Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 29 October 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 this 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 the 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 encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. 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. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
