.indigenous

Q4.2-1 - Provide the applying entity’s self-certification document, signed by the CEO, President, CFO and/or equivalent officer of the applying entity. If financial statements are provided by a Qualified Parent Entity (QPE), the CEO, President, CFO, and/or equivalent officer of the QPE must co-sign the certification document. The self-certification document must represent and warrant: SC4.2-1.1 - The applying entity and/or a QPE will fund the startup and long-term operation of all applied-for gTLD strings and (if applicable) currently operated gTLDs of a QPE. SC4.2-1.2 - The applying entity or QPE has at a minimum of US$50,000 plus 25% of the application base fee for each applied-for gTLD string in Cash and Cash Equivalents on the balance sheet of the provided financial statements, up to a maximum of US$300,000, designated to support the startup and operation of all of the applying entity’s applied-for gTLD strings. SC4.2-1.3 - The applying entity and/or its officers are bound by law in its jurisdiction to represent financial statements accurately and the applying entity is in good standing in that jurisdiction.

Answered with a document. Attachments are not published by ICANN.

Q5.1-1 - 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: SC5.1-1.1 - The applying entity will appropriately protect confidentiality of data and prevent unauthorized access to data and services. SC5.1-1.2 - The applying entity will maintain a mature, appropriately funded and staffed security program, following a recognized, modern security framework based on risk management (such as the ISO27000 series, COBIT, HITRUST CSF, legally required security frameworks, or equivalent). The security program must be in place prior to delegation, and exist through at least the period of the registry agreement. SC5.1-1.3 - The applying entity is aware of and has designed its systems and business to comply with the relevant privacy and security regulations for all countries in which it operates.

Answered with a document. Attachments are not published by ICANN.

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.

Answered with a document. Attachments are not published by ICANN.

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.

true

How would you categorize your community?

Indigenous peoples and nations worldwide — a global community of distinct peoples who are the original inhabitants of their respective territories, maintaining historical continuity with pre-colonial societies, and possessing inherent rights to self-determination, lands, and cultural preservation as affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This community encompasses over 370 million people across more than 70 countries, including First Nations, Inuit, and Métis in Canada; federally and state-recognized Native American tribes, Alaska Native corporations, and Native Hawaiian organizations in the United States; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia; Māori iwi and hapū in Aotearoa New Zealand; Sámi peoples across Sápmi (Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia); and countless other Indigenous nations across Latin America, the Pacific, Africa, Asia, and the Arctic. Despite extraordinary cultural, linguistic, and political diversity, this global community is united by shared experiences of colonization, dispossession, and resilience, and by a collective commitment to maintaining distinct identities, governing their own affairs, and transmitting cultural knowledge across generations.

The founding community served by the applying entity is Pelly Banks Dena, a distinct Kaska Dena community located at the confluence of the Pelly and Ross Rivers in the Yukon Territory, Canada. Pelly Banks Dena members are Dena people who speak the Pelly Banks dialect of the Kaska language — one of at least six recognized Kaska dialects, distinguished by unique grammatical features, phonology, and vocabulary. In 1956, the federal government forcibly amalgamated Pelly Banks band members into neighbouring Kaska First Nations without their consent. Despite this, Pelly Banks Dena members and descendants have continuously maintained their distinct identity, governance structures, and relationship to their ancestral territory. The community remains unrecognized as a separate First Nation by the Yukon and federal governments — a status that Pelly Banks Dena continues to challenge through governance resurgence, advocacy, and the re-establishment of its own governance body, the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government. The sole shareholder and Director of the applying entity serves as a Director on the Board of the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government and has acted as Special Advisor to Nahonni Dena leadership on inherent rights, title, and jurisdiction over Dena territory.

The applying entity's commitment to serve this community is grounded in direct, lived relationship and accountability. The .indigenous TLD is designed to extend the principles of Indigenous self-determination into the digital realm — principles that Pelly Banks Dena embodies through its ongoing struggle for recognition, language preservation, and governance resurgence. The registry's community-based eligibility criteria, tiered pricing structure, and revenue-reinvestment model are all designed to serve Indigenous communities like Pelly Banks Dena: communities that have been historically excluded from infrastructure ownership, whose identities have been subject to external categorization and control, and whose economic self-sufficiency depends on developing new, self-governed revenue streams. By naming Pelly Banks Dena as the founding community and serving the broader global Indigenous community, the applying entity demonstrates that the .indigenous TLD is not an abstract commercial venture but a community-rooted initiative grounded in real relationships, real accountability, and a real commitment to Indigenous digital sovereignty.

What is the applying entity's connection to the community?

The applying entity, 17161573 Canada Inc., is a recently incorporated entity (2025) whose sole purpose is to acquire and operate the .indigenous TLD on behalf of the Indigenous communities it is committed to serving. The corporation itself is new, but its sole shareholder and Director brings nearly two decades of direct, sustained relationships with the identified community — relationships that predate the corporation and that form the foundation of the corporation's mandate to serve.

Pelly Banks Dena — Founding Community The applying entity's leadership holds a governance role with the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government, the governance body re-established by the community to advocate for its recognition, rights, and jurisdiction. This work has included advising Nahonni Dena leadership on inherent rights, title, and jurisdiction over Dena territory, and leading community consultations on the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Kaska Dena territory. Additional support to Pelly Banks governance resurgence includes initiatives funded through the Growing Change, Groundswell Community Justice Trust Fund and mapping work funded by Polar Knowledge Canada. The applying entity draws its commitment to serve Pelly Banks Dena directly from these relationships.

Kaska Dena — Broader Community The applying entity's leadership has worked extensively with the broader Kaska Dena nation, including the collaborative development of a from-the-land Dena education framework developed with Kaska Dena Elders for the Liard Aboriginal Women's Society's Dena Gédḗní Kǫ́ā (Centre for Indigenous Women in Leadership) and the Tu Cho Centre for Dena Arts and Culture. This work has included advisory services to the Liard Aboriginal Women's Society, land-based curriculum development, and participation in steering committees for youth and advocacy initiatives within Kaska Dena communities.

Yukon First Nations and National Indigenous Community The applying entity's leadership has worked with Indigenous communities across the Yukon and Canada for nearly two decades in professional and community-based capacities. This work includes collaborating with the Government of Yukon on culturally grounded programming for Indigenous women, girls, and 2S+ people; supporting research protocols and health surveys with the Council of Yukon First Nations; advancing cultural preservation and educational programming with the Kwanlin Dün Cultural Centre; and developing language plans and training-to-employment programming with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. On a national level, this work extends to governance roles with the Native Women's Association of Canada, and advocacy before the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and the United Nations Special Rapporteur. The applying entity draws its mandate from these sustained relationships — it was established to carry this work forward into the digital infrastructure space, ensuring that the .indigenous TLD remains accountable to the communities it is committed to serving. The corporation was established to carry this work forward into the digital infrastructure space — the .indigenous TLD is an extension of these existing relationships and accountabilities, not a venture seeking community endorsement after the fact.

How is the community organized? Are there one or multiple organizations ("organizing body") that represent or administer the community?

Community Organization The global Indigenous community is not organized under a single governing body. Indigenous peoples are diverse, sovereign nations and communities with distinct governance structures, legal traditions, and political systems that predate colonial state formations. No single organization represents or administers all Indigenous peoples worldwide, and the .indigenous TLD is not predicated on such a structure existing. Rather, the community is organized through layered and interconnected governance systems — from local community governments to regional and national Indigenous organizations to international bodies — each with distinct mandates, jurisdictions, and accountabilities.

Pelly Banks Dena — Founding Community Organization Pelly Banks Dena is organized through the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government, a governance body re-established by the community to advocate for its recognition, rights, and jurisdiction following its forcible amalgamation into neighbouring Kaska First Nations in 1956. The Nahonni Dena Government operates with a Board of Directors and maintains governance structures aligned with Kaska Dena legal orders and traditions. The applying entity's leadership holds a governance role within this body, providing a direct line of accountability between the corporation and the founding community.

Yukon First Nations — Territorial Organization Yukon First Nations are organized through self-governing First Nation governments established under modern treaties (Umbrella Final Agreement), as well as through the Council of Yukon First Nations, which serves as a coordinating body for Yukon First Nations on matters of shared concern. There are 14 self-governing First Nations in the Yukon, each with distinct constitutions, citizenship codes, and jurisdictions.

National and International Organization At the national level in Canada, Indigenous peoples are represented by organizations including the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council, and the Native Women's Association of Canada. In the United States, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Gaming Commission, and regional inter-tribal organizations serve coordinating functions. In Australia, organizations such as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and land councils represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In Aotearoa New Zealand, iwi and hapū exercise tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) through both traditional and contemporary governance structures. At the international level, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provide international advocacy and monitoring functions. None of these bodies represent all Indigenous peoples, and the .indigenous TLD does not claim endorsement from any single body. Rather, the TLD is designed to serve the community as it actually exists — diverse, self-organizing, and accountable to its own governance structures.

Does the community have defined membership requirements, such as registration, licensing, or use of specific communication? Or, do community members self-identify as part of the community?

1. Formal Membership Process

The global Indigenous community does not have a single, unified membership process. Membership and citizenship in Indigenous nations is determined by each nation according to its own laws, traditions, and governance structures. This is a fundamental aspect of Indigenous self-determination: the right to determine one's own citizens is an inherent right of Indigenous nations, not a function of external registration or centralized licensing.

Indigenous membership and citizenship take many forms:

Citizenship Codes and Enrollment Laws

Many Indigenous nations maintain formal citizenship or enrollment processes governed by their own laws. In Canada, First Nations citizenship may be determined through community-specific membership codes established under the Indian Act or through self-government agreements that return citizenship determination to First Nation control. Modern treaty First Nations in the Yukon maintain their own constitutions and citizenship codes. In the United States, federally recognized tribes establish their own enrollment criteria, which may include blood quantum requirements, lineal descent, or community-based eligibility standards. Alaska Native corporations maintain shareholder enrollment records tied to ANCSA. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be recognized through three-part tests (descent, self-identification, and community acceptance) established in Australian law. In New Zealand, Māori affiliation is determined through whakapapa (genealogical connection) and iwi registration.

Customary Law and Traditional Recognition

Beyond formal state-recognized enrollment systems, Indigenous nations also determine membership through customary law, kinship systems, clan affiliations, and oral histories. These systems predate colonial governance structures and remain authoritative within many communities. For example, Kaska Dena society is traditionally matriarchal, organized into Wolf and Crow moieties, with clan and kinship relationships determining roles, responsibilities, and belonging. These customary systems are not "informal" — they are legal orders with their own rules, processes, and authorities.

Non-Recognition and Contested Status

Importantly, not all Indigenous communities have been permitted by colonial states to maintain or administer their own membership. Pelly Banks Dena, the founding community for this application, was forcibly amalgamated into neighbouring Kaska First Nations by the federal government in 1956, and remains unrecognized as a separate First Nation by the Yukon and federal governments. Despite this legal non-recognition, Pelly Banks Dena members and descendants maintain their distinct identity through self-identification, kinship networks, cultural practice, and governance resurgence through the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government. This case illustrates that Indigenous membership and belonging cannot be reduced to state-administered enrollment — it persists through community relationships, shared territory, language, and governance, even where the state refuses to recognize it.

2. How Individuals Join or Self-Identify Because the global Indigenous community is not a single organization with a membership roster, there is no universal joining process. An individual's membership in the Indigenous community is determined through their relationship to a specific Indigenous nation, community, or people. The pathways are multiple and nation-specific. These include, but may not be limited to: 1. Birth and Descent, 2. Community Acceptance, 3. Enrollment or Registration, and 4. Self-Identification.

Where is the community located?

Pelly Banks Dena are located throughout Kaska territory in the Yukon (Pelly Banks, Ross River, Watson Lake, Upper Liard, Tu Cho) and Northern BC (Lower Post, etc.)

What is the estimated size of the community? This should take into account any regions listed in Question 138.

There are approximately 3,000 Kaska Dena (of which Pelly Banks forms part), and the global estimated Indigenous population is over 370 million across 70+ countries.

