Determination shall be rendered on an expedited basis, with the stated goal that it berendered within three (3) business days from when Examination began. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, however, Determinations must be issued no later than five(5) days after the Response is filed. Implementation details will be developed toaccommodate the needs of service providers once they are selected. (The tender offer
for potential service providers will indicate that timeliness will be a factor in the award
decision.)

Remedy10.1

If the Determination is in favor of the Complainant, the decision shall be immediatelytransmitted to the registry operator.
URS-8

11.

10.2

Immediately upon receipt of the Determination, the registry operator shall suspend thedomain name, which shall remain suspended for the balance of the registration period
and would not resolve to the original web site. The nameservers shall be redirected to
an informational web page provided by the URS Provider about the URS. The URS
Provider shall not be allowed to offer any other services on such page, nor shall it
directly or indirectly use the web page for advertising purposes (either for itself or any
other third party). The Whois for the domain name shall continue to display all of theinformation of the original Registrant except for the redirection of the nameservers. In
addition, the Whois shall reflect that the domain name will not be able to be transferred,
deleted or modified for the life of the registration.

10.3

There shall be an option for a successful Complainant to extend the registration period
for one additional year at commercial rates.

10.4

No other remedies should be available in the event of a Determination in favor of theComplainant.

Abusive Complaints
11.1

The URS shall incorporate penalties for abuse of the process by trademark holders.

11.2

In the event a party is deemed to have filed two (2) abusive Complaints, or one (1)“deliberate material falsehood,” that party shall be barred from utilizing the URS for
one-year following the date of issuance of a Determination finding a complainant tohave: (i) filed its second abusive complaint; or (ii) filed a deliberate material falsehood.

11.3

A Complaint may be deemed abusive if the Examiner determines:
11.3.1 it was presented solely for improper purpose such as to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of doing business; and11.3.2 (i) the claims or other assertions were not warranted by any existing law or the
URS standards; or (ii) the factual contentions lacked any evidentiary support

11.4

An Examiner may find that Complaint contained a deliberate material falsehood if it
contained an assertion of fact, which at the time it was made, was made with theknowledge that it was false and which, if true, would have an impact on the outcome on
the URS proceeding.

11.5

Two findings of “deliberate material falsehood” shall permanently bar the party fromutilizing the URS.

11.6

URS Providers shall be required to develop a process for identifying and tracking barred
parties, and parties whom Examiners have determined submitted abusive complaints ordeliberate material falsehoods.

URS-9

12.

13.

11.7

The dismissal of a complaint for administrative reasons or a ruling on the merits, in itself,shall not be evidence of filing an abusive complaint.

11.8

A finding that filing of a complaint was abusive or contained a deliberate materiallyfalsehood can be appealed solely on the grounds that an Examiner abused his/her
discretion, or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Appeal12.1

Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Determination based on
the existing record within the URS proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of
the appeal. An appellant must identify the specific grounds on which the party isappealing, including why the appellant claims the Examiner’s Determination wasincorrect.

12.2

The fees for an appeal shall be borne by the appellant. A limited right to introduce newadmissible evidence that is material to the Determination will be allowed upon paymentof an additional fee, provided the evidence clearly pre-dates the filing of the Complaint.
The Appeal Panel, to be selected by the Provider, may request, in its sole discretion,
further statements or documents from either of the Parties.

12.3

Filing an appeal shall not change the domain name’s resolution. For example, if thedomain name no longer resolves to the original nameservers because of a
Determination in favor or the Complainant, the domain name shall continue to point to
the informational page provided by the URS Provider. If the domain name resolves tothe original nameservers because of a Determination in favor of the registrant, it shallcontinue to resolve during the appeal process.

12.4

An appeal must be filed within 14 days after a Determination is issued and any Responsemust be filed 14 days after an appeal is filed.

12.5

If a respondent has sought relief from Default by filing a Response within six months (orthe extended period if applicable) of issuance of initial Determination, an appeal mustbe filed within 14 days from date the second Determination is issued and any Responsemust be filed 14 days after the appeal is filed.

12.6

Notice of appeal and findings by the appeal panel shall be sent by the URS Provider via
e-mail to the Registrant, the Complainant, the Registrar, and the Registry Operator.

12.7

The Providers’ rules and procedures for appeals, other than those stated above, shallapply.

Other Available Remedies
The URS Determination shall not preclude any other remedies available to the appellant, such as
UDRP (if appellant is the Complainant), or other remedies as may be available in a court ofcompetition jurisdiction. A URS Determination for or against a party shall not prejudice the
URS-10party in UDRP or any other proceedings.
14.

Review of URS
A review of the URS procedure will be initiated one year after the first Examiner Determination isissued. Upon completion of the review, a report shall be published regarding the usage of theprocedure, including statistical information, and posted for public comment on the usefulness
and effectiveness of the procedure.

URS-11TRADEMARK POST-DELEGATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (TRADEMARK PDDRP)
4 JUNE 2012
1.

Parties to the Dispute
The parties to the dispute will be the trademark holder and the gTLD registry operator. ICANN
shall not be a party.

2.

3.

4.

Applicable Rules
2.1

This procedure is intended to cover Trademark post-delegation dispute resolution
proceedings generally. To the extent more than one Trademark PDDRP provider(“Provider”) is selected to implement the Trademark PDDRP, each Provider may haveadditional rules that must be followed when filing a Complaint. The following are
general procedures to be followed by all Providers.

2.2

In the Registry Agreement, the registry operator agrees to participate in all postdelegation procedures and be bound by the resulting Determinations.

Language
3.1

The language of all submissions and proceedings under the procedure will be English.

3.2

Parties may submit supporting evidence in their original language, provided and subject
to the authority of the Expert Panel to determine otherwise, that such evidence isaccompanied by an English translation of all relevant text.

Communications and Time Limits
4.1

All communications with the Provider must be submitted electronically.

4.2

For the purpose of determining the date of commencement of a time limit, a notice orother communication will be deemed to have been received on the day that it istransmitted to the appropriate contact person designated by the parties.

4.3

For the purpose of determining compliance with a time limit, a notice or othercommunication will be deemed to have been sent, made or transmitted on the day that
it is dispatched.

4.4

For the purpose of calculating a period of time under this procedure, such period will
begin to run on the day following the date of receipt of a notice or othercommunication.

4.5

All references to day limits shall be considered as calendar days unless otherwise
specified.

5.

6.

Standing
5.1

The mandatory administrative proceeding will commence when a third-party
complainant (“Complainant”) has filed a Complaint with a Provider asserting that theComplainant is a trademark holder (which may include either registered or unregisteredmarks as defined below) claiming that one or more of its marks have been infringed, andthereby the Complainant has been harmed, by the registry operator’s manner ofoperation or use of the gTLD.

5.2

Before proceeding to the merits of a dispute, and before the Respondent is required tosubmit a substantive Response, or pay any fees, the Provider shall appoint a special oneperson Panel to perform an initial “threshold” review (“Threshold Review Panel”).

Standards
For purposes of these standards, “registry operator” shall include entities directly or indirectly
controlling, controlled by or under common control with a registry operator, whether byownership or control of voting securities, by contract or otherwise where ‘control’ means thepossession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the
management and policies of an entity, whether by ownership or control of voting securities, bycontract or otherwise.
6.1

Top Level:
A complainant must assert and prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that theregistry operator’s affirmative conduct in its operation or use of its gTLD string that is
identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, causes or materiallycontributes to the gTLD doing one of the following:(a) taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of thecomplainant's mark; or(b) impairing the distinctive character or the reputation of the complainant's
mark; or(c) creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.
An example of infringement at the top-level is where a TLD string is identical to a
trademark and then the registry operator holds itself out as the beneficiary of the mark.

6.2

Second Level
Complainants are required to prove, by clear and convincing evidence that, through theregistry operator’s affirmative conduct:(a) there is a substantial pattern or practice of specific bad faith intent by theregistry operator to profit from the sale of trademark infringing domain names;andPDDRP - 2

(b) the registry operator’s bad faith intent to profit from the systematic
registration of domain names within the gTLD that are identical or confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark, which:(i) takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputationof the complainant's mark; or(ii) impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of thecomplainant's mark, or(iii) creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.
In other words, it is not sufficient to show that the registry operator is on notice ofpossible trademark infringement through registrations in the gTLD. The registry
operator is not liable under the PDDRP solely because: (i) infringing names are in
its registry; or (ii) the registry operator knows that infringing names are in its
registry; or (iii) the registry operator did not monitor the registrations within its
registry.
A registry operator is not liable under the PDDRP for any domain name registration that:(i) is registered by a person or entity that is unaffiliated with the registry operator; (ii) is
registered without the direct or indirect encouragement, inducement, initiation or
direction of any person or entity affiliated with the registry operator; and (iii) provides nodirect or indirect benefit to the registry operator other than the typical registration fee(which may include other fees collected incidental to the registration process for value
added services such enhanced registration security).
An example of infringement at the second level is where a registry operator has apattern or practice of actively and systematically encouraging registrants to registersecond level domain names and to take unfair advantage of the trademark to the extent
and degree that bad faith is apparent. Another example of infringement at the second
level is where a registry operator has a pattern or practice of acting as the registrant or
beneficial user of infringing registrations, to monetize and profit in bad faith.
7.

Complaint
7.1

Filing:The Complaint will be filed electronically. Once the Administrative Review has been
completed and the Provider deems the Complaint be in compliance, the Provider will
electronically serve the Complaint and serve a paper notice on the registry operator thatis the subject of the Complaint (“Notice of Complaint”) consistent with the contact
information listed in the Registry Agreement.

7.2

Content:
7.2.1

The name and contact information, including address, phone, and email
address, of the Complainant, and, to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, thename and address of the current owner of the registration.

PDDRP - 3

7.2.2The name and contact information, including address, phone, and email addressof any person authorized to act on behalf of Complainant.

7.2.3

A statement of the nature of the dispute, and any relevant evidence, which shall
include:(a)

The particular legal rights claim being asserted, the marks that form thebasis for the dispute and a short and plain statement of the basis uponwhich the Complaint is being filed.

(b)

A detailed explanation of how the Complainant’s claim meets therequirements for filing a claim pursuant to that particular ground or
standard.

(c)

A detailed explanation of the validity of the Complaint and why theComplainant is entitled to relief.

(d)A statement that the Complainant has at least 30 days prior to filing theComplaint notified the registry operator in writing of: (i) its specificconcerns and specific conduct it believes is resulting in infringement ofComplainant’s trademarks and (ii) it willingness to meet to resolve theissue.

(e)

An explanation of how the mark is used by the Complainant (including
the type of goods/services, period and territory of use – including all online usage) or otherwise protected by statute, treaty or has beenvalidated by a court or the Clearinghouse.

(f)

Copies of any documents that the Complainant considers to evidence its
basis for relief, including evidence of current use of the Trademark at
issue in the Complaint and domain name registrations.

(g)

A statement that the proceedings are not being brought for any
improper purpose.

(h)

A statement describing how the registration at issue has harmed thetrademark owner.

7.3

Complaints will be limited 5,000 words and 20 pages, excluding attachments, unless theProvider determines that additional material is necessary.

7.4

At the same time the Complaint is filed, the Complainant will pay a non-refundable filingfee in the amount set in accordance with the applicable Provider rules. In the event thatthe filing fee is not paid within 10 days of the receipt of the Complaint by the Provider,
the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

PDDRP - 48.

9.

Administrative Review of the Complaint
8.1

All Complaints will be reviewed by the Provider within five (5) business days ofsubmission to the Provider to determine whether the Complaint contains all necessary
information and complies with the procedural rules.

8.2

If the Provider finds that the Complaint complies with procedural rules, the Complaint
will be deemed filed, and the proceedings will continue to the Threshold Review. If theProvider finds that the Complaint does not comply with procedural rules, it will
electronically notify the Complainant of such non-compliant and provide theComplainant five (5) business days to submit an amended Complaint. If the Provider
does not receive an amended Complaint within the five (5) business days provided, it
will dismiss the Complaint and close the proceedings without prejudice to theComplainant’s submission of a new Complaint that complies with procedural rules.
Filing fees will not be refunded.

8.3

If deemed compliant, the Provider will electronically serve the Complaint on the registry
operator and serve the Notice of Complaint consistent with the contact information
listed in the Registry Agreement.

Threshold Review
9.1

Provider shall establish a Threshold Review Panel, consisting of one panelist selected by
the Provider, for each proceeding within five (5) business days after completion of
Administrative Review and the Complaint has been deemed compliant with procedural
rules.

9.2

The Threshold Review Panel shall be tasked with determining whether the Complainantsatisfies the following criteria:
9.2.1

The Complainant is a holder of a word mark that: (i) is nationally or regionallyregistered and that is in current use; or (ii) has been validated through court
proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty at thetime the PDDRP complaint is filed;9.2.1.1 Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which canbe a declaration and one specimen of current use – was submitted to,and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse
9.2.1.2 Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the Complaint.

9.2.2

The Complainant has asserted that it has been materially harmed as a result oftrademark infringement;

9.2.3

The Complainant has asserted facts with sufficient specificity that, if everything
the Complainant asserted is true, states a claim under the Top Level Standards
hereinOR

PDDRP - 5

The Complainant has asserted facts with sufficient specificity that, if everything
the Complainant asserted is true, states a claim under the Second Level
Standards herein;
9.2.4

10.

The Complainant has asserted that: (i) at least 30 days prior to filing theComplaint the Complainant notified the registry operator in writing of its
specific concerns and specific conduct it believes is resulting in infringement ofComplainant’s trademarks, and it willingness to meet to resolve the issue; (ii)whether the registry operator responded to the Complainant’s notice ofspecific concerns; and (iii) if the registry operator did respond, that theComplainant attempted to engage in good faith discussions to resolve the issue
prior to initiating the PDDRP.

9.3

Within ten (10) business days of date Provider served Notice of Complaint, the registry
operator shall have the opportunity, but is not required, to submit papers to support its
position as to the Complainant’s standing at the Threshold Review stage. If the registry
operator chooses to file such papers, it must pay a filing fee.

9.4

If the registry operator submits papers, the Complainant shall have ten (10) businessdays to submit an opposition.

9.5

The Threshold Review Panel shall have ten (10) business days from due date ofComplainant’s opposition or the due date of the registry operator’s papers if none werefiled, to issue Threshold Determination.

9.6

Provider shall electronically serve the Threshold Determination on all parties.

9.7

If the Complainant has not satisfied the Threshold Review criteria, the Provider will
dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that the Complainant lacks standing and declarethat the registry operator is the prevailing party.

9.8

If the Threshold Review Panel determines that the Complainant has standing andsatisfied the criteria then the Provider to will commence the proceedings on the merits.

Response to the Complaint
10.1

The registry operator must file a Response to each Complaint within forty-five (45) days
after the date of the Threshold Review Panel Declaration.

10.2

The Response will comply with the rules for filing of a Complaint and will contain thename and contact information for the registry operator, as well as a point-by-point
response to the statements made in the Complaint.

10.3

The Response must be filed with the Provider and the Provider must serve it upon the
Complainant in electronic form with a hard-copy notice that it has been served.

PDDRP - 6

11.

12.

13.

10.4

Service of the Response will be deemed effective, and the time will start to run for a
Reply, upon confirmation that the electronic Response and hard-copy notice of the
Response was sent by the Provider to the addresses provided by the Complainant.

10.5

If the registry operator believes the Complaint is without merit, it will affirmatively
plead in its Response the specific grounds for the claim.

Reply
11.1

The Complainant is permitted ten (10) days from Service of the Response to submit a
Reply addressing the statements made in the Response showing why the Complaint is
not “without merit.” A Reply may not introduce new facts or evidence into the record,
but shall only be used to address statements made in the Response. Any new facts orevidence introduced in a Response shall be disregarded by the Expert Panel.

11.2

Once the Complaint, Response and Reply (as necessary) are filed and served, a Panel will
be appointed and provided with all submissions.

Default
12.1

If the registry operator fails to respond to the Complaint, it will be deemed to be in
default.

12.2

Limited rights to set aside the finding of default will be established by the Provider, but
in no event will they be permitted absent a showing of good cause to set aside thefinding of default.

12.3

The Provider shall provide notice of Default via email to the Complainant and registry
operator.

12.4

All Default cases shall proceed to Expert Determination on the merits.

Expert Panel
13.1

The Provider shall establish an Expert Panel within 21 days after receiving the Reply, or
if no Reply is filed, within 21 days after the Reply was due to be filed.

13.2

The Provider shall appoint a one-person Expert Panel, unless any party requests a
three- member Expert Panel. No Threshold Panel member shall serve as an Expert
Panel member in the same Trademark PDDRP proceeding.

13.3

In the case where either party requests a three-member Expert Panel, each party (oreach side of the dispute if a matter has been consolidated) shall select an Expert and thetwo selected Experts shall select the third Expert Panel member. Such selection shall bemade pursuant to the Providers rules or procedures. Trademark PDDRP panelists within
a Provider shall be rotated to the extent feasible.

PDDRP - 7

13.4

14.

15.

16.

Expert Panel member must be independent of the parties to the post-delegation
challenge. Each Provider will follow its adopted procedures for requiring such
independence, including procedures for challenging and replacing a panelist for lack of
independence.

Costs
14.1

The Provider will estimate the costs for the proceedings that it administers under thisprocedure in accordance with the applicable Provider rules. Such costs will be
estimated to cover the administrative fees of the Provider, the Threshold Review Paneland the Expert Panel, and are intended to be reasonable.

14.2

The Complainant shall be required to pay the filing fee as set forth above in the“Complaint” section, and shall be required to submit the full amount of the Provider
estimated administrative fees, the Threshold Review Panel fees and the Expert Panelfees at the outset of the proceedings. Fifty percent of that full amount shall be in cash
(or cash equivalent) to cover the Complainant’s share of the proceedings and the other
50% shall be in either cash (or cash equivalent), or in bond, to cover the registry
operator’s share if the registry operator prevails.

14.3

If the Panel declares the Complainant to be the prevailing party, the registry operator isrequired to reimburse Complainant for all Panel and Provider fees incurred. Failure to
do shall be deemed a violation of the Trademark PDDRP and a breach of the Registry
Agreement, subject to remedies available under the Agreement up to and including
termination.

Discovery
15.1

Whether and to what extent discovery is allowed is at the discretion of the Panel,
whether made on the Panel’s own accord, or upon request from the Parties.

15.2

If permitted, discovery will be limited to that for which each Party has a substantial
need.

15.3

In extraordinary circumstances, the Provider may appoint experts to be paid for by theParties, request live or written witness testimony, or request limited exchange of
documents.

15.4

At the close of discovery, if permitted by the Expert Panel, the Parties will make a final
evidentiary submission, the timing and sequence to be determined by the Provider in
consultation with the Expert Panel.

Hearings
16.1

Disputes under this Procedure will be resolved without a hearing unless either party
requests a hearing or the Expert Panel determines on its own initiative that one isnecessary.

PDDRP - 8

17.

16.2

If a hearing is held, videoconferences or teleconferences should be used if at all
possible. If not possible, then the Expert Panel will select a place for hearing if theParties cannot agree.

16.3

Hearings should last no more than one day, except in the most extraordinary
circumstances.

16.4

All dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted in English.

Burden of Proof
The Complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations in the Complaint; the burden must
be by clear and convincing evidence.

18.

Remedies
18.1

Since registrants are not a party to the action, a recommended remedy cannot take theform of deleting, transferring or suspending registrations (except to the extent
registrants have been shown to be officers, directors, agents, employees, or entities
under common control with a registry operator).

