Paul, All
It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”.
So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows:
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"
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.”
These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names.
The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full):
2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation
The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice.
These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review.
Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved.
Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion:
2012 Round New Rounds
Reserved Blocked
Ineligible for delegation Reserved
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255
From: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00
To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Cc: council@icann.org
Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me.
Best,
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene.
The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.)
Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs.
Anne
On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Anne.
All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends.
Best,
Paul
From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Cc: council@icann.org
Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting).
I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board.
Thank you,
Anne
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals.
- PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxHUug/edit?tab=t.0
- EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual.
- GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREXr5E/edit?tab=t.0
Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84.
Best,
Steve
From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org>
Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM
To: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors,
You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals.
In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes.
Proposed next steps:
- Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August.
- If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting.
- Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84.
- Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes.
The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed.
If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar
_______________________________________________
council mailing list -- council@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com