What portion of the community do any organizing bodies represent or administer to?

No single body represents all 370+ million Indigenous peoples worldwide. Multiple local, regional, national, and international organizations each represent specific nations, communities, or regions — none administer more than a fraction of the total.

Do the organizing bodies demonstrate active and consistent efforts to engage and connect with the identified community and its members?

The founding community, Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government, demonstrates active engagement alongside other Indigenous community bodies serving the broader Indigenous community:

(a) Offering Support: The Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government provides governance support through territorial mapping initiatives, UNDRIP implementation consultations, and governance resurgence work. Community partners operate land-based education centers and cultural programming initiatives, supported by infrastructure funding secured through Indigenous Services Canada's Indigenous Community Infrastructure Fund (2023–2025). (b) Sharing Information: Engagement efforts include participation in public forums such as the Canadian Political Science Association Conference (2022, 2025), NAISA (2022), Yukon MMIWG2S+ Annual Accountability Forum (annually), testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women (Nov 2024), and community-based teaching roles, partnering with various academic institutions (e.g. Dechinta, University of Toronto, etc.).

(c) Responding to Needs: Food sovereignty grants supporting land-based education centers (2025); Data sovereignty initiative for MMIWG2S+ database, receiving innovation funding from Grand Challenges Canada (2024); Language revitalization programming for Kaska Dena communities; Safety and justice consultations with families and survivors for Yukon's MMIWG2S+ Strategy. (d) Fostering Relationships: Collaboration between Pelly Banks Dena and community organizations strengthens intergenerational and cross-community bonds across Kaska Dena territory. Governance and advisory networks sustain relationships across the Yukon. Academic partnerships foster relationships between Indigenous communities and institutions through land-based education programming.

What is the role of the applying entity in the engagement efforts listed in Question 141?

Role Description: The applying entity plays a central role in the engagement efforts listed above. While 17161573 Canada Inc. was incorporated in 2025, the entity was established specifically to institutionalize and carry forward community-rooted work into the digital infrastructure space. The entity acts as the legal vehicle through which community engagement is organized, resourced, and directed toward establishing and operating the .indigenous TLD.

2. Evidence of Role:

Relationship Stewardship: The applying entity's leadership holds formal governance roles within the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government and maintains advisory and collaborative relationships with community organizations. These pre-existing relationships form the basis of the entity's mandate and ensure registry operations remain accountable to communities served.

Resource Mobilization: The applying entity has played a direct role in securing funding to support community-identified priorities, including infrastructure funding for land-based education centers, innovation funding for MMIWG2S+ data projects, and mapping funding from Polar Knowledge Canada. These grants demonstrate the entity's capacity to convert community needs into resourced action.

Policy Development: The applying entity translates community engagement into registry policy. The .indigenous TLD's eligibility criteria, tiered pricing model, and revenue-reinvestment framework were developed in response to community priorities identified through UNDRIP consultations, language revitalization work, and governance resurgence efforts with Pelly Banks Dena and partner organizations.

Operational Continuity: By incorporating this work into 17161573 Canada Inc., the applying entity transforms relationship-based advocacy into sustainable infrastructure. The .indigenous TLD itself becomes the mechanism for continued community engagement—each registration and renewal generates revenue that supports the mission, and the registry's governance model incorporates ongoing community consultation.

In summary, the applying entity serves as the operational arm converting community relationships into digital infrastructure. Evidence lies in the governance roles held by its leadership, funding secured under its direction, and policy frameworks developed to align TLD operations with community priorities.

Are community members aware of the identified community and each other?

Yes, community members are aware of the identified community and each other. The global Indigenous community maintains interconnected networks through shared governance structures, language families, kinship systems, and collaborative advocacy initiatives. Members of distinct nations—such as Pelly Banks Dena, Ross River Dena, Liard First Nation, and other Kaska Dena groups—are aware of one another through traditional territory overlaps, intermarriage, and modern political organizations. Beyond the founding community, awareness extends globally through international Indigenous rights frameworks, digital communication, and cross-border solidarity movements.

Awareness is demonstrated through the active participation of community members in shared governance, cultural, and advocacy processes. Indigenous nations in the Yukon and British Columbia, including Kaska Dena communities, regularly convene for treaty negotiations, land claims, and resource management discussions where delegates from different groups interact. The existence of regional coordinating bodies, such as the Kaska Dena Council, facilitates ongoing communication among member bands regarding shared priorities. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) has created a common language of rights and self-determination that connects distinct communities across jurisdictions.

In the digital space, awareness is reinforced through existing Indigenous-owned and operated websites, social media channels, and communication platforms that link communities. For example, initiatives addressing Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and 2S+ People (MMIWG2S+) have necessitated cross-jurisdictional cooperation, ensuring that families and advocates in Yukon, British Columbia, and beyond are aware of parallel struggles and support mechanisms. This visibility fosters a sense of shared identity despite geographic and political fragmentation caused by colonial borders. 2. Documentation of Practices (Aug 2024–Aug 2026)

a) Surveys/Consultations: UNDRIP implementation consultations with Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government and Kaska Dena stakeholders (2024–2026); MMIWG2S+ data sovereignty surveys conducted through The RedString Project connecting families across regions (2024); Kaska Dena language revitalization assessments engaging speakers across dialect groups (2024–2025).

b) Activities Involving Diverse Community Groups: MMIWG2S+ family gatherings uniting survivors and families from across Yukon and British Columbia (2023–2024); land-based education programming at the Tu Cho Centre bringing together Elders, youth, and knowledge keepers from multiple communities (2024–2026); governance and strategic planning sessions with Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government involving women's organizations, youth councils, and Elder circles (2024–2026).

Are community members aware of the applying entity and its intention to apply for a community gTLD?

1. Evidence of Community Awareness

Key leaders of the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government — the founding community — are aware of the applying entity and its intention to apply for the .indigenous gTLD. The sole shareholder and Director of 17161573 Canada Inc. communicated the intent to pursue the TLD application directly with Pelly Banks leadership, who provided instruction to proceed with the application. This awareness exists at the governance level of the founding community, where the decision to support the application was made through existing accountability structures between the applying entity's leadership and the Nahonni Dena Government Board of Directors.

2. Explanation of Limited Dissemination

Awareness has not been widely disseminated across the broader Indigenous community at this stage, for the following reasons:

Novelty of the Endeavour: This is the first application for a wholly Indigenous-owned gTLD in the history of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The concept of a top-level domain as community infrastructure — and the technical, financial, and governance implications of operating a registry — is not widely understood outside of specialized Internet governance circles. Premature dissemination before the application was structurally sound and financially feasible (confirmed through ASP qualification on August 7, 2026) risked creating confusion or unrealistic expectations within communities that have no precedent for this type of initiative.

ASP Qualification Timeline: The Applicant Support Program (ASP) qualification was a prerequisite for the application's viability. Until ASP approval was confirmed, the application's feasibility was uncertain. Widely communicating an application that might not proceed due to financial constraints would have been irresponsible. The August 7, 2026 ASP notification left five days before the August 12, 2026 application deadline — insufficient time for broad community consultation.

Strategic Sequencing: The applying entity determined that community engagement should follow, not precede, the application's structural foundations. The entity prioritized securing the technical infrastructure (CIRA as back-end registry provider), financial feasibility (ASP qualification and capitalization plan), and governance framework (the entity's incorporation and founding community mandate) before initiating broader consultation. This sequencing ensures that when wider community engagement occurs, the applying entity can present a concrete, actionable proposal rather than an aspirational concept.

Confidentiality During Competitive Window: The 2026 gTLD application round is competitive. Until the application submission deadline (August 12, 2026), disclosing the string and application details broadly could have enabled competing applications or strategic objections. Maintaining confidentiality within the founding community's leadership protected the application's integrity during the submission period.

Plan for Broader Engagement: Following application submission and ICANN's Reveal Day (approximately October 2026), when applied-for strings become public, the applying entity will initiate structured community engagement with Indigenous organizations, First Nations governments, and tribal councils across the target market. This engagement will include presentations at Indigenous governance conferences, direct outreach to First Nations and tribal leadership, and consultations with Indigenous business and development organizations to inform registry policies, eligibility criteria, and pricing structures prior to the Sunrise and General Availability launch phases.

Was there an established presence of the identified community prior to the opening of the application submission period?

Yes

Answered with a document. Attachments are not published by ICANN.

Are individuals and groups outside of the identified community aware of the existence of the identified community?

Yes, individuals and groups outside of the identified community are aware of the existence of the community. Indigenous peoples are recognized in international law, national legislation, academic discourse, and public consciousness globally. Evidence of this awareness is substantial and multidimensional. External Awareness Indigenous peoples are recognized as distinct communities by the United Nations and its member states through UNDRIP (2007), the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. National governments maintain formal recognition frameworks — Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 (Section 35), the United States' federal recognition of tribes, Australia's Native Title Act, and New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi—all of which acknowledge Indigenous peoples as distinct communities with inherent rights. Academic institutions worldwide maintain Indigenous Studies programs, and major media outlets routinely report on Indigenous issues, land rights, and cultural contributions. Pelly Banks Dena specifically has gained public awareness through media coverage of its fight for recognition following the 1956 forced amalgamation, including coverage by APTN (Aboriginal Peoples Television Network), Canada's national Indigenous broadcaster. Documentation of Practices (Aug/24–Aug/26) a) Media or Other Public Information: Pelly Banks Dena's advocacy has been documented in APTN's investigative reporting on forced amalgamation and its impacts. Broader Indigenous community activities have received extensive media coverage including MMIWG2S+ advocacy, land-based education initiatives, and UNDRIP implementation efforts across the Yukon and Canada. Indigenous representation in film, literature, fashion, and art continues to generate public awareness of Indigenous communities and cultures. b) Discussion of the Community in Various Fora: Indigenous issues have been discussed at the Canadian Political Science Association Conference, NAISA, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women (2024), and the Yukon MMIWG2S+ Annual Accountability Forum. UNDRIP implementation discussions have occurred in Yukon legislative contexts and community fora throughout the application period. c) Partnerships or Collaborations with Outside Groups: Indigenous communities collaborated with non-Indigenous institutions including the University of Toronto (OISE), Dechinta University, Google.org (Impact Award for the Centre for Indigenous Women in Leadership), and Wal-Mart Canada (Indigenous People's Resiliency Fund). These partnerships demonstrate that external organizations recognize and engage with Indigenous communities as distinct entities. d) Chartering or Organization Prior to Application Window: The Pelly Banks Government was organized and chartered prior to the 2026 application window. Kaska Dena First Nations have operated since the early 1940s (as recognized by Canada) but have existed since time immemorial. Other Indigenous community organizations (e.g., the Liard Aboriginal Women's Society) maintain formal incorporation and governance structures predating the application period. The applying entity, 17161573 Canada Inc., was incorporated in 2025 specifically for this application, building on these existing community organizations. e) Contributions to Larger Society: Indigenous communities contribute to broader society through land stewardship, climate leadership, language revitalization, cultural production, and governance innovation. The Dene K'éh Kusān conservation initiative—protecting 24 million hectares of ancestral territory—contributes directly to global biodiversity and climate goals. Indigenous MMIWG2S+ advocacy has shaped national policy and legislation in Canada. Indigenous land-based education models have influenced pedagogical approaches internationally. These contributions ensure that Indigenous communities are visible and recognized well beyond their own membership.

Are the pursuits of the identified community enduring and sustainable?

1. Evidence of Longevity Indigenous peoples have occupied and governed their territories since time immemorial. Archaeological evidence within Kaska Dena ancestral territory confirms continuous occupation for at least 7,500 years. Kaska Dena society has maintained its matriarchal clan system, language, kinship networks, and legal orders despite colonial displacement, forced amalgamation, and residential schools.

