Dear all, As a follow up to our call<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EoD-L> on 29 January and considering the feedback received as well as internal discussions, we would like to share with you our updated proposed approach with regards to Independent Objectors, which complements what is already outlined in the Applicant Guidebook: 1. We will launch an Expression of Interest seeking to identify a panel chair, who will file and manage objections/appeals and be responsible for the overall coordination of the IOs’ work, and two panel members, who will file and manage objections/appeals. 2. We will seek to identify three separate individuals. An individual may be affiliated with a firm but will be ultimately responsible for the processes described in this Expression of Interest. Individuals from the same firm shall not be selected. We believe that this compromise solution will address concerns around potential conflicts of interest while also taking into account the fact that such demanding and rapid-turnaround work may require a significant amount of resources to be carried out. In addition, this approach provides the largest possible pool in order to find a broad or diverse set of IOs. We will of course also take pricing into account in the selection. We acknowledge that there was no consensus around this and hope that this solution will be agreeable. 3. Each IO will review all applications, except those where a stated conflict prevents review by an IO. Conflicts will be reviewed by the Chair and ICANN for mitigation. 4. ICANN will not be involved in the coordination of the reviews. 5. IOs will receive detailed instructions from ICANN on the exact remit of their work and a framework for assessing in which extraordinary circumstances they may file an objection where an objection has already been filed by another entity on the same ground. We note that this framework will be discussed with the community at a later stage. 6. Conflicts of interest concerns will be mitigated by having three IOs as well as by ensuring that the IOs abide by ICANN’s and the Program’s Conflicts of Interest policies; the exact framework is currently being developed and will not be included in the Expression of Interest. 7. 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: i. 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. ii. Comments would probably be posted at different times, giving certain applicants less time to react compared to others. 1. 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. 2. 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. We hope that the proposed approach is agreeable to the IRT and would appreciate it if you could provide any additional feedback by EOB Wednesday, 18 February. Thank you so much for your continuous support! Best regards, Elisa From: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org> Date: Friday, 30 January 2026 at 08:28 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #173 | 29 January 2026 Dear all, During yesterday’s IRT call<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EoD-L>, we discussed our possible approach regarding Independent Objectors, with a focus on what should be included in the Expression of Interest that will be published soon. If you were unable to attend, we invite you to watch the Zoom recording and share any additional input you may have. We will review all points raised and keep you informed of the next steps. Many thanks for your input! Elisa From: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Reply to: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 29 January 2026 at 15:52 To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #173 | 29 January 2026 Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #173 of the SubPro IRT held on Thursday, 29 January 2026 are published on the meeting wiki page [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EoD-...>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate