Application Details

Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:38 UTC

Application Type: New gTLD

Primary String: meow

Application ID: DF2547-T70591

Application Priority Number: --

Application Status: Active

Processing Stage: Pre-Evaluation Processing

Comment Period: --

View:

Summary Responses Clarifying Questions Change Requests Documents Objections

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.

AGB Q1. Full Legal Name

Provide the full legal name of the applying entity as it appears on the official registration documents. Do not use abbreviations.

DotMeow Foundation

AGB Q3. Legal Entity Form/Business Structure

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.

Non-profit Association

AGB Q4. Jurisdiction

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.

Belgium

AGB Q10. Website URL

Provide the website URL of the applying entity, if available.

https://www.dotmeow.org/

AGB Q11. Is the applying entity an existing registry operator, ICANN accredited registrar, or an Affiliate of either?

1. Choose Yes or No. 2. Use the definition of Affiliate from the Base Registry Agreement (see https://www.icann.org/en/registry-agreements/base-agreement).

false

AGB Q13. Is the applying entity a back-end registry service provider (RSP), an ICANN-approved data escrow agent, an emergency back-end registry operator, a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) service provider, an ICANN dispute resolution service provider, a Privacy or Proxy Service Provider, or a Reseller?

Choose Yes or No.

false

AGB Q17. Phone Country Code

AGB Q18. Primary Business Phone

Provide the primary business phone number without including the country code.

451045643

AGB Q19. Primary Business Email Address

Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.

info@dotmeow.org

AGB Q20. Address Line 1

Enter the street address (no PO Box).

Gaston Crommenlaan 8

AGB Q21. Address Line 2

Ledeberg

AGB Q22. Locality

Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.

Gent

AGB Q23. State/Province/Region

Enter the state, province, department, territory, prefecture, oblast, etc., if applicable.

Oost-Vlaanderen

AGB Q24. Postal Code

1. Enter the postal code, if applicable. 2. If a postal code does not exist, type “Not Applicable”.

9050

AGB Q25. Country Code of Location

Section: Applying Entity Background and Organization

Section: Self-Certification

Section: Security Policy and Planning

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.

AGB Q221. Q5.2-1 - Provide the applying entity’s self-certification document, signed by the CEO, President, CFO and/or equivalent officer of the applying entity. The self-certification document must represent and warrant: SC5.2-1.1 - The applying entity will, no later than delegation of the Top Level Domain (TLD), establish a dedicated abuse point of contact responsible for addressing matters requiring expedited attention and providing a timely response to abuse complaints concerning any name registered in the TLD. SC5.2-1.2 - The applying entity will, no later than delegation of the TLD, establish, publish, and provide to ICANN the location of a mechanism for members of the public to submit reports of abuse in accordance with the current obligations of the Base RA and any Consensus Policies. SC5.2-1.3 - The applying entity has developed proposed measures for removal of orphan glue records for names removed from the zone when provided with evidence in written form that the glue is present in connection with malicious conduct (see Specification 6). SC5.2-1.4 - The applying entity has or will have at time of delegation, established policies for handling complaints regarding abuse. Such policies are to be maintained and posted publicly so that anyone can review the policies via the Internet and any other means deemed appropriate by the applying entity. The applying entity’s policies at a minimum should contain appropriate confirmation of the receipt of the abuse report, the process of review of the report, and actions that will be taken if the applying entity confirms the report is legitimate. SC5.2-1.5 - The applying entity understands that DNS Abuse is Phishing, Malware, Botnets, Pharming and Spam (when used to deliver other forms of DNS Abuse). The applying entity understands and is prepared to contribute to the mitigation or disruption of DNS Abuse in domains in the TLD zone. SC5.2-1.6 - The applying entity’s abuse response capabilities are resourced appropriately to ensure a timely and adequate investigation and response to reports of DNS Abuse. This includes capabilities to receive and evaluate evidence of DNS Abuse in reports, and to take action to stop or disrupt the DNS Abuse. SC5.2-1.7 - The applying entity is prepared to conduct periodic scans of its zone to identify if domains are being used to perpetrate DNS Abuse, and to maintain statistical reports of the scans, the findings, and actions taken.

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.

Has Documents

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.

AGB Q116. Applied-for Primary String (ASCII Label)

meow

AGB Q118. What is the meaning/definition of the applied-for gTLD string?

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"

The English language onomatopoeia for the sound a cat makes

AGB Q119. Script of String

If an IDN, provide the script of the string (both in English and as referenced by the RZ-LGR/ISO 15924)

Latin

AGB Q120. Phonetic Representation

Provide a representation of the string according to the International Phonetic Alphabet.

/miˈaʊ/

AGB Q121. As per Section 3(d) of Specification 11 of the Base Registry Agreement, a registry operator of a “generic string” may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement). “Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others. Confirm that the applied-for string is not a “generic string” in which the applying entity intends to limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity.

Confirm the statement using a checkbox.

true

AGB Q133. What is the mission and purpose of the applied-for gTLD?

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 the meow registry is to create a welcoming, community-driven space on the internet that exists to serve and celebrate queer communities worldwide, while remaining open to all who share an affinity for our mission. We operate as a non-profit association; the registry is constituted not for financial gain but with the express purpose of channelling registration revenue toward the creation and sustained support of queer communities. .meow is open to anyone who wishes to register a domain name under the string. There are no eligibility restrictions based on identity, profession, or affiliation. The intended registrant base reflects the diverse coalition that brought this project into being; queer individuals and organisations, information security professionals, digital rights advocates, and the broader population of people who consider themselves active and engaged participants in internet culture and with an interest in its governance. What unites our intended registrant base is not a fixed demographic profile but a voluntary association with the values the registry is designed to represent — openness, community, and the responsible stewardship of shared digital infrastructure. The founding and ongoing viability of .meow was demonstrated through a successful crowdfunding campaign, which drew support from a wide cross-section of the communities described above. This origin is not incidental; it deliberately reflects the organisation's founding philosophy that infrastructure serving communities should be accountable to and funded by those communities. Proceeds from domain registrations will be directed toward funding queer community initiatives globally, with particular attention to both digital spaces and but also real-world community infrastructure. The registry also carries an educational and civic mission. Our secondary but meaningful goal is to increase engagement between everyday internet users, the information security industry, and ICANN and the broader domain name system. This is not solely a future ambition — the foundation has already committed to transparency and public education by conducting the application process openly and intends to continue doing so. This includes producing accessible public resources explaining how the DNS, the gTLD programme, and internet governance processes work, and actively encouraging registrants and users to participate in those processes should they wish to do so. The registry's sustainability rests on several foundations. The first is the breadth of its intended registrant base — which spans multiple engaged and technically literate communities — which should provide a robust and diverse demand base that is not contingent on any single constituency. The second is that in operating as a non-profit association with a clearly defined public benefit purpose provides structural accountability; our future revenue is committed to mission delivery rather than extraction, which will sustain trust and long-term registrant loyalty. The third is our active engagement and educational mission, we hope it will foster an ongoing relationship with both our registrants and the wider internet community. As designed, all of these elements describe a registry whose purpose is durable because it is rooted in genuine community need, is governed transparently, and is oriented toward outcomes that will grow in relevance over time rather than diminishing.

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.

AGB Q164. Will people see a domain name as more trustworthy because it is registered in your TLD? Think about how people around the world will understand the TLD string(s) in the application, including literal and informal meanings in different languages and regions.

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.

AGB Q165. Is it likely that consumers will face significant risks if domain names in the TLD(s) in the application are abused? Think about how people around the world will understand the TLD string(s) in the application, including literal and informal meanings in different languages and regions.

AGB Q166. Would people generally think that this TLD will be used by entities that require strict licensing or accreditation to do business? Think about how the TLD string(s) in the application will be understood around the world, including both literal and informal meanings in different languages and regions.

AGB Q167. Would most people think that (domains in) the TLD(s) in the application are used for activities that require regular government reporting, inspections, and oversight in various countries? Think about how the TLD string(s) in the application will be understood around the world, including both literal and informal meanings in different languages and regions.

AGB Q168. Could people reasonably believe that (domains in) your TLD will cause or lead to harassment, harm, aggression, complaints, criticism, distress, or embarrassment? Think about how the TLD string(s) in the application will be understood globally, including different languages and cultures.

