Community TLDs Governance Structures that Empower Stakeholders

The emergence of community top-level domains (Community TLDs) represents a distinct category within the broader framework of top-level domain (TLD) governance. Unlike generic TLDs (gTLDs), which are often commercially driven, or country-code TLDs (ccTLDs), which are geographically bound, Community TLDs are proposed and operated on behalf of a clearly delineated group of people with a common interest, purpose, or affiliation. These TLDs are designed not simply to offer a digital namespace, but to empower their communities through participatory governance, tailored policy frameworks, and mission-aligned operations. The governance of Community TLDs presents a unique model in the domain name ecosystem, aiming to blend bottom-up stakeholder engagement with the technical and policy rigor required to manage internet infrastructure.

Under ICANN’s New gTLD Program launched in 2012, Community TLDs were given a formalized application pathway. Applicants seeking to operate a Community TLD were required to demonstrate that the proposed string was strongly associated with a clearly defined community, that the community supported the application, and that the policies and registration eligibility criteria would restrict use of the TLD to members of that community. These requirements were more stringent than those applied to standard gTLD applicants, reflecting the importance of legitimacy, representation, and accountability in community-based namespaces. The evaluation process included public comment periods, community priority evaluation (CPE) panels, and objection procedures, all aimed at ensuring that the TLD would genuinely serve its stated community and not merely function as a marketing tool.

A defining feature of Community TLD governance is the inclusion of representative governance structures that give stakeholders meaningful oversight and input into policy development and operational decisions. These structures often include community advisory councils, multi-stakeholder boards, and participatory policy development processes. For example, the .ngo and .ong TLDs, operated by the Public Interest Registry (PIR), include a governance model where non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups participate in policy decisions affecting domain eligibility, dispute resolution, and public interest commitments. This participatory governance helps align domain policies with the values and needs of the community, such as trust, transparency, and credibility in the case of NGO-affiliated domains.

In the case of .cat, a TLD designated for the Catalan linguistic and cultural community, governance is embedded in a foundation model that actively promotes the Catalan language online. The Fundació puntCAT, which operates the registry, was created specifically to represent the interests of the Catalan-speaking population. Its governance includes linguistic and cultural experts, representatives of civil society, and digital policy advocates. Through outreach, grants, and content development initiatives, the registry uses its governance model to promote digital inclusion and cultural preservation, thereby illustrating how Community TLDs can serve as vehicles for broader social and linguistic goals.

Community TLDs also introduce specific contractual obligations that bind the registry operator to the community’s interests. These obligations are encoded in the Registry Agreement with ICANN and can include restrictions on who may register domains, the purposes for which domains may be used, and requirements for ongoing engagement with the community. The operator must develop and enforce eligibility criteria, verify registrants’ credentials, and provide mechanisms for complaint and redress if domain use is inconsistent with community standards. Failure to uphold these obligations can lead to compliance actions by ICANN, including breach notices or contract termination. This contractual accountability provides a layer of protection to ensure that the TLD remains faithful to its founding mission.

Despite the clear benefits, Community TLD governance is not without challenges. The process of defining a community in a global and often fluid context is inherently complex. Communities are rarely monolithic, and disputes can arise over representation, eligibility, and the definition of core values. The CPE process itself has been subject to criticism for lack of transparency, inconsistent application of criteria, and perceived bias. Some applicants who did not pass CPE argued that the bar for demonstrating community support and delineation was set unrealistically high, discouraging legitimate grassroots initiatives. Additionally, the requirement for restrictive registration policies can limit the commercial viability of a Community TLD, placing financial sustainability at odds with mission fidelity.

Another concern is the long-term durability of community governance structures. Maintaining stakeholder engagement over time requires resources, trust, and institutional resilience. Governance bodies must evolve to reflect shifts in community demographics, technology, and policy environments. Without careful stewardship, there is a risk of mission drift, where the TLD gradually becomes indistinguishable from a generic namespace, losing the participatory and values-based character that justified its creation. To guard against this, some Community TLD operators have implemented periodic reviews, community consultations, and bylaws that require majority community approval for major changes to the registry’s operation or purpose.

Technology and external policy developments further shape the landscape in which Community TLDs operate. The advent of privacy regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has affected how registries manage registrant data and communicate with their communities. Meanwhile, initiatives promoting universal acceptance and multilingual access have important implications for Community TLDs, particularly those rooted in cultural or linguistic identity. Integration with decentralized web technologies and emerging identity frameworks could also provide new opportunities for Community TLDs to innovate and expand their relevance in an increasingly complex digital ecosystem.

Ultimately, the governance of Community TLDs represents a vital experiment in aligning digital infrastructure with public interest principles. By structuring registries to be responsive to their communities, embedding accountability mechanisms, and prioritizing social value over commercial maximization, Community TLDs offer an alternative vision of internet governance. They demonstrate that domain names are not merely technical artifacts but can be instruments of empowerment, identity, and self-governance. As ICANN considers future rounds of TLD expansion, the lessons learned from Community TLDs will be critical in refining policies that support meaningful, inclusive, and sustainable models of stakeholder-driven governance in the domain name space.

The emergence of community top-level domains (Community TLDs) represents a distinct category within the broader framework of top-level domain (TLD) governance. Unlike generic TLDs (gTLDs), which are often commercially driven, or country-code TLDs (ccTLDs), which are geographically bound, Community TLDs are proposed and operated on behalf of a clearly delineated group of people with a…