Summary Report to the ALAC on GNSO Council Meeting #10 held on 29 October 2025

For brevity, I will just highlight outcomes on key issues here. For some of the issues, you can get more information under the Agenda, Matters of Interest and/or Meeting Records tabs.

1. Protection for IGO/INGO Identifiers

• I had previously reported on and discussed this issue extensively during the CPWG call of 24 Sep 2025. During Council’s Extraordinary Meeting held on 9 Oct 2025, I spoke in support of the IGO/INGO Group’s position and submitted a letter to Council expressing support for the ICANN Board, ICANN org IRT implementation staff and the minority of SubPro IRT members' preference for the inclusion of protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review for the Next Round as the correct and logical interpretation of relevant adopted policy recommendations.

• However, a majority of Councilors (with RrSG abstaining, one BC councilor and the NCPH councilor disagreeing) favored the stricter interpretation of the relevant adopted policy recommendations text which was silent as to the treatment protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review. They see extending protections for IGO and INGO names from exact match to string similarity as constituting new policy, and not mere implementation. This effectively means, a third party applicant could potentially apply for and secure a string which is confusingly similar to a protected IGO/INGO Identifier (i.e. a full name of an IGO/INGO from a specified list) and if the designated IGO/INGO did not also apply for its protected identifier string or objected to an application for a string which deemed confusingly similar to the protected IGO/INGO Identifier, then IGO/INGO would be from obtaining its protected identifier string due to the overarching policy for not allowing confusingly similar strings to be delegated into the root.

• Noting this undesirable consequence, Councilors rallied to propose an amended motion Option 4 to effectively allow ICANN org to notify a designated IGO/INGO in the event a string which deemed confusingly similar to its protected IGO/INGO Identifier is applied for (as was suggested by the Board). This is to provide notice to the designated IGO/INGO to take action as it deems appropriate.

• Council went to defer the vote of the amended motion Option 4 as the RySG expressed concern on Resolved Clause 3(f) and requested time to propose further amendment. The vote will now be taken at Council’s November 2025 meeting.

2. Prioritization of GNSO Upcoming Work

• Council discussed, yet again, the list of potential upcoming work, with some councilors citing reservations over staff and volunteer resources concerns, and others dissenting. Specifically, Council discussed: 

  (i) a newly-started PDP: Latin Diacritics; 
  (ii) a previously committed to PDP: Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in gTLDs, Phase 2, and 

  (iii) identified topics for potential future work:

  • DNS Abuse

  • RDDS (Accuracy, RDRS, PPSAI)

  • New gTLDs (from rounds to open process)

  • Expiration Policies

  • Transfers (dispute mechanism for registrants)

• Council will explore this matter in more detail at its Strategic Planning Session in January 2026.

3. DNS Abuse

• While Council did not have this topic on its Council meeting agenda, GNSO did conduct a DNS Abuse Work Session on 26 October 2025 to begin preparations for the anticipated Policy Development Process (PDP) by discussing the three pre-identified priority topics and for each, to gain an initial understanding of the various goals and interests across the community and ideally, a sense of what a good outcome looks like.

• This Work Session was attended by Steinar Grøtterød and I (representing the ALAC), and a report is available at the Session Report wiki: At-Large Session Reports from ICANN84  

4. Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI)

• Council has yet to determine next steps after its PPSAI Small Team delivered its proposed responses to Council on 29 September 2025, and presented the same for discussion at this October meeting.

• Council agreed on the proposed responses with an amendment by RrSG to Model 4 of four Models of Accreditation are expected to be sent to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT to progress their work on implementation.

  • The amendment being that Model 4 should refer to a model of accreditation by association, which recognizes that a lot of what is called for in the policy is already being implemented in registrar contracts and the fact remains that all accredited registrars are responsible for the actions of their affiliated privacy/proxy service providers.

5. Latin Script Diacritics

• Council was informed that the Latin Diacritics PDP working group is making great progress, with its Initial Report due out for public comment in December 2025 - January 2026; and the Final Report due for Council consideration ahead of schedule in August 2026.

  

• Council liaison to the PDP, Prudence Malinki, flagged that due to timing, the outcomes of the group will not necessarily be included in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook (which was something envisioned in the PDP’s Charter) but that there may be efforts outside of the PDP to try and have outcomes included.

• GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Sebastien Ducos, informed Council that GAC intends to approach Council with a request for a solution to address applications that fit the criteria targeted by this PDP in the interim.