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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #31
by Saewon Lee April 14, 2026

April 14, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #31 on Wednesday, 15 April 2026, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #30 * 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 confirm language for IG7, IG8, review all comments for PR1 to help continue and conclude discussions for the work scope. Please review the updated proposed language in pp.2-6 and p.29 for IG7 and IG8 here prior to the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVeIGv03DRJbcWrX_7WZdk9mgRTzk-… 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…> Please also refer to all the comments received for PR1. 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 08 April 2026
by Julie Bisland April 8, 2026

April 8, 2026

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 08 April 2026 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQBENw> (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, Julie Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Re: Diacritics definition
by Tapani Tarvainen April 8, 2026

April 8, 2026

Following up today's discussion: * There is no universally accepted definition of diacritics we could use, in Unicode or elsewhere. (The original, linguistic definition is language-specific and thus useless for DNS.) Therefore we are forced to define it for ourselves. * The anonymous Unicode expert's argument that "LATIN WITH..." might include letters that aren't diacritic is, in this context, circular: if we include them in our defintion then they are diacritics by (our) definition! We should choose a definition that works for us. Well-defined, mechanically testable, predictable, easy to implement &c. What doesn't matter is whether or not all characters there are diacritics by some other definition, as long as they don't cause any problems for our purposes. -- Tapani Tarvainen

2 1

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #30
by Saewon Lee April 7, 2026

April 7, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, I hope those of you who celebrate Easter had a great Easter holiday weekend! Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #30 on Wednesday, 8 April 2026, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #29 * 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 confirm language for PR6 (and now a new IG7), IG8, and conclude the scope of work discussion, prior to moving on with IG11 and PR50. Please review the updated proposed language in pp.2-5 and pp.22-23 for PR6 (and IG7) and IG8 here prior to the meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVeIGv03DRJbcWrX_7WZdk9mgRTzk-… 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 would 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 01 April 2026
by Terri Agnew April 1, 2026

April 1, 2026

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 01 April 2026 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw> (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, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes Meeting #29
by John Emery April 1, 2026

April 1, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG Members, Please find attached the outcomes, action items, and notes from the 1 April 2026 Meeting #29 [OUTCOMES] * [ACTION ITEMS] * Staff to add language for PR 6: “This can be divided into one of the following scenarios” * Leadership and staff to look at if one already has the ASCII TLD and applies for several LD TLD versions of it, what happens? The process of adding TLDs to existing ones, needs to be a bit more explicit about this particular case either with a new recommendation or with additions to PR 6 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #28 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Went through slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw> reviewing what happened at Meeting #28 through the public comment review tool<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B…>. * PR 6 and IG 8 there needs to be two scenarios for PR 6 with examples given in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw>. * Both PR 6 and IG 8 are in the application round, other topics like PR15-28 are in the allocation process and PR 29-38 are in the delegation process. Today’s discussion is only on the Application Process. * PR 6 rationale explanation for removal of LD or ASCII gTLD in application discussed on slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw> 9-10 discussion of exceptions process and inability to switch between standard and exceptions process. But it is not a problem to drop all but 1 TLD; it is not unbundling, but would dissolve the set. * Question about if one already has the ASCII TLD and applies for several LD TLD versions of it, what happens? The process of adding TLDs to existing ones, needs to be a bit more explicit about this particular case. It should be okay, but should there be some explicit wording for this? * Utilized Sarmad’s suggestion for the two cases in PR6 and outlined new language on slide 12 * Suggestion to add additional language on the particular case of one already having an ASCII and applies for several LD TLDs. * Sarmad: in the case where there is an existing gTLD and more are being added in an application round and through that application round some could be dropped. He was wondering whether there would be a bit more restrictive recommendation where the existing gTLD could not be dropped. That is slightly different from scenarios 6.1 and 6.2. Existing one should not be able to be dropped, because that is out of scope as an existing TLD * IG 8 outlined on slide 13 discussed and possibilities discussed on slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw> 15-16. * Query on scenario 5 if the ASCII fails could the LD TLDs proceed? This is not possible as lanes could not be switched. If you want to start with the LD PDP exceptions process, you are not allowed to unbundle and switch to two or more unbundled TLDs. * SCOPE OF WORK discussion * List discussion between Mark and Tapani for Character choices vs. character limits on slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QgBANw> 17-21 * The charter just says that WG has to deal with diacritics and the WG discussion had decided early to make the rule of de-composible unicode, but that could be expanded within the scope of the charter it can be included. * Cannot make changes to RZ-LGR from Council guidance, then there would have to be an artificial form on top of RZ-LGR, that would be a new creation that unicode or ICANN org does not have. To make the policy happen is one thing, when a database is handling a user then it must understand the TLD as a variant. Ideally the implementation should be something tangible that is easy to implement beyond the DNS level. * “Small Latin letter with” appears to be a novel solution to expanding from unicode decomposed diacritics only. Is this a good fix that addresses the revisions asked to do? * Summary: currently considering those diacritics decomposable or decomposed already. Tapani argues that while these are all diacritic characters there are more that are called “SMALL LATIN LETTER WITH” although they are not decomposable then they are still technically easy to implement, it would need some additional rules. Two things to consider, LATIN SMALL LETTER WITH would still leave out letters with two or more diacritics. * All the cases with two diacritics would be included if you use both decomposable AND Latin SMALL LETTER WITH. This would cover more diacritics that would be an easy solution that is technically feasible * Third possibility to add letters that are not real diacritics such as ae combined, then that would be out of scope as it is restricted in the charter and would be a separate PDP 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

