Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Generic top-level domain

A generic top-level domain (gTLD) is a in the (DNS) of the consisting of three or more characters, designated for unrestricted general use and distinguished from country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), which are tied to specific nations, and sponsored TLDs, which serve defined stakeholder communities. These domains form the highest level of the DNS hierarchy, enabling the registration of second-level domains like example.com under extensions such as .com or .org. The foundational gTLDs originated in 1985 with the introduction of .com (for commercial purposes), .org (for nonprofit organizations), .net (for network infrastructure), alongside restricted ones like .edu, .gov, and .mil, establishing a framework for global domain allocation under early U.S. government oversight before transitioning to international coordination. Subsequent expansions, including a 2000 round adding .biz, .info, and others, incrementally broadened options, but the landmark 2012 New gTLD Program—overseen by the —marked the most substantial growth, processing over 1,900 applications and delegating more than 1,200 new extensions like .app, .xyz, and brand-specific ones such as .google. This proliferation has enhanced namespace diversity and competition among registrars, with .com remaining dominant due to its established trust and volume, while newer gTLDs target niche markets or branding; continues evaluating further rounds, with a next application window anticipated in to sustain DNS evolution amid rising global demands.

Definition and Overview

Core Characteristics and Functionality

A generic top-level domain (gTLD) constitutes a category of top-level domains (TLDs) within the Internet's , characterized by extensions of three or more characters that are not designated for specific countries or territories, distinguishing them from country-code TLDs (ccTLDs). These domains, such as .com (introduced in 1985 for commercial purposes), .org (1985 for organizations), and .net (1985 for network infrastructure), were initially created to categorize domain registrations based on broad functional or thematic intents rather than geographic boundaries. gTLDs operate under oversight from the , which delegates them in the DNS root zone via the . The core functionality of gTLDs lies in providing a scalable namespace for registrations, managed by designated registry operators who maintain authoritative files containing resource records for registered domains. Registrants, typically through accredited registrars, acquire domain names under a gTLD (e.g., ), which resolve to addresses via the DNS resolution process: queries propagate from recursive resolvers to root servers, TLD name servers, and authoritative servers hosted by the registry. This enables global accessibility to web resources, email, and other services without reliance on numeric addresses, with registries ensuring (often 100% DNS query response rates) and support for features like DNSSEC for cryptographic validation of DNS data. Unsponsored gTLDs, the predominant type, permit unrestricted public registration on a first-come, first-served basis, fostering broad and in domain usage, while sponsored variants impose eligibility criteria tied to defined communities or purposes to prevent dilution of their intended scope. As of 2025, over 1,200 gTLDs exist, with registries handling millions of registrations annually through standardized contracts that mandate technical stability, abuse mitigation, and data accuracy.

Distinction from Country-Code and Other TLDs

Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are distinguished from top-level domains (ccTLDs) by their lack of association with any specific nation or territory; gTLDs serve global, purpose-agnostic registration without geographic restrictions, while ccTLDs are two-letter codes derived from standards, delegated to designated national managers who enforce country-specific policies, often including local residency or incorporation requirements for registrants. ccTLD operations fall under the authority of sponsoring governments or their appointees, subjecting them to national laws on content, , and , whereas gTLDs adhere to uniform global policies coordinated by the Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (). Within the broader TLD ecosystem, gTLDs further differ from sponsored TLDs (sTLDs), a that includes restricted extensions like .gov and .edu; sTLDs require a sponsoring to petition for community-specific eligibility criteria and operational policies, limiting access to predefined groups such as U.S. government entities or accredited educational institutions, in contrast to unsponsored gTLDs like .com, which operate under open, consensus-driven rules without such sponsorship. This sponsored model ensures tailored governance for niche uses, but post-2012 expansions blurred some lines by introducing new gTLDs with community or brand restrictions akin to sponsorship, though without formal sTLD designation. gTLDs also contrast with non-geographic, non-generic categories like the infrastructure TLD .arpa, reserved exclusively for address and reverse DNS operations under IANA management, and test TLDs (tTLDs), which are temporary and experimental, not available for public registration. These distinctions maintain the DNS zone's by segregating administrative oversight: ccTLDs and sTLDs emphasize localized or , while core gTLDs prioritize .

Historical Development

Inception in the ARPANET Era

Prior to the development of the Domain Name System (DNS), ARPANET relied on a centralized hosts file maintained by the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International, which listed hostnames and IP addresses for the growing number of connected computers; by 1983, this manual approach had become unscalable as the network expanded beyond a few dozen hosts. Paul Mockapetris, working at the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute, addressed this limitation by inventing DNS as a hierarchical, distributed database for mapping human-readable names to numerical addresses, with initial specifications outlined in RFC 882 (November 1983) and RFC 883. The system was tested successfully on June 23, 1983, by Mockapetris and Jon Postel, enabling a transition from flat namespaces to structured domains suitable for ARPANET's packet-switched architecture. In October 1984, RFC 920 formalized the initial top-level domains (TLDs) to organize the namespace under DNS, distinguishing between temporary infrastructure domains and others intended for broader use within the ARPA-Internet community. The .arpa TLD was established temporarily to facilitate the migration of existing ARPANET hostnames during the DNS rollout, serving infrastructure purposes like address mapping rather than general registration. Alongside it, the first generic TLDs (gTLDs) were defined for multi-organizational entities: .com for commercial operations, .org for non-commercial organizations, .net for network-related services, .edu for educational institutions, .gov for U.S. government entities, and .mil for U.S. military use; these were not yet open to public registration but limited to qualified ARPANET participants to ensure controlled growth. The inaugural gTLD registration occurred on March 15, , with symbolics.com under the .com TLD, marking the practical inception of gTLDs as operational components of the ARPANET-to-Internet transition; subsequent registrations followed for other early adopters like bbn.com and think.com later that year. Initially managed by the under oversight, these gTLDs reflected a deliberate design for scalability, prioritizing technical reliability over commercial accessibility, with public domain registration not announced until February 1986. This era's constraints—rooted in ARPANET's research-oriented origins—limited gTLD adoption to approximately a few hundred domains by 1987, underscoring their role as an engineering solution rather than a mass-market feature.

ICANN Oversight and Early Constraints (1998–2011)

The Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers () was incorporated on October 2, 1998, as a non-profit entity to assume oversight of the (DNS), including generic top-level domains (gTLDs), following a U.S. Department of Commerce issued on June 5, 1998, which outlined the of DNS management from government control. entered into a with the U.S. Department of Commerce on November 25, 1998, formalizing its role in coordinating gTLD registry operations, root maintenance, and policy development for domain name allocation, while emphasizing stability, competition, and private-sector leadership. At inception, inherited a constrained gTLD namespace limited primarily to seven domains—.com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil, and .int—managed under prior U.S. government contracts with , Inc. (NSI), with the National Science Foundation's cooperative agreement expiring in September 1998. Early ICANN policies prioritized DNS stability over rapid expansion, imposing rigorous evaluation processes for new gTLD proposals to mitigate risks such as domain name collisions, trademark infringements, and operational disruptions. In November 1999, ICANN established the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), implemented by December 1999, to address cybersquatting in gTLDs through mandatory arbitration, which became a core constraint on registry operations by requiring compliance in contracts. The first structured expansion occurred in 2000, when ICANN solicited and evaluated 150 applications, approving seven new gTLDs—.aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, and .pro—delegated between 2001 and 2002 after assessments of technical capability, business models, and potential for consumer confusion. These introductions were limited to test expansion effects, with .biz and .info as unsponsored open registries and others as sponsored domains restricted to specific communities, reflecting ICANN's cautious approach to avoid namespace dilution. From 2004 to 2011, authorized only sporadic additional gTLDs—approximately eight, including .asia, .cat, .jobs, .mobi, .post, .tel, .travel, and eventually .xxx after prolonged contention—through targeted rounds emphasizing sponsored models with predefined eligibility to limit broad access and enforce community safeguards. Constraints intensified due to stakeholder opposition, including trademark holders' fears of brand dilution and governments' concerns over moral or cultural implications, leading to multi-year delays; for instance, .xxx faced legal challenges from 2000 until provisional approval in 2011. Policy development via the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began in 2005 but stalled amid debates, culminating in 2007 recommendations for phased introductions, which the Board adopted in 2008 only after extensive implementation planning to balance innovation with safeguards like string contention resolution and prohibitions. By 2011, cumulative gTLD delegations remained under 25, far short of demands for unrestricted growth, as ICANN's oversight enforced contractual obligations on registries for WHOIS data accuracy, abuse mitigation, and fee structures to prevent monopolistic practices, while rejecting proposals lacking demonstrated need or risking root server stability. In June 2011, the Board approved the framework for a broader program, authorizing an applicant guidebook and opening applications in , marking the end of the constrained era but building on lessons from prior limited rounds to incorporate economic studies showing minimal stability risks from controlled expansion. This period underscored ICANN's evolution from U.S. stewardship toward global , though critics noted persistent U.S. influence via the Commerce Department's affirmative control over root zone changes until a 2009 extension of the Joint Project Agreement.

