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

Publication of Initial Report
by Saewon Lee Jan. 12, 2026

Jan. 12, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, We are very pleased to share that the LD PDP Initial Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2026/draft/initial-report…> has been published for Public Comment as of this morning (Monday, 12 January 2026). You can also access the report and the Public Comment submissions page through this link: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/latin-script-diacritics-… Great job LD PDP WG and our sincere appreciation to the LD PDP Leadership Team! Best, Your GNSO Support Staff: Saewon, John, and Steve

4 3

Review CLOSED: Draft Initial Report
by Saewon Lee Jan. 9, 2026

Jan. 9, 2026

Dear LD PDP WG, First, a belated HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone! The review period for the Draft Initial Report has now concluded. Thank you to all those members who took the time to review the document and provide feedback. Your thoughtful and valuable comments will be carefully considered and incorporated into the report, as appropriate. The updated report is expected to be ready for Public Comment by next Monday. Once it is published, we will be sure to share the announcement with you and provide guidance on accessing the Open Proceedings page. Thank you again for your continued engagement and contributions. 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> From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 10:13 PM To: "gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Request for Review: Draft Initial Report Dear LD PDP WG, I am pleased to share with you a “small” package for your enjoyment over the Christmas holidays. The Draft Initial Report has completed its initial Leadership review and is now ready for your eagle-eyed review. Please find below the materials and instructions for the review process: 1. Draft Initial Report in google doc. version (viewer mode only): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XMY_VAu8MFqVuV4rg1U8dgEv_nMyBfAcF9c2fwe… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1XMY_VAu8MFqV…> 2. Guided Review Form – Please read the instructions carefully and provide your input directly in the form, using “suggestion” mode only if you have any feedback on the Draft Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13AIJzWHczsJsz683zHAk6GL3uS6Gy_p7vtwC39W… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/13AIJzWHczsJs…> Please note that, contrary to the Work Plan, we kindly request that your review and input be provided by Wednesday, 7 January 2026, at 23:59 UTC, which is one day earlier than previously announced. This will allow Staff sufficient time to consolidate feedback, incorporate revisions as necessary, and prepare for the next steps – Open Proceeding for Public Comment – by Monday, 12 January 2026. Should you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Until then, happy reading and happy holidays! Season’s Greetings and best wishes for the New Year, 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>

2 1

Request for Review: Draft Initial Report
by Saewon Lee Dec. 18, 2025

Dec. 18, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, I am pleased to share with you a “small” package for your enjoyment over the Christmas holidays. The Draft Initial Report has completed its initial Leadership review and is now ready for your eagle-eyed review. Please find below the materials and instructions for the review process: 1. Draft Initial Report in google doc. version (viewer mode only): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XMY_VAu8MFqVuV4rg1U8dgEv_nMyBfAcF9c2fwe… 2. Guided Review Form – Please read the instructions carefully and provide your input directly in the form, using “suggestion” mode only if you have any feedback on the Draft Initial Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13AIJzWHczsJsz683zHAk6GL3uS6Gy_p7vtwC39W… Please note that, contrary to the Work Plan, we kindly request that your review and input be provided by Wednesday, 7 January 2026, at 23:59 UTC, which is one day earlier than previously announced. This will allow Staff sufficient time to consolidate feedback, incorporate revisions as necessary, and prepare for the next steps – Open Proceeding for Public Comment – by Monday, 12 January 2026. Should you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out. Until then, happy reading and happy holidays! Season’s Greetings and best wishes for the New Year, 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

Delay: Draft Initial Report
by Saewon Lee Dec. 17, 2025

Dec. 17, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Our apologies to those who have been anxiously waiting. There has been a slight delay in circulating the draft Initial Report, which was originally planned for Tuesday, 16 December, as the Leadership Team is currently finalizing its review ahead of the WG. This differs from what was outlined in the Work Plan, where the review was intended to run in parallel. Once the Leadership Team’s review is complete, the draft report is expected to be shared by tomorrow (Thursday, 18 December). Thank you for your patience. 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>

3 2

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 03 December 2025
by Devan Reed Dec. 3, 2025

Dec. 3, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 03 December 2025 at 14:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDhJQ> (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 Meeting #27
by John Emery Dec. 3, 2025

Dec. 3, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Congratulations on completing the GPI and HRIA today! This is our last meeting likely until ICANN85, but the work is not done. Please review everything below and flag anything of concern in the analyses on list for staff to integrate into the drafting of the Initial Report. [OUTCOMES] * Completed HRIA and GPI Checklists [ACTION ITEMS] * Staff to review GPI framework rationale to ensure that all topics are covered to be consistent and set a positive precedent for future PDPs * Staff to attempt to integrate HRIA of sjö, .sjø and .sjo hypothetical into the “participation” and “accountability” issue areas where appropriate. * All WG members to review the Initial Report when staff has drafted it by 15 December * All WG members to complete the Interim WG Self-Assessment during the Public Comment period [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #25 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * The WG went through the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDhJQ> and reiterated the WG majority support for Option 1 from case studies 5 & 6. * Discussed PR 1 and the addition of 1.5 that no variants can be activated for the ASCII/Latin script and no LDs can be added to a variant set. Agreement from WG on addition 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations a. GPI and HR Impact Assessment * Saewon gave an overview of the GPI and HR as then went through the GPI <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed…> checklist and explained the rationale for the analysis. The LD PDP is the first to integrate this into its charter. There were no checks made under negative impacts. * This tool focuses on relevant topics to the PDP. We were not focusing on the structural processes of GNSO which were not applicable to our PDP * Potentially positive only impacts and no negative impacts. There are none that fall short of the total. Our recommendations tend to have positive impact on the public interest that allows for SSR and a diverse/multi-lingual Internet * Discussed that this set the future precedent for other PDPs, not all the descriptions cover all the topics, maybe cover it or make it consistent so column M is aligned with column N and match each other. * Issue raised for a potential negative impact for the possible linguistic discrimination based on the exclusion of the Ø as it may have a Swedish and Norwegian impact even if it may be very low * Discussion, still some people will be left out. We cannot fix something that comes from Unicode and LGR WG, we are noting that some symbols will be left out. Should note that ASCII and LD being forced to pay for multiple TLDs. There is a potential negative discrimination for LD sets * The only reason we're discriminating against ø & c is because nobody thought of them at the time this PDP charter was written. And it can theoretically create a new negative impact for such languages. * Not intentionally only trying to get positive or negative as a conclusion. Are our recommendations creating any negative impact. Thinking about the limited scope, we were saving a lot of topics for future work. It did not strike us as a negative impact from our work, that is for the future work to deal with then. * Discussed HRIA<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H…> checklist. ICANN bylaws included a commitment to human rights, and this sample template was shared with us. Staff modified this template to better suit our PDP. The 3rd tab was a sample, 2nd was a guidance, and 1st was how it was adapted for the LD PDP. * As a general note, all landed on low to no negative impact, all the results were positive on human rights. When going through this checklist, experts advised for a more balanced assessment it is best to note some minor potential negative impacts even if they are minor. Attempted to squeeze out even the most unlikely outcome. Raised overall challenges in the negative scenario column. Emphasized that LT and Staff believe that these recommendations covered these concerns. * Input and feedback was in agreement with HRIA. * Discussion sjö, .sjø and .sjo in chat with edge cases for possible disadvantages similar to diacritics but are not diacritics. In case they have a business model to only go live with both TLDs and not just one. Unlikely two parties have a business model where both TLDs would have to be in the root zone. * More important is the symbolic significance of the perception of discriminating against certain languages since we excluded anything outside of Unicode. This is not the result of our policies, our work should not be extended to address this, but there are cases that are not diacritics and are out of scope. We should raise awareness for use cases out of scope that should be considered in a follow-up PDP. * Next Steps for work plan overview given in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDhJQ> for the next few months. WG will resume at ICANN85 for review of Public Comments. 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

ISO 15919
by harsha wijayawardhana Dec. 3, 2025

Dec. 3, 2025

Dear Dr. Sarmad and Sathis, Do we know if any Registries have issued IDNs based on ISO 15919 in the South Asian region, as transliterated Indic Domain Names? Have you considered this in your deliberations at the LD Working Group before I joined the group? If there were any deliberations, please point to any minutes or write-ups. There will be a request for IDNs for transliterated Labels in the future, and how do registries handle if IDNs have already been issued in local scripts? Have any registries done a policy? Thank you, and best regards. Harsha

2 1

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #27
by Saewon Lee Dec. 3, 2025

Dec. 3, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #27 on Wednesday, 03 December 2025, at 14:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #26 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Next Steps 2. AOB For Agenda Item #3, please refer to the GPI Checklist/Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) that have been drafted by Support Staff, completed an assessment by relevant functions within the org, and reviewed by Leadership Team (These links were also shared with you on 22 October 2025, prior to ICANN84): - GPI Checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8…> - HRIA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulR…> These sheets will remain live as we update it continuously throughout our discussions, as appropriate: * For GPI Checklist, please focus on the checkmarks in each category/summary in rows 33-36, and the relevant topics/rationale in Columns M and N. * For HRIA, please focus on Sheet/Tab 1 ONLY (as the other 2 tabs/sheets are templates or samples for guidance, not drafted by LD PDP Support Staff; please only refer to them for guidance). Please review the whole sheet (Sheet/Tab 1). 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>

