Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

Hi Farzaneh, Thank you for flagging these items. I believe the second and third issues are already covered under Recommendation 33 (Request to GNSO for further work on the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy and Potential New Dispute Mechanism). The text of the recommendation provides, “The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. There remains a need for an intermediary mechanism to remedy unauthorized transfers between ToS claw backs and litigation as well as other issues as may be identified by the GNSO. The Working Group recommends that any such additional dispute mechanism that empowers registrants should be in addition to and not prohibit any informal resolution that Registrars successfully employ in the overwhelming number of instances.” Members of the Working Group, including NCSG reps, flagged similar concerns to issues 2 and 3 during the Working Group’s discussions and requested further policy work on this topic. Members specifically flagged the issue of compromised, stolen, or hijacked names. The WG also discussed circumstances where the registrant wishes to dispute an inter-registrar transfer denial (which could include a transfer denied for abuse). The WG ultimately agreed to Recommendation 33 so that the GNSO Council could consider an Issues Report. I hope this is helpful, and I invite councilors who participated in the TPR Working Group to provide additional context if I missed anything. Best regards, Caitlin From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org> Reply-To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 10:39 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Terri. I don't know where to bring this up but I want to ask the Council to give a serious consideration to the outcome of the Human Rights Impact Assessment of TPR and try to address the issues that were brought forward. The issues in specific: 1) privacy of domain name registrants when transfer happens by resellers: Standardize Protections Across Reseller Channels While some privacy protections are in place, significant gaps remain in the flow of registrant data between resellers and registrars. 2) Expand Access to Remedies for Hijacking: Current dispute resolution mechanisms do not adequately address domain name hijacking, particularly in cases that technically comply with policy but are clearly abusive. 3) Clarify and Review Abuse-Related Transfer Restrictions. Currently, registrants may face difficulty challenging registrar decisions to deny transfers based on alleged abuse. Recommendation: Develop clearer processes for registrants to dispute and appeal such decisions, ensuring the principle of due process and fair treatment is preserved. Can we discuss the way forward for each of these recommendations? Here is the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0FD0-cFlAFz4cm0km5bywoC7JYtcq... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0F...> Farzaneh On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:31 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Farzaneh, For the first issue you cited regarding resellers, it may be helpful if you and others could provide some specific examples of what gaps may remain. Without understanding the full issue, it is difficult to articulate a path forward. There are provisions in the RAA that cover registrars’ obligations with respect to resellers, so the data protection concerns may be covered under the contract. Specifically, Section 3.12 of the RAA provides: “Registrar is responsible for the provision of Registrar Services for all Registered Names that Registrar sponsors being performed in compliance with this Agreement, regardless of whether the Registrar Services are provided by Registrar or a third party, including a Reseller. Registrar must enter into written agreements with all of its Resellers that enable Registrar to comply with and perform all of its obligations under this Agreement.” Additionally, section 3.7.7.8 provides, “Registrar shall agree that it will take reasonable precautions to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.” This topic can certainly be added to a future Council agenda, and Council Leadership and Support Staff can provide some proposals of how to move forward when we have a better understanding of the issue. Thank you. Best regards, Caitlin From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 11:29 AM To: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thank you Caitlin. So I am assuming that for the first one (resellers) we don’t have a way forward yet? How can we discuss that? Maybe we can discuss this. Also since there are recommendations by the PDP I am guessing the IRT is the appropriate venue to say how it should proceed? I generally want to discuss hijacked domains policy concerns that go beyond transfer as well. Farzaneh On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:24 PM Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Farzaneh, Thank you for flagging these items. I believe the second and third issues are already covered under Recommendation 33 (Request to GNSO for further work on the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy and Potential New Dispute Mechanism). The text of the recommendation provides, “The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. There remains a need for an intermediary mechanism to remedy unauthorized transfers between ToS claw backs and litigation as well as other issues as may be identified by the GNSO. The Working Group recommends that any such additional dispute mechanism that empowers registrants should be in addition to and not prohibit any informal resolution that Registrars successfully employ in the overwhelming number of instances.” Members of the Working Group, including NCSG reps, flagged similar concerns to issues 2 and 3 during the Working Group’s discussions and requested further policy work on this topic. Members specifically flagged the issue of compromised, stolen, or hijacked names. The WG also discussed circumstances where the registrant wishes to dispute an inter-registrar transfer denial (which could include a transfer denied for abuse). The WG ultimately agreed to Recommendation 33 so that the GNSO Council could consider an Issues Report. I hope this is helpful, and I invite councilors who participated in the TPR Working Group to provide additional context if I missed anything. Best regards, Caitlin From: farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Reply-To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 10:39 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Terri. I don't know where to bring this up but I want to ask the Council to give a serious consideration to the outcome of the Human Rights Impact Assessment of TPR and try to address the issues that were brought forward. The issues in specific: 1) privacy of domain name registrants when transfer happens by resellers: Standardize Protections Across Reseller Channels While some privacy protections are in place, significant gaps remain in the flow of registrant data between resellers and registrars. 2) Expand Access to Remedies for Hijacking: Current dispute resolution mechanisms do not adequately address domain name hijacking, particularly in cases that technically comply with policy but are clearly abusive. 3) Clarify and Review Abuse-Related Transfer Restrictions. Currently, registrants may face difficulty challenging registrar decisions to deny transfers based on alleged abuse. Recommendation: Develop clearer processes for registrants to dispute and appeal such decisions, ensuring the principle of due process and fair treatment is preserved. Can we discuss the way forward for each of these recommendations? Here is the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0FD0-cFlAFz4cm0km5bywoC7JYtcq... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0F...> Farzaneh On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:31 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto:council-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Hi Caitlin, May we have a link to the current RAA? (I need to get a better understanding of that agreement.) Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:55 AM farzaneh badii via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Caitlin,

I think it would be good to have this conversation with Roger to understand the specifics.

I also want to know how we can generally discuss "Hijacked domain names" and the policies we have to protect the registrants (be it in transfer policy or DNS abuse mitigation). Do we have an issue paper on that?

Best regards,

Farzaneh

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 4:14 PM Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi Farzaneh,

For the first issue you cited regarding resellers, it may be helpful if you and others could provide some specific examples of what gaps may remain. Without understanding the full issue, it is difficult to articulate a path forward. There are provisions in the RAA that cover registrars’ obligations with respect to resellers, so the data protection concerns may be covered under the contract.

Specifically, Section 3.12 of the RAA provides: “Registrar is responsible for the provision of Registrar Services for all Registered Names that Registrar sponsors being performed in compliance with this Agreement, regardless of whether the Registrar Services are provided by Registrar or a third party, including a Reseller. Registrar must enter into written agreements with all of its Resellers that enable Registrar to comply with and perform all of its obligations under this Agreement.” Additionally, section 3.7.7.8 provides, “Registrar shall agree that it will take reasonable precautions to protect Personal Data from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction.”

This topic can certainly be added to a future Council agenda, and Council Leadership and Support Staff can provide some proposals of how to move forward when we have a better understanding of the issue.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Caitlin

*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 11:29 AM *To: *Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> *Cc: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" < council@gnso.icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Thank you Caitlin.

So I am assuming that for the first one (resellers) we don’t have a way forward yet? How can we discuss that? Maybe we can discuss this. Also since there are recommendations by the PDP I am guessing the IRT is the appropriate venue to say how it should proceed? I generally want to discuss hijacked domains policy concerns that go beyond transfer as well.

Farzaneh

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 12:24 PM Caitlin Tubergen < caitlin.tubergen@icann.org> wrote:

Hi Farzaneh,

Thank you for flagging these items.

I believe the second and third issues are already covered under Recommendation 33 (Request to GNSO for further work on the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy and Potential New Dispute Mechanism).

The text of the recommendation provides, “The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of (i) expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and (ii) creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names. There remains a need for an intermediary mechanism to remedy unauthorized transfers between ToS claw backs and litigation as well as other issues as may be identified by the GNSO. The Working Group recommends that any such additional dispute mechanism that empowers registrants should be in addition to and not prohibit any informal resolution that Registrars successfully employ in the overwhelming number of instances.”

Members of the Working Group, including NCSG reps, flagged similar concerns to issues 2 and 3 during the Working Group’s discussions and requested further policy work on this topic. Members specifically flagged the issue of compromised, stolen, or hijacked names. The WG also discussed circumstances where the registrant wishes to dispute an inter-registrar transfer denial (which could include a transfer denied for abuse). The WG ultimately agreed to Recommendation 33 so that the GNSO Council could consider an Issues Report.

I hope this is helpful, and I invite councilors who participated in the TPR Working Group to provide additional context if I missed anything.

Best regards,

Caitlin

*From: *farzaneh badii via council <council@icann.org> *Reply-To: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 10:39 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *"council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Thanks Terri.

I don't know where to bring this up but I want to ask the Council to give a serious consideration to the outcome of the Human Rights Impact Assessment of TPR and try to address the issues that were brought forward.

The issues in specific:

1) privacy of domain name registrants when transfer happens by resellers: Standardize Protections Across Reseller Channels While some privacy protections are in place, significant gaps remain in the flow of registrant data between resellers and registrars.

2) Expand Access to Remedies for Hijacking: Current dispute resolution mechanisms do not adequately address domain name hijacking, particularly in cases that technically comply with policy but are clearly abusive.

3) Clarify and Review Abuse-Related Transfer Restrictions. Currently, registrants may face difficulty challenging registrar decisions to deny transfers based on alleged abuse. Recommendation: Develop clearer processes for registrants to dispute and appeal such decisions, ensuring the principle of due process and fair treatment is preserved.

Can we discuss the way forward for each of these recommendations? Here is the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0FD0-cFlAFz4cm0km5bywoC7JYtcq... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aQetWyuO0S_0F...>

Farzaneh

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:31 AM Terri Agnew via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear councilors,

A reminder to all that a Google doc <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome!

You are welcome to add to the document <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature.

Thank you!

Kind regards,

Terri

Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ 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.

Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

Thanks Terri. I added a preliminary discussion item to be taken up prior to any deliberation on Anne's placeholder motion. Best, Paul From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:34 AM To: council@icann.org Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.

