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

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #21 on Wednesday, 1 October 2025
by John Emery Oct. 1, 2025

Oct. 1, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please see attached from today’s meeting: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #21<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NgDgGg> on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 [OUTCOMES] * Option 2 decided for preliminary recommendation 32 with some slight changes to be completed * Determined positions on multiple issues raised in the preliminary recommendations draft [ACTION ITEMS] * Staff and Leadership to update Preliminary Recommendation 32 * Staff and Leadership to update Preliminary Recommendation 35 and 38 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #20 * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NgDgGg> and discussed how action items were resolved * Changes to IG 11 and PR 14 discussed * Updated language to PR 32 explained, do we use the adjustment or leave it as covered in the IDN-EPDP * Sarmad would the GPs automatically understand that this is ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD label sets suggestion to clearly specify it is through this policy of the same entity. * Discussion of the meaning of full backward compatibility. Should not say to NOT make them variants, there could be a relationship in the RZ-LGR. If they are variants and they are blocked we must retain full backward compatibility to allow for allocated ASCII/LD not impacted by this. * PR 32 Discussion of exemption terminology and it could make this more readable for Public Comment and Board deliberations. Understand the intent of the WG with exemptions. * With variants we want full backward compatibility and there could be allocated variants that are blocked. Perhaps it makes sense to explain this a bit more in the rationale * Suggestion for Sarmad to keep the same language. This is something GPs and IPs need to look at on a case-by-case basis. Making things very strict or requiring backward compatibility might diverge from previous recommendations. * “A Latin Generation Panel” not “The Latin Generation Panel” suggested 3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> * PR 35 does not need guidance as it is up to the registry operator to decide for itself. No need for guidance. Consistency will likely be implied given that there will likely never be a case as it is a set * Without knowing the way, the registries are using the TLDs it is problematic to force something on them without a need to force it on them * The only question here is for any change in the root or registry ICANN needs to consider the interest of the registrant, there is no need to get rid of the domains that have more users. * Add a sentence to PR35 the choice of the TLD to be kept should be done with due diligence with all parties: registrars and registrants duly considered. * Practical implications of this means that the application or contract about a set will be changed to a contract with a single TLD just as any IDN single TLD and fees would be the same as a standard single TLD. * In our context it is the same as if you were to drop a variant from a TLD set. It would be available again but would be rejected due to being visually confusingly similar. * PR 35 needs some fine-tuning based on practical consequences. But the original question of remaining TLD being defined in some way. Contrary to IDN-EPDP our TLDs are not related in the sense regarding the RZ-LGR they are basically able to exist on their own. The reason is LD is not like variants where it is subject to ASCII though they act as a set. * Possible issues for edge cases explored for dropped TLDs * There is no reason why we could have a possibility of dropping one if there are registrants. Also, there may be no case where a diacritic would NOT be confusingly similar. * What is the current policy dropping a standalone TLD? It will be sent to EBERO unless there are no registrations. Redo PR35 in that we should not also allow dropping TLDs with registrations voluntarily * Ensure these recommendations are consistent with current policies as we revise the recommendation * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NgDgGg> for understanding the 2nd level sets for Phase 2 * Same entity requirements for all domains; ASCII/LD domain set. * Extensive discussion about what domains require the same entity on the 2nd level and our decision was only the exact same label will require the same entity by our rules. Only the LD PDP requires this to be the same entity. The variants are a consequence of the IDN-EPDP and not something we actively decided here. * Robust discussion of confusingly similar situations where there are not variants. Amadeu will follow up on the list. 4. Preparation for ICANN84 5. Next Steps 6. 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, 01 October 2025
by Devan Reed Oct. 1, 2025

Oct. 1, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 01 October 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NgDgGg> (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 #21
by Saewon Lee Sept. 30, 2025

Sept. 30, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #21 on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #20 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> 2. Preparation for ICANN84 3. Next Steps 4. AOB 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

