Dear All, During last week’s meeting, staff presented<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217191/EPDP%20Team%20Mee...> a revised proposal for a consultation with Chinese/Japanese/Korean Generation Panels on Charter Question A7 Part 2, which is regarding “the mechanism or criteria to identify a specific list of allowable characters which can be used as a single-character TLD” within the Han script. Since not all members attended the last call, staff is circulating the proposal on list to seek your input. So far, there has been general support from the EPDP Team (except for reservation from one member) to conduct such an outreach, and there is a suggestion for not making the request to GPs too prescriptive. During last week’s call, there was a brief discussion regarding setting expectations for the work outcome from the GPs, should they agree to reconvene and conduct such work. As such, staff is proposing the following content to be included in the outreach letter. Pending EPDP Team’s further input and agreement, staff plans to draft the outreach letter accordingly. In the interest of time and per action item, we hope to hear your input on list by EOB Friday, 8 April. Thank you, Ariel == Proposal for Consultation with Chinese/Japanese/Korean Generation Panels 1. Background and context of the outreach: * EPDP-IDN background and charter question A7 * SAC052<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-052-en.pdf> suggests that if a script is allowed for single character TLDs, a distinct and explicit specification of which subset of the script is available for single-character TLDs should be required prior to the acceptance of a single-character TLD application. * SubPro PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> recommends that single character gTLDs may be allowed for limited script/language combinations where a character is an ideograph (or ideogram) and do not introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities. SubPro PDP also welcomes the identification of potentially a specific list of allowable single-character gTLDs to increase the predictability of the evaluation process. 1. Proposed questions for CJK GPs’ consideration: * What is the definition of ideograph / ideogram? Based on this definition, are all Han characters ideograph / ideogram? If not, does the definition clearly provide a way to identify which Han characters are ideograph / ideogram. * Is it possible for the GPs to coordinate and develop criteria for the evaluation of future single-Character gTLD applications in Han script, particularly in the context of string confusion, to ensure they are introduced to the root-zone in a conservative manner? * Is it possible for the GPs to coordinate and develop criteria by which to identify a subset of the Han script allowed for single-character TLDs that present no risk of user confusion? Alternatively, is it possible to develop criteria by which to identify a list of Han characters that may introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities and should NOT be allowed for single-character TLDs? What is the estimated level of effort required to conduct such work? 1. Setting expectations for work outcome: * Should the GPs agree to reconvene to develop criteria and/or a specific list of allowable characters, the outcomes should become an input to the EPDP Team’s deliberation. * Pending EPDP Team’s review of the outcomes, there should be a recommendation from the EPDP Team regarding how to incorporate the outcomes in the RZ-LGR (e.g., encoded in the RZ-LGR by tagging the code points for consistent analysis, published as a document for reference).