With ICANN’s next new gTLD application window expected to open on April 30th, I’m less interested in which strings are worth applying for in isolation (that’s not to say I haven’t formed my own list of personal favorites!) and more interested in whether the business models behind them still make sense, because the strength of a string means very little without a sound strategy underneath it. The 2012 round produced a handful of clear winners, a long tail of underperforming registries, and some real lessons about DNS abuse and policy that will weigh even more heavily this time around.
The industry now has more than a decade of real-world data on what seems to work. Some TLDs quietly compound value. Others turned into abuse magnets, policy headaches, or write-offs that no marketing budget can fix. Abuse statistics, tighter safeguards, no private contention deals, and clearer limits on things like closed generics all point in the same direction: “launch it and hope” is a weaker bet than ever. As I noted in my December post on the final Applicant Guidebook, the applicants who will regret this round are those who see the Guidebook as paperwork that their vendors handle while they focus on the string and the logo.
Likely winners: models with substance
I see three business-model profiles with the better odds of coming out ahead.
Brands that treat their TLD as infrastructure
In 2012, .brands were an experiment of sorts, and perhaps a defensive play or “FOMO” exercise for those with the cash at the time. Today, we see that a good number of them are actually being used for secure customer journeys, internal namespaces, and identity-driven projects. The brands that will win in this next round already know exactly where a TLD fits into their security, customer experience, and branding strategies. They are likely not applying primarily because they think their competitor is. I think more brands will apply because the TLD they want to apply for will perform specific, measurable work and provide real ROI. As I outlined in my four under-discussed dotBrand checklist questions, a .brand discussion that focuses only on trust, security, and marketing upside misses some of the most challenging strategic questions, including governance, exit planning, and data sovereignty. Those who ask the harder questions up front will be better prepared, better resourced, and more likely actually to use and sustain what they apply for.
Focused open generics with a real go-to-market plan
The worst abuse in the last round clustered in cheap, and in some cases, loosely policed name spaces. TLDs that ended up in better situations tended to have a clear audience, sustainable pricing, and a genuine abuse enforcement posture. For this next round, I suggest that the open generics that do well will pick a defined segment, design their policy and pricing around that market, and treat abuse mitigation as part of the core product. They will also think carefully about demand generation and distribution. Make no mistake: the registrar channel is extremely important for success, but as I wrote in my December post on launching without begging registrars for shelf space, treating it as the only path to discovery is outsourcing your fate. The registries that do well will own their demand funnel, not just their backend.
Geos and IDNs with genuine local depth
Geographic and IDN TLDs work when they are rooted in genuine local engagement. From my own experience working with IDN TLDs, governments and community stakeholders need to be involved from the start, not brought in at the end. The strongest of these will pair cultural and linguistic relevance with credible governance and a serious approach to abuse handling. Local trust takes years to build and seconds to lose the moment users decide your namespace is an unsafe digital neighborhood.
Universal Acceptance (UA) is not a checkbox item for IDN applicants; it is an ongoing operational reality. Getting email validation, system compatibility, and end-user awareness right across a diverse global ecosystem takes sustained effort, and any IDN registry applicant going into this round should have a clear-eyed plan for it. To their credit, the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) has moved this conversation forward in meaningful ways, and IDN applicants today are working from a much better starting point than their counterparts were in 2012.
Likely losers: wishful thinking and familiar mistakes
On the other hand, some well-worn approaches look increasingly fragile.
“2012, but again” open generics
High-volume, low-price models that plan to deal with abuse later now face a very different environment. Abuse patterns from the last round are well documented and widely quoted. Safeguards have tightened. Policy discussions have moved on. A business case that quietly depends on running a noisy, low-trust namespace is far more likely to encounter friction from regulators, ICANN, and the broader ecosystem than it was a decade ago.
Under-capitalized, “just add marketing” registries
Unless you have plenty of discretionary capital to tie up and risk, applying for a new gTLD is not a domain speculation play. It is a long-term commitment to run critical internet infrastructure with real technical, financial, and compliance obligations. The $227,000 application fee is just the starting line. Legal, RSP fees, policy staffing, and a multi-year operating runway all follow. As I pointed out in my RSP selection post, your choice of registry service provider is one of the most consequential decisions you will make before you ever click submit. If your model only pencils out after a rapid surge of registrations, you are looking at a pitch, not a sustainable registry business.
Registry Operators who treat DNS abuse and policy as externalities
DNS abuse is not evenly distributed. It clusters in particular TLDs and has typically been linked to decisions about price, eligibility, and enforcement. Those patterns now feed directly into discussions about safeguards, oversight, and contractual obligations.
As I explored in my January post on AI agents and DNS abuse, this is no longer just an operational nuisance. It is increasingly an evidentiary and accountability matter, one that, from what I am reading, will connect DNS infrastructure to legal frameworks well beyond ICANN’s reach. The industry and applicants need to be ready for what is coming, or they will find themselves facing obligations and costs they never budgeted for.
The question I would want every TLD applicant to answer:
Before anyone ponies up that six-figure application fee, I think there is one question worth sitting with honestly: What real, lasting value does the proposed TLD create for the people who will actually use it, and does that value still hold up once you stack stricter abuse obligations, a more demanding policy environment, and the true cost of running a registry on top of it?
If you can work through that and still feel good about what you are building, you are in better shape than a lot of applicants were going into 2012. If the answer gets uncomfortable, pay attention to that now, before ICANN, investors, and the market deliver their own version of the same feedback.
For those who know they want to apply but need help pressure-testing the strategy, evaluating RSP candidates, or getting the policy and abuse posture right, iQ’s gTLD consultancy team is worth a conversation. They cover the full journey from string analysis and strategic assessment through application development, technical infrastructure, contention strategy, and launch planning. The window opens on April 30th and closes on August 12th, spanning 15 weeks. There is still time to get it right, but not a lot of it.
Best wishes for success to all applicants!
DISCLOSURE: I provide consulting services to iQ, whose gTLD consultancy is referenced in this post. The views expressed here are my own.
PINKY BRAND 