On 16 Sep 2025, at 16:22, Pruis, Elaine via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:

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-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf 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 includedright?)

AfDB	African Development Bank
AU	African Union
ACP	African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States
OPANAL	Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean
CAN	Andean Community
CAF	Andean Development Corporation
ADB	Asian Development Bank
ALADI	Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración
ACS	Association of Caribbean States
ASEAN	Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CARICOM	Caribbean Community
SICA	Central American Integration System
CSTO	Collective Security Treaty Organization
COI	Commission de l’Océan Indien
CFC	Common Fund for Commodities
CIS	Commonwealth of Independent States
CEN-SAD	Community of Sahel-Saharan States
CPLP	Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa
GCC	Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf
COE	Council of Europe
EAC	East African Community
ECCAS	Economic Community of Central African States
ECOWAS	Economic Community of West African States
ECO	Economic Cooperation Organization
ENCHARTER	Energy Charter Conference
EABR	Eurasian Development Bank
EurAsEC	EurAsian Economic Community
CERN	European Organization for Nuclear Research
EU	European Union
HCCH	Hague Conference on Private International Law
IADB	Inter-American Development Bank
IGAD	Intergovernmental Authority on Development
ICMPD	International Centre for Migration Policy Development
ICC-CPI	International Criminal Court
IDLO	International Development Law Organization
IHFFC	International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission
IHO	International Hydrographic Organization
IDEA	International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
IOM	International Organization for Migration
IRENA	International Renewable Energy Agency
ISA	International Seabed Authority
ITLOS	International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
IDB	Islamic Development Bank Group
IILA	Italian-Latin American Institute
SELA	Latin American and Caribbean Economic System
PARLATINO	Latin American Parliament
LAS	League of Arab States
OECD	Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OIF	Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie
OECS	Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
OIC	Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
GUAM	Organization for Democracy and Economic Development
OAS	Organization of American States
BSEC	Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation
FORUMSEC	Pacific Islands Forum
PCA	Permanent Court of Arbitration
SCO	Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
SAARC	South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SOUTHCENTRE	South Centre
SADC	Southern African Development Community
OFID	The OPEC Fund for International Development
UEMOA	Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine
UNASUR	Union of South American Nations
WCO	World Customs Organization
AIPO	African Intellectual Property Organization
APPA	African Petroleum Producers Association
ARIPO	African Regional Intellectual Property Organization
ACTO	Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization
	ASEAN Promotion Centre on Trade, Investment, and Tourism a)
APO	Asian Productivity Organization
BIS	Bank for International Settlements
BOIP	Benelux Organization for Intellectual Property
BSTDP	Black Sea Trade and Development Bank
BIPM	Bureau International des Poids et Mesures
CTU	Carribean Telecommunications Union
BCEAO	Central Bank of West African States
CEPT	Conférence européenne des administrations des postes et des télécommunications
CEB	Council of Europe Development Bank
EFTACOURT	EFTA Court
EFTASURV	EFTA Surveillance Authority
EUCLID	EUCLID University
EAPO	Eurasian Patent Organization
EURATOM	European Atomic Energy Community
EBRD	European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ECB	European Central Bank
ECMWF	European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
EC	European Commission
ECMT	European Conference of Ministers of Transport
EUCO	European Council
EEAS	European External Action Service
EFI	European Forest Institute
EFTA	European Free Trade Association
EIB	European Investment Bank
EMBL	European Molecular Biology Laboratory
ESO	European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere
EUROCONTROL	European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
EP	European Parliament
EPO	European Patent Office
EPO	European Patent Organisation
EUROPOL	European Police Office
ESA	European Space Agency
FAO	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IIC	Inter-American Investment Corporation
IACA	International Anti-Corruption Academy
IAEA	International Atomic Energy Agency
CIHEAM	International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies
ICSID	International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
ICAO	International Civil Aviation Organization
ICCO	International Cocoa Organization
ICO	International Coffee Organization
ICJ-CIJ	International Court of Justice
IDA	International Development Association
IEA	International Energy Agency
BIE	International Exhibitions Bureau
IFC	International Finance Corporation
IFAD	International Fund for Agricultural Development
UNIDROIT	International Institute for the Unification of Private Law
IJC	International Joint Commission
ILO	International Labour Organization
IMO	International Maritime Organization
IMSO	International Mobile Satellite Organization
IMF	International Monetary Fund
IOOC	International Olive Oil Council
INTERELECTRO	International Organization for Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Field of the Electrotechnical Industry
ISTC	International Science and Technology Center
ISO	International Sugar Organization
ITU	International Telecommunication Union
ITSO	International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
ITF	International Transport Forum
ITTO	International Tropical Timber Organization
UPOV	International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants
IWC	International Whaling Commission
ITER	ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
MRC	Mekong River Commission
MERCOSUR	Mercado Común de Sur
MIGA	Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
NIB	Nordic Investment Bank
NPI	Nordic Patent Institute
NASCO	North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
NATO	North Atlantic Treaty Organization
PICES	North Pacific Marine Science Organization
OCCAR	Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation
OHADA	Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa
OPCW	Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
OIV	Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin
OPEC	Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
SPC	Pacific Community
PAHO	Pan American Health Organization
PUASP	Postal Union of the Americas, Spain and Portugal
CTBTO	Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization
COMESA	The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
BENELUX	Union Benelux
UN	United Nations
UNCCD	United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Expecting Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa
UNESCO	United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNIDO	United Nations Industrial Development Organization
UPU	Universal Postal Union
IBRD	World Bank
WHO	World Health Organization
WIPO	World Intellectual Property Organization
WMO	World Meteorological Organization
OIE	World Organisation for Animal Health
UNWTO	World Tourism Organization
WTO	World Trade Organization
AALCO	Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization
CICA	Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia
ICGLR	International Conference on the Great Lakes Region of Africa
INTERPOL	International Criminal Police Organization - INTERPOL
IFAS	International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea
IUCN	International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
OSCE	Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PAM	Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean
PPD	Partners in Population and Development
RECSA	Regional Centre on Small Arms in the Great Lakes Region, the Horn of Africa and Bordering States
COMMONWEALTH	The Commonwealth
UPEACE	University for Peace
INTRACEN	International Trade Centre
UNAIDS	Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
UNICEF	United Nations Children’s Fund
UNCTAD	United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP	United Nations Development Programme
UNWOMEN	United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
UNEP	United Nations Environment Programme
UNHCR	United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees /UN Refugee Agency
UN-HABITAT	United Nations Human Settlements Programme
UNICC	United Nations International Computing Centre
UNOPS	United Nations Office for Project Services
UNFPA	United Nations Population Fund
UNRWA	United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
UNU	United Nations University
WFP	World 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@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 3:58 PM
To: Elaine Pruis <epruis@verisign.com>
Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>, "ashley.roberts@comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@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:

