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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 16 July 2025
by Devan Reed July 16, 2025

July 16, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 16 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/OQDqE> (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 #13 on Wednesday, 16 July 2025
by John Emery July 16, 2025

July 16, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please see below the Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #13<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/OQDqE> on Wednesday, 16 July 2025: Meeting #13 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28377093…> [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] * Staff to make a note on slide 7 for yilmaz dot less i example * No meeting next week 23 July due to leadership absence, calls to resume 30 July * All to review TBD items in spreadsheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #12 * Reviewed agreement on SLD cases * Case 1.2-1 variants at the second level with IDNs * Yilmaz example with dot less i to be updated * Query about second level for ASCII and second level there is no single entity principle as that is up to the registry. * Strongly encourage registries to apply this perhaps in the language without making it a rule * Sarmad: in this context there is already another document for IDN implementation guidelines. Section 2.5<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-guidelines-22sep22-en.pdf> talks about confusability of labels. Generic recommendation from Seb may already be there; it can be done in the context of the guidelines from here. 3. Charter Question 3 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * EPDP-IDNs P2 looks at the second level variant management i.Filled in worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> * Continued on implementation guidance 12 on Uniform Rapid Suspension System. For variants the same entity does not apply to all of them. Complainant must submit every domain they would like suspended * Diacritics are a much larger variant set than IDNs, if there is another top-level linked to another diacritic, at the second level variants are solved by IDNs. Only the same entity principle is only at the top-level. * Recommendation 13: if same entity applies to new strings work then the dispute resolution providers should be apprised of these as well. * Suggestion to use Mark’s R-tool since it is internal that it might be helpful like an IDN table. We don’t actually need to know what diacritics exist as the same entity is only at the top level, the second level is out of scope. IANA database would show if there is a diacritic TLD of that * If this is not enforced by the registry for any top level domain. There is a solution for top-level domain, but not for second level * Recommendation 14 EPP extension is currently being worked on for IDNs. Suggestion to align with that. * Sarmad: question about a similarity relationship vs. a variant relationship and is that easily portable to this scenario? Michael: it is currently still in development perhaps calling it connected, but aligning will make life easier * Sarmad: could be an implementation guidance to * Implementation guidance 15: general agreement, Sarmad clarified if this is related to EPP or RDS. Can’t be EPP and this is other entities and end-users not language between registries and registrars * Final Recommendation 16: Yes to IANA transparency * Implementation Guidance 17: also valid for our cases with a tweak of wording since it is not about variants, but diacritics * Final Recommendation 18-21 all IDN implementation guideline related * Sarmad: IDN guidelines are for gTLDs and ccTLDs and developed by group from both groups. The work is largely focused on second level implementation of IDNs, in that sense, unless we want to talk about 2nd level IDN implementation work, otherwise this will not be relevant * Diacritics at second level are not really regulated, it is something that could be included in IDN implementation guidelines as these problems already exist now with single TLDs * Review of TBD Items * PDP is about creating an exception process for one specific problem. If you apply for two TLDs where those are diacritics and not variants, you can apply for each TLD, but there is a high chance that one will be rejected because it is too similar. We want to avoid this rejection and make it possible for entities to apply for both TLDs. We are not trying to make any further rules that make this easier or to encourage people to do this if the rejection would not take place. Solve problem of rejection, but not making it easier than that * First discussions to note that we have voluntarily limited ourselves to the notion of what a diacritic is. But other groups may study those separately with the same sort of method when applied to them. By not making rules about them, not saying it should not be dealt with at all, but it is sensible to deal with in the future. It is out of scope * 3.4: One application for all TLDs or separate applications: Variants, it was combined in a single application. Single application suggested. * Wording easier to be bundled in same entity, but can be problematic at string similarity review * Suggested: have a single application and by that already states that those TLDs will be run with the rules of the PDP, string sim check would not be necessary, it would make this known to the applicant. Idea is to write with the application if you want to use the PDP rules or not * Steve clarified thinking about the question makes sense to signal up front that they want to question that applicants for ASCII and LD are making a planned decision. Applicant for ASCII and LD are not waiting for a string sim review to decide to operate it in that fashion. 4. Next Steps * No meeting next week 23 July due to leadership absence 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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #13
by Saewon Lee July 14, 2025

July 14, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #13 on Wednesday, 16 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #12 3. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * Review of EPDP-IDNs P2 Outputs (Worksheet [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHa…> to Leverage Outputs) * Review of TBD Items 1. Next Steps 2. AOB As always, 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 Wednesday! 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

same entity principle
by Tapani Tarvainen July 10, 2025

July 10, 2025

Just to clarify my point about same entity principle on registrants I made during the call: Assume someone gets .muller and .müller and wants to give mark.muller and mark.müller to different people. The rule proposed would require a single registrant, but it would be easy enough to work around: simply form a legal entity that acts as the registrant and lets Mark Muller and Mark Müller have their own domains without being official registrants. Mark Müller and Mark Muller could do it by themselves if they agree, but more likely the registrar would simply offer it as a service, with a subsidiary that acts as the registrant. Or an independent company could do it. If we'd insist on matching DNS records too it could still be worked around, then you'd just have to have common hosting at least as a redirector. Thus the same entity principle would not be really effective on registrants, it would just cause extra complications and cost for people it affects. Of course this could be seen as a positive, creating new business opportunities, but on general principles I would not like to see a situation where actual users of domains are hidden behind yet another layer of obfuscation, and especially not an ICANN policy that in effect forces them to. So while I like the same entity principle for registries and registrars, I would leave it on registrant level up to the registry or registrar, possibly with a policy to be specified in the registry agreement. -- Tapani Tarvainen

6 8

LD PDP 9 July 2025 Meeting #12 Notes
by John Emery July 9, 2025

July 9, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG Please find attached below the meeting notes from the 9 July 2025 Meeting #12 of the LD PDP WG: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #12<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/T4DpE> on Wednesday, 9 July 2025 Meeting #12 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28373819…> [OUTCOMES] 1. Consensus from Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28373819…> page 7 & 8. Example 1.1 and 1.2 the same entity principle applies. Example 1.3 there will be nothing done in this PDP, registries are free to have their own rules. 2. Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab [ACTION ITEMS] * AI: staff and leadership to redo the slide 7 for the 1.2 example for a new Latin example and non-Latin examples [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs * Anil Jain noted his updated SOI 2. Recap of Meeting #11 * Reviewed Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28373819…> * Discussed examples from last week for second-level management from slides 6, 7, and 8 * Discussion of same entity principle for case 1.1 test.example and test.éxample * Query about what cc’s use on the same entity principle rule for comparison * Case 1 and 1.1 should be the same entity principle? Debate amongst the group * Sarmad: IDNs have been registered at 2nd level for some time now. For PDP work, there has been a Board resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> in 2019 that basically asked GNSO and ccNSO to consider variant TLD recommendations. There were different ways this has been done before but post-2019 it should be considered. This has been done by both GNSO and ccNSO. Suggests that variants at the top level and second level (strings considered “the same” by end users), therefore the recommendations since these are the same strings they should go to the same registrants. Variants at the second level also mean that those are the same strings or code points for the end users. Variants by definitions are the same strings and therefore should go to the same registrant. * Sarmad: There are separate clauses prior to 2019 that IDN-EPDP where different registrants can remain, but new registrations should be to the same registrant * Suggestion same entity principle must be for 1.1 as well as 1, a bit of an impasse * Rough consensus emerged that case 1.1 test.example and test.éxample should be same entity principle * 1.3 ASCII and diacritic version only for the top level required, now considering an extra layer on the second level * Debate about having some kind of case-by-case basis or doing it across the board * Taling about tLDS that get an exemption process from being rejected for TLDs * Sarmad: 9 cases: {same, variant, similar/diacritic}.{same, variant, similar/diacritic}: 3 possibilities at the top level and 3 at the second level. Some of those cases are already clear policy for EPDP-IDNs and SubPro. Some additional cases discussing here. Suggested that in discussing the different cases we clearly use one of the packets and then have the rules and not mix those. * Summary: discussions majority seems to say we don’t want rules for 1.3 case, registries are free to handle those ASCII/diacritics if they want to make them as variants or same entity, it is up to them. 1.1 majority consensus there is same entity principle. 1.2 We can't make any rules because of the already existing EPDP-IDN rules because they are already variants. Cases where it is already decided that the 2nd level are variants of each other tesst.example vs. tesst.éxample and teßt.example and test.éxample. * Consensus 1.1 and 1.2 should be the same entity with an objection from Tapani * AI: redo the slide 7 for the 1.2 example for Latin example and non-Latin examples 3. Charter Question 3 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * EPDP-IDNs P2 looks at the second level variant management i.Filled in worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> * Final Recommendation 8: does not only refer to 2nd level variant set, it also says a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant labels. In addition it is also the diacritized versions and not necessarily the gTLD delegated variables. Must change wording to make it applicable for LD PDP * Final Recommendation 9: similar argument as 8, this is only the context of variants, if it is beyond variants then the language will need to be updated to extend it to Latin diacritized versions. This applies to most recommendations here in the final language. * Applicability for the whole lifecycle and not just in the creation process. Agreement that the meaning is applicable and the wording is fit for purpose. * Recommendation 10: another case of language harmonization for same entity principle * Recommendations 10-12 are bundled to change wording, but applicable to LD PDP * Recommendation 12: In theory it is possible to have different trademarks for the same word with and without diacritics. There could be legal enforcement higher than ICANN rules for the exemption process. But this is likely an exceptional case. URS is differing because URS is on suspension model and does not break the same entity rule and there is no domain transfer. 4. Next Steps 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

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

July 9, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 09 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/T4DpE> (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 #12
by Saewon Lee July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #12 on Wednesday, 9 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #11 3. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * Review of EPDP-IDNs P2 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…>. 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, 02 July 2025
by Devan Reed July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 02 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQDrE> (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

Meeting #11 Notes LD PDP 2 July 2025
by John Emery July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG Members, Please find attached the outcomes, action items, and notes from the LD PDP WG Meeting #11 on 2 July 2025. Meeting #11 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28383641…> [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. Prepare some examples for P2 same entity principle at the second-level to discuss next meeting [NOTES] Meeting #11 Slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/28383641…> 1. Welcome and SOIs * Michael welcomed Board liaison Alan Barrett 2. Recap of ICANN83 Working Sessions * Discussion of if there were any questions 3. Update on AGB Inclusion in LD PDP * Introduced the issues with the AGB and clarified that this cannot be used in the current AGB, but can utilize the SPIRT process for inclusion after AGB adoption * Suggested speeding through the LD PDP or a developing small team to draft recommendations * Clarification 4. Charter Question 3 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * EPDP-IDNs P2 looks at the second level variant management a. Filled in worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> * Phase 2 Outputs * Final Rec 1: agreement of same entity principle for second-level gTLDs * Broad discussion of second-level as to whether diacritics should be treated in the same way. The goal is to prevent user confusion because of the second level depending on the registry. * At TLD level there is a limited number of applicants. 2nd level is free for all, and variant like at the second level, there will be problems and way too complicated across all languages * Suggestions we need to clearly disambiguate between variants and diacritics (ie., pseudo-variants) * Sarmad: three different scenarios 1) variants at top level and second level. That is solved by IDN-EPDP and SubPro and that applies 2) we don’t have variants at the top level but strings grouped together because of diacritics and same strings and variants under them, we want to discuss how to define the policy for this to remain open. That is a relevant discussion to have. 3) Diacritized version at top level not variants and diacritized at the second level which are not variants, unlikely we want to go there. * AI: come up with visual examples for next meeting to discuss * Clarification: currently TLDs .quebec are enforcing the block or allocation to same registrant at the second-level. Reason is to prevent confusion. We cannot dictate general policy, but dealing with a specific exception for something confusing for the end user. General rule that registries decide variants, but we are not necessarily bound by this special case and it could be a special rule * For recommendations from our group we either recommend everything is a bundle or not. * Example from Sarmad: * 1) Variant.variant 2) variant.LDalternate <—— 3) LDalternate.LDalternate o 1) already decided o 2) TLD and LDalternate what should happen with variants? This should also adhere to same entity principle because we take the ASCII and LDalternate as kind of the same pseudo variant and should be Same entity o 3) What do we do with LDalternate.LDalternate should those also adhere to the same entity principle? Something registry is free to decide via policies? Do we suggest this? * Continued to fill out the worksheet<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQO…> * Recommendation 3: Applicable for LD PDP, nothing to apply retroactively for exempted cases * Recommendation 4: Sarmad if the LD alternate at the top-level to potentially behave in a similar way to variants at the top-level, then these second level for how these could be extended as well * Recommendation 5: Sarmad: 2nd level IDN tables developed by registries, they can always add more variants. That option is not excluded. This recommendation says whatever the TLD registry decides, if they have multiple IDN tables, they must be harmonized based on whatever IDN table is being used. This recommendation still holds, but is not really relevant here as it is already approved and has no implications for our work * Recommendation 6: Determined to be already covered by IDN EPDP and no additional work needed as we won’t change any variant rules here. 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 #11
by Saewon Lee July 1, 2025

July 1, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, I hope those of you who travelled for IGF are safely back home now and everyone is excited to continue with LD PDP again. 😊 Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #11 on Wednesday, 2 July 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of ICANN83 Working Sessions 3. Update on AGB Inclusion of LD PDP 4. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> * Review of EPDP-IDNs P2 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…>. Looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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>

1 0