Well understood, Susan.

Thanks,
Justine



On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 20:07, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> wrote:

I’m sorry Justine, all, at this point I think we need to draw a line.  We cannot keep wordsmithing this at the 11th hour.  The text of the majority of this Motion has been stable for many weeks, I’m not prepared to accept substantial changes and restructuring now. This is just a set of recommendations of steps we think are reasonable, and we need to avoid these being unduly prescriptive.

 

I’d be willing to accept Anne’s suggested amendment to Nacho’s request as friendly, if Nacho also agrees.  This would make 3(g):

 

g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar relevant applied-for strings.

 

If not, then if anyone wishes to push for further changes to the Motion on our upcoming call they can do so, and we will discuss and vote as needed. 

 

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255

 

 

 

Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube

From: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>
Sent: 13 November 2025 11:46
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>
Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)

 

Dear Susan, Nacho, all,

If I may, 

I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”.

I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g).

Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments:

Resolved:

 

1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB.  Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall  not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation.  Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner.  Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.

 

2.             The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue.  Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous.  It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.

 

3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025.  

 

4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 

 

5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends:

a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; 

b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and

e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 

 

6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps:

a.        That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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 for action by the GAC; 

 

b.    That Org should also contact the GAC very soon 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; and

 

c.     That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.

 

7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds.  The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application  round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 

 

8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.



Justine

 

 

 

On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Nacho,

 

Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

 -----

 

 

 

 

 

From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>
Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)

 

Good morning, 


 

Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)

  1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council;
  2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
  3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
  4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing  [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
  5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
  6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
  7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September,  Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and,
  8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.

 

  1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected  identifier associated with that organization, and that as such,  Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB.  Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation.  Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner.  Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.

 

  1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue.  Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous.  It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.

 

  1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025.  The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:

f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.

g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.

  1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds.  The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 

 

  1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review
Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations
(IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in
which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The
GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this
inclusion.
Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6
applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe
existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new
gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC
continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions
following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations

Submitted By: Susan Payne

Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz

Whereas:

1.     In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council;

2.     On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;

3.     On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);

4.     In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing  [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.

5.     On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.

6.     On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;

7.     The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September,  Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,

8.     The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.

 

Resolved:

1.     The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected  identifier associated with that organization, and that as such,  Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB.  Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation.  Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.

 

2.              The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue.  Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous.  It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.

 

a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this 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.

d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. 

e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.

f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice.  Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.   

 

4.              If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds.  The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

_______________________________________________
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