Urgent | Message to GNSO Council re: ALAC Position on IGO/INGO Identifiers Protection
Dear ALAC colleagues, At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string. There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ... I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected. Thanks, *Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------
Thank you Justine, your draft sounds good and logical to me. Kindest regards Hadia On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 15:43, Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear ALAC colleagues, I have just been informed that agenda item on Council's Extraordinary Meeting has been changed from a decisional item to a discussion item. In any event, the draft message that I have prepared would likely still be relevant. Will keep you all posted. Kind regards, Justine On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 20:41, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------
Whaddya know, we are suckers for punishment. Hard to believe this discussion is still alive — thirteen years later. The question we set out to answer back in 2012 was simple: Should IGO and INGO identifiers — in full or by alias — be protected in the domain name space? The community consensus was yes. These organizations play a vital role in global governance and humanitarian affairs, and their names should not be open to misuse or misrepresentation. What came next should have been equally straightforward. In 2013, we - read Evan and I - proposed a practical, transparent approach: · Compile a definitive list of IGO/INGO identifiers, similar to the reserved names list. · Restrict delegation of these strings — in exact match or recognized alias — to the relevant IGO or INGO and only on their affirmative request. · Review and update the list periodically, aligned with each round of domain expansion. · Empower the GAC to validate additions or modifications. Simple. Predictable. Fair. More than a decade later, still circling the same issue. Somewhere between good intentions, policy complexity, and competing interests, clarity got lost. If memory serves, we never managed to convince the NCSG. My interest ran out. The pity is the first principles are still operative: protect what needs protecting, keep the process clean and move on. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 07:43, Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Carlton, All true save that in 2013 there was no in depth consideration of the impact of string similarity review on the protection that you described. Which is the substance of what we're dealing with now. Kind regards, Justine On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 03:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Whaddya know, we are suckers for punishment. Hard to believe this discussion is still alive — thirteen years later.
The question we set out to answer back in 2012 was simple: Should IGO and INGO identifiers — in full or by alias — be protected in the domain name space?
The community consensus was yes. These organizations play a vital role in global governance and humanitarian affairs, and their names should not be open to misuse or misrepresentation.
What came next should have been equally straightforward. In 2013, we - read Evan and I - proposed a practical, transparent approach:
· Compile a definitive list of IGO/INGO identifiers, similar to the reserved names list.
· Restrict delegation of these strings — in exact match or recognized alias — to the relevant IGO or INGO and only on their affirmative request.
· Review and update the list periodically, aligned with each round of domain expansion.
· Empower the GAC to validate additions or modifications.
Simple. Predictable. Fair.
More than a decade later, still circling the same issue. Somewhere between good intentions, policy complexity, and competing interests, clarity got lost. If memory serves, we never managed to convince the NCSG. My interest ran out.
The pity is the first principles are still operative: protect what needs protecting, keep the process clean and move on.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 07:43, Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Justine: So noted and I fully understand the state of play now. If you look a little closer you would see the outline for the string similarity review right there; with the listing carried in the reserved name list for gTLDs, invoke Spec 5 of the RA and have a good faith reviewer known to everybody; the GAC. Thereafter if some string emerge from the mist and an objector - not just the IGO/INGO - thinks it is similar and would likely be confusing, string similarity review has a well-defined substrate. The negotiation is around known values. Just a different way of thinking about these things. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 18:53, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
All true save that in 2013 there was no in depth consideration of the impact of string similarity review on the protection that you described. Which is the substance of what we're dealing with now.
Kind regards, Justine
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 at 03:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Whaddya know, we are suckers for punishment. Hard to believe this discussion is still alive — thirteen years later.
The question we set out to answer back in 2012 was simple: Should IGO and INGO identifiers — in full or by alias — be protected in the domain name space?
The community consensus was yes. These organizations play a vital role in global governance and humanitarian affairs, and their names should not be open to misuse or misrepresentation.
What came next should have been equally straightforward. In 2013, we - read Evan and I - proposed a practical, transparent approach:
· Compile a definitive list of IGO/INGO identifiers, similar to the reserved names list.
· Restrict delegation of these strings — in exact match or recognized alias — to the relevant IGO or INGO and only on their affirmative request.
· Review and update the list periodically, aligned with each round of domain expansion.
· Empower the GAC to validate additions or modifications.
Simple. Predictable. Fair.
More than a decade later, still circling the same issue. Somewhere between good intentions, policy complexity, and competing interests, clarity got lost. If memory serves, we never managed to convince the NCSG. My interest ran out.
The pity is the first principles are still operative: protect what needs protecting, keep the process clean and move on.
Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 07:43, Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
*Dear Justine,* First of all, thank you for sharing ALAC’s position on the protection of IGO/INGO identifiers within the context of the String Similarity Review (SSR) for the upcoming round of the New gTLD Program. I greatly appreciate the clarity with which the ALAC’s commitment to safeguarding the public interest and preserving user trust in the DNS has been expressed. I fully support the spirit of the statement and agree with the rationale for endorsing *Option 2*, which calls for the inclusion of IGO/INGO identifiers in the SSR. However, I would like to offer a few observations that, in my view, could further strengthen the practical implementation of this option: 1. *Adopt a proportional protection approach.* Not all IGOs and INGOs share the same level of public recognition or risk of confusion. A tiered or graduated protection system—based on the degree of global prominence or potential for misuse—could preserve the effectiveness of the measure without unduly restricting legitimate applications. 2. *Establish a technical review or appeal mechanism.* It would be valuable for applicants flagged under the SSR to have access to a technical review process where they can demonstrate good faith, a distinct operational scope, and a low likelihood of end-user confusion. 3. *Ensure a periodic review of the protected identifiers list.* As the universe of IGOs and INGOs evolves over time, setting up an annual multistakeholder review mechanism (involving GAC, ALAC, and the broader community) would keep the policy current and precise. 4. *Explicitly link this protection to DNS Abuse mitigation mechanisms.* Integrating these safeguards with existing obligations of registries and registrars regarding abusive or deceptive uses would provide a more coherent and preventive approach. These suggestions are intended to promote a balanced framework—one that upholds the necessary protection of IGO/INGO identifiers while maintaining openness and fair competition within the domain name system. Once again, I would like to express my appreciation for ALAC’s work and for your leadership in ensuring a thoughtful and principled approach to these issues. Rregards, *Sergio Salinas Porto**Presidente Internauta Argentina - LACRALO/ICANN <https://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/lacralo>**Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA <http://www.fetia.org.ar/>**FUILAC- Federación de Usuarios de Internet de LAC <https://fuilac.org>**facebook: salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> **twitter: sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>**Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819**"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra * * conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano* El mié, 8 oct 2025 a las 9:43, Justine Chew via ALAC (<alac@icann.org>) escribió:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
At the CPWG call of 24 Sep, it was established that the ALAC/At-Large are supportive of the position that, very simply put, IGO/INGO Identifiers should be protected for the relevant IGO/INGO to apply if and when they choose to, and that this ability to apply should be preserved under all circumstances and certainly, not displaced by a third party's attempt to obtain a confusingly similar string.
There is now an Option 3 being put before GNSO Council, and I plan to speak to this very briefly at today's CPWG call. In line with the ALAC position previously established and in anticipation of CPWG's reaction to Option 3, here is the draft that I am still working to shorten in time for the GNSO Council Extraordinary Meeting on 9 Oct at 13:00 UTC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjVLdF8zMiLDWkFJEo2wMPzvcmU9Ej30qMeO7yWJ...
I am sharing this in advance with the ALAC, in case any of you have (immediate) input to provide. Due to the short turnaround time, I am asking, as I did on 24 Sep, for discretion to relay a version of the ALAC position to GNSO Council during the mentioned extraordinary meeting where a Council decision is expected.
Thanks,
*Justine Chew* At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/ ------ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
hadia Elminiawi -
Justine Chew -
Sergio Salinas Porto