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:

  1.  

 

  1. Olympic and Olympiad (in all 6 official UN languages plus German, Greek, and Korean). See image below for these strings:

 

 

  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

 

  1. All of the strings on this IGO list created by the GAC: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-annex2-22mar13-en.pdf

 

 

 

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026