# GAC Capacity Development (2 of 2) GAC readiness for Next Round Session ID: icann87-sched-2Wjet Start: 2026-10-17T13:15:00+08:00 End: 2026-10-17T14:30:00+08:00 Location: Exhibition Gallery (GAC) Access: public Official tracks: GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) Programme state: scheduled AI-generated summary The second ICANN 87 GAC Capacity Development session focused on GAC readiness for the 2026 New gTLD round and walked members and observers through the mechanisms available for engagement on applications. The Next Round team covered application comments through the Application Comment Forum, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections and appeals, and GAC consensus advice. Q&A clarified that the comment forum is publicly viewable but requires an ICANN account to post, that posted comments cannot be edited and are not generally moderated, and that only comments received during designated comment periods are shared with evaluators and applicants. Presenters also explained that early warnings remain online and flagged in TAMS with no formal closing process, that objections require standing and go to dispute resolution service providers, and that ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. GAC support staff then introduced the GAC Operational Readiness Framework and materials, stressing that they support existing mechanisms and do not create new procedures. Marco closed by listing takeaways and follow-up topics, including a way to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed and a possible confidential channel with applicants. TL;DR - The session explained how GAC members, observers and the public can engage in the 2026 round: application comments, singular/plural notifications, early warnings, objections and GAC consensus advice. - Key operational points included the 17 November String Confirmation Day, a 104-day comment and objection window ending 16 March, an ICANN-account requirement for posting comments, and no editing or general moderation of comments. - Early warnings remain public and flagged without a formal close, objections go to dispute resolution providers and can be appealed, and ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. - The GAC Operational Readiness Framework was introduced as support for existing mechanisms, and Marco flagged follow-up discussion on signaling that concerns were addressed and on a possible confidential channel with applicants. Main discussion - The session framed the 2026-round engagement options for GAC members and observers, individually or collectively: application comments, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections, and GAC consensus advice. It stressed that the Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source and that the slides simplified complex concepts. - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. - Evaluators and applicants receive only comments filed during designated community-input or special comment periods. The main window is the 104 days after String Confirmation Day, 17 November to 16 March, with additional 30-day periods after certain change requests; comments outside those periods remain viewable but are not considered in evaluations. - Singular/plural notifications are open to anyone and use a form on the New gTLD Program website. The filing window is 30 days after String Confirmation Day, and a validated notification can place an application in contention or prevent it from proceeding. - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Outcomes - The session closed with questions flagged for consideration in later sessions, including the operational-readiness discussion scheduled immediately after the coffee break. Possible follow-ups (inferred) - Suggested follow-up: the GAC could discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to its satisfaction, as Marco flagged. - Suggested follow-up: the GAC could assess whether a more confidential bilateral channel with applicants is needed and feasible before comments or early warnings are published. - Suggested follow-up: the next session could continue the operational-readiness discussion and practical follow-up from this Q&A. Open questions - How should the GAC signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to its satisfaction? - Is there a need and a feasible way to create a bilateral, more confidential channel with a particular applicant before comments or early warnings are published? - When will the independent objectors be announced and further operational information posted? Recording and context ## Transcript [0:03] MTS - AV: Welcome to the second ICANN 87 GAC Capacity Development Session on Saturday, 17 October at 13:15 local time. [0:11] MTS - AV: Please note that this session is being recorded and is governed by the ICANN Expected Stance of Behavior, ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct, and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy. During this session, questions or comments will be read aloud if submitted in proper form in the Zoom chat pod. [0:28] MTS - AV: Interpretation for this session will include all six UN languages and Portuguese. [0:32] MTS - AV: If you would like to speak during the session, please raise your hand in the Zoom room. Please remember to state your name for the record and the language you will be speaking, in case speaking a language other than English. And please speak at a reasonable pace to allow for accurate interpretation. [0:45] MTS - AV: I will now leave the floor over to Kristina Rita, GAC CDWG co-chair. Thank you, and over to you. [0:52] MTS - AV: Thank you very much, Julia. And hello, everyone, again. I hope you had a good lunch. So, this is the second session of Capacity Development. And in this session, we will be focusing on the GAC readiness for the 2026 round. So, we will be looking more into listening more on community. [1:17] MTS - AV: input and processes from the Neuron team and then we will review the GAC readiness material as presented by our GAC support team. Then we will have time for a bit of a discussion and takeaways which Marco will be leading. So I encourage you to bring in the questions that were coming from the previous session. [1:41] MTS - AV: Many were put forward and were to be discussed in this session. So please, let's make it an interactive session. With that, I will turn to Elisa. Elisa, the floor is yours. [1:56] MTS - AV: Thank you so much. I'm Elisa, and I'm serving as the stage lead for all things related to community input. Before we start, once again, as Marika already mentioned in a previous session, please note that the new GTLD program 2026 Round Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source of all information. [2:16] MTS - AV: And here in these slides, we actually try to simplify quite complex concepts coming from the guidebook. [2:23] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. [2:26] MTS - AV: Today I'll be presenting together with Eduardo and George, whom we already met in the previous session. And next slide. [2:35] MTS - AV: So this session has the objective of understanding the actions that GAC members and observers individually or collectively as the GAC can take on new GTLD applications. [2:47] MTS - AV: And then we will be talking about application comments, who can be submitted… which can be submitted by anybody, Singular Plural Notifications, GAC member early warnings that can be submitted by members and observers of the GAC, objections, which can be submitted by parties with sending, and finally, GAC consensus advice. [3:05] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. [3:09] MTS - AV: So, the first way the community has to provide input on applications is by submitting application comments. Next slide, please. [3:19] MTS - AV: Anybody, which includes GAC members and observers, of course, can submit application comments with the objective to bring issues to the attention of ICANN applicants and evaluators. [3:32] MTS - AV: There is a specific tool that we have developed, and Eduardo will speak more about it, which is called the Application Comment Forum. Anybody can submit comments, but they will have to have an account. [3:45] MTS - AV: Comments can be submitted at any time following Stream Confirmation Day, which as we mentioned earlier, is expected to happen on the 17th of November, but they will be considered by evaluators only during specific time periods. [4:00] MTS - AV: Which in the 104 days following Spring Confirmation Day, which means between the 17th of November and the 16th of March next year. [4:10] MTS - AV: And for 30 days following a brand string change request or certain application change requests which warrant an application comment period. [4:21] MTS - AV: It should be noted that application comments do not have a direct impact on applications, but they may be considered by evaluators. [4:31] MTS - AV: And then I will hand it over to Eduardo who will talk about the application comment form. [4:39] MTS - AV: Thank you, Elisa. [4:41] MTS - AV: So, the Application Comment Forum, or ACF for short, that's gonna be our platform for, reviewing and receiving comments from the public. It will be launched on String Confirmation Day, as Elisa just said, which is currently scheduled for 17th of November next month. [4:59] MTS - AV: It's intended for anyone from the general public, businesses, or any other stakeholders in the community, for them to review any received comments or submit new ones. [5:11] MTS - AV: Those comments received in the community input period or any other period that's, [5:17] MTS - AV: Open for public comments will be shared with evaluators and applicants. [5:22] MTS - AV: Through the ACF. [5:24] MTS - AV: Just for the general awareness, even though the comment forum will remain open, even when there are no such periods, so that the public can continue to review any received comments, otherwise. [5:36] MTS - AV: Next slide, please. [5:39] MTS - AV: So the homepage of the ACF, it's going to have basically a big list of all of the comments that we've received with the general information about the commenter, the related application. [5:54] MTS - AV: And they… [5:56] MTS - AV: area that the comment relates to, so if we look at the slide on screen, on top we're gonna have navigation links that tie in the comment forum with the APS, which is our Application Publications and Statistics system that we talked about in our previous session. [6:13] MTS - AV: And also the NIGITLE program website. [6:17] MTS - AV: There's also a help page that's gonna be there to help users get familiar with this system and how to use it and navigate it. [6:27] MTS - AV: And then the main list that is going to be publicly available will be searchable by dates, the corresponding application or applicant, string, or comment area to make it easier to filter or search specific comments. [6:47] MTS - AV: Next slide, please. [6:50] MTS - AV: We did say that the… [6:54] MTS - AV: ACF is open to everyone, but it will require anyone who intends to submit a comment to actually have an ICANN account. That will allow the commenters to provide information about themselves, including whether they have any affiliation with the ICANN community or any relationship with applicants, any of the required fields that are defined in the applicant guidebook. [7:16] MTS - AV: That will need to be provided in order to be able to actually submit a comment. [7:21] MTS - AV: In order to submit a comment after logging into your ICANN account, then you will be able to indicate which application the comment, pertains to, starting with the apply for string or variant, and then if there's more than one applicant going for that same string. [7:38] MTS - AV: They will also have to select which applicant. [7:42] MTS - AV: It's being considered. We have some echo in the room. [7:46] MTS - AV: Okay, looks like it's fixed. [7:52] MTS - AV: I said… Testing. [7:55] MTS - AV: Alright, I think it's fixed. Apologies for that. [8:00] MTS - AV: So, as I was saying, a commenter will have to select their string and the applicant that the application belongs to, then they can select, [8:10] MTS - AV: What area it pertains to, which can be any of the evaluations that will be. [8:16] MTS - AV: Performed during the program, from string similarity to background screening, any other evaluation. [8:22] MTS - AV: Those are the selectable options and then they can start drafting their comment. It also allows to submit optionally up to two attachment files in case it's necessary. And commenters will also have the ability to indicate if their comment pertains to confidential portions of the application or that they believe that shouldn't be posted publicly. That can also be indicated and it will go for ICANN for review first. [8:47] MTS - AV: as described in the applicant guidebook. [8:50] MTS - AV: But ideally, or in general, all publics are meant for the public forum. [8:57] MTS - AV: Once the applicant fills all of these forms, then they will be able to see their comment posted right then and there. [9:06] MTS - AV: One thing to consider, as I was mentioning earlier. [9:13] MTS - AV: Only those comments received during the community input periods or special comment periods will be shared with evaluators and the applicant for responding, so it's something that commenters will have to be mindful of to make sure that they are aware of those timelines to receive. [9:29] MTS - AV: Those comments, in order for those to be considered in the corresponding evaluations. [9:38] MTS - AV: Thank you. Next slide. And I'm going to be handed over to the next speaker. [9:45] MTS - AV: I think there is a comment in the chat that, [9:50] MTS - AV: You might want to take note of. And I have a question. [9:55] MTS - AV: Do you also have to log in with your ICANN account to see the comments or are they public? If we go back two slides, please. The main page with the list of comments, that's going to be publicly available for everybody. No need to have an ICANN account, no need to log in, but you will only be able to view or search comments if you do intend to post a comment. [10:19] MTS - AV: you will be redirected to start and log in to start a session with your ACKIN account. [10:25] MTS - AV: I did see a comment in the chat about clarifying, is anyone with an ICANN account? Yes, we can certainly make that clarification, and anyone can, create a new ICANN account. They're free, they're pretty easy to get, so it's just to identify who's the commenter. [10:42] MTS - AV: Okay, and I think we have a question from the floor, Thiago, please. [10:46] MTS - AV: Thank you so much, Kristina Tiago Dauto from Colombia. Eduardo, I wanted to ask a question. The comments, as soon as you press send, two questions. Can you edit afterwards in case you made a mistake on something related to your comment? And if the comments will have some sort of moderation before they're posted? Thank you. [11:09] MTS - AV: Thank you. No. Once posted, the comments cannot be edited. So yes, I do encourage commenters to review before posting. [11:18] MTS - AV: Again, we cannot have people changing what they've already posted after the fact, so that's not something we're supporting at this point, and I'll let my colleague Elisa talk about the moderation. [11:28] MTS - AV: Yeah, thanks, Eduardo. The forum is not moderated, and there is no approve button for a comment to be posted. The only case in which we would review the comments before they move forward is in the case of confidential comments. [11:42] MTS - AV: In that case, ICANN would make a verification as to whether the confidential comment actually refers to a confidential portion of the application. And if it does, it will be posted confidentially, meaning that it will only be available to certain parties. [11:57] MTS - AV: Whereas if it is not considered to be confidential, we will send a notification to the commenter saying that the comment should be posted publicly instead. I hope this answers your question. [12:07] MTS - AV: Thank you. Do we have any other questions before we proceed? [12:13] MTS - AV: Okay, I see none. Let's continue. [12:19] MTS - AV: Hi everyone again, George Sarkisyan. So we want to ensure everyone has an understanding of the actions the GAC members and observers individually or collectively can take on new gTLD applications. So with that, we'll go through each briefly and encourage questions as we go. [12:39] MTS - AV: The first one being Singular Plural Notifications. So the submitters, of course, anyone can submit or file a Singular Plural Notification. The website is now up. The form is also available for download to fill out and to submit to ICANN. [12:56] MTS - AV: The form will help to identify if any of the applied-for strings are a singular or plural form of another applied-for string, in which case it could potentially lead to being placed in contention. [13:09] MTS - AV: Or if it's a Singular Plural of an existing gTLD string being processed from a previous round or of a blocked name, and if validated, could potentially lead to that application not being able to proceed. [13:22] MTS - AV: As I mentioned, there's a form, and the form is now available on the new gTLD program website, the Singular Plural website's up, which can be used by the filers to fill out and submit to ICANN, and I think we mentioned in the previous slide, different from the other… [13:41] MTS - AV: Thank you. [13:42] MTS - AV: Apologies. [13:45] MTS - AV: So the singular plural notification window is the 30 days following the string confirmation day and I briefly mentioned the outcomes as well so based on the validated singular oh actually. [14:00] MTS - AV: Based on the submission, that will lead to the evaluation taking place, and based on the evaluation, and depending if it's validated, it's a legitimate notification, which could potentially lead to either an application being placed in contention or unable to proceed. [14:17] MTS - AV: I think we can go to the next slide. [14:21] MTS - AV: Here you get to see an example of the form. We just have two of the pages. [14:27] MTS - AV: There's a lot of information to help the filers to make sure they file a more complete [14:34] MTS - AV: Singular plural notification submission ICANN, we've got some of the links to the website, there are several FAQs related, to the singular plural notification submission as well as [14:49] MTS - AV: Thank you. [14:50] MTS - AV: As well as the evaluation that will take place afterwards. [14:55] MTS - AV: The submission has specific FAQs for it, and those will be found on the community input FAQ-related sections, and then for the evaluation portion, those will be found on the string evaluations section of the FAQ page. [15:13] MTS - AV: And of course, the reference to the applicant guidebook, Section 4.4, goes more details into the, Singular Plural Notification submission and the evaluation, as well as the challenge portion relating to it. [15:28] MTS - AV: I think with that, You can… [15:33] MTS - AV: Pause if there are any questions, or move on to the next slide. [15:42] MTS - AV: Okay. [15:44] MTS - AV: Thank you so much. Apologies for coming back on another issue, and I think maybe Elisa can respond to this. Understanding that there's not going to be any moderation on the comments. [15:56] MTS - AV: If and given that we have to have a registered account, there's nothing prohibited from someone registering an account on Jane Doe, for example. Right. So will there be any review of these type of activities once this is live? [16:13] MTS - AV: Yeah, thanks, Tia. This is actually something we have thought about. In case anybody sees a comment that's in violation of the terms of service, they can flag it to Global Support, and then we will review that. [16:28] MTS - AV: So, there is a chance for the public to flag any content. And I believe that they would also have to agree to complying with ICANN's terms of service before commenting. But we do not have the capacity to review each and every comment as they come in, of course. [16:50] MTS - AV: And sorry again, thank you so much for the answer. [16:54] MTS - AV: Will each comment have some sort of flag this for inappropriate comment or we would have to send an email to and okay, flag. Thank you. Appreciate it. [17:06] MTS - AV: I think there is another question. Ashwin, would you like to… [17:14] MTS - AV: Thank you. [17:15] MTS - AV: I have two small questions in the chat. [17:19] MTS - AV: One is death. [17:22] MTS - AV: During the previous round, The brief is wrong. [17:26] MTS - AV: Of gTLD, some objections were… [17:29] MTS - AV: Send in official letters. Well, Indonesia also sent a letter that time to ICANN. [17:34] MTS - AV: Now can still we can today we can still do the same thing using official letters number 1. [17:40] MTS - AV: The second question is another one. [17:43] MTS - AV: Somehow, We are leap to… Send objections. [17:48] MTS - AV: And, you know, for many reasons. [17:51] MTS - AV: And, what will happen? I mean, can we still submit objection later? [17:56] MTS - AV: Or, no, you cannot submit objection because you are late. [18:01] MTS - AV: Yeah, thank you for your question. So, the objections process is actually quite a specific one, and we will go through some slides later today. [18:10] MTS - AV: And for that, I do not believe that late submissions can be accepted because there's a fairly strict timeline and this is also managed by external providers. [18:22] MTS - AV: However, national governments or GAC members and observers have the chance to submit GAC member early warnings. [18:31] MTS - AV: And the guidebook says that GAC member early warnings should be submitted in the 104 days following string confirmation date. [18:39] MTS - AV: But I think that although we highly encourage DAC members and observers to respect this timeline, I believe that there can be some flexibility in that regard. [18:50] MTS - AV: But I think that if we go through the next slides, we'll probably get some more clarity around that, and especially about the difference between GAC member early warnings and the end objections. [19:01] MTS - AV: And, yeah, here we are with CAC member early warnings, and unless there are any other questions, I think I can start talking about this. [19:07] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. [19:10] MTS - AV: So GAC member early warnings can be submitted individually or collectively by GAC members and observers, and they are an early indication that an application is potentially problematic. [19:24] MTS - AV: There is a specific form and we will take a look in the next slide. And they must include a written explanation describing why the early warning was submitted and if possible, how the applicant may address the concern. GAC members should also provide contact details for communication with the applicant. [19:45] MTS - AV: There is a specific form that, again, we will take a look at. And the timeframe for submitting early warnings is in the 104 days following string confirmation day. But once again, the language in the guidebook says should. [20:02] MTS - AV: There is no… GAC member early warnings do not have a direct impact on an application, but signals that it could become later subject to GAC consensus advice, so we always encourage applicants to take GAC member early warnings seriously because of the potential consequences. [20:21] MTS - AV: And here in the slide, which I think ARR will be posted soon, there's also a link to the GAC early warnings from the 2012 round you can take a look at. [20:34] MTS - AV: And… next slide, please. [20:38] MTS - AV: Here's the form that I think is now published on the GAC website. And GAC member early warnings will be posted on a dedicated Wiki page, which is already online, but it's of course still empty. [20:53] MTS - AV: And they can be submitted to the GAC team by sending an email to 26R-GAC-earlywarnings@ICANN.org, as you can see here. [21:05] MTS - AV: And the GAC policy support team, I believe they can provide additional information as they are the ones managing the process. [21:13] MTS - AV: Applicants will be notified of early warnings affecting their application via the TLD application management system or TAMS as soon as feasible after the early warning is issued. [21:28] MTS - AV: So just again to answer your question, this is a way a government can raise concerns about an application. [21:40] MTS - AV: And are there any questions around GACMAM early warnings? [21:46] MTS - AV: And I think in the chat, there is a link to the form, if you want to check it out as well. Are there any questions? [21:59] MTS - AV: I think there are no questions, oh, there is one. [22:02] MTS - AV: Please, and kindly all introduce yourself when you take the mic. Thank you. [22:11] MTS - AV: Thank you. Paul Blaker for the UK. [22:15] MTS - AV: With the GAC member early warnings, is there a mechanism for them to be completed? [22:22] MTS - AV: So if a government makes an early warning. [22:25] MTS - AV: And then the applicant addresses all the concerns. [22:29] MTS - AV: Does that early warning just continue, or is there a point at which it ends, and what's the process for that? Thank you. [22:37] MTS - AV: Yeah, thank you, Paul. So, the early warning will stay online. We are not planning to take it offline, but because it does not really have a direct impact on applications, we don't really put an end to the early warning, so to say. [22:51] MTS - AV: And there will also be a flag on TAMS, so on the application management system, and there's no plan to remove the flag if the early warning is addressed. Also, because there's no formal process for closing an early warning per se, so I don't think so. [23:11] MTS - AV: And maybe to, to the earlier question, there is still the option, to send a letter to, to ICANN about specific applications, but this is not specifically covered in the, in the applicant guidebook, so the option of sending correspondence to ICANN is still, is still possible, of course, and Marco, please. [23:32] MTS - AV: Okay, we have a question from Marco. [23:35] MTS - AV: -Not so much a question, but to the UK's comment, repeat that in the next session. We've got another session coming up in which we will be discussing readiness materials because it's an interesting afterthought, but maybe defer back to the CAC discussion later this week. [23:58] MTS - AV: Okay, Paul, is this an old hand or do you want to come back in? Okay. I have another hand from Santosh. Not sure where he is. [24:10] MTS - AV: We hear you, okay, go ahead. [24:13] MTS - AV: Thank you Kristin. [24:15] MTS - AV: I'm Santosh, alternate GAAC representative from India. [24:20] MTS - AV: So, regarding GAAC member early warning form. [24:24] MTS - AV: For the information of the colleagues over here, which are the different mechanisms [24:32] MTS - AV: Of the new GTLD program by which. [24:36] MTS - AV: Each CAC member can make an early warning. [24:40] MTS - AV: Can you specify the different mechanism? [24:44] MTS - AV: Thank you. [24:47] MTS - AV: So, you're asking what the mechanisms are for submitting an early warning. So, again, this process is managed by the GAP team. So, if you guys want to jump in, please feel free. [25:00] MTS - AV: But the idea is that they would have to fill out this form, which is here, either one or more GAC members and observers. [25:10] MTS - AV: And submit it to this email address that's now on screen. And there would be, of course, a completeness check. They would then send it over to us, and we would, then… they would also publish it on a wiki page, so the early warnings are actually public and can be… can be seen by anybody without the need to log in. [25:31] MTS - AV: And then we would, so our program team would send a notification to the affected applicant or applicants, so that they can also take a look. And, and redact, so the contact information would be removed from the public version, whereas [25:49] MTS - AV: In the version that we would send to applicants, we would also include the contact information so that applicants can reach out to the GAC members or observers that have issued the early warning if they wish to do so. [26:06] MTS - AV: So, and I see a comment in the chat from Marika, not to put you on the spot, but I think this was in response to Indonesia's question, if I recall right. Would you like to… [26:18] MTS - AV: Yeah, thanks. Hi, this is Marika. There was a question on whether, which I understood to be the correspondence process, if that could be used for submitting [26:28] MTS - AV: formal objections and I just responded although and I think Elisa mentioned as well the correspondence process is always available for anyone who wants to write to ICANN with any questions or comments they have but if you want to file a formal objection or a GAC early warning or any of the other mechanisms that are available you will need to go through the processes that are being outlined here in accordance as well with [26:53] MTS - AV: Timelines that have been, set out. [26:56] MTS - AV: So I hope that helps. [26:58] MTS - AV: Okay, thank you very much. I think we have another question from Jorge. [27:05] MTS - AV: I'm here. Jorge Cancel, Switzerland, for the record. So I was just wondering right now whether we have — and maybe Benedetta, I don't know. I don't want to put you on the spot, but maybe you know. [27:23] MTS - AV: For instance, we as a country are considering the possibility of issuing an early warning, but there is information that pertains to the application that is unclear to us. [27:39] MTS - AV: Is there any preliminary way of contacting the… [27:46] MTS - AV: Applicant informally, through the contact form, or, to request, for instance, some information, or in the other session, we were discussing the fact that the, [28:04] MTS - AV: Non-objection letter from the corresponding governmental authority when we are talking about geonames will not be published, which was a little bit surprising. [28:18] MTS - AV: If we would like to ask the applicant for that information. [28:24] MTS - AV: And still are undecided on whether to issue a CAC early warning. Is there any specific procedure to do that or? [28:35] MTS - AV: Is it just you find — you have to find the contact information of the applicant and see whether they respond or not? So I guess we will have these kinds of cases. [28:50] MTS - AV: more often, where [28:53] MTS - AV: A country might consider an early warning, but wants to request more information from the applicant first. [29:02] MTS - AV: Thank you Jorge Benedetta Giorgio. [29:05] MTS - AV: Thank you, Jorge. It was just a note that, no, we don't have a specific process for this, and the contact information of the applicants will not be public. [29:22] MTS - AV: Okay. But I mean, you can include any questions or clarifications that are needed in the early warnings themselves, though. So if something is unclear, that can be part of the dialogue with the applicant once you've submitted the early warning. [29:37] MTS - AV: Do you want to follow up, Jorge? [29:40] MTS - AV: Maybe a two-finger Jorge Cancillo again for the record, because I can well imagine that sometimes this might be confidential or sensitive. [29:54] MTS - AV: So maybe it's something for us, and I'm looking at Marco as the shepherd of this session and Kristin, maybe something for us to discuss internally in the GAC. [30:07] MTS - AV: Because I can well imagine that we have these cases where we need more information, but we want to have a secure and confidential communication channel with the applicant, and we want to avoid going public. [30:30] MTS - AV: With just questions that maybe. [30:33] MTS - AV: Can be solved bilaterally, because otherwise, both for a country and the applicant, maybe an early warning, which is public, might be too big of a… [30:48] MTS - AV: Of an instrument, like killing sparrows with cannons, or something like that. [30:56] MTS - AV: Yeah, that makes sense. [30:59] MTS - AV: Do you want to come in, Marco? [31:01] MTS - AV: Yeah, the careful observer for this session noted that I am slotted here for CAC takeaways, so I am taking notes. We'll come back to that in the next session. Thank you, Gord. [31:15] MTS - AV: So I have maybe a question. So the applicant will be notified of the early warning, right? And will there be a — you mentioned there is no way to respond or maybe figure out that there is a response somehow, maybe? [31:35] MTS - AV: So, once the applicant is… in the notification to the applicant, we will also include the contact details of the submitters, meaning that the applicant may elect to reach out, but they are not forced to. [31:47] MTS - AV: So, it is where they're highly encouraged to do it because, of course, we always mention how seriously early warning should be taken, considering that there might be advice if nothing changes. [32:00] MTS - AV: But again, we cannot control what applicants do and it will be up to them to decide what to do with that information. [32:10] MTS - AV: Okay, anyone wants to comment on that? [32:15] MTS - AV: No? Okay, let's maybe move on? [32:22] MTS - AV: And then, now we're going to talk about objections and appeals. And we received a few questions in the earlier session, and I will try to answer as we go through the slides, but please feel free to chime in if I forget something. [32:36] MTS - AV: So another way GAC members and observers, but also the public, can provide input on applications is by finding objections. [32:47] MTS - AV: It should be noted that in order to submit an objection, a party needs to have standing, and standing is clearly defined in the applicant guidebook. Standing basically defines, which kind of requirements one needs to meet in order to be able to file a specific, objection. [33:06] MTS - AV: And it should be noted that GAG members and observers may have standing, but this, once again, is defined in the applicant guidebook. Independent objectors can also file objections, and we will talk about them more in detail in a slide. [33:23] MTS - AV: So there are four grounds that… There are four objection grounds, which are string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community, and I will provide more detail later. [33:36] MTS - AV: And their objections are not submitted to ICANN, but they are submitted to dispute resolution service providers. [33:45] MTS - AV: And dispute resolution service providers, also called DRSPs, have published their own procedures on their websites. And on their website, you can also find more information about fees, but I will talk about it, a bit more in detail. [33:59] MTS - AV: So objections may be submitted in the 104 days for all objection grounds following the announcement on stream confirmation day. So this is between the 17th of November this year and the 16th of March next year. [34:14] MTS - AV: And then for 30 days, for string confusion only, following the publication of the string evaluation reports. [34:22] MTS - AV: And for 30 days for all objection rounds in case of brainstorming changes. [34:28] MTS - AV: So, objections may have a big impact on applications, because a panel, which is appointed by the DRSP, will determine whether the application can proceed, can proceed if certain modifications are made, or cannot proceed at all. [34:43] MTS - AV: Unlike in the last round, this time the panel determination can be appealed, so we have an appeal process in place. [34:53] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. [34:56] MTS - AV: So here we describe more in detail the different objection grounds. [35:02] MTS - AV: So string confusion is for cases in which the apply for primary string, it's allocatable variant label or it's block variant label, which is a mouthful, is confusingly similar visually, orally, or in meaning to another TLD, another applied for primary string and or any of its allocatable or block variants. [35:22] MTS - AV: So in practice, the string confusion ground covers cases of confusing similarity. [35:29] MTS - AV: It differs from string similarity evaluation, which George briefly touched on in the previous session, because it doesn't only cover visual similarity, but also similarity in pronunciation and in meaning. [35:46] MTS - AV: So the panel will actually expand on the definition of similarity compared to the panel that performs industry similarity evaluation. [35:58] MTS - AV: Only specific parties have standing to file strict confusion objections, and these are existing gTLD operator for the specific streams, of course, an existing CCTLD operator of a significantly interested party, and an applicant in this application round. [36:17] MTS - AV: Another ground is legal rights, which is for cases in which an apply for string and or more apply for allocatable variant strings infringes on its existing legal rights. [36:29] MTS - AV: And in this case, legal rights objections can be filed by rights holder or IGOs meeting the criteria for registration of a .int domain name. [36:40] MTS - AV: And these two objection grounds are administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization or WIPO, whereas limited public interest and community objections are administered by ICC, which is the International Chamber of Commerce. [36:56] MTS - AV: Limited public interest objections, unlike string confusion and legal rights objections, can be filed by anybody. So there is no precise standing as part of this objection ground. [37:09] MTS - AV: And the claim is that the applied for string or one or more applied for allocatable variance strings are considered to be contrary to generally accepted legal norms of morality and public order recognized under principle of international law. [37:27] MTS - AV: And finally, community objections can be filed by established institutions associated with clearly delineated community. [37:35] MTS - AV: communities based on a claim that there is well-substantiated opposition to an applied-for string from a significant portion of the community, which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeting. [37:48] MTS - AV: So, here we try to stay… to be quite high level, but I would invite you to refer to the guidebook for more information on what the panel will actually be looking at for each objection ground. [38:03] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. I see there's a few questions in the chat, but if that's okay, I will look at them after the end of this section. [38:11] MTS - AV: So, I would like to stress that there are no differentiated fees, for specific governments, but, national governments may decide to request funding from ICANN to fund one objection and one appeal. [38:30] MTS - AV: But there are certain conditions that have to be met. [38:34] MTS - AV: So the national government will have to submit a form and send it to ICANN at a dedicated email address within specific timelines. [38:43] MTS - AV: ICANN will perform necessary due diligence and inform the national government of the result. And we would like to stress that ICANN only covers the DRSP filing fees and costs. So, for instance, if the national government incurs in additional legal fees or similar, those will not be covered by ICANN. [39:02] MTS - AV: It should also be noted that ICANN will make payments directly to the DRSPs and not make any refunds to the national governments in case the national government decides to pay first and ask for a refund. This is not possible. [39:16] MTS - AV: And we would really like to invite you to check the webpage that's published here for detailed instructions, and you can also find the downloadable form that needs to be filled out to request for funding for objections and appeals. [39:31] MTS - AV: And once again, costs are only covered for one objection and one appeal for each national government. [39:40] MTS - AV: And next slide, please. [39:45] MTS - AV: Finally, we would also like to provide some information on independent objectors who are three individuals selected by ICANN who are not acting on behalf of any particular person or entities, but solely in the best interest of the public. [40:01] MTS - AV: Independent objectors may only file limited public interest and community objections, and they must consider application comments, and will not object to an application unless at least one comment opposing the application has been made. [40:18] MTS - AV: They will only file objections in the 111 days following string confirmation day, so you might notice that they have an additional week compared to other parties, and they may also decide to appeal panel determinations if they do not prevail. [40:36] MTS - AV: Independent objectors will not have their objection considered if another objection on the same ground has passed a quick look review, absent extraordinary circumstances. [40:47] MTS - AV: So the idea is that these three individuals whom we have, we are in the process for whom we are in the process of finalizing the selection. So there will be an announcement soon. [40:58] MTS - AV: will be [41:00] MTS - AV: Looking at applications and see if there are certain strings that I do not believe are in line with the public interest. [41:10] MTS - AV: And no objections were filed against those strings. So they will sort of fill the gaps and file community or limited public interest objections. [41:23] MTS - AV: And then I think I will now try to address some of the questions that we received earlier. Yes, and we also have a hand up in the Zoom. I think it's Netherlands. [41:40] MTS - AV: Thank you, Elisa. It's Marco from Netherlands speaking. Just out of sheer interest, looking back and what you determined were significantly interested party, I hear a new acronym coming up. [41:57] MTS - AV: Who is to determine who that is? [42:03] MTS - AV: And kind of more broadly, in terms of standing, will this just be part of the objection evaluation to determine whether you are a significantly interested party and or whether you have standing? How is that evaluation taking place? [42:23] Elisa Busetto - ICANN Org: Yeah, yeah, yeah. [42:25] MTS - AV: you [42:28] MTS - AV: This was my fault. I have just posted the definition of significantly interested parties in the chat, and it is also included in the guidebook. So there is a quite specific definition. [42:43] MTS - AV: We can also read it out loud, but it's government or territorial authorities for the country or territory associated with the CCLD, individuals, organization, companies, et cetera. So yeah, please refer to that. [42:58] MTS - AV: I hope this answers your question. And I see a hand from Nigel. Yes, we have a hand from the CTO. [43:07] MTS - AV: Thank you very much Kristy Nigel Cassimir from CTU I'm not clear… [43:15] MTS - AV: In terms of these independent objectives, your first bullet says, standing panel of three individuals or entities selected by ICANN not acting blah blah blah blah. [43:26] MTS - AV: So, an individual cannot… [43:30] MTS - AV: be an individual objector? Is it that we need three persons? I'm not… sorry, I'm not following what that means. [43:38] MTS - AV: Yeah, thank you. I will try and clarify. So, we have selected three individuals who will be operating independently. Each of them will review all the applications. [43:51] MTS - AV: And they will decide individually whether to file an objection against a specific application or not. [43:59] MTS - AV: There will be a chair whose objective, whose job will not be to prevent a specific objection from being filed, for instance. [44:10] MTS - AV: But it will simply be to avoid situations in which two objections are filed against the same string, among other tasks. But we want to avoid having two objections filed by the independent objectors because, of course, there are costs associated, and this is ICANN's money. [44:28] MTS - AV: So we're trying to avoid, avoid this scenario