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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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<mailto: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<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 05:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
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<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-irt@icann.org/thread/LMJ7U5AW...> 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: * IOs may only file an objection to an application if a comment against that application was filed. This constitutes a safeguard preventing IOs from submitting objections that are not in the public interest. * While IOs could communicate with applicants in the last round, there is no policy requiring or explicitly permitting IOs to raise their concerns to applicants before filing an objection. * The duration of the objection filing window is significantly shorter in the 2026 round (9 months in the 2012 round vs just over 3 months in this round). Expecting IOs to post comments relating to an application while giving applicants enough time to prepare and post a response during this compressed time frame would pose significant challenges, considering that this would have to occur in parallel to the IOs’ review of applications, objections, comments, and other inputs. * Requiring IOs to post comments relating to the applications they may file an objection against would pose the following risks: * The IO should likely wait to post a comment on an application until a comment in opposition to the application has been posted, since it is not the IO’s role to initiate such discussions. If such comments are posted at the last minute, applicants may not have enough time to react. * Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others. * If IOs are permitted, but not required, to post comments relating to applications they may file an objection against, applicants who did receive a comment from an IO and have an opportunity to respond could be perceived to have an unfair advantage compared to applicants who were not aware that an objection was coming their way. * Applicants will be aware of comments filed against their applications by other parties and may elect to respond, and the IOs may take such responses into account.” 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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXAx-ZPuGAoSOus7LSES5dFYSGQ_QP...>, 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 05:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
thanks Elisa. Regarding the language below, what if the Conflict of Interest involves an Objection actually filed by the IO Chair and alleges a COI on the part of the IO Chair? Is the reappointment automatic where a COI is alleged or does the Chair have discretion? *COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection* In the proposed language <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXAx-ZPuGAoSOus7LSES5dFYSGQ_QP...>, 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> wrote:
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 <https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-irt@icann.org/thread/LMJ7U5AW...> 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:
- IOs may only file an objection to an application if a comment against that application was filed. This constitutes a safeguard preventing IOs from submitting objections that are not in the public interest. - While IOs could communicate with applicants in the last round, there is no policy requiring or explicitly permitting IOs to raise their concerns to applicants before filing an objection. - The duration of the objection filing window is significantly shorter in the 2026 round (9 months in the 2012 round vs just over 3 months in this round). Expecting IOs to post comments relating to an application while giving applicants enough time to prepare and post a response during this compressed time frame would pose significant challenges, considering that this would have to occur in parallel to the IOs’ review of applications, objections, comments, and other inputs. - Requiring IOs to post comments relating to the applications they may file an objection against would pose the following risks: - The IO should likely wait to post a comment on an application until a comment in opposition to the application has been posted, since it is not the IO’s role to initiate such discussions. If such comments are posted at the last minute, applicants may not have enough time to react. - Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others. - If IOs are permitted, but not required, to post comments relating to applications they may file an objection against, applicants who did receive a comment from an IO and have an opportunity to respond could be perceived to have an unfair advantage compared to applicants who were not aware that an objection was coming their way. - Applicants will be aware of comments filed against their applications by other parties and may elect to respond, and the IOs may take such responses into account.”
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 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXAx-ZPuGAoSOus7LSES5dFYSGQ_QP...>, 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
Hi Anne, Thanks for your question. I’d suggest discussing this on Thursday, if that’s ok. Best, Elisa From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 16:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda thanks Elisa. Regarding the language below, what if the Conflict of Interest involves an Objection actually filed by the IO Chair and alleges a COI on the part of the IO Chair? Is the reappointment automatic where a COI is alleged or does the Chair have discretion? COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection In the proposed language [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> wrote: 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 [lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-ir...> 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: * IOs may only file an objection to an application if a comment against that application was filed. This constitutes a safeguard preventing IOs from submitting objections that are not in the public interest. * While IOs could communicate with applicants in the last round, there is no policy requiring or explicitly permitting IOs to raise their concerns to applicants before filing an objection. * The duration of the objection filing window is significantly shorter in the 2026 round (9 months in the 2012 round vs just over 3 months in this round). Expecting IOs to post comments relating to an application while giving applicants enough time to prepare and post a response during this compressed time frame would pose significant challenges, considering that this would have to occur in parallel to the IOs’ review of applications, objections, comments, and other inputs. * Requiring IOs to post comments relating to the applications they may file an objection against would pose the following risks: * The IO should likely wait to post a comment on an application until a comment in opposition to the application has been posted, since it is not the IO’s role to initiate such discussions. If such comments are posted at the last minute, applicants may not have enough time to react. * Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others. * If IOs are permitted, but not required, to post comments relating to applications they may file an objection against, applicants who did receive a comment from an IO and have an opportunity to respond could be perceived to have an unfair advantage compared to applicants who were not aware that an objection was coming their way. * Applicants will be aware of comments filed against their applications by other parties and may elect to respond, and the IOs may take such responses into account.” 