Multistakeholder Governance Engaging the ICANN Community

As the 2026 new gTLD program progresses, understanding and effectively engaging with the ICANN multistakeholder community is essential for any applicant hoping to navigate the complex landscape of Internet governance. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operates under a bottom-up, consensus-driven model that brings together diverse stakeholders—governments, businesses, technical experts, civil society, and end users—to develop policy and oversee the Domain Name System (DNS). For new gTLD applicants, particularly those with novel use cases or community-oriented missions, successful participation in this system is not only beneficial but increasingly necessary for credibility, acceptance, and long-term viability.

Multistakeholder governance at ICANN means that no single interest group holds unilateral power over decision-making. Instead, policy is developed collaboratively through Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs), such as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), and others. Each of these bodies plays a distinct role in shaping rules and guidance around domain name policy, registry obligations, data protection, rights protections, and DNS abuse mitigation. gTLD applicants must be familiar with how these bodies function, what issues they prioritize, and how to engage with them constructively.

Engaging the ICANN community begins well before an application is submitted. Applicants that take the time to attend ICANN meetings—whether virtually or in person—gain invaluable insight into the evolving policy environment, current stakeholder concerns, and the key players involved in DNS governance. By observing or participating in working group sessions, public forums, and constituency meetings, applicants can align their registry model with community expectations and anticipate points of contention. For instance, if an application involves geographic or culturally sensitive terms, early engagement with the GAC can help preempt objections or reservations. If a proposed string has implications for end-user privacy or security, dialogue with the ALAC or SSAC (Security and Stability Advisory Committee) can inform more robust operational plans.

Applicants who plan to run a .brand, community-based, or regulated TLD must pay special attention to how their proposed policies fit within existing ICANN consensus policies, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and Registration Data policies. These policies have been shaped over years of negotiation and refinement within the multistakeholder environment. Attempting to diverge from them without a compelling rationale and broad community support can lead to delays, challenges, or rejections during evaluation. Participating in policy development processes, such as GNSO Policy Development Processes (PDPs), allows applicants to understand the rationale behind key rules and potentially influence future iterations of those policies.

Building relationships within the ICANN ecosystem is also a strategic necessity. Stakeholders within ICANN often cross paths in different roles, and reputational capital matters. Applicants that communicate transparently, demonstrate goodwill, and support open dialogue build trust that can be critical when questions or disputes arise. For example, an applicant facing concerns from governments over the public interest implications of their string may benefit from having previously participated in GAC discussions or contributed to ICANN public comments. Engagement is not about lobbying in the traditional sense, but about showing up consistently, contributing to discussions, and being accountable to the broader internet community.

During the application period, engaging with the ICANN community also means being responsive to public comments filed through the Application Comment Portal. Comments from civil society, industry peers, or advocacy organizations are often informed by ongoing policy discussions in ICANN. Responding to these comments with clarity, professionalism, and openness can signal to the community and to evaluators that the applicant respects the principles of multistakeholder governance. Ignoring or dismissing such input, on the other hand, can erode support and create reputational friction that may be hard to repair.

Applicants should also recognize that community engagement does not end with delegation. Post-launch, registries are expected to remain involved in ICANN’s policy development activities and implementation reviews. For instance, the implementation of the Registration Data Policy resulting from the Expedited Policy Development Process on GDPR compliance will continue to evolve in response to real-world feedback. Registries that stay involved in these conversations can help shape policies that are more practical, less burdensome, and better aligned with their operational realities. Likewise, as DNS abuse mitigation remains a high-priority topic within ICANN, participating in initiatives such as the Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) program or public abuse reporting frameworks demonstrates proactive governance.

Multistakeholder engagement also brings opportunities for innovation and legitimacy. Registries that develop policies in consultation with affected communities—such as Indigenous groups, linguistic minorities, or regulated professions—can draw on the legitimacy and procedural fairness of the ICANN model to gain recognition and support. By leveraging the ICANN process, they can offer a credible alternative to less inclusive or commercially motivated namespaces. This is particularly important for applicants seeking to operate community-based TLDs or to serve public interest goals, as it allows them to tie their operational model to a globally recognized standard of multistakeholder accountability.

In the context of accountability and transparency, the ICANN community expects registries to document and publish their policies, practices, and procedures. This includes not just data processing and rights protection mechanisms, but also policies on content regulation, eligibility, dispute resolution, and registrar engagement. Community stakeholders—particularly in the ALAC and Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)—pay close attention to these elements to ensure that registries do not impose discriminatory, anti-competitive, or overly broad controls. By proactively publishing well-reasoned and inclusive policies, applicants can preempt criticism and demonstrate alignment with ICANN’s core values of openness, diversity, and bottom-up policy development.

Ultimately, success in the 2026 new gTLD program requires more than technical competence or business acumen—it demands an understanding of, and commitment to, the principles of multistakeholder governance that underpin the internet’s unique model of global coordination. Engaging with the ICANN community is not a checkbox in the application process; it is a continuous practice of participation, dialogue, and accountability. Those applicants who embrace this approach will not only be better prepared for the immediate challenges of the program but will be positioned as long-term, trusted contributors to the stewardship of the DNS. As ICANN continues to evolve in response to emerging threats, technologies, and geopolitical pressures, the strength of its multistakeholder model depends on the full and active engagement of the very applicants and operators it empowers.

You said:

As the 2026 new gTLD program progresses, understanding and effectively engaging with the ICANN multistakeholder community is essential for any applicant hoping to navigate the complex landscape of Internet governance. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) operates under a bottom-up, consensus-driven model that brings together diverse stakeholders—governments, businesses, technical experts, civil society,…