Description of TLD Policies




I. GENERAL TLD POLICIES (Required for all TLDs. Note that two special policy areas--policies during the start-up period and restrictions on who may register within the TLD and for what purpose--are covered in sections II and III below.)


E1. In General. Please provide a full and detailed description of all policies to be followed in the TLD (other than those covered in response to items E11-E21). If the TLD's policy on a particular topic is proposed to be identical to that reflected by a particular version of any of the following documents, it is sufficient for your response to identify the topic, to give a brief summary of the policy, and for the details to reference the document and section:


             ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement

             NSI Registrar License and Agreement

             ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement

             Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy


   Your response should comprehensively describe policies on all topics to be followed in connection with the proposed TLD. The following items (E2-E10) are examples only and should not limit your description.


KDDISOL recognizes that the following issues are in need of change or improvement in order to promote/support the global evolution of IT:

§            Lack of domain names for registrants

§            Intellectual property disputes

§            Difficulties experienced by Internet users in finding the "right" domain name

§            Lack of competition at the gTLD registry level

It is KDDISOL’s view that the best way to improve the above situations is to efficiently incorporate the existing policies as the base of new TLD policies while adopting new policy elements directed at improving the overall system.   This approach is consistent with our belief that instituting change within a complex environment of an otherwise workable system should be carried out in a very careful and deliberate fashion.  We would be skeptical of any untested potential gTLD registry operator that purports to appreciate the complexities inherent in the current system sufficiently to specifically identify how they would implement broad programmatic changes.  We believe it is necessary to "get your feet wet" before you swim in the deep water.  We appreciate ICANN's interest in soliciting as much information as possible from potential registry operators, but hope that the selection process will focus primarily on the registry's technical and financial capabilities as well as its actual operating experience in dealing with technological complexity.


For purposes of the initial period of KDDISOL’s TLD administration, we have chosen to adopt the basic policy configuration currently in place between ICANN, the various ICANN accredited registrars and the NSI registry.  We anticipate the development and utilization of a set of documents that will clearly articulate the basic responsibilities of the registry. Such documents are expected to include those similar to the following:


·  Registrar Accreditation Agreement

As it is our intent to use ICANN-accredited registrars in the marketing of our new gTLDs, we will respectfully request that the ICANN amended its Registrar Accreditation Agreements to include our gTLDs. 

·  ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement

It is anticipated that KDDISOL and ICANN will enter into a registry agreement similar to the ICANN-NSI registry agreement dated November 10, 1999.  We believe that a “Consensus Policy” as defined in the aforementioned document to be reasonable and proper for ICANN’s oversight of our proposed gTLDs.  We have no objections to the general obligations set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that agreement.  Unless otherwise noted, we expect to execute an agreement with ICANN which will cover the following issues in a manner consistent with that set forth in the ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement noted above:

1.            "Protection from Burdens of Compliance with ICANN and Policies"

2.            "NSI Registry-Level Financial Support of ICANN"

3.            "Data Escrow"

4.            "NSI Handling of Personal Data"

5.            "Publication by NSI of Registry Data"

6.            "Rights in Data"

7.            "Limitation of Liability"

8.            "Specific Performance"

9.            "Resolution of Disputes under This Agreement"

10.       "Termination"

11.       "Assignment"

12.       "Relationship to Cooperative Agreement between NSI and U.S. Government".  As to this paragraph, we're uncertain the extent to which our operation of the registry for new gTLDs will involve a direct relationship with the U.S. Government and therefore are uncertain as to this paragraph's applicability.

13.       "NSI Agreements with Registrars"   This paragraph seems to be uniquely applicable to NSI.

14.       "Performance and Functional Specifications for Registry Services"

15.       "Bulk Access to Zone Files"

16.       "Price for Registry Services"

17.       "Designation of Successor Registry"

·   Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy

We endorse the “Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy" as approved by ICANN on Oct. 24th 1999. Again, we would respectfully request ICANN to amend this document to include our new gTLDs.



E2. TLD String. Please identify the TLD string(s) you are proposing. For format requirements for TLD strings, see the answer to FAQ #5.