 

1. Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun (in all 6 official UN languages). See image below for these strings:
   
   <image001.png>

 

2. Olympic and Olympiad (in all 6 official UN languages plus German, Greek, and Korean). See image below for these strings:

 

<image002.png>

 

3. 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

 

4. All of the strings on this IGO list created by the GAC:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-annex2-22mar13-en.pdf

I hope this helps, and please let us know if you have any further questions.

 

Thank you!

Best,

 

Michael

 

 

From: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis@verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 at 2:46 AM
To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>
Cc: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>, "ashley.roberts@comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@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@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-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf [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/reserved-names [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@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 at 8:22 AM
To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>
Cc: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis@verisign.com>, Sarmad Hussain <sarmad.hussain@icann.org>, Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>, "ashley.roberts@comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@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@gmail.com

 

 

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:05 AM Anne ICANN <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@gmail.com

 

 

On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 11:54 AM Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@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@icann.org>
Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 13 September 2025 at 20:22
To: "Pruis, Elaine" <epruis@verisign.com>
Cc: "ashley.roberts@comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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.html [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@gmail.com

 

 

On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:46 PM Pruis, Elaine <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@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 at 11:14 AM
To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>
Cc: Elaine Pruis <epruis@verisign.com>, "ashley.roberts@comlaude.com" <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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@gmail.com

 

 

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 4:53 AM Chris Disspain via SubPro-IRT <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@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@icann.org>
Reply-To: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>
Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 at 9:59 AM
To: Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>, "subpro-irt@icann.org" <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]

 

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@icann.org> 
Sent: 05 September 2025 12:10
To: 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]

 

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@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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]) 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@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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]) 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@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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.