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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2026 at 23:45 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 14:20 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 05:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Dear Anne, everybody, I hope all is well! We revisited the language in the Independent Objectors Information Pack and believe the current language<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXAx-ZPuGAoSOus7LSES5dFYSGQ_QP...> addresses your concern. Under “As of Reveal Day,” it says, “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.” So if the IO Chair has a conflict identified, it will need to appoint the matter to another IO. Best, Elisa From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply to: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Date: Friday, 5 June 2026 at 17:46 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda Hi Anne, Thanks for your question. I’d suggest discussing this on Thursday, if that’s ok. Best, Elisa From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 16:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda thanks Elisa. Regarding the language below, what if the Conflict of Interest involves an Objection actually filed by the IO Chair and alleges a COI on the part of the IO Chair? Is the reappointment automatic where a COI is alleged or does the Chair have discretion? COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection In the proposed language [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>> wrote: 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 [lists.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-ir...> 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: * IOs may only file an objection to an application if a comment against that application was filed. This constitutes a safeguard preventing IOs from submitting objections that are not in the public interest. * While IOs could communicate with applicants in the last round, there is no policy requiring or explicitly permitting IOs to raise their concerns to applicants before filing an objection. * The duration of the objection filing window is significantly shorter in the 2026 round (9 months in the 2012 round vs just over 3 months in this round). Expecting IOs to post comments relating to an application while giving applicants enough time to prepare and post a response during this compressed time frame would pose significant challenges, considering that this would have to occur in parallel to the IOs’ review of applications, objections, comments, and other inputs. * Requiring IOs to post comments relating to the applications they may file an objection against would pose the following risks: * The IO should likely wait to post a comment on an application until a comment in opposition to the application has been posted, since it is not the IO’s role to initiate such discussions. If such comments are posted at the last minute, applicants may not have enough time to react. * Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others. * If IOs are permitted, but not required, to post comments relating to applications they may file an objection against, applicants who did receive a comment from an IO and have an opportunity to respond could be perceived to have an unfair advantage compared to applicants who were not aware that an objection was coming their way. * Applicants will be aware of comments filed against their applications by other parties and may elect to respond, and the IOs may take such responses into account.” 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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2026 at 23:45 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 14:20 To: Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>> Cc: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM Jared Erwin <jared.erwin@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 29, 2026 at 05:38 To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Right but what if the IO believes (s)he doesn't have a conflict of interest? Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 8:17 AM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Anne, everybody,
I hope all is well!
We revisited the language in the Independent Objectors Information Pack and believe the current language <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXAx-ZPuGAoSOus7LSES5dFYSGQ_QP...> addresses your concern. Under “As of Reveal Day,” it says, “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.” So if the IO Chair has a conflict identified, it will need to appoint the matter to another IO.
Best,
Elisa
*From: *Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Reply to: *Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> *Date: *Friday, 5 June 2026 at 17:46 *To: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *[SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda
Hi Anne,
Thanks for your question.
I’d suggest discussing this on Thursday, if that’s ok.
Best,
Elisa
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 16:38 *To: *Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> *Cc: *"subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Sub Pro IRT Meeting #175 in Seville - Agenda
thanks Elisa. Regarding the language below, what if the Conflict of Interest involves an Objection actually filed by the IO Chair and alleges a COI on the part of the IO Chair? Is the reappointment automatic where a COI is alleged or does the Chair have discretion?
*COI of the IO should be able to be raised with DRSP AFTER the filing of an IO Objection*
In the proposed language [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> wrote:
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 [lists.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/subpro-ir...> 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:
- IOs may only file an objection to an application if a comment against that application was filed. This constitutes a safeguard preventing IOs from submitting objections that are not in the public interest. - While IOs could communicate with applicants in the last round, there is no policy requiring or explicitly permitting IOs to raise their concerns to applicants before filing an objection. - The duration of the objection filing window is significantly shorter in the 2026 round (9 months in the 2012 round vs just over 3 months in this round). Expecting IOs to post comments relating to an application while giving applicants enough time to prepare and post a response during this compressed time frame would pose significant challenges, considering that this would have to occur in parallel to the IOs’ review of applications, objections, comments, and other inputs. - Requiring IOs to post comments relating to the applications they may file an objection against would pose the following risks:
- The IO should likely wait to post a comment on an application until a comment in opposition to the application has been posted, since it is not the IO’s role to initiate such discussions. If such comments are posted at the last minute, applicants may not have enough time to react. - Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others.
- If IOs are permitted, but not required, to post comments relating to applications they may file an objection against, applicants who did receive a comment from an IO and have an opportunity to respond could be perceived to have an unfair advantage compared to applicants who were not aware that an objection was coming their way. - Applicants will be aware of comments filed against their applications by other parties and may elect to respond, and the IOs may take such responses into account.”
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 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1rcCupFrGujxXA...>, 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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
participants (3)
-
Anne ICANN -
Elisa Busetto -
Jared Erwin