We are hereby respectfully requesting that the following TLD strings be reserved for KDD:

§         .biz

§         .home

The reasons why these strings are chosen are as follows;


- By adopting very generic TLD strings, registrants will have ample options for registration of domain names with global sense (not restricted by sub-domain) comparable to existing gTLDs.  .biz may be used to express global business feeling.  .home could be used similarly to the word of “homepage”.

- By using second level freely, registrants could include a specific characteristic (e.g. without introducing sub-domains.


As will be set forth elsewhere in this document, it is our opinion that these TLD strings, administered by KDDISOL, will provide a new level of competition to the existing gTLDs and that such competition will have positive consumer implications and significantly enhance the utility of the Internet to the global community.



E3. Naming conventions. Describe the naming conventions and structure within the TLD. E.g., will registrants have names registered at the second level (directly under the TLD, as in, or will the TLD be organized with sub-domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in


A registered name is set into the second level.

i.e. (a new TLD)


It is our intent to maintain the current system for naming conventions to keep maximum flexibility in registrant’s selection of a domain name. 

Please note that we are very much interested in promoting the issue of multilingualism within the Internet.  Should our new gTLDs proposal be successful, we anticipate playing an active role with ICANN and related organizations in an effort to make the Internet more accessible to the non-English speaking world. 


E4. Registrars. Describe in detail the policies for selection of, and competition among, registrars.  Will domain-name holders deal through registrars, directly with the registry operator, or some combination of the two? What are the respective roles, functions, and responsibilities for the registry operator and registrars? If registrars are to be employed, how and by whom will they be selected or accredited? If the number of registrars will be restricted, what number of registrars will be selected? Have the qualifying registrars already been selected? On what basis will selections among those seeking to be registrars be made, and who will make them? If registrars are to be used, what mechanisms will be used to ensure that TLD policies are implemented?


It is our intent to utilize the current group of ICANN accredited registrars.  As to the operational relationship between ourselves and these registrars, we do not anticipate any measurable change from the current registry/registrar relationships.  As will be set forth in more detail herein, we envision several phases within the initial gTLDs award period.  These phases are characterized by a measured and carefully controlled transition from the services which will be provided primarily by our subcontractor, NSI, to an overall operation controlled by KDDISOL.

During phase two of our operation of the new gTLDs, we intend to implement alternative registration procedures which procedures will more adequately address the changing nature of the Internet and particularly the very large, and currently underserved and economically disadvantaged community in Asia. This will be accomplished by working with governments, educational institutions and industrial organizations throughout the world, but particularly in Asia, to implement registration procedures which significantly expand the existing internet community.  We anticipate implementing, for example, a system that may not be denominated in U.S. dollars and is likely to incorporate less stringent economic requirements on our registrar/agent customers.  The technical standards applicable to registrar/agent accreditation will remain high. Of course, it is our assumption that ICANN will participate through its oversight responsibilities and in other ways currently difficult to predict.


E5. Intellectual Property Provisions. Describe the policies for protection of intellectual property. Your response should address at least the following questions, as appropriate to the TLD:


As an overall matter we would like to state that we are cognizant of and sensitive to issues concerning intellectual property.  It is our objective to be as responsive as practicable in recognizing and accommodating the concerns of various government and international organizations and others who have expressed concerns relating to the protection of intellectual property in new gTLDs.


E5.1. What measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe intellectual property rights?

We expect to implement reasonable procedures to discourage the registration of domain names that might infringe intellectual property rights.  To accomplish this, we will work closely with our registrars and others to determine the most appropriate methodology.

E5.2. If you are proposing pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations, how will the pre-screening be performed?

In the initial stages of our TLD administration, we expect to employ procedures similar to that which are currently in place and administered by NSI.  To the extent that we consider such procedures to be reasonable and effective, we would anticipate extending them into phase two.  Such decisions, however, will not be taken unilaterally. We anticipate soliciting the views of ICANN and others in setting reasonable and consistent procedures governing this matter.

E5.3. What registration practices will be employed to minimize abusive registrations?

With regard to registration practices that will be employed to minimize abusive registrations, we intend to implement the existing set of procedures currently applicable to .com, .net and .org.

E5.4. What measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation?

We expect to fully comply with whatever applicable trademark and anti-cybersquatting legislation that might be enacted during the course of our TLD administration.

E5.5. Are you proposing any special protections (other than during the start-up period) for famous trademarks?

One of the guiding principles associated with this proposal is that we intend to operate the registry as efficiently and as effectively as possible and to provide the global Internet community with the highest level of service and reliability.  In this context, it is not immediately apparent to us that it would be in the interest of that community to institute significantly different operating policies than are currently in place.  We, therefore, expect to limit the number of differentiating concepts as compared to existing systems.  Although we believe the issue of intellectual property to be extremely important, we think that the settlement of such matters should be negotiated and adopted by all registries.

E5.6. How will complete, up-to-date, reliable, and conveniently provided Whois data be maintained, updated, and accessed concerning registrations in the TLD?

We intend to coordinate with registrars to implement appropriate procedure between registrars and registrants for keeping relevant Whois data updated.


E6. Dispute Resolution. Describe the policies for domain name and other dispute resolution. If you are proposing variations to the policies followed in .com, .net, and .org, consider the following questions:


It is our intent to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy as set forth in section E1, above.

E6.1. To what extent are you proposing to implement the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy?

E6.2. Please describe any additional, alternative, or supplemental dispute resolution procedures you are proposing.


E7. Data Privacy, Escrow, and Whois. Describe the proposed policies on data privacy, escrow and Whois service.


Our intent is to maintain the current level of activities except for the policy to enhance the utility of Whois.  The points of modifications to Whois are as follows;


- A registrant may provide additional attributes (e.g. key words for business category, short advertisement of relevant business) to Whois.  Whois shall be able to accommodate those attributes.

- A registrant has a right to choose whether each information associated with his domain name can be open to Internet community through Whois or not.  Whois shall be able to handle the open/close option.

- Whois shall be able to search and list-up domain name data by using sub-string match with domain name or any attributes.


By the modifications to Whois, Whois becomes more powerful tool like telephone directory for the Internet community while keeping the basic function to check the availability of a domain name.  (Although a registrant may choose the option not to open his domain name to the Internet community, an Internet user can perform the availability check using Whois.  This means that Whois does not list-up the domain names not open for public view, however the availability check (=exact string match) can be performed as currently done.)


E8. Billing and Collection. Describe variations in or additions to the policies for billing and collection.


KDD has many years of experience working with international customers of its telecom business. Such experience should prove both applicable and beneficial in TLD administration.  Aside from this long and successful history, billing and collection matters will be established based on the terms and conditions specified in agreements we intend to negotiate with existing ICANN accredited registrars.  Such conditions are not anticipated to be different from those currently applicable to such registrars.


E9. Services and Pricing. What registration services do you propose to establish charges for and, for each such service, how much do you propose to charge?


- Registry services


The registry accepts registrations and registration service requests from all accredited, licensed registrars, while protecting the integrity of registrations from unauthorized access and interference by third parties. Every new domain name application is checked to ensure that the domain name is not already registered.  This function demands exceptional speed and accuracy to confirm registrations definitively and to arbitrate near-simultaneous requests for the same domain name.


Domain name registrations and name servers, including domain name, name servers, IP address, registrar name, transfer date, registration period, expiration date, status, registration creation date, created by, updated date, and updated by information are maintained by the registry.  The regis­try is the authoritative source for its TLD zone file content (i.e., domain name, name server, and associated IP address).  This is commonly referred to a “thin” registry model.  The registrar of the particular domain name or name server maintains all other customer data.  This protects customer privacy, gives greater flexibility to registrars, and allows them to determine their business model. KDDISOL will have a formal con­tractual relationship with each individual registrar accredited for registering domain names in their new TLDs.


The registry database used to support inquiries to identify the registrar associated with a specific domain name is currently called “Whois.”  Whois enables registrars and potential registrants to establish the availability for registration of selected domain names.  Internet users also use it to identify the registrar controlling a domain name.


Registration of a domain name or name server in the registry database does not automatically create entries in the Internet DNS. For this to occur, a zone file associating all registered domain names with their corresponding IP addresses is generated and exported to the DNS root servers for the TLDs.  KDDISOL will operate and maintain distributed root servers to which the zone file is exported and from which the domain name information is dis­seminated to the Internet community.


To enable close to 100% Registry availability, multiple data­base servers are used, with off-site backup to protect against catastrophic data loss.  Redundancy is found at almost every level within the registry to ensure high-availability of the systems and applications for the registrars.


