Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on 13 November 2025 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO Council resolutions <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> page. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO Option 1 has been withdrawn by both Anne Aikman-Scalese & Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-TGovernmental Organizations; 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Option 2 has been withdrawn by both Anne Aikman-Scalese & Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-TGovernmental Organizations; 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Option 3 has been withdrawn by both Anne Aikman-Scalese & Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-TGovernmental Organizations; 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Option 4: **Updated with friendly amendment proposed by Susan Payne and accepted by Susan Payne and Nacho Amadoz on 13 November 2025 Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) ) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any relevant applied-for strings. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> RrSG Statement<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/rrsg-sta...> Motion to commemorate Rubens Kuhl Proposed: Jennifer Chung Seconded: All members of the GNSO Council The Council was informed earlier this month of Rubens Kuhl’s passing. We wish to recognize Rubens' significant contribution to the GNSO and the ICANN multi-stakeholder model during his tenure, as well as his professionalism, his friendship and mentorship to many. He will be greatly missed. Whereas: 1. Rubens Kuhl joined the GNSO Council on 21 October 2015 as an elected representative of the Registries Stakeholder Group from the LAC Region. He served 2 full terms between 2015 and 2019. 2. As GNSO Councilor, Rubens brought his professionalism, his deep knowledge of the GNSO Council’s best practices and history, his experienced thoughts on topics, to serve the Registries he represented as well as Council as a whole. 3. Rubens made significant contributions to ICANN and was a strong and respected community participant. During his tenure Rubens participated in: * Activities as Councilor that initiated the EPDP on the Temporary Specification * GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) Initiation Request - Select SubPro Topics (Applicant Support) team. * IDNs Small team * Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures Relating to Elections and Motions * GNSO Council liaison - Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Registration Data IRT * Discussion Group (DG) - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures * Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace Whois * New gTLD Subsequent procedures - Work Track 1, Work Track 4 as Co-Leader, Sub Group B, Sub Group C * IDN Scoping Team Rubens was also an active and valuable member of many ICANN initiatives, outside of his service to the GNSO Council, including but not limited to: * Activities as Community participant * EPDP Phase I and its IRT * Registration Data Policy Implementation IRT + IPT * GeoTLDs - .rio * ccTLDs - .br, and many Brazilian city campaigns at the second level * Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO) * Name Collision analysis Project (NCAP) * New gTLD Applicant Group (NTAG) Executive Committee - Vice Chair * Chairing Skills Program (CSP) * ccNSO IDN Policies Preliminary Review Team (IDN PRT) * RSP Sub-Track * Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review and ASP Sub-Track * EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Drafting Team * gTLD Marketplace Health Index Advisory Panel * Enhancing ICANN Accountability - Work Stream 2 * New gTLD Subsequent procedures 1. Rubens was a well-respected and much appreciated member of not only the GNSO, the CPH and the Registries, but of the broader ICANN Community. He was a friend and quiet mentor to many who are able to trace back when they first encountered him. 2. Rubens was also an active member of the community of ICANN participants within the LAC region and a representative of NIC.br [nic.br]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/nic.br__;!!PtGJab4!-VVghCopcwqNJT8J37bXlVw...>, able to both share the dynamics of the ICANN Community to his region and a Latin American perspective to the ICANN discussion. 3. Rubens’ passing is a great loss to the many people across the ICANN community who had the pleasure to work and interact with him, and for his many friends at ICANN the loss is significant. 4. In addition to this devotion and set of accomplishments, Rubens endeared himself to those in the community by his willingness to help others and give unselfishly of his time to teach and mentor others. His work is missed but he is missed more. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council wishes to recognize the significant contribution Rubens Kuhl made to the GNSO Council and the ICANN Community during his tenure and his achievements during this time. 2. Rubens’ presence, professionalism and commitment to the ICANN Community will be dearly missed. 3. On behalf of the current and previous GNSO Councils represented today, we offer our deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his family and friends at this most difficult time. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...>