2 1

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 26 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 at 14:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> (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 #26
by John Emery Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Thank you for the discussion during today’s meeting. You will see an additional meeting scheduled for next week on 3 December shortly in your inbox. Please see the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from meeting #26 today. I have also included a screenshot of the whiteboard activity of the arguments and pros/cons for each of the Option 1 and Option 2 discussed. [OUTCOMES] * Option 1 received a majority of the WG consensus * Group has agreed with assessment for Charter Question 4 that there is no impact on the existing consensus policies [ACTION ITEMS] * All members to read the GPI <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed…> and HRIA<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H…> analysis for discussion next week * LT/Staff to review PR 50 to provide some clarification in the rationale for what constitutes “necessary information” for ICANN org for specific asks * LT/Staff to include the definition also be included in accordance with the RZ-LGR in the glossary and should be used. Look at the definition of Variants from IDN-EPDP and AGB. * LT/Staff to update recommendations based on decision of Option 1 * Staff to send out calendar invite for 3 December WG meeting [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #25 * Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> and discussed open question of stress tests 5 and 6, outlining options 1 and 2 * Emphasis on conduct outreach from PR 50 and IG 52 may not be a good idea as it matches IDN-EPDP Phase 2 wording will be. Suggestion to leave wording as is for now as we do not want to deviate from IDN-EPDP Phase 2 as it is still under consideration by the ICANN Board. * Group fine with wording and if there is sufficient feedback from Public Comment. ALAC is particularly concerned about this issue and may address this through Public Comment * Query from org about specificity of “necessary information” from an implementation perspective. * Sarmad since it is a “must” it is useful to have clarity on the minimal requirement here. * When they provide the information, they should also provide the LD set. * If LD PDP has requirement on PR 50 it would be helpful to make this more explicit * Additional language is from last week’s discussion that outreach is made a bit stronger. The rationale will make it explicit. * Continued discussion of IDN and Variants * Should the definition also be included in accordance with the RZ-LGR? Also, a suggestion to take out some of the language * Returned to finish the discussion on Option 1 and Option 2 for LD-Variant sets on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> 9. * Arguments Option 1: conservative solution as we have no experience with LD or variant sets. This is a more secure solution in the beginning. Less complex, no corner cases, a simple solution. No use cases are expected and not possible for variants of LD sets. It is always possible to expand this in future policy work. Could be difficult to remove or take it back if problems do arise * Arguments Option 2: Natural solution rather than prohibiting cases. A more complete solution that covers all possibilities. * Harsha shared in the chat: Modern TLD ecosystems involve cross-script confusion patterns, not just ASCII↔️diacritic. Variant Sets (especially for IDNs) and LD Sets share the same underlying problem: user confusion. Allowing them to co-exist under the same registry operator control respects existing variant principles (used for Chinese, Arabic, etc.). Option 1 creates unnecessary policy barriers without improving security. * Option 1 would restrict but there are currently no allocatable variants that can exist with any label that is in LD Set. All variants within an LD set are all blocked now in the RZ-LGR. If the LGR will change then this will cause an issue * From an intellectual standpoint Amadeau would prefer option 2. But he is in favor of Option 1. It is not a realistic case that such a thing would happen now under current rules for IDNs. Even if we could legislate for the future it would be a difficult wall to climb to revisit our work and delay it. This is unlikely to happen unless the RZ-LGR changes and at that point it should be revisited * It is true that the Latin script always has to have a base ASCII; there is never an allocatable variant going to other Latin scripts. There can never be an allocatable variant of any LD set labels. The letter i is ASCII and dotless i is that only from dotless i do you have an allocatable variant, the other way is blocked. * Ariel: member brought up potential SSR issues, but she noted that if going with option 1 then something similar with a variant would be caught in string similarity. It is unlikely that different entities could get confusingly similar strings. Option 2 creates a lot of complexity, and there are other options in the program to prevent user confusion * Steve: In terms of recommendations, it can recommend future work. We are discussing a theoretical scenario. You can build in a trigger mechanism that future work should be undertaken if the RZ-LGR is changed for the Latin script. If you go with option 1, you can give a recommendation that if the RZ-LGR changes then Council should consider future work. It can have future contingencies if the situation changes that you can have a solution. * Unable to get a live example of such a case, but circling back to the RZ-LGR, if there is a future change. Then the sensibility to the stability for the RZ-LGR then that can be built into the recommendations * Harsha prefers option 2 as option 1 is restrictive. Strasse example discussed. Option 2 has much more options available forward and backwards for option 2. * If/When RZ-LGR changes then an impact analysis needs to be done. The same could apply here to address the situation where changes affect the stress tests and scenarios here. * There is a recommendation about changes to the RZ-LGR that should cover it * Ariel: Principle from IDN-EPDP the conservatism principle. It advocates for adoption of a more cautious approach for SSR in absence of the need for a more liberal approach. She shared the language from RFC 6912 which says, “doubts should always be resolved in favor of rejecting”. This principle has been upheld by numerous studies and advice throughout the years. * The temperature check poll favored option 1 * Suggestion to note the two options considered to get focused public comment on that specific point. * Saewon In the initial report the options will be described. And the consensus call will occur before the final report. If there is strong support but significant opposition there is an opportunity to submit a minority opinion to be included in the final report. [kxlRCgAAAAZJREFUAwD3yAywVbt+CAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==] 3. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations a. Charter Question 4 o No issues raised on existing consensus policies b. GPI/HR Impact Assessment o To be revisited next week 4. Table of Contents for Initial Report * Staff will be drafting the initial report based on the table of contents listed in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> * Annex C will detail the stress tests and edge cases that the WG went through * Core of output is the preliminary recommendations with 8 topics and 54 Recommendations, based on the discussion today, there may be some minor adjustments 5. Next Steps * Will resume WG meetings 3 December 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