Application Details

Last published on: 7 October 2026 at 15:32 UTC

Application Type: New gTLD

Primary String: official

Application ID: XCI2688T-T22077

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.

XServer Cloud Incorporated

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.

XServer Cloud Inc.

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.

Stock 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.

Japan

AGB Q10. Website URL

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

https://www.xserver.co.jp/companies/xscd.php

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).

true

AGB Q12. If "Yes", explain.

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.

Xserver Cloud Inc. is a subsidiary of Xserver Inc. registrar with IANA ID 1557

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.

0661367443

AGB Q19. Primary Business Email Address

Provide the primary business email address of the applying entity.

icann@cloud.xserver.co.jp

AGB Q20. Address Line 1

Enter the street address (no PO Box).

Grand Front Osaka Tower A 32F 4-20

AGB Q21. Address Line 2

Ofukacho, kita-ku

AGB Q22. Locality

Enter the city, village, municipality, etc.

Osaka

AGB Q23. State/Province/Region

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

Osaka

AGB Q24. Postal Code

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

5300011

AGB Q25. Country Code of Location

AGB Q26. Full Legal Name

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.

XServer Incorporated

AGB Q27. Doing Business As

Provide the name under which the Direct Parent Company is doing business, if different from the full legal name answered in Question 26. Such a name must be registered with appropriate local jurisdiction or public authority.

XServer Inc.

AGB Q28. Legal Entity Form/Business Structure

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.

Stock Company

AGB Q29. Jurisdiction

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.

Japan

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)

official

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"

“Official” means authorised by, or emanating from, a proper authority, and recognised as authentic or endorsed by the person or organisation concerned. Used here as an open naming convention for a genuine, primary online presence.

AGB Q120. Phonetic Representation

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

/əˈfɪʃəl/

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 and purpose of the .official gTLD is to provide an open, international namespace that formalises a naming convention already widespread online: the use of the word “official” to mark a genuine, primary presence — as seen in social-media handles and “official account” labels. .official gives individuals, brands, organisations and creators a natural home, in the form [name].official, for the official presence they promote on social networks. Open, non-discriminatory model. The TLD will be operated on an OPEN basis, with registration available to the general public through ICANN-accredited registrars on published terms applied equivalently to all registrars, consistent with the Registry Operator Code of Conduct (Specification 9). The registry does NOT operate an identity- or officialness-verification scheme, and it does not — and could not fairly — rank one registrant as more “official” than another. Registration is available on equal terms, internationally, to individual, private and public operators alike. How credibility is supported. Rather than through verification, the quality and credibility of the namespace are supported by two mechanisms that the registry applies on a non-discriminatory basis: (i) a deliberately premium price point, which filters out casual, bulk and speculative registration and raises the cost of abuse; and (ii) rigorous, well-resourced abuse management — proactive monitoring and rapid response to impersonation, phishing and other DNS abuse, going beyond the baseline required by Specification 11. Together these keep the namespace clean and make an established .official presence a meaningful signal, without the registry asserting that it has verified any registrant. Intended registrants are individuals, brands, organisations, public figures and creators who maintain an official public presence — particularly on social networks — and want a matching, memorable web address. The users are the audiences and customers who follow those presences online and benefit from a consistent, well-policed namespace. Planned activities include: (i) a launch program compliant with Specification 7 (Sunrise and Trademark Claims via the TMCH); (ii) premium pricing; (iii) a strong, published anti-abuse and anti-impersonation policy with rapid takedown, which the applying entity intends to commit as a Registry Voluntary Commitment; and (iv) distribution through accredited registrars, aligned with social-media naming practices. The purpose is durable because the “official presence” naming convention is already established and continues to grow with social-media adoption worldwide, independent of any single platform. The premium price sustains a high-quality, low-abuse namespace over time, and the abuse-management commitment sustains its credibility. The applying entity, XRegistry Inc., is part of the Xserver group, whose infrastructure, distribution and financial resources support long-term operation, while all Critical Functions (DNS, DNSSEC, EPP, RDDS, Data Escrow) are provided by Identity Digital, an ICANN pre-evaluated Registry Service Provider."

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.

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.

Yes

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.

The string ".official" carries an inherent connotation of authority and authenticity. The applicant is mindful that this semantic weight could, if left unaddressed, give rise to a risk of impersonation or misrepresentation, whereby a registrant might improperly convey an official standing they do not in fact hold. While the applicant does not propose to implement pre-registration eligibility verification as a safeguard, this reflects a considered assessment rather than an absence of concern. "Official" status is not confined to any single, verifiable class of registrant: it may legitimately attach to corporations, public bodies, associations, communities, projects, or individuals alike. Any universal verification scheme applied at the point of registration would therefore be simultaneously over-inclusive and under-inclusive, and would risk excluding legitimate registrants while providing only limited real protection. Accordingly, the applicant intends to rely on registration pricing as a natural deterrent against casual and abusive registration, rather than on a formal verification gate that would be neither practical nor proportionate. By contrast, the applicant considers that the legitimacy of a given registration is far more readily and reliably assessed at the point of actual use than at the point of registration. Whether a registrant is improperly passing themselves off as another party — including in circumstances that fall short of conventional domain abuse — can be evaluated meaningfully on the basis of the domain's real-world use and presentation. For this reason, the applicant intends to establish a dedicated channel through which any interested party may bring a claim concerning the impersonation or misrepresentation of official status. This mechanism is intended to operate alongside the mandatory Rights Protection Mechanisms, in the form of a bespoke, TLD-specific dispute resolution policy modelled on the UDRP but extending to authenticity and impersonation claims that a strictly trademark-based procedure does not fully capture.