Summary

  • ICANN announced an agreement with Analysys Mason on 3 September to provide both geographic and reserved-name panels for the 2026 gTLD round.
  • The common supplier does not merge applicant charges: substantive geographic review carries a separate fee capped at USD 12,000, while reserved-name identification and review are included in the standard evaluation fee.

One name-review supplier can sit behind two quite different funding arrangements. That is the practical distinction accompanying ICANN’s appointment of Analysys Mason Limited to its Geographic Names Panel and Reserved Names Panel.

The 3 September announcement closes a procurement step, not an individual application. It gives both functions an identified provider. The February tender had already proposed combining similar work; the news is the agreement, not a newly invented consolidation policy.

The extra charge follows the review

ICANN’s current fee FAQ includes Geographic Names Identification, Reserved Names Identification and Reserved Names Review within the standard USD 227,000 evaluation fee. Applicant-support and variant-string exceptions exist, so that standard amount is not every applicant’s bill.

Geographic Names Review is different. The more substantive examination attracts an additional fee that must not exceed USD 12,000. Table 3-2 in the authoritative April Guidebook states the same ceiling. It is neither a published flat invoice for every case nor evidence of a September price rise. Reserved-name review is included, rather than costless.

“Conditional” also does not mean optional in every circumstance. Section 3.3.2 explains that some reviews are required for the application concerned; its footnote specifically says nonpayment for required geographic review prevents the application from proceeding. Conditional invoices are issued separately and fall due before the review, according to the FAQ.

Two workloads behind one appointment

The process explains the distinction. Geographic identification examines strings before later substantive verification of required government support or non-objection. An applicant’s decision not to label its filing geographic does not settle the classification.

Reserved names take another route. An automated list check triggers an exception process for eligible entities, followed by verification that the applicant qualifies for the particular reserved name. The procurement overview expressly assigns that automated identification step to ICANN, not to the Reserved Names Panel. The appointment should therefore not be read as outsourcing every name check.

The tender also separates supplier pricing from applicant billing. It sought tiered per-string prices for geographic identification and per-application prices for substantive reviews. Those requested quotes are not the public tariff. The current FAQ remains the relevant evidence for what is included in an applicant’s base payment.

A combined contract still needs separate explanations

A shared provider may reuse expertise and administration. Whether that produces faster or more consistent results has not yet been established by the material reviewed.

The tender provides more concrete things to examine: reasoned determinations, cross-panel consistency checks and retention of evaluation records for at least five years. It also anticipates independent quality-control review and recusal with an alternative evaluator where a conflict arises. These are procurement expectations, not evidence that a specific control has already operated or a conflict has occurred.

For applicants and ICANN, the useful question is consequently how each kind of work is reported and charged. A single total for “names reviewed” would conceal whether it counted automated identification, geographic screening or substantive document assessment. The appointment is real; the final supplier economics and actual operating performance remain outside the public evidence examined here.

Sources

  1. ICANN provider announcement
  2. Applicant Guidebook, V2-2026.04.24
  3. Evaluation-fee FAQ
  4. February panel procurement overview