From hosts.txt to the upcoming 2026 round, the Domain Name System (DNS) has undergone successive waves of expansion, transforming a technical addressing tool into a global economic and legal infrastructure. This first article retraces forty years of technical and governance milestones to shed light on the choices facing brand owners on the eve of the new gTLD round.

Introduction

From RFC 920 to the forthcoming 2026 opening, the DNS has evolved from a centralized directory to a distributed ecosystem with over a thousand extensions, including non-Latin scripts (IDNs). Each expansion has broadened choice and driven innovation (new gTLDs, dotBRANDs) while simultaneously increasing monitoring costs and exposure to risks such as cybersquatting, phishing, and defensive domain portfolios.

This article reviews forty years of technical and governance developments, from InterNIC to ICANN, from the “proof-of-concept” round of 2000 to the 2012 program, to better understand current dynamics and anticipate the key challenges of the next round: security, brand consistency, compliance, and protection strategy.

1984: Request for Comments 920

In the early 1980s, domain naming relied on a centralized file, hosts.txt, whose manual management quickly became unsustainable as the network grew. In 1984, Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds proposed, in RFC 920[1], a hierarchical and distributed architecture: the Domain Name System (DNS). This foundational document defined the first generation of extensions and their intended purposes: <.com> for commercial entities, <.org> for non-profits, <.edu> for higher education, <.gov> and <.mil> for U.S. federal agencies, while <.net> was originally meant for network-related entities.
From then on, domain names became not only a technical tool but also an economic asset, accompanied by the emergence of cybersquatting.

1985: The First “.com” Domain Name

On March 15, 1985, Symbolics, Inc. registered <symbolics.com>, the first <.com> domain name ever recorded, and the oldest still active. The event went largely unnoticed at the time, as domain names remained a topic confined to academic and governmental circles.

1990–1998: The Network Solutions Monopoly

In the early 1990s, civilian oversight of domain registration shifted to the National Science Foundation (NSF), which established InterNIC (1993) and granted Network Solutions (NSI) an exclusive right to register gTLDs. In 1995, NSI sparked controversy over high fees and, in 1997, suspended nearly 29,000 domains for non-payment, highlighting the fragility of monopoly amid surging demand[2].

Public awareness of domain name issues grew with high-profile cases. In October 1994, journalist Joshua Quittner discovered that major brands had not yet registered their <.com> domains. To illustrate the problem, he registered <mcdonalds.com>, unsuccessfully tried to reach McDonald’s executives, and eventually published a now-famous article[3] recounting the story, an episode that helped raise corporate awareness of domain names and cybersquatting. Quittner later transferred the domain to McDonald’s in exchange for a donation to a Brooklyn public school for computer equipment.

At the same time, NSI faced mounting criticism for its arbitrary handling of trademark disputes. Lacking a clear legal framework, it applied a unilateral “first come, first served” policy and, from 1995 onward, introduced an administrative suspension procedure that could freeze a domain as soon as a trademark complaint was filed, often without genuine due process[4].

1998: The Creation of ICANN

These controversies led U.S. authorities to propose a reform of DNS management. In 1998, the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN[5]) formalized a multistakeholder governance model bringing together governments, businesses, the technical community, and users. This new framework clarified responsibilities and ended the monopoly era.

In late 1999, the introduction of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP[6]) provided a global, predictable, and cost-effective extrajudicial remedy against cybersquatting.

2000: The “Proof-of-Concept” Round

In 2000, ICANN launched a second generation of gTLDs selected as a testing ground (<.aero>, <.biz>, <.coop>, <.info>, <.museum>, <.name>, and <.pro>) to assess technical feasibility and policy design (sunrise periods, sectoral restrictions, rights protection mechanisms or “RPMs” [7]).

These RPMs, aimed at preventing or resolving IP infringements during new TLD launches, were still rudimentary, featuring early forms of trademark-priority registration (sunrise) for certain TLDs like .biz and .info.

The 2004 evaluation confirmed the absence of instability but recommended improvements[8]. This experiment spurred a new domain-name economy (registration strategies, secondary market, portfolio management) while also creating new opportunities for cybersquatting.

By 2012, the RPMs had matured, now including the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRP), and Claims Notices sent to applicants.

2010: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)

In parallel, the DNS opened to the world’s scripts. Initially, only ASCII characters[9] were allowed, excluding accents, non-Latin alphabets, and scripts such as Arabic, Chinese, or Cyrillic. After years of technical preparation, ICANN enabled, in 2010, the first internationalized country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) [10], written in non-Latin characters—for example, .مصر (Egypt), .السعودية (Saudi Arabia), and .امارات (United Arab Emirates) [11].

This allowed linguistic communities to use domain names in their own writing systems, making the DNS more inclusive.

For brand owners, IDNs had two implications: they expanded the potential cybersquatting surface, requiring broader monitoring, but also offered opportunities for localization and glocalization[12], enabling domain names to reflect the script of the target market.

2012: The Third Generation of gTLDs

On June 20, 2011, ICANN approved the program for new generic top-level domains, ushering in the third generation of gTLDs[13]. The goal was to foster competition and expand user choice. The Applicant Guidebook, serving as the rulebook, set out eligibility, documentation, technical and financial criteria, objection procedures, pre-delegation tests, and contractual obligations under the Registry Agreement. The application fee was fixed at USD 185,000. The window opened on January 12, 2012, via the TLD Application System (TAS).

