Will the Second Round New gTLD Program Dwarf the First

As the domain name industry anticipates the long-awaited second round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), a central question looms over the discussions among registry operators, policy makers, brand owners, and digital entrepreneurs: will this upcoming round dramatically exceed the scope and impact of the first? The initial new gTLD program, launched in 2012 by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), opened the DNS to over a thousand new extensions beyond the legacy domains like .com and .net. Despite its scale, the first round was met with a mix of enthusiasm, skepticism, and a steep learning curve for all involved. Now, more than a decade later, the conditions surrounding the internet ecosystem, domain usage, regulatory expectations, and technological advancements have shifted substantially, suggesting that the second round may not only rival but potentially dwarf the first in scope, complexity, and strategic importance.

One of the most compelling reasons to expect a larger second round is the significant expansion of global internet access, particularly in the Global South. Between 2012 and 2025, hundreds of millions of new users have come online, many from regions where domain adoption and localized content are still developing. In markets like India, Nigeria, Brazil, and Indonesia, there is a growing appetite for digital identity, cultural expression, and commercial presence online. These emerging markets represent fertile ground for gTLDs in native scripts, geographic indicators, or culturally specific keywords. Many governments and local entities that missed the first round are now preparing to submit applications in the second, driven by both national branding initiatives and the desire to assert digital sovereignty.

Equally important is the growing sophistication and readiness of the domain industry itself. During the first round, many registry operators were entering uncharted territory, dealing with complex technical requirements, contention sets, and an uncertain path to monetization. Since then, a mature ecosystem of backend providers, registry services, and domain investors has evolved, with refined business models and tested marketing strategies. This infrastructure makes it easier and less risky for new entrants to apply for and launch a TLD. The modularization of registry operations, including software-as-a-service platforms for DNS and compliance, has reduced barriers to entry and encouraged broader participation. The learning curve has flattened, and past applicants are better equipped to scale their operations in a second round, which could lead to more speculative and high-volume applications.

Corporate interest in the second round is also expected to rise. In the first round, many major brands applied for so-called .brand TLDs such as .google, .bmw, and .microsoft. While some of these domains have seen only limited usage, others have become integral parts of brand ecosystems, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. With more time to observe how these TLDs function in practice and better understand their utility for cybersecurity, authentication, and user experience, a second wave of brand applicants may emerge with more strategic intent. Moreover, new trends in digital marketing, including the push for first-party data control and secure, branded ecosystems in the post-cookie era, have made .brand domains more attractive as tools for trust and personalization. ICANN’s revisions to application procedures and reduced costs for single-entity brands could further boost interest in this category.

Technological innovation is another accelerant. The rise of artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and search engine evolution have made keyword-rich domain names more valuable for niche branding and voice search. Moreover, technologies such as decentralized DNS and blockchain-based domain alternatives have sparked a renewed interest in rethinking digital identifiers. While these decentralized alternatives operate outside the ICANN root, their popularity has prompted traditional domain stakeholders to innovate within the established system. As a result, we may see more experimental or hybrid TLD concepts—some of which might be aimed at bridging conventional domains with decentralized identity systems or metaverse environments. These future-facing proposals could significantly expand the scope and creative ambition of the second round, attracting not just domain industry veterans but also startups, technologists, and venture-backed experiments.

However, the sheer potential scale of the second round also brings regulatory and operational complexities that could contribute to its magnitude. ICANN is preparing a more robust policy and evaluation framework in response to lessons learned from the first round, which saw criticism over inconsistent application reviews, inadequate trademark protections, and controversial delegation decisions. The new Applicant Guidebook is expected to include stricter safeguards around DNS abuse mitigation, applicant vetting, community engagement, and dispute resolution. These requirements may discourage low-effort or speculative applications, but they also raise the bar for serious contenders, prompting larger investments in legal, technical, and public relations resources. Additionally, trademark interests and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) will likely exert more influence this time, demanding greater accountability and public interest commitments from applicants, particularly for sensitive or high-value strings.

Another consideration is the expanding range of potential use cases. In the first round, many applicants pursued TLDs for generic keywords—like .shop, .app, or .music—primarily with the aim of selling second-level domains to the public. This traditional registry model remains viable but is now joined by new paradigms such as closed generics, platform-specific naming (e.g., for IoT devices or fintech ecosystems), and use in public infrastructure (e.g., city-level domains like .nyc or .tokyo used for civic engagement). If ICANN permits closed generics under updated policy guidance, it could unlock a flood of applications from large tech platforms and commercial entities seeking exclusive control over category-defining terms. Even without such a change, the broader understanding of what a gTLD can enable—from private digital identity frameworks to interlinked corporate subdomains—suggests a wider and more creative range of applications this time around.

Ultimately, while the first round of new gTLDs was historic in its scale and ambition, it functioned as a kind of proof of concept. The second round arrives at a moment of technological readiness, market maturity, and strategic clarity that could enable it to far surpass the first in terms of applications submitted, diversity of use cases, and long-term impact on the internet’s architecture. The domain name industry is not merely bracing for another expansion—it is preparing for a reinvention of its role in a digital world that is increasingly fragmented, competitive, and innovation-driven. If the early indicators hold true, the second round of new gTLDs may not only dwarf the first in size but redefine what a domain name is for in the 21st-century digital economy.

As the domain name industry anticipates the long-awaited second round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), a central question looms over the discussions among registry operators, policy makers, brand owners, and digital entrepreneurs: will this upcoming round dramatically exceed the scope and impact of the first? The initial new gTLD program, launched in 2012 by…