Councilors, I would like to raise some concerns regarding the amendment to the motion on Latin Script Diacritics, specifically the addition of "blocked variants introduced via cross-script transitivity." I believe this amendment introduces complexity without offering clear benefits to our core objective. Our initial purpose was to examine cases where an ASCII gTLD and its Latin script diacritic variant (we started with .quebec vs .québec) may be visually confusable and to determine if these can be treated as variants within the Latin script context when it comes to proposing new TLDs. This narrow focus on visual similarity within the Latin script allows us to address specific issues around diacritic-based variants efficiently. The addition of cross-script transitivity shifts the scope of our work substantially by introducing multi-script relationships, which I see as not advantageous to this PDP. Re-reading the Root Zone Label Generation Rules for the Latin Script <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-latin-script-26may22-...>, I believe the points below substantiate this argument: 1. The issue at hand is the treatment of Latin script diacritic variants. Introducing cross-script transitivity means addressing relationships with characters in other scripts, like Cyrillic or Greek, which does not directly pertain to the Latin diacritic issue. This adds scope beyond what is necessary to fulfill the PDP’s original intent. 2. The RZ-LGR already has frameworks to handle cross-script similarity, primarily to address phishing risks and operational security concerns that arise when visually similar characters across scripts could be mistaken for each other. This system makes sense in a multi-script environment where Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, and other characters might appear side-by-side... however, this cross-script focus differs fundamentally from what the Latin diacritic PDP aims to achieve. Here, the focus is on enabling flexibility within a single script (Latin) where distinctions like “e” and “é” are not primarily about security across scripts but rather about reflecting practical usage patterns within a linguistic context. 3. We raise the bar for participation in the group to a very high level. Addressing cross-script transitivity requires expert input that will significantly extend the complexity of the discussions, required prior knowledge of participants, and complicates the policy-making process. This will lead to an undesirable increase in operational cost. Considering cross-script relationships does not add substantial value and detracts from the goal of a clear, efficient policy outcome. I sincerely recommend maintaining a focus on the Latin script diacritic issue within the PDP, allowing us to develop a precise and actionable policy path. By maintaining a narrow scope, we can achieve a clear, implementable outcome that meets community needs without introducing extraneous factors that might dilute our focus. As such, I ask that we revert to the previous version of the resolution, while maintaining the clarification on this not blocking the next round. Regards, -- Mark W. Datysgeld Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com <https://governanceprimer.com>] Project Lead Developer at ICANNWiki [icannwiki.org <https://icannwiki.org/>]