but there doesn't have to be consensus among the independent objectors for them to be able to file an objection. [44:38] MTS - AV: Something else is that, as mentioned here on this slide, independent objectors should not file objections if there's already an objection filed against a specific string. [44:54] MTS - AV: But in extraordinary circumstances, they might decide to go ahead, and this is the only scenario in which there would have to be consensus. [45:03] MTS - AV: We have discussed more details around how independent objectors are going to operate with the implementation review team while we were discussing the overall implementation of the program. [45:19] MTS - AV: And, we will also post more information on these on the NuGet TLD program website soon. [45:26] MTS - AV: So, I hope that more of your questions will be answered. [45:32] MTS - AV: Okay, and we have a queue. First India, and then the USA, and then Switzerland. So India, please, the floor is yours. [45:44] MTS - AV: A. [45:45] MTS - AV: Thank you, Catherine. [45:47] MTS - AV: So, coming to the slide number 20, which mentions about the… [45:54] MTS - AV: Funding to file objections and appeal. The slide previous to this. [46:00] MTS - AV: Which is slide number 20. [46:03] MTS - AV: Which says, national governments may request funding from ICANN [46:09] MTS - AV: To fund 1 objection and 1 appeal. [46:12] MTS - AV: Subject to certain condition. [46:16] MTS - AV: Is it a requirement? [46:18] MTS - AV: To make a request funding from ICANN. [46:22] MTS - AV: Clarification required. Thank you. [46:26] MTS - AV: No, it is not a requirement. Any national governments or GAC members or observers may file as many objections as they wish, and there are no requirements for that. The only requirement is if they wish to have their objection or appeal funded. [46:43] MTS - AV: then they will have to follow a specific process, but they don't have to request money from ICANN. [46:52] MTS - AV: Thank you. The US, please. [46:57] MTS - AV: Thank you. Could you clarify how filing fees for objections are calculated by dispute resolution providers, namely how the decision to charge either a fixed fee or an hours hours-based fee is determined? We ask because we support making this process as transparent and fair as possible. Thank you. [47:23] MTS - AV: Thank you for your question. And I have posted here in the chat the links to the web pages where the DRSPs describe their fee schedule. [47:37] MTS - AV: You will see that for each objection ground. So you will see that WIPO has mostly a flat fee schedule. [47:47] MTS - AV: Whereas ICC will determine what the advance costs will be once the panel has been appointed. So the DRSPs will actually send invoices to both parties requesting to file the advance costs. [48:07] MTS - AV: At specific points in time. [48:09] MTS - AV: You will also see that there's a filing fee, which is also defined in the links that I just posted to the chat, which is mostly non-refundable. And then there's a second moment in time, the parties will be requested to pay advance costs. [48:26] MTS - AV: And finally, there might be a final invoice based on the actual cost. [48:31] MTS - AV: So there are two different approaches to this. WIPO has a flat fee, whereas ICC has an hourly fee. And then based on the specific situation, the fees might vary. [48:46] MTS - AV: So I hope this answers your question. [48:48] MTS - AV: Okay, and there is a final question maybe from Switzerland, and then we can move on after Switzerland. [48:58] MTS - AV: Hello, Benjamin speaking for Switzerland. I want to jump back to the question of Marco, where an objector is… [49:10] MTS - AV: Might be, [49:12] MTS - AV: Or the comment of an objector might be excluded not for the content, but the objector himself. And this applies also for, the… [49:23] MTS - AV: The slide before. [49:26] MTS - AV: On the community objective, where the definition of who can object are, in my opinion, a bit vague, and… [49:35] MTS - AV: How that's going to be judged. And I think you didn't respond to Marco's question in that point where you said, where you posted a definition, but not if the how this will be judged. Thank you. [49:51] MTS - AV: Yeah, apologies for that. So there is a specific procedure as part of the objection and appeal processes, which is called quick look review. [50:04] MTS - AV: So, the panel will be appointed right after the administrative review performed by the DRSPs. [50:11] MTS - AV: And this panel will perform a substantive assessment on the objection itself as well as on the standing. So, the standing requirements are quite clearly defined in the applicant guidebook. And as I understand, the slide is quite vague, but we couldn't go too much into the detail. I can also post a link to the specific section. [50:35] MTS - AV: And the panel appointed will actually check whether requirements are met. So there is a substantive check on this as well. [50:46] MTS - AV: And how that is performed, of course, depends on what we have, on the definition of standing that we have in the applicant guidebook. [50:58] MTS - AV: Susan, is that a follow-up hand or an old note? Okay. So, okay, let's move on in the interest of time. [51:07] MTS - AV: And, yeah, finally, the last but not least is, GAP consensus advice. [51:14] MTS - AV: Which, as you know, can be submitted by the GAC to the board via consensus and provides advice to the ICANN board, including related to applications that which are seen as sensitive or may violate national law. [51:31] MTS - AV: I would like to stress that GAC advice about new GTLD applications must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include an articulated rationale. [51:41] MTS - AV: It should be limited to the scope set out in the applicable bylaws provision and elaborate on any interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws, et cetera. So, of course, it's submitted by GAC Communique. [51:57] MTS - AV: And there is no specific timeframe for GAC advice to be issued, so it can be submitted at any time. And the ICANN board will consider it in accordance to its bylaws, of course. [52:10] MTS - AV: As mentioned previously, GAC members and observers may also submit early warnings, giving a heads up to applicants before GAC advice is issued. [52:22] MTS - AV: And I see Jorge's hand is up. Yes, there's a hand from Switzerland. [52:30] MTS - AV: Thank you, Kristin. Jorge Gancia, Switzerland. Just, struck my eye to see that, the system tool is defined as CAC communique. To my knowledge, CAC consensus advice may be delivered by a letter, by… [52:49] MTS - AV: any other piece, so it's not bound to the GAC communique, it's just that the GAC communique is the usual means of providing GAC consensus advice. That's at least my understanding of the bylaws and the operating principles. [53:07] MTS - AV: Yeah, thanks, Jorge, this was an oversight on our end, thanks. [53:10] MTS - AV: Yes, thank you. And also Benedetta has mentioned that in the chat. Any questions before we move on? [53:20] MTS - AV: Okay, there is a question from Maike. [53:26] MTS - AV: Thank you. Over here. [53:29] MTS - AV: I have a short question about the GAC consensus advice. Are there any examples from the last round in 2012 from successful GAC consensus advice? And if so, where could we find these examples? [53:45] MTS - AV: I think I cannot see it now here. Yes, but there are links in the slides. So, several communiques were published starting from ICANN 46, which is Beijing. [53:59] MTS - AV: To ICANN 54 Dublin. I think once the slides are posted, you can take a look at the advice about applications in the 2012 round. [54:13] MTS - AV: Okay, I think we need to move on. If you'd like very briefly and quickly to go on with the poll, because we have very limited time. [54:30] MTS - AV: Yes, let's quickly go through them. As I read the question, please feel free to already start casting your votes. So, can GAC observers submit GAC member early warnings? A. Only if they have the support of a GAC member, B. No, C. Yes, and D. Only if the GAC reaches consensus. [54:53] MTS - AV: Maybe we'll just take, 10, 15 seconds… [55:12] MTS - AV: We have a few more coming, so maybe in the interest of time, yes, see. [55:18] MTS - AV: They can submit a GAC member early warning. [55:21] MTS - AV: Maybe we can move on to the next one. There's a few more, so you'll have opportunities. So can GAC consensus advice have an impact on an application? [55:32] MTS - AV: Yes, if accepted by the board as per ICANN's bylaws. B, no, but evaluators may take DAC consensus advice into account when performing their evaluations. C, only if issued during this ICANN meeting, or D, only if issued in Adelaide between 30th October and 4th of November, 2027. [56:03] MTS - AV: And yes, we're looking good. It is a yes if accepted by the board as per ICANN bylaws. [56:13] MTS - AV: Sorry, we'll just go through these quickly. The third one, can GAC members and observers submit application comments now? A. Yes, via the ACF. [56:24] MTS - AV: B, no, they can only submit comments starting on string confirmation day. C, yes, by emailing the GAC chair with Lars in copy. He's back there. Or D, no, only other applicants can submit application comments. [56:46] MTS - AV: Mixed results for this one, but it is B. They can only submit comments starting on String Confirmation Day when the application comment, the community input portion will also be open. [57:00] MTS - AV: And, one more. [57:02] MTS - AV: How can national governments apply for funding to file objections and appeals? I feel like we've discussed this a little bit. A, by sending a registered letter to ICANN's office. [57:12] MTS - AV: B, by paying for the fees first, and then requesting a refund from ICANN, C, by waiting until after the deadline for filing objections, and then emailing Elisa, sorry, or D, by strictly following the procedures published on the new gTLD program's website. [57:33] MTS - AV: And you guys are doing really well, it is D. [57:37] MTS - AV: following the procedures on the new GTLD website, certainly. [57:41] MTS - AV: Thanks, everybody. [57:42] MTS - AV: So thank you very much with that to the next round team. And I'd like to give them a round of applause if possible. [57:55] MTS - AV: Okay, and we'll move right away to Benedetta. Please, Benedetta, the floor is yours. [58:01] MTS - AV: Thank you, Kristine. So my name is Benedetta Rossi, GAC support staff for those who don't know me. [58:07] MTS - AV: So I'll just spend a couple of minutes, introducing the GAC's operational readiness approach, which has been put into place to support, members and observers, as the application review process progresses, and then showing you how the different materials, fit together. [58:27] MTS - AV: Oh yeah, we're already on the next slide. So you've just heard from the next round team the different mechanisms and what opportunities are available to GAC members and observers during the application process, but now what we're looking at here, and we'll explore further in the next plenary session. [58:45] MTS - AV: is how the GAC has actually prepared operationally to support engagement with the mechanisms that were reviewed in practice. [58:55] MTS - AV: So, basically, simply, it's about making sure that you know, what support is available, when different types of GAC engagement may become relevant, and then how the pieces, fit together. [59:09] MTS - AV: As the next round progresses. So, as the round moves into, application review and community input, members may choose to engage at different points. Sometimes, as was mentioned before, individually, through their own national or internal processes, and sometimes through the broader, GAC discussions. [59:27] MTS - AV: And the purpose of the operational readiness framework, which was developed, supported by the gTLD topic leads and the GAC leadership team. [59:37] MTS - AV: has been to make sure that there's a clear and predictable structure in place, and that practical materials are available when members need them. So this work has resulted in an overarching operational readiness framework. [59:51] MTS - AV: Supporting materials for GAC member early warnings, and then an operational approach for the consideration of, possible GAC advice. [59:59] MTS - AV: These materials only support the existing mechanisms. They do not create any new procedures or change the applicable rules, and this is particularly important for GAC advice. But we'll look at the documents more thoroughly in the plenary sessions. But if you go to the next slide, you'll just see how the documents actually fit together visually. [60:20] MTS - AV: Thank you. So yeah, here you can see that at the top, there's the, Operational Readiness Framework, which is the overarching document providing the… the common instruction for GAC review and engagement as the application progress [60:33] MTS - AV: progresses. Underneath, you have the two different paths, so the early warning pathway on the left, and then on the… on the right, the gap advice pathway. They're distinct here in the… in the slide, but I mean, technically, you can… you can link it, meaning that [60:49] MTS - AV: You're able to submit an early warning and then advice as well if you wish, but there are also two distinct processes. You can also just submit GAC advice. So I won't repeat what was already mentioned about the early warning mechanisms. [61:06] MTS - AV: But the purpose of the two documents that were developed were just to make the operational processes clear and workable for members and observers who decide to use these mechanisms. [61:18] MTS - AV: So yeah, especially for GAC advice, what I was saying is that it does not create any new mechanisms, it doesn't change the way that GAC advice works, it was just… [61:28] MTS - AV: A practical reason for approaching this was because we're expecting potentially a large number of applications to be reviewed. There may be several applications or strings that members wish to explore. So, you decided to operationalize this to make it as smooth as possible rather than only discussing this. [61:51] MTS - AV: During, face-to-face communique sessions, for example. [61:57] MTS - AV: I think we can move to the next slide. [62:00] MTS - AV: And here you can see a more of a phased approach, which again, we'll look at this even more thoroughly in the next session, but this is just the phased approach that is set out in the framework. The phases here really show, [62:15] MTS - AV: how GAC members… how GAC engagement is relevant at every stage. So right now, we're in, state… phase one, so running from reveal day to string confirmation day. I can… so yeah, as you know, here we're falling within, the replacement period. [62:33] MTS - AV: So it's considered an initial or preliminary review stage at this time. And then, [62:40] MTS - AV: the final apply for strings, as our colleagues mentioned, will be confirmed on the 17th of November, and then that's when Phase 2 starts. At that point, you can all, review, into a more detailed review of the confirmation applications and strings. [62:57] MTS - AV: And that is an important date as well since it opens the 104-day community input period. So that's when you can start submitting GAC member early warnings and objections, etc. You've already heard about this, so I won't repeat it. And then phase three is this sort of new opportunity that was developed as part of the framework, which are voluntary opportunities for members to exchange [63:22] MTS - AV: information, raise potential public policy concerns, and share perspective, but they're not intended as any decision-making processes. [63:31] MTS - AV: or sessions. And participation doesn't affect the ability of an individual member or observer to use any of the available mechanisms. And then phase four reflects the possible courses of action as the review progresses. So you have no further action, you have early warning, further discussion with a view for possible advice, and then [63:54] MTS - AV: Or no, action at all. [63:57] MTS - AV: And just one point I think is important is that this isn't intended to be a rigid or mandatory sequence, it's just a way to potentially organize the work, since different activities can overlap. Members still retain discretion over whether and how they engage with the mechanisms available to them. [64:18] MTS - AV: So I think that's all I had. We'll be reviewing this further in the next session. So I'll just turn it back, I think, to Christine. Thank you. Thank you very much, Benedetta, and thank you to the support team. I think we have 5 minutes left, so I will give Marco the floor to just… [64:38] MTS - AV: To give the takeaways and wrap up the discussion. [64:42] MTS - AV: Yeah, and for the sake of time now, I'm in the privileged position to just share my notes with you. [64:51] MTS - AV: I don't think there's a lot of time to further discuss this, but we'll come back, there's plenty of more sessions to come. The key takeaways, I noted down, and thank you, Kristina, and everybody else in the Capacity Development Working Group for setting us up here. [65:09] MTS - AV: 17 November is a very special day. Not to mind 16 March is even more special, because after 16 March, it means you're too late. [65:19] MTS - AV: Next two options specific to the GAC, so the early warnings and the consensus advice, there are several processes open to anybody, which of course then includes GAC members, so that's also lovely to hear. We are part of the ICANN community. [65:40] MTS - AV: Funding support is available for an objection, or an appeal, but it's not mandatory. Obviously, you can always just file an objection, but then you have to pay by your own means, and I think that's also important for us to remember. [65:59] MTS - AV: Good point. You need an ICANN account. Now, I trust that you as a GAC member, GAC representative, all have an ICANN account, but it's probably good to talk to your stakeholders and maybe ICANN can make something available, if not already there, on how to quickly set up an ICANN account if you want to comment. [66:19] MTS - AV: Then, that kind of brings me to the coming sessions. [66:27] MTS - AV: We probably, and I will come back to that after the coffee, need to discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to our satisfaction. [66:40] MTS - AV: That's something that, well, in my mind… oh yeah, good thought, after the fact. [66:49] MTS - AV: And then I also heard a request to see if there is a need and whether it's possible to somehow find a bilateral, more confidential channel to set up a conversation with a particular applicant before any comments or early warnings are published. [67:08] MTS - AV: And then the last comment I jotted down is the GAC consensus advice always remains open as an option to let the board know that we have issues. [67:20] MTS - AV: With that, and then, Kristine, if you allow me to wrap this up, because, as I said, there's plenty of more sessions to come. [67:29] MTS - AV: So taking my takeaways back, we'll meet straight after the coffee from three to four. There is another session about the next round and operational readiness. So I think that's where we can discuss some of the discussions just brought up. I'll be here, Benedetta will be here. We will again be joined by Marika and some of her team to talk [67:54] MTS - AV: through some some more [67:56] MTS - AV: operational around readiness and updates. Then tomorrow morning, Sunday morning, 9:00 A.M. local time, we will have a session specific to the applicant support program. So that's where we can look into the ASP update and discuss some of the lessons learned. [68:19] MTS - AV: And then finally, and, and that's scheduled for a Tuesday morning, 9 AM Bali time, we kind of have an open hour, and, and my intention is to really treat that as an open hour to, look at what we now know. So, [68:39] MTS - AV: Open discussion on what we have seen published, open discussion on what we have heard in these other sessions. So we have plenty of room, I think, to have further discussions about this topic. As we all get, this is the big one, and we're all here together, so make use of our time. [69:01] MTS - AV: Thank you very much, Marco. And we are almost at the end of this session. So just to say that there were some questions to think about that we might want to consider for our discussions in the next sessions. And one final thing, I specifically want to thank our topic leads for the preparation of the material for this together with the support staff. [69:26] MTS - AV: I will close this session, and thank you all very much. [69:33] MTS - AV: We have a coffee break and we need to be back in the room at 3 p.m, correct? Thank you. Official source: https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round Revision: e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e Made by AgentCommunity // Balázs Némethi ## Source and processing provenance Release: a5927a53b9ef39f2958a61187665079c9843a7fc67e30af1e1996b59901a2919 Source retrieved: 2026-10-23T21:01:08.618041+00:00 Availability: null Processing: {"human_reviewed":false,"terminology":"llm_corrected","summary":"ai_generated","asr":"completed","semantic_check":"passed"} Coverage: {"primary_track":"captions","recording_seconds":4274.442375,"asr_segments":511,"caption_segments":382,"gaps":[]} - The session explained how GAC members, observers and the public can engage in the 2026 round: application comments, singular/plural notifications, early warnings, objections and GAC consensus advice. Evidence: {"quote":"Singular Plural Notifications, GAC member early warnings that can be submitted by members and observers of the GAC","start":167.5,"cue_id":"cue-13","segment_id":13} - Key operational points included the 17 November String Confirmation Day, a 104-day comment and objection window ending 16 March, an ICANN-account requirement for posting comments, and no editing