The 2012 New gTLD Program and Initial Rollout

In June 2011, the Board approved the framework for the New gTLD Program, enabling the expansion of generic top-level domains to foster competition, innovation, and consumer choice in the space. The program officially launched on January 12, 2012, with the opening of the application window through the TLD Application System (TAS). Applications were accepted until April 20, 2012, during which received 1,930 submissions from 611 unique applicants across 57 countries, covering proposed strings in various scripts including Latin, Cyrillic, Arabic, and Chinese. Post-application, ICANN published the list of applications on June 13, 2012, following a "reveal day" that disclosed details while redacting sensitive information initially. Initial evaluations commenced in June 2012, focusing on technical, operational, and financial criteria to assess applicant readiness to operate a registry. To manage the volume, ICANN conducted a prioritization draw on December 17, 2012, randomly assigning evaluation order to the applications in batches. This phase also incorporated rights protection mechanisms, such as the Trademark Clearinghouse, established to handle sunrise periods for trademarked domains and post-launch claims notices. The initial rollout transitioned approved applications to delegation after extended evaluations, objection resolutions, and registry agreement executions, a process averaging 9–18 months per applicant. The first new gTLDs were to the on October 23, 2013, marking the program's operational debut with strings like .xn--ngbc5azd (a non-Latin example). Subsequent batches followed in 2014, with each TLD required to implement a minimum 30-day sunrise period for pre-existing rights before general availability. By the end of 2014, over 100 new gTLDs had entered sunrise phases, though rollout delays arose from contested applications, legal challenges, and coordination with root zone maintainers.

Categorization and Types

Unsponsored Generic TLDs

Unsponsored generic top-level domains (uTLDs), also known as unsponsored gTLDs, operate under policies developed through the consensus process involving the broader community, rather than being governed by a specific sponsoring or charter. This structure allows for general-purpose use without predefined eligibility restrictions tied to a particular sector or group. In contrast to sponsored TLDs, which impose community-specific rules enforced by a sponsor, uTLDs emphasize open registration accessible to any qualified registrant meeting basic technical and operational requirements set by and the registry operator. The foundational uTLDs emerged in the early days of the (DNS). The .com TLD, intended for commercial entities but open in practice, was delegated on March 15, 1985, followed by .org for non-commercial organizations and .net for network infrastructure, both activated in 1985. These domains quickly became the backbone of addressing due to their unrestricted nature and lack of sponsorship. Subsequent expansions in the late 1990s and early 2000s introduced additional uTLDs to alleviate namespace congestion in legacy domains. In May 2001, .info launched as an unrestricted domain for informational sites, followed by .biz in May 2001 for businesses with anti-cybersquatting provisions via a sunrise period. .name, focused on personal name registrations but without a sponsor, entered general availability in 2002, while .pro debuted in 2002 for professionals with some verification requirements that did not constitute sponsorship. These TLDs were selected through ICANN's application processes in 2000 and 2001, prioritizing unsponsored models to foster broad adoption.
TLDLaunch DatePrimary Intended UseRegistry Operator (as of 2025)
.comMarch 1985Commercial entities (open use)
.net1985Network infrastructure (open use)
.org1985Non-commercial organizations (open)
.infoMay 2001Informational sites (unrestricted)
.bizMay 2001Businesses (with IP protections)/
.nameAugust 2001Personal names (open with phases)Global Name Authority
.proMay 2002Professionals (verification optional)RegistryPro
Following the 2012 new gTLD program, the formal distinction between sponsored and unsponsored TLDs was phased out, with most new generic TLDs operating under registry agreements akin to uTLDs—open or lightly restricted without mandatory sponsors. However, the legacy uTLDs remain defined by their pre-2012 agreements, which emphasize community-driven policy without centralized sponsorship. This model has supported high registration volumes, particularly for , which exceeded 150 million domains by 2023, driven by its neutral, unsponsored status. Sponsored top-level domains (sTLDs) represent a of generic TLDs where operation is delegated to a sponsoring that embodies the interests of a defined community, such as professional associations, industries, or cultural groups. The sponsor holds authority to formulate and implement policies governing registration eligibility, usage restrictions, and , ensuring domains serve the community's specific needs rather than unrestricted commercial purposes. This model promotes targeted management, with the sponsor acting as a to prevent dilution of the TLD's intended scope. Introduced as part of 's structured approach to TLD in the early , sTLDs differ from unsponsored gTLDs by mandating proof of affiliation for registrants, often verified through charters or membership requirements. For instance, the sponsorship outlines the 's scope, policy development processes, and ongoing oversight by the sponsor, with ICANN retaining ultimate root zone authority. As of 2012, examples like .post were delegated with explicit sponsor-defined operational guidelines, including phased introductions to qualified entities. Subcategories of sTLDs emerge from the sponsoring community's focus, broadly including professional and sectoral, institutional and governmental, and cultural or community-based variants. and sectoral sTLDs target industries with verifiable stakeholder involvement; , sponsored by for the global aviation community, restricts registrations to entities in air transport, including airlines and airports, with over 50,000 domains registered by 2023 under strict policy enforcement. Similarly, .jobs, operated for employment services, requires sponsors like the to limit use to HR-related postings. Institutional and governmental sTLDs enforce eligibility tied to official roles or accreditation; .edu, sponsored by since 2001, limits registrations to accredited U.S. postsecondary institutions, managing approximately 10,000 domains as of 2024 with policies prohibiting commercial resale. .gov serves U.S. federal, state, and entities exclusively, delegated under NTIA oversight with stringent security requirements. Cultural and community-based sTLDs support linguistic, ethnic, or associational groups; .museum, sponsored by the Museum Domain Management Association, requires registrants to operate formal museums or related institutions, fostering a for over 30,000 global entities by 2022. .coop, for , mandates verification of cooperative principles adherence, while .cat, sponsored by Fundació puntCAT, prioritizes Catalan-language and cultural content, illustrating geographic-linguistic sponsorship without overlapping ccTLD functions. These subcategories maintain niche utility, though adoption varies, with professional sTLDs often showing higher registration volumes due to industry mandates.

Geographic, Brand, and Community Variants

Geographic variants of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) represent specific locations, regions, or cultural identities, enabling targeted online presence for cities, provinces, or ethnic groups. These TLDs, often termed geoTLDs, require applicants to demonstrate a nexus to the represented area and may face governmental reviews or objections under ICANN's processes to protect national interests. For instance, .africa serves the continental community, while city-specific examples include .berlin (delegated in 2014 with eligibility limited to entities connected to ) and .paris (launched in 2018 for residents and businesses). Other notable delegations encompass .bayern (, 2014), .scot (, 2014), and .nyc (, 2014), which promote local economic development, tourism, and digital identity by restricting registrations to verified local stakeholders. Brand variants, or dotBrand TLDs, consist of corporate or names delegated exclusively to the owning entity, functioning as closed registries for internal use, defense, and enhanced . Introduced via ICANN's new gTLD application , these allow brands to create subdomains like login. or shop., reducing risks and enabling direct navigation. Examples include .apple (delegated 2015), . (2014), . (2014), . (2015), and . (2015), with recent growth observed in .dvag (, expanding registrations) and .schwarz ( for brands like ). By 2024, such TLDs numbered over 200 active delegations, prioritizing brand control over open registration. Community variants operate under restricted policies benefiting a clearly defined group, such as professional associations or interest-based sectors, with eligibility enforced via ICANN's Specification 12 in registry agreements. These gTLDs underwent Community Priority Evaluation during applications to verify sponsor representation of the community's interests, distinguishing them from open generics. Established examples include .aero ( sector, delegated 2002 under prior sponsored rules) and .museum (cultural institutions, 2001), while new gTLDs like .coop (cooperatives) extend this model by limiting second-level domains to verified members, fostering trust and specialized namespaces. In the 2012 round, community applications emphasized non-commercial or mission-driven operations, with ongoing change requests processed to maintain alignment with the sponsoring community's needs.

Adoption and Market Dynamics

The introduction of new generic top-level domains (ngTLDs) through the 2012 program initially spurred registrations, reaching approximately 35.4 million by Q3 2024, reflecting a 2.4% quarterly increase driven by demand for niche and brand-specific extensions. By Q1 2025, ngTLD registrations totaled 37.8 million, marking an addition of 1.0 million domains from the prior quarter, indicative of sustained but moderated expansion amid market saturation and competition from established gTLDs like .com. Overall gTLD registrations exhibited robust quarterly growth, with a 15.3% rise in Q2 2025, though this figure encompasses both legacy and new extensions and is influenced by seasonal renewals and speculative registrations in high-demand categories such as and . Legacy gTLDs continue to dominate total volume, with .com maintaining over 156 million registrations as of December 31, 2024, underscoring its entrenched position despite diversification efforts. Among ngTLDs, performers like .xyz and .top have captured significant shares through low-cost bulk registrations, often in developing markets, while .shop and .online appeal to commercial users seeking descriptive branding. Emerging trends include accelerated uptake of AI-related extensions like .ai (though technically a ccTLD repurposed for generic use), contributing to ngTLD growth rates outpacing legacy domains in absolute additions, yet failing to erode .com's market lead.
RankgTLDApproximate Registrations (End of 2024)
1.com156.3 million
2.net~13 million (estimated from prior reports)
3.org~10 million (estimated from prior reports)
4.xyz~4-5 million
5.info~3 million
6.shop~2-3 million
7.online~2 million
8.top~2 million
This table highlights the top gTLDs by reported domain names as of December 31, 2024, where .com's scale dwarfs ngTLDs, but the latter collectively represent diversification, with the top 10 ngTLDs accounting for over 50% of their category's registrations. Factors such as pricing strategies by registries and global expansion underpin these patterns, though speculative and renewals inflate figures for some ngTLDs without proportional active usage.

