The New gTLD Round 2 Applicant Guidebook Expected Changes to Premium Policies

As the domain name industry prepares for the long-anticipated second round of new gTLD applications, a central focus among prospective registry operators, digital strategists, and policy watchers is the evolving framework of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), particularly as it relates to premium and reserved domain name policies. The AGB serves as the foundational rulebook for applying to operate a gTLD under the auspices of ICANN, detailing operational standards, evaluation procedures, and the contractual obligations that follow delegation. While the first round in 2012 provided the initial blueprint, the intervening years have yielded lessons, criticisms, and new expectations, many of which are expected to manifest in significant changes to how premium domain name strategies are regulated and implemented in the upcoming round.

One of the most anticipated areas of revision in the second-round AGB is the approach to the definition and handling of premium names. In the 2012 round, registries had broad discretion to define premium names internally and apply their own pricing structures, often without much external transparency or regulatory oversight. This flexibility allowed for innovation but also led to criticism. Some stakeholders argued that the unrestricted ability to withhold and price domains—particularly those perceived as generic, cultural, or geographically significant—amounted to speculative hoarding. Others noted that the lack of standardized disclosure around reserved and premium lists disadvantaged registrars and registrants, who were often unaware of which names were being withheld or when they might become available.

In response, ICANN has signaled that the next iteration of the AGB will likely include clearer guidance and possibly new restrictions on premium and reserved name practices. One area under discussion is the requirement for greater upfront transparency from applicants regarding their premium domain policies. Registries may be obligated to submit more detailed documentation of their premium pricing models, the criteria used to define premium names, and their intended release mechanisms. This information could become a more formalized part of the Registry Agreement or public-facing Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), allowing stakeholders to better understand each registry’s domain allocation philosophy before launch.

Another likely change involves the harmonization of reserved name categories. In the first round, aside from the mandatory reservations required by ICANN—such as two-character country codes and names on the block lists due to name collision concerns—registries had wide latitude to reserve additional names for internal use, future sale, or strategic partnerships. In Round 2, it is expected that ICANN will more narrowly define the scope of what may be reserved and introduce procedures to ensure that these names are not simply warehoused indefinitely for speculative resale. This may include periodic review of reserved lists, mandatory reporting of reserved name usage, or time-based release commitments to prevent long-term stagnation of valuable domain inventory.

Additionally, community feedback gathered through the Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro), a years-long policy development process, suggests that there will be increased attention to fairness in the release of premium names. Recommendations have been made that premium names should not disadvantage certain user groups or geographies and that release mechanisms should be designed to prevent exclusive access by a narrow set of investors or speculators. Auction formats, sunrise policies, and Early Access Programs may be subject to new guidelines that emphasize inclusivity and accessibility, possibly requiring registries to demonstrate that they are facilitating access to a diverse base of registrants, particularly those from underserved or underrepresented regions.

The issue of geographic and culturally significant terms, in particular, has attracted sustained interest. Several governments and international organizations have voiced concern over premium pricing or reservation of domains that include the names of cities, regions, or cultural identifiers. While these concerns were partially addressed through the GAC Early Warnings and Advice processes in the first round, the second round may formalize protections by mandating consultation or requiring proof of local support before such names can be priced as premium or withheld from general availability. This would mark a move toward aligning domain name policies with broader principles of cultural sensitivity and digital sovereignty.

On the technical side, there is also interest in ensuring that premium pricing structures do not inadvertently create confusion or security concerns in DNS resolution. For example, ICANN may require that registry services supporting tiered pricing—especially where renewals are significantly more expensive than initial registrations—be implemented in ways that are clearly disclosed to registrars and registrants, to avoid abandonment or accidental loss of critical infrastructure domains.

Furthermore, the next AGB could include stronger consumer protection elements related to premium domains. This might involve requirements for registries to notify registrants at the point of registration if a domain has elevated renewal costs or special conditions, to prevent lock-in scenarios where end users are surprised by future pricing. There may also be enhanced expectations around dispute resolution mechanisms specific to premium domains, particularly those that overlap with trademarks, geopolitical terms, or high-traffic legacy keywords.

As ICANN moves toward finalizing the new Applicant Guidebook and opening the application window—tentatively expected to begin as early as 2026—it is clear that the treatment of premium and reserved names will be a core aspect of how the program is evaluated both economically and ethically. The balance between maximizing registry revenue and ensuring equitable access to valuable digital identifiers will shape not only the commercial success of Round 2 but also its legitimacy in the eyes of the global internet community.

In summary, expected changes to premium policies in the new gTLD Round 2 Applicant Guidebook reflect a maturing domain industry grappling with lessons from its past and responsibilities for its future. By refining transparency, standardizing definitions, and enhancing fairness in access and pricing, ICANN and its stakeholders aim to foster a more inclusive, accountable, and sustainable ecosystem for premium domains. These changes will not only impact new applicants but will likely reverberate through the broader domain market for years to come.

As the domain name industry prepares for the long-anticipated second round of new gTLD applications, a central focus among prospective registry operators, digital strategists, and policy watchers is the evolving framework of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), particularly as it relates to premium and reserved domain name policies. The AGB serves as the foundational rulebook for…