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

LD PDP WG Meeting #5 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes
by John Emery April 30, 2025

April 30, 2025

Dear LD PSP WG Member, Please see below the readout of today’s meeting #5: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #5<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/M4B_Cg> on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Review of Early Input Responses<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NAT…> and a summary of RrSG input can be found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLqexWc50fc68SKpyHKdcHHqMXsO-GoG5IqQVik…>. 2. Consensus that LD PDP will use the relevant adopted SubPro and EPDP-IDNs for its foundation to build upon 3. Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab 4. No meeting on 7 May due to CP summit in Hanoi [ACTION ITEMS] 1. LT to check final recommendation 7.1 with ICANN legal 2. WG to continue to review outputs from EPDP-IDNs Phase 2 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #4 3. Review of Early Input Responses<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NAT…> * Early Input Request received two responses, which is to be expected give the voluntary nature of it, the open model of this group, and the technical nature of the LD PDP * ISPCP: No specific/additional input other than those suggested by ISPCP members during LD PDP WG weekly meetings. * RrSG summary table of input can be found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLqexWc50fc68SKpyHKdcHHqMXsO-GoG5IqQVik…>. * Tapani noted for the record that he did not agree with the strict requirement to only give domains differing by diacritic to the same registrant 4. Charter Question 3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> based on the Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/s…> a. Overview of Topic 25 on IDNs and SubPro<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-rep…> * Recommendations on topic 25, 25.5, 25.6, 25.7, and 25.8 * SubPro recommendations have been developed in more detail through the slides * Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of leadership and staff recommendations on what is relevant and why, how LD PDP might apply them etc. * Recommendation 7.6 that Amadeu raised wanted to focus on avoiding user confusion and EPDP-IDNs does provide a recommendation for this, which we will be looking into b. Introduction of EPDP-IDNs & Phased Approach Phase 1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-…> and Phase 2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-idn-epdp-…> b. Review of EPDP-IDNs Outputs * EPDP-IDNs took and applied SubPro PDP outputs, operationalized it, and identified gaps * Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/s…> on 19 discussed the phased approach with Phase 1 discussing gTLD and Phase 2 discussing second-level variant management Continued: Charter Question 3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> based on the Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/s…> * Discussion of whether SubPro and EPDP-IDNs think they are a solid foundation. Returned to a discussion of 25.5-25.7 of SubPro * .sjóberg and .sjöberg discussed these are not variants of each other in Unicode, but likely deemed visually confusingly similar from the panel discussion from Sarmad last week. So these are not technically variants * Latin RZ-LGR: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-latin-script-26may22… * Alternative would be overly complex if LD PDP was not consistent with SubPro and EPDP-IDNs. * Background: SubPro requires both top level and second level domains require the same entity. * Discussion of Sjöberg it is not obvious that these are the same and can actually be a human rights issue * There has been a lot of discussion on this topic for EPDP, there is no reason to deviate from this. The only consideration is if the language communities do not consider them to be the same, there is an issue if they are identical in their language. This does not deviate from same entity * If TLDs are different labels and different entities, then there is a chance that the SSR team would consider them to be different enough to allow them to operate simultaneously. If that is the case then our PDP does not apply and there is no same entity principle. * There is no particular right to have your name as a TLD, if you have a name that is identical or confusingly similar. The closer you are to a given language, but you may not be able to distinguish them. It is for the generality of the user. * Reaffirmed same entity principle * Notion of the community that would be confused by the strings would be specific? Do we take the overall Internet community. * Language is just one factor, contention exists for various factors and same entity requirement * Go through recommendations 1 by 1 to see if they make sense for our PDP, not applicable, or need to be adjusted in some way * Went through Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> line by line * RZ-LGR is not the right path to follow as we don’t want to change that, it is a given whether it is a variant and work on those cases where it says it is a valid label. When a diacritic version is not considered a variant by the RZ-LGR * 25.5 wanted to apply this for the LD PDP and Tapani voiced objections, but no one else objected. Final recommendations, there is a consensus call, then any of those can be captured in the final report. Tapani might accept for TLDs but not for 2nd level and registrants * 3.8 guidance may need to be updated for diacritics and not variants, rewrite the wording to suit our case * 7.1 discussion of single RA, application in next round where a TLD is a diacritic of one that already exists. New base agreement or it may be the same. Perhaps would need a separate agreement for two TLDs in the same round. The same exists for variants and there may be already existing in this round. This recommendation may not be directly operational. Should check with ICANN legal 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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #5
by Saewon Lee April 29, 2025

April 29, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, I hope everyone is looking forward to May as we prepare to meet on the last day of April. 😊 Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #5 on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #4 * Outcome and Action Items 1. Review of Early Input Responses<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NATVBg> 2. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> a. Overview of Topic 25 on IDNs from SubPro<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-rep…> b. Introduction of EPDP-IDNs & Phased Approach (P1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-…> and P2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-idn-epdp-…>) c. Review of EPDP-IDNs 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…> has 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 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, 23 April 2025
by Devan Reed April 25, 2025

April 25, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/GoB_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

2 1

LD PDP WG Meeting #4 Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes
by John Emery April 23, 2025

April 23, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG Members, Please see below the readout of today’s meeting #4: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #4<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17606249…> on Wednesday, 23 April 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Mark shared his ASCII/Unicode analysis report (including the list of characters within scope as a result of the WG’s agreement) with the WG, available to download here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/l…>. This list is not an authoritative source, it is a helpful tool that we provide for convenience. The Unicode table as a combination of base ASCII and diacritic is the LD PDP official scope. 2. Allowing for multiple TLD versions for base ASCII requirement: Stay within current scope with base ASCII as the requirement but recommend scenarios for future potential work. 3. Sarmad Hussain presented slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17606249…> on the String Similarity Review Process. 4. Charter Question 3 deferred to the next meeting. [ACTION ITEMS] 1. Later in the process capture cases that were determined to be out of scope but can be recommended for future potential work. [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #3 * Outlined key agreements from Meeting #3 in the slides.<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062490/s…> * GNSO did not object to the Project Plan<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/project…> so LD PDP is cleared to continue. * Mark presented a scoping document written in python (list of characters per Unicode) for this WG. The PDF<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/l…> is available and accessible on the wiki background documents page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/11462345…>. * Three possibilities as outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062490/s…> 9 allowing for multiple TLD versions. Concluded to stay within current scope, but acknowledge that diacritic-only gTLDs could be considered for potential future work. While this is essential to consider, we want to have a narrowly scoped and quick PDP * Steve Chan shared a procedural way that option 2 could work on pg.6-7 of PDP manual<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-2-p…>, would be the mechanism for issues that come up that are not currently within the scope. * Currently, there is nothing from the ccTLD fast track process that is relevant for our work 1. String Similarity Review Process * Sarmad Hussain presented slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17606249…> on the String Similarity Review Process * Michael noted that the current versions of categorizations are going out to public comment very soon. You can look through all the data and comment, whenever you think the Chosen category is not suitable * Panel decision for string similarity will always err on the conservative side to decide what to include in contention and what to omit. * Question concerning the appeals process for the panel. There will be challenge mechanism for the string similarity review * Ariel Liang shared the challenge mechanism for string similarity review, you may see the draft Applicant Guidebook text here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/112200175/E… 1. Charter Question 3 deferred to next meeting 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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #4
by Saewon Lee April 22, 2025

April 22, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, I hope those of you who celebrate Easter enjoyed your holidays! Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #4 on Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #3 a. Outcome and Action Items b. Scope Management: - List of Characters per Unicode - Allowing for Multiple TLD Versions: Base ASCII Requirement c. Charter Question 2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> 1. String Similarity Review Process 2. Charter Question 3<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> a. Overview of Topic 25 on IDNs from SubPro b. Introduction of EPDP-IDNs & Phased Approach 1. Next Steps 2. AOB The LD PDP WG Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/latin-script-d…> has 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>. On a separate note, kindly be reminded that the Early Input will not be extended (due date remains at 24 April), as announced by LD PDP WG Leadership on 11 April<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org/thr…>, and a final reminder soliciting Early Input has been sent out to the leaders of each SO/AC/SG/C today (22 April). Please don’t hesitate to reach out should you have any questions or concerns. 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

GNSO Council Approval of LD PDP WG Project Plan
by Saewon Lee April 11, 2025

April 11, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, This to inform you that at its meeting on 10 April 2025, the GNSO Council approved the LD PDP WG Project Plan<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/project…> by non-objection. Sincere gratitude to Prudence Malinki, the GNSO Council Liaison to the LD PDP WG, for providing an overview of the Project Plan to the Council. Wishing you all a great weekend, 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 Updates
by John Emery April 11, 2025

April 11, 2025

Sent on behalf of Michael Bauland, LD PDP WG Chair Dear LD PDP WG, The Early Input Request for the LD PDP WG was sent out to SO/AC/SG/Cs on 20 March 2025. As mentioned during Kick-off, the Input is voluntary, and the established deadline is listed as 24 April 2025. There was a discussion about the possibility of extending the deadline in Meeting #3 this week. Currently given that this is a voluntary input, and the tight timeline and fast progression of this PDP, Leadership would like to maintain the deadline as is. As outlined in the initial request for Early Input: “Input received after this date may be introduced into the discussion separately by your representatives, by ICANN support staff, or by me [Michael] as the relevant topic is discussed.” Thus, any Input received after the deadline can still be raised, but we believe that it is best to not extend the deadline at this time. Also, Leadership would like to propose a 15-minute delay to the WG Weekly Meetings due to many members of the WG, including Support Staff, coming directly from a preceding meeting which ultimately hinders the effectiveness of both meetings. If there are no objections, a meeting invite for Wednesdays 13:15 UTC will be sent out for 23 April onwards, keeping the weekly meetings at 75 minutes. Sincerely, Michael Bauland, LD PDP WG Chair 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

LD PDP WG Meeting #3 Notes, Outcomes, and Action Items from
by John Emery April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG Members, Please see below the readout to today’s meeting: Notes, Outcomes, and Action Items from LD PDP WG Meeting #3<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYB_Cg> on Wednesday, 9 April 2025. [OUTCOMES] 1. Agreement this WG shall consider all TLDs existing as well as applied for (not delegated) and for new gTLDs (yet to be applied for). 2. WG along with Leadership and Staff assessment, found little direct relevance from the ccTLD Fast Track process to this WG, but we must cover all since it is in the Charter as Question #2. 3. Remaining questions that are unresolved from looking at ccTLD Fast Track process will be covered in future discussion of EPDP-IDNs recommendations, if the WG uses its policies or recommendations. 4. Mark shared his ASCII/Unicode analysis report (including the list of characters within scope as a result of the WG’s agreement) with the WG, available to download here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/l… [ACTION ITEMS] 1. Leadership Team to discuss whether the base ASCII is a requirement with two possible solutions: 1) Submit a scope change request to the GNSO Council, or 2) include this in recommendations for future work on this topic, or 3) do nothing outside of current scope. 2. Staff and Leadership Team to develop some examples of edge cases to stress test our work and draw out examples for clarity of process. 3. Post Mark’s ASCII/Unicode Analysis Report to WG wiki page. [COMPLETED] [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #2 * Outlined key agreements from Meeting #2 in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/s…>. * Mark emailed a scoping document written in python (list of characters per Unicode) for this WG. It is not an authoritative document, but helpful for us in consideration. The PDF is available for download here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/l… 3. Charter Question 1 * Discussion of existing and applied for gTLDs and concluded that the WG is not limiting the scope as that all versions of diacritics are within scope. The WG will consider all TLDs, existing as well as applied for (not delegated) and for new gTLDs (yet to be applied for). * Discussion of similar cases applied for by different entities will not be considered in this PDP as it is solved through the contention set process prior to our LD PDP policy coming into effect. * Agreement that how the String Similarity panel is conducted is out of scope. 4. Charter Question 2 * Relevant documents of the ccTLD Fast Track process, IDNC WG Final Report and ccNSO PDP4 were shared by Staff: * ccTLD fast track process https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-2… * IDNC WG Final Report: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_11060/idnc-wg-board-p… * ccNSO PDP4 FR: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccpdp4-final-rep… * Agreement Leadership and Staff found little relevance from the ccTLD Fast Track process and it is helpful to cover all the bases since it is in the Charter * AI: Future sessions at IDN EPDP and those outcomes to see which of those would be applicable for us and then come back to ccTLD if there was anything missing that could be used for our PDP from the ccTLD * Most questions are covered in EPDP-IDNs - once the WG reviews those recommendations, the WG can consider whether the ccTLD work should be revisited. * AI: STRESS TEST: Develop some examples could be more helpful to draw out to see how this would work out in our PDP and see if any edge cases arrive 5. Next Steps * Meeting on 16 April canceled due to Easter holiday * Meeting on 7 May canceled due to CP summit * Early Input from SO/AC/SG/Cs to close on 24 April 2025 - Extension possibility to be discussed in Leadership Team and announced via mailing list. 6. AOB * Discussion of .Test, .Tést. and .Tèst case on Slide 23<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/s…> concerning whether or not the ASCII version is necessary - Conclusion is that within the scope of the Charter, ASCII appears to be necessary, but the WG appeared to move toward it not being a requirement to apply for the ASCII if two or more diacritic gTLDs are applied for. * Options for next steps: 1) go back to Council to request an expansion of scope, a process which will extend the PDP. 2) maintain the narrow scope and resolve this issue in recommendations for future research like the ø issue identified earlier. * AI: Discuss with LT about the case of base ASCII requirement and whether it is in scope or not and how to handle this going forward. 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 09 April 2025
by Devan Reed April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 09 April 2025 at 13:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYB_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

List of Characters Per Unicode
by Saewon Lee April 9, 2025

April 9, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Pursuant to Action Item 1 from Meeting #2, kindly find attached the full list of characters that the Leadership proposes within scope based on Unicode for the LD PDP. 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: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 3, 2025 at 6:47 AM To: "gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Notes and Action Items from LD PDP Meeting #2 Dear WG Members, Please see the following high-level notes, outcomes, and action items from the LD PDP WG Meeting #2 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> on 2 April 2025. Kind regards, Saewon Notes, Outcomes, and Action Items from LD PDP WG Meeting #2 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> on Wednesday, 2 April 2025. [OUTCOME] 1. Agreement to define Latin Script Diacritics per Unicode (Established since Meeting #1 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…>). 2. Agreement that this PDP WG should examine the diacritics that are similar but should not define what similarity means or change the existing String Similarity Review process; This WG will use the outcomes of the String Similarity Review Panel and if found to be confusingly similar, the recommendations from this PDP will become effective. 3. Agreement to allow for multiple diacritic cases (multiple diacritics in the same letter as well as multiple [3 or more with no upper limits] diacritic versions of TLDs at the same time) within scope while also not restricting the cases to certain TLD types such as real words or to geographic or brand, bearing in mind the process flow. 4. Agreement to limit the scope to same entity operating the ASCII/diacritic versions while not limiting it to only applied-for IDNs strings of existing ASCII gTLDs; also accepting new gTLD applications. [ACTION ITEMS] 1. Leadership/Staff to present a list of Unicode Tables, compiling all the cases that are within scope. 2. WG to consider the existing body of work to be consistent in the use of terminologies, while also being mindful of the existing policies and the process flow (e.g., Suggestion to refer to AGB language on similarity [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…> and the Applicant Journey [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…>) 3. Leadership/Staff to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Review process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the details and criteria of String Similarity Review with the WG. [NOTES] * Download slides and background docs discussed during meeting (Unicode Tables, AGB on String Similarity Review and Applicant Journey) from here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/17602969… [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> 1. Welcome and SOIs N/A 1. Summary of First Meeting * Reminder that the Early Input Request message has been sent to each SO/AC/SG/C Leadership. * Proposed Project Plan has been submitted to GNSO Council (28 March) and Prudence Malinki, the GNSO Council Liaison to the PDP WG, will be providing an overview of the Plan to the Council during the April Council Meeting. 1. Established Scope to Date * When determining what is within scope (with diacritic), the following Unicode Tables can be referred to – A Unicode Character can be decomposed into a base character and a diacritic: https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf [unicode.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf__;!…> https://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf [unicode.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf__;!!PtG…> * Questions on whether cases with multiple diacritics in the same letter (e.g., diệp) and/or multiple (3 or more) diacritic versions of TLDs (e.g., stop, stóp, stòp) at the same time would be allowed/within scope: Members agreed that allowing all these cases should not be a problem. * A suggestion was made to gather the Unicode Tables to be used for this PDP: Noted that a list could be compiled. However, whether to provide general principles vs. a full list of diacritics, it was noted that presenting a general rule of Unicode may be best with the list provided for convenience; though if listed in full, it must be made clear that the list is not fixed/restricted but rather current examples that may be adjusted if the LGR version were to be adjusted. 