- SubPro-IRT - lists.icann.org

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

Sept. 15, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 15, 2025

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

2 1

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

Sept. 12, 2025

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

6 5

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

Sept. 12, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 12, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 11, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 11, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 11, 2025

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

1 0

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

Sept. 11, 2025

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

5 7

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

Sept. 10, 2025

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

1 0