A Critical Moment for Communication in the 2026 New gTLD Program
- Venkatesh Venkatasubramanian
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Public Forums, Unpublished Guidebooks, and Fuzzy Timelines in the 2026 New gTLD Round
For more than a decade, the ICANN community has treated the “next round” of new gTLDs as a long-running project plan. Now, with the 2026 round finally approaching, ICANN’s public narrative is confident: the Applicant Guidebook has been adopted, the programs are “on track”, and the application window is expected to open in April 2026.
But readiness is not only about internal milestones. It is also about whether ICANN’s communication is reliable enough for applicants to make real decisions: secure budgets, brief boards, sign with RSPs, and line up local partners.
In the last few months, a pattern has emerged: reassuring statements at microphones, high-level slogans on web pages, but a noticeable lack of concrete, binding, and consistently updated information on the details that matter most to applicants.
When Public Forum Answers Don’t Track Reality
In early December 2025, Jeff Neuman published an open letter to ICANN titled “If the Public Forum Matters, the Responses Must Matter Too,” documenting how assurances given by ICANN leadership at the ICANN 84 Public Forum diverged from what actually happened afterward. His focus was on two issues: delays in the Registry Service Provider (RSP) list and the Registry Agreement (RA) timeline.
His central line captures the broader problem:
“For the Public Forum to serve its purpose, the answers must be accurate, the commitments must be honored, and any changes to those commitments must be communicated openly.”
That sentiment goes well beyond one meeting or one letter. It connects directly to three ongoing concerns that affect every serious 2026 applicant today:
the status of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB),
the vague handling of the application window dates, and
the lack of clear commitment around the Applicant Support Program (ASP) results.
The Applicant Guidebook: Approved, But Still Not Published
On 3 November 2025, at ICANN 84 in Dublin, the ICANN Board formally adopted the Next Round Applicant Guidebook and explicitly directed ICANN org to publish it “no later than 30 December 2025.”
ICANN’s own announcement and accompanying blog make two points very clearly:
Board adoption is a prerequisite to opening the application window.
The AGB is meant to be available at least four months before that window opens in April 2026.
Yet as of early December 2025, applicants are still working off the “final draft” that was posted for public comment in May 2025—not a formally published, final, locked AGB on the New gTLD Program site.
From ICANN’s internal perspective, this may be perfectly within the Board’s deadline. From an applicant’s perspective, the optics are different:
The Board has celebrated adoption.
ICANN blogs have framed it as a “huge milestone.”
But the final, citable rulebook the industry is supposed to rely on is still not officially posted.
For large enterprises, governments, and regulated entities, this distinction matters. Risk committees, legal teams, and boards do not sign off on “final drafts.” They sign off on final documents.
Expected to Open April 2026 - Is Not a Timeline
Across ICANN’s official pages—the general 2026 round page, the timeline graphics, and the ASP page—the language is consistent:
The application submission period is “expected to open in April 2026” and last around 12–15 weeks. newgtldprogram.icann.org
What’s missing is equally important:
No specific opening date.
No specific closing date.
No published “no later than” range that applicants can treat as a firm planning assumption.
In isolation, “expected to open April 2026” looks reasonable. In the real world of corporate planning, the difference between 1 April and 30 April is enormous:
Board approvals may only happen at quarterly meetings.
Budget cycles may lock months in advance.
Local partners (for geoTLDs, communities, or regulated sectors) may need long lead times.
When ICANN repeats the same phrase—“expected to open April 2026”—without upgrading it into an explicit calendar commitment, the signal to applicants is: you still cannot plan with precision.
Applicant Support Program: Where Is the Commitment to Publish Results?
The Applicant Support Program (ASP) for the Next Round is, in theory, one of the most important equity mechanisms in the entire framework. It offers fee reductions of 75–85% and additional support to qualified applicants who otherwise could not afford to participate.
Key dates are now clear:
ASP application period opened on 19 November 2024.
It closes for new applications on 19 November 2025, with a four-week extension (until 19 December 2025) for applicants who already created their organization profile.
What is not clear from the ASP pages, FAQ, or stats is this:
By when will ASP decisions be communicated?
Will ICANN publish a list of supported applicants?
Is there a formal commitment that all ASP decisions will be finalized and notified before the application window opens?
The ASP FAQ states that the ASP closes “about five months prior” to the opening of the Next Round application period, but it does not translate that into a commitment that applicants will know their status before the window opens.
For ASP-dependent applicants, that is not a minor detail. If you do not know whether your fees will be reduced by 75–85%, you cannot make a serious financial decision about applying. In other words, the success of ASP depends not just on who qualifies, but on when and how that information is communicated.
This Is Bigger Than One Letter or One Meeting
Put together, these issues create a single pattern:
The Board has adopted the AGB, but the community still does not see a final, published version.
ICANN repeatedly talks about an April 2026 window, but avoids setting concrete dates.
ASP has clear closing dates, but no clearly stated commitment to publish or even privately notify results ahead of the window.
Neuman’s open letter shows how this pattern already played out with the RSP list and the RA timeline. But even if you ignore those specific examples, the structural concern remains:
ICANN is asking applicants to trust a moving target.
What ICANN Needs to Do to Restore Confidence
The good news is that none of this requires policymaking or multi-year processes. It is largely a matter of governance hygiene and communication discipline.
Here are four concrete steps ICANN could take quickly:
1. Publish the Final AGB as a First-Class, Versioned Artifact
When the AGB is finally posted:
Host it on a clearly marked, permanent URL on the New gTLD Program site.
Attach a version/date and a short change log for any subsequent “insignificant changes.”
Explicitly state: “This is the version against which 2026 applications will be evaluated.”
That gives applicants a safe legal and operational reference point.
2. Turn “Expected to Open April 2026” into Real Dates
ICANN may still want to protect some flexibility, but it can do so transparently. For example:
“The application window will open no earlier than 1 April 2026 and no later than 30 April 2026, for 12–15 weeks.”
or, if ready:
Publish a specific opening and closing date, with a clear statement that changes would occur only under exceptional circumstances and would be announced via formal channels.
3. Commit Publicly to ASP Decision and Publication Milestones
ICANN should state, in writing, that:
All ASP applicants will be notified of their decision at least X weeks before the application window opens.
ICANN will publish either an anonymized summary or a list of supported applicants (subject to privacy constraints), so the community understands how ASP is functioning.
This is not just about transparency; it directly affects whether ASP applicants can responsibly proceed.
4. Create a “Public Commitments Tracker” for the A Critical Moment for Communication in the 2026 New gTLD Program
Every time senior ICANN leadership or the Board makes a time-bound commitment in plenary sessions, webinars, or public fora, those commitments should be tracked on a simple status page:
What was promised
Where it was said (e.g., ICANN 84 Public Forum)
The target date
Current status: on track, delayed (with explanation), or completed
This would instantly reduce the gap between what is said at the microphone and what the community experiences months later.
Practical Takeaways for 2026 Applicants
Until ICANN tightens its communication practices, applicants need to assume some uncertainty and plan around it.
In practical terms:
Plan with scenarios, not a single date. Build internal timelines that work whether the window opens in early or late April 2026.
Do not wait for absolute perfection in the AGB. Once the final version is published, treat it as stable for planning purposes and assume only minor editorial changes will follow.
If you rely on ASP, build a “go / no-go” decision point. Decide how late you are willing to wait for ASP results before you commit fully to an application.
Monitor ICANN’s official pages directly. Don’t depend solely on blog posts, tweets, or third-party summaries. The authoritative information will (eventually) be on ICANN’s own New gTLD Program site.
The bottom line: treat ICANN’s public statements as signals, but not as binding milestones, unless they are clearly versioned, dated, and published as formal artifacts.
Closing Thoughts: Communication Is Now a Core Part of “Readiness”
A Critical Moment for Communication in the 2026 New gTLD comes at a time when no one doubts the effort ICANN staff and volunteers have invested to get the 2026 round to this point. The Board’s adoption of the AGB, the launch of the RSP Evaluation Program, and the re-designed ASP are all genuine achievements.
But the success of the next round will not be judged only by internal implementation charts. It will be judged by whether serious, globally distributed applicants feel that ICANN has given them a clear, predictable, and trustworthy framework within which to make multi-year strategic decisions.
Public Forums, announcements, and program pages are not just communications tools; they are part of ICANN’s governance infrastructure. When what is said there matches what happens, trust grows. When it doesn’t, even the best internal progress can be overshadowed by uncertainty.
If the 2026 round is to fulfill its promise, ICANN needs to treat communication itself as a first-order deliverable—every bit as critical as the AGB, the RSP program, or the application portal.
And that means one simple thing: when ICANN speaks to the community, the responses must really matter.
Comments