Thanks Anne. I understand your position, but you have dug in and made your motion binary. We need a discussion about whether or not a motion and vote is even appropriate, which we have not had as a Council. I have no idea if my item will preempt your motion as I am not one to jump ahead to presumed conclusions. So, I respectfully decline your request to withdraw my preliminary item. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 1:49 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Paul. What is this item you have added and how much time will it take? Is that item likely to pre-empt or lessen time for discussion on the Motion which is the main agenda item for this meeting? If so, of course I have an issue with that and ask that you reserve your observations for the discussion that will occur AFTER my short slides are presented. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 9:59 AM Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Terri. I added a preliminary discussion item to be taken up prior to any deliberation on Anne’s placeholder motion. Best, Paul From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:34 AM To: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ 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.

Thanks Anne. I agree that Council Leadership could rearrange the order if they wish, but having a conversation after a motion & vote about whether or not a motion & vote is the correct way for Council to handle this issue doesn’t seem to be the right order to me. As for your suggestion that I could put forward a friendly amendment, I did and you said no. I don’t think my putting forward another request for a friendly amendment would accomplish much unless you are prepared to be open minded that the two binary options you presented are not the full universe of possible outcomes here. Please do let me know if you have had a change of heart. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:35 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Paul. I think it is for Leadership to determine the proper placement of your position in relation to the discussion on the Motion. You are obviously free to offer other friendly amendments in the meantime and even in the meeting itself to address your interest in an alternative that makes sense. Keep in mind that both Council Co-Liaisons to the IRT believe that this matter is properly before the Council. Full discussion, including of course any observations you may have about (1) making additional proposals for a friendly amendment or (2) not voting at all will be welcome during the discussion after presentation of the 5 slides. The only thing I am "digging in" on is the fact that Council is the manager of the PDP process and of proper Implementation when a disagreement arises at the IRT level. Again please see Susan's memo in response to you on Monday September 29 citing Operating Procedures etc. I think it is quite dangerous for Council to abdicate this responsibility as you are recommending. It would set a very bad precedent. This is without regard to how the vote turns out. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 11:55 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. I understand your position, but you have dug in and made your motion binary. We need a discussion about whether or not a motion and vote is even appropriate, which we have not had as a Council. I have no idea if my item will preempt your motion as I am not one to jump ahead to presumed conclusions. So, I respectfully decline your request to withdraw my preliminary item. Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 1:49 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Paul. What is this item you have added and how much time will it take? Is that item likely to pre-empt or lessen time for discussion on the Motion which is the main agenda item for this meeting? If so, of course I have an issue with that and ask that you reserve your observations for the discussion that will occur AFTER my short slides are presented. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 9:59 AM Paul McGrady via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks Terri. I added a preliminary discussion item to be taken up prior to any deliberation on Anne’s placeholder motion. Best, Paul From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:34 AM To: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ 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.

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board. See below: Extraordinary Meeting Agenda - Presentation of background slides on the issue as prepared by Anne and Steve - Preliminary discussion, prior to deliberation over any motions submitted, regarding whether or not a vote on the IGO/INGO matter referred to the Council *by ICANN IRT Staff *is appropriate. Council Discussion of the Motion and any relevant friendly amendments Discussion of the Voting Options AOB Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:52 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul - the amendment you proposed was that Council not provide guidance to the IRT. Again, that is an abdication of responsibility where there is disagreement at the IRT level. Council should AFFIRM its role in this regard.

Could you please provide a more detailed explanation of why you believe Council should not provide guidance to the IRT? Or is there some other concrete guidance that you are suggesting as an alternative? Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:45 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Anne. I agree that Council Leadership could rearrange the order if they wish, but having a conversation after a motion & vote about whether or not a motion & vote is the correct way for Council to handle this issue doesn’t seem to be the right order to me.

As for your suggestion that I could put forward a friendly amendment, I did and you said no. I don’t think my putting forward another request for a friendly amendment would accomplish much unless you are prepared to be open minded that the two binary options you presented are not the full universe of possible outcomes here. Please do let me know if you have had a change of heart.

Best,

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:35 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Paul. I think it is for Leadership to determine the proper placement of your position in relation to the discussion on the Motion. You are obviously free to offer other friendly amendments in the meantime and even in the meeting itself to address your interest in an alternative that makes sense. Keep in mind that both Council Co-Liaisons to the IRT believe that this matter is properly before the Council. Full discussion, including of course any observations you may have about (1) making additional proposals for a friendly amendment or (2) not voting at all will be welcome during the discussion after presentation of the 5 slides.

The only thing I am "digging in" on is the fact that Council is the manager of the PDP process and of proper Implementation when a disagreement arises at the IRT level. Again please see Susan's memo in response to you on Monday September 29 citing Operating Procedures etc. I think it is quite dangerous for Council to abdicate this responsibility as you are recommending. It would set a very bad precedent. This is without regard to how the vote turns out.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 11:55 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne. I understand your position, but you have dug in and made your motion binary. We need a discussion about whether or not a motion and vote is even appropriate, which we have not had as a Council. I have no idea if my item will preempt your motion as I am not one to jump ahead to presumed conclusions. So, I respectfully decline your request to withdraw my preliminary item.

Best,

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, October 2, 2025 1:49 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Thanks Paul. What is this item you have added and how much time will it take? Is that item likely to pre-empt or lessen time for discussion on the Motion which is the main agenda item for this meeting?

