October 2025 - Gnso-latin-diacritics

FW: Read Today’s Session Highlights and More in the ICANN84 Newsletter
by John Emery Oct. 27, 2025

Oct. 27, 2025

Hello Latin Diacritics PDP WG! In case you did not read your ICANN84 Newsletter today, I wanted to let you know our progress on the Latin Diacritics PDP was highlighted! Check it out below: –John Emery [https://nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=2c4ffb5c-61f6-42f7-b69b-31d1719eb742…] [Read Today’s Session Highlights and More in the ICANN84 Newsletter.][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> ICANN84 Newsletter 27 October 2025 MEETING SCHEDULE [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> TOP NEWS Welcome to the ICANN84 Annual General Meeting [Tripti Sinha, ICANN Board Chair, and Kurtis Lindqvist, ICANN President and CEO][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> By Tripti Sinha, ICANN Board Chair, and Kurtis Lindqvist, ICANN President and CEO On behalf of the ICANN Board and organization, welcome to the ICANN84 Annual General Meeting [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…>! Whether you are joining us in Dublin or online, we look forward to seeing you this week. In addition to working sessions, the meeting agenda includes learning opportunities for both newcomers and longtime ICANN community members, as well as the latest updates on programs and initiatives. You also will have a chance to ask questions and voice your opinion at the Q&A With the ICANN Org Executive Team [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> and the ICANN Public Forum [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…>. Before attending your first session, be sure to review the new ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning Statements of Interest [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> and the revised ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy: Procedure to Report and Get Support [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…>. Whether this is your first ICANN meeting or your 84th, your participation is key to ICANN’s multistakeholder processes and to fulfilling our mission of ensuring a secure, stable, and unified global Internet. ICANN NEWS ICANN Domain Metrica Expands to Include ccTLDs ICANN Domain Metrica [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> is evolving to better serve the community and now includes country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) operators. Previously focused on generic top-level domains (gTLDs), the platform now provides ccTLD operators with valuable insights into domain activity and DNS Abuse trends within their own TLDs. Through the online dashboard and the Monitoring System API (MoSAPI), all ICANN community members can view aggregated statistics. Contracted parties and ccTLD operators gain secure access to domain-level data, including reports of phishing, malware, and botnet activity based on Reputation Block Lists (RBLs). Participation is flexible: ccTLD operators can join even without sharing zone files, though those that do share these files benefit from more tailored reporting and normalized comparisons. ccTLDs previously enrolled in the Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) project are automatically included in Domain Metrica. We encourage ccTLD operators to sign up, explore the data, and contribute feedback as we continue enhancing ICANN Domain Metrica to improve DNS Abuse detection and mitigation across the ecosystem. Read the blog [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> to learn more. ICANN Publishes FY25 Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements [ICANN FY25 Annual Report][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> ICANN published its Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) and audited consolidated financial statements. ICANN also published the FY25 audited financial statements for its affiliate Public Technical Identifiers (PTI). ICANN's fiscal year ends on 30 June. The FY25 Annual Report [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> describes ICANN's progress toward its Bylaws [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> obligations and Strategic Plan [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> objectives. The ICANN Bylaws direct that the Annual Report and audited financials must be published no later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year. ICANN is pleased to share these results ahead of the 28 October deadline. Read the announcement [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> to learn more. ICANN84 NEWS AND RESOURCES Academic Hour at ICANN84 ICANN invites you to join us for the Academic Hour at the ICANN engagement booth during ICANN84. The second session will take place Wednesday, 29 October, from 14:30 to 15:30 GMT/UTC. The Academic Hour at ICANN84 is an opportunity for the community to engage with ICANN organization team members on how to raise awareness of, encourage participation in, and support capacity building on ICANN issues. ICANN actively engages with the academic sector on a regular basis to foster a globally knowledgeable and informed public – including students, educators, and researchers – about the Internet ecosystem and ICANN's role. Whether you’re new to ICANN and Internet governance or deeply involved in academic research, we welcome your insights and participation! SESSION HIGHLIGHTS Tech Day Since 2006, Tech Day has been a regular feature of ICANN Public Meetings. It offers a forum where newcomers can meet experienced participants to share presentations and discuss technical and operational registry issues, security matters, and other DNS-related work. Open to all ICANN community members, this year’s Tech Day will include sessions on technical, operational, and security topics, featuring a one-hour slot (15:00-16:00) by the ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) on the use of Artificial Intelligence tools in addressing domain name abuse. For the full schedule, please visit: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AwETG [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> Tech Day will offer live interpretation in English, French, and Spanish. ccNSO: Tech Day (1 of 4) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 