- SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

REMINDER | LATER TIME | SubPro IRT Meeting #159 | 18 September 2025, 17:00-19:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 17, 2025

Sept. 17, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF TIME OF THIS MEETING, NOW STARTING AT 17:00 UTC. THANK YOU FOR UPDATING YOUR CALENDARS. Dear All, Meeting #159 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 18 September 2025 at 17:00-19:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/3esfnpjk>]. The final agenda can be consulted here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB…>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

LATER TIME | SubPro IRT Meeting #159 | 18 September 2025, 17:00-19:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 17, 2025

Sept. 17, 2025

PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF TIME OF THIS MEETING, NOW STARTING AT 17:00 UTC. THANK YOU FOR UPDATING YOUR CALENDARS. Dear All, Meeting #159 of the SubPro IRT will be held on 18 September 2025 at 17:00-19:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/3esfnpjk>]. The final agenda can be consulted here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB…>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

Re: Letter from the Board to GNSO Council
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 17, 2025

Sept. 17, 2025

Thank you, Karen. I was just going to share that correspondence, too. In light of the letter, and the fact that there is a Council call on Thursday (18 Sept) at 05:00 UTC as well as a Next Round Board Caucus call in the afternoon (European time), I propose, we shift tomorrow’s IRT call to a later slot at 17:00 UTC. I apologize for the late notice, but I think it will be beneficial to our discussion and find a path forward. Therefore, we will change the agenda, and NOT discuss the engagement and outreach progress this Thursday; that call will shift to 30 September. For Thursday’s call (18 September, new time: 17 UTC) here is the proposed agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Reserved Names & String Sim 3. Terms and Conditions 4. Base RA Update 5. Upcoming Meetings Again, I apologize for the late notice in the change of time and agenda but I hope you agree that we should try and resolve these outstanding issues as soon as practicable. Thank you for your flexibility and understanding. Best. Lars From: Karen Day via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply to: Karen Day <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Date: Wednesday, 17 September 2025 at 03:18 To: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Letter from the Board to GNSO Council Forwarding for those not on the council mailing list. Best, [signatureImage] Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady LLC Phone: +1 (984) 335-4067 Email: Karen(a)elstermcgrady.com www.elstermcgrady.com [elstermcgrady.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.elstermcgrady.com__;!!PtGJab4!_3Ii_y6…>

1 0

Letter from the Board to GNSO Council
by Karen Day Sept. 17, 2025

Sept. 17, 2025

Forwarding for those not on the council mailing list. Best, [signatureImage] Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady LLC Phone: +1 (984) 335-4067 Email: Karen(a)elstermcgrady.com www.elstermcgrady.com<http://www.elstermcgrady.com>

1 0

Re: [Ext] Re: Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names
by Pruis, Elaine Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Thanks. For 375 labels, we’re talking about what many in the IRT view as “EXTRA” protection because the Policy by super majority at https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_43533/council-board-ig… says “Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Because of the extent of these lists I am opposed to any new policy creation. Option 1 (not included in string similarity) or 3 (defer to later) are the way forward. RedCross List: 24 Olympic List: 19 (see lists provided by Michael below) ECOSOC list compiled by the UN : 142 (acronym codes are not included right?) AfDBAfrican Development Bank AUAfrican Union ACPAfrican, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States OPANALAgency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean CANAndean Community CAFAndean Development Corporation ADBAsian Development Bank ALADIAsociación Latinoamericana de Integración ACSAssociation of Caribbean States ASEANAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations CARICOMCaribbean Community SICACentral American Integration System CSTOCollective Security Treaty Organization COICommission de l’Océan Indien CFCCommon Fund for Commodities CISCommonwealth of Independent States CEN-SADCommunity of Sahel-Saharan States CPLPComunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa GCCCooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf COECouncil of Europe EACEast African Community ECCASEconomic Community of Central African States ECOWASEconomic Community of West African States ECOEconomic Cooperation Organization ENCHARTEREnergy Charter Conference EABREurasian Development Bank EurAsECEurAsian Economic Community CERNEuropean Organization for Nuclear Research EUEuropean Union HCCHHague Conference on Private International Law IADBInter-American Development Bank IGADIntergovernmental Authority on Development ICMPDInternational Centre for Migration Policy Development ICC-CPIInternational Criminal Court IDLOInternational Development Law Organization IHFFCInternational Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission IHOInternational Hydrographic Organization IDEAInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance IOMInternational Organization for Migration IRENAInternational Renewable Energy Agency ISAInternational Seabed Authority ITLOSInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea IDBIslamic Development Bank Group IILAItalian-Latin American Institute SELALatin American and Caribbean Economic System PARLATINOLatin American Parliament LASLeague of Arab States OECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OIFOrganisation Internationale de la Francophonie OECSOrganisation of Eastern Caribbean States OICOrganisation of Islamic Cooperation GUAMOrganization for Democracy and Economic Development OASOrganization of American States BSECOrganization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation FORUMSECPacific Islands Forum PCAPermanent Court of Arbitration SCOShanghai Cooperation Organisation SAARCSouth Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SOUTHCENTRESouth Centre SADCSouthern African Development Community OFIDThe OPEC Fund for International Development UEMOAUnion Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine UNASURUnion of South American Nations WCOWorld Customs Organization AIPOAfrican Intellectual Property Organization APPAAfrican Petroleum Producers Association ARIPOAfrican Regional Intellectual Property Organization ACTOAmazon Cooperation Treaty Organization ASEAN Promotion Centre on Trade, Investment, and Tourism a) APOAsian Productivity Organization BISBank for International Settlements BOIPBenelux Organization for Intellectual Property BSTDPBlack Sea Trade and Development Bank BIPMBureau International des Poids et Mesures CTUCarribean Telecommunications Union BCEAOCentral Bank of West African States CEPTConférence européenne des administrations des postes et des télécommunications CEBCouncil of Europe Development Bank EFTACOURTEFTA Court EFTASURVEFTA Surveillance Authority EUCLIDEUCLID University EAPOEurasian Patent Organization EURATOMEuropean Atomic Energy Community EBRDEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development ECBEuropean Central Bank ECMWFEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts ECEuropean Commission ECMTEuropean Conference of Ministers of Transport EUCOEuropean Council EEASEuropean External Action Service EFIEuropean Forest Institute EFTAEuropean Free Trade Association EIBEuropean Investment Bank EMBLEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory ESOEuropean Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere EUROCONTROLEuropean Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation EPEuropean Parliament EPOEuropean Patent Office EPOEuropean Patent Organisation EUROPOLEuropean Police Office ESAEuropean Space Agency FAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IICInter-American Investment Corporation IACAInternational Anti-Corruption Academy IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency CIHEAMInternational Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies ICSIDInternational Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ICAOInternational Civil Aviation Organization ICCOInternational Cocoa Organization ICOInternational Coffee Organization ICJ-CIJInternational Court of Justice IDAInternational Development Association IEAInternational Energy Agency BIEInternational Exhibitions Bureau IFCInternational Finance Corporation IFADInternational Fund for Agricultural Development UNIDROITInternational Institute for the Unification of Private Law IJCInternational Joint Commission ILOInternational Labour Organization IMOInternational Maritime Organization IMSOInternational Mobile Satellite Organization IMFInternational Monetary Fund IOOCInternational Olive Oil Council INTERELECTROInternational Organization for Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Field of the Electrotechnical Industry ISTCInternational Science and Technology Center ISOInternational Sugar Organization ITUInternational Telecommunication Union ITSOInternational Telecommunications Satellite Organization ITFInternational Transport Forum ITTOInternational Tropical Timber Organization UPOVInternational Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants IWCInternational Whaling Commission ITERITER International Fusion Energy Organization MRCMekong River Commission MERCOSURMercado Común de Sur MIGAMultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency NIBNordic Investment Bank NPINordic Patent Institute NASCONorth Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organization PICESNorth Pacific Marine Science Organization OCCAROrganisation for Joint Armament Co-operation OHADAOrganisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa OPCWOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OIVOrganisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin OPECOrganization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries SPCPacific Community PAHOPan American Health Organization PUASPPostal Union of the Americas, Spain and Portugal CTBTOPreparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization COMESAThe Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa BENELUXUnion Benelux UNUnited Nations UNCCDUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Expecting Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa UNESCOUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCCUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNIDOUnited Nations Industrial Development Organization UPUUniversal Postal Union IBRDWorld Bank WHOWorld Health Organization WIPOWorld Intellectual Property Organization WMOWorld Meteorological Organization OIEWorld Organisation for Animal Health UNWTOWorld Tourism Organization WTOWorld Trade Organization AALCOAsian-African Legal Consultative Organization CICAConference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia ICGLRInternational Conference on the Great Lakes Region of Africa INTERPOLInternational Criminal Police Organization - INTERPOL IFASInternational Fund for Saving the Aral Sea IUCNInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources OSCEOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe PAMParliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean PPDPartners in Population and Development RECSARegional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States COMMONWEALTHThe Commonwealth UPEACEUniversity for Peace INTRACENInternational Trade Centre UNAIDSJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNICEFUnited Nations Children’s Fund UNCTADUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDPUnited Nations Development Programme UNWOMENUnited Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme UNHCRUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees /UN Refugee Agency UN-HABITATUnited Nations Human Settlements Programme UNICCUnited Nations International Computing Centre UNOPSUnited Nations Office for Project Services UNFPAUnited Nations Population Fund UNRWAUnited Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East UNUUnited Nations University WFPWorld Food Programme IGO List : 192 AARP Academic Council on the United Nations System Adventist Development and Relief Agency African Network of Young Leaders for Peace and Sustainable Development Agence internationale pour le développement Al-Khoei Foundation Asia Crime Prevention Foundation Asian Legal Resource Centre Association for Progressive Communications Association for Women’s Rights in Development Association of Medical Doctors of Asia AVSI Foundation Biovision Stiftung für ökologische Entwicklung Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University CARE International Caritas Internationalis Centre de recherches et de promotion pour la sauvegarde des sites et monuments historiques en Afrique Centre Europe-tiers monde Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74 China NGO Network for International Exchanges Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries CIDSE CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation Colombian Confederation of NGOs Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches Confederación Latinoamericana de Cooperativas de Ahorro y Crédito Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations Congregations of St. Joseph Consumers International Convention of Independent Financial Advisors Covenant House DEVNET Association Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration Environmental Development Action in the Third World Femmes Afrique solidarité Foundation for the Social Promotion of Culture/Fundación Promoción Soci al de la Cultura Foundation for the Support of the United Nations Franciscans International Friends World Committee for Consultation Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo Global Economist Forum Good Neighbors International Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan Council of North and South America Greenpeace International HelpAge International Humane Society of the United States Imam Ali’s Popular Students Relief Society Institute of International Law Institute of Noahide Code InterAction: American Council for Voluntary International Action International Alliance of Women International Association for Religious Freedom International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience, association sans but lucratif International Association of Lions Clubs International Association of Peace Foundations International Association of Soldiers for Peace International Association of University Professors and Lecturers International Center for Research on Women International Cooperative Alliance International Council of Environmental Law International Council of Voluntary Agencies International Council of Women International Council on Management of Population Programmes International Council on Social Welfare International Electrotechnical Commission International Eurasia Press Fund International Federation for Family Development International Federation of Associations of the Elderly International Federation of Business and Professional Women International Federation of Settlements and Neighbourhood Centres International Federation on Ageing International Health Awareness Network International Higher Education Academy of Sciences International Human Rights & Anti-Corruption Society International Indian Treaty Council International Informatization Academy International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis International Institute for Non-Aligned Studies International Institute of Administrative Sciences International Movement ATD Fourth World International Organization for Standardization International Organization of Employers International Planned Parenthood Federation International Road Transport Union International Trade Union Confederation International Transport Workers’ Federation International Union of Economists International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations Inter-Press Service International Association Islamic Relief USA Junior Chamber International Lazarus Union Legião da Boa Vontade/Legion of Good Will Liberal International Make Mothers Matter Médecins du monde Médecins sans frontières Muslim World League National Council of Negro Women New Humanity Nonviolent Radical Party, Transnational and Transparty ONG Hope International Organization for Industrial, Spiritual and Cultural Advancement Internationa l Organization of Islamic Capitals and Cities Oxfam International Parliamentarians for Global Action Perfect Union Plan International, Inc. RESO-Femmes Rotary International Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Russian Peace Foundation Save the Children International Socialist International Society for International Development Soroptimist International Sulabh International The Fishermen The Sant Nirankari Mandal, Delhi United Cities and Local Governments United Nations Association of China United Nations Association of Russia Universal Peace Federation Voluntary Service Overseas Women’s Federation for World Peace International Women’s International Democratic Federation World Animal Protection World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts World Blind Union World Conference of Religions for Peace World Family Organization World Federation of Trade Unions World Federation of United Nations Associations World Information Transfer World Muslim Congress World Organization of the Scout Movement World Veterans Federation World Vision International World Wide Fund for Nature International Yayasan Cinta Anak Bangsa Zonta International (Not too long to put in an email) Elaine From: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 3:58 PM To: Elaine Pruis <epruis(a)verisign.com> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Elaine, No problem at all. For the first two sources I’m adding the strings directly; however, for the last 2 sources I’ve pasted the link as there are too many to add directly in this email. The Reserved Names list is composed of strings on the following lists: Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun (in all 6 official UN languages). See image below for these strings: Olympic and Olympiad (in all 6 official UN languages plus German, Greek, and Korean). See image below for these strings: ECOSOC list compiled by the UN (Only the 142 organizations in General Consultative Status in English only, on page 3) See here: https://docs.un.org/en/E/2023/INF/5 All of the strings on this IGO list created by the GAC: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chal… I hope this helps, and please let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Best, Michael From: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 2:46 AM To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Sorry to be daft, but which strings exactly are reserved at the top level? The list of strings at the link below are in the many hundreds and say (reserved at the second level” Would you kindly paste the top level Reserved List in reply? Thanks. Elaine On Sep 15, 2025, at 6:35 PM, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Anne, In the AGB for the strings on the Reserved Names list we say: “The following Limited International IGO-INGOs strings are on the Reserved Names list and may be applied for through an exception process only by the relevant entity, provided it submits appropriate documentation as detailed in 6.2.2.2 below: Names added based on recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group regarding the protections of IGO-INGO identifiers in all gTLDs, including their allocatable variant strings, are eligible for delegation upon verification. These include: Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC), International Olympic Committee (IOC), and International Governmental Organization (IGO) – International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Names.” We also include multiple footnotes to clarify the source of the lists (in text). We can look at the IGO-INGO PDP policy recommendations which is more specific as to what strings are on the Reserved Names lists. The GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board lays it out clearly in Scope 1 of each recommendation: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_43533/council-board-ig… [secure-web.cisco.com] The recommendations point to the source of the strings (the GAC list), the ECOSOC General Consultative status list maintained by the UN, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent strings. ICANN has also included these strings on the bottom of this page here (Bullets 1 and 2): https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/res… [secure-web.cisco.com] Hope this helps and let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:22 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names P.S. Of course I know that we are talking about Top Level Reserved Names whereas the second level names which registries can reserve in the next round are completely different. Just trying to figure out if there are any other Top Level Reserved Names other than these particular IGO/NGO names? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:05 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> wrote: Many thanks Lars - very helpful. Are the IGO/NGO names the ONLY Reserved Names? (I may be confused with second level names that a registry is allowed to reserve - which went from 100 to 500 names in the next round?) Again, apologies for my lack of background on this but really need to understand the facts. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:54 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi Anne, A few answers to your questions in blue below, I am inviting @Sarmad Hussainand @Michael Karakash to chime in on Monday, too. Best. Lars From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Saturday, 13 September 2025 at 20:22 To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Cc: "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Thanks Elaine and staff. Where I am a bit hung up is as follows: I cannot conclude from the approved policy language that no other blocked name policy/procedure will apply to these "protected strings". In other words, I thought that based on past policy re blocked string status (ineligible for delegation), a string that is confusingly similar to a blocked string will not be delegated. Important to bear in mind that blocked names are different to what was referred to as ‘strings not eligible for delegation’ – the former are still called blocked names. these cannot be applied for by anyone, and all applied-for strings will be evaluated against these block names for string similarity. In case an applied-for string is found confusingly similar with a blocked name, the applied-for string cannot proceed. The question of whether reserved names, so names that can only be obtained by a specific organization for which the name has been in fact reserved (and these used to be called ‘strings ineligible for delegation’) should be part of the string similarity evaluation, too, is what is now being discussed. Are we distinguishing between Blocked Names and Reserved Names and saying that Reserved Names are not subject to a policy which prohibits delegation of a similar string? Yes, there is a clear difference between blocked and reserved names (see above). See also above. Generally speaking, is a new string that is judged to be similar to a Reserved Name string ineligible for delegation or not? Reminder that the terminology has changed. A reserved name is what the 2012 AGB referred to as a ‘string ineligible for delegation’. The IGO INGO identifiers are no reserved names and ICANN proposed to evaluate all applied-for strings against the reserved names list as these strings are ‘protected’ per 2013 policy recommendations. The clear majority of the IRT (of those who have spoken up) disagrees with this, arguing that only the exact name is protected and confusingly similar names can be delegated, meaning that applied for strings should NOT be evaluated for string similarity against the reserved names list, because that was the policy in 2012. And do applicants know this when they read the Reserved Names List? Yes, it is a list that is determined by policy How is the Reserved Names List determined? Policy – which, if I recall directly – also built on GAC advice and input from IGO/INGO, e.g., see here the public comment from the Red Cross on the IGO/INGO PDP Initial Report: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13/msg00000.ht… [forum.icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com] It sounds as though many IRT participants are saying that Reserved Names do not enjoy any protection from confusingly similar strings. Is that correct? Yes. I would say even that it is a clear majority of those that have spoken up on the call and on list. Or are we saying that Reserved Names are protected against delegation of confusingly similar strings but .redcross, .olympic, etc, are not so protected? Redcross etc. are reserved names because the red cross can apply for .redcross, but no one else can. I could be misunderstanding the deliberations on these "protected organizations" and "protected strings". Definitely need to understand this better. Please help. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:46 PM Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com> wrote: I believe the intention of the policy is to only allow The Red Cross to be the contracted party to operate .redcross. ICANN put forward two options that were developed while considering the policies and establishing the string similarity rules. I do not believe the policy allows for The Red Cross to “block” any applied for string that might “look like” .redcross, which is what the outcome of Option 2 from ICANN would be. Since there has been some discussion on the list since the call, I can support Katrin (and Mike’s) proposal to allow The Red Cross to later acquire .redcross even if there is a similar string delegated in this round. Ie, regardless of string similarity outcomes The Red Cross gets .redcross. Elaine From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 at 11:14 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital> Cc: Elaine Pruis <epruis(a)verisign.com>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks Chris, Elaine, and Ashley, Could you please clarify what you believe to be the intention of the policy? For example, Is it to permit the .redcross string to proceed only if it applied for in the same round as .rodcross (not later) and to allow it to proceed in spite of the string similarity? Are you saying the policy is: 1. .Redcross is permitted to proceed in a concurrent round regardless of Similarity - so both .redcross and .rodcross proceed if applied for in the same round? 2. . Redcross WILL BE SUBJECT to string similarity review and cannot proceed if a prior similar string like .rodcross has in fact been awarded? Is that the policy that protects these names? In other words, the protection applies only if the authorized entity is quick enough? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Still need to listen to the Thursday Zoom on this. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:53 AM Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: I agree with Ashley and Elaine. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 10 Sep 2025, at 16:03, Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Hello ICANN’s “Option 2: Reserved Names are protected based on who can apply for them, and also protected against other applied-for strings which are found confusingly similar during String Similarity Evaluation” would make more sense e IF the string similarity check was limited to the string on the Reserved list and applications for VARIANTS of that string, as ICANN provided this example in their paper: re̱dcross vs. redcross But there is no discussion in the proposal about limiting the string similarity check to variants of the reserved TLDs- So rodcross or redcress or redcrocs would be evaluated under Option 2 and most likely not proceed to delegation even if the party the string was reserved for does not apply (…“any similar string to Reserved Name cannot proceed and so cannot be delegated at any time”.) I agree with Ashely that is not the intention of the policy and we are not to create new policy. Therefore, “Option 1: Reserved Names are only protected based on who can apply for them, but go through String Similarity Evaluation like any other applied-for string if it is applied-for. a. Only entities for which Reserved Names are reserved for can apply for them, based on the process noted in AGB. b. Reserved Names will not be given any protection against similar strings”. Is the best way forward Elaine From: Ashley Roberts via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Elisa and Sarmad, Thanks for summarising the issue and offering two potential solutions. However, I disagree with ICANN’s conclusion that we should adopt option 2, as that would be creating new policy. Option 2 proposes to: In the case of contention between an IGO/RC/IOC applicant and a non-IGO/RC/IOC applicant, give priority to the IGO/RC/IOC applicant. This would create an entirely new method of priority for resolving contention. Include the Reserved Names list strings in the standard string similarity review performed by the ICANN evaluators. This is a reversal of the policy from the 2012 round, when Strings Ineligible for Delegation (as Reserved Names were known at the time) were explicitly excluded from the string similarity review. The paper asserts that “…based on remaining recommendations in SubPro and IDN EPDP Phase 1, ICANN proposes to move forward with option 2…”. However, I don’t believe there are any policy recommendations in either SubPro or the IDN EPDP Phase 1 which allow for either of the above rules. The original policy from the 2012 round AGB states in section 2.2.1.2.3 that: “the following [strings ineligible for delegation] names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list.” The SubPro final report affirmed the continuation of the 2012 rules on this topic in Affirmation 24.2: “…the Working Group affirms the standard used in the String Similarity Review from the 2012 round to determine whether an applied-for string is “similar” to any existing TLD, any other applied-for strings, Reserved Names, and in the case of 2-character IDNs, any single character or any 2-character ASCII string.” Note it does not list “strings ineligible for delegation” (i.e. the IGO/RC/IOC names) as a type of string subject to string similarity review. Similarly, section 4.4.1 of the IDN EPDP phase 1 report is clear on the types of name which are subject to string similarity review and “strings ineligible for delegation” are not among them: “If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name*, a two-character ASCII string, or any of the variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process.” Thus, implementing the two above rules proposed by option 2 would be creating new policy, which is not the job of the IRT. Whereas option 2 would create new policy, the path outlined in option 1 is consistent with existing policy. Therefore, option 1 is the only viable option outlined in your paper. Please note that both the SubPro and EPDP final reports use the old definition of “Reserved Names”, which is a little confusing. In those reports, the relevant term to describe the IOC/RC/IOC names is “strings ineligible for delegation”. For clarity and completeness you may want to make this clear in the annex of your paper. * Definitions of New gTLD Program Reserved Names and Strings Ineligible for Delegation, used by the IDN EPDP per their Final Report: New gTLD Program Reserved Name: A string that is reserved to maintain the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN, its bodies, or essential related functions of ICANN and IANA. For a full list of New gTLD Program Reserved Names, see Section 2.2.1.2.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the SubPro PDP recommended adding “PTI” to the New gTLD Program Reserved Names list. String Ineligible for Delegation: A string that is ineligible for delegation in order to provide special protections at the top-level and second-level for the names and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which receive protections under treaties and statutes across multiple jurisdictions. Those organizations specifically include the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I hope that makes sense. Please shout if anything in my explanation is unclear. Kind regards, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 <image001.png> [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] Follow us on LinkedIn [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] and YouTube [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] Error! Filename not specified. From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: 05 September 2025 12:10 To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Hello IRT, We have just published a paper concerning the String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names on the wiki page of meeting #158a: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] Sarmad will go through it during the call, but it would be appreciated if you could already review it and provide any input you may have on list. Many thanks, Elisa 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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] 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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com] 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.

2 1

A Compromise Proposal for String Similarity
by Jeffrey J. Neuman Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Can we have a potential middle ground proposal for the treatment of the now "Reserved Names"? 1. I was doing some thinking and although we have been using .redcross and .rodcross, the reality is that in 2012 those would not have been considered "confusingly similar" under the string similarity review. Why do I say this, because the "e" and the "o" are aurally distinct, and do not have the visual similarity that the evaluation was concerned with. They are not near each other on a keyboard, have different vowel sounds and different meanings. As a result we should not be using that example because it skews the entire discussion. 2. What we are really concerned about are visual homoglyphs in the same script. And the big issue is with the latin script. We are not concerned with .redcross with a cyrillic "d" because that would mix the scripts would not be allowed. We are concerned with things like: a).rédcross (Latin small e with acute) b) .reḋcross (Latin small e with dot above or d with dot) c) .redcròss (o with grave) d).redcrośs (s with acute) or: a) .o1ympic (digit 1 for “l”) b) .0lympic (digit 0 for “o”) c) . olymplc (the letter “l” for the letter “i”) 3. Proposal: Treatment of Reserved Names and Similar Strings * * * Homoglyphs: Applications for Reserved Names, and for any homoglyphs of those names, may be submitted only by the entities expressly eligible for those Reserved Names. Applications from any other party are ineligible. * Confusingly Similar Strings (Non-Homoglyphs): * If a qualified entity applies for a Reserved Name, and another applicant applies for a string that is confusingly similar to that Reserved Name (but not a homoglyph), those applications shall not be placed in the same contention set. Both may be delegated. * If no qualified entity applies for the Reserved Name in the current round, and another party applies for a confusingly similar (non-homoglyph) string, that application may proceed. The delegation of such a string shall not prevent the qualified entity from applying for and obtaining the Reserved Name in a future round. * String Confusion Objections and Blocking: * No String Confusion Objection may be filed or sustained by either the qualified applicant for the Reserved Name or the applicant for the confusingly similar string, in this or any future round. * Accordingly, those applications shall never be placed in the same contention set as a result of a string confusion proceeding. * The approval, delegation, or continued operation of one string shall never block or prevent the approval, delegation, or continued operation of the other string on the basis of string confusion or string similarity. 4. I understand this could be considered New Policy, but it could align with the 2014 PDP's vision of "protecting" the exact matches, while at the same time ensuring that we do not allow these homoglyphs get through because of the no string similarity reviews not being performed. This seems to check the boxes of what we (and ICANN staff in my opinion) are really concerned with (I think) and finds a way that they can co-exist. Thoughts? [8ed357ae-3462-4ba2-8758-18c70a79d71c]

4 3

Re: [Ext] Re: Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names
by Michael Karakash Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Hi Elaine, No problem at all. For the first two sources I’m adding the strings directly; however, for the last 2 sources I’ve pasted the link as there are too many to add directly in this email. The Reserved Names list is composed of strings on the following lists: 1. Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun (in all 6 official UN languages). See image below for these strings: [cid:image001.png@01DC26D7.3DC11380] 1. Olympic and Olympiad (in all 6 official UN languages plus German, Greek, and Korean). See image below for these strings: [cid:image002.png@01DC26D7.3DC11380] 1. ECOSOC list compiled by the UN (Only the 142 organizations in General Consultative Status in English only, on page 3) See here: https://docs.un.org/en/E/2023/INF/5 1. All of the strings on this IGO list created by the GAC: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chal… I hope this helps, and please let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Best, Michael From: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 2:46 AM To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Sorry to be daft, but which strings exactly are reserved at the top level? The list of strings at the link below are in the many hundreds and say (reserved at the second level” Would you kindly paste the top level Reserved List in reply? Thanks. Elaine On Sep 15, 2025, at 6:35 PM, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Anne, In the AGB for the strings on the Reserved Names list we say: “The following Limited International IGO-INGOs strings are on the Reserved Names list and may be applied for through an exception process only by the relevant entity, provided it submits appropriate documentation as detailed in 6.2.2.2 below: 1. Names added based on recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group regarding the protections of IGO-INGO identifiers in all gTLDs, including their allocatable variant strings, are eligible for delegation upon verification. These include: Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC), International Olympic Committee (IOC), and International Governmental Organization (IGO) – International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Names.” We also include multiple footnotes to clarify the source of the lists (in text). We can look at the IGO-INGO PDP policy recommendations which is more specific as to what strings are on the Reserved Names lists. The GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board lays it out clearly in Scope 1 of each recommendation: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_43533/council-board-ig… [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1bOSQ8cVhtOxN7bJqx6…> The recommendations point to the source of the strings (the GAC list), the ECOSOC General Consultative status list maintained by the UN, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent strings. ICANN has also included these strings on the bottom of this page here (Bullets 1 and 2): https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/res… [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1us3RRZeXM0rqjS4-rA…>. Hope this helps and let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:22 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names P.S. Of course I know that we are talking about Top Level Reserved Names whereas the second level names which registries can reserve in the next round are completely different. Just trying to figure out if there are any other Top Level Reserved Names other than these particular IGO/NGO names? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:05 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Many thanks Lars - very helpful. Are the IGO/NGO names the ONLY Reserved Names? (I may be confused with second level names that a registry is allowed to reserve - which went from 100 to 500 names in the next round?) Again, apologies for my lack of background on this but really need to understand the facts. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:54 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, A few answers to your questions in blue below, I am inviting @Sarmad Hussain<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>and @Michael Karakash<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org> to chime in on Monday, too. Best. Lars From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, 13 September 2025 at 20:22 To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> Cc: "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Thanks Elaine and staff. Where I am a bit hung up is as follows: I cannot conclude from the approved policy language that no other blocked name policy/procedure will apply to these "protected strings". In other words, I thought that based on past policy re blocked string status (ineligible for delegation), a string that is confusingly similar to a blocked string will not be delegated. Important to bear in mind that blocked names are different to what was referred to as ‘strings not eligible for delegation’ – the former are still called blocked names. these cannot be applied for by anyone, and all applied-for strings will be evaluated against these block names for string similarity. In case an applied-for string is found confusingly similar with a blocked name, the applied-for string cannot proceed. The question of whether reserved names, so names that can only be obtained by a specific organization for which the name has been in fact reserved (and these used to be called ‘strings ineligible for delegation’) should be part of the string similarity evaluation, too, is what is now being discussed. Are we distinguishing between Blocked Names and Reserved Names and saying that Reserved Names are not subject to a policy which prohibits delegation of a similar string? Yes, there is a clear difference between blocked and reserved names (see above). See also above. Generally speaking, is a new string that is judged to be similar to a Reserved Name string ineligible for delegation or not? Reminder that the terminology has changed. A reserved name is what the 2012 AGB referred to as a ‘string ineligible for delegation’. The IGO INGO identifiers are no reserved names and ICANN proposed to evaluate all applied-for strings against the reserved names list as these strings are ‘protected’ per 2013 policy recommendations. The clear majority of the IRT (of those who have spoken up) disagrees with this, arguing that only the exact name is protected and confusingly similar names can be delegated, meaning that applied for strings should NOT be evaluated for string similarity against the reserved names list, because that was the policy in 2012. And do applicants know this when they read the Reserved Names List? Yes, it is a list that is determined by policy How is the Reserved Names List determined? Policy – which, if I recall directly – also built on GAC advice and input from IGO/INGO, e.g., see here the public comment from the Red Cross on the IGO/INGO PDP Initial Report: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13/msg00000.ht… [forum.icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1gFGB4B8b_N3R9mccsB…> It sounds as though many IRT participants are saying that Reserved Names do not enjoy any protection from confusingly similar strings. Is that correct? Yes. I would say even that it is a clear majority of those that have spoken up on the call and on list. Or are we saying that Reserved Names are protected against delegation of confusingly similar strings but .redcross, .olympic, etc, are not so protected? Redcross etc. are reserved names because the red cross can apply for .redcross, but no one else can. I could be misunderstanding the deliberations on these "protected organizations" and "protected strings". Definitely need to understand this better. Please help. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:46 PM Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> wrote: I believe the intention of the policy is to only allow The Red Cross to be the contracted party to operate .redcross. ICANN put forward two options that were developed while considering the policies and establishing the string similarity rules. I do not believe the policy allows for The Red Cross to “block” any applied for string that might “look like” .redcross, which is what the outcome of Option 2 from ICANN would be. Since there has been some discussion on the list since the call, I can support Katrin (and Mike’s) proposal to allow The Red Cross to later acquire .redcross even if there is a similar string delegated in this round. Ie, regardless of string similarity outcomes The Red Cross gets .redcross. Elaine From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 at 11:14 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital> Cc: Elaine Pruis <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks Chris, Elaine, and Ashley, Could you please clarify what you believe to be the intention of the policy? For example, Is it to permit the .redcross string to proceed only if it applied for in the same round as .rodcross (not later) and to allow it to proceed in spite of the string similarity? Are you saying the policy is: 1. .Redcross is permitted to proceed in a concurrent round regardless of Similarity - so both .redcross and .rodcross proceed if applied for in the same round? 2. . Redcross WILL BE SUBJECT to string similarity review and cannot proceed if a prior similar string like .rodcross has in fact been awarded? Is that the policy that protects these names? In other words, the protection applies only if the authorized entity is quick enough? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Still need to listen to the Thursday Zoom on this. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:53 AM Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I agree with Ashley and Elaine. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 10 Sep 2025, at 16:03, Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hello ICANN’s “Option 2: Reserved Names are protected based on who can apply for them, and also protected against other applied-for strings which are found confusingly similar during String Similarity Evaluation” would make more sense e IF the string similarity check was limited to the string on the Reserved list and applications for VARIANTS of that string, as ICANN provided this example in their paper: re̱dcross vs. redcross But there is no discussion in the proposal about limiting the string similarity check to variants of the reserved TLDs- So rodcross or redcress or redcrocs would be evaluated under Option 2 and most likely not proceed to delegation even if the party the string was reserved for does not apply (…“any similar string to Reserved Name cannot proceed and so cannot be delegated at any time”.) I agree with Ashely that is not the intention of the policy and we are not to create new policy. Therefore, “Option 1: Reserved Names are only protected based on who can apply for them, but go through String Similarity Evaluation like any other applied-for string if it is applied-for. a. Only entities for which Reserved Names are reserved for can apply for them, based on the process noted in AGB. b. Reserved Names will not be given any protection against similar strings”. Is the best way forward Elaine From: Ashley Roberts via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Elisa and Sarmad, Thanks for summarising the issue and offering two potential solutions. However, I disagree with ICANN’s conclusion that we should adopt option 2, as that would be creating new policy. Option 2 proposes to: 1. In the case of contention between an IGO/RC/IOC applicant and a non-IGO/RC/IOC applicant, give priority to the IGO/RC/IOC applicant. This would create an entirely new method of priority for resolving contention. 2. Include the Reserved Names list strings in the standard string similarity review performed by the ICANN evaluators. This is a reversal of the policy from the 2012 round, when Strings Ineligible for Delegation (as Reserved Names were known at the time) were explicitly excluded from the string similarity review. The paper asserts that “…based on remaining recommendations in SubPro and IDN EPDP Phase 1, ICANN proposes to move forward with option 2…”. However, I don’t believe there are any policy recommendations in either SubPro or the IDN EPDP Phase 1 which allow for either of the above rules. The original policy from the 2012 round AGB states in section 2.2.1.2.3 that: “the following [strings ineligible for delegation] names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list.” The SubPro final report affirmed the continuation of the 2012 rules on this topic in Affirmation 24.2: “…the Working Group affirms the standard used in the String Similarity Review from the 2012 round to determine whether an applied-for string is “similar” to any existing TLD, any other applied-for strings, Reserved Names, and in the case of 2-character IDNs, any single character or any 2-character ASCII string.” Note it does not list “strings ineligible for delegation” (i.e. the IGO/RC/IOC names) as a type of string subject to string similarity review. Similarly, section 4.4.1 of the IDN EPDP phase 1 report is clear on the types of name which are subject to string similarity review and “strings ineligible for delegation” are not among them: “If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name*, a two-character ASCII string, or any of the variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process.” Thus, implementing the two above rules proposed by option 2 would be creating new policy, which is not the job of the IRT. Whereas option 2 would create new policy, the path outlined in option 1 is consistent with existing policy. Therefore, option 1 is the only viable option outlined in your paper. Please note that both the SubPro and EPDP final reports use the old definition of “Reserved Names”, which is a little confusing. In those reports, the relevant term to describe the IOC/RC/IOC names is “strings ineligible for delegation”. For clarity and completeness you may want to make this clear in the annex of your paper. * Definitions of New gTLD Program Reserved Names and Strings Ineligible for Delegation, used by the IDN EPDP per their Final Report: 1. New gTLD Program Reserved Name: A string that is reserved to maintain the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN, its bodies, or essential related functions of ICANN and IANA. For a full list of New gTLD Program Reserved Names, see Section 2.2.1.2.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the SubPro PDP recommended adding “PTI” to the New gTLD Program Reserved Names list. 2. String Ineligible for Delegation: A string that is ineligible for delegation in order to provide special protections at the top-level and second-level for the names and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which receive protections under treaties and statutes across multiple jurisdictions. Those organizations specifically include the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I hope that makes sense. Please shout if anything in my explanation is unclear. Kind regards, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 <image001.png> [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/19x6MsWavSn1yMhYQcu…> Follow us on LinkedIn [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1NEyu6gxutkaKmInTpR…> and YouTube [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1qAnacD7ffLqxsatvIb…> Error! Filename not specified. From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: 05 September 2025 12:10 To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Hello IRT, We have just published a paper concerning the String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names on the wiki page of meeting #158a: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ct049Njp8TEx0FWNd1…> Sarmad will go through it during the call, but it would be appreciated if you could already review it and provide any input you may have on list. Many thanks, Elisa ________________________________ 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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/19x6MsWavSn1yMhYQcu…> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1BNghtlRjM93GXV_hyw…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1HpVDa9Lgw4tJDHBwKh…>). 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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1BNghtlRjM93GXV_hyw…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1HpVDa9Lgw4tJDHBwKh…>). 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.

1 0

Re: [Ext] Re: Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Thanks, Elaine. Will paste here as soon as practicable. Best. Lars From: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Date: Tuesday, 16 September 2025 at 11:46 To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: Re: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Sorry to be daft, but which strings exactly are reserved at the top level? The list of strings at the link below are in the many hundreds and say (reserved at the second level” Would you kindly paste the top level Reserved List in reply? Thanks. Elaine On Sep 15, 2025, at 6:35 PM, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org> wrote: Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Anne, In the AGB for the strings on the Reserved Names list we say: “The following Limited International IGO-INGOs strings are on the Reserved Names list and may be applied for through an exception process only by the relevant entity, provided it submits appropriate documentation as detailed in 6.2.2.2 below: 1. Names added based on recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group regarding the protections of IGO-INGO identifiers in all gTLDs, including their allocatable variant strings, are eligible for delegation upon verification. These include: Red Cross Red Crescent (RCRC), International Olympic Committee (IOC), and International Governmental Organization (IGO) – International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Names.” We also include multiple footnotes to clarify the source of the lists (in text). We can look at the IGO-INGO PDP policy recommendations which is more specific as to what strings are on the Reserved Names lists. The GNSO Council Report to the ICANN Board lays it out clearly in Scope 1 of each recommendation: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_43533/council-board-ig… [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1bOSQ8cVhtOxN7bJqx6…> The recommendations point to the source of the strings (the GAC list), the ECOSOC General Consultative status list maintained by the UN, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent strings. ICANN has also included these strings on the bottom of this page here (Bullets 1 and 2): https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/services/res… [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1us3RRZeXM0rqjS4-rA…>. Hope this helps and let us know if you have any further questions. Thank you! Best, Michael From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:22 AM To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash(a)icann.org>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names P.S. Of course I know that we are talking about Top Level Reserved Names whereas the second level names which registries can reserve in the next round are completely different. Just trying to figure out if there are any other Top Level Reserved Names other than these particular IGO/NGO names? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:05 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Many thanks Lars - very helpful. Are the IGO/NGO names the ONLY Reserved Names? (I may be confused with second level names that a registry is allowed to reserve - which went from 100 to 500 names in the next round?) Again, apologies for my lack of background on this but really need to understand the facts. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:54 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, A few answers to your questions in blue below, I am inviting @Sarmad Hussain<mailto:sarmad.hussain@icann.org>and @Michael Karakash<mailto:michael.karakash@icann.org> to chime in on Monday, too. Best. Lars From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Saturday, 13 September 2025 at 20:22 To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> Cc: "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Thanks Elaine and staff. Where I am a bit hung up is as follows: I cannot conclude from the approved policy language that no other blocked name policy/procedure will apply to these "protected strings". In other words, I thought that based on past policy re blocked string status (ineligible for delegation), a string that is confusingly similar to a blocked string will not be delegated. Important to bear in mind that blocked names are different to what was referred to as ‘strings not eligible for delegation’ – the former are still called blocked names. these cannot be applied for by anyone, and all applied-for strings will be evaluated against these block names for string similarity. In case an applied-for string is found confusingly similar with a blocked name, the applied-for string cannot proceed. The question of whether reserved names, so names that can only be obtained by a specific organization for which the name has been in fact reserved (and these used to be called ‘strings ineligible for delegation’) should be part of the string similarity evaluation, too, is what is now being discussed. Are we distinguishing between Blocked Names and Reserved Names and saying that Reserved Names are not subject to a policy which prohibits delegation of a similar string? Yes, there is a clear difference between blocked and reserved names (see above). See also above. Generally speaking, is a new string that is judged to be similar to a Reserved Name string ineligible for delegation or not? Reminder that the terminology has changed. A reserved name is what the 2012 AGB referred to as a ‘string ineligible for delegation’. The IGO INGO identifiers are no reserved names and ICANN proposed to evaluate all applied-for strings against the reserved names list as these strings are ‘protected’ per 2013 policy recommendations. The clear majority of the IRT (of those who have spoken up) disagrees with this, arguing that only the exact name is protected and confusingly similar names can be delegated, meaning that applied for strings should NOT be evaluated for string similarity against the reserved names list, because that was the policy in 2012. And do applicants know this when they read the Reserved Names List? Yes, it is a list that is determined by policy How is the Reserved Names List determined? Policy – which, if I recall directly – also built on GAC advice and input from IGO/INGO, e.g., see here the public comment from the Red Cross on the IGO/INGO PDP Initial Report: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13/msg00000.ht… [forum.icann.org] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1gFGB4B8b_N3R9mccsB…> It sounds as though many IRT participants are saying that Reserved Names do not enjoy any protection from confusingly similar strings. Is that correct? Yes. I would say even that it is a clear majority of those that have spoken up on the call and on list. Or are we saying that Reserved Names are protected against delegation of confusingly similar strings but .redcross, .olympic, etc, are not so protected? Redcross etc. are reserved names because the red cross can apply for .redcross, but no one else can. I could be misunderstanding the deliberations on these "protected organizations" and "protected strings". Definitely need to understand this better. Please help. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:46 PM Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>> wrote: I believe the intention of the policy is to only allow The Red Cross to be the contracted party to operate .redcross. ICANN put forward two options that were developed while considering the policies and establishing the string similarity rules. I do not believe the policy allows for The Red Cross to “block” any applied for string that might “look like” .redcross, which is what the outcome of Option 2 from ICANN would be. Since there has been some discussion on the list since the call, I can support Katrin (and Mike’s) proposal to allow The Red Cross to later acquire .redcross even if there is a similar string delegated in this round. Ie, regardless of string similarity outcomes The Red Cross gets .redcross. Elaine From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 at 11:14 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain(a)identity.digital> Cc: Elaine Pruis <epruis(a)verisign.com<mailto:epruis@verisign.com>>, "ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>" <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thanks Chris, Elaine, and Ashley, Could you please clarify what you believe to be the intention of the policy? For example, Is it to permit the .redcross string to proceed only if it applied for in the same round as .rodcross (not later) and to allow it to proceed in spite of the string similarity? Are you saying the policy is: 1. .Redcross is permitted to proceed in a concurrent round regardless of Similarity - so both .redcross and .rodcross proceed if applied for in the same round? 2. . Redcross WILL BE SUBJECT to string similarity review and cannot proceed if a prior similar string like .rodcross has in fact been awarded? Is that the policy that protects these names? In other words, the protection applies only if the authorized entity is quick enough? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? Still need to listen to the Thursday Zoom on this. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:53 AM Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: I agree with Ashley and Elaine. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 10 Sep 2025, at 16:03, Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Hello ICANN’s “Option 2: Reserved Names are protected based on who can apply for them, and also protected against other applied-for strings which are found confusingly similar during String Similarity Evaluation” would make more sense e IF the string similarity check was limited to the string on the Reserved list and applications for VARIANTS of that string, as ICANN provided this example in their paper: re̱dcross vs. redcross But there is no discussion in the proposal about limiting the string similarity check to variants of the reserved TLDs- So rodcross or redcress or redcrocs would be evaluated under Option 2 and most likely not proceed to delegation even if the party the string was reserved for does not apply (…“any similar string to Reserved Name cannot proceed and so cannot be delegated at any time”.) I agree with Ashely that is not the intention of the policy and we are not to create new policy. Therefore, “Option 1: Reserved Names are only protected based on who can apply for them, but go through String Similarity Evaluation like any other applied-for string if it is applied-for. a. Only entities for which Reserved Names are reserved for can apply for them, based on the process noted in AGB. b. Reserved Names will not be given any protection against similar strings”. Is the best way forward Elaine From: Ashley Roberts via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Reply-To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com<mailto:ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>> Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Elisa and Sarmad, Thanks for summarising the issue and offering two potential solutions. However, I disagree with ICANN’s conclusion that we should adopt option 2, as that would be creating new policy. Option 2 proposes to: 1. In the case of contention between an IGO/RC/IOC applicant and a non-IGO/RC/IOC applicant, give priority to the IGO/RC/IOC applicant. This would create an entirely new method of priority for resolving contention. 2. Include the Reserved Names list strings in the standard string similarity review performed by the ICANN evaluators. This is a reversal of the policy from the 2012 round, when Strings Ineligible for Delegation (as Reserved Names were known at the time) were explicitly excluded from the string similarity review. The paper asserts that “…based on remaining recommendations in SubPro and IDN EPDP Phase 1, ICANN proposes to move forward with option 2…”. However, I don’t believe there are any policy recommendations in either SubPro or the IDN EPDP Phase 1 which allow for either of the above rules. The original policy from the 2012 round AGB states in section 2.2.1.2.3 that: “the following [strings ineligible for delegation] names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list.” The SubPro final report affirmed the continuation of the 2012 rules on this topic in Affirmation 24.2: “…the Working Group affirms the standard used in the String Similarity Review from the 2012 round to determine whether an applied-for string is “similar” to any existing TLD, any other applied-for strings, Reserved Names, and in the case of 2-character IDNs, any single character or any 2-character ASCII string.” Note it does not list “strings ineligible for delegation” (i.e. the IGO/RC/IOC names) as a type of string subject to string similarity review. Similarly, section 4.4.1 of the IDN EPDP phase 1 report is clear on the types of name which are subject to string similarity review and “strings ineligible for delegation” are not among them: “If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name*, a two-character ASCII string, or any of the variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process.” Thus, implementing the two above rules proposed by option 2 would be creating new policy, which is not the job of the IRT. Whereas option 2 would create new policy, the path outlined in option 1 is consistent with existing policy. Therefore, option 1 is the only viable option outlined in your paper. Please note that both the SubPro and EPDP final reports use the old definition of “Reserved Names”, which is a little confusing. In those reports, the relevant term to describe the IOC/RC/IOC names is “strings ineligible for delegation”. For clarity and completeness you may want to make this clear in the annex of your paper. * Definitions of New gTLD Program Reserved Names and Strings Ineligible for Delegation, used by the IDN EPDP per their Final Report: 1. New gTLD Program Reserved Name: A string that is reserved to maintain the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN, its bodies, or essential related functions of ICANN and IANA. For a full list of New gTLD Program Reserved Names, see Section 2.2.1.2.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the SubPro PDP recommended adding “PTI” to the New gTLD Program Reserved Names list. 2. String Ineligible for Delegation: A string that is ineligible for delegation in order to provide special protections at the top-level and second-level for the names and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which receive protections under treaties and statutes across multiple jurisdictions. Those organizations specifically include the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I hope that makes sense. Please shout if anything in my explanation is unclear. Kind regards, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 <image001.png> [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/19x6MsWavSn1yMhYQcu…> Follow us on LinkedIn [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1NEyu6gxutkaKmInTpR…> and YouTube [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1qAnacD7ffLqxsatvIb…> Error! Filename not specified. From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: 05 September 2025 12:10 To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Hello IRT, We have just published a paper concerning the String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names on the wiki page of meeting #158a: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ct049Njp8TEx0FWNd1…> Sarmad will go through it during the call, but it would be appreciated if you could already review it and provide any input you may have on list. Many thanks, Elisa ________________________________ 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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/19x6MsWavSn1yMhYQcu…> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1BNghtlRjM93GXV_hyw…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1HpVDa9Lgw4tJDHBwKh…>). 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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-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 [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1BNghtlRjM93GXV_hyw…>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [secure-web.cisco.com] [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1HpVDa9Lgw4tJDHBwKh…>). 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.

