|
Susan Payne
|
|
|
I’m sorry Justine, all, at this point I think we need to draw a line. We cannot keep wordsmithing this at the 11th hour. The text of the majority of this Motion has been stable for many weeks, I’m not prepared to accept substantial changes and restructuring now. This is just a set of recommendations of steps we think are reasonable, and we need to avoid these being unduly prescriptive.
I’d be willing to accept Anne’s suggested amendment to Nacho’s request as friendly, if Nacho also agrees. This would make 3(g):
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
relevant applied-for strings.
If not, then if anyone wishes to push for further changes to the Motion on our upcoming call they can do so, and we will discuss and vote as needed.
|
Susan Payne
|
|
|
From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 November 2025 11:46
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>
Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
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.
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 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:
a. 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;
b. 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
c. 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.
Justine
On 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 |
…collaboration to enhance communication. |
|||||||||
Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)
Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations