Why the next round applicant pool could double lessons from 2012

The 2012 new gTLD application round marked a watershed moment in the evolution of the internet’s namespace. With 1,930 applications submitted for new top-level domains, it dramatically expanded the landscape beyond the handful of legacy TLDs that had dominated for decades. While the scale of that round was unprecedented, signs point to the possibility that the next round—set tentatively for 2026—could see even greater participation, perhaps even doubling the applicant pool. The reasons for this potential surge are numerous and rooted in a detailed analysis of lessons learned from the 2012 round, shifts in digital strategy, expanded global internet access, evolving brand behavior, and ICANN’s own operational reforms.

One of the clearest reasons the next round could attract a larger pool is the simple presence of hindsight. In 2012, the gTLD program was largely experimental for many applicants. Brands, governments, startups, and communities navigated a process that was complex, expensive, and poorly understood by many. Some applied for defensive purposes without clear usage plans. Others submitted applications with overly ambitious ideas, only to later withdraw or fail to launch their domains effectively. Despite these challenges, the round demonstrated that running a TLD was not only feasible but could be strategically advantageous. Many of the risks feared in 2012—operational collapse, rampant misuse, user confusion—did not materialize at the scale predicted. This track record has created a confidence base that did not exist previously. Now, potential applicants can analyze what worked and what didn’t, drawing on case studies from successful TLDs such as .app, .nyc, .club, and .berlin, as well as learning from the underperformance or abandonment of others.

Another critical factor is the growing maturity and standardization of backend registry service providers. In 2012, many applicants had to grapple with either building their own registry infrastructure or selecting from a nascent market of vendors. Today, there is a competitive and mature landscape of providers offering turnkey registry solutions with robust security, scalability, and compliance support. This reduces the technical and financial barrier to entry significantly. An organization no longer needs to possess deep DNS expertise to run a TLD—it simply needs a clear vision, a compliant operating plan, and a budget. These improved backend services, combined with more predictable ICANN procedures and contractual frameworks, make the process more accessible to a broader range of potential applicants.

There is also a growing recognition of the strategic value of TLD ownership. In 2012, the motivation for many applicants was largely defensive or experimental. Today, more organizations understand the potential for customer engagement, brand control, SEO advantages, and innovation in digital identity that a TLD can offer. Dot-brands, in particular, are likely to represent a larger share of applications in the next round. In the years following 2012, organizations like Google (.google), Barclays (.barclays), and Canon (.canon) have demonstrated how TLDs can be integrated into broader digital ecosystems, used for security-focused user authentication, or employed as marketing platforms. As more businesses digitize and seek to centralize trust and data under their own governance, the appeal of owning a top-level domain has only increased.

Global participation is also expected to expand dramatically. In 2012, the applicant pool skewed heavily toward North America and Western Europe. While there were notable applications from Asia, Latin America, and Africa, the distribution was uneven. Since then, the global internet population has grown, and digital economies in regions like Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America have matured. ICANN’s renewed emphasis on applicant support—particularly for underrepresented or developing regions—means that the next round will likely include new geographic players. The Applicant Support Program, improved outreach, and localized engagement initiatives could bring new city TLDs, cultural initiatives, and linguistic gTLDs into the fold. Furthermore, Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) are expected to play a bigger role, enabling applications in scripts such as Arabic, Devanagari, Chinese, and Cyrillic to reach underserved linguistic communities.

The emergence of vertical strategies and thematic TLDs could also fuel the growth in applications. In 2012, many applicants aimed to secure broad, high-value keywords such as .shop, .music, or .app. While these “category killer” TLDs will still attract interest, the next round is expected to see a proliferation of specialized, community-focused, or content-driven applications. For example, a registry focusing on the wellness industry might apply for .wellbeing, while a community of creators may band together under .creator or .studio. These verticals do not necessarily aim for global ubiquity but instead seek to create meaningful, semantically rich namespaces for specific industries or interest groups. With the growth of content marketing, personal branding, and creator economies, these models may be more viable and attractive than ever.

Pricing is another motivating force. While the costs associated with applying for and running a gTLD remain substantial, they have become more predictable. More importantly, the value that a gTLD can return—whether in marketing ROI, direct revenue, brand equity, or operational control—is increasingly understood. For some, particularly those in competitive or identity-sensitive sectors, the cost of not applying may outweigh the investment. This is especially true in cases where there is a risk that a competitor, affiliate, or even unrelated third party might acquire a strategically valuable string. In this way, the scarcity of desirable strings and the long timeline between rounds serves as an incentive: if an entity does not apply now, it may not have another chance for a decade or more.

Lastly, ICANN’s internal process improvements are expected to reduce friction and confusion. The implementation of the SubPro Final Report recommendations, the work of the Implementation Review Team, and the anticipated clarity in the Applicant Guidebook are aimed at creating a more efficient and equitable application experience. Key issues that plagued 2012—such as the lack of clarity around objections, inconsistent evaluation standards, and the opacity of contention resolution—are being addressed. This will reduce uncertainty for applicants and encourage more organizations to participate with confidence.

Taken together, these factors suggest that the next gTLD application round could see a significant surge in participation. The applicant pool may not just expand numerically but also diversify in geography, business model, and motivation. From multinational corporations and regional governments to cultural organizations and startups, the appeal of TLD ownership has broadened. The 2012 round proved that the internet namespace could evolve. The next round may demonstrate just how many different stakeholders are now ready—and able—to help shape that evolution.

The 2012 new gTLD application round marked a watershed moment in the evolution of the internet’s namespace. With 1,930 applications submitted for new top-level domains, it dramatically expanded the landscape beyond the handful of legacy TLDs that had dominated for decades. While the scale of that round was unprecedented, signs point to the possibility that…