Thank you, Anne, for the helpful update. We are extremely grateful to you and Susan for your efforts to get this issue before the Council and resolved at such short
notice.
As far as Option 3 is concerned, you are right: the 2007 GNSO policy states “Strings
must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain.” See
2007 Final Report. Therefore, Option 3 cannot be implemented without new policy.
Thank you again and best wishes,
Lars
From:
Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 13:05
To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>, Elisa Busette <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com>
Subject: [Ext] Reserved Names - GNSO Council Special Meeting October 9
Dear IRT,
As I'm sure Lars already knows, GNSO Council Leadership has called a Special Meeting on October 9 to discuss the Reserved Names implementation issue and the Options presented by staff, along with the previous positions covered in IRT meetings.
The Option 3 proposal supported by several of you on the list has been mentioned, but has not been briefed by staff at this point. I believe staff has concluded that Option 3 would involve further policy work that would endanger the timing
of the 2026 round. Is that correct, Lars?
I will be urging Council, after the full discussion on October 9, to conduct a vote outside the Council meeting to be done electronically pursuant to the terms of GNSO Operating Procedures Section 4.10. This requires a 7 day advance notice
and would be the quickest and most efficient way to have a Council decision prior to Dublin, i.e. one week after October 9.
Many thanks to Susan for reviewing our Council action items and then tracking down the time requirements associated with the Special Meeting, thereby helping us to "get on with it".
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese