The New gTLD Next Round That Kept Slipping

When ICANN opened the application window for the first round of new generic top-level domains in January 2012, it marked one of the most ambitious expansions in the history of the internet. For years, the domain name system had been dominated by a limited set of legacy extensions such as .com, .org, and .net, supplemented by country codes. The introduction of hundreds of new gTLDs promised to unleash creativity, foster competition, and allow communities, businesses, and innovators to carve out their own digital identities. The application process drew more than 1,900 submissions, ranging from global brands seeking .brand domains to entrepreneurs and registries pitching extensions like .shop, .app, and .xyz. The round was chaotic, expensive, and complex, but it reshaped the namespace in ways that still reverberate today.

Even as the first round was unfolding, ICANN positioned it as just the beginning. The “next round” of applications was always part of the plan. Stakeholders who missed the first window or who wanted to learn from its outcomes anticipated another opportunity within a few years. The expectation was that after evaluating the successes and challenges of the first batch, ICANN would refine its processes, streamline its rules, and open the door again, perhaps by the late 2010s. For registries, investors, and communities that had been waiting, the promise of a new round became a focal point for strategy and speculation. Yet as years passed, the next round repeatedly slipped further into the future, turning anticipation into frustration and disappointment.

One of the earliest causes of delay was the sheer complexity of the first round. Evaluating nearly two thousand applications was no small task. ICANN had to conduct background checks, technical assessments, financial reviews, and string similarity evaluations, while also managing objections, community priority evaluations, and contention resolution among competing applicants for the same string. Many processes were bogged down by disputes and appeals. The gTLD Program Committee had to contend with legal challenges, policy ambiguities, and political pressure. For example, strings like .amazon and .patagonia became geopolitical controversies, as governments pushed back against private companies acquiring culturally or geographically significant names. The application process that was supposed to be relatively structured instead turned into a multi-year marathon of negotiations, arbitrations, and compromises.

Another major hurdle was the need for a comprehensive review. ICANN committed itself to analyzing the impact of the first round before moving forward with another. The community demanded studies on competition, consumer choice, and trust, as well as the effectiveness of rights protection mechanisms like the Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid Suspension. Policy working groups were launched to scrutinize every aspect of the program: application fees, community-based strings, closed generics, string similarity, and more. These policy development processes, rooted in ICANN’s bottom-up multistakeholder model, took years to conduct. Every constituency had a voice, from trademark holders and registrars to governments and civil society, and consensus was slow to emerge.

As these reviews dragged on, the domain market itself began to cool. While some new gTLDs enjoyed relative success—.app became a standout after being acquired by Google, and .xyz gained visibility through aggressive marketing and adoption by blockchain projects—many others struggled. Dozens of extensions failed to attract meaningful registrations, and some had to be withdrawn or reassigned. Critics argued that the first round had flooded the market with too many options, diluting demand and confusing consumers. For ICANN, this created a dilemma: should it push forward with another round when the evidence of consumer uptake was mixed at best? Should it risk oversaturating the market further? These questions added caution and hesitation to the already slow-moving process.

Meanwhile, the business community, particularly corporations that had spent millions applying for .brand TLDs, showed limited enthusiasm. Many .brand registries were delegated but never used, with companies keeping them dormant as a form of defensive play rather than leveraging them for active digital strategies. This lack of visible innovation undercut the narrative that new gTLDs would revolutionize online branding. Registrars, too, faced challenges: selling hundreds of new extensions was difficult, especially when consumer recognition and trust remained firmly tied to .com. Without strong commercial momentum, pressure on ICANN to hurry into another round was lessened, even as smaller players and communities continued to push for it.

Still, interest in the next round persisted. Communities that had been unable to secure their desired names in 2012, either because of financial barriers or because they were outcompeted, waited for another chance. Entrepreneurs with new ideas for extensions like .eco, .health, or culturally specific strings wanted their shot. Governments and geographic regions looked to the next round as a way to represent themselves more fully online. Each year that passed without a concrete timeline, frustration mounted. Industry conferences repeatedly hosted panels on “the next round,” but announcements were always tentative, full of caveats and uncertainty.

ICANN’s cautious approach reflected its governance model, but to many it seemed paralyzing. The organization was caught between stakeholders demanding speed and those urging caution. Every delay eroded confidence in the process and fueled speculation that the next round might never come. The promise of periodic rounds, originally envisioned as a continuous cycle of opportunity, instead became a drawn-out saga of studies, policy work, and shifting priorities. By the early 2020s, nearly a decade after the first round, the absence of a clear date had become one of the most glaring disappointments in the domain industry.

Part of the challenge was that ICANN itself faced scrutiny on multiple fronts. Its accountability mechanisms were tested following the IANA stewardship transition, and its resources were stretched by new responsibilities. The community was divided on key issues, such as whether closed generics should be allowed, how to handle sensitive geographic terms, and what the application fee should be. The first round had set the application fee at $185,000, a figure criticized as exclusionary to smaller applicants. Deciding whether to maintain, lower, or raise that fee became a contentious debate. Each unresolved issue was another obstacle to setting a timeline.

The perpetual deferral of the next round had real-world consequences. Registries and investors that had geared up for another wave of opportunities saw their plans stall. Communities that hoped for new representation online were left waiting. The aftermarket for premium domains in existing gTLDs was affected, as uncertainty over the timing of new competition created hesitation. Even for consumers, the delay meant that the vision of a more diverse, inclusive namespace was postponed indefinitely. What was supposed to be a continuous expansion became a one-off event, undermining confidence in the program’s sustainability.

By the mid-2020s, ICANN had made some progress on policy development and roadmaps, but the pace remained glacial. While public statements reassured stakeholders that the next round was coming, concrete dates continued to slip. What was once expected within a few years stretched toward a decade and beyond. For many in the domain industry, this became one of the most frustrating aspects of ICANN’s stewardship: a bold program with an ambitious vision reduced to a long wait, bogged down by process and indecision.

The story of the next round is ultimately one of high hopes colliding with institutional inertia. The first round of new gTLDs was transformative, imperfect, and messy, but it set the stage for ongoing evolution of the internet’s namespace. Instead, the follow-up stalled, leaving a gap that eroded momentum and disappointed countless stakeholders. The promise of continuous opportunity turned into years of uncertainty, and the “next round” became more of a myth than a reality. In the annals of the domain industry, it stands as a symbol of what happens when vision is not matched by execution, and when a process designed for inclusivity becomes ensnared in its own complexity. Until a new window finally opens, the next round will remain one of the great disappointments of the gTLD era: a promise that kept slipping further out of reach.

When ICANN opened the application window for the first round of new generic top-level domains in January 2012, it marked one of the most ambitious expansions in the history of the internet. For years, the domain name system had been dominated by a limited set of legacy extensions such as .com, .org, and .net, supplemented…