10:45–12:00 GMT/UTC ccNSO: Tech Day (2 of 4) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 13:15–14:30 GMT/UTC ccNSO: Tech Day (3 of 4) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 15:00–16:00 GMT/UTC ccNSO: Tech Day (4 of 4) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 16:00–17:30 GMT/UTC Review of Reviews: Shaping the Future of ICANN Reviews at ICANN84 The Review of Reviews Cross Community Group will convene at ICANN84 to continue its comprehensive evaluation of ICANN’s review processes. These plenary sessions provide a platform for collaboration as the community works to build a stronger, more effective system of reviews. Don’t miss this opportunity to contribute to this milestone effort. Review of Reviews - Session 1 of 2 [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 13:15–14:30 GMT/UTC Review of Reviews - Session 2 of 2 [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 30 October, 13:15–14:30 GMT/UTC APRALO Meets NextGen@ICANN84 At-Large has long focused on engaging with the ICANN Fellows and NextGen students during ICANN meetings. The At-Large meets with the ICANN Fellows at each public meeting. The RALOs traditionally meet with the NextGen participants from their region. During ICANN84, the Asian, Australiasian, and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO) is planning an informal session with the Asian NextGen participants to describe how to engage in APRALO and the At-Large community. The APRALO Meets NextGen@ICANN84 session will include introductions of the NextGen participants, an overview of the opportunities to engage in APRALO and At-Large, and an open discussion to identify next steps. APRALO Meets NextGen@ICANN84 [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 27 October, 16:30–17:30 GMT/UTC All Welcome to Join SubPro IRT Work Sessions The New gTLD Program team will provide overviews of various Applicant Guidebook topics at ICANN84. Although the titles indicate a SubPro IRT Work Session, the sessions have been repurposed as open community sessions. All are invited to bring their questions and join the team for these discussions. SubPro IRT Work Session (5 of 6) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 29 October, 9:00–10:00 UTC SubPro IRT Work Session (6 of 6) [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> | 29 October, 16:30–17:30 UTC SESSION RECAP GNSO: Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process Working Group – Sessions 1 and 2 These sessions took place on Saturday, 25 October. If you missed them or want to review, visit the session pages for Session One [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> and Session Two [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> to view the available session materials and recordings. The Latin Script Diacritics (LD) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> (WG) held two highly productive sessions at ICANN84 in Dublin. The WG is currently progressing ahead of its Project Plan schedule and spent the sessions finalizing its preliminary recommendations for its Initial Report and testing the robustness of those recommendations with particularly challenging stress tests. In its first working session [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…>, the LD PDP achieved a full review of its fifty-four (54) preliminary recommendations, resulting in consensus among the WG. In its second working session [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…>, the WG went through its stabilized recommendations to stress test them with hypothetical edge cases of exceptionally unlikely scenarios. These stress tests resulted in updated language in the preliminary recommendations that will continue in the LD PDP WG meetings following ICANN84. The WG aims to complete its preliminary recommendations prior to the end of the year to receive Public Comments on its Initial Report. We invite all interested parties to keep an eye out for the Public Comment period forthcoming and to consider submitting their input for consideration in the WG Final Report. EMEA FOCUS Europe: Advancing ICANN's Strategic Plan [ICANN engagement in Europe.] Over the past year, ICANN’s engagement across Europe has been both active and strategic. At the Domain Summit in London, Registry Service Providers explored opportunities in the upcoming New gTLD Program: Next Round. The Policy Forum in Prague highlighted European leadership in shaping the future of Internet governance and reinforced the region’s role in the multistakeholder model. That momentum now carries into ICANN84, the Annual General Meeting in Dublin, where global discussions on WSIS+20, the next round of the New gTLD Program, and Internet governance will converge. ICANN’s work in the region provides tangible proof points that align with European digital priorities—DNS security, Universal Acceptance, and IDNs—while expanding technical training and capacity development in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the CIS. Together, these efforts strengthen local expertise and advance ICANN’s global mission of ensuring a single, secure, and resilient Internet. MEET THE EMEA COMMUNITY Michele Neylon Ireland [Michele Neylon] Michele Neylon is the co-founder of Blacknight, Ireland’s largest Internet hosting provider and domain name registrar. A longtime member of the Registrar Stakeholder Group, Michele has been active in ICANN since 2006. He was drawn to the community because he believed in the need for broader representation beyond the United States and was concerned about the impact of the public WHOIS on registrant privacy. Since then, Michele has become a familiar face, attending most ICANN Public Meetings since 2007. He also engages in a wide range of Internet organizations and initiatives, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), IGF Ireland, IGF Spain, RIPE NCC, i2c, and the Board of INEX, which is hosting ICANN84. Michele follows ICANN policy closely because it directly affects business operations, from WHOIS to DNS Abuse. As a host country representative, he is focused on ensuring a smooth and successful meeting in Dublin. His advice to the community: Keep an open mind and be transparent about your positions. MEET THE ICANN84 FELLOWS Tinuade Oguntuyi Nigeria [Tinuade Oguntuyi - ICANN84 Fellow] Tinuade Oguntuyi serves in the Commercial Stakeholder Group, the African Regional At-Large Organization, and the African Network Information Center. She represents Internet service providers and other entities involved in operating backbone networks or providing transit to Internet users and content. With a background in computer science and over 14 years of experience, she has made impacts across telecommunications, Internet protocol core networks, and Internet infrastructure. Oguntuyi serves as General Manager, Technical, at Information Connectivity Solutions Ltd, an indigenous Internet Service Provider in Nigeria, where she leads initiatives that expand affordable Internet and enterprise-grade connectivity to urban, underserved, and rural areas. Her work directly supports business continuity for corporate clients while bridging access gaps for the unconnected. Oguntuyi’s first ICANN meeting was ICANN81 (virtual). She also attended ICANN82 and ICANN83 virtually, and these engagements sparked deeper interest and advocacy around Domain Name System Abuse, Universal Acceptance, and new generic top-level domains. Oguntuyi has been selected as the recipient of the Paul Muchene Fellow Award. “The ICANN Fellowship Program gave me a sense of belonging. It transforms my ambition to make a global and meaningful impact from a mere possibility to something truly within reach.” WELCOME NEXTGEN@ICANN Sadichchha Silwal Nepal [Sadichchha Silwal - ICANN84 NextGen participant] A licensed lawyer working in Internet governance, information technology law, and digital rights, Sadichchha Silwal was drawn to ICANN because of her commitment to advance digital rights and an inclusive Internet. She views ICANN’s mission of maintaining a stable, secure, and accessible global Internet as closely aligned with her work in Nepal and the Asia Pacific region, and is eager to participate in ICANN84. Silwal currently serves as a Board Member and country chapter leader in the Internet Society Nepal with a special focus on community engagement and policy advocacy. In addition, she was selected as one of 15 Internet Society Youth Ambassadors for 2025 and recently participated in the Internet Governance Forum 2025 in Oslo, Norway. “My call to action is to ensure that the ICANN community continues to be inclusive and responsive to voices from the Global South, marginalized communities, and youth.” ICANN COMMUNITY SPOTLIGHT Everton Rodrigues Member, Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), .br [Everton Rodrigues] "I joined ccNSO because ccTLDs carry many of the Internet’s original principles, and many of their histories are deeply intertwined with the Internet itself. The autonomy each ccTLD has strengthens the voluntary commitment to work together, helping each other directly when needed, or inspiring change and continuous improvement. The ccNSO is the focal point where the diversity of ccTLDs is valued and transformed into collective strength, contributing to the present and future of ICANN, and ultimately, of the Internet." Regina Fuchsova Member, Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), .eu [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/8fb857a6-8f3e-45ae-aef7-f8d8d…] "Joining the ccNSO was a natural step for me when I took on a new role at EURid, focused on industry relations. This inspiring environment provides an excellent opportunity for a ccTLD to discuss and shape opinions with peers in a multicultural setting. For example, we found strong allies there on the topic of IDNs.” [ICANN Public Meeting Participation Guides][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> Review the Participation Guides Visit the Participant Tools page [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> for the information you need to attend ICANN84 virtually or in person. [ICANN84 Policy Outlook Report][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> [ICANN84 GNSO Policy Briefing][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> PUBLIC MEETING STANDARDS [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/451fc038-0637-476e-8b23-4e8cb…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/2e632cd3-357d-442a-a868-1a620…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/73dbc82d-7472-4cb9-87d9-b88cd…]<mailto:ombuds@icann.org> ICANN PUBLICATIONS [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/3401f1c9-549e-4969-9a0a-71a94…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> ICANN's Office of the Chief Technology Officer creates and publishes research papers and technical briefings for ICANN's diverse technical community. [https://imgssl.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/S.gif] [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/73ada9ee-7645-4f12-ab4b-87167…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> ICANN's Government Engagement publications summarize the discussions taking place within governments and intergovernmental organizations. STAY UP TO DATE ON ICANN [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/09b3b366-0e57-43a5-bd1c-a940d…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/5457a4ea-af65-4a96-8263-38a8e…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> [https://files.constantcontact.com/d2ded047401/6cfd36fb-86af-43c6-8782-48840…]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> SUBSCRIBE TO ICANN UPDATES Sign up [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> to get the latest blogs, announcements, and Public Comment proceedings delivered right to your inbox. You need to sign in or create an ICANN Account [nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> before you can subscribe. CONNECT WITH ICANN [ICANN social media graphic][nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/nj88a9rab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zqMOxbA…> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Dr. Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094 US Unsubscribe [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00…> | Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00…> | Our Privacy Policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy> | Constant Contact Data Notice [constantcontact.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.constantcontact.com/legal/customer-c…>

