Sub Pro Working Group Preparing for the Next gTLD Round

The expansion of the Domain Name System through the introduction of new generic top-level domains has been one of the most ambitious and complex initiatives undertaken by ICANN and its multi-stakeholder community. The first round of the New gTLD Program, launched in 2012, dramatically expanded the DNS namespace by adding over 1,200 new gTLDs, ranging from brand names and community-based TLDs to geographic and generic strings. While this expansion created new opportunities for innovation, competition, and diversity in the DNS, it also revealed a host of operational, policy, and procedural challenges that required careful examination before any subsequent rounds could proceed. In response to these lessons, ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization chartered the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group, commonly known as the Sub Pro Working Group, to review and refine the rules governing future gTLD expansion rounds.

The Sub Pro Working Group was tasked with a broad and highly complex mandate. Its primary objective was to analyze the experience of the 2012 round, identify areas where policies or implementation processes were deficient, and recommend improvements that would provide a clearer, more predictable, and more equitable framework for future rounds. The scope of the group’s work touched on nearly every aspect of the gTLD application process, reflecting the far-reaching consequences of decisions about who can apply for new TLDs, how applications are evaluated, and how objections, disputes, and delegations are managed.

One of the central issues addressed by the Sub Pro Working Group was the application evaluation process itself. The 2012 round revealed inconsistencies in application processing, including ambiguities in financial, technical, and operational evaluation criteria. The Sub Pro Working Group sought to clarify these criteria and develop standardized rules that would ensure all applicants are subject to transparent and objective evaluation standards. This included refining the processes used by ICANN’s evaluators, ensuring more consistency in scoring applications, and introducing clearer definitions for applicant obligations and qualifications.

Another critical area of focus was the treatment of string contention, which occurs when multiple applicants apply for identical or confusingly similar TLD strings. The 2012 round resolved contention primarily through private auctions and community objections, which raised concerns about fairness, financial inequities, and unintended market consolidation. The Sub Pro Working Group debated various models for managing contention, including alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, priority evaluation criteria for public interest or community-based applications, and possible restrictions on private auctions to prevent purely speculative bidding wars that favored financially dominant applicants.

The Sub Pro Working Group also addressed the sensitive issue of closed generic TLDs, where a registry operator controls the use of a generic term for its own internal purposes, limiting registration to itself or its affiliates. The 2012 round generated significant controversy over closed generics, as many stakeholders argued that exclusive control of common words could undermine competition, harm consumer choice, or restrict access to important public resources. The Sub Pro Working Group examined whether closed generics should be permitted, prohibited, or subject to strict public interest safeguards, though no full consensus was reached during its deliberations. This particular issue has since been elevated to ongoing discussions between ICANN’s Board and the Governmental Advisory Committee to reach a workable policy resolution.

Another significant policy area examined by the Sub Pro Working Group involved geographic names and related identifiers. The use of geographic terms in the 2012 round led to objections from governments and communities concerned about sovereignty, cultural sensitivity, and national branding. The Working Group recommended refining the rules for how geographic names are defined, how consent from relevant authorities should be obtained, and how disputes over geographic strings should be resolved. These revisions were intended to provide clearer guidance for both applicants and governments while reducing conflict during application evaluations.

Public interest commitments and accountability safeguards were also prominent topics for the Sub Pro Working Group. In the first round, Public Interest Commitments, or PICs, were introduced as a mechanism to address community and government concerns by embedding enforceable obligations into registry agreements. The Working Group explored how to improve the PIC process, making it more transparent, predictable, and enforceable from the outset of the application process rather than relying on ad hoc commitments negotiated during objection phases.

Applicant support mechanisms were another area where the Sub Pro Working Group sought to strengthen policy. Recognizing that high application fees and technical requirements created barriers for applicants from underserved regions, indigenous communities, or nonprofit organizations, the Working Group recommended enhanced support for such applicants. This included proposals for fee reductions, financial assistance, and technical mentoring to foster broader global participation in the DNS expansion, aligning with ICANN’s commitment to inclusivity and global representation.

The Working Group also examined the question of registry service provider pre-approval and streamlining technical evaluations. In the 2012 round, multiple applicants used the same back-end registry service providers, yet each application underwent duplicative technical assessments. The Sub Pro Working Group proposed creating a pre-evaluation process for back-end providers, reducing redundancy and accelerating the evaluation process for applicants that utilize pre-approved providers, thereby improving efficiency without sacrificing security or technical integrity.

Transparency and predictability were guiding principles throughout the Sub Pro Working Group’s work. Many applicants in the first round encountered unexpected delays, changes in evaluation criteria, or lack of clarity around objection processes. To address these concerns, the Working Group proposed creating standardized applicant guides, fixed timetables, clearer appeals processes, and more robust accountability measures for ICANN’s evaluation bodies and contractors.

After years of extensive deliberations, public consultations, and community feedback, the Sub Pro Working Group delivered its Final Report to the GNSO Council in February 2021. The Council adopted the report and transmitted the policy recommendations to the ICANN Board for consideration. The comprehensive set of recommendations aims to serve as the foundation for launching future rounds of new gTLDs, though the actual implementation phase, including the design of new procedures, systems, and resources, remains ongoing.

ICANN’s Operational Design Phase has been initiated to assess the feasibility, resourcing, and timelines for implementing the Sub Pro recommendations. This phase is essential for translating policy recommendations into operational systems capable of handling future application windows. Many stakeholders eagerly await the opening of the next round, but significant preparatory work remains to ensure that all of the procedural, technical, legal, and logistical issues identified by the Sub Pro Working Group are adequately addressed.

The work of the Sub Pro Working Group represents one of the most comprehensive and technically detailed policy development efforts in ICANN’s history. Its recommendations reflect years of negotiation, debate, compromise, and refinement within ICANN’s multi-stakeholder community. As ICANN continues to prepare for the next round of new gTLD applications, the Sub Pro Working Group’s legacy will serve as a blueprint for ensuring that future DNS expansion is more predictable, inclusive, transparent, and accountable than ever before, while preserving the stability and security of the global internet.

The expansion of the Domain Name System through the introduction of new generic top-level domains has been one of the most ambitious and complex initiatives undertaken by ICANN and its multi-stakeholder community. The first round of the New gTLD Program, launched in 2012, dramatically expanded the DNS namespace by adding over 1,200 new gTLDs, ranging…