- Gnso-latin-diacritics - lists.icann.org

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

GNSO Policy Briefing ICANN83 Edition
by Devan Reed May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN83 is now available for download at: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing. Happy Reading! 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 #8
by Saewon Lee May 16, 2025

May 16, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, TGIF! Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #8 on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #7 * Outcome and Action Items 1. Charter Question 3<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> * Continue with the Review of EPDP-IDNs Outputs (Worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> to Leverage Outputs) 1. Next Steps 2. AOB The LD PDP WG Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> and the Worksheet with SubPro/EPDP-IDNs Outputs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> 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<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/2wPVBg>. See you all next week! 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

LD PDP WG Meeting #5 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes
by John Emery May 14, 2025

May 14, 2025

Dear LD PSP WG Member, Please see below the readout of today’s meeting #7: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #7<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/MwB_Cg> on Wednesday, 14 May 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Leadership/Staff discussed if EPDP-IDNs P1 Final Rec. 7.1 needed to clear with ICANN legal and determined that it is not needed at this time in this PDP given the broad recommendations 2. 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 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 spreadsheet next week [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting 5 a. Outcomes and Action Items * Completed review of Early Input responses; Summary can be found on wiki here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NATVBg> * Agreement to use the relevant adopted SubPro and EPDP-IDNs Outputs as a foundation to build the LD PDP Outputs on; focus to be on EPDP-IDNs * Leadership/Staff discussed if EPDP-IDNs P1 Final Rec. 7.1 needed to clear with ICANN legal and determined that it is not needed at this time in this PDP given the broad recommendations 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) * Discussed worksheet items 3.1-3.6 * Agreement that 3.1 is NOT relevant for our purposes. * Sarmad suggests to consider our cases to consider these similar to variants and thereby transfer some of the recommendations but with the difference that we do not have any disposition values here because there is no real variant relationship * Sarmad asks if we are drawing a parallel to talk about the relationship between two strings at the top level and second level. Are we mapping the same kind of variants to similar strings * 3.1 consensus not necessary for our case to have such a rule for LD PDP * 3.2 consensus that it would apply and an application would have to come in an official round of applications * There is no other solution, like a special application round, it would fail. It is not needed nor realistic * 3.2 the principle is applicable that a new application is necessary for existing gTLDs * 3.3 similar to apply in the immediate next round when this policy applies it can apply for the diacritic version, but it does not have to. Any future round. * 3.3 is applicable * 3.4 was agreed to be determined later, but led to a robust discussion about if you apply for a TLD and one of its variants is it separate applications or a single application? * Primary and variant are distinct strings. At the time of application it is not something that is known whether they are similar or distinct to each other. If they are not found similar, they could be distinct strings as a single application * Important Question: How to deal with the whole process? This is probably at the crux of the issue. At least it may not apply directly, the question is there is a possibility that they are not similar by string review and would proceed as two applications. If we specifically create a different mechanism this group will need to decide. For mapping it does not apply. Longer discussion needed to handle the application process itself * There was a discussion of fees that would be deferred to later on in the process * 3.25 TBD at a later date * 3.5 Sarmad gave background for SSAC advice that led to this recommendation * 3.5 first needs to specify the rules before we say something about how people apply for them. This depends on the fact of what we put into our rules how those are run * 3.6 is based on 3.5 so it makes sense to also postpone that * 3.10 general consideration, but the open question about our fees. Cost recovery principle it should apply, what is calculated in the cost. There could be evaluation processes not applicable for diacritics. Cost recovery principle should stay the same for every application * 3.11 What do we do with our diacritics? Price, if those are separate evaluations, you cannot in practical terms not submit the fee. Amadeu in favor of different TLD applications if it fails, then it could be separated. In favor of having a reduced fee for a second one, there is some work there, but 2 for 1 or 3 for one does not reflect the costs * Postpone price discussions. Does not change any further decisions. That can be decided at the end. Depending on whether we want to have one or multiple applications this is dependent on the price question * Obviously the cost for one application cannot be the cost for 1 application plus four variants. Cost is distributed over general application fees 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-…>) All the best, Sent on behalf of the LD PDP support staff 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 14 May 2025
by Devan Reed May 14, 2025

May 14, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 14 May 2025 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/MwB_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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #7
by Saewon Lee May 9, 2025

May 9, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, TGIF! Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #7 on Wednesday, 14 May 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #5 * Outcome and Action Items 1. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * Continue with the Review of EPDP-IDNs Outputs (Worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> 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 Outputs<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> (Updated following the sequence of EPDP-IDNs recs) 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…>. We look forward to seeing you all next week! 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, 30 April 2025
by Devan Reed April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/M4B_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