FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO's consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations "the protected organizations"); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP ("the Applicable Recommendations"), the so-called "Options 1 and 2" as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board's interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed "ineligible for delegation" under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board's consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board's letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] ________________________________ 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>
Hi Susan, We will wait until Nacho confirms friendly amendment before updating the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 11:35 AM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC4E49.18D67800]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC4E49.18D67800]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC4E49.18D67800] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC4E49.18D67800] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC4E49.18D67800] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC4E49.18D67800] ________________________________ 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>
Hi all, Option 4 has now been updated on the wiki motions page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 11:49 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) I very happily confirm :) Nacho Amadoz El 5 nov. 2025, a les 18:41, Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> va escriure: Hi Susan, We will wait until Nacho confirms friendly amendment before updating the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 11:35 AM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC4E4F.E1FEFE40] ________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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, Under GNSO Operating Procedures 4.3.5, where parallel Motions dealing with the same topic are "on the table", Council should seek to narrow the choices of items on which Council members will be voting. In the IGO/INGO matter dealing with Reserved Names, Motions 1, 2, and 3 were preserved to allow time for the language of Motion 4 to become stable and to give new Councilors an opportunity to review and discuss all alternatives with their groups. Accordingly, if any Councilor objects to the withdrawal of Motion 1, or Motion 2, or Motion 3 for voting purposes, please advise Lawrence (as seconder) and me by reply no later than Monday, November 10, 2300 UTC. As we understand it, no further deferral of the Motions is permitted and Council will vote on Motion 4 in our meeting on November 13 once we are able to confirm withdrawal of Motions 1, 2, and 3. Voting options include "yes", "no", or "abstain". Please consult the Operating Procedures Section 4 for rules governing statements to be made in connection with voting. Thank you, Anne Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 11:30 AM Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all,
Option 4 has now been updated on the wiki motions page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Policy Team Supporting the GNSO
*From: *Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> *Date: *Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 11:49 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, "council@icann.org" < council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
I very happily confirm :)
Nacho Amadoz
El 5 nov. 2025, a les 18:41, Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> va escriure:
Hi Susan,
We will wait until Nacho confirms friendly amendment before updating the motions wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
Policy Team Supporting the GNSO
*From: *Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 11:35 AM *To: *Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc: *GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy
28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com>*
*Follow us on LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> **and YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>
[image: Image removed by sender.] ------------------------------
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>
_______________________________________________ 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 Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC4E79.43B0ECB0] ________________________________ 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>
Hi Lawrence, Susan, and Nacho, I think that Lawrence is suggesting the possibility that without Paragraph 3(f), Option 4 may not pass. It appears it is a substitute for Option 1 so perhaps we can withdraw that one but it would be difficult to withdraw Options 2 and 3 when we do not know if Option 4 will pass. (There are many new Councilors and deletion of 3(f) may change some votes.) I think Lawrence and I feel comfortable withdrawing Option 1. What are your thoughts at this time? (Please reply all.) Are registrars sill planning to abstain? Do you know how Gaurev will vote? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 11:06 AM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>**Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>**approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>**approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>**briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy
28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com>*
*Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
* <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>* * <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en>* * <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/>* * <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
------------------------------ 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>* _______________________________________________ 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 All, I am in support of withdrawing Option 1 as its not in any way in conflict with Option 4. LOR ----- [Image] [Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image] [Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2025 7:03 PM To: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence, Susan, and Nacho, I think that Lawrence is suggesting the possibility that without Paragraph 3(f), Option 4 may not pass. It appears it is a substitute for Option 1 so perhaps we can withdraw that one but it would be difficult to withdraw Options 2 and 3 when we do not know if Option 4 will pass. (There are many new Councilors and deletion of 3(f) may change some votes.) I think Lawrence and I feel comfortable withdrawing Option 1. What are your thoughts at this time? (Please reply all.) Are registrars sill planning to abstain? Do you know how Gaurev will vote? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 11:06 AM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:ii_19a649d66c14cff311]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:ii_19a649d66c25b16b22]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:ii_19a649d66c2692e333] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:ii_19a649d66c27745b44] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:ii_19a649d66c2855d355] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:ii_19a649d66c2935e6e6] ________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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 all, As Anne and Lawrence are maker and seconder of Option 1 and in agreement, we will withdraw option 1. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts" <lawrence@microboss.org> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2025 at 6:45 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear All, I am in support of withdrawing Option 1 as its not in any way in conflict with Option 4. LOR ----- [Image removed by sender. Image] [Image removed by sender. Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image removed by sender. Image] [Image removed by sender. Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image removed by sender. Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2025 7:03 PM To: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence, Susan, and Nacho, I think that Lawrence is suggesting the possibility that without Paragraph 3(f), Option 4 may not pass. It appears it is a substitute for Option 1 so perhaps we can withdraw that one but it would be difficult to withdraw Options 2 and 3 when we do not know if Option 4 will pass. (There are many new Councilors and deletion of 3(f) may change some votes.) I think Lawrence and I feel comfortable withdrawing Option 1. What are your thoughts at this time? (Please reply all.) Are registrars sill planning to abstain? Do you know how Gaurev will vote? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 11:06 AM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DC5212.AF3F4340]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DC5212.AF3F4340]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DC5212.AF3F4340] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DC5212.AF3F4340] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DC5212.AF3F4340] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DC5212.AF3F4340] Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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> _______________________________________________ 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.