The Shared Registry System (SRS) provides equivalent access to all registrar domain names in the new gTLDs administered by KDDISOL.  Registrars access the system through Registry-Registrar Protocol (RRP), an Application Programming Interface (API) specifically designed to support the SRS.  The SRS ensures that all registrars will receive consistent, equivalent access to the Registry that KDDISOL will construct. SRS includes the Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP), which is used to support communications between the Registry and Registrars, and provides the security and authentication functions to protect the registry database while supporting all necessary registrar operations.  RRP is also used during the certification process for accredited registrars for operational testing and evaluation of registrar implementations of the RRP prior to commencement of actual registrar operations.  KDDISOL will be responsible for providing the RRP software interfaces, documentation, and training to accredited registrars for the new gTLDs.  Hands-on technical support to new registrars should be available from KDDISOL to assist them in resolv­ing difficulties in successful inter­facing with the registry.


External Public Services com­prise the Registration, Resolution and Whois service.

The Registration service enables registrars or agents to register domain names, and provides the follow­ing functions:


- Add—register a domain name or domain name server

- Check—check availability of a domain name or name server

- Delete—delete a domain name or name server

- Describe—give general infor­mation to the registrar about RRP

- Modify—update a domain name or name server

- Quit—close RRP session

- Renew—extend the registration period of a domain name

- Session—create an RRP session

- Status—query a domain name or name server

- Transfer—transfer a domain name from one registrar to another.

The Resolution service enables Internet users to access and use domain names already registered.

The Whois service allows Internet users to query the Whois database for domain name availability and ownership.



- Pricing


We expect to implement a multi-stage pricing program.  It assumes that during Phase 1 the initial registration fee will be US$9 and will be reduced by various amounts until the beginning of Phase 2 at which point our registration fee will be US$6.  With an aggressive marketing program and highly effective customer service, we expect to provide a significant level of competition to other registry operators. 



E10. Other. Please describe any policies concerning topics not covered by the above questions.


Digital divide : During the course of our TLD administration a fundamental objective is to administer and develop our program in such a way as to encourage more widespread use of the Internet with users’ greater satisfaction by improving the current TLD environment.  Presently, the Internet is simply unavailable to a large portion of the world's population.  This needs to change.  In order to promote such change it will be necessary to make adjustments to the current system.  Working with the governments of Japan and other relatively well-off nations, and industrial organizations interested in issues associated with the "digital divide", we expect to implement registration policies which make the Internet more accessible to otherwise economically disadvantaged persons.  The fact that KDD is a large and respected Asian-based corporation, will contribute significantly to enhancing the geopolitical acceptability of the existing Internet system and thereby provide a measure of security and stability to the overall system.  The precise form of the measures which we intend to introduce will largely depend on the outcome of discussions and negotiations with the aforementioned third parties.  In this sense, our response to this issue is not unlike that which will be applied to many other policy or technical matters applicable to our administration of the new gTLD.  Established in 1953, KDD has been one of the largest telecommunications companies in the Asia-Pacific region with international connectivity significantly greater than any other organization.  To a large extent this success has been a function of the incorporation of sound financial and technical policies.  These policies are developed with careful attention to their impacts measured from both a social and an economic point of view.  It is with this same careful and deliberate attention that we intend to implement policies and strategies which will benefit our customers and the world Internet community.

As a potential way to contribute solving the “digital divide” issues, there is a possibility that a kind of Whois portal be built by integrating/linking individual registries’ “Whois”, and a part of revenue from advertisers through the portal is effectively used for the purpose.




E11. In this section, you should thoroughly describe all policies (including implementation details) that you propose to follow during the start-up phase of registrations in the TLD, to the extent they differ from the General TLD Policies covered in items E1-E9. The following questions highlight some of the areas that should be considered for start-up policies:


E12. How do you propose to address the potential rush for registration at the initial opening of the TLD? How many requested registrations do you project will be received by the registry operator within the first day, week, month, and quarter? What period do you believe should be considered the TLD's "start-up period," during which special procedures should apply?

Because we will be using the NSI Registry for our “back office” during the start-up phase of our new gTLD, we do not anticipate operational impediments created by a rush of new registrations. Our estimate of new registrations during the first year ranges from 223k to 805k and is set forth  in section D13.2.5. Our operational assumption is that our start-up period will be roughly one year.


