ICANN 2026 Round — Applicant Analysis and String Evaluation Outlook (gtld_2026_applications)

DISCLAIMER — applies to every statement about a 2026 application or applicant: Not authoritative: this is DataPulse’s reading of ICANN’s public listing of 2026 Round new gTLD applications. ICANN is still processing the applications; statuses, strings, contention sets and counts can change. ICANN’s New gTLD Program site (newgtldprogram.icann.org) is the record of reference.

Using this topic

• What it is. DataPulse’s analysis of the round’s applications as published at Reveal Day (7 October 2026). This analysis is dated 2026-10-08. Contention sets have been reconciled with ICANN’s official CSV. Every claim was rechecked against the raw data, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB V2-2026.04.24), IANA and ICANN’s Reveal Day announcement; the evidence is in the Verification log.
• It is a snapshot. The figures come from ICANN’s application listing as fetched on 2026-10-07 at 19:36 UTC, about 1.5 hours after Reveal Day publication at 18:00 UTC. They also draw on the 2,783 application PDFs. The figures can go stale. The Replacement Period ran 8–21 October and String Confirmation Day (SCD) is 17 November. From then, replacement and contention figures will differ from what ICANN publishes. Each figure here is true of the snapshot.
• Individual applications. Use datapulse_gtld_applications for a given string, applicant, country or application ID. It reads ICANN’s current listing, returns the identical-string contention grouping, and carries the disclaimer in every response. Ultimate parents (AGB Q36) come from the application PDFs and are not in that listing, so the portfolio table below is the source for them.
• The rules. Use datapulse_agb_search and datapulse_agb for the Guidebook text behind each § citation below.
• Heuristics and opinions. The singular/plural and visual-similarity screens are DataPulse heuristics, not ICANN determinations. Statements marked as opinion are DataPulse’s assessment, not fact.

All figures cover the 1,614 applications in the snapshot unless stated otherwise.

Summary

• The snapshot holds 2,783 records:
  • 1,614 applications
  • 1,169 designated replacement strings (the -R IDs)
• ICANN’s official count is 1,615. The snapshot has one fewer Asia-Pacific application (217 against ICANN’s 218). The listing itself reported only 2,783 records, so the missing application was never listed. Every other published category count matches exactly (see the verification log).
• There are 986 unique strings. 891 applications (55%) share an identical string with another applicant, forming 263 sets. These figures match ICANN’s official contention-set CSV exactly. The largest is .agent, with 13 applicants.
• The round is dominated by portfolio applicants. The 8 largest ultimate parents hold 48.8% of applications.
• 442 replacement strings were eligible to be elected during the Replacement Period (8–21 October 2026). The other 727 were already marked Deactivated at Reveal Day, and every one of them clashes with another applicant’s string.
• Biggest String Evaluation exposures:
  • Singular/plural with existing gTLDs: .maps, .links, .glasses and .cams were each applied for by the operator of the singular TLD (.map, .link, .glass, .cam) or its affiliate. If anyone files a valid notification, they cannot proceed (§4.4.3).
  • Singular/plural within the round: lab/labs could merge into a 13-applicant set.
  • Visual similarity: mail/mall and pai/pal follow the 2012 .hotels/.hoteis pattern.
  • Name collision: .corp and .mail were both applied for.

1. Timeline (confirmed)

2. The applicant pool

Region and country

• All 158 Malta applications belong to Link Freedom Group (ultimate parent Vandelay Investments).
• Cayman is mostly Intercap (71) and Radix (46), followed by TechEdge (10).
• Africa and Latin America together account for 1.7% of applications.

TLD type and labels

String length (ASCII strings: 1,593 of 1,614)

Strings of 3–4 characters make up 52.5% of all applications.

3. Who is really applying: ultimate parents

Each application’s ultimate parent is taken from AGB Q36 in the application PDFs.

Coverage: 480 of the 1,614 PDFs (29.7%) do not contain Q36 at all. Those applications are grouped under the applicant’s own name, so portfolio counts for those applicants are lower bounds. Meta, for example, appears under “Meta Registry Holdings LLC”.

• The top 8 parents hold 787 applications (48.8%).
• Brand applicants include Amazon (8), Bank of America (5), ByteDance/Douyin, Alibaba, EchoStar, Haier, Hisense, Luckin, ASUS, ALSOK and Anthropic (.claude).
• No ultimate parent holds two applications for the same identical string. This only holds where Q36 is present.

To list a parent’s applications, search datapulse_gtld_applications by applicant name. Use the subsidiary names in the Notes column, because the listing names the applying entity, not the parent.

4. Contention

The sets were built by grouping identical primary strings, then reconciled with ICANN’s Reveal Day contention-set CSV (newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round2/reveal-day-contention-sets.csv). They match exactly: the same 263 sets, the same 891 application IDs and the same set membership. ICANN’s CSV also lists the 官网 variant (xn–kbto70f) for the two applicants that applied for it.

Identical-string contention

• 263 sets covering 891 applications (55.2%)
• 723 strings have a single applicant

Most contested strings: agent 13 · bit 11 · api 10 · hub 10 · brand 10 · robot 9 · pop 9 · official 8 · max 8 · zen 8 · pod 8 · agi 7 · ask 7 · lab 7 · connect 7 · therapy 7 · key 7 · mind 7 · vibe 7 · firm 7

AI strings are heavily contested

How contention gets resolved

ICANN runs two methods: Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) and an ICANN auction (§5.2.2).

• Private resolution is prohibited: no private auctions, joint ventures or payments to withdraw (§5.2.3).
• CPE is available only to Community applications. An applicant that passes CPE wins the set outright, unless more than one application in the set passes; then they go to auction (§5.4).
• .Brand applicants can also file a .Brand String Change Request. The deadline is 30 days after contention sets form following String Similarity Evaluation, or after an SCO or appeal determination (§5.3.1).

.Brand applications in contention: 18 applications across 17 strings

Community applications in contention

Replacement strings (§5.1)

What the AGB says:

• A replacement string cannot be used if it is identical to another applicant’s applied-for string or replacement string (§5.1, §5.1.3).
• “Deactivated” formally means an application the applicant did not choose to proceed with after the Replacement Period (§3.9).

At Reveal Day ICANN had already marked ineligible replacements as Deactivated. In the snapshot, all 727 Deactivated replacements clash with a different applicant’s primary or replacement string. All 442 Active replacements are clash-free. There are no exceptions either way.

Two special cases stay Active:

• The same applicant reuses a replacement across its own applications. Identity Digital shells do this with “playlist”, “apex”, “cannabis”, “lms”, “round” and others.
• Intercap’s replacements “account” and “lend” are identical to Intercap’s own primaries.

Who could still switch out of contention (as of Reveal Day):

• 287 contended applications had an eligible replacement.
• 14 sets could disappear entirely if every member elected its replacement (§5.1.4): vpn, pass, donate, impact, sell, soul, asap, mars, gram, point, server, journey, more, 品牌.
• 81 sets had no member with an eligible replacement.

These statuses change after 21 October. String Confirmation Day (17 November) publishes the final strings and contention sets.

5. String Evaluation outlook

String Evaluation starts after SCD and takes about 180 days. It is made up of five concurrent elements and does not follow priority order (§1.2.4):

1. String Similarity Evaluation
2. Name Collision Initial Assessment
3. Safeguard Assessment
4. Geographic Names Identification
5. Singular/Plural Notifications Evaluation

5.1 Singular/plural (§4.4)

The rules:

• Anyone may file a notification within 30 days of SCD (§4.4.1–4.4.2). A notification must cite an authoritative dictionary published since 1970 and include an ISBN and page images.
• If nobody files, both strings proceed (§4.4.1).
• If a notification is confirmed (§4.4.3):
  • Plural or singular of a delegated gTLD → the application cannot proceed.
  • Plural or singular of another applied-for string → both strings go into contention.
• The applicant can challenge within 21 days (§4.4.4).

Against delegated gTLDs. Every one of these applicants is the incumbent operator or its affiliate. DataPulse found no exception for the same operator in §4.4. The risk therefore depends on a third party filing a notification:

Two eligible replacements are also plurals or singulars of existing gTLDs: toy (.toys) and industry (.industries).

Within the round (the sets would merge if notified and confirmed):

Replacement exposure. These eligible replacements are singular/plural forms of other applicants’ primaries. An applicant that elects one cannot revert (§5.1), and would face contention if a notification is confirmed:

• notes ↔ note
• skills ↔ skill
• ethers ↔ ether

Screen method (heuristic): English -s/-es/-ies endings plus a list of 26 common irregular plurals (no irregular hits). Other languages are not covered.

5.2 String Similarity Evaluation (visual only, §7.10)

Outcomes (Table 7-5, §7.10.3.1, §7.10.3.3):

The only exception is an allocatable variant applied for by the same registry operator. All members of a variant-strings set share the outcome. Applicants can challenge within 21 days.

2012 precedent: the panel (InterConnect Communications) created only two non-identical contention sets: .hotels/.hoteis and .unicorn/.unicom. Both turn on a single confusable character: i/l and r/m.

The same i/l pattern appears in these 2026 pairs:

Close to an existing TLD (heuristic triage only). The screen found 40 single-character differences from delegated TLDs. Most are noise, but these deserve attention:

• con / .com
• nil / .mil
• not / .net
• block / .black
• vps / .ups
• nft / .nfl
• inn / .im

String Confusion Objections (§4.5) are a separate route and cover visual, aural and meaning similarity. If an existing gTLD operator wins an SCO, the application is ineligible to proceed. If another applicant wins, the strings go into contention. This route matters more for pairs like con/.com than the visual panel does.

Screen method (heuristic): ASCII glyph substitutions (rn→m, cl→d, vv→w, i/l, etc.) and single confusable-letter swaps against the public suffix list’s ICANN section, used as a stand-in for the root zone. This is not the panel’s methodology.

5.3 Name collision (§7.7)

• .corp (Toddler Logic) and .mail (Mystic Hammer) were both applied for, and both are Identity Digital entities.
• These are two of the three strings rated high-risk in 2012, alongside .home (§7.7.1). Applicants for them cannot get the high-risk withdrawal refund (§3.3.3.1.4).
• If either string is rated high-risk again, the applicant needs an approved Mitigation Plan to proceed. Without one, the string is added to the Collision String List and the application cannot proceed (§1.2.4.2, §7.7.4–7.7.5).
• .lan (Coffee Danger, Identity Digital) is a common private-network name and therefore a plausible collision concern. This is DataPulse’s assessment, not an AGB determination.

5.4 Safeguard Assessment (§7.8.2)

How applicants answered the self-assessment questions (Q164–Q170):

Strings answered “Yes” to Q166–Q169: allianz, auth, avocat, bca, euro, firm, god, lei, mono, pharma, safari, stiftung, stupid, therapy, wallet, weed.

The AGB says these answers “will not automatically make such a determination”; ICANN does its own assessment. DataPulse’s expectation, which is opinion, is that ICANN will add safeguards to more strings than applicants self-declared. Likely candidates:

• Financial: wealth (6), lend
• Health: therapy (7)
• Crypto: bit (11), bitcoin, wallet
• Professional: firm (7)

5.5 Geographic Names Identification (§7.5)

15 applications self-designated as geographic: roma, beijing, lugano, linz, vienna, bremen, budapest, québec, bali, campania, montecarlo, ulm, salzburg, yueyang, and meta (Meta designated .meta as Brand+Geo).

The panel reviews all strings, not just self-designated ones, so other strings may be identified as geographic.

5.6 IDNs and variants

There are 21 IDN applications: 19 Chinese, 1 Japanese (株式会社) and 1 Latin (québec).

• 官网 (xn–kbt444f): 3 applicants
• 品牌 (xn–jvr800e): 2 applicants
• 9 applications cover existing or new gTLDs with variants, for example 中文网/中文網, 在线/在線, 网络/網絡 and 海尔/海爾.
• Similarity and contention are assessed over the whole RZ-LGR variant-strings set (§7.10, §7.10.3.5). datapulse_idn_variants computes a label’s variant set.

Verification log

Not independently verified:

• The one application ICANN counts but the public listing omits has not been identified. The listing still reported 2,783 records on 2026-10-08. ICANN’s contention CSV contains no application ID missing from the snapshot, so the missing application is not in an identical-string contention set.
• The visual and singular/plural screens are heuristics, not ICANN determinations.

Sources:

• ICANN Reveal Day announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-reveals-2026-round-applications-for-new-generic-top-level-domains-07-10-2026-en
• ICANN Reveal Day contention-set CSV: https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round2/reveal-day-contention-sets.csv
• Mondaq, key deadlines: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trademark/1851660/icann-announces-reveal-day-and-key-deadlines-for-2026-new-gtld-round
• ICANN contention sets (2013): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2013-February/014289.html
• ICANNWiki, String Similarity Panel: https://icannwiki.org/SWORD_Algorithm
• IANA root database entries for .map, .glass, .cam and .link: https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/map.html, https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/glass.html, https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/cam.html, https://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/link.html

Related Topics

• datapulse_help(topic="agb") — the 2026 Applicant Guidebook tools, for every § cited here
• datapulse_help(topic="idn_variants") — IDN variant sets under the Root Zone LGR
• datapulse_help(topic="quick_reference") — every tool at a glance