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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #37
by Saewon Lee May 26, 2026

May 26, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #37 on Wednesday, 27 May 2026, at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #36 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment 2. Next Steps 3. AOB This week, the WG is expected to finalize discussions for PR29 and continue with discussions for PRs. 1, 39, and 40-41 as they relate to the public comments received. Please review the Public Comment submissions in their entirety through the Public Comment Review Tool here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1…> Much appreciated, 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

Summary of Public Comment Submissions for PR39
by Saewon Lee May 22, 2026

May 22, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, As requested by the WG today (during Meeting #36<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ>), and to prepare for Meeting #37, please find below the summary of the Public Comment submissions for PR39 below: Preliminary Recommendation 39 Building on an ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set as defined in Preliminary Recommendation 1, an ASCII/Latin diacritic domain set is defined to include: 39.1 a label and all its variants within a given TLD, as determined by the second-level LGRs for that given TLD; and 39.2 the same labels and all their variants across all other TLDs within the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set. Public Comment Submissions 1. “Supporting the recommendation as written” Category – in general, these comments are not introduced for discussions during WG meetings; but this one was introduced since ALAC requested the WG’s acknowledgement. * Requestor: ALAC * Request: LD PDP WG to acknowledge the need for an end-user understanding of the second-level. * Problem: Many LD PDP safeguards operate invisibly to end-users, particularly where diacritic domain names are withheld and while often beneficial, the unexplained unavailability may undermine consumer confidence. Clear and accessible explanations are encouraged when domain names are blocked or unavailable due to LD PDP-related rules. * LD PDP WG Action: Awareness only – No action needed at this time. 1. “Support the recommendation with wording change” Category * Requestor: ICANN org * Requests: * Add the term “second-level” before the word “label (to be updated to string)” in the Output language to enhance clarity, rather than relying on footnotes or rationale. * With respect to [Figure 3] in the rationale section<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2026/draft/initial-report…>, add explanatory text to assist readers who may be unfamiliar with the WG’s deliberations regarding the definition of the ASCII/Latin diacritic domain set. * Problem for both requests: Current policy and rationale language need to provide further clarity, especially for those readers who may be unfamiliar with the WG’s intentions and deliberations. * LD PDP WG Action: Consideration and action (revise/add language to provide clarity, if appropriate) required 1. “Significant change required” Category * Requestor: ICANN org * Requests: * WG to consider whether the existing output (together with PR1) aligns with the introduction and management of IDN variant TLDs and the requirements are sufficient to mitigate potential risks effectively. * WG to assess whether the definition and requirement of an ASCII/Latin diacritic domain set needs alignment with the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set, and determine whether additional measures should be developed to mitigate potential registrant and end-user confusion. * Problems: * Both PR1 and PR39 definition may depart from the longstanding principle of introducing and managing the IDN variant TLDs. * Definition and treatment of the ASCII/Latin diacritic labels at the second-level may differ from the top-level – including grouping of the labels as a set which does not exist at the second-level and top-level strings that may not be part of a Variant TLD set – and these differing approaches for the sets at the top and second-levels may cause confusion. Moreover, Case 1.3<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2026/draft/initial-report…> illustrated in the rationale for PR40 needs to be reconsidered (no rules for non-variant second-level labels within the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD sets and to leave such decisions to the discretion of the gTLD registry operators). * LD PDP WG Action: Consideration and action (revise/add language to provide clarity, as appropriate, and/or change policy intent, if necessary) required. As shared during the call, please still review the public comments in their entirety through the Public Comment Review Tool<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B…>, which is also updated each week with WG discussion notes, key outcomes/consensus, and responses to the comments received. The updated language resulting from each meeting can also be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVeIGv03DRJbcWrX_7WZdk9mgRTzk-… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVe…> Thank you all for your thoughtful contribution. Much appreciated, 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, May 20, 2026 at 10:31 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 #36 Dear LD PDP WG, Please find attached the outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #36 [OUTCOMES] * Agreement on IG11 to allow for flexibility in timeline and research requirements for ICANN org * WG Agreed on High-Risk Scenario for conservatism principle * PR 7 no objection to being consistent with EPDP-IDNs [ACTION ITEMS] * LD PDP WG to continuously review the Public Comment Review Tool [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1…> and the proposed draft after each WG Meeting and provide input, if any. * Leadership and Staff to update rationale to clarify PR35 and PR36 * Leadership and Staff to update rationale for PR50 work to clarify rationale to cover questions raised by org. * Leadership and Staff to outline options forward for conservatism on proliferation based on the WG votes * WG to review PR1, PR39, PRs40-41. [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #35 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA…> for action items and LT/Staff proposed new language for Amadaeu’s suggestion to not allow the coexistence of ASCII and LD gTLDs independently 3. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment * Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA…> to look at PR35 and PR36 discussion of a 10-year cool off period and EBERO discussed. Query to org on problem with these recommendations * Ariel asked about when the 10 year cool off period begins, if it transitioned to EBERO then it will not be applicable, so she is trying to seek clarification on this * PR35/36 Micahel’s clarification As long as the set remains intact there is no need for any cool off period then EBERO is a special RSP, required to handle these TLDs as a set. No new registrations will be possible in EBERO. It was to require the same entity principle across all TLDs. The 10 year cool-off period only applies if one TLD is removed from the Root Zone. If the TLDs remain with EBERO no one could apply for the TLDs as they still technically exist. * IG11 discussed on slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA…> 13. Question about the timeline as it has not happened for EPDP-IDNs yet. From ICANN’s perspective the timeframe component expectation and joint research effort. Which of these need to be prioritized? The timeframe or the joint research? * The WG utilized the same timeframes as EPDP-IDNs so they seemed to suggest a sensible path forward to adjust the first timeline for the LD PDP to match EPDP-IDNs then research could be done in parallel. * Agree the flexibility of the wording both in the timeline to align the research and in the requirement that it does not have to be done together, but may be done together if deemed sensible. So, where practical/possible. * PR50 discussed, there was a request for clarification on the rationale on the intended scope of the requirements and level of detail needed. * Ariel added that the question is whether the WG is asking org to explain every single recommendation in the outreach, more focused on the same-entity principle for the necessary outreach. She wanted to make sure they were aligned on the policy position point as it is vague. Essentially, is it a high-level or detailed dive? * Suggestion to have rationale expanded to explain information requirement is bounded by "...and their potential impact on dispute resolution proceedings" and is not completely open-ended. * High Risk Scenario outlined in the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA…> and proposed language from Amadeau outlined as Recommendation X to not permit independent applications. * The intention of the three suggestions are not mutually exclusive, all three can be implemented, none of them, or any combination. All three suggestions can be voted on to allow for the conservatism principle. Support for Amadeau’s suggestion coalesced to not permit independent applications. * Outcomes for conservatism principle: * 1) Rec X: 3 in favor 2 against * 2) Rec language for high-risk: 2 in favor 2 against * 3) Rec language for additional justification 7.5: 1 in favor 3 against * Went through the Public Comment Review Tool [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1…> looking at PR14 looking at .Brand trademark law characteristic for 14.3. A brand should not be required to own a ™ for all variants of its mark. 1) delete the mischaracterized ™ law in the rationale or 2) The EPDP-IDNs language currently in the recommendation * Discussion about PR14 for trademarks and brands and the Rationale language in question: “Thus, under trademark law, the rights are attached to one, distinct mark limited to an exact match.” * the current language could be updated to become as below to be consistent with EPDP-IDNs: “...its applied-for ASCII gTLD and Latin diacritic gTLD(s) that constitute the set are identical considered the same to registered trademarks owned and used by the registry operator or its affiliate.” * Change would be consistent with EPDP-IDNs seems to solve the problem, but suggestion to reach out to IPC. * Proposed work plan outlined on slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA…> 20 and asked WG to review PR1, PR39, PRs40-41 * Preview for second level discussion for next week and would be left to the discretion of the registry 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>

