Hi all - I think it is too late to consider a complete reorganization of the Motion. I recommend simply changing the RySG edit to "all relevant applied-for strings" since we refer to "relevant protected organizations" in 3(g) and there are other references in Paragraph 3 to which the IRT may refer when determining the best language to add to the Reserved Names section of the AGB. Please note that this 3(g) language talks about IRT "consideration" so there is flexibility here.I am reminded of a valuable line from Star Wars - "Stay on target, Luke!!"On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:47 AM Justine Chew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:Dear Susan, Nacho, all,
If I may,
I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”.
I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g).
Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: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.
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 Council 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 of 26 September 2025.
4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends:
a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string;
b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund.
6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps:
That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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 for action by the GAC;
That Org should also contact the GAC very soon 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; and
That the GAC should similarly 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.
7. 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.
8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
JustineOn Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org> wrote:Dear Nacho,
Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.
Lawrence
-----
Lawrence Olawale-Roberts
Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97
Lawrence@microboss.org
…collaboration to enhance communication.
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>
Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)Good morning,
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g).
3 g) would then read as follows:
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“potentially confusingly-similar”applied-for strings.
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g).
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time.
Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)
Whereas:
- 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] to the GNSO Council;
- On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
- On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved 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”);
- 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] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
- 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.
- On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
- 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,
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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 potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
- 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.
- The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255
Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBgFrom: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM
To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>
Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly.Anne
Hi Council,At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho.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.Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4."The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn”Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBgPlease keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.Thanks all!TerriFrom: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM
To: "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>
Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)Hi LawrenceCan you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.Best wishes
FarzanehDear Council Members,I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.Lawrence.Get Outlook for iOS