What the SubPro PDP Recommendations Really Mean in Plain Language

The Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, commonly known as the SubPro PDP, represents one of the most extensive and consequential policy efforts within ICANN since the rollout of the 2012 new gTLD program. Years in the making, this multistakeholder-driven initiative has produced a detailed set of recommendations intended to guide future rounds of gTLD applications. For newcomers and veterans alike, the complexity and sheer volume of the SubPro final report—spanning hundreds of pages—can be overwhelming. But at its core, SubPro is about one thing: learning from the past to create a more predictable, transparent, and equitable process for introducing new top-level domains. In plain language, here’s what these recommendations actually mean for the next gTLD round.

First and foremost, SubPro is trying to institutionalize the idea that new gTLD rounds should not be one-off events. The 2012 round was initially framed as the beginning of an ongoing expansion of the DNS, but delays and operational challenges turned it into a singular moment. SubPro recommends establishing a predictable mechanism for future rounds, suggesting that ICANN adopt a cycle-based approach—perhaps every few years—rather than requiring a full new policy process each time. This change is meant to remove uncertainty for applicants and enable long-term strategic planning for brands, communities, and registry service providers.

Another core change involves application types and how they are evaluated. The SubPro recommendations aim to clarify and formalize distinctions between standard, community-based, geographic, and brand applications. In the 2012 round, community applications were encouraged but poorly defined, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction with the scoring process. The updated guidelines propose a more rigorous framework for how community status is demonstrated, with clear criteria for community support, nexus, and the potential for material detriment to the community if the TLD were awarded elsewhere. This change should make the process more defensible and less subjective, though it also raises the bar for applicants claiming community status.

On the topic of contention resolution, SubPro introduces significant reforms. In 2012, applicants for the same string were often forced into private auctions or ICANN auctions of last resort. These methods favored applicants with deeper pockets and created a speculative market for string applications. SubPro stops short of banning auctions entirely, but it encourages non-contentious resolutions through mechanisms like voluntary agreements and proposes tighter transparency requirements around private resolution methods. The intent is to reduce purely financial motivations and return the focus to the public interest value of the applied-for strings.

The recommendations also tackle application processing itself. One major improvement is the introduction of a “predictability framework” to handle unexpected issues during the application process. In the last round, ICANN was often forced to create policy on the fly when it encountered novel scenarios. SubPro proposes a standing body or process that can evaluate new problems and recommend interim guidance, helping applicants understand how deviations from the norm will be handled without waiting years for a formal PDP.

Application prioritization, another thorny issue in 2012, gets an overhaul under SubPro. Rather than using controversial methods like digital archery (where applicants were randomly assigned timestamps to determine queue position), the new model may involve batch processing with clear criteria or a lottery system overseen by independent third parties. This aims to create a more equitable and less gameable method of determining application order while maintaining operational manageability for ICANN staff and evaluators.

One of the more applicant-friendly reforms involves changes to objection mechanisms. In 2012, legal rights, community, string confusion, and public interest objections were used to challenge applications, but outcomes were inconsistent and occasionally contradictory. SubPro recommends refining these processes, including better-defined standards and clearer procedural timelines. In particular, string confusion objections are now limited to exact matches across standard applications unless explicitly exempted, reducing the scope for vague or overly broad claims. This change should help applicants proceed with greater confidence in their string choices.

The question of closed generics—TLDs that represent a generic term but are operated exclusively by one entity—remains unresolved. SubPro acknowledged the controversy from 2012, where applications like .book or .app sought exclusive control without public access. Rather than issuing a final policy, SubPro punts this issue to a future dialogue between ICANN, governments, and the community. This means that in the next round, applicants interested in closed generics will likely face uncertainty, as no definitive rules currently exist. It’s one of the few major gaps remaining in the SubPro framework and will need resolution before application windows open.

Regarding applicant support, SubPro strengthens and expands the program for entities from underserved or developing regions. The 2012 round offered some financial assistance, but few applicants benefited due to opaque requirements and limited outreach. The new recommendations call for a more robust support infrastructure, including clearer eligibility rules, pre-application coaching, and possibly reduced application or registry fees. This change is designed to broaden the geographic and socioeconomic diversity of gTLD ownership, moving toward a more inclusive internet namespace.

The recommendations also address safeguards and registry operations. Future registry operators are expected to comply with more formalized public interest commitments, known as PICs, and be subject to heightened scrutiny if their proposed string has sensitive implications, such as those involving financial, health, or governmental content. The idea is to better protect users and avoid situations where a misleading or poorly governed TLD could cause public harm or confusion. Moreover, the Registry Service Evaluation Policy (RSEP) will be streamlined to allow innovation, while still ensuring oversight when changes to registry services could have systemic impacts.

Finally, SubPro emphasizes transparency and accountability across the board. From requiring greater disclosure of ownership structures and funding sources to encouraging open engagement with potentially affected parties (such as indigenous groups or city governments), the new recommendations attempt to build public trust in the gTLD process. Applicants will need to think beyond technical compliance and legal formalities—they will be expected to show ethical stewardship and public responsibility in how they use and manage their TLD.

In plain terms, the SubPro recommendations mean a future gTLD program that is more structured, fairer in design, and more responsive to real-world concerns. The changes do not guarantee perfection, and some key issues remain unresolved, but the reforms significantly raise the standard for participation and oversight. For would-be applicants, this means greater predictability, but also higher expectations. Those who prepare early, understand the nuances of the new rules, and engage with the community in good faith will be best positioned to succeed in the next era of the DNS.

The Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, commonly known as the SubPro PDP, represents one of the most extensive and consequential policy efforts within ICANN since the rollout of the 2012 new gTLD program. Years in the making, this multistakeholder-driven initiative has produced a detailed set of recommendations intended to guide future rounds of gTLD applications.…