Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:23 UTC
This question set collects information regarding the legal entity that would enter into a Registry Agreement with ICANN upon successful completion of all relevant application processes. The information collected is intended to be used for background screening.
Provide the full legal name of the applying entity as it appears on the official registration documents. Do not use abbreviations.
Zero Gravity Labs Inc.
Provide the name under which the applying entity is doing business, if different from the full legal name answered in Question 1. Such a name must be registered with appropriate local jurisdiction or public authority.
Zero Gravity Labs
Provide the long form (no acronyms) of the legal entity form/business structure of the applying entity as it appears on the official registration documents. If the original script of the legal entity form/business structure is not English, ONLY provide its official English translation. No additional information should be provided as this will be used for the automatic population of the Registry Agreement.
Corporation
The jurisdiction indicates the location in which the business of the applying entity is registered for legal and financial purposes. This is either 1) a country name, or a 2) state/territory name, depending on where the applying entity is registered. No additional information should be provided as this will be used for the automatic population of the Base Registry Agreement. Examples include "Delaware", "Germany", etc.
Delaware
Provide the website URL of the applying entity, if available.
https://0g.ai/
1. Choose Yes or No. 2. Use the definition of Affiliate from the Base Registry Agreement (see https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements/base-agreement).
false
Choose Yes or No.
false
1
Provide the primary business phone number without including the country code.
707 653 6287
Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.
michael@0g.ai
Enter the street address (no PO Box).
548 Market St. PMB 33721
Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.
San Francisco,
Enter the state, province, department, territory, prefecture, oblast, etc., if applicable.
California
1. Enter the postal code, if applicable. 2. If a postal code does not exist, type “Not Applicable”.
94104-5401
US
This question set collects information related to the individuals who will have access to TAMS, manage the application, and receive inquiries.
Michael Heinrich
Michael Heinrich
Provide a single document for Self-Certification question Q4.2-1. The document must include only the SC4.2-1.1, SC4.2-1.2, or SC4.2-1.3 statements. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements.
1. Provide a single document for Self-Certification question Q4.2-1. 2. The document must include only the SC4.2-1.1 through SC4.2-1.3 statements. 3. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements. 4. If the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC4.2-1.1 through SC4.2-1.3 statements, provide a document that explains why the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC4.2-1.1 through SC4.2-1.3 statements.
Provide a single document for Self-Certification question AGB Q220, Q5.1-1. The document must include only the SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1-1.3 statements. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements. If the applicant cannot Self-Certify SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1-1.3 statements, provide a document that explains why the entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1-1.3 statements.
1. Provide a single document for Self-Certification question Q5.1-1. 2. The document must include only the SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1-1.3 statements. 3. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements. 4. If the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1-1.3 statements, provide a document that explains why the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.1-1.1 through SC5.1.1-3 statements.
Provide a single document for Self-Certification question AGB Q221, Q5.2-1. The document must include only the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements. If the applicant cannot Self-Certify the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements, provide a document that explains why the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements.
1. Provide a single document for Self-Certification question Q5.2-1. 2. The document must include only the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements. 3. Do not modify any of the Self-Certification statements. 4. If the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements, provide a document that explains why the applying entity cannot Self-Certify the SC5.2-1.1 through SC5.2-1.7 statements.
This question set collects basic information regarding the string that is being applied for (for example, a-label, meaning, script). If the applying entity opts to designate a replacement string, it must answer the same set of questions for the replacement string from the AGB Question Set 5 on.
agi
Provide the meaning, or restatement of the string in English, that is, a description of the literal meaning of the string in the opinion of the applying entity. If there is no literal meaning in English (for example, a brand name or a proper noun without a translation) simply state "No English Translation"
agi, ai-agent
Provide a representation of the string according to the International Phonetic Alphabet.
agi
Confirm the statement using a checkbox.
true
1. Describe the mission and purpose of the applied-for gTLD, including the intended registrants and users, and the related activities that have been or will be carried out to achieve this purpose. 1a. If applying for a variant of an existing gTLD, please also describe the mission and purpose of the existing gTLD, including the intended registrants and users, and the related activities that have been or will be carried out to achieve this purpose. 2. Explain how this purpose is sustainable over time.
