ICANN’s 2026 New gTLD Round represents another important chapter in the evolution of the Domain Name System (DNS). With 1,615 applications reported on Reveal Day, there is clearly considerable interest in expanding the domain name space. But as we follow the numbers, the applications, and the evaluation process, I believe we need to ask a more fundamental question: How will we know whether this expansion has actually benefited the people who use the Internet?

It is easy to measure how many applications ICANN receives, how many new top-level domains are approved, or how many registrations eventually take place. Those figures tell us something about the program’s reach and commercial interest. What they do not necessarily tell us is whether ordinary Internet users are better off.

From my perspective as an individual Internet user and an active participant in the At-Large community, that distinction deserves much greater attention.

Success Should Mean More Than Expansion

The introduction of new domain extensions can create opportunities for businesses, communities, cultural organizations, and individuals. It may encourage competition and offer alternatives to traditional domain names. These are legitimate objectives.

However, the existence of more choices does not automatically mean that users benefit from them.

Consider a small business owner trying to establish an online presence. Does a new gTLD provide an affordable, recognizable, and trustworthy option? Can the owner maintain that domain without facing unexpected renewal costs?

Or consider someone who wants to use a domain name in their own language. Can that person successfully use the domain for a website, register it with online services, and exchange email without encountering technical barriers?

These are practical questions. They are also the kinds of questions that should shape how we evaluate the 2026 round.

The Multilingual Internet Remains an Unfinished Promise

One area where I believe we must be particularly careful is multilingual inclusion.

According to ICANN’s October 2026 application data, only 21 applications were submitted for Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs). That is a relatively small proportion of the 1,615 applications received. While application numbers alone cannot explain the reasons, they raise legitimate questions about the accessibility and attractiveness of the program for linguistic communities.

More importantly, the availability of an IDN does not guarantee that people can use it without difficulty.

We have discussed Universal Acceptance (UA) for years. Yet valid domain names and internationalized email addresses can still encounter problems when software applications fail to recognize, validate, process, store, or display them correctly.

Imagine explaining to a user that a domain name in their language is technically valid, but an online registration form refuses to accept it. From that person’s perspective, the system has failed, regardless of how successfully the domain was delegated.

ICANN’s 2026 reporting acknowledges that progress has been made on Universal Acceptance, while important gaps remain.

We should recognize that resolving these gaps requires cooperation beyond ICANN, particularly from software developers, technology companies, and service providers. Nevertheless, the user experience must remain central to evaluating the practical value of introducing additional IDNs.

We Already Have Lessons From the Previous Round

The 2012 expansion offers a useful reminder that expectations and results are not always the same.

The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review, completed in 2018, found evidence that the new gTLD program had increased competition and consumer choice. At the same time, the review identified important limitations in the information available to assess competition, safeguards, consumer trust, and geographic representation.

In other words, the expansion showed promise, but important questions remained unanswered.

I find this particularly relevant today. If we enter another round without a clear strategy for collecting meaningful evidence of user benefits, we risk repeating the same shortcomings.

The issue is not whether ICANN can successfully administer another application round. It is whether the multistakeholder community can demonstrate that the program has delivered the benefits used to justify its expansion.

What Evidence Would Convince Me?

I would begin with a relatively simple proposition: measure what changes for users, not just what changes in the DNS.

We should examine whether new gTLDs provide affordable and sustainable alternatives, whether they support functioning websites and email services, and whether they create opportunities for communities that previously had limited representation in the domain name space.

We should also examine security. Are new domains being used responsibly? How effectively are DNS abuse complaints addressed? Are users exposed to additional risks of phishing, fraud, or confusion?

The economic dimension deserves equal attention. More registry operators do not necessarily translate into lower prices or better conditions for registrants. We need evidence of genuine competition, transparent pricing, and sustainable choices.

For multilingual users, we should go further than counting IDN registrations. We need to test whether domain names and associated email addresses work across commonly used applications, browsers, platforms, and services.

And perhaps most importantly, we should listen directly to Internet users.

Surveys, usability studies, community consultations, and documented experiences can reveal problems that registration statistics cannot. A technically successful deployment may still create frustration, confusion, or exclusion for the people expected to benefit from it.

A Practical Approach to Accountability

I believe ICANN and the broader community should develop an independently assessed End-User Benefit Scorecard for the 2026 round.

This would not require inventing an entirely new approach to accountability. ICANN already has experience collecting DNS market indicators and evaluating competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice.

What is needed is a stronger connection between those indicators and actual user outcomes.

The scorecard should establish baseline measurements before new gTLDs enter operation, followed by assessments at appropriate intervals, such as 12, 24, and 36 months after delegation.

The results should be transparent and sufficiently detailed to identify differences among regions, languages, communities, and types of registries.

Equally important, the evaluation should distinguish between outcomes that ICANN can directly influence through its policies and contracts and those that require collaboration with the wider Internet ecosystem.

This is not about holding ICANN responsible for every problem users encounter online. It is about ensuring that claims of public benefit are supported by credible evidence.

Keeping Internet Users at the Center

I support innovation and recognize the opportunities that new gTLDs may create. I also recognize the considerable work involved in developing and implementing this program through ICANN’s multistakeholder processes.

But innovation should not be measured only by the number of new options introduced. It should also be measured by whether those options solve real problems, improve existing services, and expand meaningful participation.

For those of us involved in At-Large, this presents an important responsibility. We should continue asking difficult but constructive questions about the relationship between DNS expansion and the public interest.

The 2026 round is still moving through its application and evaluation stages. That makes this the right time to establish how its eventual outcomes will be assessed, rather than waiting until years after delegation to discover that important evidence was never collected.

Ultimately, I would like us to be able to answer one straightforward question:

What can Internet users do more effectively, securely, affordably, or inclusively because of the 2026 New gTLD Round that they could not do before?

If we can answer that question with credible evidence, we will have a meaningful basis for judging the program’s success.

If we cannot, we may have expanded the DNS without ever demonstrating how much the expansion improved the Internet for the people it is intended to serve.

Supporting Sources

• ICANN (2026). ICANN Reveals 2026 Round Applications for New Generic Top-Level Domains.
• ICANN (2018). Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review: Final Report.
• ICANN (2026). Universal Acceptance Readiness Evaluations.
• ICANN (2026). Guidelines for Advancing Universal Acceptance Adoption.