The launch of the next round of the generic top-level domain (gTLDs) program has been significantly delayed since 2012, causing frustration for potential applicants and eroding trust in the multistakeholder governance model.



In recent years, the Brand Registry Group (BRG) has expressed support for the multistakeholder model while urging ICANN to accelerate the launch of the next round for both .brand and community/commercial applicants. This includes active involvement in the Subsequent Procedures Working Group (SubPro) Report and reviews of ICANN's Operational Design Analysis (ODA).

To coincide with the upcoming ICANN76 meeting in Cancun, the BRG has released a report in collaboration with industry experts Tony Kirsch (GoDaddy Registry) and Michael Palage (Pharos Global). The report, titled "Option 2a - SubPro Implementation Proposal," challenges some of the assumptions underlying the ODA and presents a detailed yet straightforward implementation framework that builds on ICANN's proposed Program Implementation Option 2. It includes five key pillars and six key recommendations that aim to foster community discussion and provide ICANN with the confidence needed for a timely and successful program implementation.

On Saturday, 11th March at 10.30 a.m. (Local Time), the report will be presented to the community during the session "Brand Registry Group—SubPro ODA Implications for Prospective Future TLD Applicants." Interested parties are welcome to attend the meeting in Cancun, and virtual participation options are also available for those unable to be there in person. Please note that registration is still required in accordance with ICANN's policy.

The BRG is pleased to share an excerpt of the report below, encouraging community engagement during the Cancun meeting. The full version is available for download at brandregistrygroup.org/nextround.

Excerpt: Option 2a - SubPro Implementation Proposal
Considerable work has been done by the community and ICANN thus far; however, further agreement on the finer points of implementation is necessary to provide the Board with the necessary confidence to move forward with this program.

In the Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) Operational Design Assessment (ODA) published on 12 December 2022, ICANN presented two options for advancing to the next round:

Option 1 - a five-year implementation plan costing $457 million, processing an unlimited number of applications in a mostly automated manner at a fixed cost of $270,000 per application.
Option 2 - an 18-month implementation plan costing $407 million, processing applications in annual batches of 450 in a mainly manual process at a fixed cost of $240,600 per application.
Both options involve a significant increase in the 2012 application fee ($185,000), surprising many in the community who anticipated similar or lower costs for applicants in the next round. Moreover, the $400 million price tag for either option seems excessive for a program of this nature and lacks flexibility or justifiable value for money.

Option 1 is widely regarded as unfeasible due to the additional substantial delays it suggests. Option 2, while more reasonable in terms of timing, also faces practical challenges due to the costs associated with application fees and concerns about the proposed implementation plan.

ICANN's proposed options for the next round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) have faced criticism and concerns from various stakeholders. The options put forward by ICANN include different models for releasing new gTLDs, such as a first-come, first-served approach, an auction-based approach, and a hybrid model.

Critics argue that the proposed options may lead to increased speculation and warehousing of gTLDs, which could negatively impact competition and consumer choice. Concerns have also been raised about the potential for trademark infringement and abuse of the domain name system under these proposed models.

Additionally, there are concerns about the potential economic and operational impacts on businesses and non-commercial organizations, as well as the overall stability and security of the domain name system.

Moreover, some stakeholders have criticized the lack of meaningful community engagement and consultation in the development of these options, emphasizing the need for a more inclusive and transparent process.

Critics argue that the proposed options could lead to increased domain speculation and warehousing, potentially limiting competition and consumer choice. There are concerns about the potential for abusive registration practices and trademark infringements under these proposed models.

Furthermore, some stakeholders have expressed worries about the economic and operational impacts on businesses and non-commercial organizations. They fear that the proposed options could disrupt established online identities and branding, leading to increased costs and potential legal conflicts.

In addition, there are concerns about the overall stability and security of the domain name system under the proposed options. Some have questioned whether the current infrastructure and policies are equipped to handle a large influx of new gTLDs without compromising security and stability.

Moreover, critics have highlighted the need for more inclusive and transparent community engagement in the development of these options, emphasizing the importance of broad stakeholder input and consensus-building.

In conclusion, ICANN's proposed options for the next round of gTLDs have drawn significant criticism and concerns regarding their potential impact on competition, consumer protection, and the overall integrity of the domain name system. Stakeholders are urging ICANN to address these concerns through a more thorough evaluation and collaborative decision-making process.