Future Policy Development What Comes After the 2026 Round

The 2026 round of the New gTLD Program represents both a culmination of years of policy refinement and a transitional moment for the future of domain name governance. As stakeholders around the globe prepare to introduce the next generation of generic top-level domains, the conversation is already shifting to what comes after. The landscape of internet usage, identity, and digital infrastructure is evolving rapidly, and the policies that govern the DNS must anticipate and accommodate change. The post-2026 policy development agenda will be defined by three primary forces: the need to institutionalize continuous rounds, the maturation of community governance mechanisms, and the intersection of domain policy with emerging technologies and regulatory frameworks.

One of the most significant policy conversations that will dominate the post-2026 environment is whether ICANN should move from periodic application windows to a model of continuous or rolling rounds. The years-long gap between the 2012 and 2026 rounds introduced unpredictability and strategic paralysis for prospective applicants. Many voices in the ICANN community, including the GNSO and At-Large structures, have advocated for a policy framework that supports ongoing access to the root zone through a more regularized and transparent process. Post-2026, ICANN is expected to initiate a formal policy development process to define how continuous rounds would operate, including the criteria for application timing, community consultation procedures, system resource planning, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Establishing predictable and scalable application flows would fundamentally shift the operational and economic dynamics of the gTLD ecosystem, allowing for more organic growth and innovation.

Another central component of future policy development will focus on refining the mechanisms of community participation and multistakeholder governance. The experience of the 2026 round, which includes new applicant support initiatives, updated public comment procedures, and expanded accountability tools, will serve as a testbed for evaluating the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement. ICANN and the community will need to examine which processes promoted equity and inclusion, which created unnecessary barriers, and how consensus-based policymaking can be both streamlined and inclusive. As calls for enhanced representation from the Global South, indigenous communities, and noncommercial users grow, policy development will need to grapple with structural questions about who participates, how input is weighted, and how community priorities are incorporated into Board decision-making. There will also be increasing pressure to reduce the complexity and timeline of policy development itself, which is often criticized for being opaque and burdensome.

The post-2026 policy horizon will also be shaped by technological shifts that challenge existing DNS assumptions. The rise of decentralized web technologies, including blockchain-based naming systems, is already prompting discussions about how the ICANN ecosystem can remain interoperable, secure, and relevant. Policies may need to address domain name usage in non-traditional environments, such as metaverse platforms, decentralized identifiers, or overlay networks. These discussions will require not only technical innovation but also regulatory clarity around data protection, intellectual property, and cybersecurity. As governments increase scrutiny of DNS operators under national and regional digital laws—such as the EU’s Digital Services Act, the U.S. Executive Orders on cyber resiliency, or new digital sovereignty regimes in Asia and Africa—ICANN policies will need to align more closely with external legal frameworks while preserving the core principles of the open internet.

An important area of anticipated policy evolution involves rights protection mechanisms. After the 2026 round, ICANN is expected to initiate comprehensive reviews of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). These reviews will focus on balancing the need for effective intellectual property protection with the rights of registrants, especially in the context of non-commercial speech and emerging markets. Future policies may propose modifications to dispute resolution procedures, introduce regional dispute providers, or explore alternatives to litigation-heavy enforcement models. Transparency and proportionality will be key policy metrics in assessing the legitimacy and fairness of the next-generation rights protection architecture.

In parallel, attention will turn to registry and registrar compliance regimes. The 2026 round introduces updated service level expectations, abuse mitigation obligations, and data escrow protocols. These operational innovations will likely generate feedback loops into policy debates on how to further standardize registry performance, enhance DNS abuse reporting, and improve registrar accountability. As the threat landscape evolves—especially in the areas of phishing, malware distribution, and botnet command-and-control—ICANN will be called upon to integrate more agile, data-driven enforcement strategies while respecting due process and jurisdictional boundaries. Policy discussions may also include incentives for best-in-class security practices, accreditation reforms, and global cooperation mechanisms for cyber threat intelligence sharing.

The future of applicant support will be another critical axis of post-2026 policy development. The 2026 round expands support for applicants from underserved regions, but long-term equity requires more than application subsidies. Future policies must address systemic barriers, such as access to technical resources, community awareness, and sustainable operations. There may be proposals to establish standing applicant support funds, mentorship frameworks, or regional application hubs to help diversify the applicant pool in subsequent rounds. Additionally, ICANN will need to evaluate the outcomes of delegated TLDs from developing regions and determine how policy can better support their success through capacity-building and post-delegation support.

Environmental sustainability is also poised to become a new frontier in policy innovation. As data centers, DNS infrastructure, and registry operations contribute to global energy consumption, future policy efforts may explore the role of carbon accounting, energy efficiency standards, or green accreditation within ICANN’s operational frameworks. The increasing public and regulatory attention on environmental responsibility will likely prompt registries and registrars to disclose their sustainability practices, potentially triggering new policy requirements related to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) reporting.

Ultimately, what comes after the 2026 round will not be a discrete next step but the beginning of a continuous process of adaptation, innovation, and accountability. ICANN’s ability to evolve its policy development model, respond to new challenges, and center the global public interest will determine the resilience and legitimacy of the DNS in a digital world that is increasingly complex, decentralized, and contested. Future rounds must be built not only on technical excellence but also on policy foresight, community trust, and inclusive governance that reflects the internet’s diversity and dynamism. The 2026 round may close one chapter, but it opens a far broader and more consequential narrative for the future of global internet coordination.

The 2026 round of the New gTLD Program represents both a culmination of years of policy refinement and a transitional moment for the future of domain name governance. As stakeholders around the globe prepare to introduce the next generation of generic top-level domains, the conversation is already shifting to what comes after. The landscape of…