Summary

  • Jolly Host’s 30 September 2026 request would put recently purged names in .circle, .jot, .got and .safety into a separate daily EPP application window. ICANN lists the request as approved, pending contract amendment; the public record examined here does not establish that the service is running.
  • The proposal ranks duplicate applications by arrival. At award time, a registrar without sufficient funds loses the name to the next registrar in the queue. Application fees can also be configured per TLD, but the filing gives no amount or evidence that such a fee is active. The filing claims precise timestamps and transparency without publishing the proposed receipt by which an outsider could reconstruct an award.

The clock has a cashier

A dropped domain is a small object with an extravagant amount of machinery around it. A registrar may have a customer waiting for a name. Another registrar may be waiting for the same name. The registry decides when the doors open and which electronic request reached it first. In Jolly Host’s RSEP 2026027 filing, that ordering is only the first decision. The second is whether the winning registrar’s existing registry account can cover the transaction. If it cannot, the operator says the application will pass automatically to the next registrar with a duplicate request.

That is a clear rule. It also changes what “first” buys. A timestamp establishes priority to be tested, not an irrevocable claim on the name. The funding test can turn the first request into the first rejection, then elevate a later request. Registrar accounts are part of an ordinary prepaid commercial relationship. Here, their balance becomes part of the allocation algorithm for a scarce name. The operator’s own description supplies both steps. There is no need to imagine a secret auction to see the economic gate.

The proposal covers four top-level domains: .circle, .jot, .got and .safety. The ICANN RSEP tracker identifies Jolly Host LLC and marks the Dropzone request “Approved, Pending Contract Amendment.” That status matters. The filing describes a future service, not a verified record of names already awarded under it. Jolly Host says the service would be implemented after approval and the public launch of a TLD; the tracker still records an unfinished contractual step. No launch date or allocation log for these four domains appears in the records checked for this article.

Two doors to the same name

The proposed Dropzone is a separate EPP server. Names purged from the primary registry would enter it for a short daily period. Accredited registrars could submit creation requests through that alternate host during a scheduled window; the registry would award names after the window closes. A name without a successful application would return to open registration through the primary registry. The diagram in words is simple enough: main system, side room, queue, award, return if unclaimed.

The visibility is less simple. The application says a primary EPP check for a name held in Dropzone would say “Unavailable” and explain “Domain held in the Dropzone.” WHOIS would say that the name is available for application through the alternate service. Both statements can be operationally correct, but they describe different kinds of availability. A registrar connected only to the primary service would learn that ordinary registration is closed, while an equipped registrar could place an application in the side room.

The public record does not give a live comparison of what the two interfaces actually return for these four TLDs, because the proposed service has not been shown running.

The details of this second door matter. The filing says standard applications use a normal EPP create command on the alternate host; premium names may need a price-category extension. A registrar must therefore know the separate connection, the opening time, the name inventory, the price category and the balance it needs before the clock starts. Equal access to an endpoint is a narrower claim than equal preparation to use it. That difference is not evidence of unequal treatment; it is where a service promising a fair race has to make the starting conditions legible.

A fee the form permits, not a price it announces

Jolly Host’s form says the service can support an additional application fee set separately for each TLD. Where applicable, that charge would sit on top of the ordinary or premium registration price and be debited from the registrar’s existing registry account. The filing gives neither a fee schedule nor a statement that any of the four domains will use an application fee. Reporting a price today would be fiction. Reporting the capability is important because the amount needed in that account determines whether a timestamp can survive the award step.

The proposal praises precise timestamps and “system transparency” as reasons registrars would have a better chance at high-demand names. It does not attach a public specification for a per-name queue receipt, the moment at which balance is measured, how a failed debit is recorded, or a way for an unsuccessful registrar to reconcile the winning sequence. It may have private operational procedures; the filed document does not provide them. The missing artifact is specific: a dated, reproducible award record showing request order, applicable price and fee, debit outcome and the rule that advanced the next applicant.

Such a record could protect both registrars and the operator from an argument conducted entirely through their own competing logs.

ICANN’s RSEP process assesses potential significant security, stability and competition issues when a registry asks to change a service. The tracker’s approval says the request passed that route. It is not a certificate that a future queue will run fairly every day, and the public table does not give an audit trail for individual awards. Jolly Host proposes language for Exhibit A of its registry agreements, describing a separate system for recently purged names. Until the amendments and operating details are visible, the public can inspect the mechanism as proposed, not its performance.