Thanks Anne. Before Lawrence reacts, does it have to be an official act of the Board which could slow down the finalization of the AGB and delay the entire program? Could we replace this:
“…the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty.”
With
“The Board, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, should inform the IRT if it has an objection to either Option 1 or Option 2 or a preference for either Option 1 or Option 2.”
Best,
Paul
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:35 AM
To: aheineman@godaddy.com
Cc: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; council@icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
Thanks Ashley. I think it's appropriate to discuss all the options. I did not know that Paul was headed the direction of letting the Board decide or I would have suggested he offer a friendly amendment of a third alternative to be discussed as shown beloiw.
If Lawrence, as the seconder, will agree, we will add the third alternative below to the slides which can then be sent out to the Council list and can be forwarded to Cs and SGs for discussion prior to the meeting. Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT. (A letter to the Board could also be sent but from my point of view it contains a major misstatement regarding the role of Council. I believe Lawrence als has comments on the letter.)
Lawrence - will you accept the amendment below to add the third alternative to the Motion for discussion purposes as friendly?
3. OR [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 in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. 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.]
Anne
On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:35 PM aheineman@godaddy.com <aheineman@godaddy.com> wrote:
For what it is worth, I'd really like the opportunity to talk through all of these options. There are clearly strong perspectives, and I'd like to best understand the full spectrum of options. Honestly, this is quite alot to digest and I feel uncomfortable being put in a box, so all options are welcome from my humble position.
From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 5:24 PM
To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>
Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not.
If Council members were to agree that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy, a third alternative for voting would be:
3. OR [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 in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. 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.]
Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT.
Anne
On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:50 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Anne!
Taking Anne’s comments one by one:
1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.
Kindly disagree. Thomas has done the opposite, namely, opening a path for discussions that the entrenched binary in the placeholder motion cut off. He has presented a draft for consideration, not strict binaries that everyone’s opinion needs to fit in or else be discarded.
2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.
Anne and I are in alignment that neither of us could possibly know whether or not the “full Council agrees” with anything at this point since we haven’t had the discussion. Thomas’ draft will allow that to happen.
3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.
This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it. But we need to be open minded that if a question has already been answered by policy known and knowable to the Board that it is also not Council’s role to make up policy on the fly or pick our favorite outcomes. That is a recipe for endless relegation and that is something we have tried to avoid as a community as much as possible.
4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.
Agree that inputs from the IRT are important to consider and Anne appears to be carrying the banner for the (as yet unnamed) members of the IRT that disagree with the Staff position, so I expect the IRT views will be heard on our Extra-O call.
My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.
I don’t see Thomas’ draft doing that at all. I think it is respectful of the Board, Staff, and Council’s role.
******
If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:
A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.
B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.
C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.
This formulation by Anne seems very promising.
Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.
This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it and I am sympathetic to it. But we do have to keep in mind that when Staff and Board agree that they have the policy in hand they need to make a decision that the Council not be in the business of pushing our view. Anne’s A,B,C above accounts for that which is why I think it is promising.
Best to all!
Paul
From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 3:27 PM
To: Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>
Cc: council@icann.org
Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:
1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.
2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.
3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.
4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.
My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.
If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:
A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.
B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.
C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.
Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.
Anne
On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.
I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.
Kind regards,
Thomas
[ ] October 2025
Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers
Tripti Sinha, Chair
ICANN Board
Dear Tripti,
Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.
This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:
- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following:
- the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report);
- The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report);
- Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report).
- These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board.
- Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012).
- The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round).
- Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.
The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.
We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.
Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.
Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted 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. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.
Sincerely,
Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar
Interim co-chairs of the GNSO
_______________________________________________
council mailing list -- council@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
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.