Tracking the Next Round New gTLD Application Process

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is preparing for the long-anticipated next application window for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), an event that is expected to reshape the domain name landscape in ways similar to, and possibly more disruptive than, the 2012 application round. For domain name industry stakeholders, brand owners, and prospective registry operators, closely tracking the evolving rules, timelines, and evaluation procedures is critical. The new gTLD program opens opportunities for innovation and brand protection but also imposes complex technical, legal, and financial requirements that demand early planning and informed decision-making.

The 2012 round fundamentally expanded the domain name system by allowing applications for virtually any string, including brand-specific domains, generic terms, and community-based extensions. That round drew nearly 2,000 applications and introduced hundreds of new gTLDs into the root zone. However, it also exposed weaknesses in the process, including delays in evaluation, disputes over string similarity, contention sets where multiple applicants sought the same string, and complex objections from existing rightsholders. ICANN has since conducted years of policy development through its Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and other stakeholder bodies to refine the program before opening another application window.

The next round is expected to build on this policy work with updated application criteria, streamlined evaluation, and clearer dispute resolution mechanisms. ICANN has already indicated that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB)—the comprehensive rulebook governing applications—will be updated to incorporate lessons learned from 2012. Stakeholders can expect greater emphasis on applicant transparency, technical competence, financial stability, and safeguards against DNS abuse. While the final version of the new AGB is not yet published, draft materials and ongoing policy discussions point toward tightened public interest commitments, more explicit rules on closed generics, and refined procedures for handling geographic names and community-based applications.

Applicants in the next round will need to assemble a multidisciplinary team capable of addressing legal, technical, operational, and marketing challenges. The application process requires detailed documentation covering proposed registry services, DNS security and stability measures, rights protection mechanisms, and business continuity planning. For technical evaluation, applicants must demonstrate the ability to meet stringent service level agreements (SLAs) for uptime, DNS resolution, and abuse mitigation, typically requiring the engagement of an experienced back-end registry services provider. Financial evaluation will scrutinize the applicant’s capital resources, business model, and risk management practices to ensure long-term viability of the registry.

Rights protection will again be a focal point, particularly in relation to trademark owners concerned about defensive registrations and cybersquatting. ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) will remain a central mechanism, enabling Sunrise Periods for verified mark holders and Claims Notices to alert potential registrants when their chosen domain matches a recorded mark. However, in the next round, there is likely to be a stronger emphasis on proactive abuse prevention, with registry operators expected to implement clear anti-abuse policies, rapid suspension procedures, and cooperation with law enforcement. This shift reflects the increasing concern within the ICANN community and among governments about phishing, malware distribution, and other malicious activity exploiting new gTLDs.

For strings that attract multiple applicants, ICANN will continue to employ contention resolution mechanisms. These may include private resolutions among applicants, auctions of last resort conducted by ICANN, or community priority evaluations where applicable. The high-value nature of some generic terms, combined with the limited number of potentially viable extensions, means that contention is likely to be intense. Entities considering applications for high-demand strings must prepare for the possibility of significant auction costs or the need for strategic alliances with other applicants.

Geographic names will remain a sensitive and regulated category. Applicants for strings representing geographic terms—such as city names, regions, or culturally significant designations—must secure documented support from the relevant governmental or public authorities. Failure to obtain proper endorsements is a common reason for application rejection in this category. Governments and intergovernmental organizations are likely to be more engaged in the next round, leveraging their expanded role in ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to influence application outcomes, raise early warnings, and issue formal advice.

The financial barrier to entry remains significant. In the 2012 round, the base application fee was $185,000, and while ICANN has not finalized the fee for the next round, early indications suggest it will be in a similar range, potentially adjusted for inflation and program costs. Additional expenses for legal counsel, technical services, and strategic consulting can push total costs well above $500,000 per application. This means that serious applicants must budget carefully and be prepared for multi-year commitments, as registry operation is an ongoing business requiring compliance with ICANN’s Registry Agreement, annual fees, and performance reporting obligations.

The timeline for the next round is still fluid. While ICANN has been working toward a target launch window in the mid-2020s, dependencies such as finalizing the AGB, completing systems development for application processing, and resolving outstanding policy implementation issues could cause delays. Applicants should monitor ICANN meetings, public comment periods, and operational readiness announcements to stay aligned with the evolving schedule. Once the window opens, the application period is expected to run for several months, after which ICANN will conduct an initial evaluation, public comment, and objection phases before moving to contention resolution and contracting.

For investors, the next round represents both opportunity and risk. Successful applicants could secure exclusive control over valuable strings with strong commercial or community appeal, creating new revenue streams and branding possibilities. At the same time, the costs, compliance burdens, and competitive pressures are substantial, and the history of the 2012 round shows that not all new gTLDs achieve market traction. Diligent tracking of the application process, combined with a realistic assessment of operational and marketing capabilities, will be critical for anyone considering participation in this transformative expansion of the domain name space.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is preparing for the long-anticipated next application window for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), an event that is expected to reshape the domain name landscape in ways similar to, and possibly more disruptive than, the 2012 application round. For domain name industry stakeholders, brand owners, and…