Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals.
- PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... - EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. - GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX...
Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84.
Best,
Steve
*From: *Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors,
You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals.
In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes.
Proposed next steps:
- Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of *where to document the process,* and provide any questions or concerns by * 27 August*. - If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. - Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. - Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes.
The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed.
If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Cc: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Anne.
All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting).
I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals.
- PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... - EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. - GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX...
Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84.
Best,
Steve
*From: *Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors,
You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals.
In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes.
Proposed next steps:
- Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of *where to document the process,* and provide any questions or concerns by * 27 August*. - If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. - Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. - Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes.
The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed.
If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ 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 Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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.
Paul, All It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”. So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows: 3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" 3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.” These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names. The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full): 2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review. Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved. [International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶] Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion: 2012 Round New Rounds Reserved Blocked Ineligible for delegation Reserved Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3127.446C0E10] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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/>
Many thanks Susan. This does indeed demonstrate why the question is complicated. Completely agree that the question is NOT "which option does Council prefer?" The question is exactly as you have stated it - which option properly reflects the policy Recommendations relative to these "protected strings" ? Those supporting Option 1 point to the fact that it was clear in the 2012 round AGB language that no String Similarity review would occur as against the "names ineligible for delegation". Thus, their position is that this 2012 AGB language governs in the 2026 round. (Was this AGB language based on a policy or was it implementation due to the fact that these "strings ineligible for delegation" could not be delegated at all hence no chance of similar names being added to the root? ) As I understand ICANN staff and those supporting Option 2, they believe that the policy for what are now referred to as "Reserved Names" requires a change to the 2012 AGB language since the new policy Recommendations have resulted in an Exception process whereby the Reserved Names may actually be delegated if applied for by the "protected organization". (It appears this position depends on the view that the 2012 AGB language specifying that no String Similarity review would be conducted was implementation and not policy.) Is it the Council's conclusion that the 2012 AGB language cited below re no String Similarity review for these names constitutes policy? To be clear, it is agreed that the consequence of Option 1 is that the Reserved Names would only be protected against similar names if the Reserved Name is applied for by the protected organization in the 2026 round OR if no similar name were delegated first in the 2026 or a later round. This is because it is affirmed policy that no subsequent application for a TLD can be delegated if found in String Similarity Review to be similar to a pre-existing TLD. I believe that is why the Board stated in its letter to Council that it would have to notify the "protected organization" of a similar name application if the Council advises the IRT to implement Option 1. (Such notification would permit a timely Objection process.) I depend on Susan to correct any errors in the above observations. It may also be worth repeating that no one wants a delay in the next round. That is why we are expediting the Council advice to the IRT. GNSO staff has advised and drafted a Motion in the alternative which will reach your inboxes with appropriate WHEREAS clauses sometime later today when finalized. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 2:22 AM Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> wrote:
Paul, All
It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”.
So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows:
3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"
3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.”
These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names.
The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full):
*2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation*
The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice.
These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review.
Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved.
[image: International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶]
Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion:
*2012 Round* *New Rounds*
Reserved Blocked
Ineligible for delegation Reserved
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:* Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 29 September 2025 05:00 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me.
Best,
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene.
The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.)
Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Anne.
All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting).
I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals.
- PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... - EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. - GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX...
Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84.
Best,
Steve
*From: *Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors,
You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals.
In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes.
Proposed next steps:
- Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of *where to document the process,* and provide any questions or concerns by * 27 August*. - If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. - Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. - Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes.
The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed.
If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ 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.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
------------------------------ 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/>
Thanks Susan. Perhaps the problem lies with the question being asked. All of the language we have seen to date on the matter is straightforward and clear. So, asking the Council to interpret policy adopted by the Board is a new role. Our role is traffic cop, not settling substantive disputes between Staff and IRT members, which is what this is really about. If both options comply with policy and both options do not require new policy, both are equally implementable. If both are equally implementable and the Board prefers Option 2 and is warning against a bunch of extra Board and GAC work if Option 1 is adopted, the Council as traffic cop should say “either are implementable” and the Board can tell Staff which one it wants. I don’t mean to be a reductionist here, but getting Council in the business of interpreting policy adopted by the Board already and is no longer on our plate is extraordinary. Let’s let Staff do its job. Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:22 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Paul, All It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”. So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows: 3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" 3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.” These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names. The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full): 2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review. Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved. [International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶] Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion: 2012 Round New Rounds Reserved Blocked Ineligible for delegation Reserved Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image003.png@01DC3129.6A7365C0] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
Hi Paul (changing the header as this exchange is not about Board reversal) I disagree – that’s exactly what our role is. Fundamental to this issue is the view of a substantial number of IRT members that both “options” do not comply with the policy recommendations and that one of them, therefore, would require new policy to be made. It is our role to determine whether that’s the case or not. From the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines: V. IRT Operating Principles E. In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion. (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy-implementation/irt-princ...) This should be read in conjunction with the PDP Manual: 14. GNSO Council Role in Implementation Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the GNSO PDP policy, the Board may, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create an implementation plan based upon the implementation recommendations identified in the Final Report, and to implement the policy in as timely a fashion as possible. The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations. However, in such case the membership of the IRT will need to be reviewed to ensure that adequate expertise and representation is present to take on the implementation of the additional PDP recommendations). In its Final Report, the PDP Team should provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether an Implementation Review Team should be established and any other recommendations deemed appropriate in relation to such an Implementation Review Team (e.g. composition). ICANN staff should inform the GNSO of its proposed implementation of a new GNSO recommended policy. If the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council’s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3162.99D93FE0] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Sent: 29 September 2025 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Susan. Perhaps the problem lies with the question being asked. All of the language we have seen to date on the matter is straightforward and clear. So, asking the Council to interpret policy adopted by the Board is a new role. Our role is traffic cop, not settling substantive disputes between Staff and IRT members, which is what this is really about. If both options comply with policy and both options do not require new policy, both are equally implementable. If both are equally implementable and the Board prefers Option 2 and is warning against a bunch of extra Board and GAC work if Option 1 is adopted, the Council as traffic cop should say “either are implementable” and the Board can tell Staff which one it wants. I don’t mean to be a reductionist here, but getting Council in the business of interpreting policy adopted by the Board already and is no longer on our plate is extraordinary. Let’s let Staff do its job. Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:22 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Paul, All It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”. So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows: 3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" 3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.” These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names. The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full): 2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review. Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved. [International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶] Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion: 2012 Round New Rounds Reserved Blocked Ineligible for delegation Reserved Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3162.99D93FE0] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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/>
Thanks Susan. I don’t disagree with any of that. We have done our bit, namely, standing up an IRT. If it is determinable that Staff is flat wrong and that new policy work would be required to implement Option 2, then I am back to handing out the picket signs. But after much time on the last call and many emails on this list, I haven’t seen that argument directly and have only seen Steve’s argument that no new policy work is required. If someone believes Staff is flat wrong, can we please see the argument on this list (and sorry if I have missed it, but we need directness). If no such argument exists and both Options are implementable, it seems that our “determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” can very well be “both are implementable; please don’t hold up the AGB.” I don’t think that “a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” automatically means Council needs to pick which one we like better. Standing by with the picket signs just in case… Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:11 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; council@icann.org Subject: Re IGO/INGO Issue Hi Paul (changing the header as this exchange is not about Board reversal) I disagree – that’s exactly what our role is. Fundamental to this issue is the view of a substantial number of IRT members