1 0

LD PDP WG Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from ICANN84
by John Emery Oct. 26, 2025

Oct. 26, 2025

Hello All, It was great seeing many of you here at ICANN84, please find the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from our two sessions at ICANN84 [OUTCOMES] * Updated and resolved comments from the Draft Preliminary Recommendations<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> and finalized the review of the preliminary recommendations. * Edge Case Study 1 is adequately handled in our current recommendations. * Edge Case Study 2 is adequately handled in our current recommendations with the same entity principle with a single application. * Edge Case Study 3 is adequately handed in our current recommendations. * Recommendation 39 updated based on input raised by Sarmad and footnotes added for context. * Edge Case Study 4 is adequately handed in our current recommendations as the resolution is out of scope of our PDP. [ACTION ITEMS] * Leadership and Staff work to rewrite preliminary recommendation 45 especially related to the source domain name and integrate the footnote. * Leadership and Staff work to add an example in the rationale for Preliminary Recommendation 45. * Leadership and Staff to shift recommendations in PR54 to Rec IG49 and IG15 and add footnotes to these to more clearly link them. * WG to think through Edge Case Study 6 and come up with recommendations to account for this. [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs SESSION 1/2 * Overview of the LD PDP for the audience in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> * Ariel queried on the publication time of Initial Report and answer was ideally before the ICANN holiday season so that ICANN org can provide a comment 2. Recap of Meeting #23 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Summary on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> pg. 8 * PR 39.1 and 39.2 reference to second-level labels and was added as a footnote and rationale in the PR Document<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> 3. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> * PR45 discussion of the use of “variant” * Would it be possible to have a top level under IDNs and second level for LD? That is a stress test example that we have in a later stress test * Sarmad clarified that the source domain for each TLD could be different, not requiring it to be the same in the TLD set? * The LD set is defined on one second-level label, which creates variants in each of the TLDs. Can’t have a different source domain name in a different TLD. It is defined on the one label that is created first. * Sarmad, when you register 2nd level under a TLD set it creates a variant set of all the TLDs in the whole set because of the IDN tables associated and harmonized. The question is, are we requiring a single source domain? One possibility where the primary domain registered in the first LD TLD may not be valid in the other TLD in that set, therefore the registrant could register a different source. Language unclear whether it allows that flexibility or not? * Michael’s Answer: Unlike IDNs we don’t have a relationship across TLDs since they are not variants of each other. For that reason, you can’t just start with any other domain in the 2nd level, but have to have the same label here. But the point here in example.ldtld would not be a valid label as the code points are not part of the LGR table. That we have not thought about that yet. * Sarmad: in IDN discussion under the variant TLDs since they don’t have to be the same, as long as the variant sets are harmonized, the same source requirements are not needed. * A: But in the IDN EPDP the difference was in regards to disposition value. Then the variant sent is already defined, you just don’t know the disposition values in other TLDs. * Sarmad: would assume that would be the same here. What is not identified is the starting point in each of those TLDs. * We may need to adjust this in the edge case discussion after lunch today. * PR46 variant is correct here for the calculation of the variant set to know which labels are allocatable and blocked, you need a primary/source domain name and that then defines the variant set. For the LD set, the source domain name is not required as it is the same label and the variant, so we need the source to calculate the variant set, which is part of the LD set * PR47 “together” should remain as it is written in IDNs even if it is badly phrased. We want to demonstrate that it avoids confusion if we keep our recommendation aligned with those * IG49 being unaware of the variants that may exist, ICANN needs to reach out and educate that these sets exist. When a case is created there is a possibility that IDN EPDP variant sets that exist and diacritic sets that exist, and use mechanisms available to find out what is in the set and allocated and would be visible in RDAP and include all existing domains or just part of them. * Susan: If there is a tricky implementation issue and guidance would be helpful, how the complainant would have any idea that there would be other potential diacritics in the set, unless there is a mechanism. Whatever is helpful for implementation would be extremely helpful. * IDN EPDP Phase 2: “Final Recommendation 13: ICANN org must conduct outreach to dispute resolution providers, registries, registrars, registrants, and mark owners to enhance their understanding of gTLD variant labels and variant domain names, in particular, their potential impact on dispute resolution proceedings.” This aligns with PR54 of the LD PDP. * Sarmad also IG15 in IDN-EPDP P2 in line with Susan’s comment * IG51 All of phase 2 is adopted, but we still want to be consistent as it is technically the same topic. Suggested changes in the language, but should be in line with IDN EPDP to ensure that there are no alterations of the IDN, if we change it, people may assume the policy is changed * Mark shared https://www.iana.org/assignments/rdap-json-values/rdap-json-values.xhtml to be added to the footnotes. 4. Stress Test * Began stress test on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> pg. 19. Understanding an open question of what could possibly happen and is it covered in our policies as well defined? Or do we have situations that the policy may need to be adjusted to cover this * Sarmad: argument on each side. Keeping it: Even if a country changes their standard writing, that does not take away the history of its use from a community, the two versions will remain confusable for many years. Eliminating it: Do we keep those four variant justification requirements to LD TLDs as well if those variant requirements are extended and it is no longer applicable, should that TLD continue given that is not fulfilling the application arguments presented * Single language changes do not change LGRs or Unicode tables and definition of tables depends on unicode tables. * Objective of LD PDP is to ensure that we bring the ASCII and LD TLD together as a group to avoid confusability. In this case when a language gets changed by a country, the grouping of two TLDs ASCII/LD may change and there may be no similarities where there may be major changes. This is a possible case that has been seen as countries adopt new languages. PR 1, 32, 33 and IG 34 open to discussion. * Case of unicode table changing as well…both the unicode and LGR might change and that is covered in recommendations that existing TLDs must be backward compatible and those recs on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 21. * Foundational blocks are Unicode and LGR, there could be