Application Details

Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:28 UTC

Application Type: New gTLD

Primary String: icp

Application ID: DS2698T-T60168

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.

DFINITY Stiftung

AGB Q2. Doing Business As

Provide the name under which the applying entity is doing business, if different from the full legal name answered in Question 1. Such a name must be registered with appropriate local jurisdiction or public authority.

DFINITY 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.

Foundation

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.

Switzerland

AGB Q10. Website URL

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

https://internetcomputer.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.

058 255 0202

AGB Q19. Primary Business Email Address

Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.

domains@dfinity.org

AGB Q20. Address Line 1

Enter the street address (no PO Box).

Genferstrasse 11

AGB Q22. Locality

Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.

Zürich

AGB Q23. State/Province/Region

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

Zürich

AGB Q24. Postal Code

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

8002

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)

icp

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"

Abbreviation for "Internet Computer Protocol," the name of the protocol underlying the Internet Computer network. The protocol has been developed by the DFINITY Foundation. ICP also serves as the name of the governance/utility token within the network.

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.

/ˌaɪ.siːˈpiː/

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 primary intended use of the TLD is for services that run on ICP (e.g., websites, applications, agents). We expect that most services associated with the ICP community will prefer a domain under the .icp TLD. Besides branding, one main reason is the reliance on less centralized trust assumptions, which is an important topic in the ecosystem.

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).

Yes

AGB Q171. If Yes, which Safeguard PIC(s) are you proposing to include in the RA?

Choose the applicable Safeguard PICs from the provided list (more than one option can be selected).

• Registry Operators will include a provision in their Registry-Registrar Agreements that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring registrants to comply with all applicable laws, including those that relate to privacy, data collection, consumer protection (including in relation to misleading and deceptive conduct), fair lending, debt collection, organic farming, disclosure of data, and financial disclosures. • Registry Operators will include a provision in their Registry-Registrar Agreements that requires registrars at the time of registration to notify registrants of the requirement to comply with all applicable laws. • Registry Operators will include a provision in their Registry-Registrar Agreements that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring that registrants who collect and maintain sensitive health and financial data implement reasonable and appropriate security measures commensurate with the offering of those services, as defined by applicable law. • Registry Operators will proactively create a clear pathway for the creation of a working relationship with the relevant regulatory or industry self-regulatory bodies by publicizing a point of contact and inviting such bodies to establish a channel of communication, including for the purpose of facilitating the development of a strategy to mitigate the risks of fraudulent and other illegal activities.

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.

Yes

AGB Q173.1. State a specific Registry Voluntary Commitment (RVC) that is proposed to be included in the applicable Base RA.

1. Draft the Registry Voluntary Commitment (RVC) as proposed contract language. Policies that are approved by ICANN will be included in Specification 11 of the applicable Registry Agreement and will be subject to enforcement by ICANN Contractual Compliance. See Appendix 4 Base Registry Agreement, Specification 11, Section 2 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 RVC in each response field. Up to 10 RVCs 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___”. 3. 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___”. 4. 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___"". 5. Include any objective measures that can be applied to demonstrate the Registry Operator’s compliance with the Registry Voluntary Commitment. For example: a) Registry Operator shall develop and implement a Registry Voluntary Commitment and publish this commitment on its website no later than the date on which the TLD is delegated in the DNS. b) Registry Operator shall review the commitment 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. 6. If the Registry Voluntary Commitment 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 commitment 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, ___). 7. See Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Commitments Evaluation Criteria for evaluation criteria that ICANN will apply for evaluating each proposed RVC.

The Registry Operator commits to including in its Registry-Registrar Agreements a provision requiring registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring that the web frontend served at any domain name registered under the .icp TLD is hosted on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP, including Cloud Engines) within 90 days of domain registration. Specifically, HTTP responses served at the registered domain must include a valid ICP certification header (ic-certificate), which constitutes a cryptographic proof that the content originates from a canister (smart contract) deployed on the Internet Computer. The ic-certificate is generated through the ICP's certified variables mechanism: at each consensus round, the subnet hosting the canister computes a Merkle tree of its replicated state, signs the root hash using a threshold BLS signature, and embeds the resulting certificate in HTTP response headers. Any party can verify this certificate against the subnet's public key, which chains to the NNS root key — a publicly known value (see https://internetcomputer.org/docs/references/http-gateway-protocol-spec and https://github.com/dfinity/response-verification). Verification does not depend on DFINITY-controlled infrastructure; the open-source response-verification library and the published root key enable fully independent auditing. This mechanism is resilient to CDN caching because the certificate is bound to the specific response body via Merkle inclusion proofs — a cached response retains its original valid certificate, and any tampering with the body invalidates the proof. Backend services, APIs, and data storage may be hosted on any infrastructure at the registrant's discretion. The compliance check is performed by the Registry Operator through automated periodic scans (not at the point of registration). Domains that remain parked or pointed to non-ICP infrastructure beyond the 90-day activation window are in violation and subject to the enforcement process described below.

AGB Q174. Explain the rationale for any limitations to the commitment proposed by the applying entity in Question 173.

1. If you are proposing any limitation to a proposed RVC in Question 173, please provide a rationale in this response field. See Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Commitments Evaluation Criteria. 2. If you are not proposing any limitation to a proposed RVC in Question 173, please type ""Not Applicable"" in this response field.

The RVC is limited to the web frontend rather than the full technology stack because defining and verifying a comprehensive hosting requirement for all application components is technically impractical. While ICP supports full-stack hosting including data storage and backend logic, many applications legitimately interact with APIs of external services, making it infeasible to draw a clear compliance boundary for backend infrastructure. The frontend requirement is meaningful because it is the component that is publicly served at the domain name and can be cryptographically verified. Verification mechanism: The Registry Operator will operate an automated compliance scanner that periodically issues HTTP requests to registered .icp domains and validates the ic-certificate response header. This scanner checks (1) that the header is present, (2) that the certificate's Merkle proof is valid against the subnet's public key, and (3) that the response body matches the certified hash. Scans are performed at minimum monthly after the 90-day activation window and again at each annual renewal. Lifecycle integration: A newly registered domain enters a 90-day activation grace period during which no compliance check is enforced. After activation, non-compliant domains trigger a notification to the registrar of record, who must notify the registrant and allow a 30-day cure period. If the domain remains non-compliant after the cure period, the registrar must place the domain on serverHold. Domains in redemption or pending-delete states are exempt from active compliance checks. On transfer to a new registrant, a new 90-day activation window begins, provided the domain has not already exhausted its cumulative non-compliance allowance. A domain may not remain non-compliant for more than 90 days in any rolling 12-month period, regardless of how many transfers occur; if a domain is still non-compliant at the time of its annual renewal, renewal is blocked until compliance is restored. The Registry Operator publishes a compliance dashboard and provides registrars with an API to query the compliance status of domains in their portfolio.

AGB Q175. Why are the commitment(s) being proposed?

1. Provide background information to explain why the commitment is relevant, important, and necessary in support of the gTLD application. See Section 7.8.3.2.1 Applicants Must Identify Purposes for Proposed RVC. 2. Consider whether the proposed commitment 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 an RVC that would duplicate requirements under applicable consensus policy or law could be approved at ICANN’s sole discretion, for example, if this type of RVC is necessary to address GAC Consensus Advice. If not duplicative, please explain why you believe the commitment 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 commitment 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 commitments 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 commitment could be argued to be incompatible with ICANN’s Bylaws. ICANN will not approve any commitments 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 commitment 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. 6. For further guidance on the aforementioned considerations, please see Section 7.8.3.3 Registry Commitments Evaluation Criteria 7. [If the commitment is being proposed as an Application Change Request]: If the commitment is being proposed in response to an objection, GAC Member Early Warning, GAC Advice, or application comment, please provide a reference to the item to which the commitment responds

This commitment ensures that the .icp TLD serves its intended purpose: providing a namespace for applications hosted on the Internet Computer Protocol. Without such a commitment, .icp domains could be used for conventional web hosting unrelated to ICP, diluting the TLD's identity. What makes this commitment uniquely feasible is the ic-certificate verification mechanism, which provides a cryptographic, machine-verifiable proof of ICP hosting — unlike most registry voluntary commitments, compliance can be checked automatically and objectively without human judgment. The verification mechanism is fully transparent: the IC interface specification and HTTP Gateway Protocol Specification are publicly documented (https://docs.internetcomputer.org/references/http-gateway-protocol-spec), the response-verification library is open source (https://github.com/dfinity/response-verification), and the NNS root public key is a published, immutable value. Any independent party — including ICANN compliance staff, registrars, or third-party auditors — can verify ic-certificate headers without reliance on DFINITY infrastructure. This commitment aligns with DFINITY's mission to build open internet infrastructure and ensures the .icp TLD remains a trusted, purpose-driven namespace.