By June 13, 2012, ICANN had received 1,930 applications, including 84 community-based[14] and 66 geographic[15]. Although no official “.brand” category existed, estimates vary: around 664 brand-related applications (counting contested strings) [16], of which roughly 489 later obtained the “Specification 13” status[17]. On October 21, 2013, the first four new IDN gTLDs (شبكة. (“network” in Arabic), .游戏 (“games” in Chinese), .онлайн (“online” in Russian), and .сайт (“site” in Russian)) were delegated[18]. Subsequent launches brought the total to over 1,200 delegated extensions within a few years.

Structural Effects

Growth of the DNS and Rising Monitoring Costs

The impact of these openings is visible on several fronts. Structurally, the namespace expanded from about twenty extensions to over 1,200 gTLDs, operated by numerous registries and distributed through a vast network of registrars.
Competitively, dependency on a few dominant extensions has slowly but steadily declined. Linguistically, IDNs have enhanced accessibility and inclusion.
Yet each expansion also enlarged the potential cybersquatting surface: every new TLD represents a new “territory” to watch.

To mitigate these risks, ICANN established mechanisms to assist brand owners in preventing and addressing cybersquatting[19]. These rights-protection tools reduce but do not eliminate risks, requiring systematic monitoring and defensive strategies across an ever-broader landscape.
Consequently, IP budgets have increased, especially where companies maintain defensive portfolios across dozens or hundreds of extensions.
Still, investment in protection remains essential: failing to do so exposes brands to dilution, loss of traffic, and phishing threats that may ultimately endanger the brand’s integrity.

Stronger Safeguards for the Next Round

• A decade later, the upcoming cycle is being shaped by several improvements:
  A Registry Service Provider (RSP) qualification program[20] to standardize technical quality;
• An enhanced Applicant Support Program (ASP) to broaden access for under-resourced regions and economies[21];
• Clearer and more efficient dispute and evaluation mechanisms[22]; and
  Clarifications to Specification 13 for dotBRANDs.

Unless plans change, the application window for the Next Round is projected for 2026, with modernized processes and stricter compliance and cybersecurity requirements.

Conclusion

In forty years, the DNS has evolved from a technical directory into a global economic engine. Each expansion has widened the scope of possibilities: new extensions, .brand spaces for corporate control, and IDNs for inclusivity and glocalization.
In parallel, cybersquatting and related abuses (e.g., phishing) have multiplied. Typos, homoglyphs, translations, or transliterations of trademarks in domain names, such practices require vigilance.

Preventive mechanisms reduce part of the risk but do not replace a proactive protection strategy. Mapping priorities, leveraging preventive tools, and combining them with defensive registrations can significantly reduce exposure.

The 2026 round will be an opportunity to optimize governance, providers, and compliance, transforming expansion into competitive advantage while maintaining strict anti-abuse discipline.

The application window for the Next Round is expected in 2026, followed by months of evaluation, contracting, and pre-delegation testing before the first new public extensions emerge. In the meantime, brand owners should audit their portfolios, assess the potential of a .brand TLD, and update their protection frameworks.

IP Twins assists brand owners throughout the reflection, application, and management of their personalized extensions. Drawing on its experience with the 2012 new gTLD program and the management of numerous dotBRAND domain portfolios, IP Twins helps companies turn their TLD into a genuine driver of security, communication, and brand value.

Notes

[1] Jon Postel et Joyce Reynolds, Request for Comments 920 “Domain Requirements”, October 1984 : ietf.org.

[2]  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices, 980212036–8146–02 : ntia.gov.

[3]  Joshua Quittner, « Billions Registered Right now, there are no rules to keep you from owning a bitchin’ corporate name as your own Internet address », Wired.com, 1 October 1994.

[4]  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Notices, 980212036–8146–02 : ntia.gov.

[5]  ICANN.org.

[6]  Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) : ICANN.org.

[7]  “RPM” stands for “Rights Protection Mecanisms”.

[8]  ICANN, Evaluation of the New gTLDs: Policy and Legal Issues : ICANN.org.

[9]  “ASCII” (American Standard Code for Information Interchange): a character set including A–Z (unaccented), digits 0–9, and the hyphen.

[10]  “ccTLDs” stands for country code Top Level Domains.

[11]  ICANN, First IDN ccTLDs Available, 5 May 2010, ICANN.org.

[12]  “Glocalization” (a blend of “globalization” and “localization”) refers to adapting a brand, product, or service to local cultural, linguistic, and economic specifics while maintaining a coherent global identity.

[13]  New gTLD Program.

[14]  Source : newgtlds.icann.org.

[15]  Ibid.

[16]  ICANNWiki, “Brand TLD” (estimating 664 .brand applications, 34% of the total).

[17]  ICANN, Applications to Qualify for Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement: archive.icann.org.

[18]  Christine Willett, « First New gTLDs Get the Green Light for Delegation », 21 October 2013 : ICANN.org.

[19]  TMCH, sunrise periods, URS.

[20]  Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program : ICANN.org.

[21]  Applicant Support Program : ICANN.org.

[22]  For the Next Round, ICANN has clarified and documented the four objection grounds (string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest, community) and the avenues for appeal/review; it has also specified procedures involving the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) : ICANN.org.