18.2

Recommended remedies will not include monetary damages or sanctions to be paid toany party other than fees awarded pursuant to section 14.

18.3

The Expert Panel may recommend a variety of graduated enforcement tools against theregistry operator if it the Expert Panel determines that the registry operator is liable
under this Trademark PDDRP, including:
18.3.1 Remedial measures for the registry to employ to ensure against allowing future
infringing registrations, which may be in addition to what is required under theregistry agreement, except that the remedial measures shall not:(a)Require the Registry Operator to monitor registrations not related to
the names at issue in the PDDRP proceeding; or(b)Direct actions by the registry operator that are contrary to thoserequired under the Registry Agreement;

18.3.2 Suspension of accepting new domain name registrations in the gTLD until suchtime as the violation(s) identified in the Determination is(are) cured or a set
period of time;OR,
18.3.3 In extraordinary circumstances where the registry operator acted with malice,
providing for the termination of a Registry Agreement.

PDDRP - 9

18.4

In making its recommendation of the appropriate remedy, the Expert Panel will consider
the ongoing harm to the Complainant, as well as the harm the remedies will create forother, unrelated, good faith domain name registrants operating within the gTLD.

18.5

The Expert Panel may also determine whether the Complaint was filed “without merit,”
and, if so, award the appropriate sanctions on a graduated scale, including:
18.5.1 Temporary bans from filing Complaints;
18.5.2 Imposition of costs of registry operator, including reasonable attorney fees; and18.5.3 Permanent bans from filing Complaints after being banned temporarily.

18.6

19.

20.

Imposition of remedies shall be at the discretion of ICANN, but absent extraordinary
circumstances, those remedies will be in line with the remedies recommended by theExpert Panel.

The Expert Panel Determination
19.1

The Provider and the Expert Panel will make reasonable efforts to ensure that theExpert Determination is issued within 45 days of the appointment of the Expert Paneland absent good cause, in no event later than 60 days after the appointment of theExpert Panel.

19.2

The Expert Panel will render a written Determination. The Expert Determination willstate whether or not the Complaint is factually founded and provide the reasons for that
Determination. The Expert Determination should be publicly available and searchable on
the Provider’s web site.

19.3

The Expert Determination may further include a recommendation of specific remedies.
Costs and fees to the Provider, to the extent not already paid, will be paid within thirty(30) days of the Expert Panel’s Determination.

19.4

The Expert Determination shall state which party is the prevailing party.

19.5

While the Expert Determination that a registry operator is liable under the standards of
the Trademark PDDRP shall be taken into consideration, ICANN will have the authority
to impose the remedies, if any, that ICANN deems appropriate given the circumstancesof each matter.

Appeal of Expert Determination
20.1

Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Expert Determination of
liability or recommended remedy based on the existing record within the Trademark
PDDRP proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover the costs of the appeal.

20.2

An appeal must be filed with the Provider and served on all parties within 20 days after
an Expert Determination is issued and a response to the appeal must be filed within 20

PDDRP - 10

days after the appeal. Manner and calculation of service deadlines shall in consistent
with those set forth in Section 4 above, “Communication and Time Limits.”

21.

20.3

A three-member Appeal Panel is to be selected by the Provider, but no member of the
Appeal Panel shall also have been an Expert Panel member.

20.4

The fees for an appeal in the first instance shall be borne by the appellant.

20.5

A limited right to introduce new admissible evidence that is material to theDetermination will be allowed upon payment of an additional fee, provided theevidence clearly pre-dates the filing of the Complaint.

20.6

The Appeal Panel may request at its sole discretion, further statements or evidence
from any party regardless of whether the evidence pre-dates the filing of the Complaint
if the Appeal Panel determines such evidence is relevant.

20.7

The prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs of appeal.

20.8

The Providers rules and procedures for appeals, other than those stated above, shallapply.

Challenge of a Remedy
21.1

ICANN shall not implement a remedy for violation of the Trademark PDDRP for at least
20 days after the issuance of an Expert Determination, providing time for an appeal tobe filed.

21.2

If an appeal is filed, ICANN shall stay its implementation of a remedy pending resolutionof the appeal.

21.3

If ICANN decides to implement a remedy for violation of the Trademark PDDRP, ICANN
will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of its principal office) after
notifying the registry operator of its decision. ICANN will then implement the decision
unless it has received from the registry operator during that ten (10) business-day
period official documentation that the registry operator has either: (a) commenced alawsuit against the Complainant in a court of competent jurisdiction challenging theExpert Determination of liability against the registry operator, or (b) challenged theintended remedy by initiating dispute resolution under the provisions of its Registry
Agreement. If ICANN receives such documentation within the ten (10) business day
period, it will not seek to implement the remedy in furtherance of the Trademark
PDDRP until it receives: (i) evidence of a resolution between the Complainant and theregistry operator; (ii) evidence that registry operator’s lawsuit against Complainant has
been dismissed or withdrawn; or (iii) a copy of an order from the dispute resolution
provider selected pursuant to the Registry Agreement dismissing the dispute against
ICANN whether by reason of agreement of the parties or upon determination of themerits.

PDDRP - 11

22.

21.4

The registry operator may challenge ICANN’s imposition of a remedy imposed infurtherance of an Expert Determination that the registry operator is liable under the
PDDRP, to the extent a challenge is warranted, by initiating dispute resolution under theprovisions of its Registry Agreement. Any arbitration shall be determined in accordancewith the parties’ respective rights and duties under the Registry Agreement. Neither the
Expert Determination nor the decision of ICANN to implement a remedy is intended toprejudice the registry operator in any way in the determination of the arbitration
dispute. Any remedy involving a termination of the Registry Agreement must be
according to the terms and conditions of the termination provision of the Registry
Agreement.

21.5

Nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit ICANN from imposing remedies at any timeand of any nature it is otherwise entitled to impose for a registry operator’s noncompliance with its Registry Agreement.

Availability of Court or Other Administrative Proceedings
22.1

The Trademark PDDRP is not intended as an exclusive procedure and does not preclude
individuals from seeking remedies in courts of law, including, as applicable, review of anExpert Determination as to liability.

22.2

In those cases where a Party submits documented proof to the Provider that a Court
action involving the same Parties, facts and circumstances as the Trademark PDDRP was
instituted prior to the filing date of the Complaint in the Trademark PDDRP, the Provider
shall suspend or terminate the Trademark PDDRP.

PDDRP - 12

REGISTRY RESTRICTIONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE (RRDRP)1
4 JUNE 2012
1.

Parties to the Dispute
The parties to the dispute will be the harmed established institution and the gTLD registry
operator. ICANN shall not be a party.

