November 2025 - Gnso-latin-diacritics

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 26 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 at 14:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/> and the main wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EwDVBg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMWI2M…>. Thank you. With kind regards, Devan

1 0

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #26
by John Emery Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Thank you for the discussion during today’s meeting. You will see an additional meeting scheduled for next week on 3 December shortly in your inbox. Please see the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from meeting #26 today. I have also included a screenshot of the whiteboard activity of the arguments and pros/cons for each of the Option 1 and Option 2 discussed. [OUTCOMES] * Option 1 received a majority of the WG consensus * Group has agreed with assessment for Charter Question 4 that there is no impact on the existing consensus policies [ACTION ITEMS] * All members to read the GPI <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed…> and HRIA<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H…> analysis for discussion next week * LT/Staff to review PR 50 to provide some clarification in the rationale for what constitutes “necessary information” for ICANN org for specific asks * LT/Staff to include the definition also be included in accordance with the RZ-LGR in the glossary and should be used. Look at the definition of Variants from IDN-EPDP and AGB. * LT/Staff to update recommendations based on decision of Option 1 * Staff to send out calendar invite for 3 December WG meeting [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #25 * Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> and discussed open question of stress tests 5 and 6, outlining options 1 and 2 * Emphasis on conduct outreach from PR 50 and IG 52 may not be a good idea as it matches IDN-EPDP Phase 2 wording will be. Suggestion to leave wording as is for now as we do not want to deviate from IDN-EPDP Phase 2 as it is still under consideration by the ICANN Board. * Group fine with wording and if there is sufficient feedback from Public Comment. ALAC is particularly concerned about this issue and may address this through Public Comment * Query from org about specificity of “necessary information” from an implementation perspective. * Sarmad since it is a “must” it is useful to have clarity on the minimal requirement here. * When they provide the information, they should also provide the LD set. * If LD PDP has requirement on PR 50 it would be helpful to make this more explicit * Additional language is from last week’s discussion that outreach is made a bit stronger. The rationale will make it explicit. * Continued discussion of IDN and Variants * Should the definition also be included in accordance with the RZ-LGR? Also, a suggestion to take out some of the language * Returned to finish the discussion on Option 1 and Option 2 for LD-Variant sets on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> 9. * Arguments Option 1: conservative solution as we have no experience with LD or variant sets. This is a more secure solution in the beginning. Less complex, no corner cases, a simple solution. No use cases are expected and not possible for variants of LD sets. It is always possible to expand this in future policy work. Could be difficult to remove or take it back if problems do arise * Arguments Option 2: Natural solution rather than prohibiting cases. A more complete solution that covers all possibilities. * Harsha shared in the chat: Modern TLD ecosystems involve cross-script confusion patterns, not just ASCII↔️diacritic. Variant Sets (especially for IDNs) and LD Sets share the same underlying problem: user confusion. Allowing them to co-exist under the same registry operator control respects existing variant principles (used for Chinese, Arabic, etc.). Option 1 creates unnecessary policy barriers without improving security. * Option 1 would restrict but there are currently no allocatable variants that can exist with any label that is in LD Set. All variants within an LD set are all blocked now in the RZ-LGR. If the LGR will change then this will cause an issue * From an intellectual standpoint Amadeau would prefer option 2. But he is in favor of Option 1. It is not a realistic case that such a thing would happen now under current rules for IDNs. Even if we could legislate for the future it would be a difficult wall to climb to revisit our work and delay it. This is unlikely to happen unless the RZ-LGR changes and at that point it should be revisited * It is true that the Latin script always has to have a base ASCII; there is never an allocatable variant going to other Latin scripts. There can never be an allocatable variant of any LD set labels. The letter i is ASCII and dotless i is that only from dotless i do you have an allocatable variant, the other way is blocked. * Ariel: member brought up potential SSR issues, but she noted that if going with option 1 then something similar with a variant would be caught in string similarity. It is unlikely that different entities could get confusingly similar strings. Option 2 creates a lot of complexity, and there are other options in the program to prevent user confusion * Steve: In terms of recommendations, it can recommend future work. We are discussing a theoretical scenario. You can build in a trigger mechanism that future work should be undertaken if the RZ-LGR is changed for the Latin script. If you go with option 1, you can give a recommendation that if the RZ-LGR changes then Council should consider future work. It can have future contingencies if the situation changes that you can have a solution. * Unable to get a live example of such a case, but circling back to the RZ-LGR, if there is a future change. Then the sensibility to the stability for the RZ-LGR then that can be built into the recommendations * Harsha prefers option 2 as option 1 is restrictive. Strasse example discussed. Option 2 has much more options available forward and backwards for option 2. * If/When RZ-LGR changes then an impact analysis needs to be done. The same could apply here to address the situation where changes affect the stress tests and scenarios here. * There is a recommendation about changes to the RZ-LGR that should cover it * Ariel: Principle from IDN-EPDP the conservatism principle. It advocates for adoption of a more cautious approach for SSR in absence of the need for a more liberal approach. She shared the language from RFC 6912 which says, “doubts should always be resolved in favor of rejecting”. This principle has been upheld by numerous studies and advice throughout the years. * The temperature check poll favored option 1 * Suggestion to note the two options considered to get focused public comment on that specific point. * Saewon In the initial report the options will be described. And the consensus call will occur before the final report. If there is strong support but significant opposition there is an opportunity to submit a minority opinion to be included in the final report. [kxlRCgAAAAZJREFUAwD3yAywVbt+CAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==] 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations a. Charter Question 4 o No issues raised on existing consensus policies b. GPI/HR Impact Assessment o To be revisited next week 4. Table of Contents for Initial Report * Staff will be drafting the initial report based on the table of contents listed in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> * Annex C will detail the stress tests and edge cases that the WG went through * Core of output is the preliminary recommendations with 8 topics and 54 Recommendations, based on the discussion today, there may be some minor adjustments 5. Next Steps * Will resume WG meetings 3 December 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>

