Application Details
Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:34 UTC
Application Responses
Section: Applying Entity Information
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.
Ape Naming Limited
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.
A company limited by shares
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.
British Virgin Islands
Provide the website URL of the applying entity, if available.
https://redrock.foundation/
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).
true
1. Specify if the applying entity is an existing registry operator, ICANN accredited registrar, and/or an Affiliate of a registry operator and/or registrar. 2. If the applying entity is an Affiliate, provide the details of such Affiliate relationship, including the name of the affiliated registry operator and/or registrar. 3. If the applying entity is an ICANN accredited registrar, specify the registrar ID number.
The applying entity is an Affiliate of Interstellar Registrar Limited, a British Virgin Islands company and ICANN-accredited registrar (IANA ID 3784). The applying entity and Interstellar Registrar Limited are under the common control of their parent, Red Rock (Cayman) Foundation. The applying entity is not itself an existing registry operator or ICANN-accredited registrar.
Choose Yes or No.
false
1
Provide the primary business phone number without including the country code.
6024561408
Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.
admin@redrock.foundation
Enter the street address (no PO Box).
Commerce House
Wickhams Cay 1
Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.
Road Town
Enter the state, province, department, territory, prefecture, oblast, etc., if applicable.
Tortola
1. Enter the postal code, if applicable. 2. If a postal code does not exist, type “Not Applicable”.
VG1110
VG
If applicable, provide the full legal name as it appears on the official registration documents of the Direct Parent Company of the applying entity. Do not use abbreviations.
Red Rock (Cayman) Foundation
Provide the long form (no acronyms) of the legal entity form/business structure of the Direct Parent Company 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.
Exempted Foundation Company Limited by Guarantee
The jurisdiction indicates the location in which the business of the Direct Parent Company is registered for legal and financial purposes. This is either 1) a country name, or a 2) state/territory name, depending on where the Direct Parent Company is registered. Examples include "Delaware", "Germany", etc.
Cayman Islands
Section: Applying Entity Background and Organization
This question set collects information related to the individuals who will have access to TAMS, manage the application, and receive inquiries.
Derek O'Toole
Derek O'Toole
Red Rock (Cayman) Foundation
Red Rock (Cayman) Foundation
Section: Self-Certification
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.
Section: Security Policy and Planning
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.
Section: DNS Abuse
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.
Section: Primary String
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.
ape
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"
"Ape” identifies the global Ape community: a cultural, technology, and creator ecosystem encompassing ApeCoin, ApeChain, Bored Ape Yacht Club, Otherside, and related projects and programs. In English, “ape” means a large primate or to imitate.
Provide a representation of the string according to the International Phonetic Alphabet.
/eɪp/
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.
The mission of .ape is to provide a trusted, stable, and enduring DNS namespace for the global Ape community. “Ape” is the umbrella identity for ApeCoin, ApeChain, Bored Ape Yacht Club, Otherside, and an ecosystem of builders, creators, applications, games, events, and community programs. The TLD will carry that identity into the ICANN-administered Domain Name System, providing trusted DNS identities for community websites, applications, services, and organizations. The Ape community is global, primarily online, and activity-based, joining digital culture and blockchain technology. Members hold and use ApeCoin; build and transact on ApeChain; participate in BAYC, related collections, and Otherside; create businesses and media around ecosystem intellectual property; develop applications and games; and participate in grants, builder programs, events, and community organizations. Intended registrants are ecosystem participants, including ApeCoin holders; ApeChain users, builders, and application teams; holders of recognized Ape ecosystem digital assets; developers, creators, gamers, infrastructure providers, grant recipients, enterprises, community organizations, and verified program participants. Eligibility is governed by the Community Registration Policies in Q151-153. Intended users include community members and the public seeking to identify and interact with Ape-aligned participants and resources. The namespace will complement ecosystem infrastructure while remaining technically distinct from it. A .ape domain will be delegated through the ICANN root and resolve through the Domain Name System. Registration will not create an on-chain identifier, require blockchain-based resolution, or establish an alternative naming root. Optional integrations may associate .ape domains with ecosystem functionality without changing their authoritative operation in the DNS. Ape Foundation, a central ecosystem steward, formally endorsed Ape Naming Limited after the .ape initiative received community approval through AIP-395 and after reviewing the applicant’s structure, relevant ICANN and domain-industry experience, registry infrastructure, and community registration framework. Yuga Labs, Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security, and Inceptive Studios separately support the application. Together, they serve cultural, creator, security-education, infrastructure, and ApeChain-gaming segments. Ape Naming is the dedicated applicant and proposed registry operator through which this community-supported initiative is pursued. It independently retains responsibility for the application and, if delegated, registry governance, policies, operations, and ICANN compliance. Activities undertaken or planned include pursuing the ICANN application; consulting with Ape Foundation, Yuga Labs, and organizations serving important segments; developing and enforcing community eligibility, name-selection, and review policies; establishing qualified registry infrastructure; distributing registrations through ICANN-accredited registrars; conducting community-focused launch activities; supporting appropriate integrations; and maintaining DNS security, abuse mitigation, data escrow, continuity, and compliance. The purpose is sustainable because continuing activity across ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, Otherside, applications, gaming, creator businesses, programs, and global events creates recurring needs for trusted identity, discoverability, authentication, and navigation. Registration and renewal revenue will support operations, while established registry infrastructure, registrar distribution, and ICANN continuity requirements provide a durable framework independent of any single application, market cycle, or participant.
Section: Community
This question set collects information specific to Community gTLDs. However, question 133 (Mission & Purpose) must be answered by all applying entities.
General
Yes
1. Provide the name of the community that the applying entity is committing to serve. 2. Describe the distinct aspects of the community.
The Ape community: a global, primarily online, activity-based digital-culture and technology community of ApeCoin holders and users, ApeChain builders and users, and participants in BAYC, Otherside, related collections, programs, and organizations.
Enter a category that best describes your community. Some examples of community categories could include, but are not limited to: activity-based and volunteer groups, online or social media groups, religious or political groups, diasporic communities, linguistic communities, celebrity or sports team supporters.
The Ape community is best categorized as a global, primarily online, activity-based digital-culture and technology community. The community developed around Bored Ape Yacht Club (“BAYC”), launched in 2021, and expanded through related collections, holder-developed businesses and media using ecosystem intellectual property, ApeCoin, Otherside, ApeChain, and associated applications, programs, and events. “Ape” now connects several substantial and overlapping segments: ApeCoin holders and users; ApeChain developers, applications, infrastructure providers, and users; BAYC and related-collection holders, creators, and businesses; Otherside builders and participants; and independent gaming, security, education, media, creator, and cultural organizations. This is a distributed, multi-segment community rather than a single corporate customer base or formal membership association. Individual organizations administer particular assets, platforms, programs, or participant groups, but the segments interact through shared technology, digital assets, intellectual-property initiatives, applications, events, communications channels, and the broader Ape identity. Participants commonly occupy more than one role—for example, an ApeCoin holder may also use ApeChain, hold a BAYC-related asset, build an application, operate a community organization, or participate in Otherside. Affiliation arises through active and objectively observable participation, not passive interest or social-media following alone. Relevant connections may be demonstrated by holding or using ApeCoin; controlling a recognized Ape ecosystem digital asset; transacting, developing, or operating an application on ApeChain; creating products, services, media, or experiences associated with BAYC, Otherside, or related ecosystem intellectual property; receiving ecosystem funding or support; or participating in recognized builder, licensing, security, gaming, education, creator, or other ecosystem programs. Many of these connections are verifiable through public blockchain records, while others are documented through program, platform, or organizational records. The community is supported by identifiable institutions without depending upon a single entity for all activity. Ape Foundation provides ecosystem-wide stewardship and supports ApeCoin, ApeChain, initiatives, and programs. Yuga Labs created BAYC and Otherside and remains a principal cultural and technical contributor. Independent organizations - including Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security, and Inceptive Studios - administer and strengthen MAYC, Otherside, gaming, security-education, and creator segments. Their endorsements demonstrate recognition of both the broader Ape community and the distinct groups operating within it. The Ape community is therefore not merely an audience, a collection of customers, or a general market category such as digital-asset users. Its members create, build, transact, collaborate, organize businesses and programs, and participate in recurring online and in-person activities under a shared identity. Its observable participation paths, institutions, common infrastructure, cultural traditions, and continuing cross-segment activity distinguish it as an established community.
