If no, please explain

ICANN’s Board unilateral decision to introduce a replacement string option has impacted the processing timeline with the addition of the two-week Replacement Period, allowing applicants to change their applied-for string. This change, not part of the community-led policy process or the Subsequent Procedures Final Report, adds delays and disrupts the application timeline. The draft Applicant Guidebook sets a 105-day application window (April 27 – August 10, 2026). To counteract the two-week process for the Replacement Period, we recommend reducing the application window to 90 days.

If no, please explain

Q105: The question references the ASP Handbook in relation to the New gTLD Program: Next Round Eligibility Criteria. Why is the ASP Handbook cited here? This could cause confusion. Variant of Original String: This section appears to be duplicated, with the Replacement String section placed between them. This layout is unclear and may lead to misinterpretations between variants and replacement strings, increasing the risk of errors.

If no, please explain

We are deeply concerned about the proposed fee and refund schedule for the upcoming round of new gTLD applications. While ICANN claims the revised fees are designed to recover costs and maintain a revenue-neutral program, the structure and cost increases raise concerns about fairness, accessibility, and transparency. Several aspects of the proposal deviate from the policy recommendations and implementation guidance in the Final Report on Subsequent Procedures (SubPro Final Report), developed through extensive community consultation. The proposed framework imposes unnecessary financial burdens on applicants and fails to uphold cost-recovery, predictability, and accessibility principles outlined in the SubPro Final Report. 1. Lack of Justification for the Increased Application Fee In 2012, the base application fee was $185,000. For the next round, this fee has increased to $227,000, despite ICANN separating technical evaluation from the application process, a change that should logically reduce, not increase, costs. The SubPro Final Report emphasizes that fees must be based on actual cost recovery and developed with full transparency: “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66), and “ICANN should be fully transparent about how the application fee has been developed, explaining and documenting all cost assumptions” (p. 69). ICANN has not provided a detailed breakdown showing how the revised fee aligns to actual program costs. Without such justification, the increased fee appears arbitrary and misaligned with the cost-recovery and transparency principles. This reflects a recurring issue from the 2012 round, where ICANN failed to provide sufficient cost information, leaving the community without access to accurate data. As a result, stakeholders were unable to make informed recommendations or meaningful improvements for future rounds. 2. Refund Policy Does Not Align With Policy Recommendations In 2012, applicants who withdrew early were eligible for an 80% refund. ICANN’s current proposal initially offered only a 45% refund – later increased to 65% - a steep and unjustified reduction. This decrease is troubling given the minimal processing and engagement ICANN undertakes in the early evaluation stages. Applicants could forfeit nearly $80,000 within just a few weeks, with little to no substantive interaction or benefit from the program. This disproportionately affects smaller applicants and those contemplating the Applicant Support Program, for whom any financial loss can be a major deterrent. The SubPro Final Report emphasizes the importance of a fair, transparent, and predictable refund structure to ensure applicants are not exposed to unnecessary financial risk. Notably, Implementation Guidance 18.5 calls for full refunds in cases where applications cannot proceed due to external factors, such as name collision risks - reflecting the community’s strong expectation for fairness under uncontrollable circumstances. The current proposed refund structure: • Heightens financial risk, discouraging many prospective applicants • Disproportionately burdens smaller and less-resourced applicants, including those in the Applicant Support Program - undermining competition, diversity, and equitable access • Undermines ICANN’s own revenue expectations - feedback from credible applicants, a 65% refund rate could deter up to 30% of potential participants, translating to an estimated $102 million in lost revenue To align with the SubPro Final Report and the overarching goals of accessibility and predictability, a more equitable approach – such as restoring the 80% refund for early withdrawals should be adopted. 3. Auctions: A System that Reinforces Inequity Auctions of Last Resort were retained in the SubPro Final Report as a final mechanism for resolving contention sets, regardless of public interest, community value, or innovation potential. The ICANN Board’s decision to prohibit private resolution removes a key flexibility that previously allowed applicants to form partnerships, joint ventures, or other collaborative arrangements to settle contention sets. While intended to promote fairness, this shift forces all unresolved contention into high-stakes auctions - benefiting those with the deepest pockets. Smaller organizations and Applicant Support Program participants face a difficult choice: enter a costly, low-odds auction or withdraw - forfeiting a minimum of $80,000 without a realistic path to success. This burden is compounded by ICANN’s limited refund policy, which offers only partial refunds even when applicants withdraw in good faith. The combined effect: • Reinforces systemic inequity, allowing well-funded applicants to dominate outcomes and consolidate control • Suppresses participation from smaller, mission-driven, or underserved applicants - reducing application volume and revenue • Undermines the program’s core commitment to fairness, inclusion, and global accessibility Unless accompanied by a stronger and more equitable refund policy, continued reliance on auctions will drive out the very applicants ICANN aims to support. 4. Failure to Implement an Automatic Refund Mechanism The SubPro Final Report underscores the importance of efficiency, predictability and fairness throughout the application process. Yet ICANN’s current approach – requiring applicants to manually request refund – fails to uphold these principes. The report clearly anticipates the need for streamlined processes including the refund process as reflected in Implementation Guidance 15.6: “The disbursement mechanism must be communicated before applicants submit applications and fees to ICANN. If ICANN is unable to locate the applicant for the return of excess fees, the amount of the excess for that applicant should be used for the purposed described in Recommendation 15.7” (p. 66). Despite this guidance, ICANN’s proposal does not automatically refund excess fees if applications exceeds the 1,000-applicant cost threshold. Instead, applicants must submit a refund request within 90 days – placing the burden on the applicant and introducing administrative hurdles. To align with the SubPro Final Report and ensure operational transparency and trust, ICANN should: • Commit to a fixed timeframe for issuing refunds (e.g., within 30 days after String Confirmation Day) • Automatically disburse refunds to the applicant’s designated account Failing to automate this process introduces inefficiencies and raises equity concerns, particularly for smaller applicants who may be less familiar with ICANN procedures. 5. Lack of Transparency in Additional Fees The SubPro Final Report emphasizes the need for clear, predictable, and transparent application costs. However, ICANN has not disclosed the full scope of additional fees that applicants may face in the next round – undermining these principles. For example: • The Implementation Review Team was surprised by a proposed $5,000 evaluation fee for Brand TLDs—despite no prior consultation or justification • ICANN has not published a comprehensive list of fees for supplemental evaluations, such as Registry Service Evaluations or change requests This lack of transparency contradicts the SubPro Working Group’s expectations. The report explicitly states: • “The development of the application fee must be fully transparent with all cost assumptions explained and documented” (p. 66). To ensure transparency, ICANN should: • Publish a detailed list of all possible application-related fees • Justify any new or modified fees in advance, aligned with cost-recovery principles • Clearly include fee information in the Applicant Guidebook. Continued under 'Other Comments' below.

If no, please explain

Unresolved Legal Concerns Over the Prioritization Process: The SubPro Final Report supports the use of a prioritization draw for application processing, as outlined in Affirmation 19.1: “The Working Group supports the approach ultimately taken to application queuing during the 2012 round, in which ICANN conducted drawings to randomize the order of processing applications within an application window and therefore affirms the use of a “prioritization draw” for subsequent procedures. The Working Group acknowledges that there may be possible adjustments or alternatives to the logistics of the prioritization draw used in the 2012 round that either would improve on existing processes or be necessitated under applicable law…” (p. 86). However, legal concerns remain unresolved regarding whether the prioritization draw complies under California law, specifically, whether it qualifies as an unregulated lottery. Despite repeated requests from the Implementation Review Team and the Sub Pro Working Group, ICANN has not provided a legal analysis addressing this issue. If ICANN intends to move forward with the prioritization draw, it should: • Clarify the legal basis for the process to ensure compliance with applicable laws • Address past challenges and concerns raised by the community • Provide transparency around any adjustments or alternatives considered This will need to be undertaken before the Final Draft of the Applicant Guidebook is published in May.

If no, please explain

The financial evaluation section repeatedly states that Annual Reports are not acceptable, but it does not explain why. Since Annual Reports include Financial Statements, this restriction seems unclear. The Guidebook should explicitly state the reasoning behind this requirement. Additionally, the evaluation criteria lack clarity. For example, under 2b, it states: "Audited financial statements report: Opinion of the auditor is a ‘going concern’ – no ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph, ‘qualified opinion,’ or ‘adverse opinion.’" It is unclear whether these opinions would cause an applicant to fail the financial evaluation or simply affect scoring. The Guidebook should provide a clear explanation of how these factors impact evaluation outcomes. To align with Recommendation 27.3, all application evaluation criteria and guidance should be written to maximize predictability and minimize the need for Clarifying Questions (CQs). Greater transparency in financial evaluation criteria will help applicants better understand expectations and avoid unnecessary confusion.

If no, please explain

The AGB must clearly define when the prohibition on communication between applicants begins, as the current wording is vague and open to interpretation. One key concern is the restriction on public statements that could directly or indirectly disclose information about an application or strategy in a contention set. Many applicants have already announced their intended strings, raising questions about whether they could face penalties if those strings later become contested. This restriction could also create unintended obstacles for applicants seeking funding. Investors often require insights into an applicant’s plans, including potential contention scenarios, and the current language may discourage necessary financial discussions. Without clear guidelines, applicants risk violating the rules simply by engaging in routine fundraising efforts. Another serious issue is the potential for this rule to be misused. If an allegation arises that an applicant engaged in prohibited communication, proving otherwise could be difficult, leading to unnecessary investigations that drain resources for both applicants and ICANN. Importantly, this prohibition was not part of the Subsequent Procedures Final Report but was introduced by the ICANN Board. To prevent unintended consequences, and putting the applicant at risk, the AGB must provide greater clarity and safeguards around this restriction.