Growth Metrics and Comparative Analysis

As of the end of the third quarter of 2025, total registrations under new generic top-level domains (ngTLDs), introduced primarily through the 2012 program, reached 42.9 million, reflecting a sequential increase of 3.4 million from the prior quarter and a year-over-year growth of approximately 14%. This follows a pattern of consistent expansion, with ngTLD registrations rising from 36.8 million at the end of 2024 to 37.8 million by the first quarter of 2025, and 39.5 million by the second quarter. In contrast, legacy gTLDs excluding .com and .net—such as .org and .info—totaled 18.9 million registrations in Q3 2025, up modestly from 17.3 million in Q3 2024, with annual growth rates hovering around 0.6% for these categories. The broader gTLD sector, encompassing both and new extensions, accounts for over 60% of the global market, which stood at 378.5 million total registrations in Q3 2025—an overall 4.5% year-over-year increase driven partly by gTLD contributions. However, ngTLDs represent only about 11% of gTLD totals, underscoring the enduring dominance of legacy extensions like , which alone exceed 160 million registrations and exhibit rates above 70%, compared to ngTLD renewal rates of roughly 32-35%. Comparatively, country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) held 144.8 million registrations in Q3 2025, a 1% sequential rise and contributing to their approximately 38% global market share, with growth rates of 1-2% annually—slower than ngTLDs but steadier than some legacy gTLD segments. This disparity highlights ngTLDs' higher volatility and dependence on niche adoption, as their rapid percentage gains stem from a smaller base and have yet to erode legacy gTLD market positions significantly, despite over a decade of availability.
TLD CategoryQ4 2024 Registrations (millions)Q3 2025 Registrations (millions)YoY Growth (%)
ngTLDs36.842.9~14
Other Legacy gTLDs~17.5 (est.)18.9~0.6-1
ccTLDs~142 (est.)144.8~1-2

Factors Influencing Usage Patterns

Usage patterns of generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are shaped primarily by user trust in established extensions like , which commands over 40% of global domain registrations due to decades of familiarity and perceived reliability, leading to slower adoption of newer variants despite their availability. Newer gTLDs often face resistance from consumers and businesses prioritizing legacy domains for consistency and reduced risk of confusion or security perceptions. This preference persists even as new gTLDs offer more descriptive options, with empirical data showing 's registration base nearly eight times larger than the next largest TLD as of 2025. Pricing strategies significantly drive registration volumes, particularly for budget-oriented TLDs such as .xyz and .top, which amassed over 4 million and 1.6 million registrations respectively by early 2022 through low renewal costs attracting bulk and defensive purchases. However, high application and operational costs deterred broader brand adoption in the 2012 program, with ICANN's 2025 research identifying expense alongside awareness gaps as key barriers preventing from leveraging gTLDs for targeted online presence. Premium pricing for desirable names in relevant extensions like .shop further segments usage, favoring enterprises over individuals. Marketing efforts by registry operators influence visibility and uptake, with targeted campaigns boosting niche TLDs like .tech (40% active sites) by appealing to developers and tech firms, while underpromoted or gimmicky ones such as .ninja languish with minimal traffic. surveys indicate that 52% of marketing leaders recognize gTLD potential for innovation, yet insufficient education on benefits perpetuates reliance on generic .com. Successful patterns emerge where registries align promotions with industry needs, as seen in TLDs like .store achieving 37% active website rates through relevance-driven outreach. Domain relevance to specific sectors enhances active usage over mere registrations, with TLDs like .dev and .app drawing consistent traffic from developer communities due to semantic alignment, contrasting with low-utilization extensions like .icu (under 13% active). Brand-specific gTLDs, comprising 34% of applications, facilitate but require ongoing investment to convert defensive holdings into operational sites. Over-saturation—evident in competing retail TLDs like versus —exacerbates user confusion, channeling preferences back to versatile incumbents. Perceptions of (SEO) indirectly affect patterns, as new gTLDs may incur lower click-through rates from users associating them with lesser authority, despite no direct algorithmic penalty from engines like . Technical hurdles, including historical browser non-recognition and filtering, have compounded hesitancy, though modern compatibility has mitigated some issues. Actual traffic data reveals disparity: high-registration TLDs often host parked domains rather than content-rich sites, underscoring that economic and perceptual factors prioritize volume over engagement.

Operational and Technical Aspects

Registry Management and Delegation

The delegation of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) occurs through the (IANA), operated by , which incorporates the TLD's name server (NS) records into the file, thereby enabling global resolution of the domain. For new gTLDs under the 2012 program, this follows execution of a Registry Agreement between and the selected operator, mandatory Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) to verify technical stability and security, and a formal request, all within a 12-month window post-contract to minimize delays in rollout. PDT specifically assesses the operator's capacity to handle DNS operations, data accuracy, and abuse mitigation without disrupting existing internet stability. Registry management is governed by the Registry Agreement, which outlines the operator's core duties, including maintaining the authoritative database of all registrations within the TLD, processing registrations exclusively via ICANN-accredited registrars, and ensuring technical feasibility of the TLD string from inception. Operators must adhere to 13 specifications in the base agreement, covering obligations such as data escrow for continuity, periodic reporting on registration volumes and dispute resolutions, and implementation of thick for enhanced and transparency. Non-compliance triggers ICANN's gTLD Compliance Program, which categorizes violations into operational, data protection, and consensus areas, enforcing remedies like corrective plans or, in severe cases, suspension of to safeguard DNS integrity. In cases of operator transition or failure, maintains predefined processes for secure handovers, designating emergency back-end operators to sustain critical functions like operations and database management, thereby preventing outages for registrants. Initial agreements run for 10-year terms, renewable upon demonstration of ongoing compliance and payment of variable fees based on registrations, reflecting 's emphasis on financial tied directly to operational performance. These mechanisms ensure registries prioritize empirical reliability over expansion, as evidenced by root zone updates averaging under 24 hours post-approval since 2013 delegations began.

Policy Frameworks and Eligibility Rules

The policy frameworks governing generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are primarily established through the via standardized Registry Agreements, which delineate the operational obligations, rights, and compliance requirements for registry operators. These agreements incorporate base provisions, appended specifications (such as those addressing and data handling), and ICANN consensus policies, ensuring uniform application of rules like data access and security response protocols across gTLDs. Registry operators must adhere to these frameworks, including periodic reporting and audits, to maintain delegation, with non-compliance potentially leading to enforcement actions under ICANN's gTLD Compliance Program. Eligibility rules for gTLD registrations differentiate between open (unsponsored) and restricted (sponsored or chartered) variants, though the 2012 new gTLD program eliminated formal categorization distinctions in applications, allowing operators to propose tailored policies subject to approval. In unsponsored gTLDs, such as .com or .net, registrations are generally unrestricted, permitting any eligible registrant worldwide to acquire second-level domains upon meeting standard requirements like and accurate , without proof of affiliation or purpose. Sponsored gTLDs, by contrast, feature sponsor-defined eligibility tied to specific communities, professions, or sectors—e.g., .aero limits registrations to aviation-related entities, enforced via verification processes outlined in the TLD's charter. For TLDs designated as "generic strings" (terms denoting broad classes of goods or services, per Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement), policy explicitly prohibits registries from imposing eligibility criteria, mandating open access to foster competition and prevent exclusionary practices. Violations or disputes over eligibility in restricted TLDs are adjudicated under the Eligibility Requirements Policy (ERDRP), which enables third-party challenges via mandatory administrative proceedings if a registrant demonstrably fails to meet published criteria. These rules, updated through consensus processes, balance accessibility with targeted uses, though critics note enforcement relies heavily on self-reporting by registries, potentially allowing lax verification in practice.

Technical Standards and DNS Integration

Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must adhere to established technical specifications for string composition, ensuring compatibility with the (DNS). Labels for gTLDs are required to consist of at least three characters in the case of internationalized domain names (IDNs), while ASCII-based labels must form valid hostnames as defined in RFC 952, incorporating only uppercase and lowercase Latin letters (A-Z, a-z), digits (0-9), and hyphens, with no leading or trailing hyphens permitted. These constraints derive from core DNS protocols outlined in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, which specify the structure and facilities for names, including hierarchical naming and resolution mechanisms. enforces additional rules, such as prohibiting strings composed entirely of numbers to avoid conflicts with numeric network identifiers or reserved formats. Integration of gTLDs into the global DNS occurs through formal delegation by the (IANA), which updates the with authoritative (NS) for the new TLD, rendering it resolvable worldwide. This process follows guidelines in RFC 1591, emphasizing the designation of a responsible manager for each domain's and ensuring ongoing access to TLD zones for operational stability, typically involving primary and secondary s. Upon ICANN's approval of a gTLD application, IANA performs the redelegation or initial delegation, verifying technical and administrative criteria before propagating changes to root servers operated by organizations like and ICANN itself. To enhance security and integrity, gTLD operators are encouraged to implement DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC), which provide cryptographic validation of DNS data through digital signatures, though adoption remains voluntary under current policies rather than a strict mandate for . Compliance with these standards is monitored via 's gTLD program, which categorizes registry obligations into areas like data accuracy and stability, ensuring seamless interoperability across the DNS infrastructure.

