The New gTLD Expansion Round: The DOT is Making More Friends
In 2012 ICANN announced that “The Dot is Making New Friends!”. Now, the process of making even more friends has started, with a new round of gTLD expansion that started on 30 April 2026.
Historical Background
The evolution of the Domain Name System (DNS) reflects a gradual but significant shift from a tightly controlled naming environment to a vast and commercially dynamic ecosystem.
In the early stages of the Internet, the architecture of top-level domains (TLDs) was deliberately limited. During the 1980s, only seven generic top-level domains (gTLDs) were created: <.com>, <.edu>, <.gov>, <.int>, <.mil>, <.net>, and <.org>. Of these, only three—<.com>, <.net>, and <.org>—were “open” domains, available for registration without substantial restrictions. The remaining gTLDs were purpose-specific and restricted: <.int> for international organisations, <.edu> for accredited higher education institutions, <.gov> for U.S. federal government entities, and <.mil> for the U.S. military. Alongside these, <.arpa> was reserved for technical infrastructure purposes.
Parallel to the gTLDs, country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) emerged, each corresponding to a two-letter country code under ISO 3166 (e.g., <.fr>, <.de>, <.ro>, <.uk>). These ccTLDs followed diverse regulatory models, with some allowing open registration and others imposing eligibility criteria tied to nationality, residence, or business presence.
The late 1990s marked a turning point. In 1999, a report from WIPO to the ICANN Board recommended the cautious introduction of new gTLDs, emphasising the need to balance expansion with the protection of intellectual property rights. The rationale for expansion discussed by ICANN at the time rested on three main objectives: increasing competition among registries, enhancing the functional utility of the DNS, and expanding the availability of domain names.
The first expansion round, initiated in 2000, introduced seven new gTLDs, divided into unsponsored domains (<.biz>, <.info>, <.name>, <.pro>) and sponsored domains (<.aero>, <.coop>, <.museum>). The distinction was that unsponsored TLDs operated under general ICANN policies, while sponsored TLDs were governed by designated organizations representing specific communities. Notably, ICANN declined at that time to introduce a <.kids> gTLD, citing concerns about becoming entangled in content regulation.
A second expansion round followed in 2003, focusing exclusively on sponsored gTLDs. That round resulted in delegation of domains such as <.post>, <.mobi>, <.asia>, <.travel>, <.tel>, <.cat>, <.jobs>, and eventually <.xxx>. The latter proved particularly controversial, as it raised concerns about ICANN’s role in regulating online content. Although initially rejected, <.xxx> was ultimately approved in 2011 after years of debate.
These early expansion rounds were widely criticized for their lack of transparency, predictability, and procedural consistency. In response, ICANN developed a more structured and rule-based approach, embodied in an Applicant Guidebook, which aimed to provide clear criteria and procedural safeguards for future applicants.
This reform culminated in the landmark 2012 gTLD expansion round. For the first time, virtually any string—across languages and scripts—could be proposed as a gTLD. The response was unprecedented: 1,930 applications were submitted, leading to the delegation of over 1,200 new gTLDs. These domains reflected remarkable diversity, encompassing brand names, industries, professions, geographic regions, cultural identifiers, and generic terms. Importantly, the 2012 round also introduced formal objection mechanisms, allowing third parties to challenge applications through structured alternative dispute resolution procedures.
The most recent expansion of the gTLD area began in April 2026, building on the 2012 framework. 12 August 2026 marked the end date for submitting applications, ICANN disclosing it received more than 1,600 primary applications, of which more than 1,100 included applications for replacement strings (secondary applications).
After an administrative review taking about eight to nine weeks, mid-October 2026 will mark the reveal day when all applied-for strings will be published. After the string confirmation day which is expected around November 2026, there will be a 104 days objection window for trademark holders, governments, and communities to file formal objections.
This series of posts will look into the procedural and substantive requirements of the objections available against the new gTLDs in the pre-delegation phase, with an analysis of the objections handled in the 2012 round which is relevant for participants in the current round.
Objections: General Overview
At the heart of the framework of objections in the 2012 expansion round was Module 3 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, which set out both the grounds and procedures for objecting to gTLD applications. This mechanism allowed stakeholders to challenge applications on four principal grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest, and community interests. Each category reflects a distinct dimension of potential harm, ranging from technical confusion in the DNS to broader concerns of morality, public order, or collective identity.
Between June 2012 and March 2013, third parties actively engaged with this system, filing objections against a wide range of applications.