or general moderation of comments. Evidence: {"quote":"between the 17th of November and the 16th of March next year","start":240.94,"cue_id":"cue-19","segment_id":19} - Key operational points included the 17 November String Confirmation Day, a 104-day comment and objection window ending 16 March, an ICANN-account requirement for posting comments, and no editing or general moderation of comments. Evidence: {"quote":"require anyone who intends to submit a comment to actually have an ICANN account","start":414.07,"cue_id":"cue-39","segment_id":39} - Key operational points included the 17 November String Confirmation Day, a 104-day comment and objection window ending 16 March, an ICANN-account requirement for posting comments, and no editing or general moderation of comments. Evidence: {"quote":"Once posted, the comments cannot be edited.","start":669.36,"cue_id":"cue-65","segment_id":65} - Key operational points included the 17 November String Confirmation Day, a 104-day comment and objection window ending 16 March, an ICANN-account requirement for posting comments, and no editing or general moderation of comments. Evidence: {"quote":"The forum is not moderated","start":688.5,"cue_id":"cue-67","segment_id":67} - Early warnings remain public and flagged without a formal close, objections go to dispute resolution providers and can be appealed, and ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. Evidence: {"quote":"the early warning will stay online","start":1357.29,"cue_id":"cue-139","segment_id":139} - Early warnings remain public and flagged without a formal close, objections go to dispute resolution providers and can be appealed, and ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. Evidence: {"quote":"objections are not submitted to ICANN, but they are submitted to dispute resolution service providers.","start":2016.74,"cue_id":"cue-199","segment_id":199} - Early warnings remain public and flagged without a formal close, objections go to dispute resolution providers and can be appealed, and ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. Evidence: {"quote":"this time the panel determination can be appealed","start":2083.35,"cue_id":"cue-205","segment_id":205} - Early warnings remain public and flagged without a formal close, objections go to dispute resolution providers and can be appealed, and ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal is optional rather than mandatory. Evidence: {"quote":"No, it is not a requirement.","start":2786.24,"cue_id":"cue-273","segment_id":273} - The GAC Operational Readiness Framework was introduced as support for existing mechanisms, and Marco flagged follow-up discussion on signaling that concerns were addressed and on a possible confidential channel with applicants. Evidence: {"quote":"These materials only support the existing mechanisms. They do not create any new procedures or change the applicable rules","start":3599.93,"cue_id":"cue-342","segment_id":342} - The GAC Operational Readiness Framework was introduced as support for existing mechanisms, and Marco flagged follow-up discussion on signaling that concerns were addressed and on a possible confidential channel with applicants. Evidence: {"quote":"need to discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to our satisfaction.","start":3987.13,"cue_id":"cue-369","segment_id":369} - The GAC Operational Readiness Framework was introduced as support for existing mechanisms, and Marco flagged follow-up discussion on signaling that concerns were addressed and on a possible confidential channel with applicants. Evidence: {"quote":"find a bilateral, more confidential channel to set up a conversation with a particular applicant","start":4009.05,"cue_id":"cue-371","segment_id":371} - The session framed the 2026-round engagement options for GAC members and observers, individually or collectively: application comments, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections, and GAC consensus advice. It stressed that the Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source and that the slides simplified complex concepts. Evidence: {"quote":"understanding the actions that GAC members and observers individually or collectively as the GAC can take on new GTLD applications","start":155.88,"cue_id":"cue-12","segment_id":12} - The session framed the 2026-round engagement options for GAC members and observers, individually or collectively: application comments, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections, and GAC consensus advice. It stressed that the Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source and that the slides simplified complex concepts. Evidence: {"quote":"Singular Plural Notifications, GAC member early warnings","start":167.5,"cue_id":"cue-13","segment_id":13} - The session framed the 2026-round engagement options for GAC members and observers, individually or collectively: application comments, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections, and GAC consensus advice. It stressed that the Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source and that the slides simplified complex concepts. Evidence: {"quote":"Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source of all information","start":116.7,"cue_id":"cue-8","segment_id":8} - The session framed the 2026-round engagement options for GAC members and observers, individually or collectively: application comments, singular/plural notifications, GAC member early warnings, objections, and GAC consensus advice. It stressed that the Applicant Guidebook is the authoritative source and that the slides simplified complex concepts. Evidence: {"quote":"we actually try to simplify quite complex concepts coming from the guidebook","start":136.12,"cue_id":"cue-9","segment_id":9} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"first way the community has to provide input on applications is by submitting application comments","start":189.53,"cue_id":"cue-15","segment_id":15} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"It will be launched on String Confirmation Day","start":281.18,"cue_id":"cue-24","segment_id":24} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"The main page with the list of comments, that's going to be publicly available for everybody","start":595.74,"cue_id":"cue-60","segment_id":60} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"require anyone who intends to submit a comment to actually have an ICANN account","start":414.07,"cue_id":"cue-39","segment_id":39} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"Once posted, the comments cannot be edited.","start":669.36,"cue_id":"cue-65","segment_id":65} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"The forum is not moderated","start":688.5,"cue_id":"cue-67","segment_id":67} - Application comments can be submitted by anyone, including GAC members and observers, through the Application Comment Forum, scheduled to launch on String Confirmation Day on 17 November. The comment list is publicly viewable without login, but posting requires an ICANN account; posted comments cannot be edited, and the forum is not moderated except for confidential-comment review. Evidence: {"quote":"ICANN would make a verification as to whether the confidential comment actually refers to a confidential portion of the application","start":702.02,"cue_id":"cue-68","segment_id":68} - Evaluators and applicants receive only comments filed during designated community-input or special comment periods. The main window is the 104 days after String Confirmation Day, 17 November to 16 March, with additional 30-day periods after certain change requests; comments outside those periods remain viewable but are not considered in evaluations. Evidence: {"quote":"Only those comments received during the community input periods or special comment periods will be shared with evaluators and the applicant","start":553.83,"cue_id":"cue-55","segment_id":55} - Evaluators and applicants receive only comments filed during designated community-input or special comment periods. The main window is the 104 days after String Confirmation Day, 17 November to 16 March, with additional 30-day periods after certain change requests; comments outside those periods remain viewable but are not considered in evaluations. Evidence: {"quote":"between the 17th of November and the 16th of March next year","start":240.94,"cue_id":"cue-19","segment_id":19} - Evaluators and applicants receive only comments filed during designated community-input or special comment periods. The main window is the 104 days after String Confirmation Day, 17 November to 16 March, with additional 30-day periods after certain change requests; comments outside those periods remain viewable but are not considered in evaluations. Evidence: {"quote":"30 days following a brand string change request or certain application change requests","start":250.41,"cue_id":"cue-20","segment_id":20} - Evaluators and applicants receive only comments filed during designated community-input or special comment periods. The main window is the 104 days after String Confirmation Day, 17 November to 16 March, with additional 30-day periods after certain change requests; comments outside those periods remain viewable but are not considered in evaluations. Evidence: {"quote":"even though the comment forum will remain open, even when there are no such periods","start":324.4,"cue_id":"cue-29","segment_id":29} - Singular/plural notifications are open to anyone and use a form on the New gTLD Program website. The filing window is 30 days after String Confirmation Day, and a validated notification can place an application in contention or prevent it from proceeding. Evidence: {"quote":"anyone can submit or file a Singular Plural Notification","start":759.29,"cue_id":"cue-73","segment_id":73} - Singular/plural notifications are open to anyone and use a form on the New gTLD Program website. The filing window is 30 days after String Confirmation Day, and a validated notification can place an application in contention or prevent it from proceeding. Evidence: {"quote":"form is now available on the new gTLD program website","start":802.24,"cue_id":"cue-76","segment_id":76} - Singular/plural notifications are open to anyone and use a form on the New gTLD Program website. The filing window is 30 days after String Confirmation Day, and a validated notification can place an application in contention or prevent it from proceeding. Evidence: {"quote":"singular plural notification window is the 30 days following the string confirmation day","start":825.27,"cue_id":"cue-79","segment_id":79} - Singular/plural notifications are open to anyone and use a form on the New gTLD Program website. The filing window is 30 days after String Confirmation Day, and a validated notification can place an application in contention or prevent it from proceeding. Evidence: {"quote":"could potentially lead to either an application being placed in contention or unable to