This statement is made by Edward Sweeney and Vincent Hamm on behalf of Rathbawn Computers Limited.

Description of TLD Policies

[For sponsored TLDs, this part of the application is to be completed by the sponsoring organization. For unsponsored TLDs, the registry operator should complete this part of the application. Please refer to the Detailed Application Instructions for more information on the requirements for new TLD applications.

The operation of a TLD involves the implementation of policies on a very large number of topics. Applicants are urged to use their response to this part of the application to demonstrate their detailed knowledge of what topics are involved and their careful analysis and clear articulation of the policies they propose on these topics.

Please place the legend "CONFIDENTIAL" on any part of your description that you have listed in item F3.1 of your Statement of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted.

Section III of this application applies only to applicants for restricted TLDs. Ordinarily, restricted TLDs should be sponsored.]

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.)

COMPETITION PRINCIPLES

BACKGROUND

The history of the pricing of domain name registrations has been characterised by the exploitation of monopoly power characterised by high prices and inefficient registries. The leading example is Netsol’s charging regime before the prospect of the appointment of ICANN approved registrars emerged. But it is by no means the only example. Another useful and still current example is Australia, where Melbourne IT currently holds a de facto monopoly over registrations in .au arising from the failure of the cc TLD administrator to appoint other registrars. Melbourne IT is also an ICANN approved registrar. In the competitive market for .com and .net registrations, its prices go as low as AUD 17 (USD 9.18) or perhaps even lower, whereas in .au, it never discounts from its published retail prices of AUD 125 for two years and reseller prices of AUD 100 for two years. These rates equate to USD 33 and USD 27 per year. Thus, Melbourne IT’s prices for its monopoly product are three times the price it charges for its competitive product. Further, its .au registrations are not instantaneous and this indicates that their system is not fully automated even today. Other examples abound. Many of the cc TLD registries are inefficient and do not deliver to their stakeholders the price and service levels which are achievable. This is essentially because they exploit monopoly power.

In the absence of specific legislation controlling prices, antitrust laws do not prohibit the charging of monopoly prices per se. In critical areas such as telecommunications, where incumbent advantage acts contrary to the interests of consumers, legislation to prohibit the extraction of monopoly rents is invariably necessary to protect the interests of consumers.

Partly because development of the internet has outstripped the ability of legislators to act to protect consumers, and partly because no one legislature can effectively mandate conduct for more than one cc TLD, the pricing conduct of cc TLD registries has been unconstrained except by the limits of their monopoly. Hence pricing has been high and will remain high (in comparison to cost) unless and until effective competition is introduced.

The applicants have an established track record in bringing effective price competition to domain name pricing. Capital Networks was a founding member of CORE and an early ICANN approved registrar. Through its TOTALNIC.com Division, Capital Networks LLC pioneered price competition in .com, .net and .org immediately upon commencement of business. Its pricing offers forced the breakdown of what until then appeared to be emerging oligopoly pricing which shadowed Netsol high prices. Capital Networks LLC, of which the applicants are the directors, was the world’s first firm to offer half price .com and .net registrations and it has been a price leader ever since. It remains among the cheapest in terms of untied, non-promotional sales. Other firms advertise cheaper prices but the fine print often involves charges for changing registrars or the domain name sale is promotional. Many apparently cheap registrars tie registration services to other services, such as web hosting. TotalNIC sells domain names without ties of any description and does not impose any costs to protect itself from churn.

The applicants intend that Rathbawn Computers will operate the new TLD registries on the same principles. Although the TLDs will be constrained by other TLDs, and will in turn compete with them, the applicants do not ask ICANN or consumers to trust their statement of intention. Instead Rathbaqwn Computers will offer a unique contractual compact, embodied in the competition rules set forth below. The adoption of these rules means that the registries will be the world leaders in pricing, both in absolute dollar terms and in the establishment of the principle that consumers have the right to purchase domain names for the lowest possible price consistent with the continued viability of the service. We expect that the pricing of the registries will become the industry benchmark.

Once the new TLDs are operating and have achieved more than insubstantial scale, the availability of their prices will lead to a recognition by consumers (and other stakeholders) that the real per unit of registration costs of operating TLD registries are very low. This will lead to public pressure on other TLD registries to lower their prices. It may also lead to the threat of legislation if public pressure is insufficient.

In the case of domain name registrations, the problem of monopoly is exacerbated by the presence of vertical integration. Registries also compete downstream with their customer registrars and therefore have an incentive to increase their customers’ costs and lower their own.

The competition rules set out below will bind Rathbawn Computers not to compete as registrar but to confine itself to operating the registries.

The result of this limitation is that the economic incentives which influence the conduct of the registries change dramatically. A vertically integrated registry has an incentive to limit sales by maintaining high prices. It also has an incentive to limit sales through registrars other than its own registrar. It has an incentive to discourage independent registrars from discounting prices, as such discounts adversely impact its own registrar operations.

A dedicated cost based non discriminating registry has only the incentive of maximising sales through all registrars without discrimination. It has an incentive to facilitate the entry of new registrars, whereas a vertically integrated registry has an incentive to restrict new entry as much as possible.

THE PRINCIPLES

The following principles will form part of the contract between ICANN and Rathbawn Computers as Registrar of each of the Registries for the proposed gTLDs:

1. The registry will offer service to all ICANN approved registrars, which can demonstrate technical compence appointment as registrars.

2. Neither the registry nor any registrar in which any director of the registry holds any interest will compete for registrations as a registrar, thus ensuring that competition is not distorted by market power arising from vertical integration.

3. The registry will not discriminate between registrars in relation to pricing or service levels.

4. The registry will not engage in any conduct which constitutes an abuse of a dominant position.

5. The registry will price registrations on estimated TSLRC (total service long run incremental cost) principles (initially $3 per name per year). The registrar will cause its application of TSLRC principles to be audited bi-annually by Ormsby Rhodes, Dublin and certified to ICANN by the auditor. The application of these principles will lead to registration charges much lower than those of Netsol in .com, .net and .org. In the first two years before TSLRC can be precisely determined, the registry will charge $3 plus any required ICANN contribution per automated registration. The Registry does not expect that the TSLRC price for automated registrations will exceed $3. The Registry expects that the bi-annual review will result in a significant reduction in charges.

6. The Registry will require a contractual commitment from registrars that a registrar which operates a gTLD or a ccTLD registry or for any other reason enjoys a dominant position in any market shall not abuse its dominant position by any conduct in relation to the registration of domain names in any of the TLDs administered by the applicant.

7. Registrars will be prohibited from charging domain name owners any fee for changing registrars except a fee (approved by the Registry or by the CEO of ICANN) strictly limited to the registrar’s actual costs incurred by reason of the change. Substantial breach will be a ground for suspension or cancellation of appointment.

