Hello Anne, We confirm receipt and this will be posted on the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ @GNSO Councilors, this will need a second, please email the list to do so. All the best, Terri From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 at 3:19 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Thank you, Terri. Please see below my Motion submitted for the October 9 Extraordinary Meeting. Hopefully this Motion clarifies certain questions which arose during our initial discussion in the September meeting. Many thanks to staff and to Susan for input, appropriate links to background documents, and drafting suggestions received on this Motion. Per staff's suggestion, after the statement of the background, there are two alternative draft Resolutions. Staff will advise as to how voting on alternative Resolutions is conducted in practice. Voting outside the meeting pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10 remains an option after a full discussion in the October 9 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Anne Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: TBD 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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-TGovernmental 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. 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 relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant 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 for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during 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. OR 2.[The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation.] 3. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:02 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Reports, motions, and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC) for the Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Motions Wiki at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.

Hi Paul. I think the policy Recommendations are in the document provided by staff that is linked to the Motion - they appear in the Addendum Re friendly amendments, I'll wait for a second to the Motion as the seconder must also weign in on that in accordance with our Operating Procedures. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:31 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Terri. In considering this, it would be helpful if we could have hyperlinks to each of 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 as noted in the motion to see what they say about whether or not the AGB is Policy or implementation (if anything) and whether or not including these identifiers, or specifically not including them (either way), in the confusion analysis is either Policy or not.

Anne, would you accept as friendly an amendment to include a third alternative that both Options 1 and 2 are implementable without violating Policy or requiring new Policy? I’d at least like to have the opportunity for Council to reach that conclusion, if accurate, and not have to wait until Dublin to tell Staff to proceed with finalizing the AGB if the presented binary options aren’t sufficient.

Best,

Paul

*From:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2025 3:25 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Hello Anne,

We confirm receipt and this will be posted on the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ

@GNSO Councilors, this will need a second, please email the list to do so.

All the best,

Terri

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, September 29, 2025 at 3:19 PM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Thank you, Terri. Please see below my Motion submitted for the October 9 Extraordinary Meeting. Hopefully this Motion clarifies certain questions which arose during our initial discussion in the September meeting. Many thanks to staff and to Susan for input, appropriate links to background documents, and drafting suggestions received on this Motion.

Per staff's suggestion, after the statement of the background, there are two alternative draft Resolutions. Staff will advise as to how voting on alternative Resolutions is conducted in practice. Voting outside the meeting pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10 remains an option after a full discussion in the October 9 meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne

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

*Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese*

*Seconded By: TBD*

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council;

2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;

3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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-TGovernmental 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September;

8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and,

9. 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 relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant 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 for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during 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.

OR

2.[The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation.]

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

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:02 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Reports, motions, and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. **Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC)* for the Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Motions Wiki at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...>

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

_______________________________________________ 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.

This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.

Hi Paul, Here is a link<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> that takes you directly to the section on the Red Cross Red Crescent. These recommendations are a little bit uniquely crafted, so you won’t exactly see recommendation 3.1.1 written out in that fashion. There are 4 similarly constructed tables, just like the one you’ll see at the link provided, with a set of numbered rows. Within table 3.1, row one translates to recommendation 3.1.1 and row two to 3.1.2, and similarly for tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. I hope this helps, but I recognize that this is not the easiest thing to describe via email! Best, Steve From: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org> Reply-To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 at 2:42 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Thanks Anne. I went to the Motions page and don’t see an Addendum. Please do let me know about the proposed non-binary option when you can now that you have a seconder. Staff, could you indulge me and bring forward into hyperlinks to each of 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 as noted in the motion? Since we are being asked to consider the “natural meaning and original intent” of these texts, it would be useful to have it handy. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:42 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Hi Paul. I think the policy Recommendations are in the document provided by staff that is linked to the Motion - they appear in the Addendum Re friendly amendments, I'll wait for a second to the Motion as the seconder must also weign in on that in accordance with our Operating Procedures. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 1:31 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Terri. In considering this, it would be helpful if we could have hyperlinks to each of 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 as noted in the motion to see what they say about whether or not the AGB is Policy or implementation (if anything) and whether or not including these identifiers, or specifically not including them (either way), in the confusion analysis is either Policy or not. Anne, would you accept as friendly an amendment to include a third alternative that both Options 1 and 2 are implementable without violating Policy or requiring new Policy? I’d at least like to have the opportunity for Council to reach that conclusion, if accurate, and not have to wait until Dublin to tell Staff to proceed with finalizing the AGB if the presented binary options aren’t sufficient. Best, Paul From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:25 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Hello Anne, We confirm receipt and this will be posted on the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...> @GNSO Councilors, this will need a second, please email the list to do so. All the best, Terri From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 at 3:19 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Thank you, Terri. Please see below my Motion submitted for the October 9 Extraordinary Meeting. Hopefully this Motion clarifies certain questions which arose during our initial discussion in the September meeting. Many thanks to staff and to Susan for input, appropriate links to background documents, and drafting suggestions received on this Motion. Per staff's suggestion, after the statement of the background, there are two alternative draft Resolutions. Staff will advise as to how voting on alternative Resolutions is conducted in practice. Voting outside the meeting pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10 remains an option after a full discussion in the October 9 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Anne Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: TBD 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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-TGovernmental 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. 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 relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant 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 for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during 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. OR 2.[The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation.] 3. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:02 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Reports, motions, and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC) for the Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Motions Wiki at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto: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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.

Happy to second this motion as drafted. Thanks Anne for taking the lead at this. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 8:24:41 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Hello Anne, We confirm receipt and this will be posted on the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ @GNSO Councilors, this will need a second, please email the list to do so. All the best, Terri From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 29, 2025 at 3:19 PM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Thank you, Terri. Please see below my Motion submitted for the October 9 Extraordinary Meeting. Hopefully this Motion clarifies certain questions which arose during our initial discussion in the September meeting. Many thanks to staff and to Susan for input, appropriate links to background documents, and drafting suggestions received on this Motion. Per staff's suggestion, after the statement of the background, there are two alternative draft Resolutions. Staff will advise as to how voting on alternative Resolutions is conducted in practice. Voting outside the meeting pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10 remains an option after a full discussion in the October 9 meeting. Respectfully submitted, Anne Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese Seconded By: TBD 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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-TGovernmental 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September; 8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and, 9. 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 relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant 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 for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during 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. OR 2.[The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation.] 3. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:02 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Reports, motions, and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC) for the Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Motions Wiki at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.

Many thanks Lawrence. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:27 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> wrote:

Happy to second this motion as drafted. Thanks Anne for taking the lead at this.

Lawrence.

Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2025 8:24:41 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: [Ext] Re: FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Hello Anne,

We confirm receipt and this will be posted on the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ

@GNSO Councilors, this will need a second, please email the list to do so.

All the best,

Terri

*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, September 29, 2025 at 3:19 PM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] FINAL REMINDER | Document and Motion deadline | Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC for Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Thank you, Terri. Please see below my Motion submitted for the October 9 Extraordinary Meeting. Hopefully this Motion clarifies certain questions which arose during our initial discussion in the September meeting. Many thanks to staff and to Susan for input, appropriate links to background documents, and drafting suggestions received on this Motion.

Per staff's suggestion, after the statement of the background, there are two alternative draft Resolutions. Staff will advise as to how voting on alternative Resolutions is conducted in practice. Voting outside the meeting pursuant to GNSO Operating Procedures 4.10 remains an option after a full discussion in the October 9 meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne

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

*Submitted By: Anne Aikman-Scalese*

*Seconded By: TBD*

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council;

2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;

3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> 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-TGovernmental 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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> 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 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> 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 had a preliminary discussion on the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September;

8. The Council scheduled an Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, to progress the issue; and,

9. 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 relevant recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the relevant 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 for a confusingly similar string by another applicant, during 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.

OR

2.[The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the relevant recommendations is to ensure not only that no organization other than the relevant organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, but also that any visually-confusingly similar string applied for by an applicant other than the protected organization would not be delegated. String Similarity Review should be conducted against the relevant identifiers. An applicant whose string is determined to be confusingly similar to a protected identifier in the String Similarity evaluation could challenge that determination, where applicable, in the usual manner. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice are still possible. Option 2 would align with this interpretation.]

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

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 6:02 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

Reports, motions, and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance *(i.e. **Monday, 29 September 2025 at 23:59 UTC)* for the Extraordinary GNSO Council Meeting on Thursday, 09 October 2025 at 13:00 UTC

Motions should be sent to the Council mailing list by a councilor and will then be posted on the Motions Wiki at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCSHQ [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/cQCS...>

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

_______________________________________________ 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.