Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
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.
Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance. First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1. That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g): 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. [Jeff] - my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged. 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. [Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent. 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. [Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck. 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. [Jeff] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. [Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be? 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. [Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one. 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. [Jeff} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review. In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program..." For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful. Sincerely, Jeff On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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 [mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com] Council Confirmation of Policy Intent regarding Specific IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations Submitted By: Susan Payne Seconded By: Nacho Amadoz Whereas: * 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; * 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; * 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”); * 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. * 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. * 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; * 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, * 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: * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. _______________________________________________ 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. [0238efaf-c2a5-4d28-96e6-41a908ba8199]
Hi Jeff, You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.) I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability. So from my point of view: 1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council. *2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are:* (a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit? (b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.) (c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.) (d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin. I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance.
First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1.
That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g):
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.
[Jeff] - *my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged.*
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.
[*Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent.*
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.
[*Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck.*
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.
[*Jeff*] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
*[Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be?*
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.
[*Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one.*
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. [*Jeff*} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review.
In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "*Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program*..."
For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
[image: 7ee21845-369a-451c-a37a-8f545728132c]
Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means. But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name. All of the Org’s commitments flow from there…. In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.” That is essentially what the motion says. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue Hi Jeff, You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.) I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability. So from my point of view: 1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council. 2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are: (a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit? (b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.) (c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.) (d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin. I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance. First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1. That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g): 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. [Jeff] - my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged. 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. [Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent. 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. [Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck. 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. [Jeff] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. [Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be? 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. [Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one. 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. [Jeff} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review. In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program..." For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:ii_19a7efbdb2bcb971f161] On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto: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-ama...> 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. 1. 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. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Throwing my 2 cents here (or I guess it’s a nickel since the US is no longer making pennies). To my reading, what the motion says in practicality and in the best (if not simplest) way that council could agree on is: Org , do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names, but after that do whatever you, the board, the GAC , the ALAC and anyone else in the community wants to do to let the affected organizations know about whatever strings you thinks they should know about - any or all of them - you choose. But policy is that no tests will be conducted on these names. Trying to litigate every syllable of every word in here isn't going to get anybody anywhere. We've got a practically minded response from the council. Let's move forward. Thanks to Anne & Susan for shepherding this response through. Karen Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady 984-335-4067 ________________________________ From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 1:03:57 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means. But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name. All of the Org’s commitments flow from there…. In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.” That is essentially what the motion says. Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue Hi Jeff, You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.) I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability. So from my point of view: 1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council. 2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are: (a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit? (b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.) (c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.) (d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin. I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance. First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1. That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g): 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. [Jeff] - my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged. 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. [Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent. 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. [Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck. 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. [Jeff] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. [Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be? 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. [Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one. 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. [Jeff} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review. In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program..." For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:ii_19a7efbdb2bcb971f161] On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto: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-ama...> 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. 1. 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. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
I think your comments are worth much more than a nickel....maybe a quarter ;) That's the thing...it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, which is again the issue with such a motion. Resolutions are supposed to be objectively enforceable and not leave it to all of us to interpret in our own way. But at the end of the day, it is what it is. But for this group, other than the refund, I really do not believe there is anything else that needs to go in the Guidebook. The list of Reserved Names should already be in there, so nothing to do there. If ICANN Org wants to do anything else, my opinion is that they can do that through an advisory, FAQ, etc...but it does not change the AGB. Sincerely, Jeff On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:27 PM Karen Day <karen@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents here (or I guess it’s a nickel since the US is no longer making pennies). To my reading, what the motion says in practicality and in the best (if not simplest) way that council could agree on is: Org , do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names, but after that do whatever you, the board, the GAC , the ALAC and anyone else in the community wants to do to let the affected organizations know about whatever strings you thinks they should know about - any or all of them - you choose. But policy is that no tests will be conducted on these names.
Trying to litigate every syllable of every word in here isn't going to get anybody anywhere. We've got a practically minded response from the council. Let's move forward.
Thanks to Anne & Susan for shepherding this response through. Karen
Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady 984-335-4067 ------------------------------ *From:* Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 1:03:57 AM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means.
But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name.
All of the Org’s commitments flow from there….
In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.”
That is essentially what the motion says.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Hi Jeff,
You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.)
I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability.
So from my point of view:
1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council.
*2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are:*
(a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit?
(b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.)
(c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.)
(d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin.
I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance.
First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1.
That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g):
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.
[Jeff] - *my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged.*
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.
[*Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent.*
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.
[*Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck.*
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.
[*Jeff*] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
*[Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be?*
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.
[*Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one.*
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. [*Jeff*} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review.
In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "*Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program*..."
For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
[image: 7ee21845-369a-451c-a37a-8f545728132c]
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
--
Jeff - the list of Reserved Names is apparently not in the guidebook. I confirmed this request for a link in our IRT meeting in Dublin because I was aware of Desiree's friendly amendment in 3(a) of the Motion. Lars said this would be addressed after the Motion had passed because the AGB had already been sent to the Board. Of course applicants must be made aware of the refund status if it is accepted by the Board. The Board and Org could decide the appropriate amount and timing. Can't imagine why you would not want potential applicants to know of a risk of notification to the GAC and the protected organizations via the AGB. They shouldn't have to hire a consultant to become aware of this. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:08 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
I think your comments are worth much more than a nickel....maybe a quarter ;)
That's the thing...it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, which is again the issue with such a motion. Resolutions are supposed to be objectively enforceable and not leave it to all of us to interpret in our own way.
But at the end of the day, it is what it is. But for this group, other than the refund, I really do not believe there is anything else that needs to go in the Guidebook. The list of Reserved Names should already be in there, so nothing to do there. If ICANN Org wants to do anything else, my opinion is that they can do that through an advisory, FAQ, etc...but it does not change the AGB.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:27 PM Karen Day <karen@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents here (or I guess it’s a nickel since the US is no longer making pennies). To my reading, what the motion says in practicality and in the best (if not simplest) way that council could agree on is: Org , do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names, but after that do whatever you, the board, the GAC , the ALAC and anyone else in the community wants to do to let the affected organizations know about whatever strings you thinks they should know about - any or all of them - you choose. But policy is that no tests will be conducted on these names.
Trying to litigate every syllable of every word in here isn't going to get anybody anywhere. We've got a practically minded response from the council. Let's move forward.
Thanks to Anne & Susan for shepherding this response through. Karen
Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady 984-335-4067 ------------------------------ *From:* Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 1:03:57 AM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means.
But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name.
All of the Org’s commitments flow from there….
In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.”
That is essentially what the motion says.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Hi Jeff,
You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.)
I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability.
So from my point of view:
1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council.
*2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are:*
(a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit?
(b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.)
(c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.)
(d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin.
I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance.
First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1.
That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g):
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.
[Jeff] - *my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged.*
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.
[*Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent.*
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.
[*Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck.*
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.
[*Jeff*] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
*[Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be?*
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.
[*Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one.*
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. [*Jeff*} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review.
In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "*Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program*..."
For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
[image: 7ee21845-369a-451c-a37a-8f545728132c]
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
--
Anne, Not sure what you are saying. Again ICANN Org will not be doing a string similarity test, right. So on what basis will ICANN Org be sending out a notification to either the GAC or to the applicant? All applicants will know that the GAC will be seeing the entire list of strings. All applicants already know that the GAC may issue early warning and/or GAC Advice. All applicants will know the grounds for objections which include legal rights, community-based, string confusion, etc. therefore, what applicant is not going to know that if they apply for a string which is confusingly similar to a reserved name (which I can’t imagine will happen) that they may face objections from a third party including the GAC through Advice. This will not be known to just consultants. It’s already in the Guidebook. Therefore, in my view nothing new needs to be stated other than the part about the refund and when it would be available. Separately I would love to hear the methodology icann will use to determine whether a string COULD potentially be confusingly similar without doing a string similarity assessment. But again that does not need to be in the Guidebook. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC jeff@jjnsolutions.Com On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 7:52 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff - the list of Reserved Names is apparently not in the guidebook. I confirmed this request for a link in our IRT meeting in Dublin because I was aware of Desiree's friendly amendment in 3(a) of the Motion. Lars said this would be addressed after the Motion had passed because the AGB had already been sent to the Board.
Of course applicants must be made aware of the refund status if it is accepted by the Board. The Board and Org could decide the appropriate amount and timing.
Can't imagine why you would not want potential applicants to know of a risk of notification to the GAC and the protected organizations via the AGB. They shouldn't have to hire a consultant to become aware of this.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:08 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
I think your comments are worth much more than a nickel....maybe a quarter ;)
That's the thing...it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, which is again the issue with such a motion. Resolutions are supposed to be objectively enforceable and not leave it to all of us to interpret in our own way.
But at the end of the day, it is what it is. But for this group, other than the refund, I really do not believe there is anything else that needs to go in the Guidebook. The list of Reserved Names should already be in there, so nothing to do there. If ICANN Org wants to do anything else, my opinion is that they can do that through an advisory, FAQ, etc...but it does not change the AGB.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:27 PM Karen Day <karen@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Throwing my 2 cents here (or I guess it’s a nickel since the US is no longer making pennies). To my reading, what the motion says in practicality and in the best (if not simplest) way that council could agree on is: Org , do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names, but after that do whatever you, the board, the GAC , the ALAC and anyone else in the community wants to do to let the affected organizations know about whatever strings you thinks they should know about - any or all of them - you choose. But policy is that no tests will be conducted on these names.
Trying to litigate every syllable of every word in here isn't going to get anybody anywhere. We've got a practically minded response from the council. Let's move forward.
Thanks to Anne & Susan for shepherding this response through. Karen
Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady 984-335-4067 ------------------------------ *From:* Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, November 14, 2025 1:03:57 AM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* subpro-irt@icann.org <subpro-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means.
But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name.
All of the Org’s commitments flow from there….
In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.”
That is essentially what the motion says.
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ------------------------------ *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Cc:* Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org>; subpro-irt@icann.org < subpro-irt@icann.org>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com> *Subject:* Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue
Hi Jeff,
You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.)
I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability.
So from my point of view:
1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council.
*2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are:*
(a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit?
(b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.)
(c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.)
(d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin.
I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance.
First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1.
That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g):
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.
[Jeff] - *my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged.*
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.
[*Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent.*
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.
[*Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck.*
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.
[*Jeff*] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT.
e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund.
*[Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be?*
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.
[*Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one.*
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. [*Jeff*} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review.
In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "*Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program*..."
For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful.
Sincerely,
Jeff
On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
[image: 7ee21845-369a-451c-a37a-8f545728132c]
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
--
Jeff, I don’t necessarily disagree with you but would point out that something being in the AGB or a Board resolution is not the same thing as all applicants already knowing it. I get questions from may regular ICANN participants who have not been actively participating in SubPro about stuff like this and if you have talked to anyone from outside the industry that is interested in applying (and there are many) then it would be clear that they definitely do not know that the GAC will be seeing the entire list of strings may issue early warning and/or GAC Advice or the grounds for objections, or many other things that we take for granted. This is like saying of course all Christians already know or will know what is in the bible. This stuff is complicated and esoteric and the AGB is almost as long as the bible. This resolution just creates another potential surprise for applicants and more uncertainty. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Chair, Internet, Domain Name, e-Commerce and Social Media Practice Greenberg Traurig, LLP [cid:image001.png@01DC553F.F72CA0F0] trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> | View GT Biography <https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/t/trachtenberg-marc-h> [Greenberg Traurig Logo] [Greenberg Traurig Logo] From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 7:11 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Cc: Karen Day <karen@elstermcgrady.com>; subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue *EXTERNAL TO GT* Anne, Not sure what you are saying. Again ICANN Org will not be doing a string similarity test, right. So on what basis will ICANN Org be sending out a notification to either the GAC or to the applicant? All applicants will know that the GAC will be seeing the entire list of strings. All applicants already know that the GAC may issue early warning and/or GAC Advice. All applicants will know the grounds for objections which include legal rights, community-based, string confusion, etc. therefore, what applicant is not going to know that if they apply for a string which is confusingly similar to a reserved name (which I can’t imagine will happen) that they may face objections from a third party including the GAC through Advice. This will not be known to just consultants. It’s already in the Guidebook. Therefore, in my view nothing new needs to be stated other than the part about the refund and when it would be available. Separately I would love to hear the methodology icann will use to determine whether a string COULD potentially be confusingly similar without doing a string similarity assessment. But again that does not need to be in the Guidebook. Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC jeff@jjnsolutions.Com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.Com> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 7:52 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> wrote: Jeff - the list of Reserved Names is apparently not in the guidebook. I confirmed this request for a link in our IRT meeting in Dublin because I was aware of Desiree's friendly amendment in 3(a) of the Motion. Lars said this would be addressed after the Motion had passed because the AGB had already been sent to the Board. Of course applicants must be made aware of the refund status if it is accepted by the Board. The Board and Org could decide the appropriate amount and timing. Can't imagine why you would not want potential applicants to know of a risk of notification to the GAC and the protected organizations via the AGB. They shouldn't have to hire a consultant to become aware of this. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:08 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: I think your comments are worth much more than a nickel....maybe a quarter ;) That's the thing...it means whatever anyone wants it to mean, which is again the issue with such a motion. Resolutions are supposed to be objectively enforceable and not leave it to all of us to interpret in our own way. But at the end of the day, it is what it is. But for this group, other than the refund, I really do not believe there is anything else that needs to go in the Guidebook. The list of Reserved Names should already be in there, so nothing to do there. If ICANN Org wants to do anything else, my opinion is that they can do that through an advisory, FAQ, etc...but it does not change the AGB. Sincerely, Jeff On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:27 PM Karen Day <karen@elstermcgrady.com<mailto:karen@elstermcgrady.com>> wrote: Throwing my 2 cents here (or I guess it’s a nickel since the US is no longer making pennies). To my reading, what the motion says in practicality and in the best (if not simplest) way that council could agree on is: Org , do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names, but after that do whatever you, the board, the GAC , the ALAC and anyone else in the community wants to do to let the affected organizations know about whatever strings you thinks they should know about - any or all of them - you choose. But policy is that no tests will be conducted on these names. Trying to litigate every syllable of every word in here isn't going to get anybody anywhere. We've got a practically minded response from the council. Let's move forward. Thanks to Anne & Susan for shepherding this response through. Karen Karen L. Day DNS Industry Advisor Elster & McGrady 984-335-4067 ________________________________ From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 1:03:57 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue Thanks Anne. I understand the words and what it literally means. But my main question still remains. If there is no string similarity review, then how will one know whether one string is or could be confusingly similar to a Reserved Name. All of the Org’s commitments flow from there…. In other words we are saying to Org “do not do a test to see if something is confusingly similar to the reserved names.” And then we are saying “but without that test you still should notify the relevant parties if a string fails that test which you did not do.” That is essentially what the motion says. Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GMTSY0oOx2IX...> ________________________________ From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2025 4:42:19 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann@icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>>; subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>>; Elisa Busetto <elisa.busetto@icann.org<mailto:elisa.busetto@icann.org>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@comlaude.com<mailto:susan.payne@comlaude.com>> Subject: Re: [SubPro-IRT] Council Motion Passed in Relation to the IGO/INGO Reserved Names Issue Hi Jeff, You are probably aware that the basis for the drafting of Motion 4 (which was done in cooperation with RySG Councilors) was actually the Board's letter to Council as to what it would do if Council affirmed the intent of Option 1 (and not Option 2 as per the Board's preference). So the Motion is tied to the language of the Board's letter and the Board will need to instruct ICANN staff in relation to that. (See paragraph 3 of the Motion which links the Board's letter to Council.) I tend to agree with most of what you said about changes to the AGB EXCEPT to add that it's important that in the Reserved Names section, we need (1) a link to the Reserved Names so that potential applicants can readily see what they are and (2) a reference to the fact that the GAC and the "protected organizations" may be notified of confusingly similar strings. The reason for this is Predictability. So from my point of view: 1. The Council has endorsed the Board's approach to the adoption of Option 1 as the Council's interpretation of the intent of the IGO/INGO policy and has endorsed the Board's intent to notify. This is referenced in the intro to Paragraph 3 via a link to the Board's letter to Council. 2. Actions for the IRT in relation to the AGB to be published in December are: (a) Confirm with ICANN staff that the current version of the AGB approved by the Board accurately reflects no String Similarity Review for Reserved Names. Does this need to be more explicit? (b) Assuming Board agreement, confirm ICANN Org will add a provision designating the appropriate refund as provided in Paragraph 3(e) in the event the Board/Org notification procedure is triggered as to any particular applied-for string. I assume the timing of the refund offer would be when the notification to the GAC and the protected entity is made by Org. (Surely there would also be a time limit on requesting the refund.) (c) Confirm that ICANN Org will provide a link in the AGB to the actual list of Reserved Names so that these are "prominent" and "clearly communicated" pursuant to Paragraph 3(a) of the Motion. At present, these names are not linked, but I understand from Lars that they are available at a UN website. Also ask ICANN Org whether anything will be triggered at the point of application or not as per 3(a) of the Motion. (It may be a bit late for that second prong.) (d) Pursuant to 3(g) of the Motion, it is recommended that the IRT and staff consider addition of language in the Reserved Names section which advises potential applicants of the added notifications. I'm not sure why you think this isn't necessary when you have always been the champion of Predictability and have always stressed the importance of applicant readiness. In fact, that is also the reason for the addition of the language in 3(a) of the Motion which was adopted as friendly in Dublin. I assume that Lars and Company will come back to the IRT regarding the above four AGB items. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>> wrote: Thank you Anne. Now that it is finally back with us, I can give my view on the substance. First, Resolved 1-2 makes sense to me as that was like our option 1. That said, here are my questions on Resolved 3(a) - 3(g): 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. [Jeff] - my assumption is that this will be in the Applicant Guidebook and perhaps somewhere an FAQ on ICANN's site about this. Not sure what else is being envisaged. 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. [Jeff} As Resolved 1 states that there will be no string similarity check run on the strings against the Reserved Names, what does it mean "names that could be confusingly similar to the Reserved Names" . How would one know what "COULD" be confusingly similar? That sounds incredibly nconsistent. 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. [Jeff} Again, if there is no string similarity check being run, this too is inconsistent....how does one know what "COULD" be considered confusingly similar. But I guess this will be for Org to figure out. I wish them luck. 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. [Jeff] I am not sure what we do with this one. It is the Council encouraging the GAC to do something, so I don't view this as something for the IRT. e) That Org should also notify the applicant of the confusingly similar string, and give them the option to withdraw for an appropriate refund. [Jeff] Again, if there is no string similarity check, then how would Org notify the "confusingly similar string applicant"? But I guess we need to add something about a full refund to the Guidebook, though what would the timing of this be? 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. [Jeff[ Nothing for the IRT to do with this one. 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. [Jeff} I do not view this as a change to the AGB. ICANN just needs to send the full list of strings to the GAC after string confirmation day. But not sure how ORG will know what is "relevant" again since there is no string similarity review. In short, I do not believe that the IRT or Org needs to make any changes to the AGB as it stands today except that it must codify Resolved 1 and add a new refund section. Other than that, I do not believe anything else needs changing. But I would like an explanation from the Liaisons on the comments I have made....particularly how one makes a determination that something "could" be deemed confusingly similar when there is no string similarity review envisages in Resolved 1 which clearly states, "Accordingly, the relevant identifiers shall not be included in the String Similarity Evaluation in the New gTLD Program..." For the record: I did inform our RySG Councilors about this and they did their best to get language that would not be "harmful." But the insistence of other councilors to include this ambiguous language was just too much to get a resolution passed and we gave up knowing that the language would came back to us. So my statements are in no way against the RySG Councilors who I know did their best and for that I am grateful. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image004.png@01DC553F.F72CA0F0] On 11/13/2025 3:14:04 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: 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<mailto: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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-mee...> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/system/files/corresponde...> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/system/files/corresponde...> 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. 1. 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. 2. The GNSO Council requests that its liaisons to the SubPro IRT provide this information to the implementation staff and IRT. _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GMTSY0oOx2IXcNDN-wN48pflP_UKx3XLGunj9GJ7QXaqIV8yeDztyXxlRBR13KD7k40TUjn3czGu0JIjIyhrc1Q$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!DUT_TFPxUQ!GMTSY0oOx2IXcNDN-wN48pflP_UKx3XLGunj9GJ7QXaqIV8yeDztyXxlRBR13KD7k40TUjn3czGu0JIj7O59xV0$>). 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Jeff Neuman -
Karen Day -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com