1. Scope Management and Discussion: Similarity * Agreement that terms should be consistent throughout this work per the existing body of work (e.g., “similarity”, “user confusion” rather than “visual similarity”) and the correct understanding/definition of “similarity” is necessary. A suggestion was made for WG to refer to the AGB language to align definition of similarity: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/agb-string-similarity… [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…> * Agreement that this PDP WG should examine the diacritics that are similar but should not define what similarity means or change the existing String Similarity Review process; This WG will use the outcomes of the String Similarity Review Panel and if found to be confusingly similar, the recommendations from this PDP will become effective. * Question on whether this PDP could propose a rule saying that the registry should only allocate same second level domain to both ASCII and diacritic TLD: Noted that this PDP would follow the rules set forth in the EPDP-IDNs as that PDP has already made sure that even though variant TLDs are confusingly similar, the registries operating them will have rules that make it unlikely. * A suggestion was raised to share more information on variant rules compared to the String Similarity Review process: Noted that it may be ideal to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the criteria and details of String Similarity Review with the WG. 1. Charter Question 1 * A suggestion was made that the focus should be on preventing user confusion (and not only about allowing applicants to move forward) and from this perspective that the multiple TLDs should follow a same entity (same registrant, same registrar, same registry) rule: Noted that the same entity principle is also a part of the EPDP-IDNs solution for variants (second-level) and with the goal to avoid user confusion, the same entity principle will be applicable for this PDP (TLD level) with a possibility for this WG to explicitly determine the same entity concept within its policy recommendation. Either way, WG should be mindful of existing policies. * Question on the meaning of “workaround” for existing ASCII gTLDs instead of the proper IDN string (and vice versa): Noted that there is no need for this WG to define ”workaround” anymore as the characters will be defined via Unicode. * Agreement on allowing for multiple diacritic cases while not restricting to certain TLD types such as real words or to geographic or brand, bearing in mind the process flow (reminder of the process flow where the String Similarity Review comes first during application process; Refer to Applicant journey: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/applicant-journey-rel… [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…>. Also, the WG agreed to not have an upper limit in the diacritics. * Agreement to limit the scope to same entity operating the ASCII/diacritic versions while not limiting the scope to only applied-for IDNs strings of existing ASCII gTLDs; also accepting new gTLD applications. 1. Next Steps/AOB * Leadership/Staff to present a list of Unicode Tables, compiling all the cases that are within scope. * WG to consider the existing body of work to be consistent in the use of terminologies, while also being mindful of the existing policies and the process flow (e.g., Suggestion to refer to AGB language on similarity [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…> and the Applicant Journey [itp.cdn.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-develo…>) * Leadership/Staff to invite an ICANN org expert on String Similarity Review process (Sarmad Hussain?) to share the details and criteria of String Similarity Review with the WG.

1 0