ICANN Reveal Day: Key Takeaways and What Every Brand Owner Should Do Next

It’s been roughly a week since ICANN’s Reveal Day (7 October 2026) gave us the first official look at applied-for strings in the 2026 generic top-level domain (gTLD) round. With the application window having closed in mid-August, there has been two months of speculation, industry discussion and a smattering of public proclamations ahead of the official release. However, Reveal Day brought much of that into focus and gave us the first real data points to assess what this round could mean for the future of the domain name system.

The headline numbers:

• 1,615 applications in total
• 333 brand applications

Applications also included generic, geographic and community-based strings:

• 864 applications came from North America
• 506 applications came from Europe
• 218 applications came from the Asia/Australia/Pacific region
• 21 applications were for internationalised domain names (IDNs), supporting scripts beyond the Latin alphabet

ICANN’s Reveal Day announcement provides the full snapshot.

The list is not yet final. Eligible applicants that designated a replacement string have until 21 October 2026 to decide whether to switch from their original choice, with the confirmed list and updated contention sets due on 17 November 2026.

Even so, we now have enough information to start drawing meaningful conclusions. After reviewing the published strings, applicants and available data, these are my key takeaways and what Abion believes brand owners should be thinking about next.

“The applications have been revealed. Now is the time to decide what they mean for your brand.”

1. dotBrands remain a significant part of the picture

• dotBrand applications made up roughly 20% of total applications with a total of 333 applications. That is roughly one in five applications, demonstrating that a meaningful group of organisations see value in operating a branded extension of its own.
• The applications span close to 250 organisations and include numerous applications from high-profile, global brands like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, AT&T and TikTok. This indicates that established businesses are continuing to explore how they might use their own top-level domain to shape their digital presence.
• The geographic distribution of dotBrand applications is also interesting with strong geographic representation from both North America (with 155 applications) and Asia Pacific (with 107 applications). It suggests that interest in brand-owned extensions is not confined to the markets that dominate the round as a whole.
• Another noteworthy observation is that the published dotBrand applications do not appear to have any contention sets with one another at this stage. That contrasts with the experience of the 2012 round, when some brand applicants encountered contention over identical strings.For brand owners that have applied, the immediate focus should now shift towards the evaluation process and the longer-term business case for their extension. Securing a dotBrand is only one part of the journey. Its eventual value will depend on how the organisation integrates it into its digital strategy, domain architecture, security and customer experience.
• For businesses that did not apply, the scale of dotBrand participation is still relevant. It provides a useful indication of how other organisations are approaching their digital identities and may prompt a fresh look at whether a company-owned extension would be worth considering in a future round.

2. A concentrated applicant pool, and plenty of contention

• Looking at the standard applications, portfolio applicants were the overwhelming majority of the total submissions.
• The five largest applicant entities made up roughly 40% of the total applications. Also important to note these applicants (and in fact the ten largest applicant entities) are all either existing registry operators or long-time participants in the domain name system.
• This raises an interesting question about the reach of the programme. How successfully has the round encouraged participation from organisations and communities that have not traditionally been involved in operating gTLDs?
• The contention picture is another important part of the story. More than 50% of applied-for strings released on Reveal Day have multiple applications; while that number was under 40% in the previous 2012 round. Contention occurs when more than one applicant seeks the same string. Those applications cannot all proceed to operate the identical extension, so the applicants may need to navigate the applicable contention-resolution process.
• For brand owners, this is worth watching even if they have no intention of operating a gTLD themselves. Contention can influence which proposed extensions ultimately progress and when they might become available. It also reinforces why the list should be treated as a developing picture rather than a final catalogue of future domains.

“The round is being shaped by a relatively small group of experienced players, raising questions about how broadly the programme has expanded participation.”

3. Geographic representation deserves closer attention

• Overall geographic representation is concerning – for example, not a single dotBrand application came from Africa and only 7 came from Latin America. Overall, just about 85% of all applications came from North America and Europe.
• While the Asia region performed well with dotBrand applications, only 13% of total applications came from Asia – well behind North America and Europe. If you look further at the data, you’ll see only a small number of geographic and internationalised gTLDs were applied for – less than 40 combined (15 self-identified geographic-name applications and 21 IDN applications).
• There may be several reasons for this distribution, including awareness, cost, technical capacity, commercial incentives and the resources required to operate a registry. However, for a programme and an organisation that is meant to operate globally, these numbers will be a big focus of the discussion regarding the overall success of the 2026 gTLD program.
• For brand owners, there is a more immediate practical takeaway: the future domain landscape will reflect where applicants see commercial, cultural and strategic value. Understanding how your industry and target markets are represented can help inform your own domain strategy, including where new extensions may become relevant to customers or competitors.