Principles 2 to 5 govern the conduct of the registry. Principle 6 is calculated to ensure that dominant registries or other dominant industry professionals do not use domain registrations in the TLDs as a tool in the abuse of their dominant position. This provision is unnecessary in the USA and in the EC where antitrust legislation also prohibits such conduct, but it has potential application in other jurisdictions without effective antitrust laws. In such jurisdictions, the applicant wishes to be able to ensure that registrations in the TLDs for which it manages the registries serve the interests of promoting competition and are not able to be captured by a dominant firm. Principle 7 is calculated to prevent registrars from abusing market power in the after market of customers of the registrar, who might in the absence of such a provision be effectively prevented from churning to more competitive registrars.

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.

Registrants must accept the UDRP as a binding means of arbitration.

A person who is affected may bring a complaint for arbitration, which arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with WIPO rules.

The Registry will have the right to refuse, and within thirty days of registration, cancel the registration of any domain name which the Registry reasonably considers to convey a false representation of association with a government, establishment or business.

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

See Schedules 1 to 5.

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?

Registrations within the TLDs will be made available through all qualified ICANN approved registrars which demonstrate technical competence. There is no limitation on the maximum number of registrars to be selected. This situation will be reassessed if the number of registrars becomes so great that the efficiency of the registry is compromised. The question of whether the registry’s efficiency is compromised would be determined by the registry operator in conjunction with ICANN. The registry operator guarantees that the number of registrars would not be limited to a number below 1000.

Competition between registrars will be encouraged by a prohibition on the use of the registrar function as an abuse of a dominant position and by a prohibition on any charges above actual costs being imposed for customers wishing to churn to another registrar.

Neither the Registry nor any company in which any of its directors hold any interest will offer registration services in any of the gTLDs. The Registry will be bound by the Competition Principles outlined in this application and by that means, competition between Registrars will not be inhibited by vertical integration of the Registry. The Registry will be bound not to discriminate between Registrars.

Prospective registrants would therefore need to deal with registrars rather than the registry operator.

Registrars are not required to actively enforce TLD policies however they are required to make registrants aware of the TLD policies and it is the responsibility of the registrar to ensure that registrants agree to these policies. The registry will enforce the policies as described.

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:

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

By requiring prospective registrants to submit to the application of the UDRP and binding arbitration by ICANN approved arbitrators subject to WIPO rules, the registration of domain names which infringe intellectual property rights will be discouraged. A 30 day period for cancellation of misleading or misrepresentative names is further discouragement.

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

Other than indicated elsewhere in this application, no additional pre-screening is envisaged.

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

Registrars will be required to make prospective registrants aware of the application of the UDRP and registry policies.

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

As well as providing the facility for trademark holders to utilise the functionality of the UDRP and arbitration process the Registry will, on the basis of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction or an ICANN approved dispute resolution service provider, take such action as the court or the service provider may order in order to ensure compliance with such legislation.

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

The Registry will act on an order of a Court of competent jurisdiction or of an ICANN approved dispute resolution service provider.

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

It is the responsibility of each registrar to provide a functional WHOIS service compliant with RFCs and/or registry guidelines as and when they may become available.

The registry will operate a referral WHOIS containing limited data (eg delegation information and the appropriate registrar’s WHOIS details) similar to the current service operated by NSI at whois.crsnic.net.

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:

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

We do not propose a variation to the current policies governing .com, .net and .org in respect of dispute resolution. We consider that uniformity across gTLDs is an important policy objective.

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

N/A beyond those described elsewhere herein.

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

Registrars are required to publish the details of a registration including admin, technical, billing and zone contacts as well as registrant and delegation details.

Registrants are required to make such information publicly available through their registrar’s WHOIS service in the form described. If registrants for some reason require suppression of personal details this can be achieved by nominating a trustee for that purpose. Such trustee shall be required to comply with all registry policies as if it were the beneficial registrant except in the event that it can identify and conclusively demonstrate the identity of the beneficial registrant. In any event the registry’s right to take action against the registrant of a name shall not be deemed to be affected by virtue of the existence or otherwise of a trustee relationship of this nature.

Registrars are required to provide various information (escrow) as described in the registry operator’s proposal for the purpose of maintaining at the registry a reliable backup record of all registrations for which that registrar is responsible.

The registry is prepared to escrow this information and other relevant information to ICANN should this be required.

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

Registrars will be required to place funds on deposit with the Registry. It is envisaged that payment will be accepted via credit card in addition to check and telegraphic transfers to replenish a registrar’s available credit level.

Allowing payments via credit card will remove some of the barriers to commencement of business which a large number of ICANN approved but inactive registrars appear to have encountered.

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?

Registration of a name is the only operation for which we propose a cost will be levied by the registry.

The registry is prepared to charge at a level equivalent to the long term economic cost of the operation of a domain over time. We estimate that this to will be a figure much lower than current Netsol registry charges in .com, .net and .org. Start up charges will be $3 per domain name per year and it is not expected that TSLRC will exceed $3 for automated registrations/renewals.

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

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We do not consider that there will be an exceptional initial rush in all the TLDs which are the subject of this application, although the registry will be prepared for a rush across them all. The initial demand assumptions are detailed in Schedules 1-5. We estimate that the long term demand for all the TLDs will grow as stakeholders learn of their superior price/quality mix. In aggregate they fall well within the capacity of the registry architecture proposed.

During the first three months the Registry will impose random registrar queueing procedures to ensure fairness and overcome any attempts at system exploitation.

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

No. Proposed policy is that it is not appropriate or necessary to place limitations upon the number of registrations per registrar at any time.

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.

Yes. The initial cost of a registration within .xxx / .sex during the sunrise period will be specified at $16 in order to reduce a rush for registration.No. The Registry will seek to establish its reputation from the outset as a registry service provider which prices at economic cost. An initial pricing mechanism would distort this message.

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?

Yes. One month will be allowed for the priority registration of famous marks or registered trademarks. Applications during this period must be accompanied by evidence of registration of mark or trademark.

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 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:

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

The criteria for registration and applicable restrictions are detailed in Schedules 1-5. The registry may later, at its discretion, deny registration in the TLDs to any parties known or considered on reasonable grounds to have violated the registry’s policies in the past. Any refusal would be reviewable by an ICANN approved dispute resolution service provider. Due to the nature of the registry/registrar model it is unlikely that the registry would enforce such a denial at the level of initial registration (since the registrar deals with the identification of the registrant rather than the registry).

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

Potential registrants may apply through participating registrars.

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

These are described in the schedules. Other than there set out, no restrictions will apply.

E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.