3 4

Same entity on 2nd level
by Tapani Tarvainen May 22, 2026

May 22, 2026

Thinking of the test.domain vs tést.domain scenario, I find myself concluding that enforcing the same entity principle on 2nd level domains is not viable. Confusion potential is real, but as it already exists for extant TLDs, ASCII as well as IDN ones, and we cannot do anything about those, can or should we enforce stricter rules for our case? Same entity requirement on 2nd level could also have some undesirable side-effects. What would happen if cafe.quebec and café.quebec were already extant with different registrants when .québec is applied for? Should that block .québec application? Or should the policy have some kind of grandfather clause? I don't see why café.quebec and cafe.quebec would be less likely to cause confusion than cafe.québec and café.québec. If anything the latter should be safer simply because people using .québec are more likely to pay attention to accents. Likewise, sakki.fi, säkki.fi and šakki.fi (all extant domains with different registrants) are unlikely to confuse Finnish speakers, and others are less likely to use .fi domains. I guess we could require applicants to document their policy in this regard, perhaps including that they must alert registrants to the issue, but I would not insist on strict same entity principle on 2nd level. I remain, however, open to persuasion. :-) -- Tapani Tarvainen

1 0

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 20 May 2026
by Devan Reed May 20, 2026

May 20, 2026

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 20 May 2026 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2026>. 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. Kind regards, Devan Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #36
by John Emery May 20, 2026

May 20, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find attached the outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #36 [OUTCOMES] * Agreement on IG11 to allow for flexibility in timeline and research requirements for ICANN org * WG Agreed on High-Risk Scenario for conservatism principle * PR 7 no objection to being consistent with EPDP-IDNs [ACTION ITEMS] * LD PDP WG to continuously review the Public Comment Review Tool<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B…> and the proposed draft after each WG Meeting and provide input, if any. * Leadership and Staff to update rationale to clarify PR35 and PR36 * Leadership and Staff to update rationale for PR50 work to clarify rationale to cover questions raised by org. * Leadership and Staff to outline options forward for conservatism on proliferation based on the WG votes * WG to review PR1, PR39, PRs40-41. [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #35 * Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> for action items and LT/Staff proposed new language for Amadaeu’s suggestion to not allow the coexistence of ASCII and LD gTLDs independently 3. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> to look at PR35 and PR36 discussion of a 10-year cool off period and EBERO discussed. Query to org on problem with these recommendations * Ariel asked about when the 10 year cool off period begins, if it transitioned to EBERO then it will not be applicable, so she is trying to seek clarification on this * PR35/36 Micahel’s clarification As long as the set remains intact there is no need for any cool off period then EBERO is a special RSP, required to handle these TLDs as a set. No new registrations will be possible in EBERO. It was to require the same entity principle across all TLDs. The 10 year cool-off period only applies if one TLD is removed from the Root Zone. If the TLDs remain with EBERO no one could apply for the TLDs as they still technically exist. * IG11 discussed on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> 13. Question about the timeline as it has not happened for EPDP-IDNs yet. From ICANN’s perspective the timeframe component expectation and joint research effort. Which of these need to be prioritized? The timeframe or the joint research? * The WG utilized the same timeframes as EPDP-IDNs so they seemed to suggest a sensible path forward to adjust the first timeline for the LD PDP to match EPDP-IDNs then research could be done in parallel. * Agree the flexibility of the wording both in the timeline to align the research and in the requirement that it does not have to be done together, but may be done together if deemed sensible. So, where practical/possible. * PR50 discussed, there was a request for clarification on the rationale on the intended scope of the requirements and level of detail needed. * Ariel added that the question is whether the WG is asking org to explain every single recommendation in the outreach, more focused on the same-entity principle for the necessary outreach. She wanted to make sure they were aligned on the policy position point as it is vague. Essentially, is it a high-level or detailed dive? * Suggestion to have rationale expanded to explain information requirement is bounded by "...and their potential impact on dispute resolution proceedings" and is not completely open-ended. * High Risk Scenario outlined in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> and proposed language from Amadeau outlined as Recommendation X to not permit independent applications. * The intention of the three suggestions are not mutually exclusive, all three can be implemented, none of them, or any combination. All three suggestions can be voted on to allow for the conservatism principle. Support for Amadeau’s suggestion coalesced to not permit independent applications. * Outcomes for conservatism principle: * 1) Rec X: 3 in favor 2 against * 2) Rec language for high-risk: 2 in favor 2 against * 3) Rec language for additional justification 7.5: 1 in favor 3 against * Went through the Public Comment Review Tool<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B…> looking at PR14 looking at .Brand trademark law characteristic for 14.3. A brand should not be required to own a ™ for all variants of its mark. 1) delete the mischaracterized ™ law in the rationale or 2) The EPDP-IDNs language currently in the recommendation * Discussion about PR14 for trademarks and brands and the Rationale language in question: “Thus, under trademark law, the rights are attached to one, distinct mark limited to an exact match.” * the current language could be updated to become as below to be consistent with EPDP-IDNs: “...its applied-for ASCII gTLD and Latin diacritic gTLD(s) that constitute the set are identical considered the same to registered trademarks owned and used by the registry operator or its affiliate.” * Change would be consistent with EPDP-IDNs seems to solve the problem, but suggestion to reach out to IPC. * Proposed work plan outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYA7PQ> 20 and asked WG to review PR1, PR39, PRs40-41 * Preview for second level discussion for next week and would be left to the discretion of the registry 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 #36
by Saewon Lee May 18, 2026