proceed","start":840.52,"cue_id":"cue-80","segment_id":80} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"GAC member early warnings can be submitted individually or collectively by GAC members and observers","start":1150.43,"cue_id":"cue-119","segment_id":119} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"they must include a written explanation describing why the early warning was submitted","start":1164.4,"cue_id":"cue-120","segment_id":120} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"timeframe for submitting early warnings is in the 104 days following string confirmation day","start":1185.22,"cue_id":"cue-121","segment_id":121} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"GAC member early warnings do not have a direct impact on an application","start":1202.64,"cue_id":"cue-122","segment_id":122} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"signals that it could become later subject to GAC consensus advice","start":1202.64,"cue_id":"cue-122","segment_id":122} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"the early warning will stay online","start":1357.29,"cue_id":"cue-139","segment_id":139} - GAC member early warnings may be filed by members or observers, individually or collectively, and must explain the concern and, if possible, how the applicant could address it. The guidebook says they should be submitted in the 104 days after String Confirmation Day; they have no direct impact but signal possible later GAC consensus advice. Presenters said an early warning stays online and a TAMS flag is not planned for removal even if the concern is addressed. Evidence: {"quote":"there's no plan to remove the flag if the early warning is addressed","start":1371.89,"cue_id":"cue-140","segment_id":140} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"in order to submit an objection, a party needs to have standing","start":1967.76,"cue_id":"cue-196","segment_id":196} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"There are four objection grounds, which are string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community","start":2003.24,"cue_id":"cue-198","segment_id":198} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"objections are not submitted to ICANN, but they are submitted to dispute resolution service providers.","start":2016.74,"cue_id":"cue-199","segment_id":199} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"objections may be submitted in the 104 days for all objection grounds following the announcement on stream confirmation day","start":2039.62,"cue_id":"cue-201","segment_id":201} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"this time the panel determination can be appealed","start":2083.35,"cue_id":"cue-205","segment_id":205} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"national governments may decide to request funding from ICANN to fund one objection and one appeal","start":2291.76,"cue_id":"cue-222","segment_id":222} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"ICANN only covers the DRSP filing fees and costs","start":2323.28,"cue_id":"cue-225","segment_id":225} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"ICANN will make payments directly to the DRSPs","start":2342.72,"cue_id":"cue-226","segment_id":226} - Objections require standing and are filed with dispute resolution service providers, not ICANN, on four grounds: string confusion, legal rights, limited public interest and community. The general objection window is 104 days after String Confirmation Day, and panel determinations can now be appealed. National governments may request ICANN funding for one objection and one appeal, but funding is optional and covers only DRSP filing fees and costs, paid directly to the DRSP. Evidence: {"quote":"No, it is not a requirement.","start":2786.24,"cue_id":"cue-273","segment_id":273} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"GAC advice about new GTLD applications must clearly state that it is GAC advice","start":3091.61,"cue_id":"cue-300","segment_id":300} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"include an articulated rationale","start":3091.61,"cue_id":"cue-300","segment_id":300} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"limited to the scope set out in the applicable bylaws provision","start":3101.95,"cue_id":"cue-301","segment_id":301} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"there is no specific timeframe for GAC advice to be issued","start":3117.51,"cue_id":"cue-302","segment_id":302} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"consensus advice may be delivered by a letter","start":3150.77,"cue_id":"cue-305","segment_id":305} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"it's not bound to the GAC communique","start":3169.47,"cue_id":"cue-306","segment_id":306} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"this was an oversight on our end, thanks.","start":3187.44,"cue_id":"cue-307","segment_id":307} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"introducing the GAC's operational readiness approach","start":3487.59,"cue_id":"cue-334","segment_id":334} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"These materials only support the existing mechanisms. They do not create any new procedures or change the applicable rules","start":3599.93,"cue_id":"cue-342","segment_id":342} - GAC consensus advice must clearly state that it is GAC advice, include rationale, stay within the applicable bylaws scope, and has no specific timeframe. A participant corrected the implication that advice is submitted only through the communique, noting it can be delivered by letter or other means; the presenter acknowledged the oversight. GAC support staff introduced an Operational Readiness Framework and phased approach intended to organize support, stressing that the materials do not create new procedures or change applicable rules. Evidence: {"quote":"this isn't intended to be a rigid or mandatory sequence","start":3837.84,"cue_id":"cue-359","segment_id":359} - The session closed with questions flagged for consideration in later sessions, including the operational-readiness discussion scheduled immediately after the coffee break. Evidence: {"quote":"there were some questions to think about that we might want to consider for our discussions in the next sessions","start":4141.479,"cue_id":"cue-379","segment_id":379} - The session closed with questions flagged for consideration in later sessions, including the operational-readiness discussion scheduled immediately after the coffee break. Evidence: {"quote":"There is another session about the next round and operational readiness.","start":4049.61,"cue_id":"cue-374","segment_id":374} - Suggested follow-up: the GAC could discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to its satisfaction, as Marco flagged. Evidence: {"quote":"need to discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to our satisfaction.","start":3987.13,"cue_id":"cue-369","segment_id":369} - Suggested follow-up: the GAC could assess whether a more confidential bilateral channel with applicants is needed and feasible before comments or early warnings are published. Evidence: {"quote":"find a bilateral, more confidential channel to set up a conversation with a particular applicant","start":4009.05,"cue_id":"cue-371","segment_id":371} - Suggested follow-up: the next session could continue the operational-readiness discussion and practical follow-up from this Q&A. Evidence: {"quote":"There is another session about the next round and operational readiness.","start":4049.61,"cue_id":"cue-374","segment_id":374} - How should the GAC signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to its satisfaction? Evidence: {"quote":"need to discuss a mechanism to signal that a comment or early warning has been addressed to our satisfaction.","start":3987.13,"cue_id":"cue-369","segment_id":369} - Is there a need and a feasible way to create a bilateral, more confidential channel with a particular applicant before comments or early warnings are published? Evidence: {"quote":"find a bilateral, more confidential channel to set up a conversation with a particular applicant","start":4009.05,"cue_id":"cue-371","segment_id":371} - When will the independent objectors be announced and further operational information posted? Evidence: {"quote":"we are in the process of finalizing the selection. So there will be an announcement soon.","start":2447.71,"cue_id":"cue-234","segment_id":234} - When will the independent objectors be announced and further operational information posted? Evidence: {"quote":"we will also post more information on these on the NuGet TLD program website soon","start":2719.43,"cue_id":"cue-259","segment_id":259} ## Materials and complete resources - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/ai-context.md - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/transcript-corrected.json - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/captions-original.vtt - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/context-package.zip - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/wiki.wikitext - https://icann-assets.agentcommunity.org/icann/87/sessions/sched-2Wjet/revisions/e0a307d97141c1c108fbb74e1fdd02026521be1961bd10b372c6bbcf78556b1e/session.json ## Source hashes - captions-original.vtt: 6d26fcbb805857e386cbedbde46be389f758108f0f10880a9e5c29912d0dfa2c (72279 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - transcript-raw.json: f030dae2d49ce8206c8aea6ffa2c7e82dbbccc248c9dce8441211844b81b62e5 (144255 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - transcript-corrected.json: bbadf89efbc9662bf6c74b53258d232c84e022a3edc7bd053dc34680e2773be8 (147194 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - transcript-asr.json: c9afae00dd7b8f71cd38264ea5ed41ed05b5196a4e12c86c36b4fc6d0182e58f (145928 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - audio/session.mp3: 3dddfec20775db1718fad1b2a7420fe2a90d708f025819ec7b27db3ebac8c243 (34195928 bytes); source http://audio.icann.org/meetings/dps87/dps87-OPEN-2026-10-17-T0511-exhibitiongallery-en-02-GAC-Capacity-Development-2-of-2-_.mp3 - sources.json: 394ca9dd62f1223a2978c12d4cde345d2fab1abf07118a2cbde15e4f6a159da6 (985 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - summary.json: 528b992f03e44f3df84eccb33240123dd4d0d7fc189edf4533f52aaec7d93df3 (21565 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - summary.md: 466e01528c750be67a6be308915794a3f8c3ce09cbcb56e7b2483829557b5e32 (16547 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - wiki.wikitext: b7c718f1e1852dff7b3b3ccea62c3b1ddef46ad028cfe1cadd5c0fc353bd1348 (22331 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - ai-context.md: b70788aaa3302c1ba3d6f53e6cae489e230d2f96aaa77dbdc7d892e4ce5499e8 (82323 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round - context.md: 03dc6df03b28d9a28462e4e53a22eb31d6337f1c04202b6ce3f980b2645100dd (84336 bytes); source https://icann87.sched.com/event/2Wjet/gac-capacity-development-2-of-2-gac-readiness-for-next-round