Will ICANN’s Next Round Favor Governments Reading the Tea Leaves

The next round of ICANN’s new gTLD program has been anticipated for years, and with every passing discussion, it becomes clearer that the stakes are higher than simply expanding the namespace. What is at issue is the balance of power in global internet governance, particularly whether governments will emerge with a stronger hand in shaping outcomes than they had in the first round of 2012. The first expansion was defined by entrepreneurial ambition, community enthusiasm, and corporate interest, but it was also accompanied by criticism that governments lacked sufficient influence, that public interest considerations were not fully protected, and that ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process leaned too heavily toward commercial actors. As preparations for the next application window move forward, the question now being asked across boardrooms, governments, and civil society organizations is whether ICANN will tilt more visibly toward governmental priorities this time around.

The Governmental Advisory Committee, or GAC, has always occupied an unusual role in ICANN’s ecosystem. It does not wield direct voting power on the ICANN Board, yet its advice is accorded a “special status.” If the Board rejects GAC advice, it must explain why, a procedural quirk that has historically given governments leverage even without formal control. In the 2012 round, the GAC flexed its muscle by issuing “early warnings” against certain applications, most famously objecting to generic terms like .amazon, which pitted the interests of a global corporation against the political sensitivities of South American governments concerned about the appropriation of a geographic-cultural identifier. Ultimately, Amazon’s application was stalled for years, demonstrating that governments could significantly shape outcomes even without direct decision-making authority. This precedent has not been forgotten, and many expect governments to assert even more influence in the next round, using the lessons of .amazon as a blueprint for intervention.

One area where governmental influence may be most visible is the treatment of geographic names. During the first round, rules already required applicants to obtain local support for obvious geographic strings such as .paris or .tokyo. But disputes arose over less obvious cases—terms with geographic associations that were not technically protected under ICANN’s guidelines but still carried political sensitivity. The governments of Argentina and Brazil, for example, objected to .patagonia on the grounds that the name referenced a region spanning their territory, even though Patagonia, the company, argued it was also its long-established brand. That application was eventually withdrawn, setting another precedent that favored governmental concerns. In the upcoming round, it seems likely that rules around geographic terms will be tightened further, granting states broader authority to challenge or block applications they view as encroaching on national or regional identity.

Public interest commitments, or PICs, are another mechanism where governments may gain leverage. After the backlash to certain controversial applications in 2012, ICANN began requiring some applicants to make contractual promises about how their gTLDs would be operated. These commitments often addressed consumer protection, content standards, or eligibility restrictions. Governments, through the GAC, were instrumental in pushing for these covenants. In the years since, regulators around the world have grown increasingly vocal about their concerns with online harms, disinformation, and consumer exploitation. It is almost certain that in the next round, PICs or their successors will be more robust and more aligned with governmental priorities. This may include obligations related to cybersecurity, misuse prevention, or even content regulation. The result could be a framework where registries must demonstrate not only technical and financial capacity but also compliance with a quasi-regulatory regime shaped by state actors.

The geopolitical climate amplifies this likelihood. Since the last round, the global environment has shifted dramatically. Rising tensions between major powers, debates over digital sovereignty, and escalating concerns about cybersecurity have made governments far less willing to leave critical infrastructure decisions to purely private actors. The European Union has become more assertive with regulations like GDPR and the NIS2 Directive, both of which affect domain operations. China has pursued its own model of internet governance rooted in state control, while Russia has openly discussed developing national root systems as part of its “sovereign internet” strategy. Against this backdrop, ICANN will be under pressure to demonstrate that it respects the role of sovereign states and can accommodate their concerns within its multi-stakeholder process. Failure to do so risks fueling arguments for intergovernmental alternatives, such as a greater role for the ITU.

For domain investors and entrepreneurs, this shifting balance has direct consequences. In 2012, applicants were able to pursue broad generic strings like .app, .shop, and .club with relatively few restrictions, betting that consumer adoption and aftermarket demand would create strong returns. While many such ventures faced challenges, the opportunity was defined by openness. In the next round, governments may narrow the field. Applications for strings with cultural, linguistic, or geographic resonance will almost certainly face closer scrutiny. Even generic terms could be subject to more rigorous public interest obligations, limiting the freedom of registries to set their own policies. The resale value of domains within these new extensions may therefore depend less on pure market dynamics and more on how successfully applicants navigate the regulatory landscape that governments are shaping within ICANN.

At the same time, governments themselves may play a more direct role as applicants. Some countries were tentative in the first round, uncertain about whether investing in a gTLD made sense. Since then, examples like .nyc, .berlin, and .africa have demonstrated that city or regional domains can serve as tools of digital identity and economic promotion. National governments may now be more willing to sponsor applications, either directly or through public-private partnerships, to secure extensions tied to their brands, cultural assets, or policy agendas. This would place them not only as regulators but also as market participants, further complicating the balance of interests.

ICANN’s own posture suggests that it is preparing to accommodate greater government involvement. The organization has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to listening to the GAC and integrating governmental perspectives. In preparatory discussions about the next round, significant attention has been given to refining applicant support programs, community applications, and safeguards against abuse—all areas where governments have traditionally been vocal. ICANN leadership is keenly aware that failing to incorporate these concerns risks eroding legitimacy in the eyes of states that are increasingly assertive about their role in internet governance. The delicate balance for ICANN is to do this without alienating private-sector actors who remain the primary drivers of investment in new gTLDs.

Civil society also has a stake in this evolving equation. Non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups have long criticized ICANN for prioritizing commercial interests at the expense of human rights, access, and equity. They may welcome a stronger governmental role if it brings greater attention to consumer protection and public interest obligations. Yet there is also a danger: when governments assert sovereignty, they often do so in ways that restrict speech or entrench control. A system tilted too far toward state power could diminish the openness that civil society seeks to preserve. Thus, the upcoming round may not only be a test of how governments and businesses interact, but also of whether civil society can hold both accountable in a system that still aspires to be multi-stakeholder.

The broader question is whether ICANN’s next round will accelerate the trend toward the “juridification” of internet governance, where the rules of engagement look less like market-driven innovation and more like a regulatory framework shaped by sovereign priorities. If so, applicants will need to approach the process less as entrepreneurs seeking to launch new products and more as regulated entities seeking licenses under terms set by a combination of ICANN and national governments. This shift could deter some speculative participation but may also stabilize the ecosystem, reducing the kind of chaotic proliferation that characterized the first round. Whether that stabilization benefits the internet’s users or simply entrenches state power will depend on how carefully the balance is struck.

Reading the tea leaves, all signs suggest that governments are better positioned now than they were a decade ago to shape outcomes in ICANN’s gTLD program. The memory of the .amazon dispute, the rise of sovereignty-centered internet policies, and the growing assertiveness of regulatory blocs like the EU all point in the same direction. The next round will not be a replay of 2012. It will be a stage where governments assert themselves more confidently, where public interest covenants are stronger, and where sovereignty and speech collide in the fabric of the DNS. For those who wish to participate, the lesson is clear: success will no longer be determined solely by financial capacity and marketing vision. It will depend equally on political navigation, regulatory compliance, and the ability to align with the expectations of states that increasingly view domain names not as neutral commodities but as instruments of national policy and digital power.

The next round of ICANN’s new gTLD program has been anticipated for years, and with every passing discussion, it becomes clearer that the stakes are higher than simply expanding the namespace. What is at issue is the balance of power in global internet governance, particularly whether governments will emerge with a stronger hand in shaping…