Should the registry introduce vetting procedures which result in the approval or denial of registrations as applications are processed at first instance the registry will, in conjunction with ICANN and any relevant bodies, introduce procedures which allow the registrant the right of appeal against any denial. The registry would be required to demonstrate the reasonable connection between the applicant entity and any entity known to have previously breached registry policies in a material manner.

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

N/A.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

Parts IV and V are dealt with in the Schedules.

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

_______________________________

Signature

Edward Sweeney, Vincent Hamm____

Name (please print)

_______________________________

Title

Rathbawn Computers Limited_______

Name of Applicant Entity

Edward Sweeney and Vincent Hamm

Date 02 October 2000

SCHEDULE 1

Incorporated and registered business names gTLDs

LLC

LLP

LTD

PLC

AG

GMBH

SocA

All other legally recognised suffixes for non-natural legal persons.

RBN (registered business name) and all other recognised suffixes for registered businesses.

To be administered as different gTLDs.

Description of TLD Policies

The TLDs will be restricted. The only registrations permitted will be of names which are identical or substantially identical (including the TLD suffix) to a name under which the entity is entitled by law to trade.

LLC

LLP

LTD

PLC

AG

GMBH

SocA

All other legally recognised suffixes for non-natural legal persons.

RBN (registered business name)

REGISTRY RULES

1. Only incorporated legal persons or registered businesses may register.

2. The name sought must be identical to or substantially the same as a name under which the entity is legally entitled to trade or identify itself.

3. Applicants for registration must provide full details of the incorporation or registration number and place or incorporation or registration and these details will be included in the WHOIS database.

4. The registry shall comply with any reasonable and lawful direction of a government authority responsible for the administration of legislation relating to non natural legal persons in relation to the registration of domain names of entities within their jurisdiction.

5. In the event that the name of the entity changes or the entity ceases to be registered or incorporated such that the domain name ceases to comply with rule 2, the registry shall after having given the admin contact 14 days notice and an opportunity during that period or such further period as the rregistry considers reasonable in the circumstances, cancel the registration.

6. Any webpage shown on the URL for the domain name must contain a link to the publicly searchable government database where the legislatively proscribed particulars of the registrant are to be found where such database exists. Over time, the registry may require that the link be directly to the location of the searchable information about the registrant.

Complaint procedure.

A person who is affected may bring a complaint before an ICANN approved arbitrator and such an arbitrator shall conduct an arbitration concerning the question of breach, which arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with WIPO rules.

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

LLC

LLP

LTD

PLC

AG

GMBH

SocA

All other legally recognised suffixes for non-natural legal persons.

RBN (registered business name)

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 registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?

Domain names will be delegated at the second level directly to end-user registrants.

Eg. BP.plc

A protocol will be established for the common identification of relevant statutory authorities with responsibility for non-natural persons and registered businesses. At present we consider that

sec.gov.USA.LLC

provides a suitable protocol but this part of the proposal will be subject to consultations with the leading statutory authorities in the larger jurisdictions.

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:

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

By limiting registrations to the names of already registered legal persons or businesses, the scope for piracy or infringement is limited. Further by requiring prospective registrants to submit to the application of the UDRP and binding mediation by ICANN approved mediators subject to WIPO rules we feel that the registration of domain names which infringe intellectual property rights will be discouraged.

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

Registration is restricted to already existing business and legal personality names. Otherwise pre-screening applications for registration is not a component of this proposal.

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

Registrants must provide proof of registration of the name being applied for as a business name or the name of a legal person. Registrars will be required to make prospective registrants aware of the application of the UDRP and registry policies.

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

The highly restricted nature of the TLDs will reduce the degree to which opportunities to act unlawfully are presented. Further, as well as providing the facility for trademark holders to utilise the functionality of the UDRP and mediation process the Registry will, on the basis of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, take such action as the court may order in order to ensure compliance with such legislation.

The registry shall operate a referral WHOIS containing limited data (eg delegation information and the appropriate registrar’s WHOIS details) similar to the current service operated by NSI at whois.crsnic.net

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We consider it likely that start up registrations will be very large. Our demand expectations are set out in schedule 1 to the application and fall well within the proposed registry specification.

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

No. Given the restricted nature of the TLDs, no additional restriction arises for consideration.

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.

No. The Registry wishes to establish its reputation from the outset as a registry which prices at economic cost. An initial pricing mechanism would distort this message.

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?

No. The TLDs’ restrictions go some of the way to meet these issues.

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 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:

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

The restrictions are outlined above. The justification for the restrictions is that the TLDs are intended to convey to members of the internet community the statement that the owner of the domain name is an incorporated legal person or registered business of the particular type identified by the TLD.

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

Registrants will be required to provide proof to their registrars of registered legal personality or registered business name including a certificate of registration showing the registration authority and number.

E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.

There will be no appeal from a denial of registration on the grounds of failure to provide a certificate of registration. Should the registry refuse registration to an entity producing what purports on its face to be a certificate of registration or should the Registry introduce other vetting procedures which result in the approval or denial of registrations as applications are processed at first instance the registry will, in conjunction with ICANN and any relevant bodies introduce procedures which allow the registrant the right of appeal against any denial. The registry would be required to demonstrate the reasonable connection between the applicant entity and any entity known to have previously breached registry policies in a material manner.

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

See section E1 which describes abilities of not only law enforcement bodies / courts to issue appropriate documentation to the registry but also the right of a third party individual or interest group to lodge a complaint with an appropriately qualified arbitrator. In addition, the registry shall have the power to suspend or cancel the registration of any domain name in the event that an arbitrator appointed by the registry from the ICANN panel or elsewhere if no ICANN arbitrator is readily available shall have inquired into the registration and recommended to the registrar that the domain name be suspended or cancelled by reason of the fact that it has been used to mislead or deceive as to the identity of the owner entity or as to an association between the owner entity and some other firm. It is envisaged that the registry would refer to an arbitrator any such issue arising on a complaint which appeared to have substance and in respect of which the complainant was prepared to meet the costs of the arbitrator.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The TLDs will be distinct from existing TLDs in that they will identify the type of legal personality or registered business of the domain name owner. This distinction will be beneficial since it will communicate to the internet community the precise nature and identity of the owner entity.

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 TLDs will serve legal persons and registered business market directly and, indirectly will serve the market of those seeking information concerning such entities. Although the community of legal persons and registered businesses is served by .com, the proposed TLDs provide a more structured domain name context. A domain name in the proposed TLDs will immediately provide more information than a domain name in .com.

The proposed TLDs are a more rigorously principled alternative to .com.

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

The proposal will identify the nature of the owner entity and will by means of a mandated link to publicly available records, provide immediately accessible information about the owner entity.

