Cross-Ownership Restrictions: Are They Still Relevant in 2026

As the 2026 round of ICANN’s New gTLD Program approaches, renewed attention is being given to the policy landscape surrounding registry-registrar cross-ownership restrictions. Historically, ICANN maintained strict separation between registry operators and registrars in an effort to promote competition, reduce the risk of self-dealing, and prevent market abuse. However, this model has undergone significant evolution since the early days of domain name governance. The lifting of many cross-ownership prohibitions following the 2012 round was a recognition of the shifting market dynamics and the rise of vertically integrated digital service providers. In 2026, the question is not whether such restrictions should exist in principle, but whether they still serve a meaningful regulatory function in a maturing and more complex DNS ecosystem.

When ICANN first imposed cross-ownership limits in the early 2000s, the domain name industry was characterized by a relatively small number of players and a clear delineation of roles. Registries managed the authoritative root zones of top-level domains, while registrars served as the retail layer between end users and the registry. ICANN was concerned that allowing a registry operator to also act as a registrar—or vice versa—could enable anti-competitive behavior such as preferential pricing, data hoarding, or exclusion of rival registrars. The primary objective was to prevent dominant firms from leveraging their control of critical infrastructure to distort the retail market or limit consumer choice.

By the time of the 2012 new gTLD round, the domain name market had diversified considerably. Hundreds of registrars were accredited, new backend registry service providers had emerged, and the rise of cloud-based infrastructure enabled smaller players to operate TLDs with reduced capital investment. ICANN responded by relaxing cross-ownership restrictions, allowing for registry-registrar integration under specific conditions and subject to non-discrimination obligations. This policy shift enabled a wave of innovation, including the rise of vertically integrated business models such as Google Registry, Amazon Registry Services, and other brands that operate both the registry and registrar components of their gTLD strategies. These developments contributed to increased efficiency, better user experiences, and tighter integration of DNS management into broader digital platforms.

As the 2026 round nears, ICANN has signaled that it does not intend to reinstate blanket cross-ownership bans. Instead, it is focusing on transparency, accountability, and targeted oversight mechanisms to manage the risks historically associated with vertical integration. Registry operators that also hold registrar accreditation are still subject to the Code of Conduct and Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement, which prohibit discriminatory access to registry services, mandate equal treatment of accredited registrars, and require annual compliance audits. These guardrails are being refined in 2026 to include more detailed transaction logging, performance monitoring, and dispute resolution procedures, allowing ICANN to detect and address potential abuses without stifling integrated business models.

Nevertheless, the relevance of cross-ownership restrictions remains a topic of debate among stakeholders. Critics argue that the absence of effective separation enables subtle forms of market manipulation, particularly when data advantages are considered. A vertically integrated registry may have access to domain search behavior, pricing strategies, and customer data that could provide a competitive edge at the registrar level. Even with anonymization and audit requirements, the information asymmetry between vertically integrated entities and independent registrars may undermine fair competition. Smaller registrars often voice concern that dominant vertically integrated players can bundle services, offer loss-leading pricing, or prioritize internal registrar channels in ways that erode market diversity.

Proponents of vertical integration counter that cross-ownership enables innovation, improves security, and enhances user trust. In sectors where TLDs are closely tied to service delivery—such as .brand TLDs, regulated strings, or sector-specific namespaces like .bank or .pharmacy—having a single entity oversee both registry and registrar operations ensures consistency, compliance, and rapid issue resolution. This model is particularly appealing for enterprises seeking end-to-end control of their digital identity, or for TLDs where registration is tightly restricted to qualified users. In these scenarios, forcing organizational separation would introduce unnecessary complexity and cost without delivering meaningful competitive benefits.

The 2026 application guidebook reflects this nuanced view. Rather than imposing categorical prohibitions, it requires applicants to disclose all ownership interests in registry and registrar entities, describe their internal firewalls and data segregation policies, and agree to enhanced transparency obligations. Applicants proposing to operate both a registry and registrar are required to submit a vertical integration impact assessment, detailing how they will mitigate anti-competitive risks and ensure compliance with ICANN’s non-discrimination standards. These submissions will be subject to review during the evaluation phase and may result in additional reporting requirements or tailored contractual provisions.

In addition, ICANN has strengthened its post-delegation compliance capacity, enabling more proactive enforcement of vertical integration rules. The 2026 compliance model includes real-time monitoring of registry service levels, registrar interactions, and transactional data that can signal potential breaches of the equal access rule. Registries found to be providing preferential treatment to affiliated registrars may face financial penalties, public disclosure of violations, or in extreme cases, registry agreement termination. This enforcement-based approach reflects a regulatory shift away from structural prohibitions toward behavioral oversight.

International regulatory developments also play a role in shaping ICANN’s stance on cross-ownership. Competition authorities in various jurisdictions have taken different approaches to vertical integration in digital markets, and ICANN must navigate this patchwork while maintaining global interoperability. In some countries, antitrust regulators may require data localization, registrar neutrality, or consumer protection guarantees that affect how vertically integrated registries operate. Applicants in the 2026 round must demonstrate not only compliance with ICANN policies but also awareness of national laws that could impact cross-ownership structures, particularly if their TLD targets a specific geographic or linguistic community.

Ultimately, the question of whether cross-ownership restrictions are still relevant in 2026 is not about the existence of integration, but the nature of its governance. Vertical integration has become an accepted reality of the modern domain name industry, but it must be managed through transparency, equitable treatment, and ongoing accountability. ICANN’s evolving policy framework reflects this balance, aiming to enable innovation and efficiency while safeguarding against the abuse of market power. For applicants, the message is clear: cross-ownership is permissible, but it comes with obligations that must be taken seriously and operationalized through robust internal controls. The success of the 2026 round will depend in part on how effectively these principles are implemented in practice, ensuring that competition, trust, and innovation continue to thrive in the expanding domain name space.

You said:

As the 2026 round of ICANN’s New gTLD Program approaches, renewed attention is being given to the policy landscape surrounding registry-registrar cross-ownership restrictions. Historically, ICANN maintained strict separation between registry operators and registrars in an effort to promote competition, reduce the risk of self-dealing, and prevent market abuse. However, this model has undergone significant evolution…