Hi Anne,
Regarding
your questions on IOs, please see below.
Re IOs participating in remedies before filing objections
I’m pasting below the language from an email sent to the IRT on
29 January
concerning the reasons why we do not believe any communication between the IOs and the applicants should be allowed, including with respect to the discussion or development of remedies.
“Based on the feedback received during the IRT call, we discussed internally the possibility of allowing IOs to communicate with applicants within a strictly defined framework
that ensures transparency and accountability - potentially via the Application Comment Forum. While we understand the concerns raised by the group, we still believe that this should not be allowed for a number of reasons:
In addition, there is another risk we recently discussed. For example, if the IO believes its concern could be addressed by adding an RVC to the affected application, and the
applicant agrees and files an Application Change Request (ACR) with a proposed RVC, that request will not be processed before the end of the objections filing window. If the ACR is not approved, or if the Registry Commitments Evaluation is unsuccessful, the
application may still proceed, but the IO would no longer be in a position to file an objection. There is no policy or corresponding Guidebook language for this scenario. By contrast, there is policy and Guidebook language for situations in which an objector
files an objection and the Panel determines that the application may proceed only with modifications, as described in Section 4.5.8.13, “Objections and Registry Voluntary Commitments.” For other changes, the appropriate path is mediation followed, if needed,
by a potential settlement after the objection has been filed. While we recognize that other, less problematic scenarios may exist, we believe the risks and operational complexities outweigh the benefits.
COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection
In the
proposed language,
we do consider this scenario: “If a COI is identified or arises following the filing of an objection or appeal, the IO chair will appoint another IO to be responsible for the impacted objection or appeal. The IO chair will promptly notify ICANN and the DRSP
of the conflict and the change.” If you are referring to something else/more specific, could you please clarify?
Many thanks!
Elisa
From:
Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2026 at 23:45
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda
Dear Anne,
The Process and Procedure Doc is not available. We expect to publish it with the updated Evaluation Guide. I’m hopeful that we will publish in the next couple of weeks.
Thank you
Jared
From:
Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 14:20
To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org>
Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda
Thank you Jared. Is the CPE Panel Process and Procedure Document available now or wlll it be soon? Re changes to the Evaluation Guide, when do you anticipate being able to publish those?
We will miss seeing you in Seville!
Thank you,
Anne
On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Anne,
Thank you for this. Regarding #1, I will not be in Seville and will not attend the IRT meeting, so we won’t be able to add this to the agenda. We are working on finalizing any updates to the Guidelines and hope to have that complete soon. We will share the final version and the redlines with the IRT as soon as we have it. In the meantime, I am sharing here for the IRT’s reference ICANN’s responses to the Public Comments, which notes where we believe some updates may be required.
Regarding #2, we will review and get back to you on these points.
Thank you!
Jared
From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 05:38
To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda
Hi Elisa and Jared,
Regarding the agenda for the meeting in Seville, I wanted to raise two points:
1. Could we please add a review of any changes to the Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines which staff is recommending based on public comment received? It would be good to see these changes in redline before the meeting.
2. Regarding the agenda item for IO procedures, I have pasted below an email from IRT Meeting #173 and have bolded the relevant input. Could you please be sure to address these two points in our meeting in Seville?
Thank you,
Anne
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #173 | 29 January 2026
To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>
Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Thank you Elisa. I reviewed the Zoom - good discussion and excellent points were raised. Thank you to staff for your willingness to reconsider. Agree that IO should be able to participate in remedies to address Objection before filing. IO must always act in the public interest so there should not be a big COI risk in that process, although transparency safeguards seem appropriate as mentioned. I also support what I believe to be Susan's comment that COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection.
Separately, for the next meeting, could you please consider avoiding the 4 am Pacific time slot?
Thank you,
Anne