The proposed TLDS are intrinsically more logical than .com and, with perfect hindsight, would have been more appropriate originally than .com, if the growth of the internet had been foreseeable.

Their intrinsic logical advantage over the comparatively amorphous .com is a powerful reason for their allocation sooner rather than later, given that their ultimate introduction is inevitable.

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

The proposed TLDs will permit legal persons and registered businesses to have a web presence which is identical to their legal name, including the suffix.

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

The proposed TLDs are an immediately viable alternative to .com as they harness pre-existing meaning in the form of established understandings and therefore do not suffer from the need of other possible new TLDs to establish a reputation from a tabula rasa.

The proposed TLDs are intrinsically more meaningful than .com and provide a means by which the DNS can harness established bodies of meaning rather than superimposing on the “physical” world a TLD, such as .com and .net, which because of the uncertainty of the nature of the owners who stand behind domain names registered within its space, blurs rather than clarifies meaning.

This is one of the most important but least explored unintended effects of the DNS. Because of its essentially unstructured form, the DNS not only does not exclude confusion within its functionality, but actually promotes it.

One of the most important criteria which ICANN might address in relation to changes to the DNS over time is the desirability of providing havens of certainty within the DNS and especially within areas where certainty is highly desirable. The outstanding candidate is the area represented by the need to know with certainty from the domain name the nature of the legal entity which it represents.

By making registration available at long term economic cost and due the fact that the registry would not operate a registrar function the allocation of the TLD on these terms would represent a superior competition model to that under which .COM, .NET and .ORG currently operate.

Additionally by increasing the available namespace and ability for registrars to participate the delegation of these TLDs would represent a significant competitive advantage as compared to the existing DNS structure.

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

An evaluation of the proposed TLDs will be likely to prove/disprove:

- the efficiency advantages of TLDs in which the precise identity of the owner entities and their nature is immediately identifiable from their domain name alone;

- the viability of TLDs with a structurally established precise meaning as compared with TLDs with no intrinsic meaning;

- the value to the internet community of the knowledge that domain names in particular TLDs communicate precise information about the status of their owner entities;

- the extent to which domain names are price elastic;

- the extent to which the market regards cost based registration as desirable.

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?

We suggest that criteria for evaluation should include the following:

- Has there been substantial uptake of names in the TLDs?

- Have the TLDs been recognised by the internet community as conveying precise information about the nature of the domain name owner entities;

- Does the experience of the TLDs suggest that TLDs which convey precise information about the owner entities provide a facility of practical importance to the economy and the internet community.

The applicants believe that the comparative lack of success of the UK incorporated suffixes (BP.plc.uk) arises from the fact that they are not gTLDs but sub-domains of .uk.

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

The results of the evaluation in respect of competition issues as well as the successful adoption of the TLD will assist in the definition and adoption of long-term management strategies for the DNS in particular in relation to the issues of havens of domain name precision and cost based registry services.

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

The proposed TLDs are so obvious an oversight in the current DNS that they virtually demand introduction. Their introduction sooner or later is inevitable and we believe the sooner the better.

Only a very limited number of firms have the necessary skill set and resources to guarantee the successful implementation and management of any TLD and this increases the importance of the decision to allocate a TLD during the initial introduction.

SCHEDULE 2

· The Wireless Application Protocol gTLD:

WAP

Description of TLD Policies

Section III of this application applies only to applicants for restricted TLDs. Ordinarily, restricted TLDs should be sponsored.]

There are proposed conditions as follows:

1. Only websites which are specifically adapted to WAP shall be addressed by a domain name within the TLD.

2. Where the Registry has cause to believe that websites which are not specifically adapted to WAP are being hosted on a domain name within the TLD, Registry has a right to issue a notice requiring registrant to demonstrate WAP capability within 30 days to the registrant of any domain within .WAP

3. Failure to demonstrate WAP capabilities within the 30 days may, in the discretion of the Registry, result in the suspension/deletion of the domain name concerned.

4. Websites promoted via unsolicited email may be suspended/revoked.

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

.WAP (“Wireless Application Protocol”)

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 registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?

It is proposed that the TLD will be divided into the following sub domains:

.com, .co, .net, .org, .edu, ac.

Each of these sub domains will be restricted. A registrant may register a domain name only if it is already the registered owner of an identical domain name in the gTLD of the same name.

It is proposed that the TLD will have further sub domains which mirror each of the ccTLDs, eg .uk, .ie. Each of these sub domains will have sub sub domains which reflect the sub domains of the relevant cc TLD, eg .co.uk, .com.au.

A registrant may register in each of sub sub domains or the sub domains only if it is the registered owner of an identical domain name in the comparable sub domain of the relevant cc TLD or, in the case of registrants for domain names in the sub domain, if it is the registered owner of a domain name in the ccTLD.

At a later stage the registry may open registrations directly in the second level, eg wirelessenabledwebsite.wap. This decision will be made in consultation with ICANN and after experience of use of the TLD has been gained.

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?

Registrants will deal with registrars rather than the registry.

The registry will service all accredited ICANN appointed registrars which can demonstrate technical capability. Technical capability will be assessed by the use of a test suite to ensure registrars are capable of utilising basic registry features.

The registry is responsible for the enforcement of policies rather than the registrar.

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We anticipate the receipt of approximately 500,000 applications within the first month.

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

We feel that such limitations would be artificial and would have the effect of discriminating against potential registrants (and registrars also). Therefore we do not propose placing limits on the number of registrations per registrant or registrar.

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.

No. This would detract from the determination of the registry to price its services based on cost.

III. REGISTRATION RESTRICTIONS (Required for restricted TLDs only)

Registration will be restricted to domain names which reflect a registered domain name in another gTLD or a ccTLD and will be required to be the same except for the suffix .wap. The Registry’s application form will make provision for this information and the Registry’s verification will be automated.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The TLD is distinct since it requires that registrants cater to clients which require hosts within the TLD to serve WAP compliant content. The TLD will benefit consumers of internet site services by enabling the rapid identification of WAP enabled sites. One illustration of the benefits flowing from the TLD is that owners of cell phones will be able to distinguish WAP sites which offer transactional cost advantages from non WAP enabled sites which do not. As WAP enabled terminals become more prevalent, the efficiency gains offered by the TLD will multiply.

By deploying sub domains which mirror the gTLDs and cc TLDs, the proposed TLD will enable businesses and information providers to retain for their wap websites any reputation already established in their traditional web sites. Conversely, operators of WAP sites will benefit by reason of the deduction of consumers that the address of the comparable non WAP site is immediately identifiable from the WAP domain name.

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 TLD will immediately service the users of mobile telephones with WAP capability as well as a broad range of other equipment such as WAP enabled telephones, fridges, televisions and others as and when they may become available.

