Introduction
In the world of dotBrand applications, contention sets are often seen as a worst-case scenario, forcing applicants into rigid resolution mechanisms. In the 2012 round, however, some competing parties managed to turn this constraint into an opportunity through dialogue, leading in certain cases to pragmatic arrangements, including forms of co-management. The 2026 round takes a different approach: by strictly prohibiting communication between applicants in the same contention set, the new Applicant Guidebook removes not only the possibility of side deals, but also any form of coordinated solution.
.MERCK was delegated last week after a decade-long resolution process between applicants Merck KGaA and Merck & Co. The top-level domain name will be transferred to a holding company jointly owned by the two applicants.
The coverage of .MERCK’s delegation coincides with the opening of the new application round and appears noteworthy for applicants concerned that their desired dotBrand might have other applicants. Co-management of the desired dotBrand could be an appealing alternative to submitting to String Contention Resolution.
Unfortunately, rule changes for the 2026 round won’t permit dualling applicants to join forces and operate the top-level domain together.
This raises a broader question: has ICANN simply closed a loophole, or has it also removed a space for legitimate cooperation between applicants?
To understand how these co-management models arose in the first place and how they came to be prohibited, this article will examine the contention sets from the 2012 round that produced co-management and the relevant passages of the 2026 guidebook that narrow applicants’ opportunities to resolve contention sets by mutual accord.
When Co-Management Was Still Possible
Let’s start this examination with the Applicant Guidebook from the 2012 round, which foresaw this scenario and provided guidelines for its’ execution:
“It is understood that applicants may seek to establish joint ventures in their efforts to resolve string contention… new joint ventures must take place in a manner that does not materially change the application, to avoid being subject to re-evaluation.” (page 190)
Domain Incite’s coverage of .MERCK reminds us of two earlier instances where co-management came to fruition.
From Dialogue to Practical Arrangements
.AMAZON – Wholly managed by Amazon.com Inc., but with a special provision for the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO):
“ACTO, through its authorized representative, shall be entitled to request from Registry Operator the registration of up to nine (9) domain names for use by itself or its member states.” (.AMAZON Registry Agreement, Specification 11, para. 4, and Appendix A Amazon Naming And Use Policy For Domain Names Used Or Requested-Reserved By Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (“ACTO”).
.SAS – Applicant Research IP LLC prevailed over SAS AB, but the latter is named as an “affiliate (or) trademark licensee” in the Registration Policy:
“Research IP LLC (“Registry Operator”) operates the .SAS gTLD with the mission and purpose to serve as a trusted, hierarchical, and intuitive namespace for qualified Affiliates and Trademark Licensees (as defined below), which include without limitation SAS Institute Inc. and SAS AB (.SAS Registration Policy).”
Neither String Contention nor the Objections process have ties nor split decisions. The registry operators that “won” the right to manage .MERCK, .AMAZON and .SAS implemented concessions for their opponents, concessions that were naturally borne from conversations between the parties. These examples suggest that dialogue between applicants did not only lead to side deals, but also to pragmatic arrangements reflecting commercial realities.
A Clear Shift in the 2026 Guidebook
While on the surface it appears that ICANN’s advice in 2012 was well-taken by .MERCK and .SAS and led to satisfactory resolutions, there is no such advice in the Applicant Guidebook for 2026, but rather warnings against even communicating with opponents in string contention:
“Applicants (including their agents and affiliates) for strings in the same contention set are strictly prohibited from communicating, either directly or indirectly, with other applicants in that same contention set regarding their respective applications in contention, any strategies related to the in-contention string(s), or strategies to resolve contention.”
(Page 138)
A Rule Targeting Abuse, With Broader Effects
The main reason for prohibiting communication is to avoid side-deals, where one applicant is paid to withdraw their application. ICANN appears primarily concerned with weeding out applicants that are uninterested in operating a top-level domain and apply with the sole intention of inserting themselves into a private negotiation.
There is no indication that ICANN deemed problematic that two legitimate applicants negotiate a co-management agreement. It merely becomes impossible to conduct this negotiation under a blanket ban on communication. In this respect, the rule applies equally to opportunistic behaviour and to potentially constructive cooperation.
CONCLUSION
The possibility of falling into a contention set can rightfully cause anxiety for a dotBrand applicant: Months of preparation and budgetary approvals are all predicated on the company securing a specific top-level domain for their business.
In the 2026 round, applicants will have the ability to select a Plan B domain name extension, to which they can switch if their first choice falls into contention. This holds value for companies whose brand can be expressed in different ways, for example both a full word and a commonly used abbreviation. However, we’d forecast that most brands have a clear first choice and will view their replacement string as far inferior.
In this context, the alternative of co-management would seem a worthwhile compromise: The brand loses exclusivity over the top-level domain but doesn’t have to pivot to an inferior string. Cost savings could also be realized if each co-manager covered a portion of the operational expenses.
While we can laud ICANN’s efforts to ensure the integrity of the process, it would appear valuable to carve out an exception to the ban on communication.
Perhaps after Reveal Day, applicants in contention sets could privately communicate to ICANN that they would be open to co-management. If both/all applicants in contention indicated this willingness. Whether future rounds may reintroduce a form of controlled flexibility remains an open question.