Expansion Efforts and Programs

Outcomes of the 2012–2015 Delegations

The 2012 New gTLD application round, initiated by on January 12, 2012, culminated in the delegation of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) starting in late 2013, with the process accelerating through 2015 as evaluations, objections, and contracting phases concluded for successful applicants. By December 2015, over 850 new gTLDs had been delegated into the , expanding the total number of gTLDs from 22 to more than 870 and introducing strings in categories such as geographic (.tokyo, delegated May 20, 2014), brand-specific (.google, though delegation finalized later), community (.catholic, delegated March 13, 2016, but prepared in 2015), and generic (.club, delegated May 1, 2014). This represented roughly two-thirds of the eventual 1,241 delegations from the 1,930 applications received by the March 29, 2012, deadline, with the remainder either withdrawn (646 cases), not approved (39), or pending beyond 2015. Initial delegations marked a technical milestone, with the first occurring on October 23, 2013, for the Arabic-script gTLD .شبكة (network), followed rapidly by others like .health (delegated November 2013) and .sale (January 2014), demonstrating stable integration into the global DNS without reported root zone disruptions. By February 6, 2015, the 500th delegation (.ntt) had been achieved, averaging roughly one per day in peak periods, enabled by streamlined contracting and root zone updates via IANA. Outcomes included enhanced namespace options for end-users, with early launches featuring sunrise periods for trademark holders and general availability phases; however, empirical registration data through 2015 indicated modest uptake, as legacy gTLDs like .com retained over 90% market share, attributable to user familiarity and marketing inertia rather than inherent technical flaws. Challenges during the 2012–2015 delegation window included resolution of over 100 Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) objections, leading to 20 strings being flagged for further review or non-delegation (e.g., .amazon resolved via auction), and private contention set auctions that generated over $100 million in revenue for ICANN while reallocating strings to higher bidders. Applicant withdrawals, often due to financial burdens exceeding the $185,000 base fee, reduced the pipeline, with 646 cases by program end, reflecting causal factors like competitive auctions and operational risks over optimistic revenue projections. Despite these, the delegations empirically validated ICANN's multi-stakeholder model for root zone stability, as no systemic security incidents arose from the expansion, though post-delegation monitoring highlighted varying registry performance.

Interim Developments and Evaluations (2016–2025)

Following the initial delegations from the 2012 application round, the initiated a comprehensive review through the Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, chartered on January 21, 2016, to experiences from the first round and recommend policy refinements for future expansions. This process incorporated findings from a 2014-2015 that analyzed operational challenges, including application delays, contention mechanisms, and efficacy, drawing on post-delegation data from 2013 onward. The working group, commencing activities on February 22, 2016, emphasized maintaining core principles of open competition while addressing stakeholder concerns over geographic name protections and generic string restrictions. The PDP working group released an Initial Report on July 3, 2018, soliciting public input on proposed changes such as enhanced predictability in objection processes and streamlined evaluations, followed by a Supplemental Initial Report on October 30, 2018, and a Draft Final Report on August 20, 2020. The Final Report, submitted January 18, 2021, contained 198 recommendations, including modifications to the Applicant Guidebook for clearer eligibility rules and improved base-fee structures to reduce barriers for diverse applicants. The GNSO Council adopted the report on February 18, 2021, forwarding it to the ICANN Board on March 24, 2021, which subsequently approved 98 recommendations to guide implementation. Parallel to policy refinement, launched the Operational Design Phase (ODP) on December 20, 2021, to assess risks, costs, and timelines for executing the recommendations, culminating in an Operational Design Assessment delivered to the Board in December 2022. The Board adopted initial implementation directives via a Scorecard resolution on March 16, 2023, with subsequent updates on September 10, 2023; October 26, 2023; and June 8, 2024, refining aspects like registry service provider evaluations and applicant support programs. An updated Implementation Plan was published by the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team in February 2024, incorporating feedback on fee predictability and geographic protections. Ongoing program reviews from 2016 to 2025 evaluated the first-round gTLDs' impacts on DNS stability, competition, , and rights protection mechanisms, such as the Uniform Rapid Suspension process, though specific quantitative findings remained internal or tied to PDP deliberations rather than standalone reports. In November 2024, ICANN opened a pre-evaluation window for registry service providers, running until May 20, 2025, to facilitate applicant readiness and mitigate first-round bottlenecks like technical compliance delays. These efforts collectively informed a more structured approach, prioritizing empirical lessons from operational data over unsubstantiated assumptions about expansion benefits.

Preparations for the 2026 Application Round

ICANN announced preparations for the next application round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs), with the submission period projected to open in April 2026 and last 12–15 weeks. This timeline follows completion of policy implementation efforts stemming from the 2012 round's evaluations and community feedback, including updates to the Applicant Guidebook, with draft version 30 released in May 2025. A key preparatory element is the Applicant Support Program (), designed to reduce financial barriers for applicants from underserved regions or communities by offering reductions and advisory services; qualified participants must submit applications during the April 2026 window and undergo standard evaluations. has also implemented pre-evaluation for registry service providers (RSPs), requiring them to submit details starting in late 2025 to ensure readiness, with applicants notified if their selected RSP declines support. These measures aim to streamline processing and mitigate delays experienced in prior rounds. Notable policy changes include prohibitions on "closed generic" applications, where a generic term is sought but restricted exclusively to the applicant's own usage, to prevent of common terms. The round will support internationalized domain names (IDNs) in 26 scripts aligned with existing IDN country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), expanding accessibility beyond Latin scripts used predominantly in 2012. Stakeholder consultations, including Governmental Advisory Committee () advice on prerequisites like enhanced protections against abusive registrations, have informed these updates to foster a more inclusive and structured process. Preparations emphasize brand and organizational readiness, with recommending 12–18 months of advance planning for evaluations on technical, operational, and financial criteria, amid expectations of higher due to refined eligibility rules. Progress reports as of October 2025 highlight milestones in ASP development and guidebook finalization, positioning the round as a continuation of diversification while addressing past criticisms on implementation timelines.

Controversies and Criticisms

Security Vulnerabilities and Abuse Rates

New generic top-level domains (gTLDs), introduced through ICANN's expansion program, have exhibited disproportionately high rates of abuse compared to legacy gTLDs like .com and .net, primarily due to lower barriers to registration and inconsistent enforcement of anti-abuse policies among operators. In April 2022, security threats—including , , and —affected 0.7% of domains in new gTLDs, roughly triple the 0.2% rate observed in legacy gTLDs. This disparity arises from the sheer volume of new gTLD registrations—over 1,200 delegations since 2012—coupled with practices such as automated, low-cost sign-ups that facilitate malicious actors. Phishing represents a dominant abuse vector, with new gTLDs hosting a concentrated share of incidents despite comprising a minority of total domains. Just 25 new gTLDs accounted for 90% of phishing domains within that category in 2023, while the Interisle Consulting Group's Phishing Landscape 2025 analysis revealed that nearly 90% of reported phishing domains in new gTLDs were maliciously registered rather than compromised legitimate sites. Phishing volume surged nearly 40% in the year ending August 2024, driven heavily by TLDs such as .shop, .top, and .xyz, where lax oversight by certain registrars enabled bulk registrations of deceptive domains mimicking brands or services. Similarly, email-related abuse is acute in post-2014 gTLDs like .uno, .sbs, and .beauty, where over 95% of outbound email traffic has been classified as spam or malicious by filtering systems. Malware and spam propagation also cluster in new gTLDs, often linked to registrars with minimal identity verification, such as those facilitating free or deeply discounted domains. Statistical models from 2017 onward show upward trends in absolute and incidents in new gTLDs, contrasting with stable or compromised-driven abuse in legacy TLDs. For instance, .tokyo reported 3,101 cybercrime-associated domains in 2024, down from 12,135 in 2023 but still indicative of persistent vulnerabilities in high-registration-volume strings. ICANN has addressed these issues through contractual amendments effective April 5, 2024, requiring gTLD registries and s to investigate DNS abuse reports (, , etc.) within 24 hours for critical cases and mitigate within one week. From April 2024 to August 2025, ICANN launched 400 investigations under this framework, issuing breach notices to one registry in July 2024 and one in September 2024. The Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) system, expanded via 2023 global amendments, now tracks -level metrics to identify concentrations, revealing that spikes—like 55% of March 2025 domains from one —stem from non-compliant entities. Critics argue these measures remain reactive and insufficient, as abuse persists amid fragmented enforcement across 1,000+ gTLD operators, underscoring systemic risks from the program's scale.

Economic Costs and Market Fragmentation

The 2012 new gTLD application round required a non-refundable [evaluation fee](/page/evaluation fee) of $185,000 per application, designed to cover 's processing and costs, with 1,930 applications generating over $350 million in . For the anticipated 2026 round, this has risen to $227,000, reflecting increased program complexity and excluding additional charges for auctions in contended strings or extended evaluations. Contention auctions alone yielded over $240 million for by 2016, funds retained regardless of outcomes. Registries face substantial ongoing operational expenses post-delegation, including annual fees of approximately $25,000 per TLD and backend technical services costing tens of thousands annually, often exceeding $100,000 for full-scale operations. These fixed costs, combined with low registration volumes in most new gTLDs, have led to commercial failures for numerous operators, as revenue from domain sales and renewals rarely offsets investments. Trademark holders have incurred elevated defensive registration and costs due to the of strings, with a 2017 International Association survey reporting average annual expenditures of $150,000 per respondent on monitoring and protective filings across new gTLDs. Registrations in these extensions were predominantly defensive (overwhelmingly so per INTA findings), diverting resources from productive uses without commensurate benefits in or market expansion. The expansion has fragmented the domain market by dispersing demand across more than 1,200 new gTLDs, which collectively hold only about 9.5% of global registrations as of mid-2024, with retention rates at 39% compared to 79% for legacy gTLDs. This dilution has increased user search costs and complexity, while empirical analyses show limited enhancements in price or , instead amplifying opportunities—new gTLDs exhibit abuse rates 32 times higher than legacy ones—and inefficient toward underutilized extensions.

Brand Defense Challenges and Defensive Registrations

Defensive registrations involve trademark holders preemptively securing domain names incorporating their marks in new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) to mitigate risks such as , , and brand impersonation. These registrations typically occur during sunrise periods, where eligible rights holders gain priority access before general availability, facilitated by mechanisms like the Clearinghouse (TMCH). However, the of over 1,200 new gTLDs since has exponentially expanded the namespace, compelling brands to evaluate registrations across hundreds of extensions, often prioritizing high-risk TLDs like .shop or .bank based on relevance to their operations. A primary challenge is the financial burden, as comprehensive coverage across all new gTLDs proves prohibitive for most organizations. The International Trademark Association's 2017 survey of brand owners revealed that new gTLD registrations were predominantly defensive, yet the program substantially elevated overall defense expenditures, with monitoring and diversion actions comprising the largest cost increases. Annual renewal fees per vary from $10 to over $1,000 in certain TLDs, accumulating significantly for portfolios spanning multiple marks and extensions; for instance, small organizations with extensive brand families face amplified strain from registering variations to counter . Effectiveness is further hampered by incomplete protections and enforcement gaps. While 41% of domains in analyzed new gTLDs were registered defensively per a WIPO report, 40% remained unused and 22% active, indicating inefficient without guaranteed prevention of abuse in non-registered spaces. Cybersquatters exploit misspellings or variant registrations outside defensive scopes, as seen in rising disputes within TLDs like , where trademark claims service notifications alert owners but require separate (UDRP) actions costing $1,500–$5,000 per case. Industry critiques, including from the Association of National Advertisers, argue that ICANN's rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) lack robustness at both top- and second-level domains, failing to scale with namespace growth and burdening brands with ongoing vigilance rather than systemic deterrence. Strategic adaptations include selective blocking services in select TLDs and automated monitoring, yet these do not eliminate risks from the impending application round, which could introduce further extensions amid confirmed $227,000 minimum application fees signaling sustained expansion. Defensive dot-brand gTLDs, such as or .apple, have seen renewals even among underutilized registries, generating revenue for but underscoring opportunity costs for brands diverting funds from active innovation to passive protection. Empirical assessments highlight that while RPMs resolve some infringements—WIPO handling thousands of UDRP cases annually—persistent abuse rates necessitate brands to balance risk against budgets, often forgoing full coverage in low-threat TLDs.

Broader Impacts and Future Prospects

Contributions to Namespace Diversity

The introduction of over 1,200 new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) through ICANN's 2012 application round fundamentally expanded the , increasing the total number of available TLD strings from fewer than 300 (primarily legacy gTLDs and country-code TLDs) to more than 1,500 by mid-2025, thereby providing users with a broader array of options beyond saturated extensions like .com. This structural diversification alleviates domain scarcity in established TLDs, where desirable second-level names had become prohibitively expensive or unavailable, enabling registrants to select extensions that more closely align with specific industries, brands, or communities. Among these additions, 151 internationalized domain names (IDNs) in non-Latin scripts—representing 37 languages across 23 scripts—were delegated as of June 2025, enhancing linguistic and cultural representation in the global namespace and supporting non-English-speaking populations previously constrained by ASCII-limited TLDs. Examples include scripts for , , Cyrillic, and , which facilitate domain registration in native orthographies and reduce reliance on transliterations into Latin characters. This IDN subset directly counters the historical Anglo-centric bias of the DNS, as the root zone prior to contained no non-Latin TLDs, limiting accessibility for over half the world's users. Thematically, new gTLDs introduced specialized such as .bank for financial institutions, .museum for cultural entities, and brand-specific TLDs like .google or .apple, partitioning the into semantically meaningful zones that improve navigational utility and reduce confusion inherent in flat, generic extensions. By design, this expansion promotes competition among registries and fosters innovation in domain usage, as evidenced by the delegation of diverse strings including geographic (.paris), professional (.lawyer), and generic (.app) categories, which collectively offer registrants greater expressiveness without altering core DNS protocols. While adoption rates vary— with some TLDs achieving millions of registrations and others fewer than 1,000—the mere availability of these options diversifies the overall architecture, enabling future scalability as internet-connected devices and users proliferate.

Empirical Assessments of Program Success

As of December 31, 2024, new generic top-level domains (ngTLDs) accounted for approximately 36.8 million registrations worldwide, representing a 15.9% year-over-year increase from the prior year and comprising about 10.1% of the total global stock of roughly 362 million across all top-level domains. This growth, while positive, has been uneven, with the majority of ngTLD volume concentrated in a small number of extensions such as .xyz (over 4 million domains) and .online, often driven by low-cost "penny" registrations that exhibit high volatility and lower quality. Renewal rates provide a more stringent measure of sustained adoption, averaging 45% for ngTLDs in 2023, significantly below legacy gTLDs like .com (around 80%) and indicating limited long-term value for many registrants. Subcategories show variance: .brand ngTLDs achieved 84% renewal rates due to defensive corporate use, while community-based ones lagged at 32%, reflecting challenges in building viable ecosystems. Overall remains modest after over a decade, with ngTLDs adding 16% growth in 2023 to reach 36 million registrations, yet capturing only 10% share amid dominance by established TLDs. The program's structural success is evident in expanding the domain namespace to over 1,200 delegated ngTLDs since 2012, fostering niche branding and innovation in areas like geoTLDs (67% renewal) and IDNs for multilingual access. However, empirical data underscores mixed outcomes: while select registries report revenue viability through premium sales and targeted adoption (e.g., for applications), broad consumer shift has not materialized, with many TLDs failing to exceed minimal registration thresholds and contributing to namespace fragmentation without proportional utility gains. evaluations emphasize enhanced competition and choice, but independent industry analyses highlight that high application costs and operational complexities have constrained broader success beyond defensive or speculative uses.

Anticipated Effects of Ongoing Expansions

The ongoing expansions of generic top-level domains (gTLDs), particularly through the anticipated application round, are expected to introduce additional strings in diverse scripts and languages, fostering greater namespace diversity and enabling tailored digital identities for businesses, communities, and non-Latin script users. projects this round to process around 2,000 applications, building on the prior addition of over 1,200 gTLDs from the program, with goals centered on promoting competition, innovation, and inclusion in the (DNS). These developments are projected to modestly expand the DNS market economically by increasing consumer choices and options, though empirical evidence from prior rounds indicates limited overall disruption to legacy TLD dominance like .com. Operationally, the expansions will impose higher costs on , estimated at $457 million for implementation—elevated from $300 million in 2012 due to , complexity, and system upgrades—offset partially by application fees of $227,000 per submission (excluding conditional evaluations). Stricter requirements in the 2026 round, including prohibitions on closed generic TLDs and mandates for robust , , and abuse safeguards, aim to mitigate past issues like disproportionate security vulnerabilities in certain new TLDs. However, these measures may reduce application volume from less-prepared applicants, particularly in underrepresented regions, despite support programs offering fee discounts of 75-85% for up to 45 eligible entities. For users and brands, anticipated benefits include enhanced opportunities, with 92% of surveyed leaders identifying potential for improved visibility and via custom gTLDs like dotBrands. Yet, projections highlight ongoing challenges such as defensive registrations to protect trademarks and minimal shifts in consumer , as the proliferation could exacerbate namespace fragmentation without proportionally boosting adoption rates observed in earlier expansions. Security analyses foresee continued needs for advanced mechanisms to counter abuse, given historical patterns where some new gTLDs exhibited elevated DNS threats, potentially straining global cybersecurity efforts if not addressed through enhanced evaluation processes. Overall, while expansions are poised to sustain incremental DNS evolution, their net effects hinge on effective policy implementation to balance innovation against operational and risk burdens.

References

  1. [1]
    Archives | Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) - ICANN
    Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". ... defined group of stakeholders, known as the Sponsored TLD ...
  2. [2]
    List of Top-Level Domains - icann
    List of Top-Level Domains. A list of all valid top-level domains is maintained by the IANA and is updated from time to time.
  3. [3]
    History of the New gTLD Program - ICANN
    In 2000, ICANN launched the first round of applications for new generic top-level domains. It included the delegation of .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, . ...
  4. [4]
    About the Program | ICANN New gTLDs
    The New gTLD Program is an initiative coordinated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), that is enabling the largest expansion of ...
  5. [5]
    New gTLD Program: Next Round - icann
    The New gTLD Program: Next Round is expected to open in April 2026. This timing is based on Policy Implementation work, which is estimated to conclude no later ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Fact Sheet - icann
    gTLD stands for generic top-level domain. A gTLD is an. Internet extension such as .COM, .ORG, or .INFO. It is part of the structure of the Internet's domain ...
  7. [7]
    .INFO Registry Agreement | Functional and Performance ... - icann
    Registry operators are the organizations that maintain the master database of all domain names registered under a particular generic top-level domain (gTLD).
  8. [8]
    [PDF] User Documentation on Delegating and Redelegating a Generic Top
    This is a guide to the generic top-level domain (gTLD) redelegation process. This process is used when the IANA Root Zone Database must be updated to reflect a ...Missing: characteristics functionality
  9. [9]
    Root Zone Database - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
    The Root Zone Database represents delegation details of top-level domains, including gTLDs like .com and country-code TLDs like .uk.Com Domain Delegation Data · Domains Domain Delegation... · Root Servers
  10. [10]
    Criteria to Be Used in the Selection of New Sponsored TLDs - ICANN
    Mar 25, 2003 · The difference between sponsored and unsponsored TLDs has been described as follows: Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under ...
  11. [11]
    Frequently Asked Questions | ICANN New gTLDs
    New generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) help achieve that commitment by paving the way for increased consumer choice by facilitating competition among registry ...Missing: functionality | Show results with:functionality
  12. [12]
    RFC 920: Domain requirements
    This memo is a policy statement on the requirements of establishing a new domain in the ARPA-Internet and the DARPA research community.
  13. [13]
    And the DNS was Born - Information Sciences Institute
    Mar 6, 2025 · Paul Mockapetris recounts the creation of the Domain Name System at ISI in the 1980s, forever changing how we navigate the internet.Missing: 1985 | Show results with:1985
  14. [14]
    June 23, 1983: DNS Test Sets Stage for Internet Growth | WIRED
    Jun 23, 2011 · Paul Mockapetris and Jon Postel run the first successful test of the automated, distributed Domain Name System.
  15. [15]
    Domain Arpa - The History of Domain Names
    The domain arpa was the first Internet top-level domain. It was intended to be used only temporarily, aiding in the transition of traditional ARPANET host ...
  16. [16]
    Domain Name Industry | History, facts, figures
    Jun 1, 2024 · In October 1984, only six top-level domains were available: .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, and .mil. In the RFC 920 “Domain requirements” the ...<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Symbolics.com is the first registered .com domain name - Stackscale
    Mar 15, 2023 · Symbolics.com is the first and oldest .com domain name on the Internet; registered back on March 15, 1985 by Symbolics, Inc.Missing: gTLD | Show results with:gTLD
  18. [18]
    Top-Level Domain History: From Engineering Need To Marketing Perk
    May 8, 2020 · Initially, the ownership of the top-level domain system rested with the federal government through ARPANET, but as the internet grew, management ...
  19. [19]
    Management of Internet Names and Addresses - icann
    The registration and propagation of these key gTLDs are performed by NSI, under a five-year cooperative agreement with NSF. This agreement expires on September ...
  20. [20]
    ICANN 's Historical Relationship with the U.S. Government
    ICANN grew out of a 1998 commitment from the US Government to transfer the management of the domain name system to a new non-profit corporation based in the US.
  21. [21]
    Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of ...
    Dec 31, 1999 · On June 5, 1998, the DOC published its Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses, 63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998) (Statement of ...
  22. [22]
    Timeline for the Formulation and Implementation of the Uniform ...
    5 June 1998, The U.S. Government issues its White Paper, calling for creation of not-for-profit corporation (later ICANN) to handle consensus-based ...
  23. [23]
    New gTLDs Background - At-Large
    In 2000, seven new TLDs were introduced, and in 2004, eight more were made available. In 2012, ICANN launched the New gTLD ProgramOpens a new window which ...
  24. [24]
    Final Report - Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains - GNSO
    May 1, 2018 · Some new generic top-level domains should be internationalised domain names (IDNs) subject to the approval of IDNs being available in the root.
  25. [25]
    [PDF] ICANN Board Rationales for the Approval of the Launch of the New ...
    Jun 19, 2011 · Based upon the report and recommendation from the GNSO to introduce new gTLDs, the Board decided to proceed with the new gTLD program.
  26. [26]
    New gTLD Update (30 May 2012) - icann
    May 30, 2012 · The TLD Application System (TAS) closed on 30 May 2012. ICANN received more than 1900 applications for new generic top-level domains ...Missing: initial rollout timeline
  27. [27]
    New gTLD Program (2012) - ICANNWiki
    The first application round started on January 12, 2012, and ended on April 20, 2012, during which applicants applied via the TLD Application System (TAS) to ...Missing: timeline | Show results with:timeline
  28. [28]
    Roadmap for Processing New gTLD Applications | ICANN New gTLDs
    Aug 17, 2012 · In June 2012 ICANN published close to 2,000 applications for new gTLDs. The processing of these applications consists broadly of two phases: ...Missing: rollout | Show results with:rollout
  29. [29]
    Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism ... - icann
    To offer a Start-Date Sunrise, a Registry Operator must provide at least 30 days notice to ICANN org and Trademark Clearinghouse before the start date of the ...
  30. [30]
    Dawn of a New Internet Era - icann
    Oct 23, 2013 · All new gTLD Registry operators must conduct a Sunrise period of no less than 30 days. Following this, operators are free to make their domains ...
  31. [31]
    TLD STARTUP INFORMATION | ICANN New gTLDs
    The dates published on this page reflect the Sunrise Period, Claims Period and, if applicable, the Qualified Launch Program, Approved Launch Program and ...
  32. [32]
    IDN Committee : Discussion Paper on Registry Selection ... - icann
    Jun 13, 2002 · An unsponsored generic TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process. Examples of ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Strategy: Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains - icann
    Sep 30, 2004 · TLD types or definitions are described by sponsored v. unsponsored and restricted v. unrestricted. o Generally speaking, an unsponsored gTLD ...Missing: functionality | Show results with:functionality
  34. [34]
    IANA Report on the Delegation of the .POST Top-Level Domain
    Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Unsponsored Top Level Domains - Hostway
    May 12, 2009 · In January of 1985, there were only six domain names available, three of them fall into the unsponsored category: .com, .org and .net. While .Missing: list gTLDs
  36. [36]
    Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement - icann
    Registry operators are the organizations that maintain the master database of all domain names registered under a particular generic top-level domain (gTLD).
  37. [37]
    Proposed TLD Sponsorship Agreement - icann
    Aug 29, 2001 · "Sponsored TLD" refers to the [insert TLD label] TLD. 1.19. "Sponsored TLD Community" means the community defined in Subsection 3.1. 1.20 ...
  38. [38]
    gTLD vs TLD: What They Are and Why They Matter - Vercara - DigiCert
    Sep 11, 2025 · A generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) is a category of TLD that is not tied to any geographic location. As the name implies, these domains were ...
  39. [39]
    What is a Generic Top-Level Domain? Should We Use It?
    Non-sponsored generic top-level domains are open to anyone to purchase. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) monitors these domains.
  40. [40]
    Sponsored Top level Domain - ICANNWiki
    Four new unsponsored TLDs .biz, .info, .name, and .pro and the three other ... List of Sponsored Top Level Domains edit .aero - sponsored by SITA .asia ...
  41. [41]
    geoTLD - ICANNWiki
    A geoTLD is a top-level domain created by ICANN to represent geographical, geopolitical, ethnic, social, or cultural aspects, like .asia or .eu.
  42. [42]
    New gTLD Use Cases
    These use cases tell the story of a TLD, including its considerations and business impact. They are intended for use as educational resources.
  43. [43]
    TOP 10 GEOGRAPHIC NEW GTLD EXTENSIONS - Globe Runner
    Jul 16, 2015 · Here's our list of the top 10 geographic New gTLD extensions. 1 .nrw 2 .scot 3 .brussels 4 .eus 5 .bzh 6 .bayern 7 .hamburg 8 ...
  44. [44]
    Brand TLD - ICANNWiki
    A Brand TLD (dotBrand) is an innovative type of top level domain name (TLD) that is made possible through the implementation of ICANN's new gTLD Program.Reactions to Brand TLDs · Initial Speculation on Demand...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Understanding the gTLD Opportunity for Brands
    May 20, 2025 · For brands, operating a gTLD can be an opportunity to enhance brand identity, improve customer engagement, foster innovation, and expand global ...
  46. [46]
    The Top 6 of growing Brand TLDs of 2024: practices and strategies
    Mar 19, 2025 · Using ICANN data1, Afnic has established a ranking of brand TLDs. Several actors stand out, notably: .DVAG, .ALLFINANZ, .SCHWARZ, .AMAZON ...
  47. [47]
    Glossary | ICANN New gTLDs
    Generic top-level domain, See gTLD. ; Glue record, An explicit notation of the IP address of a name server, placed in a zone outside of the zone that would ...<|separator|>
  48. [48]
    Procedure for Community gTLD Change Requests - icann
    Jun 1, 2018 · 1.1 A Community gTLD is defined as a gTLD that has a Registry Agreement with ICANN that includes Specification 12 with the section title " ...
  49. [49]
    2025 domain name statistics: how many domains are there?
    Dec 30, 2024 · One of the most dynamic segments of the industry is the new generic TLDs (ngTLDs), which grew by 2.4% from Q2 to Q3 2024, reaching 35.4 million ...
  50. [50]
    The DNIB Quarterly Report Q1 2025 | Domain Name Industry Brief
    Total new generic TLD (ngTLD) domain name registrations were 37.8 million at the end of the first quarter of 2025, an increase of 1.0 million domain name ...
  51. [51]
    Global Domain Activity Trends Seen in Q2 2025 - CircleID
    Aug 12, 2025 · While the gTLD domain registration increased by 15.3%, the ccTLD domain registration decreased by 2.7%.
  52. [52]
    Q4 2024 domain industry numbers: who made the top 10?
    Feb 19, 2025 · The top 10 TLDs by number of registrations at the end of 2024 were: ·.com, 156.3 M ·.cn, 19.7 M ; If we look just at gTLDs, the top 10 changes to ...
  53. [53]
    The DNIB Quarterly Report Q4 2024 | Domain Name Industry Brief
    Top 10 Largest gTLDs by Number of Reported Domain Names. The top 10 gTLDs, as of Dec. 31, 2024, were .com, .net, .org, .xyz, .info, .shop, .online, .top, .
  54. [54]
    Most Popular TLDs in 2025: What You Need to Know - Accio
    Sep 17, 2025 · The main trends are the dominance of .com, growth of new gTLDs like .ai, and the role of ccTLDs. For the .com section, I'll use data from ...
  55. [55]
    Top 10 new gTLDs 2024 | Snapshot Hub by InterNetX
    Jun 5, 2024 · Remarkably, these top 10 extensions accounted for over half of all new gTLD domain name registrations this year, claiming 53.2% combined.
  56. [56]
    25 Domain name statistics and trends to know in 2025 - Hostinger
    Aug 26, 2025 · CSC's 2024-2025 Domain Security Report showed that 48% of third-party registered domains are repurposed for pay-per-click ads, domain ...
  57. [57]
    The DNIB Quarterly Report Q3 2025 | Domain Name Industry Brief
    Total new generic TLD (ngTLD) domain name registrations were 42.9 million at the end of the third quarter of 2025, an increase of 3.4 million domain name ...Data And Analysis · Executive Summary · Top 10 Largest Gtlds By...
  58. [58]
    The DNIB Quarterly Report Q2 2025 | Domain Name Industry Brief
    Total new generic TLD (ngTLD) domain name registrations were 39.5 million at the end of the second quarter of 2025, an increase of 1.7 million domain name ...Data And Analysis · Executive Summary · Top 10 Largest Gtlds By...
  59. [59]
    Publication of the 2024 global domain name market observatory report
    Jul 15, 2025 · Other Legacy TLDs grew slightly at +0.6%, boosted by the .ORG domain (+3%, high retention rate of 83.2%) and some highly dynamic “small” yet ...
  60. [60]
  61. [61]
    Domain Industry 2025: Current Landscape and Key Market Data
    Mar 25, 2025 · Although the market faced some fluctuations, by 2024, new gTLD registrations reached nearly 37 million—a 922% growth over a decade.
  62. [62]
    The Rise and Fall of New (TLDs) Top-Level Domains: What Went ...
    The technical aspects of using new TLDs started becoming more evident as adoption increased. Browser compatibility, SEO disadvantages, and even email filtering ...Introduction · New Tld Hype And Hope: A... · Market Saturation And...
  63. [63]
    Why .COM Still Rules in 2025 — And When to Avoid It - Nominus.com
    Market Reality Check: .com's registration base is nearly 8 times larger than the second-biggest TLD, demonstrating unprecedented market concentration that ...
  64. [64]
    New gTLDs data study + 13 statistics and findings - Namecheap
    Mar 16, 2022 · In this article, you will find everything you need to know about New gTLDs, which can assist in your future decisions regarding registering your domain names.New Gtlds, Class Of... · 10,000+ Domains Registered · New Gtlds SurveyMissing: trends | Show results with:trends
  65. [65]
    Beyond registration numbers: how popular are new generic TLDs?
    How are new Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) used and how much traffic do they attract? We dived into our data and made some interesting discoveries.Missing: influencing adoption
  66. [66]
    New Research Reveals Marketing Leaders See Strong Potential in ...
    May 20, 2025 · 52% of marketing leaders believe generic top-level domains (gTLDs – the three characters or more that come after the dot in a URL) have strong potential for ...Missing: factors patterns
  67. [67]
    Do TLDs Affect SEO? - Semrush
    Dec 21, 2020 · Using an alternate domain extension does affect SEO. But whether the impact is negative or positive depends on the TLD you choose.Missing: usage | Show results with:usage
  68. [68]
    Delegating a generic top-level domain
    Oct 21, 2013 · The delegation process results in the “NS” records being placed in the DNS root zone to make the domain active in the domain name system.
  69. [69]
    Pre-Delegation Testing (PDT) | ICANN New gTLDs
    Pre-Delegation Testing ensures that an applicant has the capacity to operate a new generic Top-Level Domain in a stable, secure manner.
  70. [70]
    New gTLD Program Delegation Deadlines - icann
    Apr 21, 2016 · The New gTLD Registry Agreement defines a 12-month period after contract execution during which the registry operator must delegate its TLD.
  71. [71]
    gTLD Registry Agreements - icann
    gTLD Registry Agreements establish the rights, duties, liabilities, and obligations ICANN requires of registry operators to run gTLDs.
  72. [72]
    [PDF] Registry Agreement - New gTLD Program
    (a). All domain name registrations in the TLD must be registered through an ICANN accredited registrar; provided, that Registry Operator need not use a ...
  73. [73]
    About gTLD Compliance Program - ICANN
    The gTLD Compliance Program was developed by dividing the contractual provisions of the gTLD registry agreement into general Compliance Areas.
  74. [74]
    Registry Transition Processes - icann
    Critical Functions: Functions that are critical to the operation of a gTLD registry: DNS resolution; DNSSEC properly signed zone (if DNSSEC is offered by the ...
  75. [75]
    gTLD Registry Agreement Renewals - icann
    New gTLDs from the 2012 New gTLD Program are governed by the Base Registry Agreement (RA) with initial 10-year terms. The agreements are expected to renew ...
  76. [76]
    FAQs - ICANN
    What are the rules for registration of gTLD names? The rules vary depending on the nature of the gTLD . For an overview of all gTLDs, ...
  77. [77]
    [PDF] New gTLD Registry Code of Conduct (Specification 9) FAQs
    Mar 18, 2014 · A6: Under Section 3(d) of Specification 11, a Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering ...
  78. [78]
    Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy - ICANN
    This policy addresses disputes over domain name eligibility, requiring mandatory administrative proceedings when a third party challenges a domain name's  ...
  79. [79]
    [PDF] New gTLD Program: IDN 3-Character Requirement | ICANN
    Feb 15, 2010 · Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains –. These requirements apply to all prospective top-level domains applied for as ...
  80. [80]
    RFC 1034 - Domain names - concepts and facilities - IETF
    This RFC is an introduction to the Domain Name System (DNS), and omits many details which can be found in a companion RFC, "Domain Names - Implementation and ...
  81. [81]
    RFC 1035 - Domain names - implementation and specification
    This RFC describes the details of the domain system and protocol, and assumes that the reader is familiar with the concepts discussed in a companion RFC.
  82. [82]
    RFC 1591 - Domain Name System Structure and Delegation
    This memo provides some information on the structure of the names in the Domain Name System (DNS), specifically the top-level domain names; and on the ...Missing: integration gTLDs
  83. [83]
    Relevant Standards, IAB Statements, and Reports - ICANN
    The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] New gTLD Fast Facts
    Through the program, the number of gTLDs will increase from 22 to more than a thousand. The New gTLD Program has made it possible for communities, governments, ...
  85. [85]
    500+ New gTLDs Introduced into the Internet - icann
    Feb 6, 2015 · NTT (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) was the 500th new gTLD to be delegated, with new domains rolling out at an average of one per day. The New ...Missing: 2013-2015 | Show results with:2013-2015
  86. [86]
    Program Statistics | ICANN New gTLDs
    Current Statistics (Updated monthly) ; gTLD Startup Statistics (as of 2 October 2025) ; Sunrise ; Completed, 642 ; In Progress, 1 ; Not Started, 0.
  87. [87]
    [PDF] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO
    ... 2015, nearly 800 gTLDs have been delegated and introduced into the DNS10 with approximately 550 still proceeding through the New. gTLD Program. In June 2014 ...<|separator|>
  88. [88]
    2012 New gTLD Round
    The 2012 round of the New gTLD Program resulted in more than 1,200 new gTLDs being delegated into the Internet's root zone, the top of the Domain Name System ...Missing: 2012-2015 delegations outcomes
  89. [89]
    PDP New gTLD Subsequent Procedures - GNSO - icann
    Jan 13, 2025 · In June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program.
  90. [90]
    [PDF] Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures ... - GNSO
    Jan 18, 2021 · The objective of this Final Report is to present final recommendations, implementation guidance, and other outputs on topics within the ...
  91. [91]
    New gTLD Program Next Round - GAC
    The ICANN Board approved ninety-eight (98) recommendations contained in the Final Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, and ...Missing: interim evaluations
  92. [92]
    ICANN Launches New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Operational ...
    Dec 20, 2021 · The ODP is a period in which ICANN org develops and provides the ICANN Board with relevant information to facilitate the Board's determination.<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Subsequent Procedures Implementation - icann
    Feb 1, 2024 · In February 2024, the Subsequent Procedures IRT published an updated version of the Implementation Plan for New gTLD Subsequent.
  94. [94]
    New gTLD Program Reviews | ICANN New gTLDs
    ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the internet's root zone since the first delegations occurred in October ...Missing: 2016-2025 | Show results with:2016-2025<|control11|><|separator|>
  95. [95]
    ICANN Opens New gTLD Registry Service Provider Evaluation ...
    Nov 19, 2024 · There are two distinct periods during which RSPs may be evaluated: 19 November 2024 to 20 May 2025, and again during the New gTLD Program: Next ...Missing: developments 2016-2025
  96. [96]
    Update on New gTLD Program: Next Round - icann
    May 27, 2025 · The documents cover the issues, challenges, and other matters that may arise in the course of applying for a new gTLD. ICANN is also creating ...Missing: 2016-2025 | Show results with:2016-2025
  97. [97]
    ICANN New gTLD Next Round - John Matson Consulting
    Are you looking to apply in ICANN's Round 2 for a new gTLD? ICANN has announced that the Round 2 Application Window will open Q2 2026.
