May 2025 - Gnso-latin-diacritics

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 28 May 2025
by Devan Reed May 28, 2025

May 28, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB-Cg> (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

LD PDP WG Meeting #9 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes
by John Emery May 28, 2025

May 28, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the attached outcomes, action items, and notes below: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #9<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB-Cg> on Wednesday, 28 May 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab 2. Consensus not to change the current objections process and to keep the current policies 5.1-5.5 [ACTION ITEMS] 1. Review objections and process as outlined in the Resources<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB-Cg> section of today’s agenda [NOTES] Meeting #9 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176095233/s…> 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #8 a. Outcomes and Action Items * For determination of scope, if strings are visually confusingly similar in the SSR process, our PDP is a way to avoid the objection mechanism that exists there. 3. Charter Question 3<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> Overview of the objection process given for the SSR process * Our PDP cannot change or alter anything about the objections process * Goal of this review is for the WG to understand the existing process * These objections processes will occur prior to LD PDP as detailed in the current AGB draft * Is the notion of precedence important? Can an objector argue that prior rulings were confusingly similar. Based on the arguments of the case at hand regardless of prior? * Each case tends to be an isolate process, but panel works in a consistent manner * Sarmad added that some objections go beyond what SSR does, which is purely visual comparisons. Not related to meaning or sound, which may become relevant through other objection processes. Objections are a much broader area. a. Continue with Review of EPDP IDNs Outputs (Worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> to Leverage Outputs) * 5.1-5.5 does this PDP need any changes to the existing objections processes, if so, they need to be discussed. Otherwise, current objections processes sufficient? Is there anything that would need additional objection processes? Consensus that changing would be too difficult * 6.1 string contention is at the heart of the issue and needs to be tailored to the Latin specific case. * LGR process and not the policy process. If understanding is correct this should be the RZ-LGR process rather than any other process that LD PDP creates * Dealing with both the variants and not the variants at the same time. There is already a subset of variants. Focus on not ending up with language that everything or nothing is a variant. Both working within the limitations of the scope of RZ-LGR and characters we are working with. Word this carefully. * 6.1 nothing should be changed with variant contention sets as RZ-LGR is out of scope. Not applicable as this is an output that LD PDP works within * 6.2 Suggestion that something similar to this will need to be included. Look at the contention set, probably not automatically confusingly similar, process needs to look at all of those. Response that this already exists that if they are confusingly similar they are put into a contention set. Already part of existing policy. * This review process is out of scope. The LD PDP works within the outcome of this process. * 7.2 The principle makes sense that there is some kind of relationship between two or more of the TLDs that we are talking about. There needs to be something written in the contract that those two or more need to be in relationship and will likely need some amendment or new specification * 7.3 similar diacritic version to existing TLD contracts will need to be changed accordingly * 7.4 financial discussions to be discussed as a block later on down the line, once we have all the technical policy decisions in place. Postponed * 7.5 and 7.4 remain pending with the Board currently and are the only pending recommendations from that report * 7.6-7.8 same entity principle applies * 7.9 basic principle applies, but might want further specification in this case. Not an activation of a variant and there is some difference in this. Deal with on a case by case basis. Have to look at exact wording here, not those variant rules. This policy is transferred to a new entity. Same entity principle must be upheld * 7.10 EBERO acronym emergency back-end registry operator explained. * Needs to apply to keep same entity even in EBERO 4. Next Steps 5. AOB Please note there will be not meeting next week to allow for travel to Prague. The LD PDP WG will be holding two sessions at ICANN83 on Wednesday 11 June 2025 at 9:00am and 10:45am Prague local time. Safe travels! 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>

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #9
by Saewon Lee May 27, 2025

May 27, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, A bit later this week due to the public holiday here in the US yesterday, but please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #9 on Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #8 * Outcome and Action Items 1. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * Overview of Objection Process * Continue with the Review of EPDP-IDNs Outputs (Worksheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…> to Leverage Outputs) 1. Next Steps 2. AOB The LD PDP WG Charter [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> and the Worksheet with SubPro/EPDP-IDNs Outputs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…> have been hyperlinked for your reference and the Charter Questions can be viewed on page 2. Please also see all relevant/background documents to this PDP on wiki here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/2wP…>. See 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

Objections and Appeals
by Saewon Lee May 23, 2025

May 23, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, TGIF! In order to effectively facilitate discussions for next week’s WG meeting (Meeting #9) on EPDP-IDNs P1 Section 5 (Objection Process), Staff would like to share the following 2 page document on “Objections and Appeals” that presents the process in a nutshell: https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/sites/default/files/documents/objections-a… This document and other Applicant Guidebook (AGB) Resources can be found here: https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round2/agb/resources For more details/background documents on the process(es), kindly also refer to the wiki under “Understanding String Similarity Review and relevant processes”: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/2wPVBg Best 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> From: John Emery via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: John Emery <john.emery(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 at 10:34 AM To: Juliana Harsianti via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] LD PDP WG Meeting #8 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the attached Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes below: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #8 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/TIB…> on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Filled in Spreadsheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…>of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab [ACTION ITEMS] 1. WG members to take some time read 4.4 for the beginning of next call from the spreadsheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…> 2. WG members to read Challenge Mechanism for String Similarity Review<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/downl…> (Draft AGB Text) 3. WG to review the existing body of work related to CQ 3 (EPDP-IDNs P1 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…>-2 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…>) to continue filling out the worksheet next week [NOTES] Meeting 8 Slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting 7 a. Outcomes and Action Items * Filled in Spreadsheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…>of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab 3. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> a. Continue with Review of EPDP IDNs Outputs (Worksheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…> to Leverage Outputs) * Reminder that discussion of fees will be deferred until later in the process * Began filling in at 3.14 * 3.18 discussion of Reserved Names which is now known as “Blocked Names”, it is a finite list and not applicable. * 3.20 N/A discussion that this is not an issue as long as the applied for string is not a variant of blocked name. If base ASCII is already reserved. Key is that we do not provide any specific advice to override it * 3.21 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) discussion of possible cross between this and current work based on accented versions in latin script. Do we just leave as is? Would we need any special treatment in these cases? It would apply in these cases as well as long as it meets the eligibility through other recommendations. If this case comes under recommendations of this PDP then those apply here as well * 3.22 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) discussion that mandatory string requirements must apply. Wherever it says respect IDNA rules we should keep by default unless there is an overwhelming reason for us not to do that * Question: we know that the RZ-LGR is an authoritative source for possible strings. Do we have in mind a list of possible diacritic versions of Latin strings that would be available for application? A: we have list based on character basis https://github.com/mark-wd/ASCII-Unicode-Diacritics-Analyzer-Tool/ [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/mark-wd/ASCII-Unicode-Diacrit…> . This is the finite list of what is possible to apply for. That would also have to meet the mandatory string requirements for eligibility. * Since this is not authoritative, this is still just a guide so people can look at characters that would fall into PDP rules. For authoritative definition it would be the Unicode table. * Will there be a way that people can insert something to find out whether it is eligible or not? An authoritative guide for applicants in the future. 3.22 has to apply because you cannot go outside of that. * The tool is helpful if we are in full agreement with Unicode, there might be cases in which that is specific to DNS and root zone, underlying question, are we in full agreement with Unicode? If we are then the list is sufficient * 3.22 if we don’t say anything, are the general rules still applicable? Or does it make sense to clearly state that we are not changing it. Staff concurs that it is an overlap ASCII and diacritic are applied for gTLD string and would be applicable without stating it explicitly * 3.23 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) * 3.24 Seems sensible to not relitigate. Where the label becomes potentially ineligible due to string similarity. Some of these are not related to the step in that process. RZ-LGR is more fundamental check than string similarity. * 3.24 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) String Similarity Review * 4.1 Discussion this could open to a range of are we making the two with diacritics confusingly similar or do we need another set of criteria? This needs to be discussed once we finish with this section of looking at EPDP-IDNs rules * Initial reaction would be that this should apply to any applied-for string. After String Sim applies there might be certain other things we can do. If this causes a situation that it is listed as similar and therefore blocked. Then maybe yes we should say something about it. Principles don’t change, but we might have something to say that this PDP creates an exception, there could be remedies applied to it * This feeds into the process that creates the reasons for this PDP, more of an input to the PDP rather than the PDP trying to do. SSR and RZ-LGR gives us text to work with but don’t want to change as such * This describes the process of SSR, not what happens as an outcome. This is only a description of the process and will not do any recommendations to change it * 4.2 SSR is a given fact, and we work with the results but will not change it * 4.4 Take some time read 4.4 for the beginning of next call * 4.4 if this string compares with different categories, then it can result in different actions. Wouldn’t it be items that need exceptions for this PDP? Perhaps this is where the PDP might need to look in detail for this? At some point we have to make our rules, and this might be the place for it. Should we create a new section for this or if this is the right place to make those rules? * These rules are the ones that feed into the current PDP then the current PDP says given these rules and outcome then how to deal with particular subset of outcome. These rules would apply, and the current PDP would be more how to deal with output of these rules and not to change the rules themselves * Be careful to not change the base rules, perhaps those that we have discussed to accept the base rule, but create exceptions for this PDP, indicate somehow that when we do create the exception to see if it applies effectively to those that we are marking. Objection Process * 5.1 may have our own objection process, but that would be later in the process as SSR would be out of scope. If it is rejected due to SSR and it is a diacritic then we would make new rules * Principle should apply but we are not dealing with variant labels. Are existing objection processes enough to deal with everything already? * Discussion not of SSR, it is the visually confusingly similar process. Perhaps look to the string confusion objection scope to see if that covers it. 4. Next Steps * WG to review the existing body of work related to CQ 3 (EPDP-IDNs P1 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…>-2 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…>) * Can we clarify the question from Bill that String similarity and confusing similarity are same OR different? To be discussed next week! 5. 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>