Diacritics definition
by Tapani Tarvainen April 1, 2026

April 1, 2026

Dear all, Looking at the initial report recommendation 1, it gives the chosen definition of diacritics as a fact, without explaining or justifying it in any way. It should, so that if someone wonders why ø or ŋ are treated differently they should be able to look at the report and find an eplanation. I also note the ISOC Norway comment that wants a technical reason for the exclusion of characters used in Norwegian and Sami. I tried to think of how to explain it. As I recall, the argument was that the charter specifies diacritics only and Unicode defines them that way and if we want to include something else we'd have to go back to the council and there's no time for that. But does Unicode really define them that way? I went to the source to see what Unicode actually says about the matter, and importantly also what it does *not* say. Not an easy task - there's *a lot* of stuff in there. But try as I might, I could not find a general definition of "diacritic" anywhere. Perhaps I've missed it - if so, feel free to point it out. There's lots of talk about combining diacritic marks and decomposable diacritics - but no claim that those are the only kind of diacritics. It's simply that for Unicode's purposes the non-decomposable diacritics don't need any special treatment, so there's no need to even define them. For Unicode, decomposable diacritics are special because they need special rules for canonicalization. But for our purposes that doesn't matter. In effect we took the Unicode table of decomposable diacritics and decided to treat it as if those were the only diacritics. This decision was not given to us by the charter nor by Unicode, it was our choice. I see no good reason not to allow all Unicode characters described in Latin-1 Supplement or any of the Latin Extended tables as "LATIN SMALL LETTER <x> WITH <y>" where <x> is an ASCII letter and <y> is any glyph that modifies the base letter (which is the general meaning of "diacritic mark") in a way that makes them confusable, regardless of the existence of a decomposed canonical equivalent, as long as they are in the RZ-LGR. My favorite example here is of course "latin small letter with stroke", ø. If we conclude that there is a good reason for excluding such non-decomposable diacritical characters, we should spell it out. I don't see any good *technical* reason to exclude even characters like ð, þ, ŋ, æ etc, but they are not diacritical and thus outside of the charter, and in some cases might require aditional considerations, so I guess we'd have to back to the council for those, or wait for another PDP ("Extended Latin Characters PDP" perhaps?). (Side note: during a coffee break discussion in Mumbai someone said old issues shouldn't be relitigated *unless* there're new facts or new viewpoints to consider. Here I think there are.) -- Tapani Tarvainen

8 23

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #29
by Saewon Lee March 30, 2026

March 30, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #29 on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOI Updates 2. Recap of Meeting #28 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment 2. Next Steps 3. AOB As shared last week, the WG is expected to review the following comments/topics in order through Agenda Item #2: PR6, IG8, definition of diacritics (Mark vs. Tapani), IG11, PR50. If time for Agenda Item #3, we will continue with reviewing the comments received in order through the Public Comment Review Tool starting with PR1. Please plan to review them accordingly in advance, including Topic 3 (PRs 3-14) in pp.32-44 which is the portion related to the application process. As an ongoing process during the review of Public Comment submissions, please find below the WG discussions updated in the Public Comment Review Tool and the draft updated language that resulted from the WG’s discussions below: * Updated Public Comment Review Tool per WG’s discussions: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lsDs0nV1Lh5Tf1CMZXOyxRRdKR0s9GMB-4B… * Draft with updated language from WG’s discussions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BTAlq9vGEVVeIGv03DRJbcWrX_7WZdk9mgRTzk-… We would 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

Request for Review of Recommendations and Rationales
by Saewon Lee March 26, 2026

March 26, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, As we review the public comments each week, the Leadership Team and Staff kindly ask that everyone take a moment to revisit the recommendations and their underlying rationales in advance of our weekly meeting to refresh our recollection. (See Initial Report here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2026/draft/initial-report…) We recognize that some time has passed since the Initial Report was developed, and it is natural for details to become less clear. Hopefully, revisiting the report will help ensure we remain aligned with what was previously discussed and agreed upon. As noted in the disclaimer during ICANN85, our intention is not to revisit or reopen matters that have already been thoroughly discussed and agreed upon, unless genuinely new information or perspectives emerge. Where topics have already been addressed, it is important that we focus on strengthening the language and rationale, which may clarify how comments have been considered and why the WG may have reached its conclusions. For next week, the WG is expected to review the following comments/topics in order: PR6, IG8, definition of diacritics (Mark vs. Tapani), IG11, PR50. If time, we will continue with reviewing the comments received in order through the Public Comment Review Tool starting with PR1, PR2, PR3. Please plan to review them accordingly in advance, including Topic 3 (PRs 3-14) in pp.32-44 which is the portion related to the application process. 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

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 25 March 2026
by Julie Bisland March 25, 2026

March 25, 2026

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 25 March 2026 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQBANw> (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. With kind regards, Julie

1 0