Application Details

Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:21 UTC

Application Type: New gTLD

Primary String: xmr

Application ID: X2689T-T73877

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.

Cake Labs LLC

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.

Cake Labs

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.

Limited Liability Company

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.

Island of Nevis

AGB Q10. Website URL

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

https://cakelabs.com/

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.

212 304 9000

AGB Q19. Primary Business Email Address

Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.

partners@cakelabs.com

AGB Q20. Address Line 1

Enter the street address (no PO Box).

Hunkins Waterfront Plaza

AGB Q21. Address Line 2

Suite 556, Main Street

AGB Q22. Locality

Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.

Charlestown

AGB Q23. State/Province/Region

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

Nevis

AGB Q24. Postal Code

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

KN0802

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)

xmr

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"

xmr - the name of its existing Web3 counterpart

AGB Q120. Phonetic Representation

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

xmr

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.

.xmr exists to give the Monero ecosystem — one of the longest-running, most widely used privacy-focused open-source cryptocurrency projects, in continuous production since 2014 — a dedicated, community-aligned namespace of its own. The mission is to operate .xmr as naming infrastructure reflecting Monero's foundational commitment to financial privacy as a basic right, while meeting the same technical, security, and consumer-protection standards ICANN requires of every gTLD registry. Today, Monero ecosystem participants — the Core Team, wallet providers, exchanges, mining/node operators, community forums, and merchants — have no shared, ecosystem-specific namespace, relying on general-purpose TLDs that carry no signal of ecosystem legitimacy. That makes it harder to distinguish an authentic Monero-affiliated service from an imitation, a persistent risk since privacy-focused projects are frequent phishing targets. A dedicated namespace addresses that gap; the protocol's privacy properties remain a matter for the Monero network itself, not the registry. Intended Registrants and Users The Registry Operator anticipates registrants and users drawn from: ● The Monero Core Team, Monero Research Lab, and affiliated open-source development projects; ● Cryptocurrency exchanges, custodial and non-custodial wallet providers, and payment processors that support Monero; ● Mining pool operators, full-node operators, and infrastructure providers serving the Moneronetwork; ● Community organizations, forums, and educational or research initiatives focused on Monero and privacy-preserving technology; and ● Merchants, service providers, and developers who accept or build on Monero. Related Activities Cake Labs LLC intends to operate .xmr in parallel with .xmr, its existing Web3 TLD counterpart on Unstoppable Domains' Web3 naming infrastructure, consistent with the framework ICANN's Technical Study Group on New gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems is developing: the two namespaces will maintain strict parallel control, so a name registered in one is only available in the other to the same registrant. Additional detail is provided in response to Question 222. Because privacy-focused projects are frequent phishing targets, the Registry Operator will maintain a standing collaboration with cybersecurity researchers and community-nominated Monero contacts to identify and act on impersonating domains, and will establish a stakeholder input channel with recognized Monero community organizations [names TO BE CONFIRMED] to inform eligibility and abuse policy. Monero, as a privacy-preserving cryptocurrency, operates in a regulatory environment that continues to evolve jurisdiction by jurisdiction. .xmr's privacy commitment operates strictly at the registry-service-design level — data minimization and ICANN-accredited privacy/proxy services within Consensus Policy — not the Monero protocol itself or any registrant's conduct. The Registry Operator will apply the same legal-compliance obligations to .xmr as to every other applied-for string, including sanctions screening and cooperation with lawful authorities, and does not intend .xmr to facilitate evasion of applicable law. Sustainability Demand for .xmr is anchored in an active, long-running community rather than speculative activity. Monero has maintained continuous mainnet operation and development for over a decade, with a stable base of exchanges, service providers, and community projects requiring durable, renewable naming infrastructure — typically maintained indefinitely rather than registered speculatively. This gives .xmr a registrant base with a structural incentive to renew, supporting the TLD's operation over the full term of the Registry Agreement and beyond.

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.

Cake Labs LLC provides this supplementary information on the relationship between the applied-for TLD .XMR and its existing Web3 TLD counterpart, .XMR, on Unstoppable Domains' Web3 naming infrastructure. It does not modify, and is not incorporated into, the applying entity's binding commitments elsewhere in this application. Parallel Operation of the TLD and its Web3 TLD Counterpart The TLD .XMR will operate in parallel with its Web3 counterpart, .XMR, kept synchronized so that a Domain Name registered in one is, wherever practicable, held by the same registrant in the other. A name registered in only one namespace is blocked from third-party registration in the other, available only to the existing registrant. Technical Compatibility of the Web3 Namespace The Web3 TLD .XMR is constrained to avoid technical incompatibility with the DNS or ICANN's labeling rules: ● No registration string is permitted in the Web3 namespace that would violate ICANN's labeling rules — no emoji, no strings exceeding DNS label-length limits, none that would fail standard Punycode (xn--) conversion, and no non-ASCII characters a compliant IDNA implementation would reject. ● The Web3 namespace is a separate, non-DNS naming and resolution system; it neither publishes nor depends on DNS resource records. ● Where IPFS content addressing is used with the Web3 namespace, it is limited to file storage and retrieval; the applying entity does not use IPFS to host the Web3 name-resolution service itself. Alignment with the Technical Study Group and the RSEP Process ICANN's Technical Study Group on New gTLD Integrations with Alternative Naming Systems is examining the security/stability implications of integrating new gTLDs with alternative (e.g., blockchain-based) naming systems. Once awarded the TLD, the applying entity intends to pursue this parallel operation model through ICANN's RSEP process, consistent with whatever framework that work produces, and will keep its policies compatible with the finalized framework rather than treating this description as fixed. Any future RSEP framework here may be designed around matching-string pairs, as .XMR and .XMR are, so this response is intended to fall within it once available. For any other applied-for strings whose TLD and Web3 counterpart do not share a string, the applying entity will still apply the same registrant matching and mutual-blocking approach voluntarily, outside the RSEP. Pre-Existing Rights Protection in the Web3 Namespace The Web3 TLD .XMR has been preemptively screened against WIPO/TMCH brand lists, with matching names blocked from registration there. Separately, Unstoppable Domains' Terms and Conditions already prohibit knowingly claiming or purchasing a Web3 Domain Name identical to a third party's brand or trademark. Any unresolved rights conflict can be addressed under that prohibition. Launch Sequencing Immediately after the TMCH Sunrise period, all then-existing Web3 Domain Names in .XMR will be blocked from registration in the TLD, pending the sequence below: ● A valid Sunrise application matching an existing Web3 Domain Name will be reviewed, and the Web3 registration removed in favor of the Sunrise applicant unless both share common control, per the prohibition above.[https://unstoppable.ai/terms] ● Once Sunrise concludes — including resolution of any name contention — all remaining Web3 Domain Names will be registered as corresponding Domain Names in the TLD, to the same registrant. ● Where a Web3 registrant's data does not meet the TLD's registrant-data standards, that registrant will be asked to update it before, or promptly after, the corresponding Domain Name is registered in the TLD.