Community-Based Applications How to Demonstrate Public Support

In the 2026 round of the new gTLD program, community-based applications will once again offer an important pathway for groups seeking to operate a top-level domain tied to a specific community interest, language, culture, or institution. These applications differ from standard, open gTLD proposals in that they claim a strong nexus between the proposed string and a clearly delineated community, and they seek to operate the gTLD in a way that serves and protects the interests of that community. One of the central components of a successful community-based application is the demonstration of public support, which can make the difference between a successful delegation, a winning Community Priority Evaluation, or outright rejection of the proposal.

To effectively demonstrate public support, an applicant must first establish a coherent and well-defined community. ICANN’s criteria require that the community be clearly delineated, pre-existing, and organized in a manner that allows for representative governance or endorsement. This means that vague or loosely defined groups, such as “internet users” or “music lovers,” generally do not qualify. Instead, the applicant must show that the community has formal boundaries—such as a linguistic group, a professional association, a religious denomination, or an indigenous people—with a shared interest in the proposed string.

Once the community definition is established, the most powerful tool an applicant can use to prove public support is a formal letter of support or endorsement from a recognized institution that represents the community. ICANN places high value on endorsements that come from the highest authority within the community, such as a global federation, an umbrella organization, or a government body with jurisdiction over the group’s interests. These letters should be specific, unambiguous, and directly reference the applicant’s proposal and its alignment with the community’s goals. Generic statements of goodwill or vague interest are not sufficient to demonstrate the deep support required for a community-based application to advance.

Beyond high-level endorsements, applicants are encouraged to demonstrate breadth of support. This includes letters from a wide array of organizations within the community, including regional chapters, subgroups, nonprofits, or academic institutions. ICANN evaluators will consider both the quantity and diversity of these submissions, seeking evidence that the support is not limited to a small clique or self-selected subset of the community. The geographic spread of support also plays a role; global or transnational communities are expected to show cross-border endorsement, while localized communities should reflect support from relevant regional or municipal authorities.

Public support can also be strengthened through documented evidence of community consultation. This may include records of town halls, virtual meetings, public comment periods, surveys, or referenda conducted within the community prior to submission. Documentation should include detailed minutes, participant lists, and outcomes that clearly indicate meaningful engagement and consensus. These forms of evidence not only demonstrate transparency but also show that the applicant is accountable to the community it purports to represent.

Another important element is the alignment of the application’s proposed policies and operational plans with the community’s needs and values. The application must detail how the registry will be governed in a way that includes community input, how registrations will be validated to ensure eligibility, and how potential misuse or misrepresentation will be mitigated. This alignment reinforces the legitimacy of the applicant’s claim and supports the argument that the gTLD will be operated in the public interest of the stated community.

Applicants should also be prepared to address potential opposition. In cases where more than one entity claims to represent a community or where segments of the community dispute the legitimacy of the application, ICANN may request clarifying documentation or even open the application to public objections. To preempt this, a proactive engagement strategy with potential critics is recommended, seeking to build coalitions or resolve disputes early in the process. In situations where legitimate opposition is unavoidable, the applicant should present a clear rationale for its position, including how its governance model and safeguards ensure inclusivity and fairness.

For applicants pursuing Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) to gain precedence over competing standard applications, the standard of proof is even higher. The CPE process requires applicants to score highly on four criteria: community establishment, nexus between the community and the string, registration policies, and community endorsement. Documentation supporting each of these areas must be precise, robust, and directly tied to the community’s interests. In the 2012 round, very few applicants succeeded in passing CPE due to insufficient or poorly aligned support documentation, making this aspect one of the most challenging in the entire gTLD process.

In the 2026 round, ICANN has signaled greater clarity and guidance for community applicants, including improvements to the CPE process and updated evaluation metrics. Nonetheless, the burden of proof remains high, and applicants must begin building their support infrastructure well in advance of submitting their application. Early engagement, inclusive outreach, meticulous documentation, and transparent governance planning are the hallmarks of a successful community-based application. Demonstrating public support is not simply a procedural requirement; it is the foundation upon which the legitimacy, sustainability, and impact of a community gTLD are built.

You said:

In the 2026 round of the new gTLD program, community-based applications will once again offer an important pathway for groups seeking to operate a top-level domain tied to a specific community interest, language, culture, or institution. These applications differ from standard, open gTLD proposals in that they claim a strong nexus between the proposed string…