São Paulo, BrazilUse Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Red Tape Council
A permit should have a clock
RC/RT/2026/CL.6 · 27 July 2026
Dear members,
July has been a month for turning evidence into a clearer account of what small businesses encounter when they ask government for permission to operate. That work is not glamorous. It is also not abstract. A permit can determine whether a person can open, renew a licence, make a change, or get on with the work that pays the bills.
What moved this month
On 22 July, we filed our third evidence submission, RC/RT/2026/S.3, on the practical costs of unclear permit processes. It joins the evidence submitted in March and May. Our task is to make sure the record reflects not only the rule on paper, but also the time, uncertainty and repeated effort involved in getting through the process.
Across the Assembly, Fellows were confirmed by ballot, the Cashflow Council published its draft for consultation, and the Secretariat issued the Q2 report. Those steps matter to us because the Red Tape Council is part of a shared process: reports first, then a five-part pattern test, a draft fix, public consultation, an Assembly ballot, and letters to the people with authority to adopt the result. We do not skip a step because a problem feels obvious.
Our evidence remains focused on RT-001: a small-business impact test for new rules, a one-stop digital process, published service times, and a clear deadline for permit decisions. The point is not to demand that every application be approved. The point is that an applicant should know what is required, where to submit it, how long a decision should take, and what happens if the deadline passes.
The numbers behind the work
As of 27 July, the Founders Assembly has 1,214 members in 49 countries and has received 3,494 reports from 50 countries. The Red Tape Council has 84 members across 35 countries and 159 reports from 39 countries. Every RT report concerns a permit situation. In the last 30 days, 38 reports were filed. The median amount reported as at stake is approximately US$4,352.
The reports come from many places: the United States has 27, India 17, Brazil 14, Canada 9, the United Kingdom 8, Germany 7, and Nigeria and Italy 6 each. Our members are not all the same size. In this council, 43% say they work alone; 37% have teams of 2–9; 16% have teams of 10–49; and 4% have teams of 50–249. These figures are a reminder that a single form or delay can land very differently depending on who has time and staff to manage it.
Our work also sits beside the World Bank’s B-READY 2025 findings. The report covers 101 economies and gives an average business-readiness score of about 60%. Its public-services scores are around 23% below its regulatory-framework scores. That gap is worth paying attention to: a rule may be understandable on paper while the service that should make it workable remains difficult to navigate.1
One member’s account
One member described trying to renew a local operating permit. The instructions online did not say which supporting document was missing. At the counter, the member was told to return with another form, but received no written checklist and no expected decision date. A second visit resolved the missing-document question; it did not resolve when the renewal would be completed. The member had to keep time aside for follow-up without knowing whether another visit would be needed.
This is one account, not a claim that every office works this way. It shows why our proposed standard has several parts. A digital doorway alone is not enough if the requirements are unclear. A list of requirements is not enough if there is no service
time. And a service time is not meaningful if an applicant cannot tell whether the clock has started or what happens when it runs out.
What we are learning
First, predictability is a form of access. People with a larger team can assign someone to call, travel, and check a portal. A person working alone often absorbs that work personally. Second, information must be usable at the point of application. A policy document that cannot tell an applicant what to do next has not solved the practical problem. Third, we need to distinguish the time a process takes from the uncertainty around it. A known wait can be planned for; an unexplained wait is harder to manage.
These are early lessons from our evidence, not final findings. We still need to test whether the same patterns recur across places and types of permit, and to hear from people whose experiences differ. The Council’s “Days to Open” index covers 30 cities, and the Permit Timer is intended to help make waiting times visible. Neither should become a league table without context. Our purpose is to identify where a process can be made clearer and more dependable.
What comes next
In August, we will continue reviewing the RT-001 evidence against Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. A report can raise a question; the pattern test helps us decide whether it supports a common fix.
The Assembly’s ballot on the Platform Fairness Standard is scheduled for 13 August. That work is separate from RT-001, but it will be an important test of the shared path from consultation to decision.
The Cashflow draft is scheduled to open for consultation on 25 August. We will watch how that consultation makes room for detailed, practical feedback, and apply those lessons when our own draft is ready.
For RT-001, our immediate work is to organise the evidence, identify gaps, and prepare the next public-facing step. We will not announce a consultation date until the draft is ready and members have a clear way to respond.
Thank you to Ana in São Paulo, who helped us check how our questions read from the applicant’s side; to Luis in Bogotá, who contributed careful feedback on the permit evidence; and to Grace in Lagos, who reminded us to distinguish a missing document from a missing answer. Thank you as well to everyone who has filed a report, reviewed a submission, or taken time to explain what happened without naming their business. Your care makes this work more useful and more fair.
We are building a standard that should be practical for a public office to apply and meaningful for a small business to rely on. That requires patience, evidence and plain language. We have more to learn, and we will keep showing our work as we do.
With thanks,
Edna AssunçãoChair, Red Tape CouncilSão Paulo, Brazil