Many thanks Steve, this is extremely helpful for our consultation with our groups. I guess we can therefore assume that option 2 does not require any further policy work where adopted. Lawrence Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 8:58:37 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [Ext] RE: Reserved Names and String Similarity - Redcross and IOC etc Hi Paul, Anne, all, Lars is hopefully in the midst of his Friday evening and weekend mindset, so I will try and respond, though I am not the staff SME on this topic. I am going to try and isolate the question being presented to the Council because I believe talking about the options without answering the question is potentially distracting; the proper option should flow out of the Council’s assessment of the underlying question. I believe that the underlying question is: * What does it mean for the full name identifiers to be “protected,” but available for the relevant organization via an exception procedure? There are two interpretations: * Protected only means that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the full name identifier, full stop. This implies that an unrelated third party could apply for a confusingly similar string, thereby preventing the relevant organization from securing their protected string in the future - (option 1). * Or, protected means that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the full name identifier AND the ability for the relevant organization to secure their protected string should persist. This implies that unrelated third parties would need to be prevented from securing confusingly similar strings (i.e., include the protected strings in string similarity) - (option 2). These are the competing interpretations of Board-adopted recommendations, which are reproduced below (note, I’ve only included the recs for the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement, but there are similar recs for the International Olympic Committee and IGOs). To try and answer Paul’s specific question, option 2 is what implementing staff believes aligns with the intent of the PDP’s recommendations and is therefore not a policy change or new policy (setting aside the fact that a majority of the IRT disagrees with the staff’s interpretation). Recommendation 3.1.1: Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.1.2: For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Again, I am not the SME, but hopefully this helps to narrow in on the issue and better allows you all to navigate it with your respective groups. FYI, I’ve trimmed the distribution list to just Council and Next Round program leadership. Best, Steve From: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Date: Friday, September 19, 2025 at 6:14 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "Council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, "liaison6c@icann.org" <liaison6c@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [council] Reserved Names and String Similarity - Redcross and IOC etc Thanks Anne. A quick clarification from Staff would be appreciated. I asked Lars why adopting Option 2 would not be a policy change. Lars indicated that Option 1 is the Policy; thus Option 2 must not be. Anne believes that Staff has a different view and believes that Option 2 is just implementation not a policy change. I must have misunderstood what Lars was saying so I’ll ask it pretty directly this time and ask for a written answer, please. Would adopting Option 2 be a policy change, and if not, why not? May we please have this as soon as practical? Thanks! Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2025 7:15 AM To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin@gmail.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Council@icann.org; liaison6c@icann.org; GNSO Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [council] Reserved Names and String Similarity - Redcross and IOC etc Dear Leadership and Councilors, As I understand the Option 3 proposal, it allows the Reserved Names to proceed to delegation in any round even if a prior similar string has been delegated. It appears that Option 1 advocated by most on the IRT will protect the "protected organization" and the "protected string" referenced in the Reserved Names policy Recommendations IF AND ONLY IF the authorized entity applies in the 2026 round, but not in any later round. (However, some have noted that Option 3 has policy implications.) The policy recommendations are appended to the memo from ICANN staff which is attached again for your convenience. We realize that this is a complicated topic. However, I note that ICANN staff flagged this issue for Council input since staff believes that Option 2 is implementation, not policy, and that it more accurately reflects the intent behind the policy. To quote from an email sent to the IRT list: It is ICANN’s view that the protection intended by these recommendations would not be met if .rodcross is delegated in the next round and, thus, the Red Cross were not able to obtain its protected .redcross string in future rounds because .redcross is found confusingly similar with the now-delegated .rodcross. To ICANN, the only way to avoid such a scenario, and meet the intent of the IGO INGO recommendations during the next round, is to evaluate string similarity of the applied-for strings not just against other applied-for strings, delegated strings, two-character country codes, and blocked names, but also against the list of reserved names, which is reflected in Option 2. I note that if we have a 30 minute special meeting of Council to discuss this, a later vote after the discussion and outside that meeting could follow pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10. Below I have pasted text from an ICANN staff email listing the Reserved Names under discussion. Anne The Reserved Names list is composed of strings on the following lists: 1. Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun (in all 6 official UN languages). See image below for these strings: [Image removed by sender.] 1. 1. Olympic and Olympiad (in all 6 official UN languages plus German, Greek, and Korean). See image below for these strings: [cid:image002.png@01DC2965.1CA4CB70] 1. ECOSOC list compiled by the UN (Only the 142 organizations in General Consultative Status in English only, on page 3) See here: https://docs.un.org/en/E/2023/INF/5 [docs.un.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.un.org/en/E/2023/INF/5__;!!PtGJab4!_...> 1. All of the strings on this IGO list created by the GAC: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chala... Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
