Summary

  • ICANN appointed JAS Global Advisors on 26 October to inspect evaluation procedures across the 2026 new-gTLD round, including community-priority evaluations.
  • The contractor can identify inconsistent methods and recommend repairs; ICANN and the relevant panels or evaluators decide what changes.

The next fight over a top-level domain may be settled long before anyone argues about the name. It can begin when two evaluators read the same rule differently. ICANN has hired JAS Global Advisors to watch that seam in its 2026 new-gTLD round. The assignment covers procedural inspections of String, Applicant and Application evaluation, plus Community Priority Evaluation. It is a wide beat: a single guidebook, several evaluation types, and decisions that could shape who gets to run a piece of the domain-name system.

JAS is an old hand at this particular desk. It provided quality control for the 2012 round too. ICANN’s 26 October appointment says the contractor will check whether the Applicant Guidebook’s criteria are applied consistently across evaluators and recommend process improvements. The earlier request for proposals is more revealing than the reassuring title “quality control.” It calls for a check on consistency, accuracy against the guidebook, and process fidelity: did the evaluator actually follow the documented method? Similar applications should receive similar treatment across people and over time. A rulebook cannot achieve that by sitting on a shelf.

The separation of powers is the story. JAS inspects the machinery and raises problems. ICANN receives the recommendations; the relevant panels and evaluators consider implementation. The evaluation itself remains with ICANN staff and contracted evaluation providers. That gives an applicant a reason to ask not only what a panel decided, but whether the same test was applied to the next applicant. It also leaves a sharp question for ICANN: when the inspector finds drift, who is willing to change a live process?

ICANN’s RFP anticipates a long assignment. It says evaluations could span five or more years and asks the provider to tolerate changing volumes and evaluator turnover. The document also calls for issues to be raised when found, assessed for severity with ICANN, and ultimately summarized in a final report. The volume of applications was unknown when that January document was written. These are operating requirements, not proof that any particular application has been mishandled.

Sources