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image007.png@01DC5284.1EF90830] <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: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO's consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations "the protected organizations"); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP ("the Applicable Recommendations"), the so-called "Options 1 and 2" as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board's interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed "ineligible for delegation" under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board's consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board's letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image008.png@01DC5284.1EF90830]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image009.png@01DC5284.1EF90830]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image010.png@01DC5284.1EF90830] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image011.png@01DC5284.1EF90830] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image012.png@01DC5284.1EF90830] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image013.jpg@01DC5284.1EF90830] ________________________________ 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/> ________________________________ 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/>
Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png> <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: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
Redline:
Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations
Submitted By: Susan Payne
Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>
<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>
<image013.jpg>
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/> 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/>
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. *I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:* With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: *"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation ReviewTeam and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations(IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, inwhich applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. TheGAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting thisinclusion.Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringeexisting legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of newgTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GACcontinues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributionsfollowing the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."* *PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT* To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image007.png> <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:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne < susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>**Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>**approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>**approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>**briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on** LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>** and** YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png>* <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> *<image010.png>* <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> *<image011.png>* <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> *<image012.png>* <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>
<image013.jpg> ------------------------------ 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/>* ------------------------------ 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/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
Supporting Anne's amendment since it just reiterates a recommendation that has been already envisioned by the PDP and gives non-policy advice to IRT to consider. P.S. During SPS I suggest we talk about the council-IRT relationship a bit more and I will go and educate myself on guidelines we already have. Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:15 AM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation ReviewTeam and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations(IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, inwhich applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. TheGAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting thisinclusion.Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringeexisting legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of newgTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GACcontinues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributionsfollowing the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image007.png> <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:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne < susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>**Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>**approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>**approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>**briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on** LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>** and** YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png>* <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> *<image010.png>* <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> *<image011.png>* <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> *<image012.png>* <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>
<image013.jpg> ------------------------------ 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/>* ------------------------------ 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/>
_______________________________________________ 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 Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> ________________________________ 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/> ________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *<image007.png> <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:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>**Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>**approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>**approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>**briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>**Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy *<image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/>* 28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>* *<image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en>* *<image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/>* *<image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
<image013.jpg> ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho.
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4.
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn”
Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------
*From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members,
Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All
Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*<image007.png> <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>*
*Error! Filename not specified.*
*From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------
*From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy
*<image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/>*
28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>*
*Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>** <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
<image013.jpg>
*Error! Filename not specified.* ------------------------------
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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>* ------------------------------
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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4) Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC53E3.1A65E800] <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: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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/>
Good morning, After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). 3 g) would then read as follows: g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.
Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)
Whereas:
In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council;
On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council
approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board
approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff
briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent
correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and,
The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image001.png> <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: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat <mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org <mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat <mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat <mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."
PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com <mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255
<image007.png> <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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org <mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com <mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org <mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
Redline:
Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations
Submitted By: Susan Payne
Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>
<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>
<image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/> 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>
_______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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/>
Hi Nacho - the text seems to say there will be notification of "any applied-for strings" and that could mean all strings having nothing to do with the Reserved Names. Would "any relevant applied-for strings" be acceptable and then let the IRT figure this out? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:27 PM Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> wrote:
Good morning,
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g).
3 g) would then read as follows:
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings.
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g).
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time.
Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image001.png> <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:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, " council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation ReviewTeam and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations(IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, inwhich applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. TheGAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting thisinclusion.Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringeexisting legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of newgTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GACcontinues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributionsfollowing the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*<image007.png> <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>* *Error! Filename not specified.* *From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy *<image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/>* 28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>** <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
<image013.jpg> *Error! Filename not specified.* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------ 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/>
Dear Nacho, Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar. Lawrence ----- [Image] [Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image] [Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Good morning, After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). 3 g) would then read as follows: g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. Nacho El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure: Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4) Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image001.png><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: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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/>
Dear Susan, Nacho, all, If I may, I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”. I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g). Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. 4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends: a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps: 1. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC; 2. That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and 3. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. 7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Nacho,
Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.