  98. [98]
    Applicant Support Program - New gTLD Program - icann
    Qualified supported applicants must also apply for a gTLD in April 2026 when the Next Round is expected to open and be evaluated according to the criteria in ...ASP Handbook · ASP FAQs · Apply to the ASP · ASP Program Statistics
  99. [99]
    [PDF] A More Inclusive Internet: New Generic Top-Level Domains
    gTLD applicants will be notified if the evaluated RSP they select is unwilling to provide RSP support. Submission Period: Expected to open April 2026 for 12-15 ...
  100. [100]
    What's New in the 2026 gTLD Application Round - FairWinds Partners
    Sep 11, 2025 · For the 2026 round, ICANN has prohibited such applications. Applicants cannot apply for a generic term and restrict its use solely to their own ...
  101. [101]
    Next Round FAQs | New gTLD Program - icann
    The application submission period for new gTLDs is expected to open in Q2 2026. ... ICANN will accept applications for new gTLDs in the 26 scripts that are ...
  102. [102]
    ICANN's Next Round of New generic Top-Level Domains in 2026
    With an April 2026 application window, some organizations may feel there is plenty of time. The reality is that preparation requires at least 12–18 months.
  103. [103]
    The Latest New gTLD Program Achievements - icann
    Oct 9, 2025 · The RSP Pre-Evaluation Program closed on 20 May 2025 with 35 RSP applications currently under evaluation and processing.
  104. [104]
    DNS abuse trends - APNIC Blog
    Jun 14, 2022 · As Figure 4 shows, in April 2022, security threat domains for all threat types are 0.7% of all domain names in new gTLDs and closer to 0.2% in ...
  105. [105]
    [PDF] Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs
    While the number of abused domains remains approximately constant in legacy gTLDs, we observe a clear upward trend in the absolute number of phishing and ...
  106. [106]
    [PDF] Phishing Landscape 2023 - CAIDA.org
    Aug 9, 2023 · Year after year, just 25 new gTLDs account for 90% of all new gTLD phishing domains. Two-thirds of domain names reported for phishing across all ...
  107. [107]
    [PDF] Phishing Landscape 2025 - Domain Name Wire
    Sep 11, 2025 · Nearly nine out of ten domains reported in the new gTLDs were maliciously registered. Subdomain abuse fell markedly as domain name abuse grew.
  108. [108]
    Why Phishers Love New TLDs Like .shop, .top and .xyz
    Dec 3, 2024 · Phishing attacks increased nearly 40 percent in the year ending August 2024, with much of that growth concentrated at a small number of new ...
  109. [109]
    From .com to .beauty: The evolving threat landscape of unwanted ...
    Mar 26, 2024 · These TLDs, such as .uno, .sbs, and .beauty, all introduced since 2014, have seen over 95% of their emails flagged as spam or malicious.
  110. [110]
    [PDF] A Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in New gTLDs - Maciej Korczynski
    The results suggest that similar to phishing, malware abuse rates in legacy gTLDs are mainly driven by compromised domains (cf.
  111. [111]
    [PDF] Cybercrime Supply Chain 2024 - M3AAWG |
    Nov 18, 2024 · TOKYO had a notable number of cybercrime domains reported (3,101 in 2024, down from 12,135 in 2023), and this particular new gTLD has had ...<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    ICANN's DNS Abuse Mitigation Program: Key Updates from 2024
    The amendments, which received broad support from generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries and ICANN-accredited registrars, became effective on 5 April 2024.Missing: 2023 | Show results with:2023
  113. [113]
  114. [114]
    How have the gTLD contractual amendments impacted DNS Abuse?
    Dec 16, 2024 · The new gTLD contract amendments, introduced in April 2024, created obligations for registrars and registries to mitigate DNS Abuse.
  115. [115]
    2023 Global Amendments to the Base gTLD Registry Agreement ...
    This change will enable ICANN to extend the DAAR project metrics to registrars to study DNS security threat concentrations across registrars. Following ...<|separator|>
  116. [116]
    Recent spike in malicious phishing concentrated in two registrars
    Aug 13, 2025 · In March 2025, a single registrar (Dominet HK Limited, IANA 3775) registered 55% of the unique domains associated with phishing (20,133), while ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
  117. [117]
    New gTLDs: Are they a success? - Netcraft
    Apr 12, 2017 · accountant gTLD was approved by ICANN and delegated in March 2015. Netcraft's survey found more than 50 times as many domains registered ...
  118. [118]
    ICANN confirms new gTLD application fee - Domain Incite
    Sep 25, 2024 · It's $227,000. That's the minimum ICANN expects to charge for each new gTLD application in the Next Round. The Org confirmed the price, ...
  119. [119]
    Accountability and Transition in ICANN's New gTLD Program
    Aug 16, 2016 · ICANN is currently expanding new top level domain names (TLDs) beyond familiar TLDs such as .com and .edu to hundreds of new domain names under ...
  120. [120]
    How much are new gTLDs going to cost? - Quora
    Sep 16, 2013 · To give you a rough answer, you will need approximately $185,000 usd to apply for a gTLD, and an annual renewal cost of some $25,000 usd. But ...<|separator|>
  121. [121]
  122. [122]
    INTA study reveals cost of new gTLDs to brand owners as ICANN ...
    Jun 30, 2017 · Now, a new study from INTA reveals that member registrations in new TLDs have been “overwhelmingly made for defensive purposes”.
  123. [123]
    DNIB Quarterly Report Q2 2024 | Domain Name Industry Brief
    As of June 30, 2024, the 10 largest TLDs by number of reported domain names were .com, .cn, .de, .net, .org, .uk, .ru, .nl, .br and .au. For the top 10 ...
  124. [124]
    [PDF] The Global Domain Name Market in 2021 | Afnic
    MOBI, etc. nTLD (new Top-Level Domain): generic TLD created after 2014. nTLDs are divided into several sub-segments such as geoTLDs (regions, cities, etc ...
  125. [125]
    Blog: New gTLD Abuse Analysis - DNS Research Federation
    Jul 30, 2025 · Each new active gTLD was classified into one or more of the following categories, based on ICANN designation, registry marketing, and usage ...
  126. [126]
    [PDF] Cost-Benefit Analysis Overview-Response to Follow-up on ... - icann
    Jan 22, 2024 · This subteam examined the effects of the entry of new gTLDs on price and non-price competition in the expanded domain name marketplace, as well ...
  127. [127]
    Understanding the Trademark Clearinghouse
    With the internet experiencing an unprecedented expansion, over 1200 new gTLDs have already launched, accumulating more than 36 million registered names.<|control11|><|separator|>
  128. [128]
    New gTLD Cost Impact Survey - International Trademark Association
    Jun 26, 2017 · In 2017, we commissioned a study on the impact that the new and expanded gTLDs have had on enforcement costs for IP owners.Missing: economic | Show results with:economic
  129. [129]
    Informed Defensive Domain Strategies Balance Risk Against Budget ...
    Mar 29, 2022 · Some ccTLDs and new gTLDs are up to $1000/year each so shedding any superfluous ones will definitely benefit the bottom line.
  130. [130]
    [PDF] An In-depth Analysis of Defensive Domain Registration Practices ...
    Moreover, registering multiple domains may lead to a significant financial burden, especially for small organizations with large brand portfolios to protect [7] ...
  131. [131]
    New Generic Top-Level Domains: Intellectual Property ... - WIPO
    name domain is an unsponsored gTLD that is restricted to registrations of personal names (described as the legal name of an individual or the name by which ...
  132. [132]
    Cybersquatting in the .SHOP gTLD: A Growing Concern
    Nov 4, 2024 · Cybersquatting, sometimes also referred to as typosquatting, is the abusive practice of targeting trademark-branded domain names for registration.
  133. [133]
    ANA Urges ICANN to Adopt Effective Mechanism for Limited ...
    The cost to brand owners (and thus consumers and others) to acquire defensive registrations across all the new domains could easily reach $7-$14 billion in ...Missing: INTA | Show results with:INTA
  134. [134]
    Defensive dot-brands are renewing, making ICANN millions
    Dec 9, 2024 · Companies that have not used their dot-brand gTLDs in a decade are nevertheless renewing their registry contracts with ICANN, leading to a ...
  135. [135]
    WIPO Observations on New gTLD Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
    Below is a summary of broader WIPO policy observations on ICANN's trademark-based New gTLD dispute resolution mechanisms.
  136. [136]
    [PDF] Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Report - June 2024 | ICANN
    Jul 31, 2024 · As of June 2024, the total number of delegated top-level domains (TLDs) is 1,4471. Table 1 shows the breakdown into American Standard Code ...
  137. [137]
    ICANN Highlights IDN Progress With Release of IDN Annual Report ...
    Aug 5, 2025 · As of June 2025, a total of 151 TLDs have been delegated as IDNs, representing 37 languages across 23 scripts. The Chinese script remains ...Missing: new | Show results with:new
  138. [138]
    About the Program - New gTLD Program
    The New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program is a community-driven initiative that's enabling the continued expansion of the Domain Name System (DNS).
  139. [139]
    [PDF] Status Update: New gTLD Program: Next Round | ICANN
    May 24, 2024 · Among other goals, the program aims to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS.
  140. [140]
    Growth Of New Generic Top-Level Domains Impacting Traditional ...
    Apr 3, 2025 · The growth of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is reshaping the domain name industry, introducing a wave of innovation and diversification.Missing: fragmentation effects<|separator|>
  141. [141]
  142. [142]
    [PDF] The Global Domain Name Market in 2023 | Afnic
    nTLD (new Top-Level Domain): generic TLD created after 2014. nTLDs are divided into several sub-segments such as geoTLDs (regions, cities, etc.), community ...
  143. [143]
    [PDF] ICANN Annual Report
    Oct 25, 2024 · ICANN published the Registration Data Policy in February 2024. The consensus policy is based on recommendations from the Generic Names ...
  144. [144]
    ICANN Sets Expected Evaluation Fee for New gTLD Applications in ...
    Sep 25, 2024 · The expected fee will be USD $227,000. The cost was determined following program-related decisions made during the recent ICANN Board of ...
  145. [145]
    PitchDot: Getting Ready for ICANN's New gTLD Round, the Smart ...
    The 2026 round will be more demanding than ever. Applicants will need to show strong governance, financial stability, and safeguards against abuse. They'll also ...Missing: anticipated | Show results with:anticipated
  146. [146]
    The new gTLD Next Round is really happening as two ICANN ...
    Dec 2, 2024 · ICANN has set aside $10 million for the ASP and expects to offer up to 45 applicants a discount of between 75% and 85% on the base application ...Missing: anticipated | Show results with:anticipated<|separator|>