8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
1/291
19 September 2011
gTLD Applic ant
GuidebookVersion 2011-09-19
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
2/291
19 September 2011
ICANNs Board of Directors approved the New Generic Top-Level Domain Program
in June 2011, ushering in a vast change to the Internets domain name system. The
historic decision was featured in thousands of media outlets around the world. It
followed years of discussion, debate and deliberation with many different
communities, including business groups, cultural organizations and governments.
We expect the program to bring benefits to language and other communities,
provide opportunities for innovation, and introduce new protections for users and
rights holders.
Today, we are just months away from the scheduled opening of the application
window and in the execution stage of a global communications effort to raise
awareness of this dramatic change. In keeping with our established timeline, the
Applicant Guidebook has been updated based on the direction given within the
Boards resolution at the 20 June meeting in Singapore.
The New gTLD Program is the result of thousands of hours of work by our
stakeholders, and is a testament to the value of the multi-stakeholder process,
ICANNs unique bottom-up, consensus-driven approach. As we have developed this
program, we have laid the foundation for the future of the Internet.
ICANN will provide further refinements to the Guidebook as warranted. In addition,
information will be given on the process for providing assistance for potential
applicants from developing countries. Details are currently under development by
the Joint Applicant Support Working Group, staffed by independent stakeholders.
At the heart of ICANNs mission is the security and stability of the domain name
system. In performing its core functions of overseeing the Internet's unique
identifier systems, ICANN also promotes competition and consumer choice. New
gTLDs are in line with those goals, and I thank you for your anticipated participation
and support.
Rod Beckstrom
President and CEO
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
3/291
PreambleNew gTLD Program Background
New gTLDs have been in the forefront of ICANNs agenda since its creation. The new gTLD
program will open up the top level of the Internets 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 the
technical operation of the TLD, including all of the names registered in that TLD. The gTLDs are
served by over 900 registrars, who interact with registrants to perform domain name registration and
other 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 theprogram 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 across
the 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 the
groups that coordinate global Internet policy at ICANNformally completed its policy
development work on new gTLDs and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations.
Representatives from a wide variety of stakeholder groupsgovernments, individuals, civil society,
business and intellectual property constituencies, and the technology communitywere 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 the
contractual 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 and
outcomes can be found athttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds.
ICANNs worknext 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 the
program. This process concluded with the decision by the ICANN Board of Directors in June 2011 to
launch 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.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtldshttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtldshttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtldshttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htmhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htmhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htmhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
4/291
gTLD Applicant
Guidebook(v. 2011-09-19)
Module 1
19 September 2011
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
5/291
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-1
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
This mo dule gives app licants an ove rview o f the p roc ess for
ap plying for a new g eneric top -level dom ain, and includes
instruc tions on how to c om plete and subm it an
ap plic ation, the supp orting do c umenta tion an a pp lic ant
must subm it w ith a n a pp lica tion, the fees req uired , and
when a nd how to subm it them.
This mo dule a lso d esc ribes the c ond itions assoc iate d w ith
pa rticular types of a pplica tions, and the stage s of the
ap plic ation life c ycle.
Prospe c tive a pp lic ants are enc ourag ed to read andbe c om e familia r with the c onte nts of this entire m od ule, as
we ll as the o thers, befo re sta rting the ap plica tion proc ess
to ma ke sure the y understand wha t is req uired of them
and what they can expec t at ea ch stage of the
application evaluation process.
For the c omp lete set o f the supp orting do c umenta tion
and more a bout t he o rigins, history and deta ils of the
po lic y deve lop ment b ac kground to the New gTLD
Prog ram, p lease see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-
gtlds/.
This Ap plica nt Guideb ook is the imp lementa tion of Boa rd -approved consensus policy concerning the introduction of
new gTLDs, and ha s bee n revised extensively via p ub lic
c omm ent and c onsultation over a two-year period .
1.1 Application Life Cycle and Timelines
This sec tion p rov ides a desc ription o f the sta ge s tha t an
app lic a tion passes throug h onc e it is submitte d . Som e
sta ge s w ill occ ur for all app lica tions sub mitted ; others will
only oc c ur in spe c ific c irc umstanc es. App lic ant s should be
aw are o f the stage s and step s involved in p roc essing
ap plic ations rec eived.
1.1.1 Application Submission Dates
The user reg istration and app lic a tion submission p eriod s
open at 00:01 UTC 12 Janua ry 2012.
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
6/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-2
The user reg istrat ion p eriod c loses a t 23:59 UTC 29 Ma rch
2012. New users to TAS will not b e a cc ep ted beyond this
time. Users alrea dy reg istered will be ab le to c om plete the
app lic a tion submission p roc ess.
App lic ants should b e aw are tha t, due to req uiredproc essing steps (i.e., online user reg istration, a pp lic a tion
submission, fee submission, and fee rec onc iliation) and
sec urity mea sures built into t he o nline app lic a tion system, it
might t ake substantial time to pe rform a ll of the nec essary
step s to subm it a c omp lete ap plic ation. Acc ordingly,
ap plic ants are enc ourag ed to subm it their co mp leted
ap plica tions and fees as soon as prac tica ble a fter the
Ap p lic a tion Submission Period op ens. Waiting until the end
of this pe riod to beg in the proc ess ma y not p rovide
suffic ient time to subm it a c omp lete ap plic ation b efore the
period c loses. Acc ording ly, new user reg istrations will not
be a cc epted a f ter the da te indica ted ab ove.
The app lic a tion submission period c loses a t 23:59 UTC 12
Ap ril 2012.
To rec eive c onsideration, all ap p lic a tions must b e
submitted electronically through the online application
system by the close of the application submission period.
An a pp lica tion w ill not be c onside red , in the a bsenc e o f
exce p tional c ircumstanc es, if:
It is rec eived a fter the c lose o f the app lic at ion
submission period.
The ap plica tion form is incom plete (either the
que stions have not be en fully answe red or req uired
supporting documents are missing). Applicants will
not ordinarily be p ermitted to supplem ent the ir
app lica tions a fter submission.
The e valuation fee has not b een pa id by the
dea d line. Refe r to Sec tion 1.5 for fee informa tion.
ICANN ha s go ne to signific an t leng ths to ensure tha t the
online a pplica tion system will be a va ilab le for the d ura tion
of the ap plica tion subm ission p eriod . In the e vent that the
system is not ava ilab le, ICANN will provide a lternativeinstruct ions for sub mitting app lic a tions on its we bsite.
1.1.2 Application Processing Stages
This subsec tion p rov ides an overview of the sta ges involved
in processing an application submitted to ICANN. Figure
1-1 provides a simp lified dep iction of the p roc ess. The
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
7/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-3
shortest a nd most straightfo rwa rd pa th is ma rked with b old
lines, while c ertain stage s tha t ma y or may not b e
ap plica b le in any g iven c ase a re a lso show n. A b rief
de sc ription of ea c h stage follow s.
ApplicationSubmission
Period
InitialEvaluation
Transition toDelegation
ExtendedEvaluation
Dispute
Resolution
String
Contention
AdministrativeCompleteness
Check
ObjectionFiling
Time
Figure 1-1 Once submitted to ICANN, applications will pass through mul tiplestages of processing.
1.1.2.1 Application Submission Period
At the time the ap plica tion subm ission period op ens, those
wishing t o submit new gTLD ap plica tions can bec om e
reg iste red users of the TLD Ap p lica tion Syste m (TAS).
After completing the user registration, applicants will supplya d ep osit for eac h req uested ap plica tion slot (see sec tion
1.4), after which they w ill rec eive a c cess to the full
app lic a tion form. To c om plete the ap plica tion, users will
answe r a series of q uestions to p rovide g eneral informa tion,
de monstrate financ ial c ap ab ility, and de monstrate
tec hnic a l and ope ra tional ca pab ility. The suppo rting
doc ume nts listed in subsec tion 1.2.2 of this mo dule m ust
also b e submitted throug h the online a pplica tion system as
instructed in the relevant q uestions.
Ap p licants must a lso sub mit the ir eva luation fe es during t his
period . Refe r to Sec tion 1.5 of this mo dule for ad d itiona l
informa tion a bo ut fees and pa yments.
Eac h a pp lic at ion slot is for one g TLD. An ap plica nt m ay
submit as many applications as desired; however, there is
no m ea ns to ap p ly for mo re t han one gTLD in a single
application.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
8/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-4
Follow ing the c lose of the app lic a tion submission p eriod ,
ICANN will provide ap plica nts with pe riod ic sta tus upda tes
on the progress of their applications.
1.1.2.2 Administrative Completeness Check
Imme diately following the c lose o f the a pp lic ation
submission period , ICANN will beg in che c king a ll
app lic a tions for co mp leteness. This c hec k ensures tha t:
All ma nda tory questions a re a nswe red ;
Req uired supp orting d oc uments a re p rovide d in
the p rop er forma t(s); and
The e valuation fees have be en rece ived .
ICANN w ill po st the public p ortions of a ll ap plica tions
co nside red co mp lete a nd read y for eva luation within two
we eks of the c lose of the app lic a tion submission period .Ce rta in que stions rela te to internal p roc esses or
informa tion: app lic ant responses to the se questions will not
be p osted . Eac h que stion is labeled in the a pplica tion form
as to whe ther the informa tion will be p osted . See po sting
designations for the full set of questions in the attachment
to Mod ule 2.
The a dministrat ive co mp leteness chec k is expec ted to b e
c omp leted for all app lic ations in a pe riod of a pp roxima tely
8 wee ks, sub ject to e xtension de pend ing on volume. In the
event that all app lica tions c annot be proce ssed within this
pe riod, ICANN will post up dat ed proc ess informat ion a ndan e stimate d time line.
1.1.2.3 Comment Period
Public c om me nt me chanisms are pa rt of ICANN s po lic y
de velopme nt, imp leme ntation, and op erational p roc esses.
As a priva te-pub lic pa rtnership , ICANN is de dica ted to:
preserving the op erational sec urity a nd sta bility o f the
Internet, promoting c omp etition, ac hieving broad
rep resenta tion of g loba l Internet c om munities, and
de velop ing polic y ap p rop riate to its mission throug h
bot tom-up , co nsensus-ba sed p roc esses. This nec essarily
involves the p artic ipa tion of m any stakeholde r group s in apublic discussion.
ICANN will open a c omm ent p eriod (the Ap plic ation
Com ment p eriod ) at the time ap plic ations are pub licly
posted on ICA NNs web site (refe r to sub sec tion 1.1.2.2). This
pe riod w ill a llow time for the c om munity to review a nd
subm it c omm ents on p osted ap plic ation ma terials
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
9/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-5
(referred to as a pp lic ation c omm ents. ) The c omm ent
forum w ill req uire c om me nters to a ssoc ia te c om me nts with
spe c ific ap plic ations and the releva nt p ane l. App lic ation
c om me nts rec eived w ithin a 60-day period from the
po sting of the ap plica tion ma teria ls will be a va ilab le to the
evaluation panels performing the Initial Evaluation reviews.This period is sub jec t to extension, shou ld the vo lume of
ap plica tions or othe r circ umstanc es req uire. To be
considered b y eva luators, com ments must be rece ived in
the designa ted c omm ent forum within the stated time
period.
Eva luators will perform due d ilige nc e on the ap plica tion
com me nts (i.e., dete rmine the ir releva nc e to the
eva luation, verify the a cc urac y of c laims, analyze
meaningfulness of referenc es c ited ) and take the
information p rovide d in these c om me nts into
consideration. In c ases whe re c onsideration o f the
co mme nts has imp ac ted the sc oring o f the ap plica tion,the e va luators will seek clarific a tion from the ap plica nt.
Sta tem ents conc erning c onsideration of app lic at ion
co mme nts that ha ve impa c ted the eva luation dec ision will
be reflec ted in the e va luators summ ary rep orts, which w ill
be published at the end of Extend ed Eva luation.
Comm ents rec eived a fter the 60-da y pe riod will be stored
and ava ilab le (along w ith c omm ents rec eived d uring the
c om ment p eriod ) for other considerations, suc h a s the
d ispute resolution p roc ess, as desc ribed b elow .
In the ne w g TLD ap p lic a tion p roc ess, a ll app lic ants shou ld
be a wa re that c omm ent fora a re a m ec hanism for the
public to b ring releva nt informa tion and issues to the
a ttention of those c harged w ith handling new g TLD
ap plic ations. Anyone ma y subm it a c omm ent in a p ublic
co mment forum.
Com ments and the Forma l Objec tion Process: A d istinc tion
should be ma de b etwe en ap plica tion co mme nts, which
ma y be relevant to ICANNs task of de termining whe ther
app lic a tions me et the estab lished c riteria , and fo rma l
ob ject ions tha t conc ern ma tters outside those eva luation
c riteria . The forma l ob ject ion p roc ess wa s c rea ted to allow
a full and fair c onsideration of ob ject ions ba sed on c ertainlimited grounds outside ICANNs eva luation of a pp lic at ions
on their merits (see sub sec tion 3.2).
Pub lic c om ments will not be c onsidered a s formal
ob ject ions. Comm ents on m at ters assoc ia ted with formal
ob ject ions will not b e c onsidered by pa nels during Initia l
Eva luation. These c om ments will be a va ilab le to a nd m ay
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
10/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-6
be subseq uently considered b y an expe rt pa nel during a
d ispute resolution p roc ee d ing (see sub sec tion 1.1.2.9).
How ever, in g eneral, ap plic ation c omm ents have a very
limited role in the d ispute resolution p rocess.
String Contention: Comments designated for theCo mm unity Priority Panel, as relevant to the c riteria in
Mod ule 4, ma y be ta ken into ac c ount during a Com munity
Priority Eva lua tion.
Government Notifications: Gove rnments ma y provide a
notific ation using the a pp lica tion c omm ent forum to
communicate concerns relating to national laws. However,
a g ove rnme nt s notific at ion o f co nc ern will not in itself be
de eme d to b e a formal objection. A notifica tion by a
go vernment d oes not c onstitute ground s for rejec tion of a
gTLD ap plica tion. A gove rnme nt ma y elec t to use this
co mme nt me c hanism to p rovide such a notific ation, in
ad d ition to or as an a lternat ive to the G AC Ea rly Warningproc ed ure desc ribed in subsec tion 1.1.2.4 below .
Gove rnments ma y also c omm unica te d irec tly to
ap p licants using the co ntac t informa tion posted in the
ap plica tion, e.g., to send a notific ation that an ap plied -for
gTLD string might b e c ontrary to a na tional law, and to t ry
to a dd ress any c onc erns with the a pp lic ant.
General Com ments: A ge neral pub lic c omm ent forum w ill
rem a in op en through all stage s of the eva luation proc ess,
to p rovide a mea ns for the p ublic to b ring forward a ny
other relevant informa tion or issues.
1.1.2.4 GAC Early Warning
Conc urrent with the 60-da y c omm ent p eriod , ICANNs
Go vernmenta l Advisory Comm ittee (GAC) m ay issue a
GAC Early Warning notice c onc erning an ap p lica tion. This
provide s the a pp lic ant w ith an indica tion tha t the
app lic a tion is see n as potent ially sensitive o r p rob lema tic
by one or mo re gove rnme nts.
The GAC Early Warning is a no tice on ly. It is not a forma l
ob jection, nor do es it direc tly lead to a proc ess tha t ca n
result in rejec tion of the ap plica tion. How eve r, a G AC Early
Warning should be taken seriously as it ra ises the likelihoo dthat the a pp lica tion c ould be the subject of GAC Advice
on New gTLDs (see sub sec tion 1.1.2.7) or of a forma l
ob jec tion (see sub sec tion 1.1.2.6) at a late r sta ge in the
process.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
11/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-7
A GAC Early Warning typ ica lly results from a not ice to t he
GAC b y one or more gove rnments that a n ap plic ation
might be p rob lema tic, e.g., po tentially viola te na tional law
or raise sensitivities. A G AC Early Warning ma y be issued for
any rea son.1 The GAC ma y then send that notice to the
Boa rd c onstituting t he GAC Early Warning. ICANN willnot ify app lic ants of G AC Early Warnings as soo n a s
prac tica ble a fter rec eipt from the G AC. The GAC Ea rly
Warning notice ma y include a no minated p oint of co ntac t
for furthe r informa tion.
GAC c onsensus is not req uired for a GAC Early Warning to
be issued . Minima lly, the GAC Ea rly Warning must b e
provided in writing to the ICANN Boa rd, and be c learly
lab eled as a GAC Ea rly Warning . This ma y take the form of
an em a il from the G AC C ha ir to t he ICANN Boa rd . For
GAC Early Warnings to b e m ost effec tive, they should
inc lude the rea son for the wa rning and identify the
ob ject ing co untries.
Upo n rec eipt of a G AC Ea rly Warning, the a pplica nt ma y
elect to w ithdraw the a pp lic ation for a pa rtial refund (see
subsec tion 1.5.1), or may e lect to c ontinue w ith the
ap plica tion (this ma y inc lude me eting with rep resenta tives
from the releva nt g ove rnme nt(s) to try to ad dress the
c onc ern). To qualify for the refund desc ribed in subsec tion
1.5.1, the a pplica nt must p rovide notific a tion to ICANN of
its election to withdraw the a pp lic ation w ithin 21 ca lenda r
days of the GAC Ea rly Warning delivery.
To red uc e the possibility of a GAC Ea rly Warning , all
ap plica nts are enc ouraged to ide ntify po tential sensitivities
in ad vanc e of a pplica tion submission, and to wo rk with the
releva nt parties (inc luding go vernments) be foreha nd to
mitiga te c onc erns related to the a pp lic ation.
1.1.2.5 Initial Evaluation
Initia l Eva luation w ill be gin imme d ia tely a fter the
ad ministrat ive co mp leteness chec k conc ludes. All
c om p lete ap plica tions will be reviewed during Initial
Eva luation. At the beg inning of this pe riod , bac kground
sc ree ning on the a pp lying entity and the individuals
nam ed in the ap plic ation will be c ond ucte d. Applic ations
1While 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 to particularsectors, such as those subject to national regulation (such as .bank, .pharmacy) or those that describe or are targeted to apopulation or industry that is vulnerable to online fraud or abuse.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
12/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-8
must p ass this step in co njunc tion w ith the Initia l Eva luation
reviews.
There a re tw o m a in eleme nts of the Initia l Eva luation :
1. String rev iews (c onc erning the app lied -for gTLD
string ). String rev iews includ e a determina tion tha t
the app lied -for gTLD string is no t likely to cause
sec urity o r sta b ility prob lem s in the DNS, inc lud ing
prob lem s c aused by similarity to existing TLDs or
reserved names.
2. Ap plica nt reviews (co nc erning the entity ap plying
for the gTLD and its p roposed registry services).
App lica nt reviews include a de termination o f
whethe r the a pp lic ant has the req uisite tec hnica l,
op erationa l, and financ ial c ap ab ilit ies to o pe rate a
registry.
By the c onc lusion of the Initial Eva luat ion period , ICANN will
post no tice of a ll Initia l Eva luation results. Dep end ing on
the volume o f applica tions rec eived , suc h notices ma y be
posted in ba tc hes ove r the course o f the Initial Eva luation
period.
The Initial Eva luation is expe c ted to b e c om p leted for a ll
app lic a tions in a p eriod of a pp roxima tely 5 months. If the
volume of a pplica tions rec eived signific ant ly exce ed s 500,
app lic a tions will be proc essed in ba tc hes and the 5-mo nth
time line w ill not b e m et . The first ba tc h w ill be limited to 500
app lic a tions and subseq uent b at c hes will be limited to 400
to a c co unt for c ap ac ity limitations due to ma nag ingextended eva luation, string c ontention, and other
p roc esses assoc ia ted with ea c h p revious bat c h.
If ba tc hing is req uired , a p roc ess externa l to the
app lic a tion submission p roc ess will be em ployed to
esta b lish e va luation p riority. This p roc ess will be based on
an online ticketing system or other ob ject ive c riteria.
If ba tc hing is required , the String Similarity review will be
c om plete d o n all app lic a tions prior to the establishme nt of
eva luation p riority ba tc hes. For ap plica tions identified as
part of a c onte ntion set, the entire c onte ntion set w ill be
kept tog ether in the sam e b atc h.
If b a tc hes a re estab lished , ICANN w ill po st up da ted
p roc ess information a nd an e stimate d timeline.
Note that the processing constraints will limit delegation
ra tes to a stea dy sta te e ven in the eve nt of an extrem ely
high volume of applica tions. The a nnua l delega tion rat e
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
13/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-9
will not exce ed 1,000 per year in any case, no ma tter how
ma ny ap plica tions are rec eived.2
1.1.2.6 Objection Filing
Formal ob ject ions to a pplica tions c an be filed on any of
four enumerat ed grounds, by pa rties with stand ing toob ject . The o b jection filing period will ope n a fter ICANN
po sts the list o f c om p lete a pplica tions as desc ribed in
sub sec tion 1.1.2.2, and will la st fo r ap proximate ly 7 months.
Ob jec to rs must file suc h forma l ob jec tions d irec tly with
d ispute resolut ion service p roviders (DRSPs), not w ith
ICANN. The o b jec tion filing p eriod will c lose fo llow ing the
end of t he Initia l Eva luation p eriod (refer to subsec tion
1.1.2.5), with a tw o-week window o f time b etw een the
posting o f the Initia l Eva luat ion results and the c lose o f the
ob jection filing p eriod . Ob ject ions tha t have be en filed
during the ob ject ion filing period will be ad dressed in the
d ispute resolution sta ge, wh ich is out lined in sub sec tion
1.1.2.9 and d iscussed in de ta il in Mod ule 3.
All ap plica nts should b e a wa re tha t third p a rties have the
op po rtunity to file objec tions to any ap plica tion during the
ob jection filing pe riod. App licants who se a pp lica tions a re
the subject of a forma l objection will have a n op po rtunity
to file a respo nse a c c ording to the dispute resolution
servic e p rovide r s rules and proc ed ures. An a pp lic ant
wishing to file a forma l ob ject ion to anot her ap p lic a tion
that ha s be en subm itted wo uld do so w ithin the o bjec tion
filing pe riod , following the ob ject ion filing p roc ed ures in
Mod ule 3.
Ap plica nts are enc ouraged to identify possib le reg ional,
cultural, property interests, or other sensitivities regarding
TLD strings and the ir uses be fore a pp lying and , whe re
possible, co nsult with interested parties to m itiga te a ny
c onc erns in adva nce .
1.1.2.7 Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs
The GA C m ay p rovide p ublic po lic y ad vic e d irec tly to the
ICANN Boa rd o n any a pp lic at ion. The p roc ed ure for GAC
Ad vice o n New gTLDs desc ribed in Module 3 indica tes
that, to b e c onside red by the Boa rd during the eva luationproc ess, the G AC Advice on New g TLDs must be submitte d
by the c lose o f the objec tion filing p eriod . A GAC Early
Warning is not a p rerequisite to use o f the GAC Advice
process.
2See "Delegation Rate Scenarios for New gTLDs" athttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-
06oct10-en.pdffor additional discussion.
http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdfhttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdfhttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdfhttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdfhttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdfhttp://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/delegation-rate-scenarios-new-gtlds-06oct10-en.pdf8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
14/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-10
GAC Ad vice on New gTLDs tha t include s a c onsensus
statement3 from the GAC tha t an a pp lic ation should not
proce ed as subm itted (or other terms create d by the GAC
to e xpress tha t intent), and t ha t includes a thorough
explana tion of the p ublic p olic y ba sis for suc h advice, will
c rea te a strong presump tion for the Boa rd tha t theap plica tion should not b e a pp roved . If the Boa rd do es not
ac t in ac c orda nce with this type o f ad vic e, it must provide
rat iona le for do ing so.
See Mod ule 3 for ad ditiona l deta il on the proce dures
conc erning G AC Advice o n New gTLDs.
1.1.2.8 Extended Evaluation
Extend ed Evaluat ion is availab le only to certain ap p lic ant s
tha t do no t p ass Initia l Eva luation.
Ap plica nts failing c ertain elem ents of the Initia l Eva luation
c an reque st an Extend ed Eva luation. If the ap p licant doesnot pass Initia l Eva luation and doe s no t expressly req uest
an Extende d Eva luation, the a pp lic at ion will proc ee d no
furthe r. The Extend ed Eva luation period a llow s for an
ad ditiona l exchang e of informa tion be twee n the
ap plic ant and eva luators to c larify informa tion c onta ined
in the app lic at ion. The reviews performed in Extende d
Eva luation do not introd uc e additional evalua tion criteria.
An ap plica tion ma y be req uired to e nter an Extende d
Eva luat ion if one or more p rop osed registry services ra ise
tec hnica l issues tha t m ight ad versely a ffec t the sec urity o r
sta b ility of the DNS. The Extend ed Eva luation period
prov ides a t ime frame fo r these issues to b e investiga ted .
App licants will be informed if suc h a review is req uired by
the e nd of the Initial Eva luation period .
Eva luators and any ap p lic able e xperts consulted w ill
com munica te the c onc lusions resulting from the ad ditional
review b y the end of the Extend ed Eva luation pe riod.
At the c onc lusion o f the Extend ed Eva luation pe riod,
ICANN will post summ ary rep orts, by p anel, from the Initia l
and Extende d Eva luation p eriod s.
If an ap plica tion passes the Extende d Eva luation, it c an
then p roc eed to the next relevant stag e. If the ap plic ation
does not pass the Extende d Eva luation, it w ill proc ee d no
further.
3The GAC will clarify the basis on which consensus advice is developed.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
15/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-11
The Extend ed Eva luation is expe c ted to be c om p leted fo r
all applica tions in a p eriod of app roxima tely 5 months,
though this timefram e c ould b e increased ba sed on
volume. In this eve nt, ICANN w ill post up da ted p roc ess
information and an estimate d timeline.
1.1.2.9 Dispute Resolution
Dispute resolution a pp lies on ly to app lic ants whose
ap plic ations are the subject of a forma l objection.
Where formal objec tions are filed and filing fees paid
during the o b jection filing p eriod , indep end ent d ispu te
resolut ion service p roviders (DRSPs) w ill initiate and
co nclude p roc eed ings ba sed on the ob jec tions rec eived.
The forma l objec tion proc ed ure e xists to p rovide a pa th for
those w ho wish to ob jec t to a n ap plic ation that ha s be en
sub mitted to ICANN. Dispute resolution service p rov iders
serve a s the fora to ad judica te the proce ed ings ba sed on
the subject ma tter and the need ed expertise.
Consolida tion of objec tions filed w ill occ ur whe re
app rop ria te, at t he d isc ret ion of the DRSP.
As a result of a d ispute resolution p roc ee d ing, either the
ap plic ant w ill preva il (in which c ase the ap plica tion c an
proce ed to the next relevant stag e), or the ob jec tor will
preva il (in which c ase either the ap plica tion will proc ee d
no further or the a pp lic ation will be b ound to a c ontention
resolution proc ed ure). In the eve nt o f multiple ob jec tions,
an ap p licant m ust p reva il in a ll d ispute resolution
proce ed ings c onc erning the ap plica tion to proc eed to the
next releva nt stage . App licants will be no tified by theDRSP(s) of the results of d ispute resolut ion p roc ee d ings.
Dispu te resolution proc eedings, where a pp lic able, a re
expec ted to be co mp leted for all ap plica tions within
ap proxima tely a 5-month time fram e. In the event that
volume is suc h tha t this timefram e c annot b e
ac c omm od ate d, ICANN will work with the d ispute
resolution service p rov iders to c rea te p roc essing
proce dures and po st up da ted timeline informa tion.
1.1.2.10 String Contention
String c onte ntion applies only when there is more tha n one
qua lified app lic a tion for the same or similar gTLD strings.
String c ont ent ion refe rs to the sc enario in which the re is
more tha n one q ua lified ap p lica tion for the ide ntica l gTLD
string o r for similar gTLD string s. In this Ap p lic ant Guideb oo k,
simila r me ans strings so simila r tha t they c rea te a
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
16/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-12
prob ab ility of user co nfusion if mo re tha n one of the strings
is de lega ted into the roo t zone .
Ap plica nts are enc ouraged to resolve string co ntention
c ases am ong them selves p rior to the string c onte ntion
resolution sta ge . In the a bsence o f resolution b y thec onte nding a pplica nts, string c onte ntion cases are
resolved either throug h a c om munity priority evalua tion (if
a c omm unity-ba sed ap plic ant e lec ts it) or through an
auction.
In the eve nt of conte ntion be twe en a pp lied -for gTLD
strings tha t rep resent ge og rap hic na me s, the p arties ma y
be required to fo llow a different proc ess to resolve the
c onten tion. See sub sec tion 2.2.1.4 of Mod ule 2 for more
information.
Groups of a pp lied -for strings tha t a re either identica l or
simila r a re c a lled con tention sets. All app lic ants should b eawa re tha t if an ap plica tion is identified as being part of a
contention set, string contention resolution procedures will
not b eg in until a ll app lic at ions in the c onte ntion set ha ve
c om plete d a ll aspe c ts of eva luation, including dispute
resolution, if applicable.
To illustrate , as shown in Figure 1-2, Ap p licants A, B, and C
a ll app ly for .EXAMPLE and a re ide ntified as a c onten tion
set. Ap p licants A a nd C p ass Initia l Eva luation , but
Ap plica nt B doe s not. Ap plica nt B req uests Extend ed
Eva luation. A third p a rty files an o bjec tion to Ap p lic ant C s
ap plica tion, and App lic ant C ent ers the d ispute resolution
proc ess. Ap plica nt A must wa it to see whe ther App lic ant sB and C suc cessfully comp lete the Extende d Eva luation
and dispute resolution phases, respectively, before it can
proc eed to the string c onte ntion resolution stage . In this
exam ple, Ap p lic an t B pa sses the Extend ed Eva luation, but
App lic ant C does not p reva il in the d isput e resolution
proc eed ing. String c onte ntion resolution then p roc ee ds
be twee n App lic ants A and B.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
17/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-13
Figure 1-2 All applications in a contention set must complete all previousevaluation and dispute r esolution stages before string cont ention
resolution can begin.
Applicants prevailing in a string contention resolution
proce dure will proce ed to wa rd d elega tion of the ap plied -
fo r gTLDs.
String c ont ent ion resolution for a c ont ent ion set is
estimate d to take from 2.5 to 6 mo nths to c om p lete. The
time req uired will va ry per ca se b ec ause som e c onte ntion
c ases ma y be resolved in either a c om munity priority
eva luation or an auc tion, while ot hers ma y req uire b oth
processes.
1.1.2.11 Transition to DelegationAp plica nts succ essfully comp leting all the relevant stage s
out lined in this subsec tion 1.1.2 a re req uired to c arry out a
series of c onc luding step s before d elegat ion of the
app lied -for gTLD into the roo t zone. These steps includ e
exec ution of a reg istry ag reeme nt with ICANN and
c omp letion of a p re-delega tion tec hnica l test to va lida te
informa tion p rovided in the ap plic ation.
Follow ing exec ution of a reg istry agreem ent, the
p rospe c tive reg istry op erator must c om p lete tec hnica l set-
up a nd show sat isfac tory performa nc e on a set o f
tec hnica l tests before d elega tion of the gTLD into t he rootzone ma y be initia ted . If the p re-de lega tion testing
req uirem ent s a re no t sa tisfied so tha t the gTLD can be
de leg ate d into the root zone within the time fram e
spec ified in the reg istry ag ree me nt, ICANN ma y in its sole
and ab solute d isc retion elec t to t ermina te the reg istry
agreement.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
18/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-14
Onc e a ll of these step s have b een succ essfully com p leted ,
the a pp lic ant is eligible for deleg at ion of its ap plied-for
gTLD into the DNS root zone.
It is expe c ted tha t the transition to delegat ion step s c an b e
com plete d in ap p roxima tely 2 months, thoug h this c ouldtake more time d ep end ing on the a pp lic ant s level of
p rep ared ness for the p re-de lega tion testing and the
volume o f ap plica tions undergoing these step s
concurrently.
1.1.3 Lifecycle Timelines
Based on t he e stimate s for eac h stage de sc ribed in this
sec tion, the lifec ycle for a stra ight forwa rd ap p lic a tion
c ould b e a pproxima tely 9 months, as follow s:
Initial Evaluation
Transition to Delegation
5 Months
2 Months
Administrative Check2 Months
Figure 1-3 A straightforward application could have an approximate 9-monthlifecycle.
The lifec ycle for a highly com p lex ap p lic a tion could be
muc h longe r, suc h as 20 months in the exam ple b elow :
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
19/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-15
2 Months
Extended Evaluation
String Contention [May consist of Community Priority, Auction, or both]
Transition to Delegation
5 Months
5 Months
2.5 - 6 Months
2 Months
Dispute Resolution
Initial Evaluation
Objection
Filing
Admin Completeness Check
Figure 1-4 A complex application could have an approximate 20-month lifecycle.
1.1.4 Posting Periods
The results of a pp lic at ion reviews will be ma de availab le to
the pub lic a t va rious sta ges in the p roc ess, as shown
below.
Period Posting Content
During AdministrativeCompleteness Check
Public portions of all applications (postedwithin 2 weeks of the start of theAdministrative Completeness Check).
End of AdministrativeCompleteness Check
Results of Administrative CompletenessCheck.
GAC Early Warning Period GAC Early Warnings received.
During Initial Evaluation
Status updates for applications withdrawn orineligible for further review.Contention sets resulting from StringSimilarity review.
End of Initial Evaluation Application status updates with all InitialEvaluation results.
GAC Advice on New gTLDs GAC Advice received.
End of Extended Evaluation
Application status updates with all ExtendedEvaluation results.Evaluation summary reports from the Initialand Extended Evaluation periods.
During Objection Information on filed objections and status
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
20/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-16
Period Posting Content
Filing/Dispute Resolution updates available via Dispute ResolutionService Provider websites.Notice of all objections posted by ICANNafter close of objection filing period.
During Contention Resolution(Community PriorityEvaluation)
Results of each Community PriorityEvaluation posted as completed.
During Contention Resolution(Auction)
Results from each auction posted ascompleted.
Transition to DelegationRegistry Agreements posted whenexecuted.Pre-delegation testing status updated.
1.1.5 Sample Application Scenarios
The following sc ena rios b riefly show a va riety o f wa ys in
which an a pp lica tion ma y proc eed through the
eva luation p roc ess. The ta b le tha t follow s exem p lifies
va rious p roc esses and out com es. This is not intend ed to be
an e xhaustive list o f possibilities. There a re o the r po ssible
c omb inations of pa ths an a pp lic ation c ould follow.
Estimate d time frame s for eac h scena rio a re a lso inc luded ,
ba sed on c urrent knowledg e. Actua l time fram es ma y vary
de pe nding o n several fac tors, including the tota l number
of a pp lic ations rec eived b y ICANN during the a pp lica tion
submission period . It shou ld b e e mp ha sized tha t m ost
ap plica tions are expe c ted to p ass throug h the p roc ess in
the shortest period of time , i.e., they will not g o th roug h
extended eva luation , dispute resolution, or stringc ont ent ion resolution p roc esses. Although mo st of the
scena rios be low a re for proce sses extend ing beyond nine
months, it is expec ted tha t mo st applica tions will com plete
the p roc ess within the nine-month timeframe .
ScenarioNumber
InitialEval-
uation
ExtendedEval-
uation
Objec-tion(s)Filed
StringConten-
tion
Ap-proved
for Dele-gationSteps
Esti-mated
ElapsedTime
1 Pass N/A None No Yes 9 months
2 Fail Pass None No Yes14
months
3 Pass N/A None Yes Yes11.5 15months
4 Pass N/AApplicantprevails
No Yes14
months
5 Pass N/AObjectorprevails
N/A No12
months
6 Fail Quit N/A N/A No 7 months
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
21/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-17
ScenarioNumber
InitialEval-
uation
ExtendedEval-
uation
Objec-tion(s)Filed
StringConten-
tion
Ap-proved
for Dele-gationSteps
Esti-mated
ElapsedTime
7 Fail Fail N/A N/A No
12
months
8 Fail PassApplicantprevails
Yes Yes16.5 20months
9 Fail PassApplicantprevails
Yes No14.5 18months
Sc ena rio 1 Pass Initial Eva luation, No Ob jec tion, No
Contention In the mo st straight forwa rd c ase, the
app lic a tion passes Initia l Eva luation a nd the re is no ne ed
for an Extend ed Eva luation. No ob ject ions a re filed du ring
the ob jection pe riod, so there is no dispute to resolve. As
the re is no con tention fo r the app lied -for gTLD string , the
ap plica nt ca n enter into a registry ag reem ent a nd theap plica tion ca n proc eed towa rd d elegation of the
app lied -for gTLD. Most a pp lic at ions are expec ted to
c om plete the p roc ess within this timeframe .
Scena rio 2 Extend ed Eva luation, No Ob jec tion, No
Contention In this c ase, the a pp lic a tion fa ils one o r mo re
aspec ts of the Initial Eva luation . The a pp lic ant is eligible fo r
and req uests an Extend ed Eva luation for the a pp rop ria te
elements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Eva luation . As with Scenario 1, no ob jec tions a re filed
during the ob ject ion pe riod, so the re is no d isput e to
resolve . As the re is no c on tention fo r the gTLD string, the
ap plic ant c an e nter into a reg istry ag reem ent a nd the
ap plica tion ca n proc eed towa rd d elega tion of the
app lied -for gTLD.
Scena rio 3 Pass Initial Eva luation, No Ob jec tion,
Contention In this c ase, the app lic a tion p asses the Initial
Eva luation so there is no nee d for Extend ed Eva luation . No
ob jections a re filed during t he o bjec tion pe riod , so the re is
no dispute to resolve. How eve r, there are o ther
app lic a tions for the same or a similar gTLD string , so t here is
c onte ntion. In this case, the ap plica tion p reva ils in the
c onte ntion resolution, so the ap plica nt c an e nter into a
reg istry agreement a nd the a pp lic ation ca n procee dtow ard d elegat ion of the a pp lied -for gTLD.
Scenario 4 Pass Initial Eva luation, Win Ob jec tion, No
Contention In th is c ase, the app lic a tion p asses the Initia l
Eva luation so there is no nee d for Extend ed Eva luation .
During the ob ject ion filing period , an objec tion is filed o n
one o f the four enumerated grounds by a n ob jec tor with
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
22/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-18
sta nd ing (refe r to M od ule 3, Ob jec tion Proced ures). The
ob jec tion is hea rd by a d ispute resolution servic e provider
pa nel that finds in favo r of the a pplica nt. The a pplica nt
ca n enter into a registry ag reem ent a nd the ap plica tion
ca n proce ed towa rd d elega tion of the a pp lied -for gTLD.
Scenario 5 Pass Initial Eva luation, Lose Objec tion In this
case, the app lica tion p asses the Initia l Eva luat ion so there
is no need for Extende d Eva luation. During the ob ject ion
pe riod, multiple o b jections a re filed by o ne o r mo re
ob ject ors with standing fo r one or more of the four
enum erated o bjec tion grounds. Eac h ob ject ion is hea rd
by a d ispute resolution service p rov ider panel. In this c ase,
the p ane ls find in favo r of the a pp licant for mo st of the
ob ject ions, but one finds in favor of the objec tor. As one of
the ob jec tions has be en up held, the a pp lic ation do es not
proceed.
Scenario 6 Fail Initial Evaluation, Applicant Withdraws Inthis c ase, the a pp lica tion fails one or more a spe c ts of the
Initia l Eva luation. The a pplica nt d ec ides to w ithd raw the
ap plica tion rat her than co ntinuing w ith Extende d
Eva luation. The a pplica tion does not p roc eed.
Sc ena rio 7 Fail Initial Eva luation, Fail Extended Eva luation
-- In this c ase, the a pp lic a tion fa ils one or more a spec ts of
the Initia l Eva luation . The app lic ant req uests Extend ed
Eva luation for the approp riate e lement s. How eve r, the
ap plica tion fa ils Extend ed Eva luation a lso. The app lic a tion
doe s not proc eed .
Scenario 8 Extended Evaluation, Win Objection, PassContention In this case, the app lica tion fa ils one or more
aspec ts of the Initia l Eva luation . The a pp licant is eligible fo r
and req uests an Extend ed Eva luation for the a pprop riate
elements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Eva luation. During the ob ject ion filing period , an objec tion
is filed on one o f the four enum erated ground s by an
ob ject or with stand ing. The o bjec tion is hea rd by a d isput e
resolution service p rov ider panel tha t find s in favor of the
app lic ant. How eve r, there are othe r ap p lic a tions for the
same or a simila r gTLD string , so the re is c on tention. In this
c ase, the app lic ant preva ils ove r othe r ap plica tions in the
c ontention resolution p roc ed ure, the ap plic ant c an e nterinto a reg istry ag reem ent, and the ap plica tion c an
proce ed towa rd de leg ation of the ap plied -for gTLD.
Scena rio 9 Extend ed Eva luation, Ob jec tion, Fail
ContentionIn this c ase, the a pp lic a tion fa ils one or more
aspec ts of the Initial Eva luation . The a pp lic ant is eligible fo r
and req uests an Extende d Eva luation for the a pp rop riate
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
23/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-19
elements. Here, the application passes the Extended
Eva luation. During the ob jection filing period , an ob jection
is filed on one o f the four enum erated ground s by a n
ob ject or with standing. The o bjec tion is hea rd by a d ispu te
resolution service p rov ider that find s in favo r of the
ap plica nt. How eve r, there are othe r ap plica tions for thesame or a similar gTLD string, so the re is c on tention. In this
case, anothe r ap p licant prevails in the c onte ntion
resolution p roc ed ure, and the a pp lic ation d oes not
proceed.
Transition to Delegation After an a pp lic ation has
suc c essfully co mp leted Initial Eva luation, and othe r stage s
as ap plic ab le, the a pp lica nt is req uired to c omp lete a set
of step s lead ing to de lega tion of the gTLD, inc luding
exec ution of a reg istry ag reeme nt with ICANN, and
c om pletion of p re-de lega tion testing. Refer to Mod ule 5 for
a desc ription o f the steps req uired in this sta ge .
1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds
ICANNs goa l is to launc h sub seq uent gTLD ap p lica tion
rounds as quickly as possible. The exac t t iming w ill be
ba sed on experienc es ga ined and c hang es req uired after
this round is c om plete d . The go al is for the next ap p lic a tion
round to b eg in within one yea r of the c lose of the
application submission period for the initial round.
ICANN has c om mitted to review ing the effec ts of the New
gTLD Prog ram on the op erat ions of the roo t zone system
afte r the first a pplica tion round , and will defe r the
de lega tions in a sec ond ap plica tion round until it isde termined tha t the de lega tions resulting from the first
round d id not jeop ardize roo t zone system sec urity or
stability.
1.2 Information for All Applicants
1.2.1 Eligibility
Esta b lished c orpora tions, orga niza tions, or institut ions in
go od stand ing may ap ply for a ne w g TLD. Ap p lic at ions
from individua ls or sole p roprietorships will not bec onsidered. Applica tions from or on be ha lf of yet-to-be -
forme d lega l entities, or ap plica tions presuppo sing the
future format ion of a lega l entity (for exam ple, a p end ing
Joint Venture) will not b e c onsidered.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
24/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-20
ICANN has designed the New gTLD Prog ram with m ultiple
stakeholde r protec tion me c hanisms. Bac kground
sc ree ning, fea tures of the gTLD Reg istry Agreeme nt, da ta
and financ ial esc row me c hanisms a re a ll intend ed to
provide registrant and user protections.
The a pplica tion form requires ap p licants to p rovide
information on the leg a l establishme nt of the app lying
ent ity, as well as the identific a tion o f direc to rs, offic ers,
pa rtne rs, and m a jor sha reholders of tha t en tity. The na me s
and po sitions of individuals included in the a pp lic a tion will
be pub lished as pa rt of the app lic at ion; othe r information
collec ted abo ut the ind ividua ls will not b e published .
Bac kground sc reening a t b oth the entity level and the
ind ividua l level will be c ond uc ted for a ll app lic a tions to
con firm eligibility. This inquiry is c onduc ted on the basis of
the informa tion p rov ided in questions 1-11 of theap plica tion form. ICANN may ta ke into a cc ount
information rec eived from any source if it is releva nt to the
criteria in this section.
ICANN w ill pe rform ba c kground sc reening in only two
area s: (1) Ge nera l business d iligenc e a nd c riminal histo ry;
and (2) History of c ybe rsqua tting beha vior. The c riteria
used for crimina l histo ry are a ligned w ith the c rimes of
trust standa rd som etimes used in the ba nking and financ e
industry.
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, applications
from any entity with or inc luding any individual withc onvic tions or dec isions of the types listed in (a) (m)
be low will be autom atica lly disqua lified from the prog ram .
a . within the pa st te n yea rs, has be en
co nvic ted o f any crime relate d to financial
or c orporate g ove rnanc e ac tivities, or has
bee n judged by a c ourt to have c ommitted
fraud or brea c h of fiduc iary duty, or has
be en the subjec t of a judicial dete rmination
tha t ICANN deem s as the sub sta ntive
eq uivalent of any of these;
b . within the pa st te n yea rs, has be en
disc iplined by any go vernment or industry
regulatory body for conduct involving
dishonesty or misuse of the funds of others;
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
25/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-21
c . within the p ast ten yea rs has be en
c onvic ted of any willful ta x-relate d fraud o r
willful evasion of tax liabilities;
d . within the p ast ten yea rs has be en
convicted of perjury, forswearing, failing toco ope rate w ith a law enforce ment
investiga tion, or making fa lse sta teme nts to
a law enforce ment age ncy or
representative;
e. has ever been c onvicted of any c rime
involving the use o f co mp uters, telep hony
systems, te lec om munica tions or the Internet
to fac ilita te the c om mission of c rimes;
f. has ever been c onvicted of any c rime
involving the use o f a wea pon, forc e, or the
threa t of force;
g. has ever been c onvicted of any violent or
sexua l offense vict imizing c hild ren, the
elderly, or individuals with disabilities;
h. has eve r been co nvicted of the illega l sale,
ma nufac ture, or d istribution o f
pha rma c eutical drugs, or been c onvicted
or suc c essfully extrad ited for any offense
de sc ribed in Article 3 of the United Na tions
Co nvention Aga inst Illic it Tra ffic in Narco tic
Drugs and Psychot rop ic Sub sta nc es of
19884;
i. has eve r bee n c onvic ted or suc cessfully
extrad ited for any offense d esc ribed in the
United Nations Co nvention ag ainst
Transna tiona l Organized Crime (all
Protocols) 5,6;
j. has be en c onvict ed , within the respec tive
timeframes, of aiding, ab etting, fac ilitating,
ena b ling, c onspiring to c om mit, or failing to
rep ort any of the listed c rimes abo ve (i.e.,
within the past 10 years for crimes listed in4http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.html
5http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.html
6It is recognized that not all countries have signed on to the UN conventions referenced above. These conventions are being used
solely for identification of a list of crimes for which background screening will be performed. It is not necessarily required that anapplicant would have been convicted pursuant to the UN convention but merely convicted of a crime listed under these conventions,to trigger these criteria.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/index.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/illicit-trafficking.html8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
26/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-22
(a) - (d) above , or eve r for the c rimes listed
in (e) (i) above);
k. has entered a guilty plea as pa rt of a plea
ag reem ent or has a c ourt c ase in any
jurisdiction with a disposition of AdjudicatedGuilty or Ad judica tion Withheld (or reg iona l
equivalents), within the respective
timeframes listed abo ve for any o f the listed
crimes (i.e., within the past 10 years for
c rimes listed in (a) (d ) ab ove, or eve r for
the c rimes listed in (e) (i) above);
l. is the subject of a disqualification imposed
by ICANN and in effect a t the time the
ap plica tion is considered;
m. has be en involved in a pa ttern of a dve rse,
final de c isions indica ting that the ap plica ntor individua l nam ed in the ap plic ation wa s
enga ge d in c ybersqua tting a s de fined in
the Uniform Dom a in Na me Dispu te
Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Anti-
Cyb ersquat ting Consume r Prote c tion Ac t
(ACPA), or othe r eq uivalen t leg islation, or
wa s enga ge d in reverse d oma in nam e
hijac king unde r the UDRP or ba d faith or
rec kless d isreg ard und er the ACPA or other
eq uivalen t leg islation. Three o r more suc h
dec isions with one o c curring in the last four
yea rs will generally b e c onsidered to
c onstitute a pa ttern.
n. fails to p rovid e ICANN with the ident ifying
information nec essa ry to c onfirm identity a t
the time o f ap plica tion or to resolve
que stions of ident ity during the ba c kground
sc ree ning p roc ess;
o. fails to p rovide a g oo d fa ith effort to
disclose all relevant information relating to
item s (a) (m).
Bac kground sc ree ning is in plac e to p rote c t the p ub licinterest in the a lloc a tion of c ritica l Inte rnet resources, and
ICANN reserves the right to deny a n ot herwise q ua lified
ap plic ation b ased on any informa tion ide ntified during the
ba ckground sc reening p roc ess. For examp le, a final and
leg ally binding de c ision o bta ined by a national law
enforce me nt or consumer protec tion authority finding that
the ap plica nt was enga ged in fraudulent and d ec eptive
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
27/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-23
c om me rc ia l p rac tices as de fined in the Orga niza tion for
Eco nomic C o-ope ration and Developme nt (OECD)
Guide lines for Protec ting C onsume rs from Fraudulent a nd
Dec ep tive C om me rc ial Prac tices Ac ross Borders7 may
c ause a n ap plic ation to b e rejec ted . ICANN may a lso
c ontac t the ap plic ant w ith ad ditiona l questions ba sed oninforma tion ob tained in the ba c kground screening
process.
All app lica nts are req uired to p rovide c omp lete a nd
de tailed explana tions reg arding a ny of the ab ove e vents
as part of the a pplica tion. Background sc reening
information will not b e ma de publicly ava ilab le by ICANN.
Reg istrar Cross-Ownership -- ICANN-accredited registrars
are eligib le to app ly for a gTLD. How ever, all gTLD reg istries
are req uired to a bide b y a Co de of Cond uct a dd ressing,
inter a lia, non-d isc riminato ry ac c ess for a ll autho rized
reg istrars. ICANN reserves the right t o refe r any a pp lic a tionto the a pp rop riate c omp etition a uthority relative to any
c ross-ow ne rship issues.
Lega l Compliance --ICA NN must c om p ly with a ll U.S. laws,
rules, and reg ulations. One suc h set of reg ulations is the
ec onom ic and trad e sanc tions program a dm inistered by
the Offic e o f Fore ign Asset s Co ntrol (OFAC ) of the U.S.
Dep artment of the Trea sury. These sanc tions have b ee n
imposed on c erta in countries, as well as individua ls and
ent ities tha t a ppea r on OFAC's List o f Spec ially Designa ted
Nationa ls and Bloc ked Persons (the SDN List). ICANN is
prohibited from providing most goods or services to
residents of sanc tioned countries or their go vernmenta l
ent ities or to SDNs witho ut a n app licab le U.S. governme nt
autho riza tion or exemp tion. ICANN genera lly will not see k a
lic ense to provide go od s or servic es to an ind ividua l or
ent ity on the SDN List. In the past, whe n ICANN ha s bee n
req uested t o p rovide services to ind ividua ls or entities tha t
a re not SDNs, but a re residents of sanc tioned c ountries,
ICANN ha s soug ht a nd be en grante d lic enses as req uired .
In a ny given ca se, howeve r, OFAC c ould d ec ide not to
issue a req uested lic ense.
1.2.2 Required Documents
All ap plica nts should b e p rep ared to submit the follow ing
doc uments, which are required to a cc omp any ea ch
application:
7http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3746,en_2649_34267_2515000_1_1_1_1,00.html8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
28/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-24
1. Proof of legal e stab lishme nt Docum enta tion of the
ap p licant s esta blishme nt a s a spe c ific typ e o f entity in
ac c orda nc e w ith the a pp lic able law s of its jurisdic tion.
2. Financial statements. App licants must provide a ud ited
or inde pe ndently ce rtified financ ial sta tem ents for the
most recently co mp leted fisc al yea r for the a pp lic ant.
In som e c ases, unaud ited financ ial sta tem ents ma y be
provided.
Suppo rting do cume nta tion should b e subm itted in the
origina l language. Eng lish translations a re not req uired .
All do c ume nts must b e va lid at the time o f submission.
Refer to the Eva luation Criteria , a ttac hed to M od ule 2, for
ad ditional d eta ils on the req uirem ents for these
documents.
Som e typ es of suppo rting do cume nta tion are req uired only
in ce rta in ca ses:
1. Comm unity end orsement If an ap plic ant has
designa ted its app lic at ion as com munity-based (see
sec tion 1.2.3), it w ill be asked to submit a written
end orsem ent o f its ap plica tion by one or more
esta b lished institutions rep resent ing the com munity it
has nam ed . An ap plic ant ma y subm it w ritten
endorsem ent s from multiple institutions. If ap p lic ab le,
this will be subm itted in the sec tion of the a pp lic at ion
c onc erning the c omm unity-ba sed de signa tion.
At lea st one suc h endorsem ent is req uired for a
c omp lete a pp lica tion. The form a nd c ontent of theend orsem ent a re a t the d isc retion of the p arty
p roviding the end orsem ent; how eve r, the letter must
identify the a pp lied -for gTLD string a nd the a pp lying
entity, includ e a n express sta teme nt o f support for the
ap plic ation, and supp ly the c onta ct informa tion of the
entity providing the e ndo rsem ent.
Written end orsem ents from ind ividua ls need not be
subm itted with the a pp lic ation, but ma y be subm itted
in the ap plica tion c omm ent forum.
2. Government supp ort or non-objec tion If an app lic ant
has ap plied fo r a gTLD string tha t is a ge og raphic nam e(as defined in this Guide bo ok), the ap plica nt is req uired
to submit doc ume nta tion of supp ort for or non-
ob jec tion to its ap plic ation from the releva nt
gove rnme nts or pub lic autho rities. Refe r to subsec tion
2.2.1.4 for more informa tion on the req uirem ents for
ge og rap hic name s. If ap plica ble, this will be submitted
in the g eog rap hic nam es sec tion of the a pp lic ation.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
29/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-25
3. Doc umentation of third-pa rty funding co mm itmentsIf
an app lic ant lists fund ing from th ird pa rties in its
ap plic ation, it must provide evidenc e o f co mmitment
by the pa rty co mm itting the funds. If ap plica ble, this
will be subm itted in the financ ia l sec tion of the
application.
1.2.3 Community-Based Designation
All ap plica nts are req uired to d esigna te w hethe r their
ap plic ation is community-based .
1.2.3.1 Definitions
For purpo ses of this Ap p lic ant Gu ideboo k, a community-
based g TLD is a g TLD tha t is op erated for the b ene fit of a
c learly delinea ted com munity. Designation or non-
de signa tion of a n a pp lic ation a s c omm unity-ba sed is
entirely at the d isc retion of the ap p licant. Any ap plica nt
ma y designa te its ap plica tion as c om munity-based ;how eve r, ea c h app lic ant ma king th is designa tion is asked
to substa ntiate its sta tus as rep resent a tive o f the
c om munity it na mes in the a pplica tion by submission of
written e ndorsem ents in suppo rt of the ap plica tion.
Add itiona l informa tion m ay b e requested in the e vent of a
c om munity p riority eva luation (refer to sec tion 4.2 of
Mod ule 4). An ap plica nt for a c om munity-based gTLD is
expec ted to:
1. Demo nstra te a n ong oing relat ionship with a c learly
delineated community.
2. Have app lied for a g TLD string strong ly and spec ifica llyrelated to the co mmunity nam ed in the app lic ation.
3. Have proposed de dica ted registration a nd use po licies
for reg istran ts in its p roposed gTLD, inc lud ing
ap prop riate sec urity verific at ion proc ed ures,
commensurate with the community-based purpose it
has name d.
4. Have its app lic at ion end orsed in writing by one or more
esta b lished institutions rep resenting the c om munity it
has nam ed .
For purposes of d ifferentiation, an ap plica tion tha t ha s not
been designa ted as com munity-based will be referred to
hereina fter in this do c ume nt a s a standard application. A
sta nd ard g TLD ca n be used for any purpose c onsisten t with
the requireme nts of the a pp lic ation a nd eva luation
c riteria, a nd with the reg istry agreem ent. A standa rd
ap plic ant m ay o r ma y not ha ve a forma l relationship with
an exc lusive reg istrant o r user populat ion. It ma y or ma y
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
30/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-26
not em ploy e lig ibility or use restric tions. Sta nd ard simp ly
mea ns here tha t the a pp lic ant ha s not d esigna ted the
ap plic ation a s c omm unity-ba sed .
1.2.3.2 Implications of Application Designation
Ap plica nts should und erstand how their designa tion asc omm unity-ba sed or stand ard w ill affec t a pp lic ation
proc essing a t p a rticular stage s, and , if the ap p lica tion is
successful, execution of the registry agreement and
sub seq uent o b liga tions as a gTLD registry op erator, as
de sc ribed in the follow ing pa rag rap hs.
Obje c tion / Dispute Resolution All ap p lic ants shou ld
understand that a forma l objection ma y be filed ag ainst
any a pp lica tion o n c omm unity grounds, even if the
app lic ant has not d esignate d itself as c om munity-ba sed or
de c lared the gTLD to be aimed at a pa rtic ular co mmunity.
Refer to Mod ule 3, Objec tion Proc ed ures.
String Contention Resolution o f string c ont ent ion ma y
include o ne or more co mp onents, de pe nding on the
c omp osition of the c ontention set a nd the elections ma de
by c omm unity-ba sed ap plic ants.
A settlement be tween the p arties ca n occ ur at any
time a fter cont ent ion is identified . The p a rties w ill be
enc ourag ed to me et with an objec tive to settle the
c ontention. Applic ants in c ontention a lwa ys have
the op portunity to resolve the c onte ntion
voluntarily, resulting in the withdrawal of one or
more a pp lica tions, before reac hing the c ontentionresolution sta ge.
A com munity priority evaluation will take plac e o nly
if a c omm unity-ba sed ap plic ant in a c ontention set
elec ts this op tion. All com munity-based ap plica nts
in a c onte ntion set w ill be offered t his op tion in the
eve nt tha t there is c onte ntion rem aining afte r the
ap plica tions have suc c essfully c om p leted all
previous evaluation stages.
An auction will result for ca ses of c on ten tion no t
resolved by c om munity priority eva luation or
ag reem ent b etw een the pa rties. Auction oc c urs asa con tention resolution me ans of last resort. If a
c om munity priority eva luation oc c urs but d oes not
produc e a c lea r winner, an a uction will take p lac e
to resolve the c onte ntion.
Refe r to Module 4, String Co ntention Proc ed ures, for
detailed discussions of contention resolution procedures.
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
31/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-27
Contract Execution and Post-Delegation A c om munity-
ba sed ap plic ant will be subject to c ertain po st-de leg ation
c ontrac tua l ob liga tions to ope ra te the g TLD in a ma nner
c onsistent w ith the restric tions assoc iate d w ith its
community-based designation. Material changes to the
co ntrac t, including c hang es to the c omm unity-ba sedna ture of the g TLD and any assoc iate d p rov isions, ma y only
be ma de w ith ICANNs ap prova l. The d ete rmination of
whethe r to ap prove cha nges req uested b y the app lic ant
w ill be a t ICANNs d isc ret ion. Prop osed c riteria for
ap proving such c hang es are the subjec t of p olic y
d isc ussions.
Com munity-ba sed ap plic ations are intende d to be a
na rrow c at eg ory, for ap p lica tions whe re the re a re
unamb iguo us assoc iations am ong the ap plica nt, the
c om munity served , and t he a pp lied -for gTLD string .
Eva luation of an app licant s de signation a s c om munity-
ba sed will oc c ur only in the event o f a c onte ntion situationthat results in a community priority evaluation. However,
any a pp lic ant de signa ting its ap plic ation a s c omm unity-
ba sed will, if the a pp lic ation is ap proved, be bo und b y the
reg istry agreem ent to imp lement the c om munity-based
restric tions it has spec ified in the app lic a tion . This is true
even if there a re no c ontend ing a pp lic ants.
1.2.3.3 Changes to Application Designation
An a pp lica nt ma y not c hang e its de signa tion a s stand ard
or co mm unity-based onc e it ha s submitted a gTLD
ap plica tion for proc essing.
1.2.4 Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issueswith New gTLDs
All app lica nts should be aw are that a pp rova l of an
ap plica tion and e ntry into a registry ag reeme nt with
ICANN do not g ua rant ee tha t a ne w g TLD will immed iately
function througho ut the Internet. Past expe rienc e indica tes
tha t netw ork op erators ma y not imme diat ely fully suppo rt
new to p-level dom ains, eve n when these dom a ins have
be en d eleg at ed in the DNS roo t zone , since third-party
softwa re mo dific ation ma y be required and ma y not
happ en immed iately.
Simila rly, softw are a pp lic a tions som et imes a tte mp t to
valida te do ma in name s and ma y not rec og nize new o r
unknown top -leve l doma ins. ICANN ha s no a uthority or
ab ility to req uire tha t softwa re a c ce pt ne w to p-level
do ma ins, a lthough it does p rom inently pub lic ize w hich top -
level do ma ins are valid and has de veloped a ba sic tool to
8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
32/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-28
assist a pp lic a tion p roviders in the use o f c urrent roo t-zone
data.
ICANN e nc ourages app lic an ts to fam ilia rize them selves
with the se issues and ac c ount for them in the ir sta rtup and
launc h plans. Suc c essful app lic ants ma y find them selvesexpend ing c onsiderab le efforts wo rking with p rovide rs to
ac hieve ac c ep tanc e of their new top -level doma ins.
Applicants should review
http:// ww w.ica nn.org/ en/ top ics/ TLD-ac c ep tanc e/fo r
ba c kground . IDN ap p lic ants should a lso review t he
ma terial conc erning experienc es w ith IDN test strings in the
roo t zone (see http://idn.icann.org/).
1.2.5 Notice concerning TLD Delegations
ICANN is only a b le to c rea te TLDs as deleg a tions in the DNS
roo t zone, expressed using NS rec ords with a ny
c orrespond ing DS rec ords and glue rec ords. There is no
policy e nab ling ICANN to p lac e TLDs as other DNS rec ord
types (such as A, MX, or DNAME records) in the root zone.
