ICANN has received 1,615 applications for the next round of generic top-level domains, opening the first major expansion of the internet's naming system since 2012. The proposed strings range from corporate names such as .adidas, .adobe, .airbnb, .cloudflare, .stripe, .tiktok and .zoom to cryptocurrency terms such as .bitcoin, .ethereum and .crypto, and artificial intelligence strings such as .agent, .llm, .openai and .anthropic. The scale of the filing set shows how much the internet has changed since the last round, when 1,241 new gTLDs were added. ICANN has described the next round as a chance to adjust the program after more than a decade of operational experience, policy review and community debate.

A generic top-level domain is the portion of an internet address that appears to the right of the final dot. It is the broad category under which second-level domains are registered. When the domain system began in 1985, there were only a few primary TLDs: .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov and .mil. The number of TLDs grew in small fits and spurts until 2012, when 1,241 new gTLDs were added. That round transformed the namespace by introducing hundreds of new alternatives to .com and other legacy TLDs. The current application set could bring roughly 1,600 new names into the process, although not every application will survive evaluation, objection or delegation.

Key facts at a glance

• ICANN received 1,615 applications for the new gTLD round, the first since 2012.
• North America accounts for 864 applications, Europe for 506, Asia/Australia/Pacific for 218, Latin America and the Caribbean for 11, and Africa for 1.
• There are 333 brand applications, at least 29 artificial intelligence strings, at least 31 cryptocurrency and blockchain strings, at least 16 network and developer strings, and 15 self-identified geographic applications.
• Some 263 names have more than one applicant. .agent is the most contested string with 13 applicants, followed by .bit with 11, and .api, .brand and .hub with 10 each.
• String Confirmation Day is set for November 17, 2026. The Community Input and Objections Period runs to March 16, 2027, and a Prioritization Draw is scheduled for the first half of 2027.

What is different from the 2012 round

ICANN has changed several parts of the application process after the 2012 round. One major change is a standalone Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program. Registry service providers run the back-end operations for a registry operator. Some operators act as their own provider, while others outsource the work. Providers can now be pre-evaluated, so the technical review does not have to happen at the same time as the application evaluation. That change is intended to separate technical readiness from the broader application review and to give applicants more flexibility in how they structure their registry operations.

The Applicant Support Program offers financial support to applicants who need it. The program received 76 applications this round, and 56 qualified. Of those, 51 submitted a gTLD application. In 2012, the program received three applications and one applicant progressed. The difference shows a broader effort to widen participation beyond large companies and well-funded registry operators. Applicants can now also apply for variant gTLDs, in part because the ICANN community has developed mechanisms to manage these TLDs. A variant TLD is an Internationalized Domain Name that can be registered in different ways because of variations in the spelling of words in a given language.

There is also an evaluation of and commitment to trademark rights protections. The ICANN community engaged in an extensive policy review of the rules and protections from the 2012 round through the Review of Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process. That work matters because a larger namespace creates more opportunities for brand owners, but it also creates more room for confusion, cybersquatting and disputes over names that resemble established trademarks. The application process now includes checks and commitments intended to address those risks before new strings move toward delegation.

Applications by region and category

The regional distribution of applications is heavily weighted toward North America and Europe. North America accounts for 864 applications, and Europe accounts for 506. Asia, Australia and the Pacific account for 218. Africa accounts for 1, while Latin America and the Caribbean account for 11. Those numbers suggest that the next gTLD round remains concentrated among applicants in wealthier and more established internet markets, even as ICANN has tried to lower barriers through applicant support and process changes.

Corporate brands make up a large share of the filing set. The 333 brand applications include technology and cloud names such as .adobe, .cloudflare, .datadog, .salesforce, .shopify, .slack, .snowflake and .stripe. Consumer platforms include .facebook, .instagram, .whatsapp, .tiktok, .zoom, .airbnb and .uber. Other brand names include .adidas, .newbalance, .bankofamerica and .goldmansachs. For large companies, a branded gTLD can serve as a controlled namespace for products, campaigns, customer services and internal systems. It can also function as a defensive asset, giving the brand owner direct control over a string that might otherwise be claimed by another party.

Artificial intelligence strings draw attention

Artificial intelligence is one of the most visible themes in the application set. The file includes at least 29 strings tied to AI terms or AI company and product names. Generic terms include .agent, which drew 13 applicants, .agentic with two, and .agi, short for artificial general intelligence, with seven. Others include .llm, short for large language model, with two applicants, .mcp, short for Model Context Protocol, with five, plus .prompt and .superintelligence. Company and product names include .openai, .chatgpt, .codex, .anthropic, .claude, .copilot, .gemini, .llama and .qwen. Community-based applications include one each for .agent and .mcp. One of the 21 Internationalized Domain Name applications is for the Chinese term for artificial intelligence.

The contest over .agent is notable because it is the single most contested string in the entire round. That level of interest reflects both the broad appeal of agentic software and the difficulty of agreeing on a single owner for a generic term. A gTLD such as .agent could be used by AI developers, automation platforms, customer service tools or other software businesses. When a term is valuable across many industries, multiple applicants may believe they have a legitimate claim to operate it. ICANN's process must then sort through the applications, objections and community input before deciding which, if any, should proceed.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain names return

Cryptocurrency and blockchain are also well represented. The file includes at least 31 strings tied to cryptocurrency and blockchain. Names include .bitcoin with two applicants, .crypto with five, .ethereum, .ether with two, .solana, .tether, .ripple, .ledger, .wallet with four, and .token with three. Four community-based applications are for crypto strings: .bitcoin, .sol, .sui and .avax. The presence of these applications shows that crypto projects continue to see domain names as part of their identity, governance and user-facing infrastructure. A dedicated gTLD can provide a recognizable namespace for wallets, exchanges, decentralized applications and community resources.

At the same time, crypto-related strings raise questions about ownership, trust and consumer protection. A name such as .wallet or .crypto could be used legitimately, but it could also be used to confuse users if it is not managed carefully. ICANN's evaluation and objection process is designed to examine whether applicants have the operational and financial capacity to run a registry, as well as whether a proposed string conflicts with existing rights or creates a risk of confusion. Community objections can also play a role when a string is tied to a specific community or public interest.

Network, developer and geographic strings

At least 16 strings come from the network and developer stack. They include .lan for local area network, .vpn for virtual private network with two applicants, .dns for Domain Name System with two, .cdn for content delivery network, .proxy, .auth and .login. The string .api, for application programming interface, drew 10 applicants. These terms are common in technical environments, and their presence in the gTLD application set shows how internet infrastructure language has become part of the broader naming economy. They also create special challenges because some of these terms are already used inside private networks or by software systems that expect them to remain local.

The 15 self-identified geographic applications include .bali, .beijing, .bremen, .budapest, .salzburg and .vienna. Geographic gTLDs can be used by tourism boards, local governments, business associations or community groups to promote a place and organize local digital services. They can also be contentious when multiple parties claim to represent the same location or when the proposed string overlaps with a cultural or commercial identity. Internationalized Domain Names add another layer of complexity. Applications can be submitted in 26 scripts representing more than 380 languages, and applicants can seek variant gTLDs that account for different spelling conventions within a language.

Name collision and universal acceptance

Adding new gTLDs to the internet is not only about accepting proposals. It is also about validating that each new name will work without disrupting existing services. Two software readiness issues are especially important: name collision and universal acceptance. Name collision is the problem of a new public TLD matching a name that a network already uses privately. Many organizations use names inside their networks that do not exist in the public DNS, such as an internal domain ending in something like .corp or .lan. If ICANN delegates a new gTLD with the same string, lookups for those internal names can start resolving through the public DNS, or leaking out of the network, instead of staying internal. That can break applications or expose traffic.

ICANN's name collision framework subjects every applied-for string to a name collision risk assessment. What it requires of the applicant depends on the risk identified. A low-risk string may need limited measures, while a higher-risk string may require more detailed analysis, monitoring or mitigation. The goal is to prevent a new public namespace from interfering with private naming systems that were never designed to interact with the global DNS. Because many enterprises rely on internal domains for authentication, routing and application access, name collision review is a critical part of gTLD readiness.

Universal Acceptance is about whether software actually works with every valid domain name and email address, including new ones. The broader use of Internationalized Domain Names and longer TLDs depends on progress in Universal Acceptance, which ensures that all valid domain names and email addresses can be correctly accepted, validated, processed, stored and displayed across internet-enabled applications, devices and systems. If a new gTLD is delegated but software rejects it, the expansion creates little practical value. That is why Universal Acceptance has become a long-term concern for registries, software vendors, email providers and governments.

What happens next

So far, ICANN has only revealed which applications have been made. The next milestone is String Confirmation Day on November 17, 2026, when ICANN will publish the final list of strings that will proceed through the program. That date begins the Community Input and Objections Period, which runs to March 16, 2027. During that window, parties can raise concerns about specific applications, including issues related to trademarks, community impact, name collision or applicant qualifications. ICANN has also set a Prioritization Draw for the first half of 2027 to determine the order in which applications will be processed. The draw matters because a large application set cannot be evaluated all at once, and the order of review can affect timelines for applicants and the communities that may be affected by new strings.

Source: Network World News