1 0

Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Thank you, Martin. We put forward the two options because we believe these are the only two ways forward that we identified. We also stated in the paper that we proposed to move forward with Option 2. The IRT did not agree with our proposal. Therefore, there is a disagreement between IRT and staff on the intent of Board-approved recommendations. Moving this to the Council to obtain guidance on the intent of the recommendation seems to be the appropriate next step. I fail to see how this could possibly undo any policy efforts. Best. Lars From: Martin Sutton <martin(a)tldz.com> Date: Friday, 12 September 2025 at 18:07 To: "Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com>, Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity and Reserved Names Hi Lars, Firstly my apologies for not being available for recent calls, I am trying to keep up via the recordings. Having listened to yesterday’s call, I am surprised by the approach actions in regard to the string similarity assessment for reserved names. Focusing entirely on the process, the IRT was presented with two options by ICANN Org, with many supporting Option 1, backed up with sound reasoning. Despite this, ICANN Org is pushing this aside in favour of Option 2. Why put options forward for the IRT to consider in the first place, if they are simply overruled by ICANN Org? This is not good practice. I hope we can avoid such steps in the future, as we can already see in the follow-up emails how lengthy policy efforts can potentially come undone. Best regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder, TLDz martin(a)tldz.com +44 (0)7774 556680 Tldz.com [tldz.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tldz.com__;!!PtGJab4!6mtHmgOQN2n7ThzJHlOz…> [cid:image001.png@01DC2414.6A06F920] Illumiati Limited. 77 Camden Street Lower, Dublin, D02 XE80 The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 12 Sep 2025, at 16:37, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Juan, This was exactly the work that was done in the original IGO/INGO PDP in the 2012-2014 time frame and there was consensus on NOT recognizing INGOs for any special treatment. In order for any further work to be done (which I would personally oppose as I was involved in that PDP), the appropriate place to raise this is with the GNSO Council and not with the IRT. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 11:09 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Dear Lars and all, I would like to raise some concerns on this topic, as I try to said in the chat of the meeting. This concern is made in my own personal capacity: The IGO/INGO PDP recommendations provide appropriate protections for a small set of globally recognized organizations — the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, the IOC, and IGOs — including: * Ineligible-for-delegation status for their exact-match names (Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook), and * Exception procedures for those organizations to apply for their own string at the top level. While these protections are welcome, they leave out a range of globally recognized INGOs that hold unique positions in civil society and whose names are highly vulnerable to misuse at the top level. Proposal 1. Create a clear process and criteria to identify INGOs of global significance that merit similar top-level protection. * Possible criteria: * Presence in 100+ countries or global scope of operations * Consultative status with the UN ECOSOC or other intergovernmental bodies * Evidence of long-standing global brand recognition 1. Include their exact-match strings in Section 2.2.1.2.3 (“Strings Ineligible for Delegation”) to prevent misuse. 2. Offer an exception procedure so that these INGOs, or their authorized affiliates, may apply for and operate their protected TLDs if they wish. Illustrative Examples * World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) – Represents over 170 national organizations and millions of youth globally. * Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF) – A leading humanitarian organization responding to global crises. * Amnesty International – Global human rights movement with chapters in more than 70 countries. * Greenpeace International – International environmental NGO with a highly recognized global identity. Without protection, strings like .scout, .msf, .amnesty, or .greenpeace could be registered by unrelated parties, causing confusion, reputational harm, and possible exploitation of public trust. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [jmanurojas.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.jmanurojas.com/__;!!PtGJab4!6mtHmgOQN…> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El viernes, 12 de septiembre de 2025, 09:49:15 a.m. GMT-5, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> escribió: Dear Anne, dear Susan, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you in your capacities as Council liaisons to the SubPro IRT. During last night’s IRT discussion<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB…>, it became clear that ICANN’s proposed implementation regarding string similarity evaluation for reserved names differs from the IRT’s view. Therefore, we are kindly asking you, as Council liaisons, to work with the Council to help us ensure the next round implementation aligns with the wording and intent of all applicable Board-approved recommendations, including those that protect the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, the International Olympic Committee Identifiers, and the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations (see recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2 of the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filef…>). During yesterday’s call, a consensus majority of participating IRT members supported the paper’s Option 1 (attached). I asked the IRT whether anyone on the call agreed with the staff proposal (Option 2). Three IRT members (one orally and two in the chat) said they were supportive of Option 2, some stayed silent and most explicitly supported Option 1. We understand that the SubPro PDP was silent on this issue. And, as these strings were not part of string similarity evaluation in 2012, it is reasonable to assume (and ICANN agrees if it were not for the issues below) that this should not change for the next round. Similarly, the IDN EPDP Phase 1 did not recommend that reserved strings (then referred to as strings ineligible for delegation) are part of string similarity evaluation. So far, no disagreement. However, the 2013 IGO INGO PDP classified the identifiers for the Red Crescent Movements, the International Olympic Committee, as well as the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations as ‘protected strings’ (see full text of recommendations below and in the attached paper’s annex). It is ICANN’s view that the protection intended by these recommendations would not be met if .rodcross is delegated in the next round and, thus, the Red Cross were not able to obtain its protected .redcross string in future rounds because .redcross is found confusingly similar with the now-delegated .rodcross. To ICANN, the only way to avoid such a scenario, and meet the intent of the IGO INGO recommendations during the next round, is to evaluate string similarity of the applied-for strings not just against other applied-for strings, delegated strings, two-character country codes, and blocked names, but also against the list of reserved names, which is reflected in Option 2 (see attached paper). The consensus view expressed by attending IRT members differed from this, stating that the protection granted in the IGO INGO recommendations only extends to the actual strings not to those that are found confusingly similar to them. Thus, the consensus view of the IRT is to support Option 1. As you know the IRT Principles and Guidelines [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-pol…> note in Section E that in such a case the issue should be referred back to the Council. Therefore, we kindly ask you, at your earliest convenience, to confer with the GNSO Council on how the relevant recommendations should be interpreted. Considering that the implementation draws on recommendations from three different PDPs we believe it would be prudent for the Council to weigh in. I note that during last night’s call, I laid out these steps of reaching out to you as Council liaisons and no one on the call raised concerns about proceeding accordingly. Please, do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns you may have. Very best. Lars Please see the attached paper for an overview of the issues, including both Options and a collation of all relevant recommendations. Below here, I only pasted the relevant recommendations from the IGO INGO PDP. Recommendation 3.1.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.1.2: * For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.2.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.2.2: * For International Olympic Committee Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.3.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.3.2: * For International Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt-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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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.

6 10

Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names
by Pruis, Elaine Sept. 16, 2025

Sept. 16, 2025

Hello ICANN’s “Option 2: Reserved Names are protected based on who can apply for them, and also protected against other applied-for strings which are found confusingly similar during String Similarity Evaluation” would make more sense e IF the string similarity check was limited to the string on the Reserved list and applications for VARIANTS of that string, as ICANN provided this example in their paper: re̱dcross vs. redcross But there is no discussion in the proposal about limiting the string similarity check to variants of the reserved TLDs- So rodcross or redcress or redcrocs would be evaluated under Option 2 and most likely not proceed to delegation even if the party the string was reserved for does not apply (…“any similar string to Reserved Name cannot proceed and so cannot be delegated at any time”.) I agree with Ashely that is not the intention of the policy and we are not to create new policy. Therefore, “Option 1: Reserved Names are only protected based on who can apply for them, but go through String Similarity Evaluation like any other applied-for string if it is applied-for. a. Only entities for which Reserved Names are reserved for can apply for them, based on the process noted in AGB. b. Reserved Names will not be given any protection against similar strings”. Is the best way forward Elaine From: Ashley Roberts via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts(a)comlaude.com> Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto(a)icann.org>, "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Elisa and Sarmad, Thanks for summarising the issue and offering two potential solutions. However, I disagree with ICANN’s conclusion that we should adopt option 2, as that would be creating new policy. Option 2 proposes to: In the case of contention between an IGO/RC/IOC applicant and a non-IGO/RC/IOC applicant, give priority to the IGO/RC/IOC applicant. This would create an entirely new method of priority for resolving contention. Include the Reserved Names list strings in the standard string similarity review performed by the ICANN evaluators. This is a reversal of the policy from the 2012 round, when Strings Ineligible for Delegation (as Reserved Names were known at the time) were explicitly excluded from the string similarity review. The paper asserts that “…based on remaining recommendations in SubPro and IDN EPDP Phase 1, ICANN proposes to move forward with option 2…”. However, I don’t believe there are any policy recommendations in either SubPro or the IDN EPDP Phase 1 which allow for either of the above rules. The original policy from the 2012 round AGB states in section 2.2.1.2.3 that: “the following [strings ineligible for delegation] names are prohibited from delegation as gTLDs in the initial application round. Future application rounds may differ according to consideration of further policy advice. These names are not being placed on the Top-Level Reserved Names List, and thus are not part of the string similarity review conducted for names on that list.” The SubPro final report affirmed the continuation of the 2012 rules on this topic in Affirmation 24.2: “…the Working Group affirms the standard used in the String Similarity Review from the 2012 round to determine whether an applied-for string is “similar” to any existing TLD, any other applied-for strings, Reserved Names, and in the case of 2-character IDNs, any single character or any 2-character ASCII string.” Note it does not list “strings ineligible for delegation” (i.e. the IGO/RC/IOC names) as a type of string subject to string similarity review. Similarly, section 4.4.1 of the IDN EPDP phase 1 report is clear on the types of name which are subject to string similarity review and “strings ineligible for delegation” are not among them: “If an applied-for primary gTLD string or any of its variant label(s) is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD, an existing ccTLD, a New gTLD Program Reserved Name*, a two-character ASCII string, or any of the variant label(s) of the aforementioned categories of strings, the entire variant label set of the applied-for primary gTLD string will be ineligible to proceed in the application process.” Thus, implementing the two above rules proposed by option 2 would be creating new policy, which is not the job of the IRT. Whereas option 2 would create new policy, the path outlined in option 1 is consistent with existing policy. Therefore, option 1 is the only viable option outlined in your paper. Please note that both the SubPro and EPDP final reports use the old definition of “Reserved Names”, which is a little confusing. In those reports, the relevant term to describe the IOC/RC/IOC names is “strings ineligible for delegation”. For clarity and completeness you may want to make this clear in the annex of your paper. * Definitions of New gTLD Program Reserved Names and Strings Ineligible for Delegation, used by the IDN EPDP per their Final Report: New gTLD Program Reserved Name: A string that is reserved to maintain the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN, its bodies, or essential related functions of ICANN and IANA. For a full list of New gTLD Program Reserved Names, see Section 2.2.1.2.1 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. In addition, the SubPro PDP recommended adding “PTI” to the New gTLD Program Reserved Names list. String Ineligible for Delegation: A string that is ineligible for delegation in order to provide special protections at the top-level and second-level for the names and acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) which receive protections under treaties and statutes across multiple jurisdictions. Those organizations specifically include the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I hope that makes sense. Please shout if anything in my explanation is unclear. Kind regards, Ashley Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264 Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube From: Elisa Busetto via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: 05 September 2025 12:10 To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names Hello IRT, We have just published a paper concerning the String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names on the wiki page of meeting #158a: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw Sarmad will go through it during the call, but it would be appreciated if you could already review it and provide any input you may have on list. Many thanks, Elisa 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

7 16

Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names
by Juan Manuel Rojas Sept. 15, 2025

Sept. 15, 2025

Dear all, Instead of focusing only on “protecting” certain names from delegation, I suggest we look at this as a predictable pathway for globally recognized INGOs to participate in the DNS ecosystem responsibly. Many organizations, from the World Organization of the Scout Movement to international humanitarian groups, have global reputations to uphold. Allowing their names to be taken by unrelated applicants, only to force them into expensive objections or legal disputes, is neither fair nor efficient. We suggest: - Provide a clear, predictable process for these organizations to apply for their own strings when they wish. - Ensure that visually confusable strings (e.g., diacritic variations) cannot be delegated to unrelated parties. - Maintain a transparent exception procedure that allows legitimate applicants to operate the string if they meet agreed criteria. Best, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 15 de septiembre de 2025, 03:02:04 p.m. GMT-5, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> escribió: Hi Juan, I'll have to follow your lead on this issue. It sounds like a good debate is in progress!! Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- | Subject: | [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names | | Date: | Mon, 15 Sep 2025 17:35:38 +0000 | | From: | Sarmad Hussain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> | | Reply-To: | Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> | | To: | Pruis, Elaine <epruis(a)verisign.com>, anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, karen(a)elstermcgrady.com <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> | | CC: | subpro-irt(a)icann.org <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> | #yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 filtered {}#yiv4720569080 p.yiv4720569080MsoNormal, #yiv4720569080 li.yiv4720569080MsoNormal, #yiv4720569080 div.yiv4720569080MsoNormal {margin:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;}#yiv4720569080 h3 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4720569080 a:link, #yiv4720569080 span.yiv4720569080MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4720569080 code {font-family:"Courier New";}#yiv4720569080 span.yiv4720569080Heading3Char {font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;color:#0F4761;}#yiv4720569080 span.yiv4720569080EmailStyle23 {font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv4720569080 .yiv4720569080MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4720569080 div.yiv4720569080WordSection1 {}#yiv4720569080 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv4720569080 ul {margin-bottom:0in;} Hi Elaine, all, The Latin Diacritic PDP work is on cases where the *same* applicant is applying for Similar strings (with and without diacritics). The case we are discussing in the IRT is where *different* applicants are applying for Similar strings. So the scope of these two discussion threads is not overlapping. Regards, Sarmad From: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis(a)verisign.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 9:24 PM To: "sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org" <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org>, "anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com" <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, "karen(a)elstermcgrady.com" <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Cc: "subpro-irt(a)icann.org" <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names As Sophie mentioned on the call, the example provided is Latin diacritics -- there is currently a PDP in play concerning Latin diacritics. I believe there was a suggestion to wait for the outcome of that work to inform how to move forward with this scenario. ( As something the SPIRT could consider, or could be incorporated in the next round). Sarmad, is there another example of a potential collision you could provide that is not a Latin diacritic? What other examples are there of potential TLDs that would case a string similarity concern? I’m concerned the proposal to expand rights beyond the reserved TLD causes many more potential problems than the very unlikely scenario where an applicant would apply for a TLD so similar to a reserved name and still clear all GAC EWs, objections and proceed to delegation. Elaine From: Sarmad Hussain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 5:38 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Karen Day <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names | Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. | Dear Karen and Anne, We have noted this variation in the paper we have shared with the IRT but not as an option (see the Note at the end of the paper), because it allows for two Similar strings to be delegated together in the root zone, which does not align with the policy recommendations on string similarity. Here are examples of possible similar strings presented in the paper (these are not variants of each other so can be delegated to separated applicants): | Reserved Names | redcross, olympic, etc. | | Possible non-reserved similar applied-for strings | re̱dcross, o̱lympic, etc. | | Underlined versions of the strings (which may cause significant user confusion) | redcross, olympic, re̱dcross, o̱lympic, etc. | Option 1 states that any one of redcross or re̱dcross can move forward, on first-come-first-served basis. Option 2 states that because redcross is protected, re̱dcross cannot move forward. This allows redcross to be accepted whenever it is applied. The case that redcross and re̱dcross can both be delegated together is not considered because if they are found Similar (in underlined version), they can create probable user confusion (e.g. when presented as a link: example.redcross and example.re̱dcross). The policy recommendations on string similarity state that such strings should not be delegated together. Regards, Sarmad From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:08 PM To: Karen Day <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Many thanks Karen. Lars, Michael, and Sarmad - is this Option 3 an option that should be presented to the Council? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 6:22 AM Karen Day via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just coming back from vacation and getting caught up. I'm sorry I wasn't available to discuss in real time last week, but I agree with Mike that there is Option 3 that could be put in play immediately. In fact, if you'll look back at the records, I and several others brought this exact option into our first discussion on this topic a couple of weeks ago with Sarmad, but somehow it did not make it into the 2 options presented for the follow-up call. My position remains that if .RODCROSS is legitimately delegated through the 2026 round, and then Red Cross applies for .REDCROSS in the 2028 round, then the Red Cross organization should be awarded its exact match TLD without regard for any string similarity issues that would or would not not arise as a result of .RODCROSS having been delegated prior. I cannot envision, nor did the NGO PDD per my reading of their discussions, that the co-existence of those few protected Red Cross, Olympic or IGO TLDs alongside "similar" TLDs is likely to cause security and/or stability problems in the global DNS. Best, Karen | | Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady LLC Phone: +1 (984) 335-4067 Email: karen(a)elstermcgrady.com www.elstermcgrady.com [elstermcgrady.com] | From: Mike Rodenbaugh via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 1:52 PM To: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer(a)dotzon.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names I think it can be an option for this Round also. | | Mike Rodenbaugh | | | Rodenbaugh Law LLC | | email: | mike(a)rodenbaugh.com | | phone: | +1 (415) 738-8087 | On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:50 PM Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer(a)dotzon.com> wrote: Hi All, this was exactly my proposal yeserday in the call – to propose initiating a PDP after the next round and determine if/how applications from the reserved names list can be treated differently in terms of string similarity. Lars acklowledged that this is a potential option. Best Katrin DOTZON GmbH – creating identities Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer(a)dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting] DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Mike Rodenbaugh via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Gesendet: Freitag, 12. September 2025 19:43 An: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Betreff: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Lars and all, I think there is an Option #3... if now or in future the Red Cross or Olympics apply for their exact match protected TLD string, then it shall not be subject to String Similarity Review or SCO. In other words, if they want it then they get it. That can allow other legitimate uses meanwhile to happen, like perhaps .Olympia for the capital of our state of Washington. I was hung up on the process yesterday, and note that Anne or Susan (whoever is the liaison) needs to make an assessment whether there is IRT consensus to bring Staff's two proposed options to Council. There was no effort to gauge that consensus yesterday, but I did speak up that I thought it was a bad idea. Martin today has agreed. Anyway maybe that is premature if my proposed third option is potentially viable, at least for further Staff consideration and IRT discussion. | | Mike Rodenbaugh | | | Rodenbaugh Law LLC | | email: | mike(a)rodenbaugh.com | | phone: | +1 (415) 738-8087 | On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:38 PM Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Thank you, Martin. We put forward the two options because we believe these are the only two ways forward that we identified. We also stated in the paper that we proposed to move forward with Option 2. The IRT did not agree with our proposal. Therefore, there is a disagreement between IRT and staff on the intent of Board-approved recommendations. Moving this to the Council to obtain guidance on the intent of the recommendation seems to be the appropriate next step. I fail to see how this could possibly undo any policy efforts. Best. Lars From: Martin Sutton <martin(a)tldz.com> Date: Friday, 12 September 2025 at 18:07 To: "Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com>, Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity and Reserved Names Hi Lars, Firstly my apologies for not being available for recent calls, I am trying to keep up via the recordings. Having listened to yesterday’s call, I am surprised by the approach actions in regard to the string similarity assessment for reserved names. Focusing entirely on the process, the IRT was presented with two options by ICANN Org, with many supporting Option 1, backed up with sound reasoning. Despite this, ICANN Org is pushing this aside in favour of Option 2. Why put options forward for the IRT to consider in the first place, if they are simply overruled by ICANN Org? This is not good practice. I hope we can avoid such steps in the future, as we can already see in the follow-up emails how lengthy policy efforts can potentially come undone. Best regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder, TLDz martin(a)tldz.com +44 (0)7774 556680 Tldz.com [tldz.com] Illumiati Limited. 77 Camden Street Lower, Dublin, D02 XE80 The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 12 Sep 2025, at 16:37, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Juan, This was exactly the work that was done in the original IGO/INGO PDP in the 2012-2014 time frame and there was consensus on NOT recognizing INGOs for any special treatment. In order for any further work to be done (which I would personally oppose as I was involved in that PDP), the appropriate place to raise this is with the GNSO Council and not with the IRT. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com From: Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 11:09 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Dear Lars and all, I would like to raise some concerns on this topic, as I try to said in the chat of the meeting. This concern is made in my own personal capacity: The IGO/INGO PDP recommendations provide appropriate protections for a small set of globally recognized organizations — the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, the IOC, and IGOs — including: - Ineligible-for-delegation status for their exact-match names (Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook), and - Exception procedures for those organizations to apply for their own string at the top level. While these protections are welcome, they leave out a range of globally recognized INGOs that hold unique positions in civil society and whose names are highly vulnerable to misuse at the top level. Proposal - Create a clear process and criteria to identify INGOs of global significance that merit similar top-level protection. - Possible criteria: - Presence in 100+ countries or global scope of operations - Consultative status with the UN ECOSOC or other intergovernmental bodies - Evidence of long-standing global brand recognition - Include their exact-match strings in Section 2.2.1.2.3 (“Strings Ineligible for Delegation”) to prevent misuse. - Offer an exception procedure so that these INGOs, or their authorized affiliates, may apply for and operate their protected TLDs if they wish. Illustrative Examples - World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) – Represents over 170 national organizations and millions of youth globally. - Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF) – A leading humanitarian organization responding to global crises. - Amnesty International – Global human rights movement with chapters in more than 70 countries. - Greenpeace International – International environmental NGO with a highly recognized global identity. Without protection, strings like .scout, .msf, .amnesty, or .greenpeace could be registered by unrelated parties, causing confusion, reputational harm, and possible exploitation of public trust. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [jmanurojas.com] -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El viernes, 12 de septiembre de 2025, 09:49:15 a.m. GMT-5, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> escribió: Dear Anne, dear Susan, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you in your capacities as Council liaisons to the SubPro IRT. During last night’s IRT discussion, it became clear that ICANN’s proposed implementation regarding string similarity evaluation for reserved names differs from the IRT’s view. Therefore, we are kindly asking you, as Council liaisons, to work with the Council to help us ensure the next round implementation aligns with the wording and intent of all applicable Board-approvedrecommendations, including those that protect the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, the International Olympic Committee Identifiers, and the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations (see recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2 of the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process [gnso.icann.org] During yesterday’s call, a consensus majority of participating IRT members supported the paper’s Option 1 (attached). I asked the IRT whether anyone on the call agreed with the staff proposal (Option 2). Three IRT members (one orally and two in the chat) said they were supportive of Option 2, some stayed silent and most explicitly supported Option 1. We understand that the SubPro PDP was silent on this issue. And, as these strings were not part of string similarity evaluation in 2012, it is reasonable to assume (and ICANN agrees if it were not for the issues below) that this should not change for the next round. Similarly, the IDN EPDP Phase 1 did not recommend that reserved strings (then referred to as strings ineligible for delegation) are part of string similarity evaluation. So far, no disagreement. However, the 2013 IGO INGO PDP classified the identifiers for the Red Crescent Movements, the International Olympic Committee, as well as the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations as ‘protected strings’ (see full text of recommendations below and in the attached paper’s annex). It is ICANN’s view that the protection intended by these recommendations would not be met if .rodcross is delegated in the next round and, thus, the Red Cross were not able to obtain its protected .redcross string in future rounds because .redcross is found confusingly similar with the now-delegated .rodcross. To ICANN, the only way to avoid such a scenario, and meet the intent of the IGO INGO recommendations during the next round, is to evaluate string similarity of the applied-for strings not just against other applied-for strings, delegated strings, two-character country codes, and blocked names, but also against the list of reserved names, which is reflected in Option 2 (see attached paper). The consensus view expressed by attending IRT members differed from this, stating that the protection granted in the IGO INGO recommendations only extends to the actual strings not to those that are found confusingly similar to them. Thus, the consensus view of the IRT is to support Option 1. As you know the IRT Principles and Guidelines [itp.cdn.icann.org] note in Section E that in such a case the issue should be referred back to the Council. Therefore, we kindly ask you, at your earliest convenience, to confer with the GNSO Council on how the relevant recommendations should be interpreted. Considering that the implementation draws on recommendations from three different PDPs we believe it would be prudent for the Council to weigh in. I note that during last night’s call, I laid out these steps of reaching out to you as Council liaisons and no one on the call raised concerns about proceeding accordingly. Please, do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns you may have. Very best. Lars Please see the attached paper for an overview of the issues, including both Options and a collation of all relevant recommendations. Below here, I only pasted the relevant recommendations from the IGO INGO PDP. Recommendation 3.1.1: - Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.1.2: - For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.2.1: - Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.2.2: - For International Olympic Committee Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.3.1: - Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.3.2: - For International Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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.

1 0

Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names
by Pruis, Elaine Sept. 15, 2025

Sept. 15, 2025

As Sophie mentioned on the call, the example provided is Latin diacritics -- there is currently a PDP in play concerning Latin diacritics. I believe there was a suggestion to wait for the outcome of that work to inform how to move forward with this scenario. ( As something the SPIRT could consider, or could be incorporated in the next round). Sarmad, is there another example of a potential collision you could provide that is not a Latin diacritic? What other examples are there of potential TLDs that would case a string similarity concern? I’m concerned the proposal to expand rights beyond the reserved TLD causes many more potential problems than the very unlikely scenario where an applicant would apply for a TLD so similar to a reserved name and still clear all GAC EWs, objections and proceed to delegation. Elaine From: Sarmad Hussain via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 5:38 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Karen Day <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Karen and Anne, We have noted this variation in the paper we have shared with the IRT but not as an option (see the Note at the end of the paper), because it allows for two Similar strings to be delegated together in the root zone, which does not align with the policy recommendations on string similarity. Here are examples of possible similar strings presented in the paper (these are not variants of each other so can be delegated to separated applicants): Reserved Namesredcross, olympic, etc. Possible non-reserved similar applied-for stringsre̱dcross, o̱lympic, etc. Underlined versions of the strings (which may cause significant user confusion)redcross, olympic, re̱dcross, o̱lympic, etc. Option 1 states that any one of redcross or re̱dcross can move forward, on first-come-first-served basis. Option 2 states that because redcross is protected, re̱dcross cannot move forward. This allows redcross to be accepted whenever it is applied. The case that redcross and re̱dcross can both be delegated together is not considered because if they are found Similar (in underlined version), they can create probable user confusion (e.g. when presented as a link: example.redcross and example.re̱dcross). The policy recommendations on string similarity state that such strings should not be delegated together. Regards, Sarmad From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:08 PM To: Karen Day <karen(a)elstermcgrady.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Many thanks Karen. Lars, Michael, and Sarmad - is this Option 3 an option that should be presented to the Council? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 6:22 AM Karen Day via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just coming back from vacation and getting caught up. I'm sorry I wasn't available to discuss in real time last week, but I agree with Mike that there is Option 3 that could be put in play immediately. In fact, if you'll look back at the records, I and several others brought this exact option into our first discussion on this topic a couple of weeks ago with Sarmad, but somehow it did not make it into the 2 options presented for the follow-up call. My position remains that if .RODCROSS is legitimately delegated through the 2026 round, and then Red Cross applies for .REDCROSS in the 2028 round, then the Red Cross organization should be awarded its exact match TLD without regard for any string similarity issues that would or would not not arise as a result of .RODCROSS having been delegated prior. I cannot envision, nor did the NGO PDD per my reading of their discussions, that the co-existence of those few protected Red Cross, Olympic or IGO TLDs alongside "similar" TLDs is likely to cause security and/or stability problems in the global DNS. Best, Karen Karen L. DayDNS Industry AdvisorElster & McGrady LLC Phone: +1 (984) 335-4067Email: karen(a)elstermcgrady.comwww.elstermcgrady.com [elstermcgrady.com] From: Mike Rodenbaugh via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 1:52 PM To: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer(a)dotzon.com> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names I think it can be an option for this Round also. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law LLC email:mike@rodenbaugh.com phone:+1 (415) 738-8087 On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:50 PM Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer(a)dotzon.com> wrote: Hi All, this was exactly my proposal yeserday in the call – to propose initiating a PDP after the next round and determine if/how applications from the reserved names list can be treated differently in terms of string similarity. Lars acklowledged that this is a potential option. Best Katrin DOTZON GmbH – creating identities Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer(a)dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting [dotzon.consulting] DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Mike Rodenbaugh via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Gesendet: Freitag, 12. September 2025 19:43 An: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Betreff: [SubPro-IRT] Re: [Ext] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Lars and all, I think there is an Option #3... if now or in future the Red Cross or Olympics apply for their exact match protected TLD string, then it shall not be subject to String Similarity Review or SCO. In other words, if they want it then they get it. That can allow other legitimate uses meanwhile to happen, like perhaps .Olympia for the capital of our state of Washington. I was hung up on the process yesterday, and note that Anne or Susan (whoever is the liaison) needs to make an assessment whether there is IRT consensus to bring Staff's two proposed options to Council. There was no effort to gauge that consensus yesterday, but I did speak up that I thought it was a bad idea. Martin today has agreed. Anyway maybe that is premature if my proposed third option is potentially viable, at least for further Staff consideration and IRT discussion. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law LLC email:mike@rodenbaugh.com phone:+1 (415) 738-8087 On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 12:38 PM Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Thank you, Martin. We put forward the two options because we believe these are the only two ways forward that we identified. We also stated in the paper that we proposed to move forward with Option 2. The IRT did not agree with our proposal. Therefore, there is a disagreement between IRT and staff on the intent of Board-approved recommendations. Moving this to the Council to obtain guidance on the intent of the recommendation seems to be the appropriate next step. I fail to see how this could possibly undo any policy efforts. Best. Lars From: Martin Sutton <martin(a)tldz.com> Date: Friday, 12 September 2025 at 18:07 To: "Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com" <jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com>, Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>, Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [SubPro-IRT] String Similarity and Reserved Names Hi Lars, Firstly my apologies for not being available for recent calls, I am trying to keep up via the recordings. Having listened to yesterday’s call, I am surprised by the approach actions in regard to the string similarity assessment for reserved names. Focusing entirely on the process, the IRT was presented with two options by ICANN Org, with many supporting Option 1, backed up with sound reasoning. Despite this, ICANN Org is pushing this aside in favour of Option 2. Why put options forward for the IRT to consider in the first place, if they are simply overruled by ICANN Org? This is not good practice. I hope we can avoid such steps in the future, as we can already see in the follow-up emails how lengthy policy efforts can potentially come undone. Best regards, Martin Martin Sutton Co-Founder, TLDz martin(a)tldz.com +44 (0)7774 556680 Tldz.com [tldz.com] Illumiati Limited. 77 Camden Street Lower, Dublin, D02 XE80 The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 12 Sep 2025, at 16:37, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> wrote: Juan, This was exactly the work that was done in the original IGO/INGO PDP in the 2012-2014 time frame and there was consensus on NOT recognizing INGOs for any special treatment. In order for any further work to be done (which I would personally oppose as I was involved in that PDP), the appropriate place to raise this is with the GNSO Council and not with the IRT. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff(a)jjnsolutions.com From: Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 11:09 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: String Similarity and Reserved Names Dear Lars and all, I would like to raise some concerns on this topic, as I try to said in the chat of the meeting. This concern is made in my own personal capacity: The IGO/INGO PDP recommendations provide appropriate protections for a small set of globally recognized organizations — the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, the IOC, and IGOs — including: Ineligible-for-delegation status for their exact-match names (Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook), and Exception procedures for those organizations to apply for their own string at the top level. While these protections are welcome, they leave out a range of globally recognized INGOs that hold unique positions in civil society and whose names are highly vulnerable to misuse at the top level. Proposal Create a clear process and criteria to identify INGOs of global significance that merit similar top-level protection. Possible criteria: Presence in 100+ countries or global scope of operations Consultative status with the UN ECOSOC or other intergovernmental bodies Evidence of long-standing global brand recognition Include their exact-match strings in Section 2.2.1.2.3 (“Strings Ineligible for Delegation”) to prevent misuse. Offer an exception procedure so that these INGOs, or their authorized affiliates, may apply for and operate their protected TLDs if they wish. Illustrative Examples World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) – Represents over 170 national organizations and millions of youth globally. Médecins Sans Frontières / Doctors Without Borders (MSF) – A leading humanitarian organization responding to global crises. Amnesty International – Global human rights movement with chapters in more than 70 countries. Greenpeace International – International environmental NGO with a highly recognized global identity. Without protection, strings like .scout, .msf, .amnesty, or .greenpeace could be registered by unrelated parties, causing confusion, reputational harm, and possible exploitation of public trust. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [jmanurojas.com] -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El viernes, 12 de septiembre de 2025, 09:49:15 a.m. GMT-5, Lars Hoffmann via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> escribió: Dear Anne, dear Susan, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you in your capacities as Council liaisons to the SubPro IRT. During last night’s IRT discussion, it became clear that ICANN’s proposed implementation regarding string similarity evaluation for reserved names differs from the IRT’s view. Therefore, we are kindly asking you, as Council liaisons, to work with the Council to help us ensure the next round implementation aligns with the wording and intent of all applicable Board-approved recommendations, including those that protect the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, the International Olympic Committee Identifiers, and the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations (see recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2 of the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process [gnso.icann.org] During yesterday’s call, a consensus majority of participating IRT members supported the paper’s Option 1 (attached). I asked the IRT whether anyone on the call agreed with the staff proposal (Option 2). Three IRT members (one orally and two in the chat) said they were supportive of Option 2, some stayed silent and most explicitly supported Option 1. We understand that the SubPro PDP was silent on this issue. And, as these strings were not part of string similarity evaluation in 2012, it is reasonable to assume (and ICANN agrees if it were not for the issues below) that this should not change for the next round. Similarly, the IDN EPDP Phase 1 did not recommend that reserved strings (then referred to as strings ineligible for delegation) are part of string similarity evaluation. So far, no disagreement. However, the 2013 IGO INGO PDP classified the identifiers for the Red Crescent Movements, the International Olympic Committee, as well as the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations as ‘protected strings’ (see full text of recommendations below and in the attached paper’s annex). It is ICANN’s view that the protection intended by these recommendations would not be met if .rodcross is delegated in the next round and, thus, the Red Cross were not able to obtain its protected .redcross string in future rounds because .redcross is found confusingly similar with the now-delegated .rodcross. To ICANN, the only way to avoid such a scenario, and meet the intent of the IGO INGO recommendations during the next round, is to evaluate string similarity of the applied-for strings not just against other applied-for strings, delegated strings, two-character country codes, and blocked names, but also against the list of reserved names, which is reflected in Option 2 (see attached paper). The consensus view expressed by attending IRT members differed from this, stating that the protection granted in the IGO INGO recommendations only extends to the actual strings not to those that are found confusingly similar to them. Thus, the consensus view of the IRT is to support Option 1. As you know the IRT Principles and Guidelines [itp.cdn.icann.org] note in Section E that in such a case the issue should be referred back to the Council. Therefore, we kindly ask you, at your earliest convenience, to confer with the GNSO Council on how the relevant recommendations should be interpreted. Considering that the implementation draws on recommendations from three different PDPs we believe it would be prudent for the Council to weigh in. I note that during last night’s call, I laid out these steps of reaching out to you as Council liaisons and no one on the call raised concerns about proceeding accordingly. Please, do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns you may have. Very best. Lars Please see the attached paper for an overview of the issues, including both Options and a collation of all relevant recommendations. Below here, I only pasted the relevant recommendations from the IGO INGO PDP. Recommendation 3.1.1: Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.1.2: For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.2.1: Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.2.2: For International Olympic Committee Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.3.1: Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.3.2: For International Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)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.