1.2.6 Terms and Conditions
All ap plica nts must a gree to a standard set of Terms and
Co nd itions for the app lic a tion p roc ess. The Terms and
Cond itions are a va ilable in Mod ule 6 of this guide bo ok.
1.2.7 Notice of Changes to Information
If at any t ime during the eva luation p roc ess information
previously subm itted by a n a pp lic ant be c ome s untrue o rinac c urat e, the ap plica nt must promp tly notify ICANN via
sub mission of the a pprop ria te fo rms. This inc ludes
ap plica nt-spe c ific informat ion suc h as change s in financ ia l
po sition a nd c hang es in owne rship or control of the
applicant.
ICANN reserves the right to req uire a re-eva luation of the
ap plica tion in the eve nt of a m at erial cha nge . This c ould
involve a dd itional fees or eva luation in a subseq uent
ap plic ation round.
Failure to notify ICANN of a ny change in c irc umstanc es
that wo uld rende r any informa tion p rovided in the
ap plica tion false or mislead ing ma y result in d enial of the
application.
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD-acceptance/http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD-acceptance/http://idn.icann.org/http://idn.icann.org/http://idn.icann.org/http://www.icann.org/en/topics/TLD-acceptance/8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
33/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-29
1.2.8 Voluntary Designation for High SecurityZones
An ICANN stakeholde r group ha s c onsidered d eve lopm ent
of a possible spec ial designa tion fo r "High Sec urity Zone
Top Leve l Dom a ins ( HSTLDs ).The group s Final Rep ortca n be found at http:// www .ica nn.org/ en/top ics/ new-gt lds/ hstld-final-rep ort-11ma r11-en.pd f.
The Final Rep ort ma y be used to inform furthe r work. ICANN
will suppo rt inde pe ndent efforts tow a rd d eve loping
vo lunta ry high-sec urity TLD designa tions, which may be
ava ilab le to g TLD ap p lic ants w ishing to pursue suc h
designations.
1.2.9 Security and StabilityRoo t Zone Sta b ility: There ha s bee n signific ant stud y,
ana lysis, and c onsultation in prepa rat ion for launch o f the
New gTLD Prog ram, indica ting tha t the add ition o f gTLDs tothe root zone will not ne ga tively imp ac t the sec urity or
sta b ility of t he DNS.
It is estima ted tha t 200-300 TLDs will be deleg a ted annua lly,
and dete rmined that in no ca se w ill mo re tha n 1000 new
gTLDs be ad ded to t he root zone in a yea r. The d elega tion
rat e analysis, co nsultations with the tec hnica l co mm unity,
and anticipate d normal operational upgrad e c ycles all
lead to the conc lusion that the ne w g TLD de lega tions will
have no signific an t imp ac t on the stability of the root
system . Mod eling and rep orting will co ntinue d uring, a nd
after, the first application round so that root-scalingdisc ussions c an c ontinue and the de lega tion rat es c an b e
ma nag ed as the program go es forwa rd.
All app lic ants should be aw are that d elega tion of a ny new
gTLDs is c ond itional on the continued absenc e o f
signific ant neg at ive imp ac t on the sec urity or sta bility of
the DNS and the roo t zone system (inc luding the p roc ess
for de lega ting TLDs in the root zone). In the event tha t
there is a rep orted impa c t in this reg ard a nd p roc essing of
app lic a tions is de layed , the a pplica nts will be no tified in an
orderly and timely ma nner.
1.2.10 Resources for Applicant Assistance
A va riety of sup port resources a re a va ilab le to g TLD
app lic ants. For exam p le, ICANN is esta b lishing a me ans for
providing financ ia l assistanc e to eligible ap plica nts,
throug h a p roc ess indep end ent of this Guide bo ok. In
ad dition, ICANN will maintain a we bp ag e a s an
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/hstld-final-report-11mar11-en.pdf8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
34/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-30
informa tiona l resource fo r app lic ants see king a ssista nc e,
and organizations offering support. More information will
be ava ilab le o n ICANNs we bsite a t
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm .8
1.2.11 Updates to the Applicant Guidebook
As app rove d b y the ICANN Boa rd o f Direc to rs, this
Guid eb oo k forms the basis of the New gTLD Prog ram.
ICANN reserves the right to ma ke reasona ble upd at es and
c hang es to the App lic ant Guideb ook at any time,
including as the possible result of new technical standards,
referenc e d oc uments, or polic ies that m ight b e a do pte d
during the c ourse o f the a pp lic a tion proc ess. Any suc h
updates or rev isions will be p osted o n ICANNs web site.
1.3 Information for InternationalizedDomain Name Applicants
Som e a pp lied -for gTLD strings a re expec ted to b e
Inte rna tiona lized Dom a in Nam es (IDNs). IDNs are dom ain
nam es including c harac ters used in the loc a l
rep resenta tion of languag es not w ritten w ith the b asic
La tin alphabet (a - z), Europea n-Arab ic d igits (0 - 9), and
the hyphen (-). As desc ribed b elow , IDNs req uire the
insertion o f A-lab els into the DNS roo t zone.
1.3.1 IDN-Specific Requirements
An a pplica nt for an IDN string must p rovide informationindica ting c omp lianc e with the IDNA protoc ol and othe r
tec hnica l req uirem ents. The IDNA protoc ol and its
doc umentation can be found at
http://icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htm.
Ap p lic ants must p rov ide app lied -for gTLD strings in the form
of both a U-label (the IDN TLD in loc a l cha rac te rs) and an
A-label.
An A -label is the ASCII form of a n IDN label. Eve ry IDN A-
lab el be gins with the IDNA ACE p refix, xn--, follow ed by a
string t ha t is a va lid o utput of the Punycod e a lgorithm,
ma king a ma ximum of 63 tota l ASCII c harac ters in leng th.The p refix and string tog ether must c onfo rm to a ll
req uirem ents for a lab el that c an be stored in the DNS
including c onformanc e to the LDH (host na me) rule
described in RFC 1034, RFC 1123, and elsew here.
8The Joint SO/AC New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group is currently developing recommendations for support resources that
may be available to gTLD applicants. Information on these resources will be published on the ICANN website once identified.
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htmhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htmhttp://icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htmhttp://icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htmhttp://icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htmhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm8/4/2019 Gtld Registration Manual
35/291
Module 1Introduction to the gTLD Application Process
Applicant Guidebook | version 2011-09-191-31
A U-label is the Unic od e form o f an IDN lab el, wh ich a user
expec ts to see d isplayed in applica tions.
For exa mple, using the c urren t IDN test string in Cyrillic
sc rip t, the U-label is and the A-labe l is . An A-lab el must be c ap ab le of be ingprod uc ed by c onve rsion from a U-labe l and a U-lab el must
be ca pa ble of being produc ed by c onversion from a n A-
label.
Ap p licants for IDN gTLDs will also b e req uired to p rovide the
follow ing a t the time of the a pp lica tion:
1. Me aning or resta teme nt o f string in Eng lish. The
ap plica nt will provide a short desc ription of wha t the
string wo uld me an o r rep resent in Eng lish.
2. Langua ge of lab el (ISO 639-1). The a pp lic ant w ill
spe c ify the langua ge of the ap plied-for gTLD string,
bo th ac c ording to the ISO c od es for the representa tionof na me s of language s, and in Eng lish.
3. Sc ript of lab el (ISO 15924). The app lic ant w ill spec ify the
sc ript o f the app lied -for gTLD string, bo th a c c ording to
the ISO c od es for the representa tion of na me s of
sc rip ts, and in Eng lish.
4. Unicod e c od e p oints. The a pplica nt w ill list a ll the c od e
po ints conta ined in the U-lab el ac c ording to its
Unicod e form.
5. Ap p lic ants must further dem onstrat e tha t they ha ve
ma de rea sonab le e fforts to e nsure tha t the e nco de d
IDN string d oes not c ause a ny rend ering or op erationa l
p rob lems. For examp le, p rob lems have b ee n identified
in strings w ith cha rac te rs of m ixed right-to -left a nd left-
to-right d irec tionality when numera ls are adjac ent to
the p a th sep arato r (i.e., the d ot).9
If an app lic ant is app lying for a string w ith known issues,
it should d oc ume nt step s tha t will be ta ken to mitigat e
the se issues in app lic a tions. While it is no t p ossible to
ensure t hat a ll rend ering prob lems are a voide d , it is
imp ortant t ha t a s ma ny as po ssible a re identified ea rly
and tha t the p ote ntial reg istry operato r is aw a re o f
these issues. App lic ant s c an be c om e fam ilia r with
these issues by und ersta nd ing the IDNA p rotoc ol (see
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htm), and b y
ac tive p artic ipa tion in the IDN wiki (see
http://idn.icann.org/) whe re som e rend ering p rob lems
are de monstrate d.
9See examples athttp://stupid.domain.name/node/683
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htmhttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/rfcs.htmhttp://idn.icann.org/http://idn.icann.org/http://stupid.doma