This represents a distinction to current TLD delegations since there is no way for these users to accurately determine which URLs/hosts are accessible using WAP.

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

The TLD will enable users who require WAP functionality to easily locate and access WAP enabled websites and other content the allocation of this TLD would allow an enhanced level of functionality to be provided to such devices.

The proposed TLD will have the additional advantage over existing gTLDs that the suffix has a plain and already established meaning and does not require substantial promotion or years of consumer experience to create a public awareness of its significance.

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

The advantages of having a TLD dedicated to WAP enabled websites are apparent when viewed from the perspective of a current or potential user of WAP technology.

We consider that the majority of current Internet users and many others will, within a small time period, become users of such technology. Whilst there will always be traditional terminal type access to the Internet (from VT100 -> Windows/Xterm environments) the growing demand for WAP compliant content and widespread use of the technology demands the creation of a TLD capable of immediately identifying to users a distinction between WAP enabled and traditional content.

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

The proposed TLD will enhance competition in domain name registration services in one important respect. It will make available to businesses and information providers an efficient tool for communicating to users the location of their WAP sites. It will enable consumers to intuitively assume the WAP site address of any known domain name site. These attributes make competition for the registraion of domain names more eficient.

In addition, the competition policy of the TLD will ensure that the registration function will be available for the lowest possible price. The price regime will force other registry operators to justify pricing above true long run economic cost hence forcing prices down.

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

- Are TLDs dedicated to specific protocols or technologies useful and worthwhile?

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?

The TLD’s success can be judged in two ways:

1. By the total number of applications and WAP enabled sites registered in the TLD

2. By the rate of adoption of the TLD to distinguish between WAP enabled sites and traditional content.

3. By the assessment of the savings to consumers represented by being able to direct WAP terminal sessions to WAP sites and to avoid such sessions being directed at non WAP sites.

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

We believe that WAP is the technology which most requires a dedicated TLD for two reasons:

1. Widespread adoption of technology within mobile telephones and other devices.

2. Requirement within these devices for compliant websites represents a significant pressure which the existing DNS is ill equipped to satisfactorily meet.

By delegating a TLD such as .WAP, ICANN will be able to assess the importance of further TLDs dedicated to specific applications or protocols which represents an application of the DNS previously unutilised.

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

The broad adoption of WAP technology and likely further significant growth demand that of any technology WAP is most deserving of its own TLD. The disadvantages to consumers of deploying WAP terminals in the use of non WAP sites is a powerful factor in favour of the commissioning of the proposed TLD.

The establishment of the proposed TLD will enable WAP terminal operators to exclude non WAP sites from being accessed by their terminal.

SCHEDULE 3

· Chinese name TLDs

The following expressions, as separate gTLDs:

.SanSanSan (meaning 333) and .three33 (as the same gTLD)

.BaBaBa (meaning 888) and .eight88 (as the same gTLD)

Shuang Xi (Double Happiness)

Fu (Good Fortune)

Hao Yuen (Good Luck)

Hao (Good)

Xing Yun (Fortune, riches)

As soon as possible, application will be made to extend these gTLDs so that the expressions in Chinese characters (both traditional and simplified) will be accepted as alternative ways of identifying the same gTLDs.

Description of TLD Policies

[For sponsored TLDs, this part of the application is to be completed by the sponsoring organization. For unsponsored TLDs, the registry operator should complete this part of the application. Please refer to the Detailed Application Instructions for more information on the requirements for new TLD applications.

The operation of a TLD involves the implementation of policies on a very large number of topics. Applicants are urged to use their response to this part of the application to demonstrate their detailed knowledge of what topics are involved and their careful analysis and clear articulation of the policies they propose on these topics.

Please place the legend "CONFIDENTIAL" on any part of your description that you have listed in item F3.1 of your Statement of Requested Confidential Treatment of Materials Submitted.

Section III of this application applies only to applicants for restricted TLDs. Ordinarily, restricted TLDs should be sponsored.]

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

At present the expressions set out below are applied for, with an indication that application will also be made as soon as feasible for the Chinese characters in simplified and complex Chinese equivalent:

.SanSanSan (meaning .333) and .three33

.BaBaBa (meaning .888) and .eight88

Shuang Xi (Double Happiness)

Fu (Good Fortune)

Hao Yuen (Good Luck)

Hao (Good)

Xing Yun (Fortune, riches)

For example, eventually one TLD will consist of .BaBaBa (or .eight88) and its chinese character equivalent, so that the registrant of a domain name may represent their name as either chinesename.BaBaBa or chinesename.[Chinese characters for 888] as the particular location, audience or occasion suggests. A domain name registrant could thus have its name in Chinese characters with the Chinese characters for the gTLD on one side of a business card and the Anglicised name and Anglicised gTLD name on the other.

The relevant characters are set out in the schedule to this application.

The applicant appreciates that software will need to be developed to enable the root servers to recognise the Chinese characters as identifying the relevant TLDs. This process is not unduly complex and is already in hand.

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 registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?

Domain names will be delegated at the second level directly to end-user registrants. It is anticipated that the majority of registrations will be of words or names in Chinese characters.

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

No. Due to the nature of the TLDs it is felt that such protections will be unnecessary. The applicants are however prepared to meet any request by ICANN in this regard.

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We believe that there will be enormous demand for names in all of the proposed TLDs. Our predicted demand levels are shown in schedule 3 to the application and Registry functionality will be robust at this level and at levels considerably in excess of them. The registry will open discussions with potential registrars in Chinese speaking locations immediately following the lodging of this application. As the burden of managing the retail face of registrations will fall on registrars, they will need to be prepared for extremely high volumes at start up.

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

No. We do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to place limitations upon the number of registrations per registrar at any time.

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.

No. The Registry wishes to establish its reputation from the outset as a registry which prices at economic cost. An initial pricing mechanism by the registry would distort this message. Registrars may however adopt initial pricing policies, especially in relation to non automated transactions, in order to manage their own capacity. With respect to automated transactions, the applicant does not foresee a need for Registrars to use initial pricing to temper demand, but that is a decision for them.

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?

No. However the applicant would be prepared to accept an ICANN direction or expression of view if it were to the contrary of the applicant’s position.

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:

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

Initial registration is open to all entities. The registry may later, at its discretion, deny registration in the TLDs to any parties known or thought to have violated the registry’s policies in the past. Due to the nature of the registry/registrar model it is unlikely that the registry would enforce such a denial at the level of initial registration (since the registrar deals with the identification of the registrant rather than the registry).

