Dear SPIRT,

Please see the following key outcome, action items, and high-level notes from today’s SPIRT Meeting on Thursday, 02 July 2026 at 20:00 UTC.

Please find below the Key Outcomes, Action Items, and High-Level Notes from the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) meeting on Thursday, 02 July 2026 at 20:00 UTC.

[KEY OUTCOME]

• Regarding the ICANN org raised issue, “Date to Close Non-Responsive ASP Applications” (Type 2: Non-Minor Operational Change), SPIRT members provided input and reached preliminary decision to align the closure of Non-Responsive ASP Applications with the closure of the New gTLD application submission window.

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. Ongoing: All SPIRT Members to update their SOIs in accordance with the SOP.
2. LT/Staff to send a last Call for Non-objections to the full mailing list after the SPIRT Meeting, to conclude and provide decision to org on the “Date to Close Non-Responsive ASP Applications” issue by EOD tomorrow, Friday, 3 July 2026.
3. ICANN org to respond to SPIRT on RSP issue by 3 July and share next steps, as necessary.
4. GNSO Support Staff to send meeting invites, as necessary.

[High-Level NOTES]

• ICANN org Updates

• Date to Close Non-Responsive ASP Applications Issue (Type 2: Non-Minor Operational Change – requested by ICANN org)

• Overall, the feedback was very supportive of the proposed solution – Most members agreed with aligning the date for closing the ASP application system to non-responsive ASP applications with the close of the application window, making it explicit that the ASP system close date is tied to the date and time for the close of the gTLD application submission window, rather than a fixed date.
• One member asked whether the ASP system closure date should instead align with the end of the application payment period, rather than the application submission deadline. The rationale for the proposal is that the gTLD application submission window is the last point at which an ASP applicant could complete ASP and still submit a gTLD application. The subsequent payment period applies only to applications that have already been submitted.
• There were also a couple of suggestions around applicant outreach, where the members requested phone calls to be conducted and ICANN org to take action as soon as possible. Currently, 9 applicants are affected by this solution.
• One comment raised the reference to "inactive" applications in the paper. The 90-day reference was used for reporting purposes ahead of the application deadline to distinguish dormant applications from those that were still actively being worked on. It wasn't a system status or operational rule.
• One member suggested introducing a "non-responsive" status and an appeal process; Neither of those exists in the ASP today, and the system doesn't support an intermediate "non-responsive" status. (cf. Extended evaluation, Required timelines)
• Other comments such as ASP evaluation timelines, extending the application window, and consultant engagement are outside the scope of this Predictability Framework notification.