E13. Do you propose to place limits on the number of registrations per registrant? Per registrar? If so, how will these limits be implemented?

Aside from policies which might be implemented regarding the issue of intellectual property, it is not our current intention to place limits on the number of registrations per registrant.


E14. Will pricing mechanisms be used to dampen a rush for registration at the initial opening of the TLD? If so, please describe these mechanisms in detail.

It is our intent to implement a pricing policy that establishes a price during our start-up phase that will be somewhat higher than the amount that will apply during the remainder of the term of our new gTLD administration.


E15. Will you offer any "sunrise period" in which certain potential registrants are offered the opportunity to register before registration is open to the general public? If so, to whom will this opportunity be offered (those with famous marks, registered trademarks, second-level domains in other TLDs, pre-registrations of some sort, etc.)? How will you implement this?

It is not our intention to implement a “sunrise period” considering the priority to keep uniform condition for all the registrants.  However, should ICANN articulate a clear policy regarding this matter, KDDISOL is prepared to coordinate a way of implementation of such a policy.


III. REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS (Required for restricted TLDs only)


E16. As noted in the New TLD Application Process Overview, a restricted TLD is one with enforced restrictions on (1) who may apply for a registration within the domain, (2) what uses may be made of those registrations, or (3) both. In this section, please describe in detail the restrictions you propose to apply to the TLD. Your description should define the criteria to be employed, the manner in which you propose they be enforced, and the consequences of violation of the restrictions. Examples of matters that should be addressed are:


E16. through E21.  – Not applicable to KDD’s application


E17. Describe in detail the criteria for registration in the TLD. Provide a full explanation of the reasoning behind the specific policies chosen.

E18. Describe the application process for potential registrants in the TLD.

E19. Describe the enforcement procedures and mechanisms for ensuring registrants meet the registration requirements.

E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.

E21. Describe any procedure that permits third parties to seek cancellation of a TLD registration for failure to comply with restrictions.




E22. This section is intended to allow you to describe the benefits of the TLD and the reasons why it would benefit the global Internet community or some segment of that community. Issues you might consider addressing include:


By introducing new gTLDs, the situation of lack of domain names for registrants and competition at the gTLD level will be improved.

We believe it to be of fundamental importance that new gTLDs be introduced and administered by non-American entities. The world community is served not only by the introduction of new TLDs but by the perception, and reality, of making the internet truly a world medium. The selection of KDDISOL to administer new gTLDs will benefit the global Internet community from both a technical and a geopolitical point of view.


E23. What will distinguish the TLD from existing or other proposed TLDs? How will this distinction be beneficial?


By adopting very generic TLD strings, registrants will have ample options for registration of domain names with global sense (not restricted by sub-domain) comparable to existing gTLDs.  .biz may be used to express global business feeling.  .home could be used similarly to the word of “homepage”.

KDD’s history in international communications makes it a solid choice for an Asian-based registry.


E24. What community and/or market will be served or targeted by this TLD? To what extent is that community or market already served by the DNS?


The market for our proposed gTLDs is worldwide, however, and our international marketing capabilities will significantly aid in developing a TLD competitive with the existing complement.  We expect this to be particularly applicable within the Asian market where there has been relatively lower penetration than in the West.

It is our intention to promote/support creation of more registrars in Asian/Pacific area.


E25. Please describe in detail how your proposal would enable the DNS to meet presently unmet needs.


Assuming that .biz and .home functions similar to .com, adding the new gTLDs will increase perhaps more than 50% of the number of domain names using existing gTLDs.  It will also provide an opportunity to acquire a legitimate SLD which is currently unavailable in the existing market.

Moreover, since the proposed modifications to Whois may be realized for .biz and .home in a sophisticated fashion, .biz and .home will have superior features than other gTLDs have. 


E26. How would the introduction of the TLD enhance the utility of the DNS for Internet users? For the community served by the TLD?


DNS utilities will be enhanced as a direct result of introducing additional registries for gTLDs in terms of system diversity.  It is also affected by the geographical dispersion of DNS files thereby enhancing the overall security of Internet system.


E27. How would the proposed TLD enhance competition in domain-name registration services, including competition with existing TLD registries?


Competition will be enhanced as a direct result of adding alternatives to the existing complement of gTLDs. Such competition will however, be significantly affected as a function of the actual capabilities of the chosen registry.  We believe that the selection of KDDISOL will provide significantly enhanced levels of competition as a direct result of corporate capabilities and institutional history.  It is difficult, therefore, to separate and analyze issues relating to the competitive impacts of specific new gTLDs from the question of who will actually act as their registry. It is essential that any new registries for gTLDs be selected from international oriented and highly capable companies with established track records.  This is particularly the case for non-American registries.  To firmly establish a competitive balance between the existing registry and any new registries, it is absolutely essential that the Internet community have a high degree of confidence in the selected registries.  Such confidence is not easily obtained. 




E28. Recent experience in the introduction of new TLDs is limited in some respects. The current program of establishing new TLDs is intended to allow evaluation of possible additions and enhancements to the DNS and possible methods of implementing them. Stated differently, the current program is intended to serve as a "proof of concept" for ways in which the DNS might evolve in the longer term. This section of the application is designed to gather information regarding what specific concept(s) could be evaluated if the proposed TLD is  introduced, how you propose the evaluation should be done, and what information would be learned that might  be instructive in the long-term management of the DNS. Well-considered and articulated responses to this section will be positively viewed in the selection process. Matters you should discuss in this section include:


§            System stability - the question here is whether the new gTLD registry preserved the stability of Internet.

§            Lack of available domain names - if there is a significant increase in the number of registrations for gTLDs this would clearly indicate the satisfaction of pent-up demand. Also, if there are visible shifts in the distribution of new registrations from the current complement of gTLDs to the new gTLDs, this too, would be indicative of pent-up demand satisfaction.

§            Upgrading of the "Whois" function - if the number of queries increases when the "Whois" function is upgraded, this would indicate an improvement in utility.

§            Acceptance of the new gTLDs - the issue here is the extent to which the new gTLDs gains public acceptance.  This particular evaluation criteria involves both the utility of the new gTLDs to the public as well as the impact it may have had vis-à-vis the current complement of gTLDs.

§            Geographical diversification - Did the new gTLDs contribute to the geographical diversification of the Internet system?  Did the registry make an effort to reach out to potential Internet users not previously considered a significant market sector?


E29. What concepts are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of this TLD in the manner you propose?


The most significant concept which should be proven in connection with the initial award of new gTLDs, is a combination of technical and geopolitical matter.  In the first instance, it is necessary to demonstrate the ability of non-American registries to technically administer and manage the system.  Next we believe it to be critically important to the global Internet community that the basic system not be seen as an extension of U.S. political and economic power.


E30. How do you propose that the results of the introduction should be evaluated? By what criteria should the success or lack of success of the TLD be evaluated?


As set forth in paragraphs E28 and E29, above, the criteria denominating success involves three very fundamental issues, (a) was the registry run in such a way as to preserve the stability of the Internet, (b) was the new gTLDs excepted by its targeted market, and (c) did the registry contribute to the geographical diversity of the Internet system.


E31. In what way would the results of the evaluation assist in the long-range management of the DNS?


The extent to which the gTLDs are introduced by ICANN and they performed well when examined against the criteria set forth in this section, a clear picture should emerge.


E32. Are there any reasons other than evaluation of the introduction process that this particular TLD should be included in the initial introduction?


We believe that the gTLDs set forth herein, administered by KDDISOL, will significantly contribute to improving both the technological and political stability of the existing Internet system.  It is absolutely essential, in our view, that ICANN select strong and geographically diverse registry operator's that have a successful history of dealing in the international marketplace.  The Asian market incorporates so many important factors. It is the fastest-growing segment of the Internet community and its political geography includes widely diverse points of view.  Economically, it represents both the challenge and opportunity.  The opportunity is rather straightforward.  It is the world's largest population center, and it is growing rapidly. The challenge is to develop a level of confidence in the basic structure and administration of the Internet system and to provide it in a reliable and cost-effective way to the widest possible range of potential users.  This will clearly need both economic and technological creativity of the type that KDDISOL is well positioned to provide.



By signing this application through its representative, the Applicant attests that the information contained in this Description of TLD Policies, and all referenced supporting documents, are true and accurate to the best of Applicant's knowledge.







   Tohru Asami____________________

   Name (please print)






   Name of Applicant Entity