Organization
Describe and provide evidence of the relationship between the applying entity and the identified community.
Ape Naming Limited’s connection to the Ape community arises from prior community approval of the .ape initiative and current documented endorsement from the community’s principal stewardship and cultural institutions, supported by organizations serving distinct community segments. Ape Foundation’s endorsement records that the initiative to pursue an ICANN-recognized .ape TLD was presented through the community’s public governance process and approved by ApeCoin token holders through AIP-395. Following that approval, the Foundation evaluated the current applicant structure and formally endorsed Ape Naming as the independent, dedicated entity through which the initiative would be pursued and, if successful, operated. The relationship therefore rests on both community support for the underlying initiative and present institutional endorsement of Ape Naming. Ape Foundation, the central stewardship institution supporting the Ape ecosystem’s long-term growth, reviewed Ape Naming’s proposed structure, relevant ICANN and domain-industry experience, registry capabilities, proposed Registry Services Provider, and community registration framework. The Foundation identifies Ape Naming as the appropriate applicant and intended operator and supports .ape for the community’s ApeCoin, BAYC and MAYC, ApeChain, developer, creator, infrastructure, gaming, partner, and other segments. Yuga Labs separately endorsed Ape Naming from its role as creator of BAYC and Otherside, owner of relevant Ape intellectual property, and a principal cultural and technical contributor. Yuga reviewed the proposed registry structure, experience, infrastructure, and policies and concluded that Ape Naming is the appropriate applicant and operator. Its endorsement is particularly relevant to the BAYC, related-collection, creator, intellectual-property, and Otherside segments, while the Foundation’s endorsement reflects ecosystem-wide stewardship. Ape Naming is a dedicated special-purpose registry entity by design. Operating a gTLD requires an accountable party under the ICANN Registry Agreement, qualified registry infrastructure, registrar distribution, data escrow, rights protection, abuse mitigation, security controls, and continuing compliance. The initiative was therefore placed in an entity formed to carry it through the ICANN process and, if delegated, operate .ape for the community. Ape Naming’s leadership and advisers provide relevant ICANN and domain-name experience; contracted service providers contribute registry and Web3-native capabilities; and its Registry Services Provider will supply established infrastructure and operational support. The relationship is corroborated by independent organizations serving distinct segments. Novel Labs supports the application from its operation of Mutant Cartel and Terminus, longstanding participation in the MAYC and Otherside communities, and work in gaming, events, infrastructure, and cross-chain onboarding. Ape Church supports it as a decentralized gaming platform built on ApeChain serving thousands of players through millions of on-chain games. Their letters identify the broader community, support the Foundation’s endorsement, and recognize the value of a trusted .ape DNS namespace. Ape Naming is not a corporate affiliate or subsidiary of Ape Foundation, Yuga Labs, Novel Labs, Ape Church, Inceptive Studios or Boring Security, and no endorsement confers ownership, control, or registry decision-making authority. Ape Naming independently retains sole responsibility for the application and, if delegated, ultimate responsibility for registry governance, policies, operations, and compliance. The endorsing organizations provide community support and knowledge without directing registry decisions. Evidence includes the Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs endorsements and the supporting letters of Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security and Inceptive Studios.
Describe and provide evidence related to the community organization, any relevant organizing bodies, and any relevant leaders within the community.
The Ape community is organized through multiple complementary institutions and independent organizations rather than a single membership association. Its structure combines ecosystem-wide stewardship, cultural and intellectual-property leadership, shared infrastructure, and organizations administering distinct participant groups. Ape Foundation is the principal ecosystem-wide organizing and stewardship body. It is the legal foundation supporting the long-term development of ApeCoin, ApeChain, and related initiatives. Historically, it administered ApeCoin DAO decisions and programs. Following the community-approved transition from the former DAO model, strategic and operational execution is conducted through the ApeCo operating model, while the Foundation continues to provide the legal, administrative, programmatic, and stewardship framework. Its activities include ecosystem development, funding, technical initiatives, partnerships, and support for builders, creators, and ApeChain participants. Yuga Labs occupies a separate but complementary role. It created BAYC and Otherside, owns relevant Ape intellectual property, and remains a principal cultural and technical contributor. Through related collections, Otherside development, creator and licensing initiatives, products, events, and partnerships, Yuga organizes and supports major holder, creator, gaming, cultural, and intellectual-property segments foundational to the community’s origin, identity, and continuing development. ApeChain provides infrastructure through which developers, applications, gamers, creators, and users interact. Participation is open, and individual organizations administer their own services and participant groups. ApeCoin connects these activities as ApeChain’s native gas token, a currency within Otherside, and a medium used across Ape-related digital and real-world experiences. Independent organizations administer substantial functional and cultural segments. Novel Labs operates Mutant Cartel and Terminus, supports a longstanding MAYC community, organizes games and events, and provides infrastructure connecting additional communities with Otherside. Ape Church administers an ApeChain gaming platform serving thousands of players. Boring Security, a not-for-profit DAO, provides security education and support to Ape and ApeChain participants. Inceptive Studios serves Ape holders and creators through 3D rendering tools for NFT-based visual content. Made by Apes connects hundreds of members developing brands, products, and services using BAYC and MAYC intellectual property. These organizations and programs administer their respective activities and connect complementary segments within the wider community. For the limited Internet-naming function, Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs endorsed Ape Naming Limited as the independent applicant and intended ICANN registry operator for .ape. Ape Naming represents the community solely in pursuing this application and, if delegated, will administer the registry and Community Registration Policies in Q151-Q153. It does not govern ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, Otherside, or independent community organizations. Relevant leaders identified in the evidence include Won Kim of Ape Foundation, Michael Figge of Yuga Labs, Calum Morrison of Novel Labs, KOKO of Ape Church, Brandon Knodel of Boring Security, and Rida Nayed of Inceptive Studios. Each acts for the identified organization; none is presented as holding personal authority over the entire community. Evidence includes the Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs endorsements, the ApeCoin 2026 Whitepaper, and support letters from Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security, and Inceptive Studios.
1. Describe any formal membership process, if there is one. 2. If there is no formal membership process, provide evidence related to how an individual can join the identified community (i.e., “self-identify” as a community member).