Lawrence
-----
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*Lawrence* *Olawale-Roberts* Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*…collaboration to enhance communication*.
[image: Image]
[image: Image] <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech>
[image: Image] <https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en>
[image: Image] <https://www.youtube.com/@microboss>
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------ *From:* Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Good morning,
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g).
3 g) would then read as follows:
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings.
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g).
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time.
Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image001.png> <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:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, " council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*<image007.png> <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>* *Error! Filename not specified.* *From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy *<image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/>* 28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>** <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
<image013.jpg> *Error! Filename not specified.* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------ 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/>
_______________________________________________ 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’m sorry Justine, all, at this point I think we need to draw a line. We cannot keep wordsmithing this at the 11th hour. The text of the majority of this Motion has been stable for many weeks, I’m not prepared to accept substantial changes and restructuring now. This is just a set of recommendations of steps we think are reasonable, and we need to avoid these being unduly prescriptive. I’d be willing to accept Anne’s suggested amendment to Nacho’s request as friendly, if Nacho also agrees. This would make 3(g): g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar relevant applied-for strings. If not, then if anyone wishes to push for further changes to the Motion on our upcoming call they can do so, and we will discuss and vote as needed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC5494.851EE640] <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: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> Sent: 13 November 2025 11:46 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan, Nacho, all, If I may, I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”. I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g). Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. 4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends: a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps: a. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC; b. That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and c. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. 7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Nacho, Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar. Lawrence ----- Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> …collaboration to enhance communication. https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Good morning, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3 g) would then read as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Whereas:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Resolved:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image001.png><https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> From: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Assume this will be viewed as friendly.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne Aikman-Scalese<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> GNSO Councilor <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> anneicanngnso@gmail.com<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Council,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn”<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks all!<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Terri<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Lawrence<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Best wishes <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Farzaneh <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org> wrote:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Council Members,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Lawrence.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Get Outlook for iOS<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Council Members,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne Aikman-Scalese<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> GNSO Councilor<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> anneicanngnso@gmail.com<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> wrote:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Susan and all, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> All<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Many thanks all.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image007.png><https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Susan and All,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Lawrence.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Trying again with the correct address<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi colleagues<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Redline:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Submitted By: Susan Payne<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Whereas:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Resolved:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image008.png><https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> comlaude.com<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube <image009.png> <image010.png> <image011.png> <image012.png> <image013.jpg><https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
Thanks Susan - agree and I believe Steve clarified in Dublin that one deferral is the maximum permitted. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 5:08 AM Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
I’m sorry Justine, all, at this point I think we need to draw a line. We cannot keep wordsmithing this at the 11th hour. The text of the majority of this Motion has been stable for many weeks, I’m not prepared to accept substantial changes and restructuring now. This is just a set of recommendations of steps we think are reasonable, and we need to avoid these being unduly prescriptive.
I’d be willing to accept Anne’s suggested amendment to Nacho’s request as friendly, if Nacho also agrees. This would make 3(g): g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar relevant applied-for strings. If not, then if anyone wishes to push for further changes to the Motion on our upcoming call they can do so, and we will discuss and vote as needed. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <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:* Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> *Sent:* 13 November 2025 11:46 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat
*Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan, Nacho, all, If I may, I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”. I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g). Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. 4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends: a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps: a. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC; b. That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and c. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. 7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote: Dear Nacho, Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar. Lawrence ----- *Lawrence* *Olawale-Roberts* Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org *…collaboration to enhance communication*. https://www.microboss.org | <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From:* Nacho Amadoz via council <*council@icann.org*> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM *To:* Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> *Cc:* *council@icann.org* <*council@icann.org*>; GNSO-Secs < *gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Good morning, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3 g) would then read as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> va escriure: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Whereas: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its *Final Report [gnso.icann.org]* to the GNSO Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council *approved [gnso.icann.org]* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board *approved* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff *briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent *correspondence* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Resolved: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the *Board’s letter *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image001.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From:* Terri Agnew via council <*council@icann.org*> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Cc:* *council@icann.org*; GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Motion wiki page: *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From: *Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <*terri.agnew@icann.org*> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <*farzaneh.badii@gmail.com*>, "*lawrence@microboss.org*" <*lawrence@microboss.org*>, Nacho Amadoz <*nacho@amadoz.cat*>, " *council@icann.org*" <*council@icann.org*>, GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*
*Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Assume this will be viewed as friendly. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne Aikman-Scalese <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> GNSO Councilor <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *anneicanngnso@gmail.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <*terri.agnew@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Council, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Motion wiki page: *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Please keep using the *council@icann.org* mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks all! <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Terri <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From: *farzaneh badii <*farzaneh.badii@gmail.com*> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"*lawrence@microboss.org*" <*lawrence@microboss.org*> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*>, Nacho Amadoz < *nacho@amadoz.cat*>, "*council@icann.org*" <*council@icann.org*>, GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Lawrence <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Best wishes <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Farzaneh <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < *council@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Council Members, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Lawrence. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Get *Outlook for iOS* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From:* Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <*nacho@amadoz.cat*>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < *lawrence@microboss.org*> *Cc:* Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*>; *council@icann.org* < *council@icann.org*>; GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Council Members, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Anne Aikman-Scalese <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> GNSO Councilor <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *anneicanngnso@gmail.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < *council@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi Susan and all, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> va escriure: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> All <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Many thanks all. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image007.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Follow us on LinkedIn** and YouTube* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Error! Filename not specified.* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne < susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Dear Susan and All, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Lawrence. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Trying again with the correct address <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Hi colleagues <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Thanks <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Redline:* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Submitted By: Susan Payne* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Whereas: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Resolved: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <image008.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *28 Little Russell Street,* *London* *WC1A 2HN,* *UK* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> *Follow us on* *LinkedIn* *and* *YouTube* *<image009.png>* *<image010.png>* *<image011.png>* *<image012.png>* <image013.jpg> *Error! Filename not specified.* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> _______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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.
Well understood, Susan. Thanks, Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 20:07, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> wrote:
I’m sorry Justine, all, at this point I think we need to draw a line. We cannot keep wordsmithing this at the 11th hour. The text of the majority of this Motion has been stable for many weeks, I’m not prepared to accept substantial changes and restructuring now. This is just a set of recommendations of steps we think are reasonable, and we need to avoid these being unduly prescriptive.
I’d be willing to accept Anne’s suggested amendment to Nacho’s request as friendly, if Nacho also agrees. This would make 3(g):
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar relevant applied-for strings.
If not, then if anyone wishes to push for further changes to the Motion on our upcoming call they can do so, and we will discuss and vote as needed.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*Follow us on* *LinkedIn* <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> *and* *YouTube* <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0>
*From:* Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> *Sent:* 13 November 2025 11:46 *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz < nacho@amadoz.cat> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan, Nacho, all,
If I may,
I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”.
I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g).
Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments:
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025.
4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends:
a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string;
b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund.
6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps:
a. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC;
b. That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and
c. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Justine
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Nacho,
Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.
Lawrence
-----
*Lawrence* *Olawale-Roberts* Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org
*…collaboration to enhance communication*.
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From:* Nacho Amadoz via council <*council@icann.org*> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM *To:* Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> *Cc:* *council@icann.org* <*council@icann.org*>; GNSO-Secs < *gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Good morning, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
3 g) would then read as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Nacho <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> va escriure: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Whereas: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its *Final Report [gnso.icann.org]* to the GNSO Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council *approved [gnso.icann.org]* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board *approved* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff *briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent *correspondence* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Resolved: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the *Board’s letter *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<image001.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From:* Terri Agnew via council <*council@icann.org*> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Cc:* *council@icann.org*; GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Motion wiki page: *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From: *Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <*terri.agnew@icann.org*> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <*farzaneh.badii@gmail.com*>, " *lawrence@microboss.org*" <*lawrence@microboss.org*>, Nacho Amadoz < *nacho@amadoz.cat*>, "*council@icann.org*" <*council@icann.org*>, GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Anne <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Anne Aikman-Scalese <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
GNSO Councilor <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*anneicanngnso@gmail.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <*terri.agnew@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Hi Council, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Motion wiki page: *https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Please keep using the *council@icann.org* mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks all! <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Terri <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From: *farzaneh badii <*farzaneh.badii@gmail.com*> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"*lawrence@microboss.org*" <*lawrence@microboss.org*> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*>, Nacho Amadoz < *nacho@amadoz.cat*>, "*council@icann.org*" <*council@icann.org*>, GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Hi Lawrence <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Best wishes
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Farzaneh <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < *council@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Dear Council Members, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Lawrence. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Get *Outlook for iOS* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From:* Anne ICANN <*anneicanngnso@gmail.com*> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <*nacho@amadoz.cat*>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < *lawrence@microboss.org*> *Cc:* Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*>; *council@icann.org* < *council@icann.org*>; GNSO-Secs <*gnso-secs@icann.org*> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Dear Council Members, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Anne <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Anne Aikman-Scalese <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
GNSO Councilor <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*anneicanngnso@gmail.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < *council@icann.org*> wrote: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Hi Susan and all, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Nacho <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com*> va escriure: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