If so, of course I have an issue with that and ask that you reserve your observations for the discussion that will occur AFTER my short slides are presented.

Thank you,

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 9:59 AM Paul McGrady via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Thanks Terri. I added a preliminary discussion item to be taken up prior to any deliberation on Anne’s placeholder motion.

Best,

Paul

*From:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:34 AM *To:* council@icann.org *Cc:* GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Dear councilors,

A reminder to all that a Google doc <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome!

You are welcome to add to the document <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature.

Thank you!

Kind regards,

Terri

Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

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

_______________________________________________ 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.

Dear all, In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board. I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet. Kind regards, Thomas [ ] October 2025 Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers Tripti Sinha, Chair ICANN Board Dear Tripti, Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern. This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following: * Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: * the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); * The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); * Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). * These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. * Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). * The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). * Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round. The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context. We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations. Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations. Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate. Sincerely, Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar Interim co-chairs of the GNSO Von: Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> Datum: Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 An: council@icann.org <council@icann.org> Betreff: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne! Julf _______________________________________________ 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.

Agree with Susan. Thanks Thomas for creating a path for discussion. Best, Paul From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 3:18 PM To: Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law>; Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com>; council@icann.org Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Thomas. My personal view (without instructions from IPC at this point) is that this may have merit as a possible approach and, certainly, I'd support us considering this during our discussion on Thursday. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC347B.FB901DA0] <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: Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 8:53:42 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@Julf.com<mailto:julf@Julf.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Dear all, In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board. I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet. Kind regards, Thomas [ ] October 2025 Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers Tripti Sinha, Chair ICANN Board Dear Tripti, Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern. This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following: * Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: * the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); * The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); * Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). * These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. * Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). * The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). * Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round. The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context. We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations. Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff's proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations. Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate. Sincerely, Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar Interim co-chairs of the GNSO Von: Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Datum: Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 An: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Betreff: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne! Julf _______________________________________________ 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. ________________________________ 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 Thomas. Some comments on this draft: 1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level. 2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level. 3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent. 4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice. My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons. *If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:* A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board. Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: - the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). - These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

Farzi - I did not state a conclusion that Option 2 is consistent with policy. Thomas did that and apparently Susan and Paul agree.. I am far more concerned with proper procedure for the role of Council than I am with the outcome. I have noted more than once that the majority of the IRT believes Option 2 is not consistent with policy. It's not up to me. In responding to Thomas' draft, I am only pointing out that (1) the full Council has not agreed that Option 2 is consistent with policy and (2) it is inaccurate to say that it is not Council's role to instruct the IRT even if both Options are consistent with policy. If they are, Council would advise the IRT which option is more consistent with the intent of the PDP Recommedations. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:43 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne.

I totally disagree with the approach that the board makes the decision. I even find their letter unprecedented and odd. It’s a policy letter. They tell us what policy they like! I do not agree with your conclusion though. I don’t think we have two options. The second option is just not viable. It’s policymaking by the IRT.

Farzaneh

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:27 PM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: - the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). - These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

I am more in favor of the IRT resolving this than the Council. But coming to the Council might be a better last resort than Board or staff making a decision for us. If the matter can be resolved within the IRT, that would be ideal; if not, the Council should weigh in. But then in the end the IRT I believe should make a decision. Our point here is procedural. If there is a Working Group policy that specifically reserves all INGO and IGO names at the TLD level, we would not object. But in the absence of such a policy, we risk overreach, implementation should not amount to policy making. The IRT process was created precisely to avoid policy being made during implementation. Referring the matter back to the Board to decide would undermine the purpose of having an IRT in the first place. There is only a minority that believes that providing more avenues for IGOs and INGOs should be the path forward without mentioning any policy or specific language to back it up. Also I want to make something clear here. It really matters how you word the options. It's not like we are leaving all these vulnerable IGO and INGOs unprotected, there are other mechanisms they can use to protect themselves. NCSG mentioned, in 2012, if you want to seek other avenues to protect IGO and INGO by reserving names you should go to a specific PDP and do that. NCSG said that in 2012. That's 13 years ago. Best regards, Farzaneh On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 11:37 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Farzi. My point is that if the IRT majority had gone a different way, you would have wanted this brought before Council. As Justine pointed out, there was in fact a minority view in the IRT that Option 1 was not consistent with the intent of the policy because the 2012 AGB does not constitute policy. The minority view aligned with Paul's statement of the issue and what has been expressed by Justine in the ALAC letter. (Justine is a member of the IRT and refers to the minority view in the ALAC letter.)

My main point is procedural - when there is a disagreement at the IRT level, i.e. a majority and minority view and a staff disagreement on the manner of implementation that is true to policy, it is imperative for Council not to shirk its role. Again, if the IRT had gone for option 2 as a majority, I'm sure NCSG would have wanted that disagreement discussed at Council and further direction provided to the IRT from Council.

Thanks for the good discussion and the civil tone of the meeting! Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:43 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Anne.

I totally disagree with the approach that the board makes the decision. I even find their letter unprecedented and odd. It’s a policy letter. They tell us what policy they like! I do not agree with your conclusion though. I don’t think we have two options. The second option is just not viable. It’s policymaking by the IRT.

Farzaneh

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 4:27 PM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council <council@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: - the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). - These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members were to agree that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy, a third alternative for voting would be: 3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:50 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne!

Taking Anne’s comments one by one:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

*Kindly disagree. Thomas has done the opposite, namely, opening a path for discussions that the entrenched binary in the placeholder motion cut off. He has presented a draft for consideration, not strict binaries that everyone’s opinion needs to fit in or else be discarded.*

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

*Anne and I are in alignment that neither of us could possibly know whether or not the “full Council agrees” with anything at this point since we haven’t had the discussion. Thomas’ draft will allow that to happen. *

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it. But we need to be open minded that if a question has already been answered by policy known and knowable to the Board that it is also not Council’s role to make up policy on the fly or pick our favorite outcomes. That is a recipe for endless relegation and that is something we have tried to avoid as a community as much as possible. *

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

*Agree that inputs from the IRT are important to consider and Anne appears to be carrying the banner for the (as yet unnamed) members of the IRT that disagree with the Staff position, so I expect the IRT views will be heard on our Extra-O call.*

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*I don’t see Thomas’ draft doing that at all. I think it is respectful of the Board, Staff, and Council’s role.*

******

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

*This formulation by Anne seems very promising.*

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it and I am sympathetic to it. But we do have to keep in mind that when Staff and Board agree that they have the policy in hand they need to make a decision that the Council not be in the business of pushing our view. Anne’s A,B,C above accounts for that which is why I think it is promising.*

Best to all!

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 3:27 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following:

- the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report).

- These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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.

_______________________________________________ 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.

Thanks Ashley. I think it's appropriate to discuss all the options. I did not know that Paul was headed the direction of letting the Board decide or I would have suggested he offer a friendly amendment of a third alternative to be discussed as shown beloiw. If Lawrence, as the seconder, will agree, we will add the third alternative below to the slides which can then be sent out to the Council list and can be forwarded to Cs and SGs for discussion prior to the meeting. *Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT.* (A letter to the Board could also be sent but from my point of view it contains a major misstatement regarding the role of Council. I believe Lawrence als has comments on the letter.) *Lawrence *- will you accept the amendment below to add the third alternative to the Motion for discussion purposes as friendly? *3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] * Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:35 PM aheineman@godaddy.com <aheineman@godaddy.com> wrote:

For what it is worth, I'd really like the opportunity to talk through all of these options. There are clearly strong perspectives, and I'd like to best understand the full spectrum of options. Honestly, this is quite alot to digest and I feel uncomfortable being put in a box, so all options are welcome from my humble position. ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 5:24 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not.

If Council members were to agree that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy, a third alternative for voting would be:

3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.]

Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:50 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne!

Taking Anne’s comments one by one:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

*Kindly disagree. Thomas has done the opposite, namely, opening a path for discussions that the entrenched binary in the placeholder motion cut off. He has presented a draft for consideration, not strict binaries that everyone’s opinion needs to fit in or else be discarded.*

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

*Anne and I are in alignment that neither of us could possibly know whether or not the “full Council agrees” with anything at this point since we haven’t had the discussion. Thomas’ draft will allow that to happen. *

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it. But we need to be open minded that if a question has already been answered by policy known and knowable to the Board that it is also not Council’s role to make up policy on the fly or pick our favorite outcomes. That is a recipe for endless relegation and that is something we have tried to avoid as a community as much as possible. *

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

*Agree that inputs from the IRT are important to consider and Anne appears to be carrying the banner for the (as yet unnamed) members of the IRT that disagree with the Staff position, so I expect the IRT views will be heard on our Extra-O call.*

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*I don’t see Thomas’ draft doing that at all. I think it is respectful of the Board, Staff, and Council’s role.*

******

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

*This formulation by Anne seems very promising.*

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it and I am sympathetic to it. But we do have to keep in mind that when Staff and Board agree that they have the policy in hand they need to make a decision that the Council not be in the business of pushing our view. Anne’s A,B,C above accounts for that which is why I think it is promising.*

Best to all!

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 3:27 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following:

- the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report).

- These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoV...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_L...>). 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.

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoV...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_L...>). 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.

Paul - the draft AGB currently refers to both Options and says that the proposal to go before the Board depends on Council's advice to the IRT. The amendment would instruct the IRT to simply modify the draft AGB to state that the Board should choose between those options. In other words, "adoption" is simply about adopting the AGB and that is going to happen in Dublin. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 7:11 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne. Before Lawrence reacts, does it have to be an official act of the Board which could slow down the finalization of the AGB and delay the entire program? Could we replace this:

“…the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty.”

With

“The Board, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, should inform the IRT if it has an objection to either Option 1 or Option 2 or a preference for either Option 1 or Option 2.”

Best,

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:35 AM *To:* aheineman@godaddy.com *Cc:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; council@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Thanks Ashley. I think it's appropriate to discuss all the options. I did not know that Paul was headed the direction of letting the Board decide or I would have suggested he offer a friendly amendment of a third alternative to be discussed as shown beloiw.

If Lawrence, as the seconder, will agree, we will add the third alternative below to the slides which can then be sent out to the Council list and can be forwarded to Cs and SGs for discussion prior to the meeting. *Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT.* (A letter to the Board could also be sent but from my point of view it contains a major misstatement regarding the role of Council. I believe Lawrence als has comments on the letter.)