The Ape community has no single universal admission, licensing, or membership-registration process. It is an open, participation-based community composed of interconnected cultural, technological, and commercial segments. Individuals and organizations become members through conduct connecting them to ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, Otherside, related collections, programs, organizations, or the broader Ape identity. Members may self-identify, but affiliation is ordinarily accompanied by observable participation and does not depend solely on following a social-media account or joining one communication channel. Entry paths vary by segment. A person may acquire, hold, or use ApeCoin; establish and use an ApeChain wallet; transact, build, deploy, or operate an application on ApeChain; acquire and control a BAYC, MAYC, Otherdeed, or other recognized ecosystem asset; create content, products, experiences, or businesses using authorized community-owned intellectual property; participate in Otherside; receive ecosystem support; or join a recognized builder, creator, gaming, education, security, or other community program. Members also participate through ApeFest and other events, community channels, collaborations, and independent organizations serving particular segments. Some paths have formal requirements. Ownership or control of tokens and digital assets is recorded on public blockchains. Applications and smart contracts deployed to ApeChain and activity conducted through wallets are likewise publicly observable. BAYC and MAYC ownership provides access to holder-specific experiences and rights. Made by Apes uses an application and licensing process through which eligible BAYC and MAYC holders obtain unique, blockchain-verifiable license numbers for qualifying projects. Grants, accelerators, builder programs, and other organized initiatives may use published criteria, applications, selection procedures, or administrator records. Other participation is informal and self-directed. Artists, creators, players, developers, educators, service providers, event participants, and users may publicly identify with and contribute to the Ape community without receiving a universal membership certificate. Their affiliation is demonstrated through their sustained activity, relationships, creations, transactions, services, or participation in recognized community settings. Members do not receive one uniform package of rights. Rights and benefits follow the relevant form of participation: an asset holder may receive holder-specific access or intellectual-property rights; a token or network participant may use ApeCoin or ApeChain infrastructure; a licensed builder may use the Made by Apes designation; and a program participant may receive funding, technical support, visibility, or other program-specific benefits. The Community Registration Policy in Q151 does not create or redefine the Ape community. It draws from established participation paths that can be objectively confirmed and translates them into eligibility requirements for .ape registrations. Registry eligibility will therefore be formally administered even though participation in the broader community remains open, distributed, and activity-based.
Provide the primary location of the community.
Global and primarily online, with no single physical center. Members and organized activities span North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. ApeFest 2024 and 2025 convened participants in Lisbon and Las Vegas.
1. Provide the estimated size of the community. The size should be in number format (e.g., “1,000,000 members”). 2. If the community is divided by group, region, sector, etc., this should include estimated size for each group.
250,000+ documented participants, including 250,000+ ApeChain Spotlight participants, ~190,000 APE-holding addresses, 400+ Made by Apes builders, 8,000+ Novel Labs members, and 4,700+ Ape Church players
Provide the estimated size of the community that is administered or represented by each relevant organizing body in the identified community.
Ape Foundation/ApeCo’s ecosystem-wide remit spans the full 250,000+ participant floor in Q139. Yuga’s foundational BAYC, MAYC, and Otherside ecosystems serve their holders, creators, builders, and users; Novel Labs serves 8,000+ and Ape Church 4,700+.
Engagement
1. Provide evidence of any documented practices of community efforts to date 2. The applying entity should provide documentation of the following practices, which should have occurred within the two years leading up to application submission: a) Offering support; b) Sharing information; c) Responding to specific community needs; d) Fostering and strengthening relationships within the community.
Yes. During the two years preceding submission, Ape Foundation, ApeCo, Yuga Labs, and independent organizations maintained documented engagement with ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, MAYC, Otherside, developer, creator, gaming, infrastructure, security, and regional segments. These are continuing practices, not application-created activities. OFFERING SUPPORT. Ape Foundation supported builders, applications, users, and infrastructure through funding, technical initiatives, incentives, integrations, and partnerships. The Banana Bill, a 100 million APE ecosystem fund, allocated 31.2 million APE through April 2025 across commercial agreements, user incentives, integrations, marketing, and infrastructure. Its Spotlight program engaged more than 250,000 participants in over 430,000 quests involving more than 90 digital-asset collections. Yuga continued creator and licensing support through Made by Apes, connecting more than 400 builders using BAYC and MAYC intellectual property across brands, products, and services. Boring Security reports educating more than 6,000 students across Web3 communities since 2022 and delivering more than 30 free classes to ApeChain. Inceptive Studios supports Ape holders and creators through 3D rendering tools used to create visual content from their digital assets. SHARING INFORMATION. The organizing bodies publish information through official websites, technical documentation, transparency reports, public forums, event channels, and community communications. Ape Foundation published Banana Bill reports, ApeChain technical resources, ecosystem information, and the 2026 ApeCoin Whitepaper describing the current operating model and relationships among ApeCoin, BAYC, Otherside, and ApeChain. Yuga published platform updates, event information, creator resources, and materials explaining BAYC, Otherside, ApeChain, and community-led activity. Independent organizations maintain segment-specific documentation and support channels. RESPONDING TO SPECIFIC COMMUNITY NEEDS. ApeChain’s October 2024 Mainnet launch and subsequent developer resources, incentives, and funding addressed demand for dedicated infrastructure, greater ApeCoin utility, and support for applications and builders. The Banana Bill supplied capital and commercial support across gaming, DeFi, artificial intelligence, digital assets, and infrastructure. The community-approved transition to ApeCo responded to needs for faster execution, professionalized operations, and focused support for high-impact development. Boring Security addressed practical safety needs through free, vendor-neutral education and continuing support concerning wallets, scams, malicious transactions, and emerging threats. FOSTERING AND STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS. Yuga organized recurring ApeFest gatherings in Lisbon in October 2024 and Las Vegas in October 2025, bringing BAYC and MAYC holders, creators, partners, and organizations together. Made by Apes connects license holders, builders, customers, and collaborators and enables discovery and verification of community-created businesses and products. Banana Bill programs connected applications, collections, users, investors, regional advisers, and commercial partners through funding, incentives, quests, and business development. Novel Labs reports continuing games, global events, collaboration with Yuga, ApeFest activities, and infrastructure connecting additional communities with Otherside. Ape Church has engaged more than 4,700 players through more than two million games on ApeChain. Together, these practices demonstrate active and consistent engagement across cultural, creative, commercial, security, gaming, and technical components. Ape Foundation and ApeCo provide ecosystem-wide support and execution; Yuga engages foundational cultural, creator, BAYC, and Otherside segments; and independent organizations sustain relationships with complementary participant groups. Ape Naming’s specialized role is described in Q142.
1. Describe whether the applying entity has a role in any of the activities listed in Question 141. 2. If the applying entity does play a role, provide evidence of the applying entity’s role. If the applying entity does not play a role, describe why this is the case.
Ape Naming Limited’s role in the engagement described in Q141 is specific and complementary. It is the entity endorsed by the community’s principal stewardship and cultural institutions to carry the community-supported .ape Internet-naming initiative through the ICANN process and, if approved, establish and operate .ape as a durable DNS namespace for the Ape community. The broader engagement described in Q141—including ecosystem funding and support, creator and licensing programs, technical development, gaming and cultural activities, events, communications, security education, and application-specific programs—is conducted by Ape Foundation, Yuga Labs, and independent community organizations in their established roles. Those activities predate Ape Naming and continue independently of the application. Ape Naming’s role is to complement those efforts through the specialized ICANN and DNS function. Within those engagement efforts, Ape Naming’s contribution has been consultative and preparatory. It engaged with Ape Foundation, Yuga Labs, and organizations serving distinct community segments to understand the community’s Internet identity and naming needs; define the proposed role of .ape in the global DNS; develop the Community Registration Policies in Q151-Q153; and establish the registry, compliance, and operational structure required by ICANN. The relationship is evidenced first by Ape Foundation’s endorsement. The Foundation records that the .ape initiative previously received community approval through AIP-395 and that, after reviewing the current applicant structure, it endorsed Ape Naming as the independent, dedicated applicant and intended registry operator. Yuga Labs separately endorsed Ape Naming after reviewing its structure, relevant experience, registry capabilities, infrastructure, and community policies. Additional supporting letters demonstrate that Ape Naming’s preparatory engagement extended across complementary functional and cultural segments. Novel Labs supports the initiative from its work with MAYC, Otherside, games, events, and infrastructure. Ape Church supports it from the ApeChain gaming segment. Boring Security supports it from its role providing security education to Ape and ApeChain participants. Inceptive Studios supports it from its role providing creator tools that enable Ape holders to produce visual content from their digital assets. Each identifies Ape Naming, recognizes the intended community application, and looks to Ape Naming to pursue and operate .ape. Ape Naming was formed for this specialized ICANN and DNS function. Its continuing engagement will focus on translating the community-supported initiative into enforceable Community Registration Policies, published verification procedures, qualified registry infrastructure, accredited-registrar distribution, DNS security and abuse controls, rights protection, customer support, and continuing ICANN compliance. It will also consult with participating community institutions and organizations concerning responsible launch, adoption, and potential integrations while independently retaining authority over registry decisions. This division of responsibility connects the community’s established engagement infrastructure with the specialized operating capability required by ICANN. Ape Foundation, Yuga Labs, and independent organizations continue their ecosystem programs and relationships; Ape Naming establishes and maintains the DNS resource intended to complement them. No endorsement grants ownership or control of Ape Naming or authority to direct registry governance, policies, operations, or compliance. Evidence of Ape Naming’s role includes the written endorsements of Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs and the supporting letters of Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security, and Inceptive Studios.
Awareness
1. Provide evidence that demonstrates that community members are aware of the identified community and the different member groups or segments within the identified community. 2. The applying entity should provide documentation of the following practices, which should have occurred within the two years leading up to application submission: a) Surveys conducted; b) Records of activities involving a diversity of community groups, segments, or members.
Yes. Members recognize both the Ape community as a whole and the distinct cultural, technical, commercial, creator, security, gaming, and user segments within it. Awareness is demonstrated through shared assets and infrastructure, recurring cross-segment activities, public records, and institutional endorsements. These records show participants interacting under a common Ape identity rather than operating as unrelated audiences. Recent activities provide direct evidence involving diverse groups. ApeChain Spotlight brought more than 250,000 participants and more than 90 NFT collections into shared quests and leaderboards. Made by Apes identifies more than 400 builders using BAYC and MAYC intellectual property across products, services, media, gaming, food, apparel, and other ventures. ApeFest 2024 convened holders, builders, creators, partners, and applications in Lisbon alongside the public launch of ApeChain; ApeFest 2025 brought thousands of participants from more than 50 countries to Las Vegas. Otherside experiences and ApeChain programs likewise connect collectors, players, developers, applications, and infrastructure providers. Public blockchain and program records reinforce this mutual visibility. ApeCoin ownership and use, ApeChain transactions and deployed applications, and ownership of BAYC, MAYC, Otherdeeds, and related assets are publicly observable. Community directories, event programming, Made by Apes licenses, Spotlight participation, and ecosystem-program records identify builders, organizations, applications, collections, and participant groups and allow members to discover and interact across segments. The endorsements accompanying the application provide further cross-segment evidence. Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs identify the same broader Ape community and describe their ecosystem-wide stewardship, cultural, intellectual-property, technology, and program relationships. Novel Labs identifies its Mutant Cartel, Otherside, gaming, events, and infrastructure constituencies, including an 8,000-plus-member Discord and nearly 1,000 unique BAYC/MAYC holders. Ape Church identifies its ApeChain gaming segment, including more than 4,700 players and more than two million on-chain games. Boring Security identifies Ape and ApeChain participants seeking security education and documents more than 30 ApeChain classes. Inceptive Studios identifies Ape holders and creators using its 3D rendering tools to create visual content from their digital assets. Each organization recognizes its own participant group, the other functional segments with which it interacts, and the wider Ape community of which those groups form part. No general community-awareness survey was conducted during the two-year period. The application instead provides contemporaneous records of activities involving substantial and diverse community groups, segments, and members. The Spotlight, Made by Apes, ApeFest, Otherside, blockchain, program, and organizational records collectively demonstrate that members recognize the umbrella Ape community and its holder, builder, creator, gaming, application, infrastructure, security-education, and cultural segments.
1. Provide evidence of community members’ awareness of the applying entity and its intent to apply for a community gTLD. 2. If there is no such evidence, explain why not.
Yes. The Ape community's principal stewardship and cultural institutions, together with organizations serving significant functional segments, are aware of Ape Naming Limited and its intention to apply for .ape as a community gTLD. That awareness carries forward a community-supported initiative rather than an applicant-originated effort undertaken without community authorization. The community's intention to pursue an ICANN-administered .ape TLD was established publicly in 2024. AIP-395, titled “.APE - Launching the Real .APE Top-Level Domain on the Internet,” described the ICANN opportunity, the proposed DNS namespace, and the intended community benefits. Community members could review and discuss the proposal before it was approved through an ApeCoin token-holder vote. The initiative therefore existed and received community approval before Ape Naming was formed. Ape Naming Limited is the dedicated entity through which that approved objective is now being pursued. Ape Foundation subsequently evaluated the appropriate structure for the application, including Ape Naming's governance, ICANN and domain-industry experience, registry capabilities, proposed Registry Services Provider, and community-oriented registration framework. Its signed endorsement identifies Ape Naming as the independent applicant and intended long-term registry operator and confirms that the Foundation proceeded with the community-approved .ape initiative through that structure. Yuga Labs separately identifies Ape Naming by name and endorses it as the appropriate applicant and long-term operator after evaluating the proposed structure, capabilities, and policies. Signed letters from Novel Labs, Ape Church, Boring Security, and Inceptive Studios likewise identify Ape Naming, acknowledge its intended community application, support the Foundation's endorsement, and urge ICANN to approve .ape. These letters demonstrate informed awareness across ApeCoin and ApeChain stewardship; BAYC, MAYC, and Otherside; infrastructure and events; ApeChain gaming; security education; and creator tools and NFT-based visual content. This evidence reflects one continuous sequence: the community first approved the objective of obtaining .ape; Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs then endorsed the dedicated legal entity formed to carry that objective through the ICANN process; and organizations embedded in distinct community segments confirmed their awareness and support. Ape Naming was not formed to pursue an unsolicited application and seek community approval after the fact. The Ape community is organized across interconnected assets, networks, institutions, programs, applications, and participant groups. Evidence of awareness therefore appropriately combines the public community vote with endorsements from its ecosystem-wide steward, foundational cultural institution, and organizations actively serving complementary segments. Together, those records establish awareness of Ape Naming and the .ape application at both community-wide and functional levels.
Established Presence
Provide evidence of the established presence of the community prior to the opening of the application submission period.
1. Provide evidence that demonstrates that individuals and groups outside of the community show an awareness of the identified community. 2. The applying entity should provide documentation of the following practices, which should have occurred within the two years leading up to application submission: a) Media or other public information regarding the community and its activities or members; b) Discussion of the community in various fora, whether online or in person; c) Evidence of partnerships or collaborations with groups outside of the identified community; d) Evidence of the chartering or organization of the community prior to the opening of the application submission window; e) Evidence of contributions (for example, cultural or scientific) to a larger society or population;
Yes. Outside awareness is demonstrated by independent media and research, external technology and commercial partnerships, internationally attended events, and public records identifying the Ape community and its activities. MEDIA AND PUBLIC INFORMATION. Independent financial, technology, and cultural publications continue to discuss Bored Ape Yacht Club, ApeCoin, ApeChain, Otherside, and their participants as a recognizable ecosystem. Bloomberg discussed BAYC in 2025 as a collection widely known beyond its holders. Binance Research included BAYC in its 2025 market reporting, and peer-reviewed and academic research published during the period examined BAYC as an NFT community, consumer community, and trading network. This coverage is directed to audiences outside Ape-controlled channels. DISCUSSION IN EXTERNAL FORA. The community and its activities are discussed through academic journals, market research, conferences, brand communications, and public industry reporting. ApeFest 2024 in Lisbon and ApeFest 2025 in Las Vegas brought the community into highly visible international venues; the 2025 gathering included thousands of participants from more than 50 countries. The public launch of ApeChain at ApeFest 2024 was reported as an industry event involving applications, infrastructure providers, and external partners. PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS. ApeChain launched using Arbitrum Orbit with participation from organizations including the Arbitrum Foundation, Offchain Labs, Horizen Labs, Caldera, and LayerZero. The Arbitrum Foundation's own transparency reporting identifies ApeChain as an Orbit deployment and records more than 50 applications at launch. BMW presented the world premiere of the new 2 Series Gran Coupe at ApeFest 2024 and continued its BAYC collaboration at ApeFest 2025. BMW's public materials expressly describe BAYC as a Web3 community with technological affinity, creativity, and innovative spirit. These are external organizations recognizing and engaging with the community as a distinct partner. ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION. Before the application window opened, BAYC had operated since April 2021; ApeCoin and Ape Foundation since March 2022; recurring ApeFest gatherings since 2021; Made by Apes since 2023; and ApeChain since October 2024. The community already possessed shared assets, institutions, programs, events, communications, applications, and infrastructure. CONTRIBUTIONS BEYOND THE COMMUNITY. BAYC helped establish the use of digital assets as membership, identity, and commercial intellectual-property tools. Made by Apes now identifies more than 400 builders creating products and services using holder-controlled intellectual property. ApeChain provides infrastructure used by projects and users beyond the original BAYC holder group, while collaborations with BMW and technology providers connect the community's work with automotive design, gaming, identity, interoperability, and broader Internet culture. Together, these records show that technology providers, global brands, researchers, media, market analysts, event participants, and the broader public recognize the Ape community and its constituent activities.
Longevity
1. Provide evidence of the longevity of the community. 2. The applying entity should provide documentation of the following practices which should have occurred within the two years leading up to application submission: a) Evidence of recurring or scheduled activities that demonstrate continuity over time; b) Documented records of past activities that demonstrate a long-standing tradition or practice; c) Records of discussions emphasizing the community’s enduring presence or its cultural significance.
Yes. The Ape community's cultural, technical, and commercial pursuits have continued through multiple operating models and market conditions and are supported by recurring programs, continuing infrastructure, and institutions committed to long-term stewardship. RECURRING AND SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES. ApeFest has convened the community annually since 2021, including Lisbon in 2024 and Las Vegas in 2025. Otherside conducts recurring online events, testing sessions, and product experiences. Made by Apes continuously licenses and promotes community-built businesses and now identifies more than 400 builders. ApeChain maintains developer resources, application discovery, ecosystem programs, and continuing network operation. The Banana Bill has provided ecosystem funding and periodic transparency reporting concerning partnerships, integrations, infrastructure, user incentives, and application development. DOCUMENTED CONTINUITY. BAYC launched in April 2021 and has operated continuously for more than five years. ApeCoin and Ape Foundation launched in March 2022. Made by Apes began in 2023. ApeChain launched in October 2024 and remains live as dedicated infrastructure using ApeCoin as its native gas token. The community's record therefore spans digital culture, intellectual-property development, token use, network operation, applications, events, and commercial activity across every year since its formation. The supporting organizations provide additional records of continuity. Novel Labs describes five years of work with the Ape ecosystem through Mutant Cartel, Otherside, games, infrastructure, and recurring ApeFest-related events. Boring Security, operating since 2022, reports educating more than 6,000 students across Web3 communities and delivering more than 30 classes to the ApeChain ecosystem. Ape Church documents ApeChain activity exceeding two million on-chain games and 4,700 players. Yuga Labs and Ape Foundation describe their roles in terms of the continued growth and long-term success of BAYC, ApeCoin, ApeChain, Otherside, and the broader community. RECORDS EMPHASIZING ENDURING PRESENCE. The 2026 ApeCoin whitepaper establishes a forward-looking operating model focused on ApeChain, BAYC, and Otherside. ApeCoin continues as ApeChain's native gas token, an asset used within Otherside and community commerce, and a common link among cultural and technical activities. Yuga's public activation record documents recurring events, products, collaborations, and community programs rather than a one-time launch campaign. SUSTAINABLE STRUCTURE. Responsibility is distributed among complementary participants. Ape Foundation and ApeCo provide ecosystem stewardship and execution; Yuga Labs develops BAYC, Otherside, and related intellectual property and experiences; ApeChain supplies continuing technical infrastructure; and independent builders, applications, gaming platforms, creators, and community organizations serve their participants. Inceptive Studios' 3D rendering tools enable Ape holders and creators to produce new visual content from their digital assets, illustrating how community-held intellectual property supports continuing creative activity. The 2025 transition from proposal-based DAO governance to ApeCo demonstrates institutional adaptation, not dissolution: the shared identity, assets, infrastructure, programs, events, and participant groups continued. The proposed .ape registry will serve this existing continuity rather than create it. The community's multi-year history, repeat participation, durable assets, continuing infrastructure, recurring activities, and documented stewardship demonstrate that its pursuits are enduring and sustainable.
Nexus
Explain how the applied-for string matches the name of the community or is a well-known alternative name (whether long or short form) of the community.
Yes. “Ape” is the exact shared name and recognized identifier of the identified community. EXACT COMMUNITY NAME. The community is commonly and institutionally called the Ape community. “Ape” is the operative term shared across its principal institutions, infrastructure, assets, programs, and activities: ApeCoin, Ape Foundation, ApeChain, ApeFest, and Made by Apes. The applied-for string therefore reproduces the community's name without abbreviation or alteration. OFFICIAL IDENTIFIER. APE is the official ticker and recognized identifier for ApeCoin in wallets, exchanges, market-data services, and blockchain records. ApeCoin's official materials identify it as the token of BAYC, Otherside, and ApeChain and describe its use by holders, builders, creators, collectors, gamers, and other participants. In the relevant Internet and digital-asset context, APE identifies both the token and the ecosystem it connects. INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL SELF-IDENTIFICATION. Ape Foundation uses “Ape” in its name; the ecosystem blockchain is ApeChain; the recurring community gathering is ApeFest; Yuga's licensed builder program is Made by Apes; and participants commonly identify themselves as Apes. Novel Labs describes events “for Apes,” while Ape Church uses the name for a community application built on ApeChain. This is consistent usage across independent institutions and participant segments, not terminology created for the application. COMMUNITY SELECTION OF THE STRING. The community expressly selected .ape for its proposed ICANN namespace through AIP-395, titled “.APE - Launching the Real .APE Top-Level Domain on the Internet.” Community members reviewed and discussed the proposal before approving it through a token-holder vote. Ape Foundation's endorsement confirms that the Foundation proceeded with that approved initiative and subsequently endorsed Ape Naming as the dedicated applicant and intended registry operator. The signed endorsements independently confirm the match. Ape Foundation and Yuga Labs each describe .ape as the natural DNS representation of the Ape community. Novel Labs and Ape Church describe the string as a natural and established community identifier from their respective roles in MAYC, Otherside, infrastructure, events, and ApeChain gaming. Although “ape” also has ordinary English meanings, those meanings do not alter the exact match between the applied-for string and the name consistently used by this identified community.
