.guard
Is .guard a real TLD? Who’s applying to run it?
Nobody has applied for .guard in its own right, as of 7 October 2026. XYZ Registry named .guard as the backup string of its .pod application.
A clear security-flavored word that suits names like ad.guard, but likely stays a small niche rather than a default address.
cybersecurity and physical-security vendors, protective-product brands and startups whose names end in -guard, wanting a short compound address (ad.guard, cloud.guard) alongside a mainstream domain
Nobody has applied for .guard in its own right.
The 2012 applications making the most similar bet. Chosen by AI from every string in that round, without being told what happened to any of them.
Same bet exactly: an open generic noun for the protection trade, sold to any guarding/alarm/cyber operator willing to put its primary identity on the category word rather than its own brand.
The abstract noun for the same promise and the same buyer pool (security firms, insurers, safety services), betting that a category-wide benefit word pulls registrations on its own.
Same industry and same open-generic structure, but it is the verb/adjective form that reads as a claim or call to action rather than a category label, so the registrant pitch is closer to messaging than to trade membership.
What a .guard domain is
.guard is not a TLD yet. It is a string on our record of the ICANN 2026 new gTLD round, in our AI & tech category. Nobody has applied for .guard in its own right. It is named on ICANN’s list as part of an application for another string.
Is the .guard domain extension real yet?
.guard is not yet a domain extension you can register: nothing resolves under it, and no registrar sells names in it. Nobody has applied for it on the public record; the ICANN 2026 new gTLD round is the process that would decide whether it becomes one.
When can you buy a .guard domain?
You can’t yet. A .guard name can only be registered once the string is delegated (added to the DNS root) and its registry opens. Last round's closest parallel to .guard was .security, delegated on 17 September 2015.
Is .guard a real TLD?
Not yet. .guard is not in the DNS root, so nothing resolves under it. It’s here because ICANN’s list names .guard as part of an application for another string. Every entry on this page links to its source.
- XYZ Registry · first recordedICANN
“XL2625T-T90586 · XYZ.COM LLC · replacement string of .pod”ICANN
- Band chosen: 10-29 (vanity/narrow), at its top. The string's strength is that 'guard' is a common suffix in security and protection product naming, so compound hacks (ad.guard, cloud.guard, body.guard, life.guard) are plausible, and the word reads as a credible security signal in English. Its weakness is breadth: it serves one meaning (protection) and a buyer who, by analogy, already has a working .com or .io brand and would treat the .guard address as a redirect or vanity rather than a primary identity. Analogy, flagged as such: security-themed generic TLDs that were already delegated (for example .security and .protection) appear to have remained small, defensively registered namespaces without a visible aftermarket, and .guard is narrower than those. It is not in the 30-49 band because I do not expect registrations at volume over the next 5 years absent aggressive low pricing; the word's natural buyer pool (security vendors) is small relative to volume-driving generics. It is not lower in the 10-29 band because the suffix pattern gives it genuine, if thin, primary-identity potential for a few product brands, which pure joke strings lack. Applicant facts from the record, stated neutrally: the sole application on the record is by XYZ.COM LLC, standard type, filed as a replacement string for a primary application of .pod; contention count on the record is 0. Operator pricing strategy, launch plans and portfolio context are unknown from the facts block. Main market uncertainty: whether the registry positions it as a mass-market low-price string that invites hack-style compound registrations, or as a premium low-volume string; the former could push it into the 30-49 band, the latter keeps it a thin niche.