1 0

ICANN83 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Dear all, With ICANN83<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann83/> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. REGISTER NOW! DEADLINE FOR IN-PERSON REGISTRATION IS 08 June 2025! * Sign into Your ICANN Account or create an account here<https://account.icann.org/login>. * Register by selecting the Meeting Registration tile. * Click on the Registration link. NOTE: On-site registration will not be available. In-person attendance registration remains open until 08 June. After 08 June, only virtual participation will be open for continued registration. Before creating your schedule, please read this page carefully: https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation. If participating on-site, please read the Frequently Asked Questions here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann83/#faq>. CREATE YOUR MEETING SCHEDULE * Access the schedule here<https://icann83.sched.com/>. The schedule shows up with blank circular radial buttons to the left of each session. Hover over the radial button and click “ADD TO MY SCHEDULE” or just click to add the checkmark. * Once you’ve selected all sessions, click the My Schedule Tab next to “Event Schedule”. * Click the Phone icon, “Mobile App + iCal” (located on the right side of the page) * At the bottom of that page, “Export Calendar”, click the “My Schedule” link. When the .ics is exported, add it to the appropriate calendar. OR, after exporting, drag and drop the .ics file into your calendar. * For helpful video tutorial, see https://sched.com/guide/your-personalized-schedule/ * Please remember, for security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. There will be no calendar invitations sent, as the meeting schedule allows you to download all sessions of interest to your individual calendars Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior. * Visit the Participation Tools page<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote-participation> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN Meeting sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON PARTICIPATION GUIDES for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN83 Meeting Schedule<https://icann83.sched.com/> ICANN83 GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQDfCw> GNSO Session agendas<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/IoDhCQ> REMINDER: Walk-up and registrations after 08 June will not be accepted. To make the most of Zoom’s features, update to the latest version of Zoom<https://support.zoom.com/hc/en/article?id=zm_kb&sysparm_article=KB0060716>. For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 21 May 2025
by Devan Reed May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/TIB_Cg> (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

LD PDP WG Meeting #8 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes
by John Emery May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the attached Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes below: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #8<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/TIB_Cg> on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab [ACTION ITEMS] 1. WG members to take some time read 4.4 for the beginning of next call from the spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> 2. WG members to read Challenge Mechanism for String Similarity Review<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/downl…> (Draft AGB Text) 3. WG to review the existing body of work related to CQ 3 (EPDP-IDNs P1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-…>-2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-idn-epdp-…>) to continue filling out the worksheet next week [NOTES] Meeting 8 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17606254…> 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting 7 * Outcomes and Action Items * Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab 3. Charter Question 3<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> a. Continue with Review of EPDP IDNs Outputs (Worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> to Leverage Outputs) * Reminder that discussion of fees will be deferred until later in the process * Began filling in at 3.14 * 3.18 discussion of Reserved Names which is now known as “Blocked Names”, it is a finite list and not applicable. * 3.20 N/A discussion that this is not an issue as long as the applied for string is not a variant of blocked name. If base ASCII is already reserved. Key is that we do not provide any specific advice to override it * 3.21 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) discussion of possible cross between this and current work based on accented versions in latin script. Do we just leave as is? Would we need any special treatment in these cases? It would apply in these cases as well as long as it meets the eligibility through other recommendations. If this case comes under recommendations of this PDP then those apply here as well * 3.22 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) discussion that mandatory string requirements must apply. Wherever it says respect IDNA rules we should keep by default unless there is an overwhelming reason for us not to do that * Question: we know that the RZ-LGR is an authoritative source for possible strings. Do we have in mind a list of possible diacritic versions of Latin strings that would be available for application? A: we have list based on character basis https://github.com/mark-wd/ASCII-Unicode-Diacritics-Analyzer-Tool/ . This is the finite list of what is possible to apply for. That would also have to meet the mandatory string requirements for eligibility. * Since this is not authoritative, this is still just a guide so people can look at characters that would fall into PDP rules. For authoritative definition it would be the Unicode table. * Will there be a way that people can insert something to find out whether it is eligible or not? An authoritative guide for applicants in the future. 3.22 has to apply because you cannot go outside of that. * The tool is helpful if we are in full agreement with Unicode, there might be cases in which that is specific to DNS and root zone, underlying question, are we in full agreement with Unicode? If we are then the list is sufficient * 3.22 if we don’t say anything, are the general rules still applicable? Or does it make sense to clearly state that we are not changing it. Staff concurs that it is an overlap ASCII and diacritic are applied for gTLD string and would be applicable without stating it explicitly * 3.23 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) * 3.24 Seems sensible to not relitigate. Where the label becomes potentially ineligible due to string similarity. Some of these are not related to the step in that process. RZ-LGR is more fundamental check than string similarity. * 3.24 (Determined prior and not applicable as it already applies) String Similarity Review * 4.1 Discussion this could open to a range of are we making the two with diacritics confusingly similar or do we need another set of criteria? This needs to be discussed once we finish with this section of looking at EPDP-IDNs rules * Initial reaction would be that this should apply to any applied-for string. After String Sim applies there might be certain other things we can do. If this causes a situation that it is listed as similar and therefore blocked. Then maybe yes we should say something about it. Principles don’t change, but we might have something to say that this PDP creates an exception, there could be remedies applied to it * This feeds into the process that creates the reasons for this PDP, more of an input to the PDP rather than the PDP trying to do. SSR and RZ-LGR gives us text to work with but don’t want to change as such * This describes the process of SSR, not what happens as an outcome. This is only a description of the process and will not do any recommendations to change it * 4.2 SSR is a given fact, and we work with the results but will not change it * 4.4 Take some time read 4.4 for the beginning of next call * 4.4 if this string compares with different categories, then it can result in different actions. Wouldn’t it be items that need exceptions for this PDP? Perhaps this is where the PDP might need to look in detail for this? At some point we have to make our rules, and this might be the place for it. Should we create a new section for this or if this is the right place to make those rules? * These rules are the ones that feed into the current PDP then the current PDP says given these rules and outcome then how to deal with particular subset of outcome. These rules would apply, and the current PDP would be more how to deal with output of these rules and not to change the rules themselves * Be careful to not change the base rules, perhaps those that we have discussed to accept the base rule, but create exceptions for this PDP, indicate somehow that when we do create the exception to see if it applies effectively to those that we are marking. Objection Process * 5.1 may have our own objection process, but that would be later in the process as SSR would be out of scope. If it is rejected due to SSR and it is a diacritic then we would make new rules * Principle should apply but we are not dealing with variant labels. Are existing objection processes enough to deal with everything already? * Discussion not of SSR, it is the visually confusingly similar process. Perhaps look to the string confusion objection scope to see if that covers it. 4. Next Steps * WG to review the existing body of work related to CQ 3 (EPDP-IDNs P1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-…>-2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-idn-epdp-…>) * Can we clarify the question from Bill that String similarity and confusing similarity are same OR different? To be discussed next week! 5. 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>

1 0

Apology for today meeting
by jharsianti15＠gmail.com May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Dear Devan, Sending my apology, I can’t attend the meeting today because a sudden conflicting schedule with other matter. Would catch up with the recording. Best regards, Juliana Sent from my iPhone

1 0

Apologies today
by Sebastien＠registry.godaddy May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Hi Team, I won't be able to attend our call today but will catch the recording. Make it amazing! :) Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry / Senior Client Services Manager +49 172 690 8418 / registry.godaddy The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

ICANN83 Policy Outlook report is now available
by Terri Agnew May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

Dear All, I am happy to report that the ICANN83 Policy Outlook report is now available for download at: https://go.icann.org/outlook83 Happy Reading! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0