The ICANN procedures are cute. They are not that easy to understand, follow and eventually comply with. However, they, from time to time, ultimately permit some transparency in order to show that it was possible not to pay ICANN for something small when you can get "samething" big for free (but without the ICANN legaleses). In the New gTLD Program case, I made an effort to try to save ICANN millions. You will find it at the URL http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtld-applicant-support-handbook/msg00013.ht.... I hope this demonstrate enough that ICANN and the US Governments are not crooks: - they only did not "underline" the full truth, as every good sales, at it results from the small prints - however, and I am the proof, they made nothing to prevent the truth from being published before the gTLD candidates send their requests and checks. The truth is that: 1. there is no technical difference between gTLDs and IDNgTLDs except non contractual foreign software application (punycode family of alogithms) TLD registrant cannot control. 2. ICANN uses a "de facto" situation to register TLDs that can be "de jure" (RFCs) replicated in 65,535 other DNS top level registries. 3. TLDs may use protected IRNs (International Root Names) by WIPO or ISO. The use of a string as a TLD does not protect it as an IRN. 4. ICANN stays at the IETF Internet end to end layers under the ignorance of the US Government. This is obsolete: IETF RFCs have already transparently made inteligent users to scale to fringe to fringe Internet+. http://iutf.org/wiki/Internet%2B_architectural_Framework. This makes clear that the ICANN Pew gTLD Program brings to its gTLD registrants is a very worked-out screen of paper to sign and an entry in the DNS CLASS "IN" (ICANN/NTIA) every of us can replicate, - in full right: in 255 other CLASSes - at least in test: in 65.375 other ones. If this was plainly stated in the Agreement, this would be perfectly honnest. As it is not, Courts may have to decide. However, in favor of ICANN: 1. my mail was published by ICANN within the Pew gTLD Program dedicated part, on a public forumeveryone could read. 2. RFC are publicly published and TLD would be Managers should know them to correctly operates the service they plan to sell. After several RFCs over the last 29 years of DNS operations, RFC 5395 states anew: "DNS CLASSes have been little used but constitute another dimension of the DNS distributed database. In particular, there is no necessary relationship between the name space or root servers for one data CLASS and those for another data CLASS. The same DNS NAME can have completely different meanings in different CLASSes. The label types are the same, and the null label is usable only as root in every CLASS. As global networking and DNS have evolved, the IN, or Internet, CLASS has dominated DNS use. [] The current CLASS assignments [] are as follows: This simply means that for each ".abcd" top-zone IDNgTLD paid K$ 185++ to ICANN, there can be 65,535 other ".abcd" top-zones in the DNS. Some will be immediatel because the IUTF is going to accept a few CLASSes for family protection, customer documentation, testing of third party applications, etc. jfc