GeoTLD Applications Drop Sharply for Next Round: Situating geographical strings in the new TLD landscape

Domain extensions matching a city or region were among the headliners of the 2012 Reveal Day. There was excitement about “killer strings” like .SHOP and .APP as well, but the likes of .NYC and .LONDON had a clear advantage: their pool of potential registrants was easy to identify and could be reached with a targeted marketing effort.

Fast forward to 2026, and the press coverage of so-called GeoTLDs has turned negative. Instead of appearing in the opening paragraphs of Reveal Day reports, GeoTLDs have been relegated to a second wave of analysis examining why applications have declined so sharply.

In this post, we’ll go over the reasons why GeoTLDs didn’t meet expectations, speculate on whether 2026 applicants avoided these types of strings, and look ahead to the future of GeoTLDs.

Why Didn’t 2012-Round GeoTLDs Generate More Registrations?

In our article on the economics of the 2026 round, we concluded that generic strings with a wide pool of potential registrants were best positioned to succeed. GeoTLDs don’t fit this mold: their most practical application is for businesses that operate exclusively in a certain area. They are not likely to pick up much business from “spontaneous registrants” who decide on a TLD during the registration process, based on the selection presented by their domain name registrar.

Even registrants who might have been interested in a GeoTLD may have ruled them out due to registry rules. For instance, .NYC, .BERLIN and .PARIS require registrants to have a provable connection to the respective city.

If barriers of interest and eligibility are overcome, the GeoTLD still must compete with alternatives, the most evident of which is the country’s own top-level domain. For example, a Londoner interested in .LONDON would presumably also know they could register a .UK domain name. At least for all the cities named in this example, the country-code domain is both more recognized and sold for a lower price.

Did the History of 2012-Round GeoTLDs Lead to Fewer Applications in 2026?

Starting with the obvious, the 2012 round took many major cities off the board. Apart from those already named, .TOKYO, .MOSCOW, .MADRID and several other large-population cities already have their matching TLD. The pool of realistic 2026 GeoTLD strings was smaller than for 2012, which logically affected the number of applications.

Onto a more debatable question: Would there have been more GeoTLD applications in 2026 if there had been at least one resounding financial success among the 2012 applications? We think so. As observed in our prior article on new gTLD applications as an investment, the nature of the strings applied for in 2026 seemed to coalesce around string types that had proven successful. If several of the 2012 GeoTLDs had millions of domains under management and/or widespread adoption in their home markets, it stands to reason we’d have seen more GeoTLD applications in 2026.

We also think it’s fair to say that 2026 applicants learned from the 2012 applicants’ experiences with municipal and regional governments. .AMAZON, .PATAGONIA and .AFRICA applications all led to objections that took time and resources to resolve. Having the relevant government body as a willing partner also has a price. For example, Minds + Machines agreed to fixed payments to the City of London, which turned out to be a loss-making arrangement, ultimately requiring a $5.1 million payment to exit the agreement.

The same issues seemed poised to resurface in 2026. The US State of Texas had preemptively announced its opposition to any application for .TEXAS. We’d wager that some applicants initially considered GeoTLDs but decided they weren’t worth the fight.

Will We See Any Big GeoTLD Successes Emerge, Either From the 2012 or 2026 Rounds?

We propose that success for a GeoTLD should be measured using different metrics than those applied to other, generic new top-level domains. Selling millions of domains worldwide is not realistic, nor do we believe GeoTLD operators have this goal in mind. Decisions on pricing and distribution models largely favor a more sensible approach of building awareness in the home region and ensuring availability through local distribution channels.

Of the next-round TLDs, we’d highlight a few that appear to be building on this philosophy:

• .BUDAPEST – Similar to .BRUSSELS and .VLAANDEREN, the applicant for this GeoTLD is the country’s own ccTLD registry. .BUDAPEST will presumably be marketed alongside .HU, similar to how the Belgian city and regional TLDs are currently offered alongside .BE.

• .TWENTE – The same prospective operator as other Netherlands GeoTLDs, .AMSTERDAM and .FRL. The operator claims that 95% of .FRL holders are located in the Friesland region.

• .BREMEN – A new German city TLD, notable because .BERLIN and .BAYERN from the previous round were among the most successful in terms of registrations, with over 40,000 active domains in October 2026.

If we accept that success for a GeoTLD means that the domain name extension has reached a moderate level of adoption in a certain region and maintains a number of active registrations in the low five figures, then it is likely that certain 2012-round GeoTLDs will continue to succeed and new successes will emerge from the 2026 round.

Adoption of GeoTLDs for major cities may have lagged somewhat behind projections, and this likely tempered interest in expensive projects for the 2026 round. However, GeoTLDs remain a meaningful string type that can sustain a registration volume sufficient to achieve profitability for the operator.