It’s been a big week in ICANN-land. On Wednesday, August 12, the 2026 new gTLD Round application window closed, and ICANN announced that it had received over 1,600 applications. To date, at least 8 applicants, accounting for hundreds of strings and representing potentially over 20% of the applications submitted, have chosen to self-reveal the strings they applied for. It’s likely that other applicants will follow suit.

This creates a significant dilemma for those applicants and all other applicants who self- reveal: what do they do if other applicants for the same string contact them and want to discuss options to address this conflict? But this is not just a question of strategy for applicants. Because of a perceived lack of clarity in the Applicant Guidebook, many applicants are concerned that making the wrong decision could put their applications and the related financial investment - and even their ability to participate in this and future new gTLD application rounds - at risk.

The concern that has been raised by a number of applicants is that it’s unclear whether having discussions or negotiating with other applicants for the same string before Reveal Day - or even receiving such an inquiry from another applicant - would violate the prohibition on private resolution of contention sets in the Applicant Guidebook. There is also uncertainty as to whether the answer may differ depending on whether the parties are merely communicating, negotiating possible courses of action, or actually entering into an agreement involving the withdrawal of an application. For the benefit of the applicants and the sake of the 2026 Round, ICANN should immediately provide clarity on this issue.

For background, in the 2012 round of new gTLD applications, many contention sets (i.e., where there was more than one applicant for the same string) were resolved through private auctions where the losers of the auction split the winning bid amount. There was concern by many that if private auctions were permitted in the 2026 Round, this would incentivize the submission of applications from applicants who did not have a bona fide intent to operate the string and simply wanted a payout from a private auction. The result is that private resolution of contention sets was prohibited in the 2026 Round. Specifically, Section 5.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook states that ICANN’s contention resolution processes (i.e., an auction conducted by ICANN) provide the “only permissible path to contention resolution” and prohibits “any other arrangement designed to resolve contention privately.” Similarly, Section 5.2.3.1. States that “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.”

So, the question that applicants who have revealed their strings to the public and are contacted by other applicants for the same string are struggling with is whether those discussions—or even being contacted at all by other applicants for the same string—constitute prohibited private resolution of contention sets. I, and a number of others, believe that at least communications and discussions between applicants for the same string prior to Reveal Day are not only permissible under the Applicant Guidebook, but also are aligned with ICANN’s stated goal of reducing contention in the 2026 Round for the following reasons discussed below. Whether particular negotiations or agreements could independently constitute an impermissible “arrangement designed to resolve contention privately” presents a closer question, and is one of the reasons ICANN should provide immediate guidance.

1. ICANN Does Not Identify Contention Sets Before Reveal Day

According to Section 5.2 of the Applicant Guidebook, contention occurs when one or more applied-for strings are identical, variants, singular/plural forms, or visually similar to one another. Importantly, Section 5.2 states that the earliest date that contention may be identified is at Reveal Day. Specifically, Section 5.2 states that “Contention may be identified during various stages of the application process from Reveal Day through the conclusion of the string evaluation and potential subsequent challenges, objections, appeals, and Singular/Plural Notifications processes.”

This is confirmed by Section 5.2.3.1, which identifies the various points in time when contention sets are identified, the earliest of which is Reveal Day (“The New gTLD Program includes various points in time when contention sets are identified and updated as new information is available, namely: Reveal Day, String Confirmation Day, publication of Singular/Plural Notification results, publication of String Similarity Evaluation results, and resolution of Objection proceeding.”)

This makes sense because prior to Reveal Day: (1) applications that were submitted may not proceed - and thus would not be revealed on Reveal Day - due to payment issues or because of completeness or accuracy issues identified during the administrative check; (2) applications may be withdrawn before Reveal Day; and (3) applicants have not finally chosen their string as they still may have the option to move to their Replacement String.

Accordingly, because ICANN does not identify or establish contention sets until Reveal Day, there is a strong argument that discussions between applicants for the same string (whether the string is a primary string or replacement string) that occur before Reveal Day cannot constitute private resolution of a contention set. However, if such discussions resulted in the withdrawal of one or more of the applications for the same string, then they could have the effect of either avoiding or reducing contention.

2. Communications Between Applicants for the Same String Before Reveal Day Are Explicitly Permitted

Even more importantly, the Applicant Guidebook expressly identifies Reveal Day as the beginning of the period during which the prohibition on communications applies.

Section 5.2.3.1 of the Applicant Guidebook prohibits certain communications and activities during specified time periods to prevent applicants from engaging in private resolution of contention. Specifically, Section 5.2.3.1 states that “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.”

But this section goes on to clarify that these “Communications are prohibited from Reveal Day until the earlier of (1) the date a prevailing applicant signs a Registry Agreement for a specific contending gTLD string, or (2) the applicant withdraws the relevant application.”

The choice of Reveal Day as the express starting point for the prohibition is significant. If ICANN intended to prohibit these communications from the moment applications were submitted, it could have said so. Reading the prohibition as nevertheless applying before Reveal Day would appear to give little or no effect to the Guidebook’s express statement that communications “are prohibited from Reveal Day.”

Accordingly, Section 5.2.3.2 expressly confirms that the New gTLD Program does not prohibit applicants for the same string from communicating directly or indirectly any information related to applications or application strategies “for strings that are not in contention” and communications “occurring outside of the defined periods where communication is prohibited.”

Nor is it clear how merely receiving an unsolicited communication from another applicant could itself constitute a violation. An applicant cannot control whether another party sends it an email or otherwise attempts to contact it. ICANN should therefore clarify not only what communications are permissible before Reveal Day, but what an applicant should do if it receives such a communication.

3. Communications Between Applicants for the Same String Before Reveal Day May Facilitate Contention Avoidance, Not Contention Resolution

As discussed above, I believe that the Applicant Guidebook makes clear that there are no contention sets prior to Reveal Day and that communications between applicants for the same string are also only prohibited after Reveal Day. The Applicant Guidebook also distinguishes between contention avoidance and contention resolution. Section 5.1 establishes the Replacement String mechanism, which is described as providing applicants “the opportunity to avoid contention and the associated resolution procedures.” The Applicant Guidebook thus both distinguishes between contention avoidance and contention resolution and recognizes that avoiding or reducing contention is distinct from resolving contention through the procedures applicable to an established contention set.

This distinction is particularly relevant before Reveal Day. If two applicants independently determine, following permissible communications, that one will pursue a different string or withdraw its application, the result may be that a contention set never arises in the first place. That is fundamentally different from conducting a private auction or other mechanism to determine the winner of an established contention set.

That said, Section 5.2.3’s separate prohibition on “any other arrangement designed to resolve contention privately” creates an important question that the Guidebook does not clearly answer: Does that language prohibit an agreement reached before Reveal Day even though the express communications prohibition does not begin until Reveal Day? And, if so, where is the line between permissible pre-Reveal Day communications intended to avoid contention and an impermissible private arrangement to resolve it? The consequences for getting that distinction wrong are too significant for applicants to be left to guess.

Conclusion

While the above analysis makes a compelling case for the permissibility of at least communications and discussions between applicants for the same string before Reveal Day, the reality is that many applicants who are concerned about putting their applications, and the many millions they have paid for them at risk are not so sure.

The Guidebook’s express commencement of the communications prohibition on Reveal Day strongly supports the permissibility of pre-Reveal Day communications, but the broader prohibition on private resolution leaves legitimate questions concerning how far those communications may go, including whether applicants may negotiate or enter into agreements before Reveal Day. Because of the significant number of applications that have already been self-revealed, the current confusion amongst applicants on this point creates unnecessary risk to the 2026 Round. Accordingly, for the benefit of applicants in the 2026 Round, and to ensure the success of the Round itself, ICANN should provide clarity on this issue as soon as possible.

Applicants should not have to choose between refusing communications that the Applicant Guidebook appears to permit and engaging in communications that ICANN might later determine crossed an undefined line. ICANN can - and should - eliminate that uncertainty now by clearly stating what applicants for the same string may, and may not, discuss or agree to before Reveal Day.