Preparing for the Next gTLD Expansion A Legal Checklist

The forthcoming round of generic top-level domain (gTLD) expansion, anticipated in the next few years as ICANN completes its policy finalization, represents a significant opportunity for brand owners, entrepreneurs, and registry operators alike. However, participation in the gTLD application process requires far more than marketing vision or technical capability. The regulatory, contractual, and compliance burdens associated with applying for and operating a gTLD are extensive and unforgiving. The previous expansion round in 2012 provided ample lessons about the legal pitfalls and procedural missteps that can derail a gTLD strategy or expose applicants to substantial liability. For those seeking to prepare for the next wave, a comprehensive legal checklist is not merely helpful—it is essential.

At the foundation of any gTLD bid is a rigorous understanding of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook (AGB), which details eligibility criteria, evaluation processes, financial requirements, and the structure of registry agreements. Applicants must ensure that their legal entity meets ICANN’s operational and legal standards, which include corporate standing, litigation history, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and the ability to enter into a long-term contract with ICANN. This means establishing or restructuring legal entities to provide clear governance, financial transparency, and jurisdictional stability. Many applicants in 2012 created new special-purpose entities domiciled in favorable legal jurisdictions to isolate liability and streamline ICANN’s vetting process.

Trademark protection is one of the most complex aspects of gTLD preparation. For brand owners seeking a .brand gTLD, demonstrating rights to the applied-for string and preparing to operate within the constraints of Specification 13 will be crucial. This involves securing a valid registered trademark that exactly matches the applied-for string and ensuring that the gTLD will be used exclusively by the brand owner and its affiliates. Legal counsel must verify trademark eligibility, compile a chain of title, and ensure that no third parties have superior rights to the mark in any relevant jurisdiction. If a proposed string is similar to another brand, the risk of a legal rights objection (LRO) must be assessed and, if necessary, preempted through agreements or strategic modifications.

For generic, community, or geographic strings, the legal due diligence becomes even more intricate. Applicants must navigate potential government approvals, community endorsements, or geographic name safeguards. In many cases, ICANN will require evidence of government consent or non-objection letters, particularly for strings that reference cities, regions, or national identifiers. This means understanding international law, domestic trademark law, and the processes for engaging relevant governmental bodies. In 2012, many applications failed or were contested due to insufficient documentation or procedural errors related to geographic names.

Contractual readiness is another core area of legal preparation. Successful applicants must enter into a Registry Agreement with ICANN, which imposes ongoing compliance obligations, service level requirements, audit rights, data escrow commitments, and public interest safeguards. Legal teams must review this agreement in detail and ensure that their internal policies, technical operations, and external vendors are capable of complying. Additionally, most applicants will contract with backend registry service providers, DNS operators, escrow agents, and potentially third-party registrars. All of these relationships require clear, enforceable agreements that assign liability, ensure service continuity, and protect data integrity in accordance with ICANN and local regulatory frameworks.

Data privacy law has evolved dramatically since the last gTLD round. The introduction of the GDPR, CCPA, and other data protection regimes means that any applicant operating a gTLD must assess how domain registration data will be collected, stored, processed, and disclosed. The ICANN WHOIS system remains a source of legal uncertainty, and registry operators must anticipate how to structure RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol) services, gating mechanisms, and disclosure policies to align with legal requirements in relevant jurisdictions. Legal teams must coordinate with privacy officers and technical staff to build data protection compliance into the registry’s architecture from the outset.

Objection risk must also be considered. ICANN’s objection mechanisms—legal rights objection, string confusion objection, community objection, and limited public interest objection—require careful planning to avoid costly disputes. Legal counsel should perform a pre-application objection risk analysis, identifying potentially conflicting strings, overlapping rights, or controversial subject matter. In some cases, strategic alliances or consortium arrangements may reduce the likelihood of opposition. Where multiple parties are interested in the same string, the possibility of contention sets and ICANN’s auction of last resort procedure must be anticipated. Entities should prepare both legal and financial contingencies for participating in auctions or private resolution negotiations.

For applicants who intend to operate a vertically integrated business—acting as both registry and registrar—compliance with ICANN’s cross-ownership and separation rules must be reviewed. While the rules have been relaxed since the original AGB, restrictions and reporting obligations still apply, particularly where market dominance or antitrust concerns may be raised. Legal review of the applicant’s business model, affiliate relationships, and registrar contracts is necessary to avoid post-delegation compliance issues.

It is also important to prepare for ongoing reporting and compliance after delegation. Operating a gTLD involves more than launching a website—it entails periodic reporting to ICANN, payment of fees, compliance with the Registry Agreement’s Specification 10 (public interest commitments), and responding to complaints through ICANN’s Contractual Compliance department. Legal counsel must design internal compliance programs, appoint responsible officers, and prepare to interface with ICANN audit teams. Companies must also be prepared to respond to Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) complaints and possibly implement Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) like Sunrise and Trademark Claims procedures.

Finally, applicants must consider exit strategies and continuity planning. ICANN requires contingency plans for registry transition or failure, and applicants must designate an Emergency Back-End Registry Operator (EBERO). Legal teams must ensure that their operating agreements provide for data transfer, operational continuity, and regulatory notifications in the event of insolvency, acquisition, or termination. Many applications in the last round encountered delays or penalties due to inadequate contingency planning or failure to maintain contractually required performance levels.

In total, the legal preparation for the next gTLD expansion is a multilayered process that touches nearly every aspect of corporate governance, intellectual property, privacy, contracting, and regulatory compliance. Those who begin early and take a comprehensive, proactive approach to legal risk management will be best positioned to succeed in what is expected to be a competitive and closely scrutinized application cycle. Unlike the relatively freewheeling 2012 expansion, the next round will unfold under tighter rules, greater geopolitical sensitivity, and a sharper public focus on accountability. A legal checklist is no longer optional—it is the roadmap to participation in the future of the internet’s naming system.

The forthcoming round of generic top-level domain (gTLD) expansion, anticipated in the next few years as ICANN completes its policy finalization, represents a significant opportunity for brand owners, entrepreneurs, and registry operators alike. However, participation in the gTLD application process requires far more than marketing vision or technical capability. The regulatory, contractual, and compliance burdens…