1. Explain how the applied-for string clearly relates to or represents the community 2. Explain whether the applied-for string has any other significant meaning beyond identifying the community or community members described in the application. The applying entity may wish to provide pertinent information regarding any particular geography, region, or themes that may be alluded to by the string, of which the community may or may not be a part.
Yes. When encountered as an Internet identifier, particularly in digital-culture, gaming, and Web3 contexts, “ape” will instinctively call to mind the identified Ape community. The string is the community’s recognized umbrella identifier, not a name created for this application. That association results from repeated public use of “Ape” across the community’s principal institutions, assets, infrastructure, and activities: ApeCoin, Ape Foundation, ApeChain, ApeFest, Made by Apes, Bored Ape Yacht Club, and Mutant Ape Yacht Club. APE is ApeCoin’s official market and blockchain identifier; community participants commonly identify themselves as Apes; and the community selected .ape as its proposed ICANN namespace through AIP-395. Together, these uses connect the standalone term with an identifiable cultural, creator, gaming, and technology ecosystem. The association is also recognized outside community-controlled channels. Rolling Stone described how Bored Ape Yacht Club created a billion-dollar ecosystem and reported on the culture, businesses, events, and identities built around the Apes. Animoca Brands described BAYC as entrenched in popular culture, supported by one of the NFT market’s most dedicated communities, and a cultural milestone capable of representing the broader NFT movement. BMW’s public materials describe BAYC and ApeFest as a Web3 community distinguished by technological affinity, creativity, and innovation. Exchanges, wallets, analysts, academic researchers, media organizations, and infrastructure providers likewise use ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, and broader Ape ecosystem terminology for outside audiences. These independent uses demonstrate that “Ape” functions publicly as a community identity rather than merely as internal branding. The string also has ordinary and contextual meanings. In English, an ape is a large primate, and “to ape” means to imitate. In Web3 vernacular, “ape in” may refer to entering or joining a project, community, or digital-asset opportunity. That expression is not exclusive to this community and is not offered as the basis for the application’s community nexus. It does, however, arise from the same digital-cultural environment in which the Ape identity became prominent and reinforces the immediate relevance of “ape” to Web3 audiences. These meanings describe an animal, an action, or behavior; they do not identify another comparably established and organized community known as the Ape community. The relevant inquiry is therefore whether .ape clearly represents the community described in this application when used as an Internet identifier. The community’s umbrella name, institutional and program names, public self-identification, market symbol, external recognition, and express selection of .ape establish that relationship. The Community Registration Policies in Q151-Q153 will further preserve the nexus by limiting registration eligibility to persons and entities participating in or affiliated with the Ape ecosystem. Accordingly, although “ape” has dictionary and broader Web3 uses, the public association most relevant to the applied-for TLD is with the established Ape community and its interconnected cultural, creator, gaming, and technology ecosystem.
Community Registration Policy
Select from Radio Buttons - Yes/No. Notes: 1. Community Registration Policies are conditions that community gTLD registry operators impose upon registrants within their gTLDs. 2. If you select “Yes” to this question, the applying entity is required to pay the conditional Registry Commitments Evaluation fee, and Community Registration Policies that are approved by ICANN will be scored in the CPE (if the applying entity elects to participate) and included in Specification 12 of the applicable Base RA. 3. If you select “No,” then the application cannot proceed as a community application.
Yes
1. Draft the Community Registration Policy as proposed contract language. Policies that are approved by ICANN will be included in Specification 12 of the applicable Registry Agreement and will be subject to enforcement by ICANN Contractual Compliance. See Appendix 4 Base Registry Agreement, Specification 12 for drafting approach. Consider the usage of defined terms and the definitions of such terms in the 2026 Round Base RA. 2. Enter a single proposed Community Registration Policy with respect to registrant eligibility in each response field. Up to 10 Community Registration Policies can be submitted. 3. Follow this format to propose what the Registry Operator must do and/or must not do: a) “Registry Operator shall___”; and/or b) “Registry Operator shall not___”. 4. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to include in its Registry-Registrar Agreement for registrars ,: a) "Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall___”; and/or b) "Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall not___”. 5. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to require registrars to include in the applicable Registration Agreements: a) "Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring ___"; and/or b) "Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting ___". 6. Include any objective measures that can be applied to demonstrate the Registry Operator’s compliance with the Community Registration Policy. For example: a) Registry Operator shall develop and implement a registration eligibility policy and publish this policy on its website no later than the date on which the TLD is delegated in the DNS. b) Registry Operator shall review the registration policy described in (a) at least once per year, and publish the results of such review (including any updates to the registration policy) on its website within thirty (30) days following the anniversary of the Effective Date. 7. If the Community Registration Policy is limited in time, duration, scope, or any other factors, specify the applicable limitations. For example, if a registrant eligibility restriction is time-limited, the applying entity must state if the restriction will apply for the lifetime of the gTLD, only during a specified period, or for some other defined period (such as, Registry Operator shall, for a period of x days from the Effective Date, ___). 8. See Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) Criteria for evaluation criteria that ICANN will apply for evaluating each proposed Community Registration Policy.
Registry Operator shall restrict registrant eligibility for second-level domain names in the .ape TLD to persons or entities that demonstrate participation or affiliation with the Ape ecosystem at the time of initial registration or an intent to participate within 90 days after registration. An eligible registrant shall satisfy at least one of the following criteria pursuant to the Verification Methodology described below: (a) Controls a blockchain address holding a non-zero balance of ApeCoin (APE); (b) Has deployed one or more smart contracts or applications to ApeChain; (c) Operates or provides a documented technical, creative, commercial, educational, or community service that supports ApeChain or the Ape ecosystem; (d) Holds one or more valid Ape Names recorded on ApeChain or through documented successor Ape naming infrastructure recognized under the Verification Methodology; (e) Controls a blockchain address holding one or more digital assets in Bored Ape Yacht Club, Mutant Ape Yacht Club, Otherdeed, or another Ape ecosystem collection recognized under the Verification Methodology; (f) Has received a grant or ecosystem funding award from Ape Foundation, ApeCoin DAO, ApeCo, or a documented successor Ape ecosystem program within the 36 months preceding registration; (g) Is a verified participant in an eligible Ape ecosystem program included on the Programs List described below; (h) Promotes the Ape ecosystem; (i) Can provide other objectively verifiable evidence of participation in the Ape ecosystem upon request; or (j) Intends to satisfy one or more of criteria (a)-(i) within 90 days after registration. Registry Operator shall maintain and publish on its website a sample list of programs eligible under criterion (g) (the “Programs List”). An eligible program must have a publicly documented purpose of supporting persons or entities that build, operate, use, create for, educate about, or otherwise contribute to the Ape ecosystem and must permit participation to be verified. Registry Operator shall independently administer the Programs List and may add, remove, or recognize substantially equivalent programs in accordance with the published Verification Methodology. Registry Operator shall publish the Verification Methodology on its website no later than commencement of the first registration period. The Verification Methodology shall identify the information or records used to evaluate each criterion and the party responsible for verification. Records or confirmation supplied by Ape Foundation, ApeCo, a program administrator, or any other person or entity shall be evidentiary only and shall not confer authority to direct, approve, veto, or otherwise control a determination or operation of the .ape TLD. Registry Operator shall permit a trademark holder to register a second-level domain name that is identical to its trademark at any time, even if the holder does not otherwise satisfy criteria (a)-(i), as part of Registry Operator’s efforts to create a safe and reputable namespace.
1. Draft the Community Registration Policy as proposed contract language. Policies that are approved by ICANN will be included in Specification 12 of the applicable Base Registry Agreement and will be subject to enforcement by ICANN Contractual Compliance. See Appendix 4 Base Registry Agreement, Specification 12 for drafting approach. Consider the usage of defined terms and the definitions of such terms in the 2026 Round Base RA. 2. Enter a single proposed Community Registration Policy with respect to name selection criteria or rules for the applied-for string in each response field. Up to 10 Community Registration Policies can be submitted. 3. These criteria or rules should align with the community objectives of the applied-for gTLD string. 4. Follow this format to propose what the Registry Operator must do and/or must not do: a) “Registry Operator shall___”; and/or b) “Registry Operator shall not___”. 5. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to include in its Registry-Registrar Agreement for registrars: a) ""Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall___”; and/or b) ""Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall not___”. 6. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to require registrars to include in the applicable Registration Agreements: a) ""Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring___""; and/or b) ""Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting ___"". 7. Include any objective measures that can be applied to demonstrate the Registry Operator’s compliance with the Community Registration Policy. For example: a) Registry Operator shall develop and implement a name selection rule and publish it on its website no later than the date on which the TLD is delegated in the DNS. b) Registry Operator shall review the name selection rule described in (a) at least once per year, and publish the results of such review (including any updates to the rule) on its website within thirty (30) days following the anniversary of the Effective Date. 8. If the Community Registration Policy is limited in time, duration, scope, or any other factors, specify the applicable limitations. For example, if a name selection rule is time-limited, the applying entity must state if the rule will apply for the lifetime of the gTLD, only during a specified period, or for some other defined period (such as, Registry Operator shall, for a period of x days from the Effective Date, ___). 9. See Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) Criteria for evaluation criteria that ICANN will apply for evaluating each proposed Community Registration Policy.
Registry Operator shall not permit registration of a second-level domain name in the .ape TLD that is identical, without regard to letter case, to a label included on the Reserved Names List unless Registry Operator provides written authorization. Registry Operator shall maintain and publish on its registrar portal a Reserved Names List containing second-level labels that may correspond to documented names, trademarks, or commonly used identifiers of persons or entities with a documented connection to the Ape ecosystem. Registry Operator shall independently establish and administer the Reserved Names List under this policy. Registry Operator shall create the initial Reserved Names List no later than commencement of the first registration period for the TLD. An addition to the Reserved Names List shall apply prospectively and shall not affect a Registered Name created before the addition unless required by applicable ICANN policy, an applicable dispute-resolution proceeding, court order, or agreement with the Registered Name Holder.
1. Draft the Community Registration Policy as proposed contract language. Policies that are approved by ICANN will be included in Specification 12 of the applicable Registry Agreement and will be subject to enforcement by ICANN Contractual Compliance. See Appendix 4 Base Registry Agreement, Specification 12 for drafting approach. Consider the usage of defined terms and the definitions of such terms in the 2026 Round Base RA. 2. Enter a single proposed Community Registration Policy in each response field. Up to 10 Community Registration Policies can be submitted. 3. Follow the format to propose what the Registry Operator must do and/or must not do: a) “Registry Operator shall___”; and/or b) “Registry Operator shall not___”. 4. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to include in its Registry-Registrar Agreement for registrars: a) ""Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall___”; and/or b) ""Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall not___”. 5. Follow this format to propose any specific requirement(s) that the Registry Operator commits to require registrars to include in the applicable Registration Agreements: a) ""Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring___""; and/or b) ""Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry- Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting___"". 6. Include any objective measures that can be applied to demonstrate the Registry Operator’s compliance with the Community Registration Policy. For example: a) Registry Operator shall develop and implement a Community Registration policy and publish this policy on its website no later than the date on which the TLD is delegated in the DNS. b) Registry Operator shall review the Community Registration Policy described in (a) at least once per year, and publish the results of such review (including any updates to the registration policy) on its website within thirty (30) days following the anniversary of the Effective Date. 7. If the Community Registration Policy is limited in time, duration, scope, or any other factors, specify the applicable limitations. For example, if a commitment is time-limited, the applying entity must state if the rule will apply for the lifetime of the gTLD, only during a specified period, or for some other defined period (such as, Registry Operator shall, for a period of x days from the Effective Date, ___). 8. See Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) Criteria for evaluation criteria that ICANN will apply for evaluating each proposed Community Registration Policy.
Registry Operator shall maintain a process through which a registrant or prospective registrant may request review of an adverse determination made under the .ape registrant eligibility or name-selection policies. Registry Operator shall permit a request for review to be submitted within seven (7) days after notice of the adverse determination and shall provide the requesting party with a written decision within thirty (30) days after receiving the request. Registry Operator shall publish the review process on its website no later than commencement of General Availability. Registry Operator shall independently establish, following appropriate consultation with Ape community participants, a Reserved Names List and policy for community-priority names that may be allocated to qualified community members. Registry Operator shall publish the applicable qualifications, allocation method, and priority period on its website before the period begins. Registry Operator shall hold one or more Limited Registration Periods before General Availability, with eligibility restricted to qualified Ape community members. Registry Operator shall publish the applicable qualifications and launch dates on its website before each period begins.
1. If you are proposing any limitation to a proposed Community Registration Policy in Questions 151-153, please provide a rationale in this response field. Please see Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) Criteria. 2. If you are not proposing any limitation to a proposed Community Registration Policy in Questions 151-153, please type ""Not Applicable"" in this response field.
The proposed Community Registration Policies contain limited temporal and scope qualifications, each tailored to the purpose of the applicable policy. Q151 evaluates community eligibility at initial registration rather than at each renewal. This permits a Registered Name to remain a stable Internet identifier after a registrant establishes a qualifying connection to the community, even if the particular form of participation later changes. The 90-day intent pathway allows a good-faith new participant to obtain an identity for an activity it is preparing to undertake within the Ape ecosystem. The 36-month period for grant- or funding-based eligibility ensures that an award used as evidence reflects a reasonably current community connection. The trademark-holder exception is limited to registration of the holder’s trademark and supports a safe and reputable namespace without creating a broader exception to community eligibility. Under Q152, an addition to the Reserved Names List applies prospectively. This protects the reasonable expectations of an existing Registered Name Holder and avoids retroactively impairing a registration that was permitted when created. The written-authorization exception permits Registry Operator to authorize an otherwise reserved registration when appropriate. Under Q153, the seven-day period for requesting review promotes prompt resolution of adverse determinations, while the 30-day decision period provides sufficient time to evaluate the request and issue a reasoned written decision. Community-priority allocation periods and Limited Registration Periods are time-limited because they serve launch and priority-allocation purposes before the ordinary registration process applies. Except for these expressly identified temporal and scope qualifications, the proposed Community Registration Policies are not time-limited and are intended to apply throughout the term of the Registry Agreement.
