Geographic and Community TLD Applications

## Geographic and Community TLDs: A Special Category Among the thousands of applications ICANN received in the 2012 round, two categories attracted the most policy complexity: geographic TLDs — extensions that correspond to places, regions, or geographic names — and community TLDs — extensions representing established, clearly delineated communities. The 2026 round carries forward and refines the framework for both, with lessons absorbed from some of the most contentious disputes of the 2012 era. This guide explains what makes a geographic or community gTLD (Generic Top-Level Domain) application distinctive, what additional requirements apply, and what real-world case studies tell us about what works and what does not. Use the TLD Finder tool to explore which geographic and community TLDs are already delegated from the 2012 round before selecting your string. ## What Is a Geographic TLD? A geographic TLD (Top-Level Domain) is an extension whose applied-for string is: - The name of a country, territory, or city (e.g., .london, .tokyo, .dubai) - A regional or cultural geographic name (e.g., .amazon, .patagonia, .himalaya) - An identifier closely associated with a geographic area (e.g., .nyc for New York City) Geographic TLDs are distinct from country code TLDs (ccTLDs): a ccTLD like .uk or .de is a two-letter code assigned to a country by ICANN based on the ISO 3166-1 standard, and only the corresponding national government or ICANN-designated entity can manage it. A geographic new New gTLD is a privately operated extension that happens to be named after a place. ### Why Geographic Strings Face Extra Scrutiny ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) — composed of representatives from over 170 national governments — has a particular interest in geographic strings. The GAC maintains the position that geographic names should not be operated by private entities without appropriate government involvement or endorsement. The ICANN Board is not legally required to follow GAC advice, but it must seriously consider it. Applications that receive GAC advice (formal opposition from the GAC) almost always fail unless the applicant reaches an accommodation with the objecting government(s). The **.amazon** case is the defining example: Amazon.com applied for .amazon as a Brand TLD (.brand); Brazil and Peru objected that "Amazon" belongs to the Amazon River basin region; the resulting decade-long dispute was not resolved until 2022. This cautionary tale shapes how geographic strings will be handled in 2026. ## ICANN's Geographic Names Policy for 2026 The 2026 Applicant Guidebook establishes clearer rules for geographic strings than existed in 2012: ### Country and Territory Names Applications for strings that are the exact name of a country or territory (in any language) require explicit governmental support from the relevant national government. This effectively means only government-sponsored or government-endorsed entities can apply for these strings. ### Capital Cities and Major Cities Applications for major city names (specifically: all capital cities and cities with populations above a defined threshold) require: - A letter of non-objection from the relevant municipal or national government, or - Explicit endorsement from the relevant government demonstrating support for the application ### Regional and Subcultural Geographic Names For strings that are regional names (continents, mountain ranges, rivers, historical regions) without a single clear governmental authority, the process is more nuanced. ICANN requires review by a geographic names panel, which assesses whether the string carries a specific geographic identity that could be affected by delegating it to a private operator. ### Sensitive Strings Certain geographic strings are designated as sensitive by ICANN policy — typically strings related to politically contested territories, indigenous peoples' names, or areas subject to ongoing international disputes. These require special handling and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ## Successful Geographic TLDs: Case Studies ### .nyc — New York City Perhaps the most successful city TLD in the 2012 round. The application was made by a consortium with endorsement from the New York City government. Key success factors: - **Strong governmental support**: Official City of New York backing. - **Geographic nexus requirement**: Registrations limited to residents, businesses, and organisations with a genuine New York City connection. - **Commercial success**: Grew to 300,000+ registrations, used by city government, local businesses, media outlets, and cultural organisations. - **Brand identity**: "Only .nyc" campaign gave the extension cultural cachet among New Yorkers. ### .berlin — Berlin, Germany Another successful city TLD, operated by dotBerlin GmbH with endorsement from the Berlin Senate (city government). Features: - German-language marketing targeting Berlin businesses, residents, and diaspora. - Genuine local identity: the .berlin extension is used by Berlin's tourism board, cultural institutions, and many local businesses. ### .london — London, United Kingdom Operated by Dot London Domains Ltd with support from the Greater London Authority. Reached 100,000+ registrations, used for London-specific services, tourism, and culture. ### .tokyo — Tokyo, Japan An IDN and Latin-script extension, .tokyo was one of the first city TLDs targeted at a major Asian city. Operated with Japanese government support. ## What Is a Community TLD? A community TLD (Top-Level Domain) is an extension operated primarily for the benefit of a specific, well-defined community of interest. The community must be: 1. **Established**: It must have existed before the application — not created for the purpose of establishing priority. 2. **Delineated**: There must be clear, objective criteria for who is and is not a member of the community. 3. **Nexus**: The applied-for string must closely correspond to the community's name or identifier. 4. **Supportive**: The application must demonstrate broad community support, typically through endorsement letters from representative organisations. ### Examples of Community TLD Applications - **.ngo** / **.ong**: For non-governmental organisations. The application was made by Public Interest Registry (which operates .org) with broad NGO sector support. - **.catholic**: Applied for by the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Social Communications. A clear, established, delineated global community. - **.music**: Multiple applicants claimed community status — a music industry coalition applied alongside commercial operators. The community priority evaluation was hotly contested. - **.radio**: Applied for by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) as a community application for the broadcasting sector; lost at auction to a commercial operator, which many considered a failure of the community TLD protections. ## Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) in 2026 The Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) is the mechanism by which a community applicant can bypass string contention. For details on the CPE scoring rubric and process, see String Contention: When Multiple Parties Want the Same TLD. For the 2026 round, the CPE framework has been strengthened: - **Clearer delineation criteria**: The community must use objective, verifiable membership criteria — not merely self-identification. - **Independent objector process**: Third parties can formally challenge community claims if they believe an applicant is manufacturing community status. - **GAC input**: Governments can provide input on whether a claimed community has genuine governmental or international recognition. ## The GAC and Geographic TLDs in 2026 The GAC's role in reviewing geographic TLD applications is formalised in the 2026 framework: ### GAC Early Warning Any GAC member government can issue a GAC Early Warning against an application for a string it believes raises concerns. An Early Warning does not stop the application but requires the applicant to respond and engage with the concerned government(s). ### GAC Advice If the GAC as a body issues formal advice — typically recommending denial of an application — the ICANN Board must formally consider it and can only proceed over GAC advice by a super-majority vote with published reasoning. In practice, GAC Advice against a geographic string is very difficult to overcome. ### Government Support Letters For city and regional TLDs, proactively obtaining government support letters before submitting the application significantly reduces GAC risk. Many successful 2012 applicants secured these letters 12–18 months before the application window. ## Strategic Considerations for Geographic and Community TLD Applicants 1. **Engage governments early**: Ideally, before the application window opens. A formal endorsement letter from the relevant government transforms a risky application into a well-positioned one. 2. **Build community documentation**: For community TLDs, assemble endorsement letters, membership statistics, governance documents, and community charter well in advance. 3. **Anticipate string contention**: Many city names and community identifiers attracted multiple applicants in 2012. Budget for contention resolution. 4. **Consider the nexus requirement**: Registrations limited to genuine community or geographic members have lower commercial upside but stronger community credibility — and better survival odds in CPE scoring. For objection risks specific to geographic and community TLDs, see Objection Grounds and GAC Early Warnings. For post-delegation operational requirements, see Post-Delegation: Running a TLD Registry. ## The IDN Opportunity for Geographic TLDs One underexplored dimension of geographic and community TLDs is the internationalised domain name (IDN) opportunity. Many of the world's most significant geographic regions have names that are most naturally written in non-Latin scripts: Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Korean, and others. The 2026 round explicitly prioritises IDN TLD applications. An Arabic-script TLD for a Middle Eastern city, or a Chinese-script TLD for a Chinese province, can serve communities that find Latin-script domains foreign and alienating. ICANN's IDN Tables define which characters are permissible in each script's TLDs, and support resources are available for applicants navigating the IDN technical requirements. For geographic communities that have historically been underrepresented in the Latin-script-dominated domain namespace, the 2026 round's IDN provisions represent a genuine opportunity. The key difference from a Latin-script geographic application is technical: the Registry Operator must support IDNA2008 encoding, IDN-aware EPP extensions, and IDN variant tables. Most established back-end operators have this capability, making it accessible to community applicants who partner with an experienced operator. The policy requirements — government endorsement, community support, geographic nexus — apply equally to IDN geographic TLDs and their Latin-script equivalents. The primary additional complexity is technical and linguistic: ensuring the script encoding is correct, the variant table is complete, and the string is unambiguous within the target script community.