that both “options” do not comply with the policy recommendations and that one of them, therefore, would require new policy to be made. It is our role to determine whether that’s the case or not. From the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines: V. IRT Operating Principles E. In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion. (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy-implementation/irt-princ...) This should be read in conjunction with the PDP Manual: 14. GNSO Council Role in Implementation Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the GNSO PDP policy, the Board may, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create an implementation plan based upon the implementation recommendations identified in the Final Report, and to implement the policy in as timely a fashion as possible. The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations. However, in such case the membership of the IRT will need to be reviewed to ensure that adequate expertise and representation is present to take on the implementation of the additional PDP recommendations). In its Final Report, the PDP Team should provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether an Implementation Review Team should be established and any other recommendations deemed appropriate in relation to such an Implementation Review Team (e.g. composition). ICANN staff should inform the GNSO of its proposed implementation of a new GNSO recommended policy. If the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council’s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3133.62621340] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> Sent: 29 September 2025 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Susan. Perhaps the problem lies with the question being asked. All of the language we have seen to date on the matter is straightforward and clear. So, asking the Council to interpret policy adopted by the Board is a new role. Our role is traffic cop, not settling substantive disputes between Staff and IRT members, which is what this is really about. If both options comply with policy and both options do not require new policy, both are equally implementable. If both are equally implementable and the Board prefers Option 2 and is warning against a bunch of extra Board and GAC work if Option 1 is adopted, the Council as traffic cop should say “either are implementable” and the Board can tell Staff which one it wants. I don’t mean to be a reductionist here, but getting Council in the business of interpreting policy adopted by the Board already and is no longer on our plate is extraordinary. Let’s let Staff do its job. Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:22 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Paul, All It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”. So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows: 3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" 3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.” These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names. The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full): 2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review. Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved. [International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶] Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion: 2012 Round New Rounds Reserved Blocked Ineligible for delegation Reserved Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3133.62621340] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Paul. As mentioned, I believe supporters of Option 1 take the view that the 2012 AGB language specifying no String Similarity Review constitutes policy whereas Staff and supporters of Option 2 believe that the 2012 AGB language re no String Similarity Review constitutes implementation since there was at that time no risk of two confusingly similar names entering the root where the strings in question were completely "ineligible for delegation". What's new in the policy Recommendations is that there is an Exception for these protected strings which permits them to be delegated to the protected organization. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Susan.
I don’t disagree with any of that. We have done our bit, namely, standing up an IRT. If it is determinable that Staff is flat wrong and that new policy work would be required to implement Option 2, then I am back to handing out the picket signs. But after much time on the last call and many emails on this list, I haven’t seen that argument directly and have only seen Steve’s argument that no new policy work is required. If someone believes Staff is flat wrong, can we please see the argument on this list (and sorry if I have missed it, but we need directness). If no such argument exists and both Options are implementable, it seems that our “determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” can very well be “both are implementable; please don’t hold up the AGB.” I don’t think that “a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” automatically means Council needs to pick which one we like better.
Standing by with the picket signs just in case…
Best,
Paul
*From:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2025 11:11 AM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN < anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; council@icann.org *Subject:* Re IGO/INGO Issue
Hi Paul (changing the header as this exchange is not about Board reversal)
I disagree – that’s exactly what our role is. Fundamental to this issue is the view of a substantial number of IRT members that both “options” do not comply with the policy recommendations and that one of them, therefore, would require new policy to be made. It is our role to determine whether that’s the case or not.
From the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines:
V. IRT Operating Principles
E. In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion.
( https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy-implementation/irt-princ... )
This should be read in conjunction with the PDP Manual:
14. GNSO Council Role in Implementation
Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the GNSO PDP policy, the Board may, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create an implementation plan based upon the implementation recommendations identified in the Final Report, and to implement the policy in as timely a fashion as possible. The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations. However, in such case the membership of the IRT will need to be reviewed to ensure that adequate expertise and representation is present to take on the implementation of the additional PDP recommendations). In its Final Report, the PDP Team should provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether an Implementation Review Team should be established and any other recommendations deemed appropriate in relation to such an Implementation Review Team (e.g. composition).
ICANN staff should inform the GNSO of its proposed implementation of a new GNSO recommended policy. If the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council’s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request.