changes, but to respond that short notice to changes would be difficult. Unless there are substantive changes we will just have to bear with the transition period when there is confusability. Our policy should not try to be doing much in that case. Likely we will just have to live with it for some time * Consensus that Edge Case 1 is handled in our recommendations * Edge Case Study 2: conflicts with same entity principle? They are going in as different applications and they can actually do that but that String Sim review will likely not get the TLD. They can apply separately but risk that string sim review may block this. Not possible to use this PDP as there is not the same entity requirement. So this would not be possible within the scope of our PDP. * Possible that second applicant may not be able to prove the ownership of the brand, but has taken permission from the owner. Possible that we may accept two applications, but likely String Sim review would find it visually confusingly similar. Also, it may not be similar. In case of no string similarity, better for us to accept this possibility for looking at SSR issues in the root zone. * Single applications do not change any rules in our LD PDP, but in ours it is only involving a single application, otherwise it is out of scop * Edge Case Study 3 slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 24: the situation is when we are talking about the ASCII and LD TLD they look similar, in that situation in case it is a banned TLD then this case is sold to some other owner or it is stopped by the authorities of some legal issues with the brand owner. Since the owner no longer has this brand. What treatment should be given to the TLD? The brand is given to someone else, then if the owner desires then it can be transferred to the new brand. Or the second owner should be reserved. * Having the ™ and the TLD can be separated. You can remove Spec 13 from your RA. If you lose your rights to the ™ because you stop using, you may open up the TLD and remove spec 13. * All TLDs in the set have to have the same rule. Cannot lose the brand because it has to be for all. Otherwise, they can keep it even if they don’t own the brand anymore. * Covered by transferring the whole set. * What about where a brand splits up? They have to sort it out themselves, as it is required to be kept together. SESSION 2/2 * Continuing Case Study 3: all TLDs within the set have the same rules and option to remove one or multiple TLDs if they are not used anymore. Agreement that it is covered by the existing recommendations. * Revisit Sarmad topic raised definition of the ASCII/LD TLD set, it is defined as such as one domain and includes all variants. Then include the same label in all other TLDs, which might be different because the other TLDs may have a different LGR that needs to be harmonized. Sarmad said there might be cases where there is 1 not intended or 2 not possible as different LGRs and TLDs and that example.ldtld is not a valid code point. Then we could not calculate a variant set. * Example Text: .cafe and .café and then registers straße.café that creates a variant set under the café an allocatable variant for strasse.café. The domain straße.cafe does not exist as there are only ASCII domains, there are no variants possible. Strasse.cafe needs to be blocked or available for the same entity as we have to start with the same label in all the TLDs and generate the label. * We want this to be the case, but we will have to adjust the recommendation accordingly. * We now saw that we want ALL labels that are in the variant set also in the other TLD if they exist as updated in slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 13 and 14. * Leave it up to the registrant which domain they would like to start with as a source domain name and it generates the other two as a variant. * Sarmad: This is how it is suggested as a solution for IDN-EPDP P2. * PR45 Discussion of source domain name in the TLD, if it should be included in the recommendation rather than a footnote, it could be helpful. * IG or Rationale for PR45 useful to have an example here whether in a footnote or rationale. Consensus to update PR45 and the accompanying footnotes and rationales. * Separate discussion raised on the ability of the registrant to comprehend these highly technical issues to the average end user. * Suggestion to offer a suggestion of how registries ought to do it even if we cannot make it a requirement. This would likely be out of our scope for how to run their TLD. * Less concern about the CPH side, but bigger for those that would come up with a TLD and people need to be aware that this is done for human communication to chip in and have some outreach to inform the community of what is happening. * It makes sense to do outreach and communications, but weary of putting in suggestions on how registries should run this. Perhaps giving an example could be helpful for the registries. This has to be explained and some guidelines, but not strict prescriptions would be helpful here * Case Study 4 on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 29: whichever application wins all others will be rejected. For the case that for some reason they are not considered visually confusingly similar, then there are different situations that could exist. * Dropping should be the same rules as those that have been allocated as there is no real primary here. If they stay with a set and remain with two, one must be an ASCII * Contention resolution is a black box that is beyond our scope. * Similar cases exist without our policies and they will have to resolve them just as they do now * Case Study 5 on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 31: in Latin LGR the straße and strasse * Is it possible for someone to apply for straße without a diacritic. If you have a diacritic and want to add a variant, that is not possible. You need to have * Case Study 6 on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYPzGQ> 33 is more relevant to this discussion. * Sarmad: if there is an allocatable variant, then through IDN EPDP P1 and SubPro applicant has all the rights to apply for it, this policy should not try to block that. 2) When your variant set of rules apply and if you’re LD TLD then those rules apply and their policies apply. If for some reason there may be an overlap at some place (though they are non-overlapping spaces. WG could consider if an overlap that the variant policy takes precedent over LD policy etc. * In the LD set must have an ASCII in variant set must have a primary and we have different rules if the TLD is dropped when you drop one of the variants would it need to drop the whole LD set or just part of it? * We should work through this Case Study 6 and we should work to resolve it. * Charter discusses when the exceptions procedure is layered on. Maybe these exception procedures should not apply based on the layout of the charter. Look only at no variants of visually confusingly similar. * We do not want the nested situation where one goes into another. Could be more complex and something that the WG needs to think through and tackle this rather than leaving it open. * There could be an overlap, the principles have to remain very clear, we have cherry picked some case studies that may not be exhaustive, they are just some samples. This may not cover all situations think through other similar cases. 5. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations a. Charter Question 4 b. GPI/HR Impact Assessment 7. Table of Contents for Initial Report 8. Next Steps 9. AOB Thank you, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

