Applying for a New gTLD: What’s Changed Since the 2012 Round?
by Susan Payne
If you were previously involved in evaluating, advising on or applying for a new gTLD during the 2012 round you may feel you already have a pretty good handle on what’s involved – and you do, since much of the procedure and ruleset is likely to feel quite familiar. But there are some key differences that you’ll need to be aware of. In this latest blog, we’ll focus on some of the things that have changed since the last opportunity to apply for your own slice of internet real estate.
1. Designating as a dotBrand during application
During the 2012 application window the principle that a dotBrand would be a clear category of application had not been agreed. Specification 13, which provides some revised contractual terms to reflect the unique business model and to give added protections to the underlying brand, was only finalised in March 2014, almost two years after applications closed. Since Spec 13 is now a fixture, an applicant intending to operate as a dotBrand can select that status from the outset, although it will also be possible to do so later, after an opportunity for public comment.
2. No private resolution
As a measure to thwart gaming of the process to “win by losing” (i.e. to apply for attractive TLD strings with the intent to generate revenue from private resolution or private auction) applicants in the 2026 round will not be able to resolve contention privately and are prohibited from any discussion or collusion. In 2026 the ICANN-operated auction will be the only mechanism to resolve who should be the registry operator, where two or more applicants apply for the same string (and did not switch to their replacement – see below). The proceeds from the ICANN auctions will fund future grants that support ICANN’s Mission.
Any auctions will happen earlier in the process, before the majority of the evaluation of the applicant and the application. This does mean that if an application were subsequently determined to be ineligible, the next in line in the auction might then go forward after all. Based on ICANN’s experience from 2012, however, this is deemed a low risk.
Applicants will also be expected to have a good faith intent to operate the TLD(s) they apply for, and to make a declaration to that effect in their application. Where ICANN concludes that intent is absent, they reserve the right to disallow the application.
3. Option of a replacement string
This is another of the measures introduced to try to minimise contention and the risk of that being gamed. At the time of application submission, applicants will have the option to propose an alternative string that they may switch to, if their primary string choice is the subject of multiple applications. In the 2012 round, there was no such opportunity to switch strings to avoid contention.
ICANN anticipates publishing all the applied-for strings on Reveal Day, no later than nine weeks after the application window closes. Following this, there will be a 2-week period during which applicants can consider the full list and decide whether to switch to their pre-selected alternative. It will only be possible to switch if the alternative would not, itself, then be in contention. The decision to switch to the replacement string will be final. If the string were later found to be ineligible for reasons not previously identified, or is later put into contention, for example as a result of being identified as a singular/plural or due to a string confusion objection process, the applicant will not be able to switch back.
4. Additional string change opportunity for Brands
In addition to the replacement string process above, dotBrand applicants will have an additional narrow opportunity to make a string change if their TLD is placed into a contention set. Specifically, an applicant can add a descriptor word or words to their string that comes from the specification of goods/services in their trademark, without losing eligibility for Spec 13. So, for example, if a mobile telephony provider is in contention for the brand string BANANA, then they might amend their application to something like BANANATELEPHONE or BANANACOMMUNICATIONS.
5. Blocking singulars and plurals of the same term
Following the 2012 round, a number of singulars and plurals of the same word have been coexisting as TLDs, such as CAR and CARS, AUTO and AUTOS. Many of these have subsequently transferred into the same ownership, although that is not a requirement. When developing policy for the next round, there was overwhelming feeling that only one of the singular or plural in the same language should be delegated. ICANN, however, has been reluctant to bear the responsibility for identifying all singulars and plurals. The solution is that this task is effectively being crowdsourced. Anyone who identifies that there are both singular and plural applications can report these to have them put into contention, so that only one can prevail. If no-one identifies the strings, however, they could still co-exist.
6. IDN variants
In 2026, applicants for internationalised domain name TLDs (IDNs) will be able to apply for IDN variant strings in addition to a primary string, for example the same term in traditional and simplified Chinese script. The rules on what may be allocated are complex, as is the assessment of string similarity, which must now take into consideration all applicable allocatable variants (as determined based on the label generation ruleset for the script), whether or not they were actually applied-for, and even non-allocatable variants.
7. No COI required
In 2012, applicants needed to have in place a Conditional Operations Instrument for the first few years of operation, such as a letter of credit with a bank, in order to fund operations if the registry failed. This was financially and administratively burdensome for applicants, and proved to be of limited utility, so will not be required going forward.
8. Closed generics banned
Applications for a TLD which reflects a common industry term will not be permitted where the applicant intends to operate it as “closed”, i.e. where registration of second level names is limited only to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s Affiliates. So, for example, the TLD PINEAPPLE could not be applied for by a large pineapple grower, with the intent to keep all second level names to itself. A number of 2012 round applicants had hoped to operate closed generics, since there was no prohibition at the time they applied, but after concerns from governments these could not proceed. That prohibition has now been solidified.
Applicants will need to affirm that they are not seeking a closed generic when they apply, and there will be a prohibition in the registry agreement that they later sign.
9. Limited challenges and appeals
Under the 2012 process there was no real mechanism to challenge decisions from evaluators or under the objection processes – the only option was to use the ICANN Bylaws-mandated accountability mechanisms such as the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Process. There will now be a limited opportunity to challenge certain determinations during evaluation, such as a singular/plural determination, arguing that ICANN made a factual or procedural error. It will also be possible to appeal against the expert determination in an Objection process on grounds that the panel made a procedural error or failed to consider or solicit necessary material evidence. Both of these processes will be determined based on a “clearly erroneous” standard.
10. Predictability Framework
With some very impactful changes of approach being adopted “on the fly” last time, such as the decision to ban closed generics and the development and insertion of certain obligatory public interest commitments into the registry agreement in reaction to governmental push-back, there is now a new Predictability Framework. This is intended to ensure the efficient and transparent management of unexpected issues that may arise while the program is in flight. Surprise issues may still come up, therefore, but there should be a clearer process now for how to handle them if they do.
11. Application fee
As highlighted in our previous blog, the application fee in this round will be higher than in 2012, at $227,000 for the base price, with various additional conditional fees applicable to certain application types. Objections, challenges and appeals will also require additional fees.
Schemes like the RSP Pre-Evaluation Process, and the re-ordering of the evaluation timeline to deal with contention resolution much earlier, are efforts to reduce duplication of effort on ICANN’s side, so as not to drive the price even higher.
12. No RPMs required for Brands
2012-round Spec 13 dotBrands were exempted from the obligation to offer a Sunrise when the TLD launched, since all second level names were, by definition, going to the registry operator, its group companies, or trademark licensees. This exemption has been extended in two ways. Firstly, dotBrands will now also be exempt from running the trademark claims process, for essentially the same reason. Secondly, TLDs which do not meet all the Spec 13 requirements, but which are exempted from the registry code of conduct, where eligibility for second level names is similarly restricted (but which do not fall foul of the closed generic prohibition), will also be exempted from sunrise and claims.
The recent publication of the draft Applicant Guidebook provides prospective gTLD applicants with the critical information they need to begin preparing for application. With around 10 months until the application window opens, now is the time to consider the opportunity, agree budgets, and create a business plan. Com Laude worked on over 120 TLD applications during the 2012 round and has a second-to-none track record of success. Our team have been actively engaged in the development of the rules and processes which will apply in 2026. If you would like to know more about how we can help you consider this opportunity, please complete the Contact Us form on our website.
