Your proposed friendly amendment re Reserved Names and String Similarity
Paul, We do not have to wait until Dublin to finalize the AGB based on Council's direction. Council can choose to vote October 9 or a vote outside the meeting can be noticed pursuant to 4.10. The AGB will move forward in a timely way and that is why we are having an Extraordinary meeting. No one wants to delay. Unfortunately an alternative that states only that both options are implementable does not yield adequate direction from Council to respond to the staff's question regarding the intent of the policy recommendations. This is the central question before the Council and we should answer. We should answer because there is a disagreement at the IRT level and Council is being asked to settle it. Your proposed friendly amendment would not settle that question and would not provide adequate direction to ICANN staff for finalizing the draft AGB for Board consideration. If you mean for Council to direct the IRT to let the Board decide between Option 1 and Option 2 because both are equally implementable, then the Board's correspondence becomes more relevant. The Board has stated it prefers Option 2 and considers it to be more in line with the recommendations noted as an Annex to the staff briefing paper linked in the Motion and attached again here for convenience, but acknowledges that the Council may have a different point of view. The Board has also noted that the global public interest may be implicated and that GAC Advice is possible. IRT Staff awaits instruction from the Council on which of the two options should be selected in order to finalize the AGB. This can be readily supplied before Dublin. Again, Susan and I both agree that the question before the Council is which Option properly reflects the natural meaning and intent of the policy Recommendations. The two Options differ significantly in their consequences and so this question is not a "toss-up". The Motion submitted seeks to clarify these points. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
Thanks Anne. I understand your position. Too bad that we can’t keep all our options open through a friendly amendment, but that, I suppose, is the power of the pen. Would be far better if Council wasn’t pre-boxed into 2 binary positions as it presupposes outcomes. I hope you will reconsider digging in. Lars or Steve, can we have the exact text the Staff is proposing to include in the AGB? Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 1:21 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Council@icann.org; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; GNSO Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Your proposed friendly amendment re Reserved Names and String Similarity Paul, We do not have to wait until Dublin to finalize the AGB based on Council's direction. Council can choose to vote October 9 or a vote outside the meeting can be noticed pursuant to 4.10. The AGB will move forward in a timely way and that is why we are having an Extraordinary meeting. No one wants to delay. Unfortunately an alternative that states only that both options are implementable does not yield adequate direction from Council to respond to the staff's question regarding the intent of the policy recommendations. This is the central question before the Council and we should answer. We should answer because there is a disagreement at the IRT level and Council is being asked to settle it. Your proposed friendly amendment would not settle that question and would not provide adequate direction to ICANN staff for finalizing the draft AGB for Board consideration. If you mean for Council to direct the IRT to let the Board decide between Option 1 and Option 2 because both are equally implementable, then the Board's correspondence becomes more relevant. The Board has stated it prefers Option 2 and considers it to be more in line with the recommendations noted as an Annex to the staff briefing paper linked in the Motion and attached again here for convenience, but acknowledges that the Council may have a different point of view. The Board has also noted that the global public interest may be implicated and that GAC Advice is possible. IRT Staff awaits instruction from the Council on which of the two options should be selected in order to finalize the AGB. This can be readily supplied before Dublin. Again, Susan and I both agree that the question before the Council is which Option properly reflects the natural meaning and intent of the policy Recommendations. The two Options differ significantly in their consequences and so this question is not a "toss-up". The Motion submitted seeks to clarify these points. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
participants (2)
-
Anne ICANN -
Paul McGrady