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:
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