.google

From ICANNWiki
Revision as of 16:01, 17 August 2015 by Jackie Treiber (talk | contribs) (Updated general availability details.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
}}
Dotgoogle.JPG
Status: Available
Manager: Google
Registry Provider: Google
Date Implemented: 15 September 2014
Community: Brand gTLD
Priority #: 1545 - Google (Charleston Road Registry Inc.)
Key People
Larry Page, CEO

.google is a (Brand gTLD) delegated in ICANN's New TLD program. Google manages the TLD and is its Registry. The proposed application succeeded and was delegated to the Root Zone on 15 September, 2014.[1] The TLD entered its General Availability period August 12, 2015. [2]

Based on the official list of applied-for-strings published by ICANN, Google applied for 101 new gTLDs through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Charleston Road Registry Inc. Sarah Falvey, Google's Senior Policy Analyst is the main contact person in the applications. [3]

Application Details

The following is excerpted from the applicant's response to question #18:

"The mission of the proposed gTLD, .google is to make the worldʹs information universally accessible and useful through the streamlined provision of Google services. The purpose of the proposed gTLD is to provide a dedicated Internet space in which Google can continue to innovate on its Internet offerings. The proposed gTLD will augment Googleʹs online presence in other registries, provide Google with greater ability to categorize its present online locations around the world, and in turn, deliver a more recognizable, branded, trusted web space to both the general Internet population and Google employees. It will also generate efficiencies and increase security by reducing Google’s current dependence on third-party infrastructure.

Charleston Road Registry believes that given its intended use by Google, the .google gTLD will best add value to the gTLD space by remaining completely closed for the sole use of Google.

Second-level domain names within the proposed gTLD are intended for registration and use by Google only, and domain names under the new gTLD will not be available to the general public for purchase, sale, or registration. As such, Charleston Road Registry intends to apply for an exemption to the ICANN Registry Operator Code of Conduct as Google is intended to be the sole registrar and registrant.

Charleston Road Registry’s intention is to satisfactorily meet all stated exemption criteria for the operation of a closed gTLD. All domain name registrations in the gTLD will be registered to, and maintained by, Google for its own exclusive use. Charleston Road Registry will only distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the gTLD to Google and its affiliates, meaning a person or entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified; and “control” (including the terms “controlled by” and “under common control with”) means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, whether through the ownership of securities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a board of directors or equivalent governing body, by contract, by credit arrangement or otherwise. In providing services that make the worldʹs information universally accessible and useful, Charleston Road Registry believes the public interest is served by Google’s role as the sole registrar and registrant of the gTLD."[4]

Name Collision Issues

In October 2013 ICANN released their final assessment and mitigation plan for the Name Collision issue that was facing the New gTLD program. On 18 November 2013, ICANN announced the applied-for strings that were eligible for an alternative path towards delegation that would allow applicants to proceed without waiting for further mitigation research and plans to be published. 25 strings, including .google, were not eligible for the alternative path, and will have to wait for more plans to be published before continuing towards delegation.[5]

References