Pelly Banks Dena demonstrates enduring identity despite state-imposed non-recognition. Following the federal government's forced amalgamation into neighbouring Kaska First Nations in 1956, members and descendants have maintained distinct identity through kinship, oral histories, cultural practice, and territorial relationships. The re-establishment of the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government represents the continuation of governance traditions never extinguished — only disrupted. Globally, Indigenous peoples have maintained distinct identities, languages, and governance systems over centuries despite colonization. The community's pursuits — sovereignty, self-determination, language revitalization, land stewardship — are intergenerational obligations, not transient projects. 2. Documentation of Practices (Aug 2024–Aug 2026) a) Recurring Activities Demonstrating Continuity: Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government governance sessions held regularly throughout the application period; annual Yukon MMIWG2S+ Accountability Forum gathering families, survivors, and advocates (ongoing); recurring land-based education programming at the Tu Cho Centre for Dena Arts and Culture connecting Elders and youth; phased UNDRIP implementation consultations across Kaska Dena territory (2024–2026). b) Documented Records of Long-Standing Tradition: The Kaska Dena Council has operated as a society since 1981, advancing treaty negotiations for over four decades. Kaska Dena oral histories and archaeological records document continuous occupation and cultural practice spanning millennia, validated through Polar Knowledge Canada-funded mapping work (2025). The Liard Aboriginal Women's Society has delivered advocacy and cultural programming for Kaska Dena women over multiple decades, maintaining continuous organizational records. c) Discussions Emphasizing Enduring Presence: House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women testimony (November 2024) emphasized ongoing violence against Indigenous women and the enduring strength of advocacy networks. The Canadian Political Science Association Conference (June 2025) engaged with the persistence of Indigenous governance despite colonial disruption. UNDRIP implementation consultations (2024–2026) framed governance resurgence as the continuation of pre-existing authority. The Dene K'éh Kusān ("Always Will Be There") conservation initiative — protecting 24 million hectares of ancestral territory — asserts enduring Kaska Dena stewardship while contributing to global biodiversity goals.

Does the string match the name of the identified community?

The applied-for string ".indigenous" directly matches the name of the identified community. The community is identified as "Indigenous peoples" — a term universally recognized in international law, national legislation, academic discourse, and popular usage to describe the global community of First Nations, Inuit, Métis, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Māori, Native American, and other distinct peoples who maintain historical continuity with pre-colonial societies. The term "Indigenous" is the most broadly recognized and inclusive descriptor for this community. It appears in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the International Labour Organization's Convention 169. It is the term adopted by the community itself in international advocacy, scholarly publishing, and intergovernmental representation. "Indigenous" is not a colloquial abbreviation or a branding choice. It is the formal, legal, and self-referential name of the community. The string is the lowercase, singular adjectival form of "Indigenous," which is the standard convention for top-level domains (e.g., .org, .edu, .gov). The string functions simultaneously as a community identifier and a categorical namespace — any eligible Indigenous organization, government, business, or individual would register under a domain that plainly names their community.

Will the general public instinctively think of the community when thinking of the applied-for string?

1. How the String Relates to the Community The general public will instinctively associate ".indigenous" with the Indigenous community. "Indigenous" is the primary term used in global public discourse to refer to the world's Indigenous peoples. It is the term used by the United Nations, national governments, media organizations, academic institutions, and Indigenous peoples themselves. No other community, industry, or interest group is associated with the word. When a member of the public encounters a web address ending in ".indigenous," they will immediately understand that the website belongs to or relates to an Indigenous person, organization, government, or business. This instant recognizability is precisely what makes the string valuable as a community TLD — it provides trust, visibility, and authenticity in a digital landscape where Indigenous identity is frequently misrepresented or appropriated.

2. Other Significant Meanings The string ".indigenous" does not have any other significant meaning beyond identifying the Indigenous community. Unlike strings such as ".apple" (brand vs. fruit) or ".bank" (financial institution vs. river bank), "Indigenous" carries no ambiguity in common usage. Its primary and overwhelming association is with Indigenous peoples. The word "indigenous" technically describes anything native or originating from a particular place — for example, Indigenous plants, Indigenous microorganisms, or Indigenous technologies. However, this generic usage is overwhelmingly contextual (typically scientific) and is not associated with any discrete community, movement, or interest group that would seek a TLD. No botanists, biologists, or technologists identify as a "community" around the word "Indigenous." The word's dominant cultural, legal, and political meaning — recognized in international law and enshrined in UNDRIP — refers unambiguously to Indigenous peoples. No particular geography, region, or theme outside of the Indigenous community is alluded to by the string. The term transcends national borders by design, reflecting the reality that Indigenous peoples exist across more than 70 countries worldwide.

Are you proposing to include one or more Community Registration Policies in the Registry Agreement (RA) that are unique to the applying entity's applied-for community gTLD?

Yes

Please state a specific Community Registration Policy with respect to registration eligibility for community members.

Registry Governance Model The .indigenous registry will be operated under a community-accountable governance model. While 17161573 Canada Inc. is the legal contracting entity with ICANN, the registry's policies, eligibility criteria, and revenue allocation are designed to be informed by ongoing engagement with Indigenous communities. The applying entity recognizes that community accountability is not a one-time endorsement but a continuous practice, and the registry's governance will reflect this through community consultation mechanisms, transparent policy development, and revenue reinvestment directed toward community priorities. This approach mirrors the governance resurgence work the applying entity's leadership has supported through Pelly Banks Dena and other Indigenous communities — work grounded in the principle that Indigenous peoples must control the institutions that affect them. The .indigenous TLD's eligibility framework reflects the complexity of Indigenous membership. The registry will not impose a single definition of "Indigenous" or create a centralized membership process that supersedes Indigenous nations' own citizenship determinations. Instead, registry eligibility will be based on verification that a registrant is an Indigenous nation, government, organization, or business — verified through appropriate documentation such as: Recognition under applicable Indigenous governance frameworks (e.g., tribal enrollment, First Nation citizenship, iwi registration, ANCSA shareholder status) Self-identification corroborated by community connection (for organizations and businesses) Formal incorporation or governance documents demonstrating Indigenous ownership or control Community letters of support or endorsement from recognized Indigenous organizations

This approach respects Indigenous self-determination by deferring to each nation's own membership processes while maintaining the integrity of the .indigenous namespace as a verified Indigenous space. The registry's role is not to determine who is Indigenous — that authority rests with Indigenous nations themselves — but to verify that registrants can demonstrate their connection to a recognized Indigenous community or nation. See attached Community Registration Policy for details.