2.

3.

4.

Applicable Rules
2.1

This procedure is intended to cover these dispute resolution proceedings generally. To
the extent more than one RRDRP provider (“Provider”) is selected to implement the
RRDRP, each Provider may have additional rules and procedures that must be followed
when filing a Complaint. The following are the general procedure to be followed by all
Providers.

2.2

In any new community-based gTLD registry agreement, the registry operator shall be
required to agree to participate in the RRDRP and be bound by the resulting
Determinations.

Language
3.1

The language of all submissions and proceedings under the procedure will be English.

3.2

Parties may submit supporting evidence in their original language, provided and subject
to the authority of the RRDRP Expert Panel to determine otherwise, that such evidence
is accompanied by an English translation of all relevant text.

Communications and Time Limits
4.1

All communications with the Provider must be filed electronically.

4.2

For the purpose of determining the date of commencement of a time limit, a notice orother communication will be deemed to have been received on the day that it istransmitted to the appropriate contact person designated by the parties.

4.3

For the purpose of determining compliance with a time limit, a notice or othercommunication will be deemed to have been sent, made or transmitted on the day that
it is dispatched.

1

Initial complaints that a Registry has failed to comply with registration restrictions shall be processed through a
Registry Restriction Problem Report System (RRPRS) using an online form similar to the Whois Data Problem
Report System (WDPRS) at InterNIC.net. A nominal processing fee could serve to decrease frivolous complaints.
The registry operator shall receive a copy of the complaint and will be required to take reasonable steps toinvestigate (and remedy if warranted) the reported non-compliance. The Complainant will have the option to
escalate the complaint in accordance with this RRDRP, if the alleged non-compliance continues. Failure by theRegistry to address the complaint to complainant’s satisfaction does not itself give the complainant standing to file
an RRDRP complaint.

RRDRP-1

5.

6.

4.4

For the purpose of calculating a period of time under this procedure, such period will
begin to run on the day following the date of receipt of a notice or othercommunication.

4.5

All references to day limits shall be considered as calendar days unless otherwise
specified.

Standing
5.1

The mandatory administrative proceeding will commence when a third-party
complainant (“Complainant”) has filed a Complaint with a Provider asserting that theComplainant is a harmed established institution as a result of the community-based
gTLD registry operator not complying with the registration restrictions set out in theRegistry Agreement.

5.2

Established institutions associated with defined communities are eligible to file acommunity objection. The “defined community” must be a community related to thegTLD string in the application that is the subject of the dispute. To qualify for standing
for a community claim, the Complainant must prove both: it is an establishedinstitution, and has an ongoing relationship with a defined community that consists of a
restricted population that the gTLD supports.

5.3

Complainants must have filed a claim through the Registry Restriction Problem Report
System (RRPRS) to have standing to file an RRDRP.

5.4

The Panel will determine standing and the Expert Determination will include astatement of the Complainant’s standing.

Standards
6.1

7.

For a claim to be successful, the claims must prove that:
6.1.1

The community invoked by the objector is a defined community;

6.1.2

There is a strong association between the community invoked and the gTLD
label or string;

6.1.3

The TLD operator violated the terms of the community-based restrictions in its
agreement;

6.1.4

There is a measureable harm to the Complainant and the community named by
the objector.

Complaint
7.1

Filing:RRDRP-2

The Complaint will be filed electronically. Once the Administrative Review has been
completed and the Provider deems the Complaint to be in compliance, the Provider will
electronically serve the Complaint and serve a hard copy and fax notice on the registry
operator consistent with the contact information listed in the Registry Agreement.
7.2

Content:
7.2.1

The name and contact information, including address, phone, and email
address, of the Complainant, the registry operator and, to the best ofComplainant’s knowledge, the name and address of the current owner of theregistration.

7.2.2

The name and contact information, including address, phone, and email addressof any person authorized to act on behalf of Complainant.

7.2.3

A statement of the nature of the dispute, which must include:
7.2.3.1 The particular registration restrictions in the Registry Agreement withwhich the registry operator is failing to comply; and7.2.3.2 A detailed explanation of how the registry operator’s failure to comply
with the identified registration restrictions has caused harm to thecomplainant.

8.

7.2.4

A statement that the proceedings are not being brought for any improper
purpose.

7.2.5

A statement that the Complainant has filed a claim through the RRPRS and that
the RRPRS process has concluded.

7.2.6

A statement that Complainant has not filed a Trademark Post-Delegation
Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) complaint relating to the same or similarfacts or circumstances.

7.3

Complaints will be limited to 5,000 words and 20 pages, excluding attachments, unlessthe Provider determines that additional material is necessary.

7.4

Any supporting documents should be filed with the Complaint.

7.5

At the same time the Complaint is filed, the Complainant will pay a filing fee in theamount set in accordance with the applicable Provider rules. In the event that the filingfee is not paid within 10 days of the receipt of the Complaint by the Provider, theComplaint will be dismissed without prejudice to the Complainant to file anothercomplaint.

Administrative Review of the Complaint
8.1

All Complaints will be reviewed within five (5) business days of submission by panelists
designated by the applicable Provider to determine whether the Complainant hascomplied with the procedural rules.
RRDRP-3

9.

10

8.2

If the Provider finds that the Complaint complies with procedural rules, the Complaint
will be deemed filed, and the proceedings will continue. If the Provider finds that theComplaint does not comply with procedural rules, it will electronically notify theComplainant of such non-compliance and provide the Complainant five (5) businessdays to submit an amended Complaint. If the Provider does not receive an amended
Complaint within the five (5) business days provided, it will dismiss the Complaint andclose the proceedings without prejudice to the Complainant’s submission of a newComplaint that complies with procedural rules. Filing fees will not be refunded if theComplaint is deemed not in compliance.

8.3

If deemed compliant, the Provider will electronically serve the Complaint on the registry
operator and serve a paper notice on the registry operator that is the subject of theComplaint consistent with the contact information listed in the Registry Agreement.

Response to the Complaint
9.1

The registry operator must file a response to each Complaint within thirty (30) days ofservice the Complaint.

9.2

The Response will comply with the rules for filing of a Complaint and will contain thenames and contact information for the registry operator, as well as a point by point
response to the statements made in the Complaint.

9.3

The Response must be electronically filed with the Provider and the Provider must serve
it upon the Complainant in electronic form with a hard-copy notice that it has been
served.

9.4

Service of the Response will be deemed effective, and the time will start to run for a
Reply, upon electronic transmission of the Response.

9.5

If the registry operator believes the Complaint is without merit, it will affirmatively
plead in it Response the specific grounds for the claim.

9.6

At the same time the Response is filed, the registry operator will pay a filing fee in theamount set in accordance with the applicable Provider rules. In the event that the filingfee is not paid within ten (10) days of the receipt of the Response by the Provider, theResponse will be deemed improper and not considered in the proceedings, but thematter will proceed to Determination.

Reply
10.1

The Complainant is permitted ten (10) days from Service of the Response to submit a
Reply addressing the statements made in the Response showing why the Complaint is
not “without merit.” A Reply may not introduce new facts or evidence into the record,
but shall only be used to address statements made in the Response. Any new facts orevidence introduced in a Response shall be disregarded by the Expert Panel.

10.2

Once the Complaint, Response and Reply (as necessary) are filed and served, a Panel will
be appointed and provided with all submissions.
RRDRP-4

11.

12.

13.

Default
11.1

If the registry operator fails to respond to the Complaint, it will be deemed to be in
default.

11.2

Limited rights to set aside the finding of default will be established by the Provider, but
in no event will it be permitted absent a showing of good cause to set aside the findingof Default.

11.3

The Provider shall provide Notice of Default via email to the Complainant and registry
operator.

11.4

All Default cases shall proceed to Expert Determination on the merits.

Expert Panel
12.1

The Provider shall select and appoint a single-member Expert Panel within (21) days
after receiving the Reply, or if no Reply is filed, within 21 days after the Reply was due tobe filed.

12.2

The Provider will appoint a one-person Expert Panel unless any party requests a threemember Expert Panel.

12.3

In the case where either party requests a three-member Expert Panel, each party (oreach side of the dispute if a matter has been consolidated) shall select an Expert and thetwo selected Experts shall select the third Expert Panel member. Such selection shall bemade pursuant to the Provider’s rules or procedures. RRDRP panelists within a Provider
shall be rotated to the extent feasible.

12.4

Expert Panel members must be independent of the parties to the post-delegation
challenge. Each Provider will follow its adopted procedures for requiring such
independence, including procedures for challenging and replacing an Expert for lack of
independence.

Costs
13.1

The Provider will estimate the costs for the proceedings that it administers under thisprocedure in accordance with the applicable Provider Rules. Such costs will cover theadministrative fees, including the Filing and Response Fee, of the Provider, and theExpert Panel fees, and are intended to be reasonable.

13.2

The Complainant shall be required to pay the Filing fee as set forth above in the“Complaint” section, and shall be required to submit the full amount of the other
Provider-estimated administrative fees, including the Response Fee, and the Expert
Panel fees at the outset of the proceedings. Fifty percent of that full amount shall be in
cash (or cash equivalent) to cover the Complainant’s share of the proceedings and theother 50% shall be in either cash (or cash equivalent), or in bond, to cover the registry
operator’s share if the registry operator prevails.
RRDRP-5

14.

15.

16.

13.3

If the Panel declares the Complainant to be the prevailing party, the registry operator isrequired to reimburse Complainant for all Panel and Provider fees incurred, including
the Filing Fee. Failure to do shall be deemed a violation of the RRDRP and a breach of
the Registry Agreement, subject to remedies available under the Agreement up to andincluding termination.

13.4

If the Panel declares the registry operator to be the prevailing party, the Provider shall
reimburse the registry operator for its Response Fee.

Discovery/Evidence
14.1

In order to achieve the goal of resolving disputes rapidly and at a reasonable cost,discovery will generally not be permitted. In exceptional cases, the Expert Panel may
require a party to provide additional evidence.

14.2

If permitted, discovery will be limited to that for which each Party has a substantial
need.

14.3

Without a specific request from the Parties, but only in extraordinary circumstances, theExpert Panel may request that the Provider appoint experts to be paid for by the Parties,
request live or written witness testimony, or request limited exchange of documents.

Hearings
15.1

Disputes under this RRDRP will usually be resolved without a hearing.

15.2

The Expert Panel may decide on its own initiative, or at the request of a party, to hold ahearing. However, the presumption is that the Expert Panel will render Determinations
based on written submissions and without a hearing.

15.3

If a request for a hearing is granted, videoconferences or teleconferences should be
used if at all possible. If not possible, then the Expert Panel will select a place forhearing if the parties cannot agree.

15.4

Hearings should last no more than one day, except in the most exceptional
circumstances.

15.5

If the Expert Panel grants one party’s request for a hearing, notwithstanding the otherparty’s opposition, the Expert Panel is encouraged to apportion the hearing costs to therequesting party as the Expert Panel deems appropriate.

15.6

All dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted in English.

Burden of Proof
The Complainant bears the burden of proving its claim; the burden should be by apreponderance of the evidence.

RRDRP-6

17.

Recommended Remedies
17.1

Since registrants of domain names registered in violation of the agreement restriction
are not a party to the action, a recommended remedy cannot take the form of deleting,transferring or suspending registrations that were made in violation of the agreement
restrictions (except to the extent registrants have been shown to be officers, directors,
agents, employees, or entities under common control with a registry operator).

17.2

Recommended remedies will not include monetary damages or sanctions to be paid toany party other than fees awarded pursuant to section 13.

17.3

The Expert Panel may recommend a variety of graduated enforcement tools against theregistry operator if the Expert Panel determines that the registry operator allowed
registrations outside the scope of its promised limitations, including:
17.3.1 Remedial measures, which may be in addition to requirements under theregistry agreement, for the registry to employ to ensure against allowing future
registrations that do not comply with community-based limitations; except thatthe remedial measures shall not:(a)Require the registry operator to monitor registrations not related to thenames at issue in the RRDRP proceeding, or(b)

direct actions by the registry operator that are contrary to thoserequired under the registry agreement

17.3.2 Suspension of accepting new domain name registrations in the gTLD until suchtime as the violation(s) identified in the Determination is(are) cured or a set
period of time;OR,
17.3.3 In extraordinary circumstances where the registry operator acted with maliceproviding for the termination of a registry agreement.
17.3

18.

In making its recommendation of the appropriate remedy, the Expert Panel will consider
the ongoing harm to the Complainant, as well as the harm the remedies will create forother, unrelated, good faith domain name registrants operating within the gTLD.

The Expert Determination
18.1

The Provider and the Expert Panel will make reasonable efforts to ensure that theExpert Determination is rendered within 45 days of the appointment of the Expert Paneland absent good cause, in no event later than 60 days after the appointment of theExpert Panel.

18.2

The Expert Panel will render a written Determination. The Expert Determination willstate whether or not the Complaint is factually founded and provide the reasons for its
RRDRP-7

Determination. The Expert Determination should be publicly available and searchable
on the Provider’s web site.

19.

20.

18.3

The Expert Determination may further include a recommendation of specific remedies.
Costs and fees to the Provider, to the extent not already paid, will be paid within thirty(30) days of the Expert Determination.

18.4

The Expert Determination shall state which party is the prevailing party.

18.5

While the Expert Determination that a community-based restricted gTLD registry
operator was not meeting its obligations to police the registration and use of domains
within the applicable restrictions shall be considered, ICANN shall have the authority to
impose the remedies ICANN deems appropriate, given the circumstances of eachmatter.

Appeal of Expert Determination
19.1

Either party shall have a right to seek a de novo appeal of the Expert Determination
based on the existing record within the RRDRP proceeding for a reasonable fee to cover
the costs of the appeal.

19.2

An appeal must be filed with the Provider and served on all parties within 20 days after
an Expert Determination is issued and a response to the appeal must be filed within 20
days after the appeal. Manner and calculation of service deadlines shall in consistent
with those set forth in Section 4 above, “Communication and Time Limits.”

19.3

A three-member Appeal Panel is to be selected by the Provider, but no member of the
Appeal Panel shall also have been an Expert Panel member.

19.4

The fees for an appeal in the first instance shall be borne by the appellant.

19.5

A limited right to introduce new admissible evidence that is material to theDetermination will be allowed upon payment of an additional fee, provided theevidence clearly pre-dates the filing of the Complaint.

19.6

The Appeal Panel may request at its sole discretion, further statements or evidence
from any party regardless of whether the evidence pre-dates the filing of the Complaint
if the Appeal Panel determines such evidence is relevant.

19.7

The prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs of appeal.

19.8

The Providers rules and procedures for appeals, other than those stated above, shallapply.

Breach20.1

If the Expert determines that the registry operator is in breach, ICANN will then proceed
to notify the registry operator that it is in breach. The registry operator will be given theopportunity to cure the breach as called for in the Registry Agreement.
RRDRP-8

21.

20.2

If registry operator fails to cure the breach then both parties are entitled to utilize theoptions available to them under the registry agreement, and ICANN may consider therecommended remedies set forth in the Expert Determination when taking action.

20.3

Nothing herein shall be deemed to prohibit ICANN from imposing remedies at any timeand of any nature it is otherwise entitled to impose for a registry operator’s noncompliance with its Registry Agreement.

Availability of Court or Other Administrative Proceedings
21.1

The RRDRP is not intended as an exclusive procedure and does not preclude individuals
from seeking remedies in courts of law, including, as applicable, review of an Expert
Determination as to liability.

21.2

The parties are encouraged, but not required to participate in informal negotiations
and/or mediation at any time throughout the dispute resolution process but the
conduct of any such settlement negotiation is not, standing alone, a reason to suspend
any deadline under the proceedings.

RRDRP-9

gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2012-06-04)

Module 6

4 June 2012

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application –Terms and Conditions
By submitting this application through ICANN’s online
interface for a generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) (thisapplication), applicant (including all parent companies,
subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, contractors, employees andany and all others acting on its behalf) agrees to thefollowing terms and conditions (these terms andconditions) without modification. Applicant understands
and agrees that these terms and conditions are binding on
applicant and are a material part of this application.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

1.

Applicant warrants that the statements andrepresentations contained in the application(including any documents submitted and oral
statements made and confirmed in writing inconnection with the application) are true andaccurate and complete in all material respects,
and that ICANN may rely on those statements andrepresentations fully in evaluating this application.
Applicant acknowledges that any material
misstatement or misrepresentation (or omission ofmaterial information) may cause ICANN and theevaluators to reject the application without arefund of any fees paid by Applicant. Applicant
agrees to notify ICANN in writing of any change incircumstances that would render any information
provided in the application false or misleading.

2.

Applicant warrants that it has the requisiteorganizational power and authority to make thisapplication on behalf of applicant, and is able to
make all agreements, representations, waivers, andunderstandings stated in these terms andconditions and to enter into the form of registryagreement as posted with these terms andconditions.

3.

Applicant acknowledges and agrees that ICANN
has the right to determine not to proceed with any
and all applications for new gTLDs, and that there is
no assurance that any additional gTLDs will becreated. The decision to review, consider andapprove an application to establish one or more

6-2

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

gTLDs and to delegate new gTLDs after suchapproval is entirely at ICANN’s discretion. ICANN
reserves the right to reject any application that
ICANN is prohibited from considering underapplicable law or policy, in which case any fees
submitted in connection with such application will
be returned to the applicant.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

4.

Applicant agrees to pay all fees that areassociated with this application. These fees include
the evaluation fee (which is to be paid in
conjunction with the submission of this application),and any fees associated with the progress of theapplication to the extended evaluation stages of
the review and consideration process with respect
to the application, including any and all fees as
may be required in conjunction with the dispute
resolution process as set forth in the application.
Applicant acknowledges that the initial fee due
upon submission of the application is only to obtainconsideration of an application. ICANN makes noassurances that an application will be approved orwill result in the delegation of a gTLD proposed in an
application. Applicant acknowledges that if it fails
to pay fees within the designated time period at
any stage of the application review andconsideration process, applicant will forfeit any fees
paid up to that point and the application will becancelled. Except as expressly provided in thisApplication Guidebook, ICANN is not obligated toreimburse an applicant for or to return any fees
paid to ICANN in connection with the application
process.

5.

Applicant shall indemnify, defend, and holdharmless ICANN (including its affiliates, subsidiaries,
directors, officers, employees, consultants,
evaluators, and agents, collectively the ICANN
Affiliated Parties) from and against any and all thirdparty claims, damages, liabilities, costs, andexpenses, including legal fees and expenses, arisingout of or relating to: (a) ICANN’s or an ICANN
Affiliated Party’s consideration of the application,
and any approval rejection or withdrawal of theapplication; and/or (b) ICANN’s or an ICANN
Affiliated Party’s reliance on information provided
by applicant in the application.

6-3

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

6.