All <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Many thanks all. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<image007.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Follow us on LinkedIn** and YouTube* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Error! Filename not specified.* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org>; Susan Payne < susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Dear Susan and All, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Lawrence. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*From:* Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Trying again with the correct address <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Hi colleagues <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Thanks <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Redline:* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Submitted By: Susan Payne* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Whereas: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] to the GNSO Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Resolved: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<image008.png> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*28 Little Russell Street,* *London* *WC1A 2HN,* *UK* *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*comlaude.com* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Follow us on* *LinkedIn* *and* *YouTube*
*<image009.png>* *<image010.png>* *<image011.png>* *<image012.png>*
<image013.jpg> <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
*Error! Filename not specified.* <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
_______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
_______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> ------------------------------ <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
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://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
_______________________________________________ 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. <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
------------------------------ 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/>
Hi all - I think it is too late to consider a complete reorganization of the Motion. I recommend simply changing the RySG edit to "all relevant applied-for strings" since we refer to "relevant protected organizations" in 3(g) and there are other references in Paragraph 3 to which the IRT may refer when determining the best language to add to the Reserved Names section of the AGB. Please note that this 3(g) language talks about IRT "consideration" so there is flexibility here. I am reminded of a valuable line from Star Wars - "Stay on target, Luke!!" Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:47 AM Justine Chew via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Susan, Nacho, all,
If I may,
I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”.
I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g).
Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments:
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2.
The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025.
4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends:
a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string;
b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund.
6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps:
1.
That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC;
2.
That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and
3.
That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Justine
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Nacho,
Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.
Lawrence
-----
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*Lawrence* *Olawale-Roberts* Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*…collaboration to enhance communication*.
[image: Image]
[image: Image] <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech>
[image: Image] <https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en>
[image: Image] <https://www.youtube.com/@microboss>
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------ *From:* Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Good morning,
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g).
3 g) would then read as follows:
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings.
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g).
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time.
Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image001.png> <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:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, " council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz < nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*<image007.png> <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>* *Error! Filename not specified.* *From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqBMDFIKA$>* to the GNSO Council;
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*20131120-2__;Iw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuqV7sxsnM$>* all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report;
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-of-directors-30-04-2014-en#2.a>* those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”);
4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/460783617/2025-09-11*SubPro*IRT*Meeting*158a__;KysrKw!!PtGJab4!-UaMlrqitlfrcyLqy5lKooI3kkW2CBmaGJYWxMJq1OUCIIO7KlF3V2pki51x086qGHnmptaIX35SACl1nbIRbTuq720JlXs$>* but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations.
5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025.
6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>* to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council;
7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and,
8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> *of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate *the Reserved Names list *this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string.
b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC.
c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate.
d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of *any* the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy *<image008.png> <https://comlaude.com/>* 28 Little Russell Street, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN, <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255 *comlaude.com <http://comlaude.com/>* *Follow us on* *LinkedIn <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>* *and* *YouTube <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0>*
*<image009.png> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude>** <image010.png> <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png> <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude>*
<image013.jpg> *Error! Filename not specified.* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>* ------------------------------ 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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 <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see *www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/>*
_______________________________________________ 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.
------------------------------ 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/>
_______________________________________________ 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 just trying to be helpful: what is the language in the PDP recommendations? We shall use that instead of using our own words. Farzaneh On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 7:11 AM Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all - I think it is too late to consider a complete reorganization of the Motion. I recommend simply changing the RySG edit to "all relevant applied-for strings" since we refer to "relevant protected organizations" in 3(g) and there are other references in Paragraph 3 to which the IRT may refer when determining the best language to add to the Reserved Names section of the AGB. Please note that this 3(g) language talks about IRT "consideration" so there is flexibility here.
I am reminded of a valuable line from Star Wars - "Stay on target, Luke!!"
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:47 AM Justine Chew via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Susan, Nacho, all,
If I may,
I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”.
I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g).
Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments:
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2.
The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025.
4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends:
a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string;
b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund.
6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps:
1.
That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC;
2.
That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and
3.
That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB.
7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Justine
On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Nacho,
Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar.
Lawrence
-----
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*Lawrence* *Olawale-Roberts* Global President & Managing Director
Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org
[image: Image]
[image: Image]
*…collaboration to enhance communication*.
[image: Image]
[image: Image] <https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/>
[image: Image] <https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech>
[image: Image] <https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en>
[image: Image] <https://www.youtube.com/@microboss>
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it,
use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss.
Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ------------------------------ *From:* Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Good morning,
After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g).
3 g) would then read as follows:
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings.
We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g).
Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time.
Nacho
El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience.
