Ashley Roberts Head of New TLD Consultancy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264

 

 

Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube

From: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 at 7:15 AM
To: Michael Karakash <michael.karakash@icann.org>
Cc: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Reserved and Blocked Names List Terminology

 

[Note: Including the SubPro IRT in this reply for transparency, as this information could be helpful to others]

 

Dear Ashley,

 

Thank you for your questions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify how the new definitions of "Reserved Names" and "Blocked Names" interact with string similarity rules under the updated Applicant Guidebook.

 

Reserved Names and Blocked Names Redefined:
As you’ve noted, the terminology has been adjusted from the 2012 Guidebook. Specifically:

 

• In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, what was termed the “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” is now referred to as the Reserved Names List.
• The list previously called the “Top-Level Reserved Names List” is now referred to as the Blocked Names List.

 

In the most recent version of the Blocked and Reserved Names AGB draft which you find on the IRT Community Wiki, you can see the clarifying language we’ve added. It states: 

 

“Note: In the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, the list called “Strings Ineligible for Delegation” is now referred to as the Reserved Names List, and the list previously called the “Top-Level Reserved Names List” is now known as the Blocked Names List.”

 

In response to the questions in your email, the string similarity rules apply to all Reserved Names and Blocked Names listed in the table in the current AGB document. This means that:

 

• Any applied-for gTLD string, or any of its variant strings, will not proceed if it is found to be similar to any name in the Reserved Names List or Blocked Names List.
• However, there is an exception as noted in the draft String Similarity Review AGB language: “If the applied-for gTLD string is a variant of a Reserved Name and the applicant is the Reserved Name entity itself, then the application can proceed with the evaluation as a variant gTLD of that Reserved Name.” As noted on the table, the only strings that are Reserved Names in the Next Round are Limited International IGO INGOs.
• As a reminder, the variant of reserved name can only be applied for if the actual reserved name string is also applied for. Language in the draft IDN AGB language states: “An application for an allocatable variant gTLD cannot precede an application for its primary IDN gTLD.”

 

I hope this clarifies how the terms "Reserved Name" and "Blocked Name" are now used in the AGB and confirms the scope of string similarity evaluation for all names included in these lists. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have further questions or if there’s anything more we can assist with.

 

Thank you!

Best,

 

Michael

 

Original email:

 

From: Ashley Roberts <ashley.roberts@comlaude.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2024 at 11:23
To: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] Reserved Names List

 

Dear Lars,

 

We are already speaking to clients that are exploring applying for a TLD in the next round so we are beginning to carry out due diligence on the strings they are interested in. In going through the new string similarity rules it wasn’t clear to me what comprised the Reserved Names list referenced in point 6 on page 3 [itp.cdn.icann.org] of the rules so I wonder if you can please clarify?

 

In the 2012 round the only Reserved Names which were subject to string similarity (as opposed to exact match blocking) were those on the ICANN reserved list, which consisted of 34 strings (see page 60 [newgtlds.icann.org]). Other categories of term were blocked from application but were not subject to string similarity. This included country names, IOC and RC names, and 3 letter country codes. So something like FRANCE was blocked from registration but anything confusingly similar to that was fine.

 

Under the new AGB language it seems as though what were termed “reserved names” and “blocked names” in 2012 have been re-categorised. According to the table in this AGB section [itp.cdn.icann.org], the only terms which are Reserved Names are the IOC/RC/IGO names; everything else is considered a Blocked Name. Based on this categorisation, that would mean the only “reserved names” that are subject to string similarity are the IOC/RC/IGO names. However, that doesn’t seem right. Alternatively, if I assume all Reserved Names and Blocked Names in the table are subject to string similarity that would include country names and 3 letter country codes in that review, which also doesn’t seem right. This is making me wonder if there is an inconsistency with the use of the terms “reserved name” and “blocked name” across these different sections of the AGB. Can I ask you to kindly clarify:

 

• Whether all categories in this table [itp.cdn.icann.org] are subject to string similarity rules, or
• Whether only some of the categories in the table are subject to string similarity rules (and if so, which categories)

 

Apologies that I didn’t pick this up during the recent public comment period.

 

Many thanks,

Ashley

 

 

 

Ashley Roberts    Head of New TLD Consultancy

[comlaude.com]

28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 264

comlaude.com [comlaude.com]

Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io] and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io] [linkedin.com]  [twitter.com]  [facebook.com]  [youtube.com]

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 [comlaude.com]