1. Provide an explanation of how the proposed Community Registration Policies meet the Registry Commitments Evaluation criteria 4 and 5 using the considerations in the Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) Criteria. 2. Consider whether the proposed Community Registration Policy could be argued to be duplicative of a requirement under applicable law, ICANN agreements, or ICANN Consensus Policies or Temporary Policies. There may be circumstances in which a Community Registration Policy that would duplicate requirements under applicable consensus policy or law could be approved at ICANN’s sole discretion. If not duplicative, please explain why you believe the Community Registration Policy is not duplicative. If yes, please specify such a requirement and explain why you believe duplication in the Base RA is necessary. 3. Consider whether the proposed Community Registration Policy could be argued to be contrary to a requirement under applicable law, ICANN agreements, or ICANN Consensus Policies or Temporary Policies. ICANN will not approve any Community Registration Policies that are found to be contrary to applicable laws, ICANN agreements and policies. Please share your views on this issue in the answer to this question. 4. Consider whether the proposed Community Registration Policy could be argued to be incompatible with ICANN’s Bylaws. ICANN will not approve any Community Registration Policies that are found to be incompatible with the ICANN Bylaws. See background at the ICANN Board resolution 2024.06.08.08-2024.06.08.10. Please share your views on this issue in the answer to this question. 5. Consider whether the proposed Community Registration Policy requires the operation of an additional Registry Service. The applying entity shall engage its selected RSP to discuss the implementation of such an additional Registry Service, which must be evaluated through the RSP Program and approved by ICANN.
CRITERION 4: DUPLICATION AND CONTRARY REQUIREMENTS. The proposed Community Registration Policies do not duplicate, and are not contrary to, requirements under applicable law, the Base Registry Agreement, ICANN Consensus Policies, or ICANN Temporary Policies. Q151 establishes a .ape-specific eligibility framework based on participation or affiliation with the Ape ecosystem, evidence of community participation, promotion of the ecosystem, or an intent to participate within 90 days. No applicable law or ICANN requirement establishes or administers these community-specific eligibility conditions. The limited trademark-holder exception is an eligibility provision and does not replace or duplicate the Trademark Clearinghouse, Sunrise, Trademark Claims, UDRP, URS, or any other applicable rights-protection mechanism. Q152 establishes a .ape-specific Reserved Names List and rules governing the availability and prospective reservation of community-related second-level labels. Applicable ICANN requirements and rights-protection mechanisms do not require Registry Operator proactively to identify and reserve documented names, trademarks, or identifiers associated with the Ape ecosystem. The policy supplements those requirements without replacing or limiting them. Q153 establishes an internal review procedure for determinations made under the .ape eligibility and name-selection policies, together with community-priority allocation and Limited Registration Period processes. Applicable law and ICANN requirements do not provide an equivalent review or priority-allocation process for the Ape community. These processes operate subject to, and do not limit, any rights or remedies available under applicable law, the Registry Agreement, or ICANN policies. Nothing in Q151-Q153 authorizes conduct prohibited by, excuses compliance with, or alters any obligation imposed by applicable law, the Registry Agreement, an ICANN Consensus Policy, or an ICANN Temporary Policy. CRITERION 5: ICANN BYLAWS COMPATIBILITY. The proposed policies concern who may register a .ape domain name, when registration may occur, which second-level labels may be available, and how Registry Operator determinations may be reviewed. These are operational and procedural conditions directly concerning the allocation and administration of unique identifiers within the .ape TLD. The policies do not restrict or require evaluation of website content, communications, applications, products, or services. References to ApeCoin, ApeChain, and Ape Names are used solely to identify evidence of community participation. The policies do not require DNS resolution through ApeChain, create interoperability with an on-chain identifier, or establish an alternative naming root. ADDITIONAL REGISTRY SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS. Registry Operator is coordinating implementation with its selected Registry Service Provider. The policies can be implemented through ordinary registration, reservation, verification, and launch workflows. Eligibility may be evaluated using public blockchain records, cryptographic proof, or documentary evidence without altering DNS, DNSSEC, EPP, RDDS, or data-escrow services and without providing an on-chain resolution service. On the proposed implementation, the policies do not require an additional Registry Service. If ICANN or the selected Registry Service Provider determines that a particular implementation would constitute an additional Registry Service, Registry Operator shall complete the required RSP Program evaluation and obtain ICANN approval before offering that service.
Community Endorsement
Please provide evidence of support for the applying entity’s application by attaching written endorsements from the organizing bodies relevant to the identified community (related to Question 136).
Ape Naming Limited has written support from Ape Foundation, the principal ecosystem-wide stewardship body; Yuga Labs, the creator and intellectual-property owner of Bored Ape Yacht Club and the broader Ape brand and ecosystem; and organizations serving important MAYC, Otherside, infrastructure, events, ApeChain gaming, and security-education segments. APE FOUNDATION. The Foundation formally endorses Ape Naming as the independent, dedicated applicant and intended long-term registry operator. Its letter explains the Foundation's stewardship role, the community's prior approval of the .ape initiative through AIP-395, the Foundation's evaluation of Ape Naming's proposed structure and capabilities, the reasons for its endorsement, and the community benefit of a trusted .ape DNS namespace. This is the principal institutional endorsement. Ape Naming remains independently responsible for registry governance, policies, operations, and ICANN compliance. YUGA LABS. Yuga Labs formally endorses Ape Naming from its role as creator of BAYC and owner of the intellectual property underlying the Ape brand. Its letter describes Yuga's relationships with developers, builders, creators, infrastructure providers, ecosystem partners, and the broader community; its evaluation of Ape Naming; and its conclusion that .ape is the community's natural DNS representation. Yuga supports the proposed community policies while confirming Ape Naming's independent registry responsibility. NOVEL LABS. Novel Labs supports the application from its five-year role operating Mutant Cartel and Terminus and collaborating with Yuga Labs to expand Ape and Otherside. Its letter documents an 8,000-plus-member Discord, approximately 3,500 holders across its NFT expansions, nearly 1,000 unique BAYC/MAYC holders, games and global events for Apes, and infrastructure connecting outside collections with Otherside. Novel supports the Foundation's endorsement and urges approval. APE CHURCH. Ape Church supports the application as a decentralized gaming platform serving ApeChain users. Its letter reports more than two million on-chain games, more than 4,700 players, and more than 200 million APE in wagering volume. It recognizes .ape as the community's established identifier, supports the Foundation's endorsement of Ape Naming, and describes the namespace's expected benefit for ApeChain users and applications. BORING SECURITY. Boring Security supports the application as a not-for-profit DAO providing free, vendor-neutral Web3 security education. It serves Ape and ApeChain community members and, since 2022, has educated more than 6,000 students across Web3 communities and delivered more than 30 classes to the ApeChain ecosystem. Its letter recognizes .ape as an established identifier for the community, supports the Foundation's endorsement of Ape Naming, and describes the benefit of a trusted DNS namespace for security, discoverability, and ecosystem identity. BREADTH AND NATURE OF SUPPORT. The community has no single membership roll. Support is therefore demonstrated through its ecosystem-wide stewardship institution, the owner and developer of foundational cultural and intellectual-property assets, and organizations serving complementary functional segments. Together, the endorsements demonstrate support spanning ApeCoin, ApeChain, BAYC, MAYC, Otherside, creators, builders, infrastructure, events, gaming, and security education. The letters do not confer ownership, control, or registry decision-making authority. Ape Naming independently retains sole responsibility for the application and, if delegated, the registry.
Provide an explanation of why opposition may or may not be relevant or how the applying entity intends to address or resolve the opposition, if applicable.
No. As of the date of submission, Ape Naming Limited is not aware of any opposition to the applying entity, this application, or the applied-for .ape string. No person, organization, or Ape community entity has communicated opposition to Ape Naming Limited. Accordingly, there is no known opposition to assess or address.
Section: Safeguard Identification
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
Section: Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs)
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
Section: Brand & Code of Conduct Exemptions
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
Section: Additional Information and Supporting Materials
This question set collects any additional information that the applying entity would like to provide, including any supporting materials.
Section: Bona Fide Intent and Prohibited Communications
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