An Open Letter to ICANN: If the Public Forum Matters, the Responses Must Matter Too

How ICANN’s Assurances at ICANN 84 Diverged from Reality — And Why That Undermines Applicant Readiness and Community Trust

For more than a decade, the ICANN community has devoted extraordinary time and energy to preparing for the next round of new gTLDs. ICANN Org frequently emphasizes its own readiness, and there is no doubt that the internal machinery behind this program is finally gaining momentum. Yet readiness is not only an internal measure. It also depends on the reliability of ICANN’s communication with the very community the program is meant to serve.

The Public Forum exists precisely to create a transparent space for that communication. It is the venue where community members raise concerns, seek clarity, and expect responses that they can depend on. For the Public Forum to serve its purpose, the answers must be accurate, the commitments must be honored, and any changes to those commitments must be communicated openly. When that does not happen, the Public Forum becomes a ceremonial exercise rather than a meaningful instrument of accountability.

This is not a theoretical concern. At ICANN 84, I raised two issues that go to the heart of applicant readiness: the delayed publication of the Registry Service Provider (RSP) qualification list, and the delayed finalization of the Registry Agreement (RA). Both issues directly affect whether potential applicants—including some of the world's largest corporations—can reasonably participate in the next round. ICANN leadership responded publicly to both concerns, but what happened afterward revealed a concerning disconnect between what ICANN says at the microphone and what actually occurs in practice.

What I Told ICANN at the ICANN 84 Public Forum (Transcript – pages 5-7) 

During the Public Forum, I began by expressing appreciation for the outstanding work being done by the ICANN new gTLD team. Their efforts over the past several years deserve real recognition, and I have consistently acknowledged their dedication.

I then outlined two significant readiness issues. First, I described how the RSP qualification list—originally planned for release in December—was slipping into January or even February. That list is not a trivial deliverable. Applicants need it in order to confirm their chosen RSPs and move forward with planning.

Second, I explained that the Registry Agreement, which had been expected in December, was now being pushed to March. For many applicants, especially large multinational corporations with complex governance structures and lengthy internal approval processes, receiving the RA only weeks before the application window opens is an unworkable timeline.

I urged the Board to approve the Registry Agreement in December, with any minor refinements to follow. ICANN used a similar approach with the Applicant Guidebook in the 2012 round, and adopting that model again would give applicants the time they need to prepare. These were not abstract policy suggestions; they were practical concerns with real-world consequences.

What ICANN Leadership Said About the RSP Delay (Transcript page 7)

The response from ICANN’s CEO regarding the RSP issue was direct and seemingly reassuring. He stated that the delay should be roughly two weeks, that it would not amount to months, and that ICANN did not believe the slippage would affect the opening date of the application window. His message was clear and confident. Applicants, he implied, had nothing to worry about.

However, the events that followed told a different story. Despite the CEO’s assurances, ICANN later announced that the RSP results would not be delayed by two weeks, but by more than six weeks, with a new publication date of January 30th. This was not simply a modest adjustment. It was a material change with significant implications for applicant preparation.

Even more concerning was how ICANN communicated this update. Rather than issuing a formal announcement or distributing the information through the Community Digest—something ICANN routinely does for other homepage items—the update was quietly posted to the ICANN website. There was no proactive effort to notify the community of the change, nor any acknowledgment that the prior assurances given at the Public Forum were no longer accurate.

In addition, while the Registry Testing window has reopened, the underlying platform appears to be suffering from persistent technical bugs. Numerous RSP applicants are receiving ‘failed’ results for tests they should easily pass, not because of deficiencies in their systems, but because of malfunctions in ICANN’s testing environment. The expanding list of unresolved issues has created even greater uncertainty about whether the revised January 30, 2025 deadline is achievable

What Happened With the Registry Agreement (Transcript page 8)

The second issue—the timing of the Registry Agreement—has unfolded in a similarly troubling way. The RA is a foundational document, and applicants cannot reasonably commit to participating in the next round without knowing its terms. Receiving it only weeks before the application window opens creates an unnecessary barrier for many potential applicants.

During the Public Forum, only one Board member, Alan Barrett, responded. He acknowledged the value of the suggestion that the Board approve the RA in December pending final edits. Although he made clear he was speaking personally and not for the Board, he said the idea made sense and that the Board should look into it.

This acknowledgment was encouraging, but no further communication has followed. There has been no update from the Board, no indication that the matter is being reviewed, and no revised timeline. The RA remains delayed, and applicants remain uncertain. The sole public expression of interest from the Board has been met with silence.

Why This Matters

The Public Forum is one of the few opportunities for the community to engage directly with ICANN’s highest leadership. If the responses given there are inaccurate, incomplete, or never followed through upon, then the Public Forum becomes a symbolic tradition rather than a substantive tool. Applicant readiness is not an abstract concept. It is a foundational requirement for a successful new gTLD round, and ICANN’s credibility depends on the reliability of its communication and commitments.

A Path Forward

ICANN has the ability to restore confidence. Doing so does not require sweeping structural reforms. It requires a recommitment to accuracy in public statements, transparency in communication, and follow-through when issues are raised. If leadership does not know the answer to a question, it is better to say so than to offer an optimistic timeline that will not hold. If deadlines change, ICANN should communicate those changes openly and clearly. And when members of the Board acknowledge an idea as sensible and worth consideration, the community deserves to know whether that consideration actually occurs.

Closing Thoughts

The people within ICANN Org—particularly the new gTLD team—have worked tirelessly and deserve tremendous respect. Their progress is real and should be acknowledged. But progress in developing policies and operational systems is only half the story. The other half is the relationship between ICANN and the community, grounded in transparency, accuracy, and accountability.

The next round of new gTLDs will shape the DNS for the next decade. For it to succeed, ICANN must ensure that when the community speaks—and when ICANN responds—the responses matter. The Public Forum must be more than a stage. It must be a promise.