*Lawrence *- will you accept the amendment below to add the third alternative to the Motion for discussion purposes as friendly?

*3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] *

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:35 PM aheineman@godaddy.com < aheineman@godaddy.com> wrote:

For what it is worth, I'd really like the opportunity to talk through all of these options. There are clearly strong perspectives, and I'd like to best understand the full spectrum of options. Honestly, this is quite alot to digest and I feel uncomfortable being put in a box, so all options are welcome from my humble position. ------------------------------

*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 5:24 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart

*This Message Is From an External Sender *

This message came from outside your organization.

ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not.

If Council members were to agree that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy, a third alternative for voting would be:

3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.]

Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:50 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:

Thanks Anne!

Taking Anne’s comments one by one:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

*Kindly disagree. Thomas has done the opposite, namely, opening a path for discussions that the entrenched binary in the placeholder motion cut off. He has presented a draft for consideration, not strict binaries that everyone’s opinion needs to fit in or else be discarded.*

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

*Anne and I are in alignment that neither of us could possibly know whether or not the “full Council agrees” with anything at this point since we haven’t had the discussion. Thomas’ draft will allow that to happen. *

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it. But we need to be open minded that if a question has already been answered by policy known and knowable to the Board that it is also not Council’s role to make up policy on the fly or pick our favorite outcomes. That is a recipe for endless relegation and that is something we have tried to avoid as a community as much as possible. *

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

*Agree that inputs from the IRT are important to consider and Anne appears to be carrying the banner for the (as yet unnamed) members of the IRT that disagree with the Staff position, so I expect the IRT views will be heard on our Extra-O call.*

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*I don’t see Thomas’ draft doing that at all. I think it is respectful of the Board, Staff, and Council’s role.*

******

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

*This formulation by Anne seems very promising.*

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

*This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it and I am sympathetic to it. But we do have to keep in mind that when Staff and Board agree that they have the policy in hand they need to make a decision that the Council not be in the business of pushing our view. Anne’s A,B,C above accounts for that which is why I think it is promising.*

Best to all!

Paul

*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, October 3, 2025 3:27 PM *To:* Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law> *Cc:* council@icann.org *Subject:* [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft:

1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level.

2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level.

3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent.

4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice.

My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons.

*If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach:*

A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures.

B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest.

C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board.

Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view.

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

GNSO Councilor

NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026

anneicanngnso@gmail.com

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council < council@icann.org> wrote:

Dear all,

In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board.

I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet.

Kind regards,

Thomas

[ ] October 2025

*Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers*

*Tripti Sinha, Chair*

ICANN Board

Dear Tripti,

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern.

This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following:

- Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following:

- the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); - The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); - Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report).

- These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. - Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). - The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). - Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round.

The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context.

We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations.

Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate.

Sincerely,

*Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar*

Interim co-chairs of the GNSO

*Von: *Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org> *Datum: *Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 *An: *council@icann.org <council@icann.org> *Betreff: *[council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings

On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

...

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne!

Julf

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoV...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_L...>). 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.

_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoV...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_L...>). 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.

It is my belief that what the board is requesting of the Council is a determination on which of the two options should be adopted for the purpose of the next round and they have gone further to indicate their preference as guidance for us. As Council is also looking at the option of the Board instructing the IRT on the option to adopt - I consider this amendment friendly as such the third alternative to the motion be adopted as in the original text. I.e 3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] Dear Paul, I fear that an amendment to this clause based on your suggested text, might set us back to where we currently are, as there is a preference already, but approval on the adopted option for the IRT is needed before the Dublin meeting. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 3:21 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> Cc: aheineman@godaddy.com <aheineman@godaddy.com>; council@icann.org <council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings P.S. the Board has already clearly stated its preference for Option 2 in the letter to Council. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 7:14 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Paul - the draft AGB currently refers to both Options and says that the proposal to go before the Board depends on Council's advice to the IRT. The amendment would instruct the IRT to simply modify the draft AGB to state that the Board should choose between those options. In other words, "adoption" is simply about adopting the AGB and that is going to happen in Dublin. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 7:11 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne. Before Lawrence reacts, does it have to be an official act of the Board which could slow down the finalization of the AGB and delay the entire program? Could we replace this: “…the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty.” With “The Board, in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, should inform the IRT if it has an objection to either Option 1 or Option 2 or a preference for either Option 1 or Option 2.” Best, Paul From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, October 4, 2025 8:35 AM To: aheineman@godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com> Cc: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Thanks Ashley. I think it's appropriate to discuss all the options. I did not know that Paul was headed the direction of letting the Board decide or I would have suggested he offer a friendly amendment of a third alternative to be discussed as shown beloiw. If Lawrence, as the seconder, will agree, we will add the third alternative below to the slides which can then be sent out to the Council list and can be forwarded to Cs and SGs for discussion prior to the meeting. Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT. (A letter to the Board could also be sent but from my point of view it contains a major misstatement regarding the role of Council. I believe Lawrence als has comments on the letter.) Lawrence - will you accept the amendment below to add the third alternative to the Motion for discussion purposes as friendly? 3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 3:35 PM aheineman@godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com> <aheineman@godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com>> wrote: For what it is worth, I'd really like the opportunity to talk through all of these options. There are clearly strong perspectives, and I'd like to best understand the full spectrum of options. Honestly, this is quite alot to digest and I feel uncomfortable being put in a box, so all options are welcome from my humble position. ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 5:24 PM To: Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd As Farzi has pointed out, not everyone on Council may agree to go the direction of Thomas' letter. Presumably Cs and SGs will have instructions in this regard with a viewpoint on options being consistent with policy or not. If Council members were to agree that both Option 1 and Option 2 are consistent with policy, a third alternative for voting would be: 3. OR [The GNSO Council confirms that both Options 1 and 2 offered by ICANN Staff are consistent with policy. While the Council reserves its right to instruct an IRT on the proper implementation of Council and Board-adopted PDP Recommendations, the Council has determined, based on correspondence from the Board and in light of pressing time deadlines, that the IRT should refer adoption of Option 1 or Option 2 to a determination to be made by the ICANN Board in the exercise of its fiduciary duty. By this action, the Council does not waive its procedures relating to resolution of issues in implementation at the Council level when raised by the IRT, the Council liaison(s), or ICANN Implementation Staff.] Again, this Extraordinary Meeting is about how the Council should instruct the IRT. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:50 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:paul@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Thanks Anne! Taking Anne’s comments one by one: 1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level. Kindly disagree. Thomas has done the opposite, namely, opening a path for discussions that the entrenched binary in the placeholder motion cut off. He has presented a draft for consideration, not strict binaries that everyone’s opinion needs to fit in or else be discarded. 2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level. Anne and I are in alignment that neither of us could possibly know whether or not the “full Council agrees” with anything at this point since we haven’t had the discussion. Thomas’ draft will allow that to happen. 3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent. This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it. But we need to be open minded that if a question has already been answered by policy known and knowable to the Board that it is also not Council’s role to make up policy on the fly or pick our favorite outcomes. That is a recipe for endless relegation and that is something we have tried to avoid as a community as much as possible. 4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice. Agree that inputs from the IRT are important to consider and Anne appears to be carrying the banner for the (as yet unnamed) members of the IRT that disagree with the Staff position, so I expect the IRT views will be heard on our Extra-O call. My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons. I don’t see Thomas’ draft doing that at all. I think it is respectful of the Board, Staff, and Council’s role. ****** If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach: A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board. This formulation by Anne seems very promising. Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view. This is Anne’s opinion and she is entitled to it and I am sympathetic to it. But we do have to keep in mind that when Staff and Board agree that they have the policy in hand they need to make a decision that the Council not be in the business of pushing our view. Anne’s A,B,C above accounts for that which is why I think it is promising. Best to all! Paul From: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 3:27 PM To: Thomas Rickert | rickert.law <thomas@rickert.law<mailto:thomas@rickert.law>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings Hi Thomas. Some comments on this draft: 1. Please know that the majority members of the IRT have expressed the opinion that Option 2 is NOT consistent with policy and would require new policy. Therefore, when you say that the Council concludes that both Options are consistent with policy, you have cut off discussion on this at the Council level. 2. You appear to favor having the Board make the decision as to which Option aligns with policy. I'm not sure the full Council agrees with that approach. Again, my own concern is that Council should not be asking the Board to "pick between two plausible implementations". In fact, it is indeed the role of Council to advise the IRT when issues of disagreement of implementation arise and that is why Council appoints Liaisons to the IRT. Once again, please refer to Susan's email of September 29 in which she lays out the procedural context for Council's consideration of disagreements at the IRT Level. 3. In short, I completely disagree that it is not Council's role to determine the intent behind the PDP Recommendations. Failing to provide any advice to the IRT is an abdication of Council's responsibility and sets a very bad precedent. 4. In short, Council must consider the position of the IRT and of the Staff and weigh the options in light of the Intent behind the PDP Recommendations. The liaisons must be instructed to bring that information back to the IRT and Staff. Whatever the outcome, the Board of course has the power to choose a different path, either in the exercise of its fiduciary duty, or because of GAC Advice. My sense is that your approach has been developed in order to expedite matters, but in fact it improperly characterizes the Council as not having a role in connection with an issue raised at the Council level by IRT Staff and the Council IRT Co-Liaisons. If you want to cede authority to the Board to expedite the matter, it would be best to offer the following as an alternative approach: A. The Council is the proper body to consider differences of agreement at the IRT Level and the proper intent and implementation of policy and reserves the right to do so in accordance with its Operating Procedures. B. However, in this situation, the Council understands that the Board has expressed preferences and some concerns with the majority view of the IRT and that the Board has both a fiduciary duty and the power to make the implementation decision in connection with its conclusion regarding the Global Public Interest. C. Therefore, the Council will instruct its Sub Pro liaisons to advise the IRT and ICANN staff to leave the decision of Option 1 or Option 2 to the ICANN Board. Whatever the Council does, it should definitely NOT set a precedent that states that it is not Council's role to provide guidance to an IRT when there is a disagreement at the IRT level. All our procedures are designed to protect against that view. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 12:54 PM Thomas Rickert | rickert.law via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, In preparation of the discussion on the IGO/INGO matter, please find below a proposal for a letter we could send to the Board. I suggest to make this part of the deliberations during the extraordinary meeting before we get to the vote. As there is not too much time before the meeting, feedback and questions are welcome so we can advance the discussion as much as possible before we meet. Kind regards, Thomas [ ] October 2025 Protection of IGO/INGO Identifiers Tripti Sinha, Chair ICANN Board Dear Tripti, Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2025 regarding the scope of protection for IGO and INGO names in future rounds of new gTLDs, and the potential for this issue to give rise to a global public interest concern. This is a complex issue. The GNSO Council notes the following: * Policy potentially impacting on this issue is set out across various documents, including the following: * the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process (IGO-INGO PDP Final Report); * The Final Report of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (SubPro Final Report); * Phase 1 Final Report of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names (IDN PDP Final Report). * These policy recommendations have been adopted by the Board. * Recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP make reference to the Applicant Guidebook applicable to the 2012 Round (the AGB 2012). * The AGB 2012 was the mechanism by which the 2007 policy recommendations were implemented. There is a new AGB (the 2026 AGB) which will be applicable to the next Round of new gTLDs (the 2026 Round). * Much has changed since the 2012 Round, including new terminology and definitions, and a more complex assessment of string similarity to reflect the availability of IDN variants at the top level in the 2026 Round. The scope of protection to be afforded to IGO and INGO names must be considered in this context. We have heard from both staff and the Board that the two options set out in the staff briefing paper might serve to implement the relevant policy recommendations. Members of Council, on the instructions of their respective SGs and Cs have differing views as to which option best reflects the policy recommendations, from which we conclude that both options are plausible. It is not the role of the GNSO Council to pick between two plausible implementations - we see that as the responsibility of the Board. We ask therefore that the Board instruct staff to proceed with implementation in the manner that you believe is the most appropriate to meet the intent of the policy recommendations. Although our GNSO Operating Procedures do not directly cover this scenario, we consider there to be support for referring this back to the Board within paragraph 14 of the PDP Manual, which deals with the situation where staff’s proposed implementation is considered inconsistent with the GNSO Council recommendations. Based on the preference you expressed in your letter it appears that the following outcome would be unlikely, but for the avoidance of doubt if the Board and staff were to reach the conclusion that the implementation described in Option 1 should be adopted, we note that the Board proposes that the relevant protected organizations will be contacted after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list. We also note that the Board would encourage the GAC to likewise contact the relevant organizations, and that you anticipate the possibility that the GAC might issue consensus advice regarding applications for strings that appear to be confusingly similar to the strings on the Reserved Names list. These steps seem sensible to ensure that the relevant protected organizations would be made aware of confusingly similar applications and would be able to utilize such challenge mechanisms as they deem appropriate. Sincerely, Nacho Amadoz and Tomslin Samme-Nlar Interim co-chairs of the GNSO Von: Johan Helsingius via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Datum: Freitag, 3. Oktober 2025 um 18:00 An: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Betreff: [council] Re: Reminder: Input welcome on GNSO Council agenda for 2025 meetings On 03/10/2025 17:56, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

