I think this path for discussion is possible if: 1. Council members have instructions from their Cs and SGs that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy. (That is not what we heard in the IRT meetings but it would be a welcome conclusion.) and 2. As a practical matter, the Council desires to defer the decision on which Option to pursue to the Board. Again, if that is the desired course, it will be very important to restate that under normal circumstances, it IS the Council's role to take up disagreements which occur at the IRT level, but that these fact circumstances call for an expedited approach. In that case, the instructions to the IRT and ICANN staff, if all Councilors agree, would have to make these points: A. The Council is the proper body to consider disagreements at the IRT Level regarding the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board. Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. Accordingly, I believe that if there is agreement to this approach on the Council after deliberations on October 9, the letter should go to the IRT with a copy to the Board. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:40 PM Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Agree with Susan. Thanks Thomas for creating a path for discussion.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 3:18 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>; Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>; council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
Thanks Thomas.
My personal view (without instructions from IPC at this point) is that this may have merit as a possible approach and, certainly, I'd support us considering this during our discussion on Thursday.
Many thanks
Susan
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*Follow us on LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>*
------------------------------
*From:* Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 8:53:42 PM *To:* Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
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:
- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following:
- the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report).
- These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.
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
*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings
On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:
Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.
Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!
Julf
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://comlaude.com/>
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ 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.
