The first phase of the ICANN 2026 New gTLD Program is officially complete.

Many have referred to this as the “second round” of new gTLDs, although technically that is not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly ICANN’s second large-scale, openly managed application window, following the 2012 round.

And by most measures, it has been a success.

A More Mature Process

One of the biggest achievements of the 2026 round has been the process itself.

Yes, it took years of community work, policy development and redrafting of the Applicant Guidebook to get here. Fourteen years after the 2012 round, applicants were finally able to submit applications through a process that ran to schedule, with no deadline extensions and no major platform failures.

The Technical Application Management System (TAMS) performed as expected throughout the application window, and ICANN’s dedicated FAQ team responded to questions quickly and consistently.

These may sound like basic expectations, but those who participated in the 2012 round will appreciate just how significant these improvements are. The industry has retained much of the expertise gained from the last round, and it shows. Lessons were learned, and this programme has undoubtedly benefited from the experience accumulated over the past decade.

For applicants and consultants alike, this translated into greater confidence when preparing submissions.

An Unexpected Improvement: Invoicing

One area where ICANN deserves particular credit is invoicing.

In 2026, invoices were issued immediately following application submission, allowing organisations to process payments through their normal procurement and finance procedures. Where applicants required a purchase order number to appear on the invoice, ICANN accommodated that request.

It sounds obvious.

Yet anyone involved in the 2012 round may remember the surreal experience of asking a chief executive or finance director to transfer USD 185,000 to a Californian bank account with the promise that an invoice would eventually follow.

This year’s approach reflects a much deeper understanding of how organisations actually operate.

Should this level of service be expected when applicants are paying USD 227,000 per application? Sure. But given the justified criticism that followed the 2012 round, it is equally important to recognise where genuine improvements have been made.

Credit where it is due: ICANN listened.

1,600 Applied-for Strings… For Now

The round closed with approximately 1,600 requested strings.

That is lower than the 1,930 applications submitted in 2012, but the comparison is not quite as straightforward as it looks.

For the first time, applicants were able to include replacement strings as part of their submissions. More than 1,100 applications reportedly included an alternative string that could be used if the applicant decides not to pursue its primary choice.

This introduces an important new dimension to the process.

Imagine applying for .ravioli, while listing .gnocchi as a backup string. If multiple applicants pursue .ravioli, and you decide that a contention resolution process is not for you, you could pivot to .gnocchi instead.

That flexibility did not exist in 2012 and represents a meaningful improvement. Applicants now have a built-in contingency plan.

Of course, replacement strings are not a magic solution. If another applicant has already applied for .gnocchi, you may still find yourself facing a difficult decision between your primary choice and your fallback option.

In reality, many applicants will remain committed to the string they have been developing for years. A backup provides flexibility, but it does not necessarily replace the original ambition.

The Poker Game Before Reveal Day

Since the application window closed, several organisations have begun publicly discussing their applications. But in many cases, it is unclear whether these announcements refer to primary strings, replacement strings, or both.

As a result, there is a certain poker-game atmosphere emerging within the industry.

Applicants cannot engage in discussions aimed at resolving contention once the full list of applications is published by ICANN. But before Reveal Day, the boundaries are less clear, and many parties are understandably curious about who may be pursuing similar strings.

The result is a mixture of carefully managed communications, selective disclosures and strategic silence.

For now, we are left waiting to see how many of today’s 1,600 requested strings ultimately appear on Reveal Day, expected in October. Or maybe there will be less? Will ICANN communicate numbers of failed or aborted applications?

Applications Are Not Yet Final

There is another important caveat.

The current figures represent applied-for strings, not necessarily finalised applications.

Applicants were given a limited period in which to pay their application fees after receiving their invoices. Applications that fail to meet payment requirements will be withdrawn from the process.

As a result, the number of strings eventually published by ICANN may be lower than the headline figure announced immediately after the application window closed.

Whether this has a significant impact remains to be seen. Portfolio applicants are likely to have budgeted carefully and may already have completed payment. However, until the payment process is fully complete, some uncertainty remains.

What About Brand TLDs?

The approximately 500 applications submitted without replacement strings are particularly interesting.

Many of these could represent dotBrand applications, where a company is seeking a dedicated piece of internet infrastructure tied directly to its brand identity.

While overall application numbers are lower than in 2012, the environment in which organisations operate has changed dramatically over the past fourteen years.

Cybersecurity, digital identity, consumer trust and online brand protection have become board-level priorities. Today’s applicants may therefore have a much clearer vision of how they intend to use their TLDs than many early adopters did in 2012.

The Story Is Only Just Beginning

For many applicants, the application phase may feel like the finish line.

In reality, it is only the beginning.

Reveal Day will provide the first comprehensive view of the landscape: who applied, where contention exists, which sectors embraced the programme, and what emerging trends can be identified.

At BrandShelter, we’ve supported dozens of applicants through the application process, whether for application management, registry services, DNS infrastructure or backend operations. As the programme moves into its next phase, we look forward to continuing to share insights, analysis and practical guidance with the community.

The application window may have closed, but the most interesting part of the story is about to begin.

Get in contact with me on LinkedIn if you’re interested in finding out more.

Share article