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4)* Whereas:
1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent.
3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps:
a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings.
4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
<image001.png> <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:* Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* 12 November 2025 14:34 *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho.
The following has been added to option 4 under resolved.
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
*From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM *To: *Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> *Cc: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>, " council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment.
In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5:
5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.
Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Council,
At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4.
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is.
Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg
Please keep using the council@icann.org mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov.
Thanks all!
Terri
*From: *farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM *To: *"lawrence@microboss.org" <lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Nacho Amadoz < nacho@amadoz.cat>, "council@icann.org" <council@icann.org>, GNSO-Secs < gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Hi Lawrence
Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge.
Best wishes
Farzaneh
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready.
Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue.
Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3.
Lawrence.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM *To:* Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts < lawrence@microboss.org> *Cc:* Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; council@icann.org < council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4.
*I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below:*
With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states:
*"The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting."*
*PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT*
To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows:
"The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names."
Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council < council@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Susan and all,
I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly.
Thanks
Nacho
El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> va escriure:
All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows:
3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same.
The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice.
Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly?
Many thanks all.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 *Ext* 255
*<image007.png> <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>* *Error! Filename not specified.* *From:* Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <*lawrence@microboss.org <lawrence@microboss.org>*> *Sent:* 06 November 2025 18:06 *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*>; Susan Payne <*susan.payne@comlaude.com <susan.payne@comlaude.com>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Dear Susan and All,
Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one.
I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work.
As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion.
Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool.
Lawrence. ------------------------------ *From:* Susan Payne via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM *To:* Anne ICANN via council <*council@icann.org <council@icann.org>*> *Cc:* 'GNSO-Secs' <*gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org>*> *Subject:* [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4)
Trying again with the correct address
Hi colleagues
Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment.
Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November.
Thanks
*Redline:*
*Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations*
*Submitted By: Susan Payne*
*Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz*
Dear all, I have gone through Justine’s edits and re-organization of the draft motion. It does not structurally change anything we had before, and hope Nacho’s concerns are addressed. I support we adopt this structural change to the draft motion 4. Lawrence. ----- [Image] [Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image] [Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Justine Chew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:46:26 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan, Nacho, all, If I may, I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”. I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g). Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. 4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends: a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps: 1. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations very soon 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC; 1. That Org should also contact the GAC very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and 1. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. 7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Nacho, Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar. Lawrence ----- [Image] [Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image] [Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Good morning, After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). 3 g) would then read as follows: g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. Nacho El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4) Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image001.png><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: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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.
Again, Lawrence, this is too late. We had largely stable text and were debating simply a few words in para 3(g). Councillors have taken instructions on the Motion as it is. Given the level of dissection of every single word, we cannot start having redrafts now. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC5499.D9778350] <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: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org> Sent: 13 November 2025 12:29 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Cc: council@icann.org; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear all, I have gone through Justine’s edits and re-organization of the draft motion. It does not structurally change anything we had before, and hope Nacho’s concerns are addressed. I support we adopt this structural change to the draft motion 4. Lawrence. ----- [Image removed by sender. Image] [Image removed by sender. Image] Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> [Image removed by sender. Image] [Image removed by sender. Image] …collaboration to enhance communication. [Image removed by sender. Image] https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> [Image removed by sender. Image]<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Justine Chew via council <council@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 12:46:26 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>; Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat> Cc: council@icann.org <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan, Nacho, all, If I may, I agree with Anne and Lawrence on the implications of RySG's proposed omission of the words “potentially confusingly-similar”. I would also suggest that some of the Resolved text be reorganized to clearly indicate what Council is recommending as opposed to encouraging. At the moment, it looks like all these are thrown into Resolved 3(a) to (g). Without placing final judgment on what it is that is being recommended versus encouraged, I offer for consideration the following reorganization of Resolved text with some clarification/amendments: Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. 2. 3. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this 5. interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. 3. The GNSO Council appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. 4. The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD string application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. 5. Given the above, the GNSO Council recommends: a) That the ICANN TLD Application Management System (TAMS) must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that potential TLD string applicants are fully aware of the existence of this list and its implications prior to submitting its choice of applied-for TLD string; b) That the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the Reserved Names section of the 2026 AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings; and e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar applied-for string, and give them the option to withdraw their application for that string for an appropriate refund. 6. The GNSO Council would also support and encourage the following steps: a. b. c. That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations d. very soon 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, and are aware of their options e. for bringing formal Objection or seeking support for action by the GAC; f. b. c. d. That Org should also contact the GAC e. very soon after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC f. members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate; and g. c. d. e. That the GAC should similarly contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are f. aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. g. 7. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 8. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Justine On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 19:16, Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Nacho, Going with your requested change, the entire meaning of the new paragraph 3(g) as intended is completely altered. The purpose is to provide notification to certain parties on just the strings termed Confusingly-Similar. Lawrence ----- Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. Lawrence Olawale-Roberts Global President & Managing Director Mobile: +234 8070892705, (0)8056 3333 97 Lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:Lawrence@microboss.org> Error! Filename not specified. Error! Filename not specified. …collaboration to enhance communication. Error! Filename not specified. https://www.microboss.org<https://www.microboss.org/> | Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.facebook.com/microbosstech/> Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.linkedin.com/company/microbosstech/> Error! Filename not specified.<https://mobile.twitter.com/microbosstech> Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.instagram.com/microbosstech/?hl=en> Error! Filename not specified.<https://www.youtube.com/@microboss> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not store it, copy it, re-transmit it, use it or disclose its contents, but should return it to the sender immediately and delete your copy from your system. The views expressed are those of the sender and his company MicroBoss. Kindly note that whilst we scan all e-mails for viruses, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail is virus-free. | Do consider the environment before printing this email. ________________________________ From: Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 7:27:01 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Good morning, After giving the matter some consideration, the RySG would like to suggest the following: to remove the “potentially confusingly-similar” language from 3g). 3 g) would then read as follows: g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any “potentially confusingly-similar” applied-for strings. We hope this language is acceptable. We consider this a minor editorial edit that does not alter the meaning or substance of 3 g). Thanks, and apologies for coming up with new language so close to the Council meeting time. Nacho El 12 nov. 2025, a les 15:46, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: Thanks everyone. As Anne mentioned, I had some suggested some slight edits to her proposed amendment, which we’ve now agreed, so I’m happy to accept as friendly. Since there have been a few changes, the whole of the motion is below, with the new updates in red for convenience. Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations (Option 4) Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 1. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 1. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the Board’s letter <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any potentially confusingly-similar applied-for strings. 1. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 1. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image001.png><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: Terri Agnew via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: 12 November 2025 14:34 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Anne, we will wait to receive additional updates from Susan/Nacho. The following has been added to option 4 under resolved. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2025 at 8:29 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>>, "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Thanks Terri. I believe Susan has some updated language on my suggested friendly amendment. In addition, I note as a technical point that there is some execution language missing from Option 4. Staff had added this language i relation to prior motions and I think it is needed in Motion 4 in a new Paragraph 5: 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. Assume this will be viewed as friendly. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 7:15 AM Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Council, At this time, Option 4 has been updated with friendly amendment (3f)submitted by Susan P and seconded by Nacho. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. Regarding Anne’s friendly amendment suggestion to Option 4 we would need both Susan and Nacho to agree to this as maker and seconder of option 4. "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Option 1 has been noted as “withdrawn” Option 2 and 3 have been left as is. Motion wiki page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg Please keep using the council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> mailing list to help sort this all out before the meeting on 13 Nov. Thanks all! Terri From: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com<mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 at 9:16 PM To: "lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>" <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>>, Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>, "council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>" <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Hi Lawrence Can you please specify what option 3 is. I am personally against sending anything to be decided by the board and anything that leads to new policy creation l! IRT is in charge of this and will remain in charge. Best wishes Farzaneh On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 7:35 PM Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I am supportive of the new text in 3(f) for Motion 4 and also consider Anne’s edit as friendly. With its addition Motion 4 looks almost ready. Should Motion 4 not gather enough votes to sail through, in-order not to create a lacuna on the advise required to be provided (as we are only voting on one option, not between both options), it might be best to tie in Option 3 to the decision made, such that the board could still make a call on the issue. Where there is a mechanism for the board to still act without need for an amendment to Motion 4, then we can proceed to withdraw Option 2 and Option 3. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2025 4:15 PM To: Nacho Amadoz <nacho@amadoz.cat<mailto:nacho@amadoz.cat>>; Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Cc: Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>>; council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Update to amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Council Members, Regarding the IGO/INGO Reserved Names issue, Lawrence and I have agreed to withdraw Motion 1 since the language is more fully reflected in Motion 4. Will staff please remove Motion 1 from the agenda as "Withdrawn"? Regarding Motions 2 and 3, I defer to Lawrence as to possible withdrawal of those Motions as he has expressed some concerns regarding the deletion of the original Paragraph 3(f) in Motion 4. I do have another friendly amendment to Motion 4 to propose and can explain as set out below: With respect to the new Paragraph 3(f) friendly amendment, this appears to be a restatement of the fact that any application can be subject to Objection procedures and/or GAC Early Warning and/or GAC Consensus Advice. In light of the GAC Communique language concerning this issue (see below), it appears that a third party applicant for a string confusingly similar to a Reserved Name protected string would be taking the risk of the application fee but perhaps without the knowledge that GAC Advice is likely to issue against any confusingly similar string. The ICANN84 Communique states: "The GAC takes note of ongoing discussions in the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team and GNSO Council concerning the inclusion of reserved Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) identifiers in the scope of String Similarity Evaluation in the Next Round of New gTLDs, in which applied-for strings are evaluated for string similarity against the list of reserved strings. The GAC takes note of letters from the ICANN Board and the ALAC to the GNSO Council supporting this inclusion. Against the backdrop of the GNSO policy recommendations for the introduction of new gTLDs that6 applied-for strings must not be confusingly similar to a reserved name, and must not infringe existing legal rights, and the 2007 GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs that the introduction of new gTLDs must make proper allowance for rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs, the GAC continues to monitor this evolving topic, and anticipates further discussions and contributions following the ICANN84 Dublin Meeting." PROPOSED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT To advance the principle of Predictability for applicants, I would propose to Susan and Nacho a friendly amendment to the new Motion 4 which adds an instruction to the IRT at the very end as follows: "The GNSO Council further instructs the IRT to include a provision in the Reserved Names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will be notifying the Government Advisory Committee and the protected organizations of any applications received for strings deemed confusingly similar to the Reserved Names." Especially in light of the GAC comments, it seems only fair to let potential applicants know of the added notification process that is being adopted by the Board and endorsed by the Council in Motion 4. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 3:49 AM Nacho Amadoz via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Susan and all, I confirm I would consider this amendment friendly. Thanks Nacho El 10 nov. 2025, a les 21:53, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> va escriure: All Following some discussion offline regarding the text of Motion 4, I am submitting one (hopefully) final amendment, which adds in an amended resolved clause 3(f), as follows: 3(f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. The intention of this is not to create any new rights or procedures, but to note that procedures already exist as to the treatment of applied-for strings which are the subject of an objection of receive GAC advice. Nacho, as seconder, would you please confirm for the avoidance of doubt whether you would view this amendment as friendly? Many thanks all. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 <image007.png><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> Error! Filename not specified. From: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts <lawrence@microboss.org<mailto:lawrence@microboss.org>> Sent: 06 November 2025 18:06 To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: Re: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Dear Susan and All, Thanks for picking the pen to suggest edits to this motion and all the work behind the scenes to arrive at a consensus on this one. I see your updated motion now has Section 3(f) deleted, unfortunately this is the only section in the draft motion that provides some PROTECTION for the safeguard of strings on the reserved name list pending adequate action. Many will agree that this draft motion without such protection especially for the IGO's that may be affected needs further work. As we are made to understand in some quarters that this Option under discuss was preferred by some IRT members, it would be helpful to build around their thinking of how the reserved names would be protected for exact strings and similar strings as guidance towards coding this into our draft motion. Where we have concensus on this language, i would propose that we consider substituting option 4 for option 1, whilst looking at a way forward on the other two options in the pool. Lawrence. ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 6:34 PM To: Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Cc: 'GNSO-Secs' <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] FW: Amended IGO/INGO Motion (former Motion 4) Trying again with the correct address Hi colleagues Please find below a redline of the draft Motion (4) on the IGO/INGO issue. The amendments are to remove para 3(f) to address concerns of the RySG. There are a couple of minor clean-ups as well, as you will see. I am hoping that Nacho will support this as a friendly amendment. Would you please seek voting instructions from your groups, we will vote on this on 13 November. Thanks Redline: Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> approved [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> approved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> correspondence<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29 October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> Board’s letter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list this List so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations 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, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any the applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council encourages the Board to ensure that Org puts appropriate mechanisms in place to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List, pending the conclusion of the Objection period, the outcome of any filed Objection, the outcome of any GAC Consensus Advice against a confusingly similar string, or confirmation from the GAC that it does not intend to issue Consensus Advice. Such an appropriate mechanism might include placing any confusingly similar application on hold, pending such resolution. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy <image008.png><https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> London<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> WC1A 2HN,<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> UK<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+%0D%0ALondon+WC...> T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> <image009.png><https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> <image010.png><https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> <image011.png><https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> <image012.png><https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> <image013.jpg> Error! Filename not specified. ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> ________________________________ 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>. 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/28+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2H...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/15+William+Street,+South+West+Lane,+Edinb...>; 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<https://www.google.com/maps/search/Calle+Barcas+2?entry=gmail&source=g>, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/> _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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/> _______________________________________________ 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/>
participants (7)
-
Anne ICANN -
farzaneh badii -
Justine Chew -
Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts -
Nacho Amadoz -
Susan Payne -
Terri Agnew