ICANN84 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Sept. 29, 2025

Sept. 29, 2025

Dear all, With ICANN84<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann84/> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. ICANN84 key dates: * Prep Week will take place virtually 13 - 15 October 2025. * Deadline for IN-PERSON registration is 24 October 2025. * ICANN84 will take place in Dublin 25 - 30 October 2025. On-site registration will not be available. Registration for ICANN84 does not automatically create a user account on sched.com. Instructions and guides to register as well as personalize your schedule can be found on these pages: * Visit this page to REGISTER: https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann84/ * General information about Dublin, hotels, transportation and rates, and links to food options can also be found here * The ICANN84 Schedule: https://icann84.sched.com/ * Instructions for personalizing your schedule can also be found here There will be no calendar invitations sent, as the meeting schedule allows you to download all sessions of interest to your individual calendars A reminder to review the Participation Tools page and update Zoom * All sessions that use Zoom rooms, access details will be 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 in the blue box on the right side of the page for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. * If participating on-site, please read the Frequently Asked Questions here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann84/#faq>. Links to Bookmark ICANN84 Meeting Schedule<https://icann84.sched.com/> ICANN84 GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/FYBUGQ> GNSO Session agendas<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCMFQ> For all GNSO meeting-related queries, 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 Analyst (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

Re: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #20 on Wednesday, 24 September 2025
by Saewon Lee Sept. 24, 2025

Sept. 24, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find attached the revised slide deck from today’s meeting. The timeline in slides 10-11 for the drafting of the initial report and confirming them as stable should have been Oct-Nov. 2025, not Sep-Oct. 2025. These slides can also be accessed on the wiki here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HADgGg Kind regards, Saewon From: John Emery via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: John Emery <john.emery(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, September 24, 2025 at 10:39 AM To: "gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #20 on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 Hello LD PDP WG, Please see attached. Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #20 [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HAD…> on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 [OUTCOMES] * Determined positions on multiple issues raised in the comments [ACTION ITEMS] * Staff and Leadership to update IG 11 in line with Sarmad’s comments “as an extension if necessary” * Staff and Leadership to updated Rec 14 footnote referencing Next Round AGB instead of 2012 round * All WG members to review the rationales that have been added to the Preliminary Draft Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> and think of scenarios to stress test * Staff and Leadership to Rec 28 should have an added rationale explaining how the set would be subject to Category 1 Safeguards [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #19 * Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> and discussed how action items were resolved * Three options for PR 7, discussion of reasoning for “existing gTLD” * Discussion not a mission and purpose for the existing TLD but for the whole set * Corresponding discussion for minimizing operational complexity for LD domains * Applicant will describe the justification of the need (to whom?) Wording for Must vs. May * Mission/Purpose is just a sentence, why you want that TLD, to whom, and how you will try to minimize the risk of TLDs that are inherently visually confusingly similar. Cannot only apply to new TLDs, also existing * Ariel: Implementation approach will have a variant string evaluation where a panel would review the justification questions. Applicants will justify the need for that, and a panel will evaluate the responses. Possibly there would be something similar like the IDN-EPDP for LD PDP. * Decision was to provide some additional justification for mission/purpose * Agreement with option 1 As-Is Consistent with EPDP-IDNs * IG 11 instead of having our own report, would be to use the decided process of IDN-EPDP and combine this research and add the sentence outlined in the slide. * Sarmad: Instead of requiring an extension, may suffice to use exactly the same process. “As an extension if necessary” * Rec 14 Footnote: Ariel: raised that referencing the next round AGB instead of 2012 round as there is language defining “established institution” and best to reference the latest language. * Rec 13 the term “discount” Ariel: confirmation from org that there is no issue or misunderstanding with the term “discount” the Board already adopted this rec. So if the group decides to continue to use the term “discount” there are not concerns. The recommendation has been adopted but not implemented yet, so still in a pending status. 3. Update on LD PDP Timeline * Reviewed timeline in slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/space…> and we are about 3 months ahead of schedule * Unfortunately, this means that we would have problems incorporating this into the Next Round as Board adoption of AGB is at ICANN84 and final opportunity would be December 2025, and launch is April 2026. * Always a slim chance that it would be possible to include this in the AGB, but we did a great job and had record pace and topics were discussed thoroughly. This will be rules for eternity, but better to get the policy right * Discussions broadly on the risk of an application for diacritics in this round of having the application rejected or delayed. * Steve: sounds simple to allow for an LD set to be applied for and put in limbo, but it is not simple. Every string gets integrated into the string similarity process including external elements that run on cycles. All these are on a schedule in the program. Can’t put a string in limbo if the outcomes of this PDP are unclear. Generally, hesitant to broach the subject of the next round, it was still a moonshot even if it was wrapped up in a month. * Any ideas how to make this possible can be shared on the mailing list as it remains nearly impossible * There are possibilities for application processes changing along the way, so the WG should not be set back and proceed at a normal pace and not be impacted by what is happening here. 4. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2…> * Staff has begun adding the rationales in the document and provide comments and suggestions via mailing list. * Comment from Bill on Rec 18 and if it was in conflict with recommendation 13? It was clarified and the comment can be resolved as they are talking about fees with application vs. ongoing fees for operation of TLDs * Rec 28: Category 1 Safeguards all TLDs in the set. If there is a problem with it, we can remove it. * Ariel, the set is subject to the same safeguard public interest commitments. That is the intent of the PDP recommendations. This type of string is specialized. Based on AGB drafting process it is not a specialized application. The set is a subject to this. * Put something in rationale that the set would be subject to this. * Rec 32 discussion of RZ-LGR defines the characters and variant relationships. It could theoretically be possible to add variants. That is out of scope for our purpose. If such changes happen in the future, the generation panel needs to be aware of this problem that would not be possible with new ruling that retains full backward compatibility * Sarmad: this is already in IDN-EPDP Phase 1. Question is repeating that recommendation here, is there any additional angle that is being added here? Or if that is already part of Phase 1? This may be redundant. Is there anything specific added in this context? * The way this is written does not look at variants, it is existing gTLDs * Ariel: put forward a recommendation on what the group intends to achieve rather than RZ-LGR as it does not seem too related. Gets convoluted 5. Next Steps 6. AOB 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 24 September 2025
by Devan Reed Sept. 24, 2025

Sept. 24, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HADgGg> (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 #20 on Wednesday, 24 September 2025
by John Emery Sept. 24, 2025

Sept. 24, 2025

Hello LD PDP WG, Please see attached. Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #20<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/HADgGg> on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 [OUTCOMES] * Determined positions on multiple issues raised in the comments [ACTION ITEMS] * Staff and Leadership to update IG 11 in line with Sarmad’s comments “as an extension if necessary” * Staff and Leadership to updated Rec 14 footnote referencing Next Round AGB instead of 2012 round * All WG members to review the rationales that have been added to the Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> and think of scenarios to stress test * Staff and Leadership to Rec 28 should have an added rationale explaining how the set would be subject to Category 1 Safeguards [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #19 * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/45088770…> and discussed how action items were resolved * Three options for PR 7, discussion of reasoning for “existing gTLD” * Discussion not a mission and purpose for the existing TLD but for the whole set * Corresponding discussion for minimizing operational complexity for LD domains * Applicant will describe the justification of the need (to whom?) Wording for Must vs. May * Mission/Purpose is just a sentence, why you want that TLD, to whom, and how you will try to minimize the risk of TLDs that are inherently visually confusingly similar. Cannot only apply to new TLDs, also existing * Ariel: Implementation approach will have a variant string evaluation where a panel would review the justification questions. Applicants will justify the need for that, and a panel will evaluate the responses. Possibly there would be something similar like the IDN-EPDP for LD PDP. * Decision was to provide some additional justification for mission/purpose * Agreement with option 1 As-Is Consistent with EPDP-IDNs * IG 11 instead of having our own report, would be to use the decided process of IDN-EPDP and combine this research and add the sentence outlined in the slide. * Sarmad: Instead of requiring an extension, may suffice to use exactly the same process. “As an extension if necessary” * Rec 14 Footnote: Ariel: raised that referencing the next round AGB instead of 2012 round as there is language defining “established institution” and best to reference the latest language. * Rec 13 the term “discount” Ariel: confirmation from org that there is no issue or misunderstanding with the term “discount” the Board already adopted this rec. So if the group decides to continue to use the term “discount” there are not concerns. The recommendation has been adopted but not implemented yet, so still in a pending status. 3. Update on LD PDP Timeline * Reviewed timeline in slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/45088770…> and we are about 3 months ahead of schedule * Unfortunately, this means that we would have problems incorporating this into the Next Round as Board adoption of AGB is at ICANN84 and final opportunity would be December 2025, and launch is April 2026. * Always a slim chance that it would be possible to include this in the AGB, but we did a great job and had record pace and topics were discussed thoroughly. This will be rules for eternity, but better to get the policy right * Discussions broadly on the risk of an application for diacritics in this round of having the application rejected or delayed. * Steve: sounds simple to allow for an LD set to be applied for and put in limbo, but it is not simple. Every string gets integrated into the string similarity process including external elements that run on cycles. All these are on a schedule in the program. Can’t put a string in limbo if the outcomes of this PDP are unclear. Generally, hesitant to broach the subject of the next round, it was still a moonshot even if it was wrapped up in a month. * Any ideas how to make this possible can be shared on the mailing list as it remains nearly impossible * There are possibilities for application processes changing along the way, so the WG should not be set back and proceed at a normal pace and not be impacted by what is happening here. 4. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> * Staff has begun adding the rationales in the document and provide comments and suggestions via mailing list. * Comment from Bill on Rec 18 and if it was in conflict with recommendation 13? It was clarified and the comment can be resolved as they are talking about fees with application vs. ongoing fees for operation of TLDs * Rec 28: Category 1 Safeguards all TLDs in the set. If there is a problem with it, we can remove it. * Ariel, the set is subject to the same safeguard public interest commitments. That is the intent of the PDP recommendations. This type of string is specialized. Based on AGB drafting process it is not a specialized application. The set is a subject to this. * Put something in rationale that the set would be subject to this. * Rec 32 discussion of RZ-LGR defines the characters and variant relationships. It could theoretically be possible to add variants. That is out of scope for our purpose. If such changes happen in the future, the generation panel needs to be aware of this problem that would not be possible with new ruling that retains full backward compatibility * Sarmad: this is already in IDN-EPDP Phase 1. Question is repeating that recommendation here, is there any additional angle that is being added here? Or if that is already part of Phase 1? This may be redundant. Is there anything specific added in this context? * The way this is written does not look at variants, it is existing gTLDs * Ariel: put forward a recommendation on what the group intends to achieve rather than RZ-LGR as it does not seem too related. Gets convoluted 5. Next Steps 6. AOB 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 #20
by Saewon Lee Sept. 23, 2025

Sept. 23, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #20 on Wednesday, 24 September 2025 at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #19 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Update on LD PDP Timeline 2. Review of Draft Preliminary Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> 3. Next Steps 4. AOB See you all soon! 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, 17 September 2025
by Devan Reed Sept. 18, 2025

Sept. 18, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 17 September 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQDgGg> (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

3 2

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #19
by John Emery Sept. 17, 2025

Sept. 17, 2025

Hello All, Please find attached: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #19<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQDgGg> on Wednesday, 17 September 2025 [OUTCOMES] * Determined positions on multiple issues raised in the comments [ACTION ITEMS] * All to look in-depth at recommendation 7 to determine the correct wording * Leadership and Staff to rewrite IG 11 based on group discussion * Ariel to check-in on Rec 13 and the term discount for implementation issues with EPDP-IDNs * Rec 14: Staff to add footnote clarifying the term “established institution” from EPDP-IDNs * Staff and leadership to resolve comments and grammar issues * All to share edge cases on the mailing list for subsequent discussion [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #18 * Reviewed the slides 3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgdu…> * Aimed to stay consistent with language of EPDP-IDNs even if suggested improvements of language, unless it is important to change, it is better to align with IDNs. * Footnotes copied from the existing document * Preliminary Recommendations X and Y to keep numbering from IDN-EPDP those are new just for our LD PDP case to stand apart from others * Michael discussed which suggestions were accepted or rejected and the rationale for it * ALAC policy working group was presented by Satish and Bill for the early look and it is going along well * Query raised about decomposable diacritics per the unicode table. * Need to establish a definition talking about composable is a strict rule that can be applied. But certain letters there are just a character to create a definition of what is decomposable and that is why we are going this way * Discussion of Unicode table and decomposition of diacritics * Mark added an appendix of those that look like a diacritic but are not, linked here <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/45088768…> in our unicode table, agreement amongst group to include this appendix in the table * Rec 3 idea of application rounds, possible to include nuance in rationale to note that the diacritics group considered future possibility of round, if/when that happens. * Rec 4 discussion of multiple applied-for gTLDs perhaps remove this caveat and add to existing gTLDs and Rec 5 talks about a completely new set without an existing one. * Rec 6 always applies to a “set” just as an application or ASCII/LD set. Torn between the two phrasings. Concern that we should not unnecessarily make the recommendation longer. * Suggestion to add an explanatory footnote as a compromise * We have granted an exception for a .Brand TLD, why only that and not the other two? * .Brand single label TLD and there is some contention you have the possibility to change the label, that is an existing exceptions process, and it makes sense to include in our rules too. Nothing in addition, just reiterating. * Rec 7: Staff and Leadership offered different wording to make it less complicated. Same principle in clearer language * Existing gTLD the mission and purpose may need to be explained. It could be that the mission has somehow changed and the mission/purpose of the set and not just the the new TLDs. * Rec 7 to be discussed next week * IG 8: query about an appeals process, there is not an appeal process per se, but there is an extended evaluation process that allows the applicant to contest the decision taken. Suggested adding a footnote of this * IG 11: Discussion would be for later or post-implementation; this could be a public comment opportunity. Operationally, the SPIRT process may need to be involved. * Sarmad: if this is already being asked for IDN-EPDP and LD PDP, the technical setup would be the same. Then we may not need a separate report than 3.9.4 from IDNs. Rewrite in a way that is similar to the IDN-EPDP report may also be utilized here * Variance should also be adjusted to include our cases as opposed to a new report * Is it a static dependency on IDN-EPDP if they change, we are dependent on their changes and would need appropriate changes to LD as well * Does make sense to combine them as long as we state it should be combined. There is no need for a second report since the technical handling will likely be the same * Rec 13: rationale to make this a bit clearer but prefer to have the rec as written as it is unclear what discount will be applied here. Not possible to describe it here * Discount is a commercial decision, always based on the cost recovery analysis. Word choice * Implementation EPDP-Phase 1 did raise some concerns on org side and Ariel will check in to see the discussion or conclusion and the interpretation of the word discount * Rec 14 Anil’s comment for additional context. Consistent, but footnote or rationale for definition of established institution. The EPDP Team affirmed that this term originated from the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and was reaffirmed by the SubPro PDP Final Report. And there is a footnote in the EPDP-IDNs on the meaning of /reference to the “established institution.” * Rec 15 awaiting additional input from legal, they are still confirming and will discuss next week. There is a preference from legal to keep things broader and avoid committing to a single RA. Awaiting a formal response will be confirmed next week. 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