2 1

Wipo cases for case study 3
by jharsianti15＠gmail.com Oct. 25, 2025

Oct. 25, 2025

Dear Michael/Mark/Saewon and WG fellows, As I promised on the 1st meeting, these are several cases from WIPO related with case study 3 Case 1 : The new brand owners transfer to the first owner (as complainant). https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2024/d2024-4270.pdf https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2024/d2024-4305.pdf Case 2 Complaint denied https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2024/d2024-4304.pdf Best, Juliana Sent from my iPhone

2 2

CQ4, GPI/HRIA Checklists for WG's Review
by Saewon Lee Oct. 22, 2025

Oct. 22, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, In preparation for our Working Sessions during ICANN84 (Agenda Item #6), please find below the spreadsheet links to CQ4 (Impact on Existing Consensus Policies) and GPI Checklist/Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) that have been drafted by Support Staff, completed an assessment by relevant functions within the org, and reviewed by Leadership Team: - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… - GPI Checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed… - HRIA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H… As with all our previous working documents, these sheets will remain live as we update it continuously throughout our discussions, as appropriate: * For CQ4, please focus on the impact level in Column H and the rationale in Column I. * For GPI Checklist, please focus on the checkmarks in each category/summary in rows 33-36, and the relevant topics/rationale in Columns M and N. * For HRIA, please focus on Sheet/Tab 1 ONLY (as the other 2 tabs/sheets are templates or samples for guidance, not drafted by LD PDP Support Staff; please only refer to them for guidance). Please review the whole sheet (Sheet/Tab 1). During the sessions, we will not go into detail; instead, provide a high-level overview of our initial assessment and seek feedback from the WG members, including any agreements or disagreements. Please review the document to indicate whether you agree with or object to Leadership Team/Staff's initial assessment. We welcome comments on any items you disagree with or would like to revise, expand upon, or remove; these points can be raised during the meeting item (Item #6) so that they can be properly documented and incorporated, as appropriate. Much appreciated, Saewon From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 4:59 PM To: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Re: Proposed Agenda for LD PDP Working Sessions during ICANN84 Dear LD PDP WG, It seems like my last email crashed a bit with something weird showing up in the background. I hope this one is better and you can fully see the agenda. Accordingly, please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Working Sessions 1 & 2 during ICANN84 on Saturday, 25 October 2025 (10:30-12:00 IST & 13:15-14:30 IST): 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. A Brief Overview of LD PDP 3. Recap of Meeting #23 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> 2. Stress Test 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB Once again, safe travels! Best, Saewon From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 4:17 PM To: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Proposed Agenda for LD PDP Working Sessions during ICANN84 Dear LD PDP WG, Thank you to the members who submitted edge cases for the stress test during our working sessions at ICANN84. Accordingly, please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Working Sessions 1 & 2 during ICANN84 on Saturday, 25 October 2025 (10:30-12:00 IST & 13:15-14:30 IST): 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. A Brief Overview of LD PDP 3. Recap of Meeting #23 4. Recap of Meeting #ef Overview of LD PDP 5. A Brief OverviewRecap of Meeting #22 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> 2. Stress Test 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB We look forward to seeing you all soon! Kind regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Re: Proposed Agenda for LD PDP Working Sessions during ICANN84
by Saewon Lee Oct. 21, 2025

Oct. 21, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, It seems like my last email crashed a bit with something weird showing up in the background. I hope this one is better and you can fully see the agenda. Accordingly, please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Working Sessions 1 & 2 during ICANN84 on Saturday, 25 October 2025 (10:30-12:00 IST & 13:15-14:30 IST): 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. A Brief Overview of LD PDP 3. Recap of Meeting #23 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> 2. Stress Test 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB Once again, safe travels! Best, Saewon From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 at 4:17 PM To: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Proposed Agenda for LD PDP Working Sessions during ICANN84 Dear LD PDP WG, Thank you to the members who submitted edge cases for the stress test during our working sessions at ICANN84. Accordingly, please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Working Sessions 1 & 2 during ICANN84 on Saturday, 25 October 2025 (10:30-12:00 IST & 13:15-14:30 IST): 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. A Brief Overview of LD PDP 3. Recap of Meeting #23 4. Recap of Meeting #ef Overview of LD PDP 5. A Brief OverviewRecap of Meeting #22 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> 2. Stress Test 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB We look forward to seeing you all soon! Kind regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

Proposed Agenda for LD PDP Working Sessions during ICANN84
by Saewon Lee Oct. 21, 2025

Oct. 21, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Thank you to the members who submitted edge cases for the stress test during our working sessions at ICANN84. Accordingly, please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Working Sessions 1 & 2 during ICANN84 on Saturday, 25 October 2025 (10:30-12:00 IST & 13:15-14:30 IST): 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. A Brief Overview of LD PDP 3. Recap of Meeting #23 4. Recap of Meeting #ef Overview of LD PDP 5. A Brief OverviewRecap of Meeting #22 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> 2. Stress Test 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB We look forward to seeing you all soon! Kind regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

ICANN84 GNSO Policy Briefing and ICANN84 Policy Outlook Report
by Julie Bisland Oct. 17, 2025

Oct. 17, 2025

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to share the ICANN84 reports below are available for download. * GNSO Policy Briefing: http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing * Policy Outlook Report: https://go.icann.org/outlook84 Happy reading! With kind regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Analyst (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

FINAL REMINDER: Edge Cases
by Saewon Lee Oct. 16, 2025

Oct. 16, 2025

Thank you for your kind message, Sandra. We look forward to meeting you too! Dear ALL: Pursuant to Action Item #1 below, this is a final reminder to submit any edge cases to the list by tomorrow, 17 October, to facilitate discussions during ICANN84. Much appreciated, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> From: Sandra Rodriguez via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Sandra Rodriguez <sandra.rodri2340(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 1:30 PM To: anil Jain <asdj1990(a)gmail.com> Cc: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Re: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes for 15 October Meeting #23 Dear John/Saewon/Michael, Anil Thank you for the kind reminder. I'm very happy to meet with the team in person at ICANN84. Warm Regards from El Salvador. Sandra Rodriguez. El mié, 15 de oct de 2025, 8:48 a. m., anil Jain via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> escribió: Dear John/Saewon/Michael, Please consider following edge cases for ICANN 84 sessions: Edge cases: 1. If LD of Brand ASCII in not allocated/delegated, but somebody else ( Other than present Brand TLD owner) apply LD of brand TLD with Permission from Brand TLD owner can it be considered? 2. If there are changes in LD due to changes adopted in language by a country/ region, what will happen to already delegated LD TLDs ? Similarly is registry of a brand LD TLD lose Brand legally, should we transfer/ Reserve LD TLD to new owner? Anil Sent from my iPad On 15 Oct 2025, at 3:34 PM, John Emery via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org>> wrote: Hello LD PDP WG, Aa a reminder, we will not be having a session next Wednesday due to travel for ICANN84, so we will see all of you in person or virtually for our Dublin meetings. Also, please focus your current energy on sending edge cases to stress test our recommendations to the mailing list by Friday 17 October at the latest. Below are the meeting #23 outcomes, action items, and notes: [OUTCOMES] * PR #35 and #36 determination made that that an entity other than the one holding the remaining IDN gTLD in the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set for at least 10 years following the removal * Consensus on language of PR #39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 as written in slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UAD…> number 17 and 18 * Consensus to delete IG #41.2 as it does not apply to the Latin script case [ACTION ITEMS] * WG members to share edge cases on list by 17 October to discuss during ICANN84. * Leadership and Staff to include the term second level in PR#39.1 and 39.2 * Leadership and Staff to reword IG #41.1 to accurately convey its meaning [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #22 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UAD…> with majority in favor of option 2 for PR 35-38 with updated text in the slides * PR 35 Agreement still needed on how many years we would like to block this following removal * Discussion between 2 years and 10 years (like IDN ccTLDs) and given that application rounds take approximately 2 years from application to delegation. * Consensus reached at 10 years 1. Action Item for ICANN84 * The goal of the ICANN sessions is to deliberate any remaining recommendations on the preliminary report, then work through stress tests. * Examples of stress tests in the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UAD…>. Please propose additional examples by 17 October 3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> * Graphic created for understanding ASCII/LD Set for second level and compared LD PDP or EPDP-IDNs in the slides. Either way, both need to belong to the same entity even if they are not variants of each other * PR 39 not requiring something, just defining what we mean with a LD domain set as we will need the definition for later recommendation for the required same entity principle in later recommendations * 39.1 a second level label and all its variants and 39.2 all other TLDs * Implied here is that any variants of the TLDs will have the same considerations because of existing policies. A TLD and all its variants and LD TLD and any of its variants will have similar second-level rules. In stress test examples we want to look into how this works at the second level. * PR# 40 should there be an LD domain set which includes the ASCII/LD and their variants at the top level. * Variants go into stress test example. If you have a LD/ASCII TLD set no variant exists with current LGR. This could change in the future, but we can’t have any variants of that TLD set. If there were to be variants, we might need rules for that, but that is not needed at the moment. * IG #41 wording is slightly wrong as we do not want to restrict the set itself, just the number of domains within the set that can be allocated. The set is already defined by the LGR and variant rules, no need to change the size of the set. * What we want to do here is set a maximum number of domains within the set that are allocatable at the same time. With IDNs there could be lots of domains within it, the registry should not allow the activation of tons of domains within a set and we want a similar rule here * Sarmad: 41.2 question for IDN-EPDP the scope was much broader than Latin Scripts. Given this is limited in scope, whether this is something that is needed or desire to do this, or how this is motivated. * This is likely not needed in the Latin script community. But the initial background in IDN was coming from the Han script community. Discussion of removing 41.2 because automatic activations are not a topic for Latin it can be removed. * PR#42 slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UAD…> number 18 we need to have a new recommendation which is not covered by IDN-EPDP that this extends to all domains within the LD/ASCII domain set as they are not variants. This must be extended to both domain sets * No issues with wording presently what was called grandfathering and now called exempted. The wording here is a bit stronger not speaking about exempted and is flagged. * It is a transient thing, even in the IDN-EPDP there was no timeframe, they can keep their domains for however long they want to. This could also be forever as there is no force in making one remove or change. Stayed close to IDN wording, but with changes as it is not variants. * PR #43 agree not to increase the number of exempted domains. The only direction is to remove exempted cases and there should not be the possibility to increase them. * PR #44 this discussed harmonized ASCII/LD gTLD set and there were no objections to the language 4. Next Steps 5. AOB All the best, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org>