4. You’ve seen the list. Now what?

So given all of that, what should corporate domain managers and IP focused brand managers do at this point and what can they expect in the months and years to come? As mentioned earlier, we won’t have a final list of applied-for strings until November, but there’s still plenty of work that can be done in the meantime.

Brand owners should approach this work through three lenses.

Look for applications that may affect your own brands

First off, review the list for any applications where there is potential conflict with your company name, registered trade marks, product names and other commercially important brand assets.

The question is not simply whether a string resembles a trade mark. It is whether the application creates a plausible legal, commercial or reputational concern that deserves further investigation.

In addition to a review of the strings, it’s also important to look at the applicant entity themselves to understand how other companies in your industry participated in the programme. While the application window is now closed, having a view into what others in your space are doing relative to the gTLD programme is important.

An application that looks concerning at first glance may prove to be low risk once the context is understood. Conversely, a string that does not directly match your brand may still warrant attention if its intended use could affect your business or customers.

The objective is to establish a prioritised list of relevant applications, not to treat every similarity as a conflict.

“Not every application will matter to every business. But the scale of the round makes it unwise to assume that none of them will matter to yours.”

Consider the extensions that matter to your industry

In addition to applications that may be problematic from your specific company’s perspective, it’s also important to look at strings that may be relevant to the industry in which you operate. For example, strings like .accounting, apparel, .biotech and .advisor suggest a strong connection to certain industries which could be closely linked to specific companies in those industries.

It’s important to note that in addition to formal objection filing (including based on existing legal rights), parties can also submit public comments to any application which proceeds in the program. Those public comments will be provided to evaluators and may be considered when reviewing the application against the requirements set forth in the ICANN Guidebook.

Certain other strings should be closely tracked from a brand protection standpoint such as, .account, .outlet, .corporation and others where having your company or product name registered to a third-party in those strings could prove problematic.

That does not mean these extensions are inherently problematic. Their significance will vary between organisations, and a sensible review should consider the context rather than assume that a particular string presents a universal risk.

For some businesses, the right response may be to monitor an application. For others, it may be appropriate to investigate registration policies, consider potential defensive registrations or assess whether there are grounds for a formal response.

Understand the options for responding

Not every concern calls for the same response. Some applications may warrant closer investigation, while others may simply need to be monitored as they progress through ICANN’s process. A number of strings are likely to face contention, meaning it could be some time before they reach the market. Even so, public comments may be worth considering where an application raises concerns about its proposed use or potential impact.

The right approach will depend on the string, the applicant and your business. An extension that presents little concern for one company could be more sensitive for another, depending on its brands, products and industry. Each organisation should therefore review the applications through its own lens and decide which warrant further investigation, monitoring, public comment or consideration of formal objection mechanisms.

The aim is not to challenge every potentially relevant application, but to identify where action may be justified and prepare accordingly. For some strings, that could also mean planning for future domain registrations or other protective measures if they eventually become available.

5. Replacement strings mean the list can still change

One important detail to keep in mind is that the Reveal Day list is not yet final.
Applicants that designated an eligible replacement string when submitting their application have a 14-day window, from 8 to 21 October 2026, to elect to use it instead of their original choice. A replacement is subject to ICANN’s rules, including requirements intended to prevent it from creating or expanding a contention set.

ICANN is scheduled to publish the confirmed strings and updated contention sets on 17 November 2026. This will provide a clearer basis for assessing which strings will continue through the programme and where contention remains.

Replacement strings are primarily an applicant-side consideration, so most brand owners will not need to take direct action on them. Nevertheless, the process is a useful reminder that conclusions drawn from the initial list may need to be revisited.

If you identify an application that could affect your business, record it now and keep track of relevant changes as the process develops. Waiting until the final list is published to begin the review could leave too little time to prepare for the next phase.

“The aim is not to challenge every potentially relevant application, but to identify where action may be justified and prepare accordingly.”

6. The next phase is the time to prepare

Even in its preliminary state, the data released on Reveal Day is a must review for anyone charged with managing corporate domain portfolios and broader intellectual property.

Getting an early look into what the online landscape will look like in the coming years will allow you to be prepared for the eventuality of many of these applied-for strings becoming available for registration.

Domain and brand teams should use the coming weeks to:

• Define priority assets. Identify the trademarks, company names, products and terms that warrant review.
• Assess relevant applications. Compare those assets against the published strings and investigate applicants or extensions that may be significant.
• Agree priorities and ownership. Establish who evaluates concerns, who provides legal advice and who can approve any response.
• Prepare proportionate actions. Determine which cases require monitoring, additional research, public comments, formal legal assessment or domain-protection planning.
• Review the wider portfolio. Consider whether your existing domain strategy, monitoring and Trademark Clearinghouse coverage support your current business and brand-protection priorities.
• Taking advantage of this time before the launch of any new gTLDs in the future will benefit you in the long run and avoid being caught off guard when we get to the point where decisions need to be made.

Photo credit

ICANN