SubPro-IRT
Threads by month
- ----- 2026 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2025 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- 3 participants
- 1360 discussions
REMINDER | LATER TIME | SubPro IRT Meeting #159 | 18 September 2025, 17:00-19:00 UTC
by Next Round Policy Implementation Sept. 17, 2025
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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