Summary

  • The GAC’s 26 October Bali communiqué asks ICANN and applicants to make best efforts to show support or non-objection documents for geographic and community applications where disclosure is permissible.
  • ICANN’s Guidebook gives those documents different jobs: government consent can be required for certain geographic strings; community support and opposition help determine priority in a contested application.

A letter can look like the least interesting object in a domain-name application. Then the panel asks who signed it, what they understood and whether they still stand by it. Suddenly the envelope is doing more work than the marketing deck.

That is the tension in the GAC’s Bali communiqué. Issued on 26 October, it expects ICANN Org and applicants to make their best efforts to make documentation of letters of support or non-objection for geographic names and community applications available as far as permissible. The request explicitly respects applicable disclosure limits. Its practical target is the provenance of an influential document: who backed a string, and on what basis?

The 2026 Applicant Guidebook shows why that provenance matters. Certain geographic names require support or non-objection from relevant governments or public authorities. Where several authorities are relevant, the applicant must supply documentation from all of them. Each national administration decides the appropriate level of government or agency. The letter must address the requested string and its intended use. The Geographic Names Panel checks authenticity and may contact the signer. Withdrawal of support during the process causes the geographic review to fail.

Community applications use a different test. In Community Priority Evaluation, the panel weighs documented support and opposition from organizations connected to the community and the string. It examines relevance, authenticity, understanding and the process behind a position. A stack of signatures is no substitute for a reasoned letter. A small group closely tied to the community may matter more than a large group with a weak connection.

The GAC has joined these two routes in one visibility request. The power of each document differs; the case for letting readers inspect its origin is common to both. A public record could show the issuer, date, string, purpose and the portion that can lawfully be released. Where a portion cannot be shown, the reason for withholding it would be a more useful answer than a silent blank. That is a proposed disclosure design, not an ICANN announcement. The next test is whether ICANN and applicants turn Bali’s best-efforts language into a usable window onto the evidence.

Original records: GAC Bali communiqué; 2026 Applicant Guidebook.