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:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Sent:* 29 September 2025 16:11 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Anne ICANN < anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Thanks Susan. Perhaps the problem lies with the question being asked. All of the language we have seen to date on the matter is straightforward and clear. So, asking the Council to interpret policy adopted by the Board is a new role. Our role is traffic cop, not settling substantive disputes between Staff and IRT members, which is what this is really about. If both options comply with policy and both options do not require new policy, both are equally implementable. If both are equally implementable and the Board prefers Option 2 and is warning against a bunch of extra Board and GAC work if Option 1 is adopted, the Council as traffic cop should say “either are implementable” and the Board can tell Staff which one it wants. I don’t mean to be a reductionist here, but getting Council in the business of interpreting policy adopted by the Board already and is no longer on our plate is extraordinary. Let’s let Staff do its job.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Sent:* Monday, September 29, 2025 4:22 AM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN < anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Paul, All
It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”.
So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows:
3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"
3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.”
These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names.
The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full):
*2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation*
The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice.
These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review.
Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved.
[image: International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶]
Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion:
*2012 Round* *New Rounds*
Reserved Blocked
Ineligible for delegation Reserved
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:* Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 29 September 2025 05:00 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me.
Best,
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene.
The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.)
Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Anne.
All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting).
I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board.
Thank you,
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Councilors,
I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals.
- PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... - EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. - GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX...
Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84.
Best,
Steve
*From: *Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> *Date: *Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM *To: *"council@icann.org" <council@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation
Dear Councilors,
You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals.
In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes.
Proposed next steps:
- Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of *where to document the process,* and provide any questions or concerns by * 27 August*. - If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. - Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. - Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes.
The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed.
If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
Email: steve.chan@icann.org
Skype: steve.chan55
Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMG...>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS...>
Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...>
_______________________________________________ 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.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
------------------------------
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. ------------------------------
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.
Thanks Anne. The delegation issue is related, but isn’t the issue, right? It looks like the big issue is whether or not the AGB is implementation or whether it is Policy. That seems straightforward too because it is knowable. Here is the link to the 2008 Policy: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm. The AGB was put together by an implementation team implementing the 2008 Policy, not a PDP WG. Steve, did the Board ever adopt the AGB as Policy? If the AGB remains implementation, then I think we are in a good place, namely, Staff in conjunction with an IRT can choose different implementation options while not creating new Policy so long as those options don’t violate Policy, neither IRTs nor Staff are supposed to make Policy or come up with implementation that violates Policy. If somewhere along the line the Board did adopt the AGB as Policy, instead of implementation, we need to see the Board resolution (again knowable) and understand how they did that without GNSO Council Recommendations (unless the Council did send the Board Recommendations that the AGB become Policy, so again we would need to see those Council resolutions). If the Board did adopt the AGB as Policy, then I’m back to picket signs on the underlying issue (and scratching my head at some of the things that happened in the last round which are now water way under the bridge). If they didn’t, let’s let Staff do their job. I’m happy either way, but since the facts are knowable, this isn’t a hard question. We just need to know the factual answers. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:39 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org Subject: Re: Re IGO/INGO Issue Thanks Paul. As mentioned, I believe supporters of Option 1 take the view that the 2012 AGB language specifying no String Similarity Review constitutes policy whereas Staff and supporters of Option 2 believe that the 2012 AGB language re no String Similarity Review constitutes implementation since there was at that time no risk of two confusingly similar names entering the root where the strings in question were completely "ineligible for delegation". What's new in the policy Recommendations is that there is an Exception for these protected strings which permits them to be delegated to the protected organization. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 9:22 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Susan. I don’t disagree with any of that. We have done our bit, namely, standing up an IRT. If it is determinable that Staff is flat wrong and that new policy work would be required to implement Option 2, then I am back to handing out the picket signs. But after much time on the last call and many emails on this list, I haven’t seen that argument directly and have only seen Steve’s argument that no new policy work is required. If someone believes Staff is flat wrong, can we please see the argument on this list (and sorry if I have missed it, but we need directness). If no such argument exists and both Options are implementable, it seems that our “determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” can very well be “both are implementable; please don’t hold up the AGB.” I don’t think that “a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed” automatically means Council needs to pick which one we like better. Standing by with the picket signs just in case… Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 11:11 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: Re IGO/INGO Issue Hi Paul (changing the header as this exchange is not about Board reversal) I disagree – that’s exactly what our role is. Fundamental to this issue is the view of a substantial number of IRT members that both “options” do not comply with the policy recommendations and that one of them, therefore, would require new policy to be made. It is our role to determine whether that’s the case or not. From the Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines: V. IRT Operating Principles E. In the event of disagreement between ICANN Staff and the IRT or any of its members on the implementation approach proposed by ICANN Staff, the GDD Project Manager, in consultation with the GNSO Council liaison if appropriate, shall exercise all reasonable efforts to resolve the disagreement. Should the disagreement prove irreconcilable despite such efforts, the GNSO Council liaison in consultation with the IRT is expected to make an assessment as to the level of consensus within the IRT on whether to raise the issue with the GNSO Council for consideration, using the standard decision making methodology outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. If the GNSO Council liaison makes the determination that there is consensus for such consideration, the liaison will inform the GNSO Council accordingly which will deliberate on the issue and then make a determination on how to proceed which could include, for example, the initiation of a GGP, a PDP or further guidance to the IRT and/or GDD staff on how to proceed. This process also applies to cases in which there is agreement between the IRT and GDD staff concerning the need for further guidance from the GNSO Council and/or when issues arise that may require possible policy discussion. (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy-implementation/irt-princ...) This should be read in conjunction with the PDP Manual: 14. GNSO Council Role in Implementation Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the GNSO PDP policy, the Board may, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create an implementation plan based upon the implementation recommendations identified in the Final Report, and to implement the policy in as timely a fashion as possible. The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations. However, in such case the membership of the IRT will need to be reviewed to ensure that adequate expertise and representation is present to take on the implementation of the additional PDP recommendations). In its Final Report, the PDP Team should provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on whether an Implementation Review Team should be established and any other recommendations deemed appropriate in relation to such an Implementation Review Team (e.g. composition). ICANN staff should inform the GNSO of its proposed implementation of a new GNSO recommended policy. If the proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council’s recommendations, the GNSO Council may notify the Board and request that the Board review the proposed implementation. Until the Board has considered the GNSO Council request, ICANN staff should refrain from implementing the policy, although it may continue developing the details of the proposed implementation while the Board considers the GNSO Council request. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3136.785BF640] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> Sent: 29 September 2025 16:11 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Susan. Perhaps the problem lies with the question being asked. All of the language we have seen to date on the matter is straightforward and clear. So, asking the Council to interpret policy adopted by the Board is a new role. Our role is traffic cop, not settling substantive disputes between Staff and IRT members, which is what this is really about. If both options comply with policy and both options do not require new policy, both are equally implementable. If both are equally implementable and the Board prefers Option 2 and is warning against a bunch of extra Board and GAC work if Option 1 is adopted, the Council as traffic cop should say “either are implementable” and the Board can tell Staff which one it wants. I don’t mean to be a reductionist here, but getting Council in the business of interpreting policy adopted by the Board already and is no longer on our plate is extraordinary. Let’s let Staff do its job. Best, Paul From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 4:22 AM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Paul, All It may be semantics, but we should be clear that the question for Council is not “Option 1 or Option 2?” per se, but “what is the meaning and intent of the existing policy recommendations and consequently which, if either, of Option 1 or Option 2 aligns with that”. So that everyone again has them conveniently to hand, the relevant IGO-INGO PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-10...> recommendations (which SubPro then affirmed) are as follows: 3.1.1: “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" 3.1.2: “For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.” These are the recommendations on Red Cross names. There are equivalent versions covering IOC, IGO and INGO names. The section of the 2012 AGB which is referenced in the IGO/INGO recommendations is as follows (in full): 2.2.1.2.3 Strings Ineligible for Delegation The following names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list. Refer to subsection 2.2.1.1<http://2.2.1.1/>: where applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed for similarity to existing TLDs and reserved names, the strings listed in this section are not reserved names and accordingly are not incorporated into this review. Applications for names appearing on the list included in this section will not be approved. [International Olympic Committee OLYMPIC OLYMPIAD OLYMPIQUE OLYMPIADE OLYMPISCH OLÍMPICO OLIMPÍADA أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻲ أوﻟﻴﻤﺒﻴﺎد 奥林匹克 奥林匹亚 奧林匹克 奧林匹亞 Ολυμπιακοί Ολυμπιάδα 올림픽 올림피아드 Олимпийский Олимпиада 1IB nternational Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement REDCROSS REDCRESCENT REDCRYSTAL REDLIONANDSUN MAGENDDAVIDADOM REDSTAROFDAVID CROIXROUGE CROIX-ROUGE CROISSANTROUGE CROISSANT-ROUGE CRISTALROUGE CRISTAL-ROUGE מגן דוד אדום CRUZROJA MEDIALUNAROJA CRISTALROJO Красный Крест Красный Полумесяц Красный Кристалл رمحألا بيلصلا لالهلا رمحألا ءارمحلا ةرولبلا اﻟﻛرﻳﺳﺗﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﺣﻣراء 紅十字 红十字 紅新月 红新月 紅水晶 红水晶] Finally, a reminder that terminology has been changed for the next Round(s), which can lead to confusion: 2012 Round New Rounds Reserved Blocked Ineligible for delegation Reserved Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC3136.785BF640] <https://comlaude.com/> 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: Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 29 September 2025 05:00 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Hi Anne. Thanks for your email to the list. You are entitled to your view, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to tell you not to make it more complicated than it is. The bottom line here is that the Board and the staff both seem to prefer Option 2 and there is no alignment among the IRT members, much less the staff, that Option 2 requires any policy change. The question for Council is does it recommend to staff and Board that they proceed with Option 2 and wrap up the Guidebook on time or does Council attempt to put its thumb on the scale for an unmeasured fraction of IRT members that have a different view and rush delays and/or triggering a bunch of GAC advice during the evaluation proved that could have been avoided. May be complicated for some; seems straightforward to me. Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Paul - just a reminder that ICANN Staff asked for Council direction on the Options. Not everyone on the IRT agreed with Option 1. Staff supports Option 2 and there are some on the IRT who agree. There was also a proposal for a third option which came out of the IRT so please don't make this sound as though the topic is simple and that Council is somehow pushing to intervene. The Extraordinary Meeting is a Council Action Item from our September meeting. It provides an opportunity for a full discussion of a fairly complex issue. Susan and I agree, as Co-Liaisons, that the question before the Council is - which Option properly reflects the intent of the policy Recommendations? (Everyone seems to agree that the third option involves a policy change so we are not bringing that before Council.) Susan and I have heard directly from GNSO staff that clear direction from Council to ICANN Org will be helpful. With staff's help, we are finalizing a Motion to be distributed on Monday with appropriate background which will enable Councilors to fully brief their Cs and SGs. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 11:15 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. All, I hope we don’t take a full hour discussing the Reserved Names issue. It is pretty straightforward. We have a disagreement between the Staff whose job it is to implement policy and members of the IRT whose job it is to advise Staff. Staff doesn’t believe that implementing Option 2 requires any new policy. Certain members of the IRT disagree. What is being asked of Council is whether or not, in what appears to be both a close call on whether or not Staff would be making policy and such policy would only affect applicants in the most outlier of all cases (i.e. applicants unwisely applying for similar things to the Reserved Names), Council wants to take the extraordinary step of interfering in the relationship between the Staff (implementors) and the Board (adopters of policy and supervisor of Staff). For me, that is an easy “no.” If this were a clear-cut case of Staff being wrong or Staff hemming and hawing, that would be a different matter and I would be the first one passing out the picket signs. 😊 I hope we can dispatch this topic quickly in the extraordinary (well named!) meeting and also have time to consider the items Steve raises since it is a topic that was front and center in our Special Session in DC and it would be wonderful to wrap up that work this term ends. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 8:53 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Thanks Steve. I don't think we can add this item to the agenda for the special meeting on October 9. We should not cut short the time to discuss the topic of Reserved Names and associated String Similarity implementation issues. Councilors will have plenty of work to brief Cs and SGs for that special meeting when the draft Motion is published on Monday the 29th (10 days before the special meeting). I have not had a chance to review these Board reversal redlines to our Operating Procedures and PDP and EPDP manuals, but wanted to ask whether we can add this to the agenda for our working session in Dublin? Hopefully that working session takes place prior to our meeting with the Board. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:37 PM Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Councilors, I have an update on the development of the draft redlines for the ICANN Board’s non-adoption of previously adopted GNSO policy recommendations. Having neither seen nor heard any objections, staff has developed proposed redlines to the relevant procedural manuals. * PDP Manual: A new section 16 has been added (and FYI, there was a numbering issue where 13 was repeated) - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WxnQEsswTbeLuT-D_iZzD8N9BXGIgiGkYiaADsxH... * EPDP Manual: No edits appear necessary as the relevant sections for the EPDP rely upon the PDP Manual. * GGP Manual: Here, a new section 10 has been added, which is very, very similar to the proposed edits to the PDP Manual - https://docs.google.com/document/d/159UvOrKfigdEvWCB9f4cmHNo8cVVlOMCE2LTTREX... Staff would like to propose that Councilors review these redlines with their respective groups and provide comments or concerns on Council list. In the likely event that a special meeting will need to be scheduled for the SubPro Reserved Names issue, perhaps this topic can be added for a brief discussion as well; the scheduling of that meeting can help dictate the deadline for feedback on the updated manuals. These next steps are proposed with an eye towards putting the Council in a position where it’s able to discuss the proposed redlines with the Board at ICANN84. Best, Steve From: Steve Chan via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 3:52 PM To: "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Draft Proposal: Board Reversal of its Adoption of a GNSO PDP Recommendation Dear Councilors, You will likely recall that during the Council’s last Strategic Planning Session (SPS), the Council came to general agreement on the approach for the ICANN Board to reverse its adoption of a GNSO recommendation. The action item from the SPS was to identify the proper place to document that generally agreed upon process. Your GNSO support staff has coordinated with ICANN legal to determine the most appropriate location to capture the process and in short, the recommendation is to update the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals. In the attached document, you will see a briefing document that contains about 2.5 pages of text that explains the thought process and rationale for the approach; if you’re able to recall the conversation at the SPS, this text should feel very familiar. What has been included on page 3 is a very brief analysis on which documentation is most appropriate for capturing the process, which specific section could be updated, and the nature of the changes. Proposed next steps: * Council to review the attached document and in particular, consider the suggestion of where to document the process, and provide any questions or concerns by 27 August. * If there are no substantive concerns on how to capture the process, staff to develop proposed redlines to the EPDP, PDP, and GGP Manuals, in time for discussion by the Council during the September meeting. * Again, if no substantive concerns, the ICANN Board and GNSO Council can discuss the proposed redlines during their bilateral at ICANN84. * Once there is a set of mutually agreed upon (i.e., Board and Council) redlines, the amended GNSO Operating Procedures would be put out for public comment, as is required for such changes. The proposed next steps assume that there are no major concerns that need to be addressed along the way; if that turns out to not be the case, then intervening discussion can and would of course take place, pushing out timelines as needed. If you have any questions or concerns, about either the attached documentation or the proposed next steps, please do let us know. Best, Steve Steven Chan VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email: steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> Skype: steve.chan55 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=o7Auz997kA-HPv9PHJCjFVZw7Pgo8krw4MxfqCwBrIU&e=> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jLNFXvpu9gNdUeHi-G6sjWNCF9w4_AwhzzUDFZy2elE&s=kWw4fQPNjw2lVKy1UjTxS2F0BmjEAzaDFWNmsYywbmE&e=> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group...> _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Paul McGrady -
Steve Chan -
Susan Payne