1 0

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes for 15 October Meeting #23
by John Emery Oct. 15, 2025

Oct. 15, 2025

Hello LD PDP WG, Aa a reminder, we will not be having a session next Wednesday due to travel for ICANN84, so we will see all of you in person or virtually for our Dublin meetings. Also, please focus your current energy on sending edge cases to stress test our recommendations to the mailing list by Friday 17 October at the latest. Below are the meeting #23 outcomes, action items, and notes: [OUTCOMES] * PR #35 and #36 determination made that that an entity other than the one holding the remaining IDN gTLD in the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set for at least 10 years following the removal * Consensus on language of PR #39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 as written in slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 17 and 18 * Consensus to delete IG #41.2 as it does not apply to the Latin script case [ACTION ITEMS] * WG members to share edge cases on list by 17 October to discuss during ICANN84. * Leadership and Staff to include the term second level in PR#39.1 and 39.2 * Leadership and Staff to reword IG #41.1 to accurately convey its meaning [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #22 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> with majority in favor of option 2 for PR 35-38 with updated text in the slides * PR 35 Agreement still needed on how many years we would like to block this following removal * Discussion between 2 years and 10 years (like IDN ccTLDs) and given that application rounds take approximately 2 years from application to delegation. * Consensus reached at 10 years 1. Action Item for ICANN84 * The goal of the ICANN sessions is to deliberate any remaining recommendations on the preliminary report, then work through stress tests. * Examples of stress tests in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg>. Please propose additional examples by 17 October 3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> * Graphic created for understanding ASCII/LD Set for second level and compared LD PDP or EPDP-IDNs in the slides. Either way, both need to belong to the same entity even if they are not variants of each other * PR 39 not requiring something, just defining what we mean with a LD domain set as we will need the definition for later recommendation for the required same entity principle in later recommendations * 39.1 a second level label and all its variants and 39.2 all other TLDs * Implied here is that any variants of the TLDs will have the same considerations because of existing policies. A TLD and all its variants and LD TLD and any of its variants will have similar second-level rules. In stress test examples we want to look into how this works at the second level. * PR# 40 should there be an LD domain set which includes the ASCII/LD and their variants at the top level. * Variants go into stress test example. If you have a LD/ASCII TLD set no variant exists with current LGR. This could change in the future, but we can’t have any variants of that TLD set. If there were to be variants, we might need rules for that, but that is not needed at the moment. * IG #41 wording is slightly wrong as we do not want to restrict the set itself, just the number of domains within the set that can be allocated. The set is already defined by the LGR and variant rules, no need to change the size of the set. * What we want to do here is set a maximum number of domains within the set that are allocatable at the same time. With IDNs there could be lots of domains within it, the registry should not allow the activation of tons of domains within a set and we want a similar rule here * Sarmad: 41.2 question for IDN-EPDP the scope was much broader than Latin Scripts. Given this is limited in scope, whether this is something that is needed or desire to do this, or how this is motivated. * This is likely not needed in the Latin script community. But the initial background in IDN was coming from the Han script community. Discussion of removing 41.2 because automatic activations are not a topic for Latin it can be removed. * PR#42 slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 18 we need to have a new recommendation which is not covered by IDN-EPDP that this extends to all domains within the LD/ASCII domain set as they are not variants. This must be extended to both domain sets * No issues with wording presently what was called grandfathering and now called exempted. The wording here is a bit stronger not speaking about exempted and is flagged. * It is a transient thing, even in the IDN-EPDP there was no timeframe, they can keep their domains for however long they want to. This could also be forever as there is no force in making one remove or change. Stayed close to IDN wording, but with changes as it is not variants. * PR #43 agree not to increase the number of exempted domains. The only direction is to remove exempted cases and there should not be the possibility to increase them. * PR #44 this discussed harmonized ASCII/LD gTLD set and there were no objections to the language 4. Next Steps 5. AOB All the best, John R. Emery, Ph.D. Policy Development Support Senior Specialist Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

4 3

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #23
by Saewon Lee Oct. 14, 2025

Oct. 14, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #23 on Wednesday, 15 October 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #22 * Key Outcomes and Action Items * Action Item for ICANN84 1. Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> 2. Next Steps 3. AOB Kind regards, Saewon Saewon Lee Policy Development Support Manager for GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 (310) 463-5541 Email: saewon.lee(a)icann.org<mailto:saewon.lee@icann.org> Skype: saewon.lee.icann Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0