1 0

Option 1 vs Option 2 Action Item #2
by harsha wijayawardhana Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear Saewon Lee, At the last meeting, I did not decide on Option 1 vs Option 2. Having gone through, please record that I prefer Option 2 for the following reasons: - Modern TLD ecosystems involve *cross-script confusion patterns*, not just ASCII↔diacritic. - Variant Sets (especially for IDNs) and LD Sets share the same underlying problem: *user confusion*. - Allowing them to co-exist under the *same registry operator control* respects existing variant principles (used for Chinese, Arabic, etc.). - Option 1 creates unnecessary policy barriers without improving security. - Thanks and regards - Harsha Wijayawardhana

2 1

Option1 Vs Option 2 Action Item #2
by harsha wijayawardhana Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear Saewon Lee, At the last meeting, I did not decide on Option 1 vs Option 2. Having gone through, please record that I prefer Option 2 for the following reasons: - Modern TLD ecosystems involve *cross-script confusion patterns*, not just ASCII↔diacritic. - Variant Sets (especially for IDNs) and LD Sets share the same underlying problem: *user confusion*. - Allowing them to co-exist under the *same registry operator control* respects existing variant principles (used for Chinese, Arabic, etc.). - Option 1 creates unnecessary policy barriers without improving security. Thanks and regards Harsha Wijayawardhana

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #26
by Saewon Lee Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #26 on Wednesday, 26 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #25 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. 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, for Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you 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 (These links were also shared with you on 22 October 2025, prior to ICANN84): - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL…> - GPI Checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8…> - HRIA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulR…> As also shared last week and 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). 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 19 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 19, 2025

Nov. 19, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 19 November 2025 at 14:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/> and the main wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EwDVBg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMWI2M…>. Thank you. With kind regards, Devan

1 0

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #25
by John Emery Nov. 19, 2025

