The 2026 round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) does not concern brand applicants alone. It also opens a strategic window for cities, regions, and territorial authorities that do not yet operate their own dedicated extension. However, any such initiative must be assessed in light of the increasingly structured legal framework governing geographic names under the ICANN Applicant Guidebook 2026.

I. The Procedural Framework of the 2026 Round

The 2026 round of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) has entered its operational phase. The publication, on 13 February 2026, of the call for proposals to select the panel responsible for evaluating geographic names[1] marks a significant milestone in the implementation of the program.

The document confirms that the panel will strictly apply the rules set out in the Applicant Guidebook 2026, which constitutes the normative and procedural framework of the round[2]. The call for proposals does not create new rules; it operationalizes their application.

II. The Legal Regime Governing Geographic Names

With regard to geographic names, the mechanism follows a two-step structure (RFP, pp. 4 and 8).

The first stage consists of identifying the applied-for string, namely the term intended to form the top-level domain. The purpose is to determine whether the denomination falls within a protected geographic category.

Where applicable, the second stage involves a substantive review of the institutional authorizations submitted by the applicant. The panel examines the formal validity of the public support, the authority of the signatory, and the scope of the institutional commitment[3].

The exclusions are expressly defined. Denominations corresponding to countries or territories listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard are unavailable[4].

By contrast, certain categories remain admissible subject to specific conditions: capital cities, administrative subdivisions within the meaning of ISO 3166-2[5], and certain regions identified in the United Nations M49 statistical classification[6].

The possibility of an Extended Evaluation, provided for in cases of insufficient documentation or conflicting institutional positions, reflects ICANN’s effort to balance openness of the program with legal certainty[7].

III. Implications for Territorial Authorities

This normative framework, demanding yet coherent, should not be viewed as a barrier. Rather, it delineates a structured space for action for territorial authorities seeking to anchor their identity within the architecture of the domain name system.

The 2012 round enabled the emergence of French territorial extensions such as .paris, .tokyo, and .nyc. Thirteen years later, many major French cities still lack a dedicated extension. The 2026 timetable, with an application window scheduled from 30 April to 12 August 2026, calls for early strategic reflection (timeline details available on ICANN’s New gTLD Program portal[8].

The issue facing territorial authorities is not primarily technical. It is institutional and strategic. A territorial extension entails a policy of digital identity, requires coordinated administrative governance, and presupposes a precise understanding of the international standards relied upon by ICANN.

Conclusion

The launch of the panel selection process marks a decisive stage in the implementation of the 2026 round. The regime governing geographic names is now stabilized, documented, and legally structured.

About IP Twins

IP Twins actively participated in the 2012 round and has operational experience in new gTLD applications as well as in the governance mechanisms of the domain name system. This experience demonstrates that such projects require careful preparation, both legally and strategically.

The 2026 round is not merely a technical program. For territories choosing to engage in it, it represents a structural decision in digital governance.