May 18, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #36 on Wednesday, 20 May 2026, at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #35 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment 2. Next Steps 3. AOB This week, the WG is expected to finalize discussions for PR29 and review comments for 35-36, 11, and 50 (Rec #s according to the current Public Comment Review Tool, prior to updates). If we proceed well and have time remaining, we will continue with the review through the Public Comment Review Tool. Please review the updated proposed language resulting from Meeting #35 in pp.15, 39-42 on PRs. 7 (29 related) and 18-19 here prior to the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVeIGv03DRJbcWrX_7WZdk9mgRTzk-… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVe…> As an ongoing process during the review of Public Comment submissions, the WG discussions are updated in the Public Comment Review Tool here for your review: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1…> We appreciate your kind review of both materials each week. Much appreciated, 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

ICANN86 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026

Dear all, With ICANN86<https://meetings.icann.org/en/meetings/icann86/> just around the corner, please take a moment to read the information below for a seamless and successful meeting. ICANN86 key dates: * Prep Week will take place virtually 20 & 21 May 2026. * Deadline for IN-PERSON registration is 07 June 2026. * ICANN86 will take place in Seville 08 - 11 June 2026. On-site registration will not be available. Registration for ICANN86 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/icann86/ * General information about Seville, hotels, transportation and rates, and links to food options can also be found here * The ICANN86 Schedule: https://icann86.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 Participation Tools 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/icann86/#faq>. Links to Bookmark ICANN86 Meeting Schedule<https://icann86.sched.com/> ICANN86 GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQB0Og> GNSO Session agendas<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBUOg> 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

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes for Meeting #35
by John Emery May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find attached the outcomes, action items, and notes from meeting #35. REMINDER the remaining meetings for May will begin 15mins earlier at 13:00 UTC [OUTCOMES] * Meeting moved from 13:15 to 13:00 UTC for the remainder of May meetings * The group majority was in favor of retaining PR18 and PR19 concerning fees. [ACTION ITEMS] * LD PDP WG to continuously review the Public Comment Review Tool<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B…> and the proposed draft after each WG Meeting and provide input, if any. * Staff and Leadership to propose language from Amadeau’s proposal to not have ASCII and LD gTLDs to not coexist independently. [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #34 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PAA7PQ> for action items * Proposal to move the meeting from 13:15 UTC to 13:00 UTC. 3. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PAA7PQ> to discuss PR18-19 for the registry fees and Alan’s query to the Board * Board input was divided with some believing that the recommendations are aligned with EPDP-IDNs with others unsure of financial impact and one objection given that EPDP-IDNs should not set a precedent, then it is a precedent * Discussed paths forward considering Board’s comment. Some WG members advocated for keeping PR18-19. This would help the adoption of this exception, but the Chair noted that this is not the mandate for the WG. Charter is to make it possible not to promote it. * Query about possible financial impact to make an informed decision. It is a vague recommendation because pricing is not policy that is ICANN org’s decision * Steve Chan added some input on the pricing aspect. Ambiguity of the impact as it is unknown is part of the rationale for the Board only adopting the IDNs recommendation for unknown impact and this is typically not something that policy development recommends. * Ariel Liang, agreed with the ambiguity as to why the Board had the caveat of EPDP-IDNs, there will be more information with the next round. For this LD PDP recommendations there are some differences. The financial analysis this more for ICANN org to do later when the recommendations are adopted by GNSO Council. Then org will provide an analysis. * Majority of WG was in favor of retaining PR18 and PR19 * Steve Chan stressed that at the Council level there is a push for Board Readiness and if the WG is aware at the Board level it should be considered. If there is Board resistance it sets up a lengthy process and extra work throughout the process. * Discussion of fees and the idea that there is uncertainty and the probable number of applications for LD PDP vs EPDP-IDNs * PR29 suggestion from Edmon for a high-risk scenario in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PAA7PQ> and outlined the options * Reviewed the overall conservatism scale of the WG recommendations * Looking at high-risk scenarios through the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PAA7PQ>. * PR 7 addition discussed for a justification for application submission * The high-risk scenarios discussed by the WG, likely there will not be user confusion as that the SSE Panel would likely not allow it to move forward * Risk of confusion could increase so the SSE should take into consideration the users so as a principle other diacritics should not be allowed from other registries * Suggestion that even though it is likely that the SSE panel would find them visually confusingly similar. There should be a recommendation to take this into account for the next AGB * Sarmad: The cafe and cäfe example scenario is theoretically possible and it happens precisely because arbitrarily cafe and café are put together. It depends on the SSE panel, and we cannot determine the panel’s outcome. * WG disagreed with Sarmad’s concern on the theoretical possibility * Two questions to resolve: do we need to introduce a special high-risk scenario into our recommendations or add some additional precaution on slide 18 for 7.5 for PR7 to avoid potential issues. * Sarmad’s suggestion is to not specifically require any criteria here but give the implementation team the possibility to create some criteria that would take care of potential end user confusion here. * High-Risk scenario from Edmon perhaps not needed given the other ways in which conservatism is established with fees and PR7. * Suggestion to have a recommendation requiring the SSE panel to not have any ASCII and LD TLDs to move forward independently, only as a LD set. String sim check has to prohibit this. * WG seemed intrigued by Option 3 for Amadeau’s proposal and the LT and staff will come up with language for it. 4. Next Steps 5. 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, 13 May 2026
by Devan Reed May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 13 May 2026 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PAA7PQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2026>. 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. Kind regards, Devan Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Feedback from the board liaison
by Alan Barrett May 13, 2026

May 13, 2026

First, please accept my apologies for today's meeting, which I will miss. I raised the fee-related questions informally in a Board mailing list. Opinion was divided, with some thinking that the LDPDP recommendations were well enough aligned with the IDN EPDP recommendations that it would not be a problem, and with others supporting ICANN Org's comments that we dont know what the financial impact would be. One member specifically called out the idea that approval of the IDN EPDP fee recommendations was not supposed to set a precedent, yet the LD PDP seems to be using that as a precedent, and this seems inconsistent. Regards, Alan Barrett

3 2