| gTLD | Full Legal Name | E-mail suffix | Detail | | .LINCOLN | Ford Motor Company | hoganlovells.com | View |
Given that the Applicant intends to operate the .LINCOLN TLD as a single registrant⁄single user registry, the Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .LINCOLN TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
In light of the intended structure and operating model of the .LINCOLN TLD, the Applicant does not anticipate that its Top Level Domain will have any known negative consequences or cost implications to consumers.
The .LINCOLN TLD operating model which will be based on the Applicant and its Affiliatesʹ sole control should actually create an environment with an unprecedented level of security, consumer trust, consumer protection, content quality and reliable indication of source.
18(c)(1): How will multiple applications for a particular domain name be resolved, for example, by auction or on a first-come⁄first-serve basis?
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .LINCOLN TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .LINCOLN TLD, the Applicant does not anticipate that the scenario of multiple applications for a particular domain name could ever occur.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .LINCOLN TLD to implement mechanisms to resolve multiple applications for a particular domain name.
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .LINCOLN TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to ensure resolution of multiple applications for a particular domain name in the most transparent and fair manner and in accordance with all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
18(c)(2): Explain any cost benefits for registrants you intend to implement (e.g., advantageous pricing, introductory discounts, bulk registration discounts).
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .LINCOLN TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .LINCOLN TLD, there are no cost benefits to implement for registrants given that the only registrant under the .LINCOLN TLD will be the Applicant.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .LINCOLN TLD to implement any cost benefits for registrants.
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .LINCOLN TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to achieve cost benefits for registrants in the most transparent and fair manner and in accordance with all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
18(c)(3): Note that the Registry Agreement requires that registrars be offered the option to obtain initial domain name registrations for periods of one to ten years at the discretion of the registrar, but no greater than ten years. Additionally, the Registry Agreement requires advance written notice of price increases. Do you intend to make contractual commitments to registrants regarding the magnitude of price escalation? If so, please describe your plans.
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .LINCOLN TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .LINCOLN TLD, contractual commitments to registrants regarding price escalation will not be relevant to the Applicant’s mission or goals for the .LINCOLN TLD.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .LINCOLN TLD to implement the types of mechanisms contemplated by question 18(c)(3).
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .LINCOLN TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms in order to comply with the Registry Agreement and all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
| gTLD | Full Legal Name | E-mail suffix | Detail | | .java | Oracle Corporation | oracle.com | View |
3. QUESTION 18(C) WHAT OPERATING RULES WILL YOU ADOPT TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE SOCIAL COSTS (E.G., TIME OR FINANCIAL RESOURCE COSTS, AS WELL AS VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSUMER VULNERABILITIES)? WHAT OTHER STEPS WILL YOU TAKE TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES⁄COSTS IMPOSED UPON CONSUMERS?
Given that the Applicant intends to operate the .JAVA TLD as a single registrant⁄single user registry, the Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .JAVA TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
In light of the intended structure and operating model of the .JAVA TLD, the Applicant does not anticipate that its Top Level Domain will have any known negative consequences or cost implications to consumers.
The .JAVA TLD operating model which will be based on the Applicant and its Affiliatesʹ sole control should actually create an environment with an unprecedented level of security, consumer trust, consumer protection, content quality and reliable indication of source.
3.1 18(c)(1): HOW WILL MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR A PARTICULAR DOMAIN NAME BE RESOLVED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY AUCTION OR ON A FIRST-COME ⁄ FIRST-SERVE BASIS?
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .JAVA TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .JAVA TLD, the Applicant does not anticipate that the scenario of multiple applications for a particular domain name could ever occur.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .JAVA TLD to implement mechanisms to resolve multiple applications for a particular domain name.
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .JAVA TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to ensure resolution of multiple applications for a particular domain name in the most transparent and fair manner and in accordance with all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
3.2 18(c)(2): EXPLAIN ANY COST BENEFITS FOR REGISTRANTS YOU INTEND TO IMPLEMENT
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .JAVA TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .JAVA TLD, there are no cost benefits to implement for registrants given that the only registrant under the .JAVA TLD will be the Applicant.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .JAVA TLD to implement any cost benefits for registrants.
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .JAVA TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms to achieve cost benefits for registrants in the most transparent and fair manner and in accordance with all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.
3.3 18(c)(3): CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS TO REGISTRANTS REGARDING MAGNITUDE OF PRICE ESCALATION
The Applicant will be the only registrant of second level domain names under the .JAVA TLD to the exclusion of any other entity or individual.
Given the closed nature of the proposed single registrant⁄single user registry model for the .JAVA TLD, contractual commitments to registrants regarding price escalation will not be relevant to the Applicant’s mission or goals for the .JAVA TLD.
In view of the above, it is neither necessary nor pertinent within the context of the .JAVA TLD to implement the types of mechanisms contemplated by question 18(c)(3).
For the sake of completeness, should the Applicant, after the delegation of the .JAVA TLD, wish to apply to ICANN for a modification of its single registrant⁄single user registry model, then the Applicant undertakes that it will implement appropriate mechanisms in order to comply with the Registry Agreement and all applicable ICANN’s Consensus Policies and Temporary Policies.