State a specific Community Registration Policy with respect to name selection criteria or rules for the applied-for string.

1. Permitted Uses. Registry Operator shall register domain names in the .indigenous TLD only where the proposed domain name is reasonably connected to the registrant's Indigenous identity, community affiliation, cultural purpose, governance function, or legitimate organizational or business activity. This includes names reflecting: (a) an Indigenous nation, community, or government name; (b) an Indigenous language word, phrase, or place name; (c) an Indigenous organization, program, or initiative name; (d) an Indigenous-owned business or brand name; or (e) an Indigenous individual's personal or professional identity.

2. Prohibited Names. Registry Operator shall not register any domain name in the .indigenous TLD that: (a) disparages or misrepresents Indigenous peoples, cultures, languages, ceremonies, or spiritual practices; (b) appropriates, exploits, or commercializes Indigenous cultural heritage without community authorization; (c) contains racial slurs or derogatory references to Indigenous peoples; (d) impersonates an Indigenous nation, government, or organization without authorization; or (e) is otherwise inconsistent with the community objectives of the .indigenous gTLD as stated in the application.

3. Reserved Names. Registry Operator shall reserve, at no cost, the names of Indigenous nations, governments, and recognized Indigenous organizations that have not yet registered, where such names can be objectively identified through publicly available records. Registry Operator shall release a reserved name only to the corresponding Indigenous nation, government, or organization upon verification of eligibility.

4. Registrar Obligations. Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall review each proposed domain name against the criteria in Sections 1 and 2 prior to submitting a registration request. Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall not submit a registration request for any domain name that violates Section 2.

5. Registration Agreement Provisions. Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring registrants to confirm that the requested domain name does not violate Sections 1 or 2. Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting registrants from registering domain names that disparage, appropriate, or misrepresent Indigenous peoples, cultures, or spiritual practices.

6. Complaint Process. Registry Operator shall implement a name selection complaint process allowing any person or organization to submit a complaint regarding a domain name alleged to violate Sections 1 or 2. Registry Operator shall investigate such complaints within thirty (30) days and shall suspend or cancel any domain name found in violation.

7. Publication and Review. Registry Operator shall develop and implement the name selection rule and publish it on its website no later than the date on which the TLD is delegated in the DNS. Registry Operator shall review the rule at least once per year, and publish the results (including any updates) on its website within thirty (30) days following the anniversary of the Effective Date.

8. Duration. The name selection criteria in this Community Registration Policy shall apply for the lifetime of the .indigenous gTLD.

State a specific Community Registration Policy with respect to an additional commitment besides registration eligibility for community members and naming selection criteria or rules for the applied-for string.

Community Registration Policy — Revenue Reinvestment

1. Revenue Reinvestment. Registry Operator shall allocate a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of net registry revenue annually to a Community Benefit Fund. Of this amount, Registry Operator shall designate ten percent (10%) as a Founding Community Allocation to the Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government. The remainder shall be distributed to Indigenous communities and organizations through the process in Section 2. Registry Operator shall not distribute allocations to any entity that is not an Indigenous nation, government, organization, or community-rooted initiative serving Indigenous peoples.

2. Community Advisory Body. Registry Operator shall establish a Community Advisory Body of Indigenous community representatives selected through an open nomination process to advise on allocations, excluding the Founding Community Allocation. The Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government shall designate one permanent representative. Registry Operator shall publish composition, terms of reference, and selection criteria on its website no later than TLD delegation. Registry Operator shall convene the Body at least twice annually and shall not allocate revenues without its recommendation, except the Founding Community Allocation, which shall be disbursed directly upon the annual report described in Section 3.

3. Transparency and Reporting. Registry Operator shall publish an annual report on its website within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date and thereafter within thirty (30) days following each anniversary, detailing: (a) total net revenue; (b) Community Benefit Fund allocation; (c) Founding Community Allocation to Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government and purposes applied; (d) all other recipients and purposes; and (e) outcomes achieved.

4. Tiered Pricing. Registry Operator shall implement tiered pricing with discounted or no-cost registrations for qualifying Indigenous nations, governments, and non-profit organizations. Registry Operator shall not charge standard commercial rates to qualifying entities. Registry Operator shall publish the pricing structure and eligibility criteria on its website no later than TLD delegation.

5. Registrar Obligations. Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall apply the tiered pricing structure in Section 4 and shall not charge qualifying entities more than the applicable discounted rate. Registry Operator will include the following provisions in its Registry-Registrar Agreement: Registrar shall not offer .indigenous registrations at prices inconsistent with the published structure.

6. Registration Agreement Provisions. Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision requiring registrants to acknowledge that registration fees support the Community Benefit Fund. Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting registrants from misrepresenting eligibility for discounted pricing.

7. Review and Duration. Registry Operator shall review this policy at least once per year and publish results (including updates) on its website within thirty (30) days following the anniversary of the Effective Date. This policy shall apply for the lifetime of the .indigenous gTLD.

Explain the rationale for any limitations to the Community Registration Policy proposed by the applying entity in Questions 151-153.

Not applicable.

Explain how the proposed Community Registration Policies of the applying entity meets the Registry Commitments Evaluation criteria 4 and 5?

The three Community Registration Policies proposed (Registrant Eligibility, Name Selection Criteria, and Revenue Reinvestment) satisfy Registry Commitments Evaluation (RCE) Criteria 4 and 5 as follows:

Criterion 4 (Specificity and Enforceability): Each policy uses mandatory "shall/shall not" language creating clear, verifiable obligations. Registrant eligibility defines four discrete categories with specific verification documentation. Name selection criteria enumerate five permitted uses and five explicit prohibitions. Revenue reinvestment specifies exact percentages (50% total, 10% Founding Community Allocation) and reporting timelines. These commitments can be objectively measured through ICANN Contractual Compliance audits, website reviews, annual reports, and complaint investigations.

Criterion 5 (Measurable Obligations): Each policy includes objective compliance measures: publication deadlines (TLD delegation date), review cycles (annual within 30 days of anniversary), response timelines (30-day complaint investigation), disbursement triggers (upon annual report), and tiered pricing availability. The Community Advisory Body convening frequency (twice annually) and permanent Pelly Banks representation create quantifiable benchmarks for enforcement.

Non-Duplicative Nature: These policies exceed ICANN consensus policy requirements. Standard gTLD obligations under the Base Registry Agreement do not mandate eligibility restrictions, name selection prohibitions beyond unlawful content, revenue allocation to community benefit, or tiered pricing structures. While ICANN Consensus Policy prohibits certain unlawful uses (child sexual abuse material, counterfeiting), our name selection criteria protect cultural heritage and prevent appropriation—distinct from legal prohibitions. Revenue reinvestment and tiered pricing are voluntary commitments beyond any ICANN requirement.

Not Contrary to Existing Requirements: The policies do not conflict with applicable law or ICANN agreements. Eligibility verification respects Indigenous nations' self-determination rights enshrined in UNDRIP and Canadian Charter Section 35. Name selection criteria prohibit harmful speech without violating free expression protections, focusing on cultural appropriation rather than viewpoint. Revenue allocation is contractual between Registry Operator and registrants. Tiered pricing complies with competition law as discriminatory pricing is permitted when objectively justified (community sustainability). No ICANN Consensus Policy requires open registration that would conflict with our restrictions.

Compatible with ICANN Bylaws: The policies align with ICANN's Bylaw commitments to public interest and community protection (Bylaw 2.1, 3.3). They support ICANN's mission to coordinate the DNS while respecting regional and national diversity. The Community Advisory Body structure ensures stakeholder input consistent with ICANN's multistakeholder model. No Bylaw provisions prohibit community-focused registry commitments or revenue redistribution mechanisms.

No Additional Registry Services Required: These policies operate within standard registry technical infrastructure. Eligibility verification uses existing WHOIS/RDDS systems with registrar-submitted documentation. Name selection criteria apply during registration requests using existing EPP commands. Revenue allocation is financial accounting, not technical registry function. Tiered pricing uses standard registry pricing APIs. No new Registry Service Provider (RSP) services, sunrise mechanisms, or specialized registries beyond current operational capacity are required. All obligations are administrative or financial commitments implementable through existing registry-registrar relationships and ICANN contract enforcement mechanisms.

From where does the applying entity have the support to run the applied-for string on behalf of the identified community?

The applying entity derives its mandate to operate the .indigenous TLD from the Pelly Banks Government, the founding community identified in this application. The sole shareholder and Director of 17161573 Canada Inc. communicated the intent to pursue the .indigenous gTLD directly with Pelly Banks leadership, who provided instruction to proceed with the application. This instruction constitutes the founding community's endorsement of the applying entity as the vehicle through which the TLD application is pursued.

A written letter of support from the Pelly Banks Government is attached as Corresponding Documentation, confirming: (a) the governance relationship between the applying entity's leadership and the Pelly Banks Government; (b) the community's awareness of and support for the .indigenous TLD application; and (c) the community's endorsement of the applying entity as the appropriate entity to carry forward this application on behalf of the community it serves.

As documented in the response to Question 144, broader endorsement from other Indigenous organizations has not yet been sought. This reflects the novelty of the endeavour, the ASP qualification timeline (confirmed August 7, 2026 — five days before the submission deadline), and the competitive confidentiality considerations that governed the pre-submission period. Premature solicitation of endorsements before the application's structural and financial viability was confirmed would have been irresponsible and potentially damaging to community relationships.

Following ICANN's Reveal Day (approximately October 2026), the applying entity will initiate structured engagement with Indigenous organizations, First Nations governments, and tribal councils to solicit formal endorsements, inform registry policy development, and establish the Community Advisory Body described in the Revenue Reinvestment Community Registration Policy. The applying entity is confident that the community-accountable governance model, revenue reinvestment commitment, and tiered pricing structure will attract broad community support once the application is public and the entity can engage openly.

The applying entity respectfully submits that the endorsement of the founding community — Pelly Banks Government — combined with the documented two-decade history of community-rooted work that forms the basis of the entity's mandate, constitutes sufficient evidence of community support at the application stage. The applying entity commits to expanding this support base substantially during the post-submission evaluation period.

Is there any opposition to the applying entity, application, or applied-for string that the applying entity is aware of? If yes, please explain.

The applying entity is not aware of any formal opposition to the application or the applied-for string at the time of submission. No objections, challenges, or expressions of concern have been received from any party.

However, the applying entity acknowledges that the following factors may give rise to questions or potential opposition during the evaluation period and addresses each proactively:

1. Single-Entity Representation of a Global Community The applying entity is a single corporation applying to serve a global community of over 370 million Indigenous peoples across more than 70 countries. Some may question whether one entity — particularly one whose founding community is a specific Kaska Dena community in the Yukon — can legitimately represent a community of this scale. The applying entity addresses this by: (a) grounding its mandate in the direct governance relationship with Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government as founding community; (b) committing to a Community Advisory Body with representation from diverse Indigenous communities; (c) committing to structured post-Reveal Day engagement with Indigenous organizations worldwide; and (d) designing eligibility criteria that defer to each Indigenous nation's own citizenship processes rather than imposing a centralized definition.

2. Potential Competing Applications The 2026 gTLD round is competitive. It is possible that another entity may apply for .indigenous or a variant string. The applying entity is prepared to defend its application on the basis of its community connection, community-accountable governance model, and the depth of documented community-rooted work described throughout this application.

3. Concerns About Appropriation Risk Some Indigenous community members may raise concerns that a gTLD could itself constitute a form of appropriation — that the string "indigenous" should not be owned by any single entity, even an Indigenous-owned one. The applying entity takes this concern seriously and addresses it through: (a) the Revenue Reinvestment Policy committing 50% of net revenue to community benefit; (b) the Community Advisory Body structure ensuring community direction of fund allocations; (c) tiered pricing ensuring affordability; (d) eligibility restrictions limiting registration to verified Indigenous entities; and (e) name selection criteria prohibiting cultural appropriation within the namespace. The applying entity views the TLD not as ownership of the word "indigenous" but as stewardship of a digital space on behalf of the community, analogous to how Indigenous nations steward territorial resources for collective benefit.