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.

AGB Q169. Would most people think that the TLD is used for something usually done by governments? Think about how the TLD string(s) in the application will be understood globally, including different languages and cultures.

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.

AGB Q170. Are you proposing to include one or more of the Safeguard Public Interest Commitments (Safeguard PICs) in the Registry Agreement (RA) voluntarily regardless of ICANN’s Safeguard Assessment outcomes?

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).

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.

AGB Q172. Are you proposing to include one or more Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) in the Registry Agreement (RA) that are unique to your applied-for string?

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.

Section: Brand & Code of Conduct Exemptions

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.

AGB Q222. If the applying entity wishes to provide any additional information or supporting materials that the applying entity believes may be of interest to the public or relevant to the application, please include them here.

1. An applying entity may use this response field to submit any additional, optional information or documentation that the applying entity believes enhances understanding of its application or may be of interest to the general public. This could include, but is not limited to, the applying entity’s: a) Individual registry policies; b) Separate agreement with a third-party to fulfill certain commitments; c) Terms of use; d) Additional Community Registration Policies not intended for RA inclusion; e) Other materials that clarify the applying entity’s mission, values, or intended use of the gTLD. Notes: 1. This question is optional and for informational purposes only. 2. The information provided here will not be evaluated as part of the application, or be contractually binding on the applying entity. 3. All submissions to this question will be posted for the public to review and comment.

We want to expand briefly on the "how" behind the mission described in our response to Q133. We chose to apply as a generic TLD rather than a community TLD deliberately. .meow's mission centres queer communities, but we did not want registration eligibility gatekept by identity criteria nor do we claim to represent the whole of the queer community. The internet has, at its best, been genuinely transformative for queer people, connecting individuals to communities and perspectives they would never have encountered locally, and that transformation happened through openness, not restriction. We want .meow to work the same way: built for and accountable to queer communities, but open to anyone who shares its values which is why we have elected for having no restrictions on registration. Our pricing structure, premium domain tiers, and naming policies were developed through direct conversations with the people we intend to serve, in hackerspaces, queer community spaces, and through our crowdfunding backers. That backer base turned out to be a useful cross-section in its own right, skewing technically literate given who founded the project, but also including many people who backed the campaign purely for its charitable aim rather than out of any pre-exisitng interest in domain names. That mix has kept us honest about designing for people who are new to domain ownership, not just for the technically fluent. Registry service provider selection was one place this mission showed up concretely. We selected the CORE Association as our RSP in part because their commitment to universal acceptance aligns with our own values around multilingual and multi-script domain support. IDN support is a priority for us because a meaningful share of the queer community we hope to reach is outside the anglophone, Latin-script internet, and a registry that only works in English and ASCII is not actually open to the people it claims to serve. We see this as a small but concrete way of championing universal acceptance rather than treating it as a checkbox. We have also paid close attention to the frustration many communitiy members feel toward domain squatting and speculative registration. Our pricing model and naming policies are deliberately structured to make .meow unappealing to scalpers, prioritising availability for genuine registrants over speculative resale value. Privacy and security considerations run through the same thinking: as a registry serving folks for whom online privacy carries real personal risk, we have treated privacy and security as design constraints from the outset and not a checkbox exercise to completed after the fact. As a non-profit association, dotMeow's structure ties revenue directly to mission delivery rather than shareholder return, and we believe that accountability is itself a resilience mechanism: registrants who understand what their fees support have less reason to churn, and a registry answerable to its community has a durable reason to keep listening to it. A quieter goal behind .meow is pushing back against the siloing of social platforms, which has narrowed a lot of the cross-community contact that made the earlier internet valuable for queer people specifically. We would like .meow to be a small counterweight to that: a space that encourages people to build things of their own, on infrastructure that is actually theirs, rather than renting attention on someone else's platform. As part of this, we intend to produce accessible public resources on how the DNS and ICANN's processes work, and to encourage broader public engagement with internet governance among people who currently have little visibility into it. Our remit as a registry operator is technical, but we see informed public engagement with the systems that underpin the internet as a natural extension of what we are building here.