Hi Anne,

 

Thank you for the feedback on this portion of the GAC Communique Response. I’m replying since I drafted the text to respond to the IGO Protections topic.

 

To your point, I did consider how much detail from the motion and discussion should be included in the GNSO response. I ultimately concluded that, especially given the format of the response, it would be best to keep the text high-level and provide a link to the full motion. You should see that link in the pdf version of the response that Seb circulated. I think this is the best and cleanest way to convey all the nuance that went into the final version of the motion – that way all the detail is in one place. The other members of the drafting team also expressed support for that approach and I think this aligns nicely with the suggestion at the end of your email.

 

I would be fine with adding “relevant” to the phrase “applied-for strings” as you suggest.

 

Thanks for the input,

Sam

 

From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>
Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 9:11 AM
To: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Cc: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: ICANN84 - GAC Communiqué Response

 

Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 

Thank you Seb.  In relation to the IGO/INGO response, I think there is a lot of substance from the Motion that was passed that is missing in this response and not reflective of the careful work done by Council on this issue.  Examples of language  from the Motion which should be included are pasted below but in fact, it might be best to simply link the language of the entire Motion so that the substantive work is not lost.  In any case, at least the following three points from the Motion should be included in the response:

 

a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. 

b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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 of the GAC.

c) That Org should also contact the GAC 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.

In addition, the existing draft language does not quote the Motion correctly in that it says the GAC and relevant protected organizations will be notified of "the applied-for strings" and does not say that they will be notified of the "relevant" applied for strings.  

Bottom line - the best approach for Council in this response is to state that the Council has supplied the requested interpretation of the policy intent and has also confirmed its agreement to additional notification procedures as suggested by the Board as reflected in the Motion that passed (LINK MOTION) in the Council's November meeting.

Thank you,

Anne

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

 

 

On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:16 AM Sebastien--- via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Councillors,

 

Please find attached the Council’s response to the ICANN84 GAC Communiqué as prepared by the Small Team for your review and approval during our December Council Meeting.

 

You will find the original Google Doc here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R_XZHgGS52IIaiUyPKfIFjoHyiYWr3GR/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true 

 

Please see the motion prepared by Peter below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oZx1fvKLJ-CxSnWCsLrIPI_PhJyh9mCO/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115002119020327708482&rtpof=true&sd=true

 

 

Kindly,

 

 

Sebastien Ducos

GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager

+49 172 690 8418
Germany

sebastien@registry.godaddy

 

_______________________________________________
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.