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

Potential registrants may apply through participating ICANN approved registrars. Where there are insufficient ICANN approved registrars in particular locations, the registry will take active steps to encourage appropriate industry professionals in Chiense language areas to seek ICANN approval.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The TLDs will be the only Chinese language specific TLDs. Their availability will fill a major gap in the existing DNS. The TLDs will enable suffixes which have meaning to Chinese speakers to be available for the first time. The availability of the TLDs will respect in a manner not currently available the right of Chinese speaking stakeholders to have domain name suffixes which are not dictated by a foreign language and which do not have any meaning in Chinese. There is no legitimate basis for the DNS to continue to deny to such a large group their right, once it becomes technically feasible, as it now is, to have TLDs which have meaning in their native tongues. This proposal seeks to give practical recognition to the legitimate argument that the English language dominance of the DNS is a form of non consensual colonisation which can now no longer be justified by grounds of technical necessity.

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 consists of Chinese language businesses and individuals which wish to have doman names in TLDs which have meaning to Chinese speakers. The market is not well served at present as all existing TLDs are English based.

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

The proposal makes available to Chinese TLDs which are regarded as important and for which no present solution exists.

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

The TLDs would make available for the first time TLDs which had a significance to Chinese speakers. Within the markets at which they are directed, these TLDs can be expected to attract higher demand that that generated by those markets for .com and .net.

By definition, any TLDs which were more in demand in substantial communities than .com or .net would be justified by the weight of that demand.

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

The proposed TLDs will offer a unique Chinese language product which has powerful competitive advantages in Chinese speaking markets over .com and .net. In addition, registration will be available at long term economic cost. The fact that the registry would not operate a registrar function means that the allocation of the TLDs on these terms would represent a superior competition model to that under which .COM, .NET and .ORG currently operate.

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The concepts likely to be proved/disproved by empirical experience of the proposed TLDS include:

- the demand for foreign language TLDs;

- the price elasticity of demand for domain names;

- the comparative demand for foreign language TLDs as compared with the demand for .com and .net in the particular foreign language community;

- the demand for domain names in foreign language TLDS which also may be printed or used in English language version for non foreign language speakers.

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?

We consider that the results of the introduction should be assessed by criteria which include the following:

- Do the TLDs enjoy high levels of demand;

- Does the demand for the TLDs justify the conclusion that there is a public need for foreign language TLDs;

- Are domain names in the TLDs price competitive with other TLDs;

- Has the Registry adopting of cost based pricing led to either or both increased demand or competitive response from other TLDs.

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

The results of the evaluation would provide valuable information in relation to the demand for foreign language TLDs and in relation to the demand for cost based pricing of registry services. The evaluation would also provide useful lessons in the extent to which the absence of vertical integration associated with the registry function enhances the competitive environment.

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

These TLDs should be introduced now because the Chinese language community have a right to TLDs in their own language.

Only a very limited number of firms have the necessary skill set and resources to guarantee the successful implementation and management of any TLD and this increases the importance of the decision to allocate a TLD during the initial introduction.

Our intention is to create foreign language TLD and price competition models which set the industry standard in both of these crucially important areas. The applicant aspires to a reputation as the leading provider of innovative solutions to hitherto unexplored DNS potential as an instrument of growth whilst at the same time respecting (by preserving and enhancing) cultural, regional and linguistic traditions.

SCHEDULE 4

xxx and .sex

(separate gTLDs)

Description of TLD Policies

I. 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:

Registrants must also accept and comply with the registry policies as follows:

1. Registrants shall ensure that access to web pages accessible via a URL containing a domain within .xxx/.sex and containing material of a sexual nature shall be effectively restricted to persons above the minimum age prescribed by the law applicable in the place (“viewer’s location”) with where the ISP serving the person seeking access is located and shall be restricted to material which may be lawfully viewed by adults in the viewer’s location. The age restriction shall operate by means of an initial page which cannot be passed through except upon the establishment of proof of age where age is relevant to the lawfulness of viewing explicit material under the law of the viewer’s location and by procedures which ensure that pages which contain material which may not be lawfully viewed under the law of the viewer’s location are not visible to viewers in that location.

The Registry shall create and manage systems to ensure that an automated database lookup which will provide registrants with the necessary information concerning the location of ISPs is made available to registrants for a fee. The fee shall be based upon long run incremental cost principles (audited annually by the auditor referred to in paragraph 3 below) and, for the first two years, shall be based on the registry’s reasonable estimate of the likely long run incremental price, based upon independent expert advice. Audit costs shall be treated as part of the system costs. A registrant which establishes to the Registry that it has an efficient and alternative means for ascertaining the location of a viewer’s ISP shall not be bound to use the registry’s service.

2. Proof of age shall include a credit card, and/or where made available by the state, driver’s licence or ID records (eg social security number) which correspond with the database maintained by the state or by such other means as the Registry shall from time to time identify.

3. The accounting firm of Ormsby-Rhodes (“the auditor”, which term shall include an person deputised by Ormsby-Rhodes to actually conduct the audit), Dublin, a division of BKR is appointed to audit the compliance of registrants with the Registry rules. The auditor shall establish and may from time to time vary, both establishment and variation to be with the consent of the registry or in the event of disagreement, with the consent of the Chief Executive of ICANN, and shall make public on the website of the registry, rules for the conduct of such audits. The auditor shall conduct an audit of the web sites and relevant practices of any registrant where:

a. the registry requests the auditor to conduct an audit;

b. any competent authority of government in the place of a viewer’s location makes a complaint in writing to the auditor that a registrant has on more than five occasions within a period of one month permitted viewing contrary to the law of the viewer’s location in respect of matters which are not trivial;

c. any court of competent jurisdiction in the place of a viewer’s location issues an order directing a registrant to prohibit the accessibility of specified material in the place of a viewer’s location or an order.

4. The auditor shall report the results of its audit to the registry together with a recommendation, which may include suspension or cancellation of the registration.

5. The auditor shall be entitled to have its reasonable costs of audit paid by the person complaining where the complaint is not made out and by the registrant where the complaint is made out. Any unrecovered costs of audit shall be met in the first instance by the Registry and shall form part of the costs of the Registry.

5. The Registry may suspend the operation of any domain name where it receives a verified complaint by the police or a public enforcement authority that a web page associated with the domain name contains material unlawful under the law of a place and which has been made available to persons in breach of clause 1. Such suspension may be continued for 3 months or for such further time as a court of competent jurisdiction may direct.

6. The Registry may cancel the domain name registration for any domain name where a Court of competent jurisdiction has so ordered or where an arbitration under clause 5 has so ordered.

7. The Registry shall suspend or cancel registration where a recommendation to do so has been received from the auditor.

8. A person who is affected may bring a complaint concerning a breach of clause 1 before an ICANN approved arbitrator and such an arbitrator shall conduct an arbitration concerning the question of breach, which arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with WIPO rules.