2 1

String Similarity and Reserved Names
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 12, 2025

Sept. 12, 2025

Dear Anne, dear Susan, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you in your capacities as Council liaisons to the SubPro IRT. During last night’s IRT discussion<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB…>, it became clear that ICANN’s proposed implementation regarding string similarity evaluation for reserved names differs from the IRT’s view. Therefore, we are kindly asking you, as Council liaisons, to work with the Council to help us ensure the next round implementation aligns with the wording and intent of all applicable Board-approved recommendations, including those that protect the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, the International Olympic Committee Identifiers, and the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations (see recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2 of the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Development Process<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_42639/igo-ingo-final-1…>). During yesterday’s call, a consensus majority of participating IRT members supported the paper’s Option 1 (attached). I asked the IRT whether anyone on the call agreed with the staff proposal (Option 2). Three IRT members (one orally and two in the chat) said they were supportive of Option 2, some stayed silent and most explicitly supported Option 1. We understand that the SubPro PDP was silent on this issue. And, as these strings were not part of string similarity evaluation in 2012, it is reasonable to assume (and ICANN agrees if it were not for the issues below) that this should not change for the next round. Similarly, the IDN EPDP Phase 1 did not recommend that reserved strings (then referred to as strings ineligible for delegation) are part of string similarity evaluation. So far, no disagreement. However, the 2013 IGO INGO PDP classified the identifiers for the Red Crescent Movements, the International Olympic Committee, as well as the identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations as ‘protected strings’ (see full text of recommendations below and in the attached paper’s annex). It is ICANN’s view that the protection intended by these recommendations would not be met if .rodcross is delegated in the next round and, thus, the Red Cross were not able to obtain its protected .redcross string in future rounds because .redcross is found confusingly similar with the now-delegated .rodcross. To ICANN, the only way to avoid such a scenario, and meet the intent of the IGO INGO recommendations during the next round, is to evaluate string similarity of the applied-for strings not just against other applied-for strings, delegated strings, two-character country codes, and blocked names, but also against the list of reserved names, which is reflected in Option 2 (see attached paper). The consensus view expressed by attending IRT members differed from this, stating that the protection granted in the IGO INGO recommendations only extends to the actual strings not to those that are found confusingly similar to them. Thus, the consensus view of the IRT is to support Option 1. As you know the IRT Principles and Guidelines<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy-implementation/irt-prin…> note in Section E that in such a case the issue should be referred back to the Council. Therefore, we kindly ask you, at your earliest convenience, to confer with the GNSO Council on how the relevant recommendations should be interpreted. Considering that the implementation draws on recommendations from three different PDPs we believe it would be prudent for the Council to weigh in. I note that during last night’s call, I laid out these steps of reaching out to you as Council liaisons and no one on the call raised concerns about proceeding accordingly. Please, do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns you may have. Very best. Lars Please see the attached paper for an overview of the issues, including both Options and a collation of all relevant recommendations. Below here, I only pasted the relevant recommendations from the IGO INGO PDP. Recommendation 3.1.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.1.2: * For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.2.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.2.2: * For International Olympic Committee Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level. Recommendation 3.3.1: * Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings “Ineligible for Delegation”. Recommendation 3.3.2: * For International Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level.

6 5

Follow-up on Comment on AGB Background Screening Criteria
by Jared Erwin Sept. 12, 2025

Sept. 12, 2025

Dear IRT Members, I’m following up on our discussion from 27 August 2025 regarding a comment from the NCSG on “Criterion M.” from the Background Screening Criteria. In our call on 27 August 2025, ICANN stated it would take another look at the comment and the AGB language. ICANN has now reviewed this and, because the substance of Criterion M is covered by the Applicant Onboarding Questions (Section 5.1.2.2) and because, as the NCSG noted, this was not a criterion in the 2012 AGB nor directly affirmed by SubPro Policy, we have removed this from the criteria (Section 5.1.2.1). ICANN had added it to align with the Onboarding questions, but because of the reasons above, we believe it was not necessary to add it there and believe the onboarding questions sufficiently cover concerns addressed by this criterion. I would kindly request any additional feedback on this by Tuesday, 16 September. References: * Please refer to the slides and our discussion here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/432570369/2025…. * Please refer to Module 5 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rbRj1dCzqflyowGj0BXs2GCebaqgFoy5osqc51… (see Section 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.2.2) * “Criterion M: A final determination by a dispute resolution provider or a court of competent jurisdiction of intellectual property infringement relating to registration or use of a domain name by the applicant or any of the individuals named in the Organizational Account Record respectively, within the last 10 years.” Thank you Jared -- Jared Erwin Senior Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin(a)icann.org<mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>

1 0

Post call | SubPro IRT Meeting #158a | 11 September 2025
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 12, 2025

Sept. 12, 2025

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #158a of the SubPro IRT held on Thursday, 11 September 2025 are published on the meeting wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw>. These include: * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Attendance * Deck For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-irt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/pQM5Dg>. Best regards, Renate

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #158a | 11 September 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC
by Renate De Wulf Sept. 11, 2025

Sept. 11, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #158a of the SubPro IRT will be held in one hour on 11 September 2025 at 18:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/2sc9f5mm>]. Planned topics: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names & Appendix 10: Terms and Conditions The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #158a | 11 September 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 11, 2025

Sept. 11, 2025

Dear All, Please note that the topics being covered today are: String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names & Appendix 10: Terms and Conditions Apologies for the confusion. Best, Renate From: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Next Round Policy Implementation <NextRound_PolicyImplementation(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 10 September 2025 at 20:00 To: Next Round Policy Implementation via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #158a | 11 September 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC Dear All, Meeting #158a of the SubPro IRT will be held on 11 September 2025 at 18:00-20:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2sc9f5mm__;!!PtGJab4!7zR0pSH…>]. Planned topics: Objections & Appeals Procedures; Appendix 10: Terms & Conditions The final agenda can be consulted here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB…>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

Module 3/Appendix 3 minor changes
by Elisa Busetto Sept. 11, 2025

Sept. 11, 2025

Dear IRT members, We have made some additional minor changes to the Module 3<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15BnFZffKsLc22ufoAMJNY84-hdOCfbg3QY3Du4x…> language as follows: * Created a flowchart (in attachment) regarding the submission of application comments as requested by the ALAC in a public comment: With respect to Section 3.1.1, we recommend that ICANN make available a visual step-by-step guide on how to submit an application comment through the Application Comment Forum. Note that it will be beautified before publication. * Updated “Similar” to “similar” in the context of String Confusion Objections since the scope is broader than that of String Similarity Evaluation. This is in reaction to this public comment from Sophie Hey/Com Laude: 3.5.1.1 Ground for Objection String Confusion: In 3.5.1.1, 3.5.2.1 and 3.5.5 use the capitalised, defined term “Similar” to set out the test for String Confusion Objections. However, in 1.2.4.1 footnote 19, “Similar” is defined for String Similarity as ‘means visually confusing strings, or “strings so visually similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone. See String Similarity for more information.’ Given the tests for String Similarity and String Confusion Objections are different, a capitalised Similar should not be used in the String Confusion Objection test. Instead, a lower-case similar should be used in the String Confusion Objection test. * Added a table<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15BnFZffKsLc22ufoAMJNY84-hdOCfbg3QY3Du4x…> with definitions for objections and appeals terms as requested by the NCSG: For clarity, we recommend moving "article 2. Definitions" to module 3 as these definitions are important for understanding and following that section. The definitions in the Procedures<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azoMvN_dqrFGUwnl3KeO8nR5sl1cK1TiEi1wXOZ…> were also clarified. We have also updated the duration of the Early Warning/comment/objection filing window and clarified that the IO can only file objections during the initial objection filing window, as discussed. Please note that we are in the process of making non-substantive changes to the Procedures to ensure the process is streamlined. We will present such minor changes to the IRT in one of the upcoming meetings. Should you have any questions or feedback, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Best, Elisa

1 0

String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names
by Elisa Busetto Sept. 11, 2025

Sept. 11, 2025

Hello IRT, We have just published a paper concerning the String Similarity Assessment of Reserved Names on the wiki page of meeting #158a: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw Sarmad will go through it during the call, but it would be appreciated if you could already review it and provide any input you may have on list. Many thanks, Elisa

5 7

REMINDER | SubPro IRT Meeting #158a | 11 September 2025, 18:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 10, 2025

Sept. 10, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #158a of the SubPro IRT will be held on 11 September 2025 at 18:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/2sc9f5mm>]. Planned topics: Objections & Appeals Procedures; Appendix 10: Terms & Conditions The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB3Gw>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

SubPro IRT Meeting #159d | 14 October 2025, 19:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 9, 2025

Sept. 9, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #159d of the SubPro IRT will be held on 14 October 2025 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/yey3nwvb>]. Planned topics: TBA The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQAnH>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

SubPro IRT Meeting #159c | 7 October 2025, 05:00-06:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 9, 2025

Sept. 9, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #159c of the SubPro IRT will be held on 7 October 2025 at 05:00-06:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/43crmbdv>]. Planned topics: TBA The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KgAmH>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

SubPro IRT Meeting #159b | 30 September 2025, 13:00-14:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 9, 2025

Sept. 9, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #159b of the SubPro IRT will be held on 30 September 2025 at 13:00-14:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/2wnukhau>]. Planned topics: TBA The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQAmH>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

SubPro IRT Meeting #159a | 23 September 2025, 19:00-20:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 9, 2025

Sept. 9, 2025

Dear All, Meeting #159a of the SubPro IRT will be held on 23 September 2025 at 19:00-20:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/55w4jhb3>]. Planned topics: DRSP Fees and Updated Procedures The final agenda can be consulted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQAlH>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0RnNtRXkyNXJFZW9vdTEzZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/97063459905?pwd=VUVsd0J0…> Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: DQ#0L.9x5e Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13462487799,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (Houston) +16699006833,,97063459905#,,,,*5806401747# US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 970 6345 9905 Passcode: 5806401747 Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

Public Comment Re: Replacement String for ASP
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 5, 2025

Sept. 5, 2025

Dear all, Per Elaine’s suggestion, I am share ICANN’s response to Edmon’s proposal<https://www.icann.org/zh/public-comment/proceeding/final-proceeding-for-pro…>, submitted as a public comment, below. Note, this is the same text as we shared in decks that are available on the SubPro wiki. Best. Lars -- Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful suggestions. It is important to note that the SubPro Final Report rationale for Recommendation 17.15 and Implementation Guidance 17.16 and 17.17 did not reach consensus on supported applicants having “absolute priority”; only to “increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at auction.” The SubPro Final Report states in the rationale for 17.15: “The Working Group agreed that applicants qualified for Applicant Support should receive some form of special treatment in contention sets with standard applicants”. The SubPro Final Report outputs did not provide an amount by which those chances should be increased, only that ICANN should conduct research to determine the mechanism and amount of support. Based on expert research and the parameters set forth in the SubPro Final Report, ICANN contracted a third-party auctions expert vendor to conduct research on the nature of the bid credit, multiplier, or other mechanism. The findings and options from that research were presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112200431/2024…>. Based on this research and the SubPro Final Report rationale, ICANN proposed a bid credit and conducted research on other auction mechanisms with bid credits, in order to determine an appropriate level for the credit. This research was presented to the IRT<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SPIR/pages/112202581/2025…>. Based on research, the maximum bid credit amount provided in other auction examples was 35%, which is the percentage proposed to the IRT and outlined in the AGB, with a phased-out approach to prevent gaming. Regarding your proposal with regard to the replacement string. ICANN notes that this is a new idea that was not brought up during the community consultation in August 2024, nor during any IRT discussions or the previous public comment that included the current replacement string process. While it may be worth discussing whether giving ASP applicants the opportunity to get a ‘free shot’ after the replacement from a policy perspective, operational planning and system builds will be impacted by such a change at this late stage of the implementation process. Since the Board resolved on the implementation of the SubPro policy recommendations, ICANN has been working towards opening the next round in April 2026. In an ideal world, we would start operational planning and system builds only after the AGB is finalized. However, due to the timing requirements, these plannings and builds have to take (and are taking) place in parallel to the AGB drafting. We spoke about this explicitly with our contractors who confirmed that your proposed change could not be absorbed into ongoing implementation work whilst maintaining the goal to open the round in April 2026. Of course if your proposal were to become Board-adopted policy, ICANN will implement your proposal for future rounds. But for the next round we will not make this change to the replacement string process.

3 4