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