Applicant hereby releases ICANN and the ICANN
Affiliated Parties from any and all claims byapplicant that arise out of, are based upon, or are
in any way related to, any action, or failure to act,
by ICANN or any ICANN Affiliated Party inconnection with ICANN’s or an ICANN AffiliatedParty’s review of this application, investigation orverification, any characterization or description of
applicant or the information in this application, any
withdrawal of this application or the decision by
ICANN to recommend, or not to recommend, theapproval of applicant’s gTLD application.
APPLICANT AGREES NOT TO CHALLENGE, IN COURTOR IN ANY OTHER JUDICIAL FORA, ANY FINALDECISION MADE BY ICANN WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPLICATION, AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANYRIGHT TO SUE OR PROCEED IN COURT OR ANYOTHER JUDICIAL FOR A ON THE BASIS OF ANY OTHERLEGAL CLAIM AGAINST ICANN AND ICANNAFFILIATED PARTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
APPLICATION. APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES AND
ACCEPTS THAT APPLICANT’S NONENTITLEMENT TO
PURSUE ANY RIGHTS, REMEDIES, OR LEGAL CLAIMSAGAINST ICANN OR THE ICANN AFFILIATED PARTIESIN COURT OR ANY OTHER JUDICIAL FORA WITHRESPECT TO THE APPLICATION SHALL MEAN THATAPPLICANT WILL FOREGO ANY RECOVERY OF ANYAPPLICATION FEES, MONIES INVESTED IN BUSINESSINFRASTRUCTURE OR OTHER STARTUP COSTS AND
ANY AND ALL PROFITS THAT APPLICANT MAY EXPECTTO REALIZE FROM THE OPERATION OF A REGISTRYFOR THE TLD; PROVIDED, THAT APPLICANT MAY
UTILIZE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISM SETFORTH IN ICANN’S BYLAWS FOR PURPOSES OF
CHALLENGING ANY FINAL DECISION MADE BY
ICANN WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION.
APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ANY ICANNAFFILIATED PARTY IS AN EXPRESS THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY OF THIS SECTION 6 AND MAY ENFORCE
EACH PROVISION OF THIS SECTION 6 AGAINSTAPPLICANT.

7.

Applicant hereby authorizes ICANN to publish on
ICANN’s website, and to disclose or publicize in any
other manner, any materials submitted to, or
obtained or generated by, ICANN and the ICANN
Affiliated Parties in connection with the application,
including evaluations, analyses and any other

6-4

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

materials prepared in connection with theevaluation of the application; provided, however,that information will not be disclosed or publishedto the extent that this Applicant Guidebook
expressly states that such information will be kept
confidential, except as required by law or judicial
process. Except for information afforded
confidential treatment, applicant understands andacknowledges that ICANN does not and will notkeep the remaining portion of the application ormaterials submitted with the application
confidential.
8.

Applicant certifies that it has obtained permission
for the posting of any personally identifying
information included in this application or materials
submitted with this application. Applicant
acknowledges that the information that ICANN
posts may remain in the public domain in
perpetuity, at ICANN’s discretion. Applicant
acknowledges that ICANN will handle personal
information collected in accordance with its gTLD
Program privacy statement
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/prog
ram-privacy, which is incorporated herein by thisreference. If requested by ICANN, Applicant will be
required to obtain and deliver to ICANN and
ICANN's background screening vendor any
consents or agreements of the entities and/or
individuals named in questions 1-11 of theapplication form necessary to conduct thesebackground screening activities. In addition,
Applicant acknowledges that to allow ICANN toconduct thorough background screening
investigations:a. Applicant may be required to provide
documented consent for release of records
to ICANN by organizations or government
agencies;b. Applicant may be required to obtainspecific government records directly andsupply those records to ICANN for review;c. Additional identifying information may berequired to resolve questions of identity of
individuals within the applicant organization;

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

6-5

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

d. Applicant may be requested to supply
certain information in the original language
as well as in English.
9.

Applicant gives ICANN permission to use
applicant’s name in ICANN’s publicannouncements (including informational web
pages) relating to Applicant's application and any
action taken by ICANN related thereto.

10.

Applicant understands and agrees that it will
acquire rights in connection with a gTLD only in theevent that it enters into a registry agreement withICANN, and that applicant’s rights in connection
with such gTLD will be limited to those expressly
stated in the registry agreement. In the event
ICANN agrees to recommend the approval of theapplication for applicant’s proposed gTLD,
applicant agrees to enter into the registryagreement with ICANN in the form published inconnection with the application materials. (Note:
ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable
updates and changes to this proposed draft
agreement during the course of the application
process, including as the possible result of newpolicies that might be adopted during the course of
the application process). Applicant may not resell,
assign, or transfer any of applicant’s rights or
obligations in connection with the application.

11.

Applicant authorizes ICANN to:a. Contact any person, group, or entity torequest, obtain, and discuss any
documentation or other information that,in ICANN’s sole judgment, may bepertinent to the application;b. Consult with persons of ICANN’s choosing
regarding the information in theapplication or otherwise coming into
ICANN’s possession, provided, however,that ICANN will use reasonable efforts toensure that such persons maintain theconfidentiality of information in theapplication that this Applicant
Guidebook expressly states will be kept
confidential.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

6-6

Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

12.

For the convenience of applicants around theworld, the application materials published by
ICANN in the English language have beentranslated into certain other languages frequently
used around the world. Applicant recognizes that
the English language version of the applicationmaterials (of which these terms and conditions is apart) is the version that binds the parties, that suchtranslations are non-official interpretations and may
not be relied upon as accurate in all respects, andthat in the event of any conflict between thetranslated versions of the application materials andthe English language version, the English language
version controls.

13.

Applicant understands that ICANN has a longstanding relationship with Jones Day, aninternational law firm, and that ICANN intends tocontinue to be represented by Jones Day
throughout the application process and theresulting delegation of TLDs. ICANN does not knowwhether any particular applicant is or is not a clientof Jones Day. To the extent that Applicant is a
Jones Day client, by submitting this application,
Applicant agrees to execute a waiver permitting
Jones Day to represent ICANN adverse to Applicant
in the matter. Applicant further agrees that bysubmitting its Application, Applicant is agreeing to
execute waivers or take similar reasonable actions
to permit other law and consulting firms retained by
ICANN in connection with the review andevaluation of its application to represent ICANN
adverse to Applicant in the matter.

14.

ICANN reserves the right to make reasonable
updates and changes to this applicant guidebook
and to the application process, including theprocess for withdrawal of applications, at any timeby posting notice of such updates and changes tothe ICANN website, including as the possible resultof new policies that might be adopted or advice to
ICANN from ICANN advisory committees during thecourse of the application process. Applicant
acknowledges that ICANN may make such
updates and changes and agrees that its
application will be subject to any such updates andchanges. In the event that Applicant hascompleted and submitted its application prior to

6-7Module 6
Top-Level Domain Application
Terms and Conditions

such updates or changes and Applicant candemonstrate to ICANN that compliance with such
updates or changes would present a material
hardship to Applicant, then ICANN will work with
Applicant in good faith to attempt to makereasonable accommodations in order to mitigate
any negative consequences for Applicant to theextent possible consistent with ICANN's mission toensure the stable and secure operation of theInternet's unique identifier systems.

Applicant Guidebook | version 2012-06-04

6-8