Nov. 19, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #25: [OUTCOMES] * Between the choices option 1 and option 2 consensus began to emerge on option 1, but the discussion will continue next week. [ACTION ITEMS] * LT/Staff to revisit IG 52 and adjust that language – conduct outreach – to put some stronger emphasis on providing information to registrants [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> and discussed meeting #24 updates to the documents based on action items * Rec #45 updates discussed how a registrant may not be aware of LD PDP policies. Registrars do not have to support LD sets as it is up to them and their business models. The ICANN outreach recommendation encapsulates this. * EPDP two phases is new for variants and Latin diacritics. A lot of new things in the ICANN to-do list should be strengthened to be passed on to the registrants. Rec 50 encapsulates this along with IG 52. * Where best to locate this outside of the preliminary recommendations is the open question. * A collection of recommendations that disincentivize auto activation like PR 52 and the fee structure for the domain names. In addition to the outreach there are other measures that would likely guard against automatic domain registration. * Case Studies #5 and #6 combined in combining LD sets and variant sets. This should be consistent between the two and understand which policies apply. * Two options to solve these cases outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> 10. * When we are putting a policy that restricts registries/registrars we need to say why there is a prohibition. What is wrong with option 1? * Suggestion to go back to the principle of TLD and their variants. Any domain and their variants have RZ-LGR, if you look into both cases, if we go for option 2 then we do not follow that principle. Better to go for option 1 even if it has some restrictions. * Implications of option 1 and option 2 outlined in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> then we will discuss the pros and cons of each. * Clarification for having variant TLDs you need to define a primary label. IDN-EPDP you start with one primary label then you can activate variants for that label. * We are working to find out what TLDs a registry would be able to activate * Sarmad: added to slide 12 example. One of the underlying properties of variants is they are a transitive set. That is something around which the structure of variants at the top and 2nd level come together. In this case we are seeing that we can get into relationships as we have this ad hoc LD TLD in the mix in addition to variants we can get into potentially problematic variant relationships. That transitive relationship is inherently not there with LD TLDs in the variant mix. It is not clear what is the relationship between these examples. * When you start with LD set you have all TLDs are related to each other by the LD PDP if you add variants to one of the LD TLDs then if you allow this then you have multiple variants in this set that are not variants of each other nor an LD set. Due to a combination of LD and variants they would end up in the same set of TLDs. We would then need a new definition of this LD TLD set. * Continued in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> for which recommendations would need to be re-considered and re-worked for option 2. * Pitinan noted that an ASCII TLD would be affected and would have to go into more detail what would happen in a multi-set with certain TLDs removed or retained. * Alan raised a point on recommendation 39 suggesting that we use the phrase IDN variants so it is not mistaken for Latin Diacritics, once the combination is allowed. * Continued in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> to demonstrate the number of recommendations that would need to be adjusted if option 2 * Alan in chat: “My concern is that people might misunderstand the term "variant" to think it refers to one half of a n ascii/latin diacritic set. Using the phrase "IDN variant" instead of just the word "variant" reduces the likelihood of this mistake.” * Michael noted that this should be adjusted in the recommendations * Option 1 is less work, Option 2 might be more natural by allowing this and it is complicated with lots of side effects and Michael opened the discussion. * The problems with option 2 are SSR, contractual, usability, all those areas are impacted by option 2. This would be combining multiple primaries, variants, and LD sets. * Sarmad: Added that at this time one would really need to get into the analysis to figure out the answer of what is impacted. There are huge implications of option 2 some of which are more complicated and there could be larger implications for SSR and a deeper dive into these. * Steve: Highlighted concern from ICANN org that policy development michael demonstrated that option 2 represents tons of complexity both for the recommendations and an enormous amount of complexity for implementation. This means time and confusion for applicants and registrants. The issue about end-user confusion is compounded by the layers of complexity. There are impacts in adding complex things to recommendations. Policy development is not absolute. If this additional layer. You could proceed with option 1 now and future policy development could tackle option 2. Core principles of WG is that it is an exceptions procedure and a conservative approach is advisable. Option 2 is raising alarm bells for staff based on our experience. * Ariel: aligned with staff on this issue because thinking through all the possible options and then how to explain that to implementation or to the Board of what this recommendation means could be very complex. If the group does go with option 1 the limitation restriction is much less than RZ-LGR. For Diacritics it would be more lenient in that interpretation, there could be string proliferation risk could impact the DNS security and stability. The complexity of this would be difficult to explain to all impacted parties. * Option 2 is principally true, but we cannot make rules for major unlikely hypotheticals. These are decisions we have made for certain reasons and there is a way to describe what we want for complex sets. It should not be unnecessarily complex for the sake of it so in favor of option 1. * Chances of having a LD set and also a variant set would be highly unlikely * All the recommendations impacted by option 2 wondering if the same entity principle still exists, the integrity of the set. It should likely still remain in tact, but could requires some adjustments to recommendations to ensure this * Sarmad: LD goes from one variant set to another variant set because of relationship between ASCII and LD each has their own variant sets and could proliferate variant sets. * Consensus seemed to emerge in favor of option 1, but discussion would be considered next week. 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>

1 0

Re: Proposed Agenda for Meeting #25
by Saewon Lee Nov. 18, 2025

Nov. 18, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Correction on the Meeting time tomorrow: Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC. Thank you, 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, November 18, 2025 at 9:16 AM To: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Proposed Agenda for Meeting #25 Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #25 on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB For Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you here again 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 (These links were also shared with you on 22 October 2025, prior to ICANN84): - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL…> - GPI Checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8…> - HRIA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulR…> As also shared last week and 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). As I did with CQ4, we will not go into detail during the WG sessions; 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 so that they can be properly documented and incorporated, as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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 Meeting #25
by Saewon Lee Nov. 18, 2025

Nov. 18, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #25 on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB For Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you here again 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 (These links were also shared with you on 22 October 2025, prior to ICANN84): - 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 also shared last week and 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). As I did with CQ4, we will not go into detail during the WG sessions; 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 so that they can be properly documented and incorporated, as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 12 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 12 November 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, and chat.) * Transcript * Agenda and Notes/Action Items For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/> and the main wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EwDVBg?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiMWI2M…>. Thank you. With kind regards, Devan

1 0