Why are community and geographic new gTLD applications more expensive?

Community and geographic new gTLD (generic Top-Level Domain) applications are generally more expensive than standard applications due to mandatory additional evaluation and review processes required by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).

Here's a breakdown of the reasons:

1. Mandatory Additional Evaluations:
   • Geographic Names Review: Applications for strings that are geographic names (e.g., .PARIS, .BERLIN) automatically trigger a mandatory review to ensure appropriate support or non-objection from the relevant government(s) or public authorities. This review adds a specific, non-trivial extra cost on top of the base application fee.
   • Community Priority Evaluation (for Community gTLDs): Applicants seeking the status of a "Community TLD" must undergo a specific Community Priority Evaluation. This rigorous process requires the applicant to demonstrate a strong, ongoing relationship with a clearly defined community and prove community support, which involves a separate, detailed evaluation and associated fees.
2. Increased Complexity and Documentation:
   • Both geographic and community applications require extensive, specialized documentation to justify the claim (e.g., letters of support from community institutions, government non-objection documentation). Preparing this material often necessitates significant extra legal, administrative, and consulting costs.
3. Risk of Contention and Objection:
   • These types of applications can be more prone to objections or contention from other parties (governments, competing community groups, etc.). If an application is objected to or is in contention with another applicant for the same string, the applicant must pay further fees for dispute resolution, independent reviews, or auctions, which can quickly drive up the total cost.

While the base application fee (e.g., around $227,000 in the expected next round) is the same for all types of gTLDs, the additional mandatory evaluation fees and the increased risk of other dispute-related costs make community and geographic applications more expensive overall.