A distinctive feature of the 2012 framework was the introduction of the Independent Objector (IO), tasked with representing the broader public interest rather than any specific stakeholder. The IO could bring objections in cases where no other party had done so, particularly in relation to community and public interest concerns. However, the role was not without controversy. Challenges to the independence of the IO—most notably in proceedings concerning the <.amazon> string—highlighted structural ambiguities in the framework. Even where doubts about independence were acknowledged, panels proceeded to decide cases on the merits due to the absence of clear procedural consequences. These episodes ultimately informed reforms in the 2026 expansion round, where ICANN opted to appoint three independent objectors to mitigate risks of perceived bias.
The rationale for such a robust objection system is likely tied to the nature of gTLDs themselves. Applicants may seek to operate open registries (e.g., <.music>), geographically themed domains (e.g., <.capetown>), or closed “dot-brand” registries restricted to a specific corporate group. This diversity of models creates significant potential for conflict with existing rights and public expectations. Accordingly, the objection procedures function as preventive mechanisms, intervening before potentially problematic domains are delegated and operational.
As mentioned above, the 2012 round resulted in the delegation of over 1,200 gTLDs, illustrating both the scale of the expansion and the importance of effective safeguards. Complementary tools, such as Public Interest Commitments (PICs) embedded in registry agreements, and strengthened anti-abuse policies, further reinforced the regulatory framework. Post-delegation mechanisms, including the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) and the continued applicability of the UDRP, ensured that rights protection extended beyond the application phase.
The 2026 expansion round builds on this foundation while introducing notable refinements. These include a new appeal mechanism, enhanced independence safeguards through three independent objectors instead of one, and procedural innovations such as allowing applicants to propose alternative strings. Substantively, the updated Guidebook also addresses contentious issues from the previous round, including the prohibition of singular and plural variants of the same string in the same language, thereby resolving prior inconsistencies in expert determinations.
As such, in the 2012 gTLD expansion round some panels took a relatively strict approach, finding that plural forms were indeed confusingly similar to their singular counterparts. In these cases, panels considered that the addition of an “s” did not sufficiently distinguish the strings and that Internet users could reasonably assume a connection between them. For example, objections involving <.games> vs. <.game>, <.pets> vs. <.pet>, <.sports> vs. <.sport>, and <.tours> vs. <.tour> were upheld on the basis that confusion was probable. On the other hand, other panels acknowledged that some degree of similarity might exist between singular and plural forms, but emphasized that mere similarity is insufficient. Instead, they required concrete evidence that confusion among consumers would be likely or probable, not just theoretically possible. In this vein, objections such as <.tvs> vs. <.tv> and <.hotels> vs. <.hotel> were rejected because the objectors failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the likelihood of confusion. The inconsistency is further illustrated by the <.cars> vs. <.car> disputes, where different panels reached opposite conclusions on essentially the same issue.
Procedural Aspects
Consent to the expert determination procedure is formed through a dual mechanism: applicants accept the procedure upon filing their application for a new gTLD, while objectors accept it by submitting an objection, thereby subjecting both parties to the jurisdiction of expert panels.
Disputes are administered by specialized dispute resolution service providers (DRSPs), which differ slightly between the two rounds. In 2012, string confusion objections were handled by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, legal rights objections by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, and limited public interest and community objections by the ICC. In the 2026 round, WIPO assumes competence for both string confusion and legal rights objections, while the ICC remains responsible for public interest and community objections.
Applicants may respond, settle, or withdraw; failure to respond results in a default decision in favour of the objector. While proceedings remain primarily document-based, the 2026 framework introduces stricter procedural features, including the exclusion of in-person hearings. The objections are solved via expert determinations that will constitute advice that ICANN will accept within the dispute resolution process.
In the 2026 round, there will 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.
A panel’s jurisdiction is limited: it is not to decide whether an applicant should be awarded the gTLD in question. Rather, the expert determination procedure is limited to determining “the success or dismissal of the Objection”, whereas ICANN will consider and determine whether or not to delegate the applied-for gTLD string as requested by the applicant.
As the panel in one of the community objections concerning the string <.cloud> correctly pointed out, the objection “concerns only the Objection filed by the Objector in this case. It does not concern the merits of the application” for the relevant string.
In subsequent posts in this blog series, I will analyze the outcome of the four types of objections filed in the 2012 round and explore where there are differences between the two applicant guidebooks (the one of 2012 and the one of 2026 respectively). The expert determinations in the 2012 expansion round are relevant for the new round given the substantial similarity of the relevant substantive requirements.
This post was published first in a similar form with ArbTech blog, on 4 September 2026.