4. Non-Recognition of Pelly Banks Dena Pelly Banks Dena remains unrecognized as a separate First Nation by the Yukon and federal governments following the 1956 forced amalgamation. Some may question the legitimacy of an unrecognized community as the founding community for this application. The applying entity addresses this by noting that: (a) Pelly Banks Dena's non-recognition is itself a product of colonial governance decisions that the community continues to challenge; (b) the Pelly Banks Government operates with community authority regardless of state recognition; (c) Indigenous self-determination includes the right to organize and govern without state permission, as affirmed in UNDRIP; and (d) the applying entity's mandate extends well beyond Pelly Banks Dena to the broader global Indigenous community through the governance model, eligibility framework, and Community Advisory Body.

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

Not Applicable. All three Registry Voluntary Commitments proposed in Question 173 (Registrant Eligibility, Name Selection Criteria, and Revenue Reinvestment) apply for the lifetime of the .indigenous gTLD with no time limitations, scope restrictions, sunset provisions, or conditional applicability.

Why are the commitment(s) being proposed?

The commitments are proposed for four core rationales:

1. Protecting Community Integrity and Preventing Harm

Without eligibility restrictions, non-Indigenous entities could register domains that appropriate, misrepresent, or disparage Indigenous peoples and cultures. The name selection criteria explicitly prohibit cultural appropriation, racial slurs, and impersonation. These protections are essential because the digital space has historically been used to misrepresent, exploit, or erase Indigenous identities. The TLD must be a verified Indigenous space, not an open namespace where anyone can claim Indigenous identity.

2. Honoring Indigenous Self-Determination

The eligibility framework defers to each Indigenous nation's own citizenship and membership processes rather than imposing a centralized definition. This respects the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to determine their own citizens (UNDRIP Article 33) and avoids repeating colonial patterns of external categorization. The registry's role is verification, not determination—authority rests with Indigenous nations themselves.

3. Ensuring Economic Benefit Flows Back to Community

Historically, Indigenous peoples have been excluded from infrastructure ownership and the economic benefits it generates. The 50% revenue reinvestment commitment ensures that the TLD generates tangible community benefit, not private profit. The Founding Community Allocation to Pelly Banks (Nahonni Dena) Government recognizes the specific community that anchors this initiative, while the Community Advisory Body ensures broader distribution aligns with community priorities like language revitalization, MMIWG2S+ support, and digital capacity-building.

4. Building Trust Through Transparency and Accountability

The tiered pricing structure, annual reporting requirements, and Community Advisory Body create measurable accountability mechanisms. Without these commitments, there would be no enforceable guarantee that the TLD serves its stated mission rather than commercial interests. ICANN Contractual Compliance can monitor publication deadlines, disbursement amounts, and advisory body convening frequency—objective benchmarks that distinguish a genuine community commitment from aspirational language.

These commitments collectively ensure the .indigenous gTLD fulfills its purpose as digital infrastructure for Indigenous self-determination, not merely as a commercial asset. They operationalize the community-accountable governance model described throughout this application and distinguish this TLD from unrestricted gTLDs where no such obligations exist.

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.

Historical Significance This application represents one of the earliest attempts in ICANN's history to secure a gTLD dedicated to and operated by Indigenous peoples. While a .maori application was submitted in the 2012 round, it was withdrawn before delegation. If delegated, .indigenous would be the first community gTLD in the DNS root whose purpose, governance, and revenue model are explicitly designed to serve Indigenous self-determination across multiple nations and peoples.

Pelly Banks Soverignty This is not merely a technical application — it is an act of digital sovereignty by a community that has been historically excluded from infrastructure ownership and whose identity has been subject to external categorization, control, and erasure. This application is an assertion of the sovereignty and continuous presence of the Pelly Banks Dena.

Alignment with ICANN's Mission and Public Interest The .indigenous TLD advances ICANN's commitment to a multilingual, inclusive, and globally representative DNS. It expands namespace choice for over 370 million Indigenous peoples across 70+ countries, supports Internationalized Domain Names in Indigenous languages and scripts, and brings a fundamentally underrepresented community into registry operations. The application aligns with ICANN's Bylaw commitments to preserve DNS stability while promoting competition, consumer choice, and geographic and cultural diversity in the DNS.

Commitment to Good Faith Engagement The applying entity acknowledges that its community engagement to date has been necessarily limited to the founding community — Pelly Banks Government — due to the novelty of the endeavour, ASP qualification timelines, and competitive confidentiality requirements. The applying entity commits in good faith to expanding community engagement substantially following ICANN's Reveal Day, including outreach to Indigenous organizations globally, consultations on registry policy, and establishment of the Community Advisory Body. The applying entity views ICANN's evaluation period as an opportunity to demonstrate that the governance structures, registration policies, and revenue model proposed in this application warrant the trust of the broader Indigenous community.

Applicant Support Program The applying entity expresses gratitude to ICANN's Applicant Support Program (ASP) for qualifying this application for reduced fees. Without ASP support, this application would not have been financially feasible. The ASP program's role in enabling participation from underrepresented communities is directly relevant to the .indigenous TLD's mission of democratizing access to digital infrastructure.

Contact The applying entity welcomes inquiries from ICANN evaluation staff, community members, and interested parties. Correspondence may be directed to the applying entity through its registered contact information.

By submitting this Application, the applying entity confirms that it is submitting this Application with a good faith (“bona fide”) intent to operate the gTLD for which it has applied, and that the applying entity has read and understands the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 Prohibited Communications and Activities of the Applicant Guidebook regarding the New gTLD Program rules prohibiting certain communications and activities to prevent parties from privately resolving string contention among themselves.

true

By submitting this Application, the applying entity confirms that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 Prohibited Communications and Activities of the Applicant Guidebook regarding the New gTLD Program rules prohibiting certain communications and activities to prevent parties from privately resolving string contention among themselves.

true