The purpose of the rules is to establish and administer a regime for the presentation to the Internet community of sexually explicit material in a manner which as nearly as can be complies with the laws of the country of the viewer and which facilitates the prevention of access to such material by minors.

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

.xxx and .sex (separate gTLDs)

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 registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?

Domain names will be delegated at the second level directly to end-user registrants.

Eg. adultwebsite.xxx / adultwebsite.sex

Registrars are not required to actively enforce TLD policies however they are required to make registrants aware of the TLD policies and it is the responsibility of the registrar to ensure that registrants agree to these policies. The registry will enforce the policies as described.

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We believe that there will be a significant rush for the allocation of certain “desirable” domain names. For the initial period of three months all registrations will be held in escrow. All domain names shall be released from escrow at the expiration of three months, except domain names the subject of a complaint as described below. If before the period of three months has expired the Registry receives verified evidence that a person (“the claimant”) other than the registrant was on 30 September 2000 the owner of an identical domain name in .com or .net which carried at that date an active webpage from which the person was carrying on business, then following notice to the registrant and the auditor, the Registry shall, if the auditor so recommends, cancel the registration and refund the price to the registrant. The Registrar shall allot the domain name to the claimant. If the Registrar does not recommend cancellation, the domain name shall be released from escrow. The demand assumptions are set out in schedule 6 to the application and the registry will be robust at these levels and at levels considerably higher.

There are several objectives for this portion of the proposal. It is intended to faciliate established operators of sexually explicit sites to register the domain names which are identical to the names they already hold in other gTLDs. This in turn is calculated to facilitate the task of governments which wish to mandate a migration of sexually explicit sites to the new gTLDs. It is not expected that this will happen immediately. It will not happen at all in many places. But it is a real prospect in some countries that legislation would be enacted which provided that only those sexually explicit sites which were in the new gTLDs should be lawfully capable of being viewed or published in the country enacting the law. The public policy behind such a law might be that collecting all sexually explicit sites under dedicated gTLDs would render the task of screening much easier, both at the state and family levels.

The applicants consider that, given the opportunities which the proposed gTLDs offer for more effective regulation, fairness considerations suggest that existing operators should be afforded the opportunity to register existing domain names in the new TLDs so as to avoid any risk of loss in the event that migration were to be mandated in any jurisdiction.

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?

No. The escrow proposals meet these objectives.

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 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:

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

Initial registration is open to all entities, subject to the escrow provisions. The registry may later, at its discretion, deny registration in the TLD to any parties known or thought to have violated the registry’s policies in the past. Due to the nature of the registry/registrar model it is unlikely that the registry would enforce such a denial at the level of initial registration (since the registrar deals with the identification of the registrant rather than the registry).

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

Potential registrants may apply through participating ICANN approved registrars.

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

It is proposed that the application process be conducted in a manner similar to that for the existing gTLDs. That is, without enforcement of specific rules.

E20. Describe any appeal process from denial of registration.

Should the registry introduce vetting procedures which result in the approval or denial of registrations as applications are processed at first instance the registry will, in conjunction with ICANN and any relevant bodies, including the proposed auditor, introduce procedures which allow the registrant the right of appeal against any denial. The registry would be required to demonstrate the reasonable connection between the applicant entity and any entity known to have previously breached registry policies in a material manner.

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

See section E1 which describes abilities of not only law enforcement bodies / courts to issue appropriate documentation to the registry but also the right of a third party individual or interest group to lodge a complaint with an appropriately qualified mediator.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The TLD will be distinct from existing TLDs due to the likely nature of content which it is designed to accommodate. This distinction will be beneficial since it will allow the distribution of such content to be effectively controlled.

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?

We feel that the introduction of this TLD will have the effect of serving the needs of all Internet users. Whilst adult site operators will be the largest group of registrants the benefit provided by the registry’s service is far broader. To the extent that this TLD fulfills both the needs of adult website operators and Internet users (particularly sensitive groups such as children or religiously/morally opposed persons) we feel that this proposal offers a service unique to that provided by existing gTLD / ccTLD delegations.

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

Our proposal offers advantages to all key stakeholders:

- Adult website operators are able to disseminate information in an effective manner to their target audience

- Appropriately verified adult website viewers are able to easily locate content which falls into this category

- Children and other sensitive persons are adequately protected from accidental or unintended exposure to such materials

- Law enforcement bodies and other authorities are able to take effective action against breaches of local law

- Governments may enact legislation appropriate to their cultural heritage and social climate which defines a balance between the rights of citizens and the need to observe appropriate viewing practices

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

The delegation of .xxx and .sex and their management under the terms of this proposal would make additional functionality available to search engines, browser software, content filtering utilities and the like. This functionality serves dual purposes and has the effect of benefitting the community at large as well as Internet users interested in accessing materials within the TLDs or operating websites within the TLDs.

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

By making registration available at long term economic cost and due the fact that the registry would not operate (beyond the initial sunrise period) a registrar function (except if the number of ICANN approved registrars should fall below a minimum level required to maintain reasonable levels of competition – such number to be determined by the registry in conjunction with ICANN but to be no less than 1000 registrars) the allocation of the TLD on these terms would represent a superior competition model to that under which .COM, .NET and .ORG currently operate.

Additionally by increasing the available namespace and ability for registrars to participate the delegation of these TLDs would represent a significant competitive advantage as compared to the existing DNS structure.

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

- The desirability of TLDs dedicated to specific industry segments

- The application of DNS flexibility in resolving access issues

- The benefits provided to Internet users by enabling effective control/guidelines over explicit material

- The benefits provided to Government / law enforcement bodies provided by effective TLD policies applicable to specific community needs

Whilst we recognise that, in many ways, the delegation of .sex and .xxx represents a special case which, whilst possessing undisputable merit, may provide valuable although not necessarily entirely universally applicable lessons we feel that it warrants consideration not only for the obvious public benefits to which it gives rise but also as an important test of the introduction of competition into the provision of additional gTLDs.

Additionally due to the specific nature of this proposal, particularly the aspects of the proposal relating to the long term economic cost of domains, we feel that this TLD would be able to demonstrate the importance of competition in respect of the allocation of domain names.

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?

Obviously public comment is invited upon the success or otherwise of the TLD and it’s management proposal however we caution ICANN upon relying heavily on information submitted by interest groups either from industries utilising the TLD (eg adult website operators) or from special interest groups opposed to the publication of explicit materials on the Internet in any form.

We believe that the entire Internet community including such groups stands to benefit from the introduction of this TLD and we feel that national Governments and citizens of all countries will benefit from and give support to this TLD accordingly.

We believe that our proposal can be effectively evaluated by a combination of feedback from these individuals and various Governmental authorities and law enforcement bodies as well as through the adoption of the utility which we feel this TLD will add to the DNS (eg the use of the tld as a distinguishing factor in content filtering utilities as well as search engines and indexes of site content).

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

The results of the evaluation in respect of competition issues as well as the successful adoption of the TLD will give rise to important lessons which will assist in the definition and adoption of long-term management strategies for the DNS.

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

The obvious public benefits which will result from the implementation of this proposal in themselves represent, we feel, sufficient reason to include this TLD in the initial introduction.

Only a very limited number of firms have the necessary skill set and resources to guarantee the successful implementation and management of any TLD and this increases the importance of the decision to allocate a TLD during the initial introduction.

By delegating .xxx or .sex in favour of the applicant registry we feel that ICANN is able to achieve not only direct public benefit but additionally to test the feasibility of the introduction of competition in this arena in a manner which guarantees stability and success.

Our intention is to create a competition model which can be observed by future registry operators should the results of this introduction demonstrate the need for allocation of future TLDs.

SCHEDULE 5

.afr and .africa (to be administered as separate TLDs)

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

.africa and .afr (both to be operated as separate TLDs)

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 registered‑name.com), or will the TLD be organized with sub‑domains so that registered domain names are created at a lower level (as in registered‑name.travel.com)?

Domain names will be delegated at the second level (malawicrops.africa) directly to end-user registrants, with the exception of the following:

a. .gov/.govt.country name.africa

b. .edu/.ac.country name.africa

which will be reserved for governments and academic institutions of the country concerned and:

c. .gov/govt.africa; and

d. edu/ac.africa

which will be reserved for pan African governmental and academic institutions respectively; and

e. countryname.africa

f. .com.africa and .co.africa

g. .net.africa

h. .org.africa

which will be reserved as sub-domains

The Registry will have the right to refuse, and within thirty days of registration, cancel the registration of any domain name which the Registry reasonably considers to convey a false representation of association with a government, establishment or business.

II. REGISTRATION POLICIES DURING THE START‑UP PERIOD (Required for all TLDs)

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?

We do not consider that there will be an exceptional initial rush, although the registry will be prepared for one. We estimate that the demand for the TLD will grow as stakeholders learn of its superior price/quality mix. Our estimates over the proposed four year life of the appointment are contained in the schedule 5 to the application and fall well within the proposed registry specification. The registry would be comfortably able to handle registrations at many times this level.

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 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:

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

It is proposed that the application process be conducted in a manner similar to that for the existing gTLDs. That is, without enforcement of specific rules.

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

N/A.

IV. CONTEXT OF THE TLD WITHIN THE DNS (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The TLD will designate a connection with the African continent, rather than with a particular country. It will:

a. overcome existing barriers to acquisition of an African domain name;

b. support the emergence of the concept of a single African electronic commercial zone;

c. access economies of scale not available to African ccTLDs;

d. bring world’s lowest cost and best practice to African domain names.

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 TLD will serve the needs of African businesses and individuals. It will tend to foster and focus commerce which has an African connection. The African community is not currently well served by cc TLDs.

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

Our proposal offers advantages to all key stakeholders. It will overcome existing barriers to acquisition of an African domain name, support the emergence of the concept of a single African electronic commercial zone, access economies of scale not available to African ccTLDs and bring world’s lowest cost and best practice to African domain names. Our proposal will promote the emergence of pan African electronic commerce and be a source of pressure for minimisation of the complications represented by having a large number of extremely poor countries most of which are unable individually to make significant progress towards economic progress by recourse to internet assisted commerce and information exchange.

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

The proposal will bring the world’s cheapest and best practice registry functionality to the continent which needs it most.

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

By making registration available at long term economic cost and due to the fact that the registry would not operate a registrar function, the allocation of the TLD on these terms would represent a markedly superior competition model to that under which African cc TLDs and .com, .net and .org currently operate.

Additionally by increasing the available namespace and ability for registrars to participate in a manner which optimises the opportunities and incentives for competitive conduct, the delegation of these TLDs would deliver a significant competitive advantage over the existing DNS structure.

V. VALUE OF PROPOSAL AS A PROOF OF CONCEPT (Required for all TLDs)

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:

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

The concepts which we consider are likely to be proved/disproved by evaluation of the introduction of the TLD proposed include:

- The comparative welfare effects of registries compelled by their charters and structure and resulting economic incentives to maximise competition;

- The extent to which demand for domain names exhibits price elasticity;

- The economic viability of a registrar seeking shareholder value by means other than price maximisation;

- The desirability of TLDs dedicated to a continental group of countries where individual countries are extremely deficient in economic resources;

- The application of DNS flexibility in resolving access issues;

We consider that the proposal offers an opportunity not capable of replication in the “physical” world of providing a structure which portrays the African continent as a single internet location and which provides an engine for change not capable of replication by any other known feasible means. The opportunity is not merely cost free to the African community and to the rest of the world, but because it harnesses world’s best practice and lowest cost, its introduction achieves negative cost.

We consider that the economic case for the new TLD is overwhelming. We believe that the only real issue for evaluation is whether the registry will be viable and whether the applicant has sufficient technical capacity to ensure its robustness. We believe that an affirmative conclusion on both issues is irresistible.

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?

We suggest that the criteria for assessment should include:

- Has the TLD lowered the price for which African related domain names can be acquired;

- Has the TLD increased the efficiency for the provision of African related TLDs;

- Has the TLD had the promotional effect of increasing awareness of and utilisation of African commerce and information exchange;

- Has the TLD been a successful model for the use of DNS functionality to promote economic and information exchange in undeveloped areas where the physical promotion of such outcomes is exceedingly difficult;

- Has the introduction of the TLD resulted in a net economic benefit.

We consider that the very articulation of these criteria powerfully indicates that the risk of a conclusion of failure is extremely remote.

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

The results will teach whether and to what extend DNS policy can be an instrument for the promotion of economic welfare in undeveloped areas.

The results of the evaluation in respect of competition issues as well as the successful adoption of the TLD will give rise to important lessons which will assist in the definition and adoption of long-term management strategies for the DNS. In particular, the prospect is that the experience of the TLD will provide a very powerful case for the establishment as industry standard of cost based domain name pricing.

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

The public benefits which will result from the implementation of this proposal in themselves represent, we feel, sufficient reason to include this TLD in the initial introduction.

Only a very limited number of firms have the necessary skill set and resources to guarantee the successful implementation and management of any TLD and this increases the importance of the decision to allocate a TLD during the initial introduction.

Our ambition for this TLD is to create the model for domain name policy in undeveloped areas and by that means to position the applicant as the world’s leader in the achievement of DNS based strategies for economic and information exchange growth in the third world.