IGO/INGO Integration of Policy into AGB - Possible
Hi Jen, Thomas, and Nacho, At the end of our Council Meeting, yesterday, some of you proposed a reworded Option 3 that might operate as a fourth alternative in the form of a friendly amendment to be included in an upcoming vote. Have any of you given thought to changes that might be agreeable to move this forward? Another possibility might be: Council confirms that a majority of Council and IRT members believe that only Option 1 is consistent with the approved IGO/INGO Policy Recommendations. However, in the course of creating the Exception for delegation of the protected strings, the Council instructs the IRT to consider that such protected string would likewise itself not be subject to string similarity review whenever applied for. Thus, the protected string would not be barred by that review if application is made by the relevant entity concurrently with or subsequent to a visually confusingly similar application by a third party. In other words, the protected strings may co-exist with visually similar strings without requiring auction procedures and without barring either string from delegation. Objections and GAC Advice would still be available, as usual. After due consideration, the Council confirms that the foregoing implementation best reflects the intent of the IGO/INGO policy Recommendations in that no String Similarity Review occurs as to such strings at any time. Any thoughts on this one? It's similar to an option proposed at the IRT level. It was thought to require further policy work but after the discussion yesterday, I'm not sure that's the case. Wouldn't it be an extension of the principle that No String Similarity Review applies to these strings and that a proper exception is being created for delegation as provided by the IGO/INGO Recommendations? This has not gone to the full list. All ideas welcome. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.comI
Hello Anne Thanks for writing to the group. If the text you quoted was proposed ( I have not seen the last entries in the chat), it is good to better understand the intent. It suggests that GNSO Advice and the GAC objections can bridge the perceived gap of checking String Similarity. Desiree --
On 10 Oct 2025, at 15:49, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jen, Thomas, and Nacho, At the end of our Council Meeting, yesterday, some of you proposed a reworded Option 3 that might operate as a fourth alternative in the form of a friendly amendment to be included in an upcoming vote. Have any of you given thought to changes that might be agreeable to move this forward? Another possibility might be:
Council confirms that a majority of Council and IRT members believe that only Option 1 is consistent with the approved IGO/INGO Policy Recommendations. However, in the course of creating the Exception for delegation of the protected strings, the Council instructs the IRT to consider that such protected string would likewise itself not be subject to string similarity review whenever applied for. Thus, the protected string would not be barred by that review if application is made by the relevant entity concurrently with or subsequent to a visually confusingly similar application by a third party. In other words, the protected strings may co-exist with visually similar strings without requiring auction procedures and without barring either string from delegation. Objections and GAC Advice would still be available, as usual. After due consideration, the Council confirms that the foregoing implementation best reflects the intent of the IGO/INGO policy Recommendations in that no String Similarity Review occurs as to such strings at any time.
Any thoughts on this one? It's similar to an option proposed at the IRT level. It was thought to require further policy work but after the discussion yesterday, I'm not sure that's the case. Wouldn't it be an extension of the principle that No String Similarity Review applies to these strings and that a proper exception is being created for delegation as provided by the IGO/INGO Recommendations?
This has not gone to the full list. All ideas welcome.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>I
Hey Guys, Just FYI, this thread has also been sent to Council List (: Bruna Santos Desiree via council <council@icann.org> schrieb am Sa. 11. Okt. 2025 um 14:23:
Hello Anne
Thanks for writing to the group. If the text you quoted was proposed ( I have not seen the last entries in the chat), it is good to better understand the intent. It suggests that GNSO Advice and the GAC objections can bridge the perceived gap of checking String Similarity.
Desiree --
On 10 Oct 2025, at 15:49, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jen, Thomas, and Nacho, At the end of our Council Meeting, yesterday, some of you proposed a reworded Option 3 that might operate as a fourth alternative in the form of a friendly amendment to be included in an upcoming vote. Have any of you given thought to changes that might be agreeable to move this forward? Another possibility might be:
Council confirms that a majority of Council and IRT members believe that only Option 1 is consistent with the approved IGO/INGO Policy Recommendations. However, in the course of creating the Exception for delegation of the protected strings, the Council instructs the IRT to consider that such protected string would likewise itself not be subject to string similarity review whenever applied for. Thus, the protected string would not be barred by that review if application is made by the relevant entity concurrently with or subsequent to a visually confusingly similar application by a third party. In other words, the protected strings may co-exist with visually similar strings without requiring auction procedures and without barring either string from delegation. Objections and GAC Advice would still be available, as usual. After due consideration, the Council confirms that the foregoing implementation best reflects the intent of the IGO/INGO policy Recommendations in that no String Similarity Review occurs as to such strings at any time.
Any thoughts on this one? It's similar to an option proposed at the IRT level. It was thought to require further policy work but after the discussion yesterday, I'm not sure that's the case. Wouldn't it be an extension of the principle that No String Similarity Review applies to these strings and that a proper exception is being created for delegation as provided by the IGO/INGO Recommendations?
This has not gone to the full list. All ideas welcome.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.comI
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (3)
-
Anne ICANN -
Bruna Martins dos Santos -
Desiree