Zero Gravity Labs proposes .agi as the trusted digital home for artificial general intelligence: a namespace where an AI system can be discovered, verified, and trusted, rather than operating as an anonymous, unverifiable endpoint on the general internet. The mission for .agi is a global namespace in which every registered AI system carries an identity that other systems, businesses, and people can rely on. As AI systems increasingly act on behalf of users and organizations, there is no existing, industry-recognized namespace tying an endpoint to a verified AI system with clear ownership, provenance, and accountability. General-purpose TLDs carry no such signal, and that gap already creates impersonation and trust problems as AI agents proliferate. .agi closes that gap — not by certifying that a given system is safe or compliant, but by giving verified AI systems and their operators a dedicated namespace where ownership, provenance, and governance information can be reliably published and checked. Intended Registrants and Users The Registry Operator anticipates registrants and users drawn from: ● Organizations developing or operating large-scale AI models and AI agent platforms; ● Enterprises deploying AI agents that need a verifiable identity for the systems acting on their behalf; ● AI safety, auditing, and verification organizations publishing provenance or governance information; ● Infrastructure providers building agent-to-agent communication, authentication, or transaction protocols; and ● Researchers and standards bodies working on AI identity, provenance, and accountability frameworks. Related Activities Zero Gravity Labs intends to operate .agi in parallel with .agent, its existing Web3 TLD counterpart on Unstoppable Domains' Web3 naming infrastructure, consistent with the framework ICANN's Technical Study Group on New gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems is developing: the two namespaces will maintain strict parallel control, so a name registered in one is only available in the other to the same registrant. Additional detail is provided in response to Question 222. AI systems are subject to a regulatory environment that is evolving rapidly and varies by jurisdiction. .agi's registry-level commitments are limited to naming infrastructure and do not constitute a certification that any registered AI system is safe, compliant, or free of malicious behavior. The Registry Operator will apply the same legal-compliance obligations to .agi as to every other applied-for string, including sanctions screening and cooperation with lawful requests from competent authorities. Sustainability Demand for .agi is anchored in a large, accelerating secular trend rather than speculative activity: deployed AI systems are growing rapidly, and each one adopting a verifiable identity has a structural incentive to maintain and renew it for as long as the system operates. This gives .agi a registrant base with durable renewal incentives, supporting the TLD's operation over the full term of the Registry Agreement and beyond.
This question set collects information related to determining whether certain Safeguard Public Interest Commitments (Safeguard PICs) are required for the applied-for gTLD string. See Section 7.8.2.3 Safeguard PICs. Answers to these questions will inform assessment by ICANN on whether and which Safeguard PICs must be incorporated in the applicable Registry Agreement (RA) if the string proceeds to delegation. The answers themselves will not automatically make such a determination.
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. 2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. 2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. 2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. 2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. I-2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
1. When answering the questions, apply criteria by considering the meaning of the requested TLD string in the following contexts: a. Literally as described in the application b. Literally in any other language in which the string is a recognized word or phrase. c. Informally in any language or regional variant, where alternative meanings exist. I-2. If the proverbial “reasonable person” who understands the relevant context believes that the question should be answered ‘yes’, then the answer is yes.
No
Select Yes or No. Notes: 1. ICANN will evaluate whether an applied-for gTLD string requires one or more Safeguard Public Interest Commitments (Safeguard PICs) to be included in the Base RA). 2. In addition to the Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) that must be included in each Base RA, a subset of Base RAs must include Safeguard PICs based on ICANN’s Safeguard Assessment. See Section 7.8.2.3 Safeguard PICs. 3. Applying entities for TLDs that are not found to require Safeguard PICs can elect to add them to the applicable Base RAs voluntarily to, for example, further their business objectives, help address issues or concerns that are raised or could be raised with respect to their applications, or avoid the need for the evaluation and implementation of customized Registry Voluntary Commitment (RVC). See Section 7.8.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).
No
This question set collects information related to any Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) that the applying entity is submitting. The decision to submit an RVC is typically voluntary, except for those recognized by ICANN to resolve an objection or to address GAC Consensus Advice. See Section 7.8.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments for more information.
1. Select Yes or No. 2. In addition to Safeguard Public Interest Commitments (PICs), an applying entity will be permitted to propose one or more Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) to provide additional safeguards with regard to the registry operator’s operation of an applied-for gTLD string. See Section 7.8.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs). 3. RVCs are separate from Community Registration Policies. See Section 7.8.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) and Section 7.8.4 Community Registration Policies for more information. If you are applying for a Community gTLD, please submit the Community Registration Policies by answering Questions 150-155. However, if you propose to include additional Registry Voluntary Commitments in the RA beyond the Community Registration Policies, you may answer "yes" and proceed to answer the following questions. 4. You are encouraged to consider whether there are other means, separate from including commitment(s) in the Base RA, that could be used to further your business objectives or help resolve any anticipated or actual issue(s) raised regarding the applied-for gTLD string or application. See Section 7.8.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs). Notes: If you select “yes” to this question, you are required to pay the conditional Registry Commitments Evaluation fee, and commitments that are approved by ICANN will be included in Specification 11 of the applicable Base RA as specific voluntary public interest commitments as contractual obligations.
No
This question set collects information related to whether the applied-for gTLD string is a .Brand (see Section 7.3) or if the applying entity is seeking a Code of Conduct exemption (see Section 7.4).
Select Yes or No
No
This serves as an indication of intent to apply for an exemption to Specification 9 and that the applying entity is NOT requesting to be designated a .Brand TLD, pursuant to Specification 13.
No
This question set collects any additional information that the applying entity would like to provide, including any supporting materials.
1. An applying entity may use this response field to submit any additional, optional information or documentation that the applying entity believes enhances understanding of its application or may be of interest to the general public. This could include, but is not limited to, the applying entity’s: a) Individual registry policies; b) Separate agreement with a third-party to fulfill certain commitments; c) Terms of use; d) Additional Community Registration Policies not intended for RA inclusion; e) Other materials that clarify the applying entity’s mission, values, or intended use of the gTLD. Notes: 1. This question is optional and for informational purposes only. 2. The information provided here will not be evaluated as part of the application, or be contractually binding on the applying entity. 3. All submissions to this question will be posted for the public to review and comment.
Zero Gravity Labs provides this supplementary information on the relationship between the applied-for TLD .AGI and its existing Web3 TLD counterpart, .AGENT, on Unstoppable Domains' Web3 naming infrastructure. It does not modify, and is not incorporated into, the applying entity's binding commitments elsewhere in this application. Although .AGI and .AGENT do not share the same string, Unstoppable Domains treats .AGENT as .AGI's Web3 counterpart given the two namespaces' closely related subject matter, and makes the commitments below on that basis. Parallel Operation of the TLD and its Web3 TLD Counterpart The TLD .AGI will operate in parallel with its Web3 counterpart, .AGENT, kept synchronized so that a Domain Name registered in one is, wherever practicable, held by the same registrant in the other. A name registered in only one namespace is blocked from third-party registration in the other, available only to the existing registrant. Technical Compatibility of the Web3 Namespace The Web3 TLD .AGENT is constrained to avoid technical incompatibility with the DNS or ICANN's labeling rules: ● No registration string is permitted in the Web3 namespace that would violate ICANN's labelling rules — no emoji, no strings exceeding DNS label-length limits, none that would fail standard Punycode (xn--) conversion, and no non-ASCII characters a compliant IDNA implementation would reject. ● The Web3 namespace is a separate, non-DNS naming and resolution system; it neither publishes nor depends on DNS resource records. ● Where IPFS content addressing is used with the Web3 namespace, it is limited to file storage and retrieval; the applying entity does not use IPFS to host the Web3 name-resolution service itself. Alignment with the Technical Study Group and the RSEP Process ICANN's Technical Study Group on New gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems is examining the security/stability implications of integrating new gTLDs with alternative (e.g., blockchain-based) naming systems. Once awarded the TLD, the applying entity intends to pursue this parallel operation model through ICANN's RSEP process, consistent with whatever framework that work produces, and will keep its policies compatible with the finalized framework rather than treating this description as fixed. Any future RSEP framework here may be designed around matching strings, which is not the case for .AGI and .AGENT; this pairing may fall outside it. The applying entity will nonetheless apply the same registrant matching and mutual-blocking approach voluntarily, outside the RSEP, and will separately pursue any RSEP or other ICANN process later made available for non-matching pairs. Pre-Existing Rights Protection in the Web3 Namespace The Web3 TLD .AGENT has been preemptively screened against WIPO/TMCH brand lists, with matching names blocked from registration there. Separately, Unstoppable Domains' Terms and Conditions already prohibit knowingly claiming or purchasing a Web3 Domain Name identical to a third party's brand or trademark. Any unresolved rights conflict can be addressed under that prohibition. Launch Sequencing Immediately after the TMCH Sunrise period, all then-existing Web3 Domain Names in .AGENT will be blocked from registration in the TLD, pending the sequence below: ● A valid Sunrise application matching an existing Web3 Domain Name will be reviewed, and the Web3 registration removed in favor of the Sunrise applicant unless both share common control, per the prohibition above.[https://unstoppable.ai/terms] ● Once Sunrise concludes — including resolution of any name contention — all remaining Web3 Domain Names will be registered as corresponding Domain Names in the TLD, to the same registrant. ● Where a Web3 registrant's data does not meet the TLD's registrant-data standards, that registrant will be asked to update it before, or promptly after, the corresponding Domain Name is registered in the TLD.
This question set contains attestations related to the applying entity’s acknowledgment of bona fide intent and prohibited communications.
Confirm the statement using the checkbox.
true
Confirm the statement using the checkbox.
true