Dear Councilors, Steve and I are finalizing the background slides for Oct 9. To allay any fears regarding premature voting without sufficient discussion, I have added some clarifications to the agenda which should address Paul's concerns. In this regard, I have corrected text to note that the issue was referred to Council by the IRT Staff, not by the Board.

Thank you for the clarifications, Anne! Julf _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!ohxfoKKGpZy0kqnN8tJ8DKZ4IBu3oZ-UbbQlcY0VEhb7NziTl621rS2Ih2JWczRgoXfQvK6z17CrZSoy$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!ohxfoKKGpZy0kqnN8tJ8DKZ4IBu3oZ-UbbQlcY0VEhb7NziTl621rS2Ih2JWczRgoXfQvK6z1wEP0Y0k$>). 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. _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!ohxfoKKGpZy0kqnN8tJ8DKZ4IBu3oZ-UbbQlcY0VEhb7NziTl621rS2Ih2JWczRgoXfQvK6z17CrZSoy$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!ohxfoKKGpZy0kqnN8tJ8DKZ4IBu3oZ-UbbQlcY0VEhb7NziTl621rS2Ih2JWczRgoXfQvK6z1wEP0Y0k$>). 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.

On 02/10/2025 21:34, Anne ICANN via council wrote:

The only thing I am "digging in" on is the fact that Council is the manager of the PDP process and of proper Implementation when a disagreement arises at the IRT level.  Again please see Susan's memo in response to you on Monday September 29 citing Operating Procedures etc. I think it is quite dangerous for Council to abdicate this responsibility as you are recommending.  It would set a very bad precedent.  This is without regard to how the vote turns out.

I agree. To me it feels a bit like the Board is telling us what they want (and happens to be easy for them). It might not be our preferred way from a procedural point of view. Julf

Dear councilors, A reminder to all that a Google doc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> is open for all to add their suggestions and comments to the upcoming GNSO Council meeting agendas. This does not have to be in the form of a full agenda item proposal, simple comments and questions are equally welcome! You are welcome to add to the document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzK...> via the comments feature. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO