Please see below the language of the Reserved Names Motion that passed at Council today. Anne and Susan Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com *Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* *Submitted By: Susan Payne* *Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz* Whereas: 1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its *Final Report [gnso.icann.org]* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-1...> to the GNSO Council; 2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council *approved [gnso.icann.org]* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions*2013...> all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report; 3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board *approved* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> those of the GNSO’s consensus recommendations that were not inconsistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections, which recommended top-level protections for specific identifiers associated with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the International Olympic Committee and the full names of specific International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations “the protected organizations”); 4. In the context of implementing the PDP Recommendations in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook, the implementation staff and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) discussed potential alternatives for the implementation of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP (“the Applicable Recommendations”), the so-called “Options 1 and 2” as set out in the staff *briefing [icann-community.atlassian.net]* <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces...> but could not reach agreement on which option properly reflects the intent and scope of the protections afforded by the Applicable Recommendations. 5. On 15 September 2025 staff referred this matter to the GNSO Council for guidance on the interpretation of the Applicable Recommendations, as a late addition to the agenda of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September 2025. 6. On 16 September 2025, the ICANN Board sent *correspondence* <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-ama...> to the GNSO Council, providing the Board’s interpretation of the relevant recommendations, while acknowledging that the decision resides with the Council; 7. The Council discussed the request for guidance during its meeting on 18 September, Extraordinary Meeting on 9 October 2025, and meeting on 29October 2025; and, 8. The Council has now carefully considered the natural meaning and original intent of Recommendations 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 from the Protection of IGO and INGO in All gTLDs PDP. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the Applicable Recommendations is only to ensure that no organization other than the protected organization can apply for the exact match of the specific, protected identifier associated with that organization, and that as such, Reserved Name strings are now placed in the category formerly-termed “ineligible for delegation” under paragraph 2.2.1.2.3 of the 2012 Round AGB. Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program and such a relevant identifier shall not operate as a bar to an application by another applicant for a string that could be considered potentially confusingly similar during that evaluation. Objection proceedings and GAC Advice could still be brought against such a third-party application, where applicable, in the usual manner. Pursuant to existing policy, any application submitted by a protected organization for its protected string would remain subject to existing policy barring delegation if such string is found to be visually-confusingly similar to a string previously delegated. Option 1 would align with this interpretation. 2. The GNSO Council acknowledges that this was a difficult issue. Although the majority support this interpretation as best reflecting the intent of the policy recommendations, which were made more than a decade ago, this view was not unanimous. It is clear that reasonable people can differ as to this intent. 3. The GNSO appreciates the Board’s consideration of steps which could be taken to ensure that the protected organizations and GAC are made aware, if any application for a confusingly similar string were to be submitted, as set out in the penultimate paragraph of the *Board’s letter * <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-amadoz-16sep25-en.pdf>of 26 September 2025. The GNSO Council would support and encourage the following steps: a) The application process must prominently display and clearly communicate the Reserved Names list so that TLD applicants are fully aware of its existence and implications prior to filing its choice of the TLD string. b) That Org should contact the relevant protected organizations after String Confirmation Day to ensure they are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, and are aware of their options for bringing formal Objection or seeking support of the GAC. c) That Org should also contact the GAC after String Confirmation Day to ensure that the GAC are aware of any applied-for strings that could be considered confusingly similar to those on the Reserved Names list, in order that GAC members may consider whether any Early Warning(s) or GAC Consensus Advice would be appropriate. d) We also would encourage the GAC to contact the relevant protected organizations to ensure that they are aware of any applied-for strings and can decide whether to utilize any challenge methods outlined in the AGB. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. f) The GNSO Council notes that procedures exist under the AGB and ICANN Bylaws that govern how a TLD application is treated, where an objection is filed or GAC advice is submitted against the string, pending resolution of the same. g) ) The GNSO Council further recommends that the IRT and Org consider including a provision in the reserved names section of the AGB advising potential applicants that ICANN will notify the GAC and the relevant protected organizations to ensure they are aware of any relevant applied-for strings. 4. If the Board considers it timely for the existing policy to be reviewed, the GNSO Council would invite the Board to request an issues report for further potential policy work which might apply to subsequent future rounds. The GNSO Council assumes that Org would again be instructed to take any steps considered appropriate to safeguard the strings on the Reserved Names List from any confusingly similar applications, which might be submitted in any application round pending the future conclusion of such policy work. 5. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT.