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

Option 1 vs Option 2 Action Item #2
by harsha wijayawardhana Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear Saewon Lee, At the last meeting, I did not decide on Option 1 vs Option 2. Having gone through, please record that I prefer Option 2 for the following reasons: - 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. - Thanks and regards - Harsha Wijayawardhana

2 1

Option1 Vs Option 2 Action Item #2
by harsha wijayawardhana Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear Saewon Lee, At the last meeting, I did not decide on Option 1 vs Option 2. Having gone through, please record that I prefer Option 2 for the following reasons: - 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. Thanks and regards Harsha Wijayawardhana

1 0

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #26
by Saewon Lee Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #26 on Wednesday, 26 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #25 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB Once again, for Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you the spreadsheet links to CQ4 (Impact on Existing Consensus Policies) and 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): - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL…> - 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…> As also shared last week and as with all our previous working documents, these sheets will remain live as we update it continuously throughout our discussions, as appropriate: * For CQ4, please focus on the impact level in Column H and the rationale in Column I. * 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>

1 0

Post Call | Latin Script Diacritics PDP | Wednesday, 19 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 19, 2025

Nov. 19, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 19 November 2025 at 14:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> (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 #25
by John Emery Nov. 19, 2025

Nov. 19, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #25: [OUTCOMES] * Between the choices option 1 and option 2 consensus began to emerge on option 1, but the discussion will continue next week. [ACTION ITEMS] * LT/Staff to revisit IG 52 and adjust that language – conduct outreach – to put some stronger emphasis on providing information to registrants [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> and discussed meeting #24 updates to the documents based on action items * Rec #45 updates discussed how a registrant may not be aware of LD PDP policies. Registrars do not have to support LD sets as it is up to them and their business models. The ICANN outreach recommendation encapsulates this. * EPDP two phases is new for variants and Latin diacritics. A lot of new things in the ICANN to-do list should be strengthened to be passed on to the registrants. Rec 50 encapsulates this along with IG 52. * Where best to locate this outside of the preliminary recommendations is the open question. * A collection of recommendations that disincentivize auto activation like PR 52 and the fee structure for the domain names. In addition to the outreach there are other measures that would likely guard against automatic domain registration. * Case Studies #5 and #6 combined in combining LD sets and variant sets. This should be consistent between the two and understand which policies apply. * Two options to solve these cases outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> 10. * When we are putting a policy that restricts registries/registrars we need to say why there is a prohibition. What is wrong with option 1? * Suggestion to go back to the principle of TLD and their variants. Any domain and their variants have RZ-LGR, if you look into both cases, if we go for option 2 then we do not follow that principle. Better to go for option 1 even if it has some restrictions. * Implications of option 1 and option 2 outlined in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> then we will discuss the pros and cons of each. * Clarification for having variant TLDs you need to define a primary label. IDN-EPDP you start with one primary label then you can activate variants for that label. * We are working to find out what TLDs a registry would be able to activate * Sarmad: added to slide 12 example. One of the underlying properties of variants is they are a transitive set. That is something around which the structure of variants at the top and 2nd level come together. In this case we are seeing that we can get into relationships as we have this ad hoc LD TLD in the mix in addition to variants we can get into potentially problematic variant relationships. That transitive relationship is inherently not there with LD TLDs in the variant mix. It is not clear what is the relationship between these examples. * When you start with LD set you have all TLDs are related to each other by the LD PDP if you add variants to one of the LD TLDs then if you allow this then you have multiple variants in this set that are not variants of each other nor an LD set. Due to a combination of LD and variants they would end up in the same set of TLDs. We would then need a new definition of this LD TLD set. * Continued in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> for which recommendations would need to be re-considered and re-worked for option 2. * Pitinan noted that an ASCII TLD would be affected and would have to go into more detail what would happen in a multi-set with certain TLDs removed or retained. * Alan raised a point on recommendation 39 suggesting that we use the phrase IDN variants so it is not mistaken for Latin Diacritics, once the combination is allowed. * Continued in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYDKIQ> to demonstrate the number of recommendations that would need to be adjusted if option 2 * Alan in chat: “My concern is that people might misunderstand the term "variant" to think it refers to one half of a n ascii/latin diacritic set. Using the phrase "IDN variant" instead of just the word "variant" reduces the likelihood of this mistake.” * Michael noted that this should be adjusted in the recommendations * Option 1 is less work, Option 2 might be more natural by allowing this and it is complicated with lots of side effects and Michael opened the discussion. * The problems with option 2 are SSR, contractual, usability, all those areas are impacted by option 2. This would be combining multiple primaries, variants, and LD sets. * Sarmad: Added that at this time one would really need to get into the analysis to figure out the answer of what is impacted. There are huge implications of option 2 some of which are more complicated and there could be larger implications for SSR and a deeper dive into these. * Steve: Highlighted concern from ICANN org that policy development michael demonstrated that option 2 represents tons of complexity both for the recommendations and an enormous amount of complexity for implementation. This means time and confusion for applicants and registrants. The issue about end-user confusion is compounded by the layers of complexity. There are impacts in adding complex things to recommendations. Policy development is not absolute. If this additional layer. You could proceed with option 1 now and future policy development could tackle option 2. Core principles of WG is that it is an exceptions procedure and a conservative approach is advisable. Option 2 is raising alarm bells for staff based on our experience. * Ariel: aligned with staff on this issue because thinking through all the possible options and then how to explain that to implementation or to the Board of what this recommendation means could be very complex. If the group does go with option 1 the limitation restriction is much less than RZ-LGR. For Diacritics it would be more lenient in that interpretation, there could be string proliferation risk could impact the DNS security and stability. The complexity of this would be difficult to explain to all impacted parties. * Option 2 is principally true, but we cannot make rules for major unlikely hypotheticals. These are decisions we have made for certain reasons and there is a way to describe what we want for complex sets. It should not be unnecessarily complex for the sake of it so in favor of option 1. * Chances of having a LD set and also a variant set would be highly unlikely * All the recommendations impacted by option 2 wondering if the same entity principle still exists, the integrity of the set. It should likely still remain in tact, but could requires some adjustments to recommendations to ensure this * Sarmad: LD goes from one variant set to another variant set because of relationship between ASCII and LD each has their own variant sets and could proliferate variant sets. * Consensus seemed to emerge in favor of option 1, but discussion would be considered next week. 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

Re: Proposed Agenda for Meeting #25
by Saewon Lee Nov. 18, 2025

Nov. 18, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Correction on the Meeting time tomorrow: Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC. Thank you, Saewon From: Saewon Lee via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Saewon Lee <saewon.lee(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 9:16 AM To: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics(a)icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Proposed Agenda for Meeting #25 Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #25 on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 14:15 UTC13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB For Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you here again the spreadsheet links to CQ4 (Impact on Existing Consensus Policies) and 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): - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL…> - 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…> As also shared last week and as with all our previous working documents, these sheets will remain live as we update it continuously throughout our discussions, as appropriate: * For CQ4, please focus on the impact level in Column H and the rationale in Column I. * 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). As I did with CQ4, we will not go into detail during the WG sessions; instead, provide a high-level overview of our initial assessment and seek feedback from the WG members, including any agreements or disagreements. Please review the document to indicate whether you agree with or object to Leadership Team/Staff's initial assessment. We welcome comments on any items you disagree with or would like to revise, expand upon, or remove; these points can be raised during the meeting item so that they can be properly documented and incorporated, as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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

Proposed Agenda for Meeting #25
by Saewon Lee Nov. 18, 2025

Nov. 18, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #25 on Wednesday, 19 November 2025, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #24 * Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB For Agenda Item #3, I am sharing with you here again the spreadsheet links to CQ4 (Impact on Existing Consensus Policies) and 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): - CQ4: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK… - GPI Checklist: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PuDn5pA8hhWfidafE4NYpkm6LszxXrDO/ed… - HRIA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LkcqfulRQiNEM4tjFzCeiISbU1p5x5UuE_H… As also shared last week and as with all our previous working documents, these sheets will remain live as we update it continuously throughout our discussions, as appropriate: * For CQ4, please focus on the impact level in Column H and the rationale in Column I. * 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). As I did with CQ4, we will not go into detail during the WG sessions; instead, provide a high-level overview of our initial assessment and seek feedback from the WG members, including any agreements or disagreements. Please review the document to indicate whether you agree with or object to Leadership Team/Staff's initial assessment. We welcome comments on any items you disagree with or would like to revise, expand upon, or remove; these points can be raised during the meeting item so that they can be properly documented and incorporated, as appropriate. We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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, 12 November 2025
by Devan Reed Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Dear all, All recordings for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP call held on Wednesday, 12 November 2025 at 13:15 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> (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 12 November 2025 Meeting #24
by John Emery Nov. 12, 2025

Nov. 12, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, Please see the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #24. Reminder that next week’s meeting will move to 14:00 UTC. [OUTCOMES] * PR #45 decided to update via option 2 [ACTION ITEMS] * Leadership and staff to look at PR #45 add to the footnote that the source domain must be from the domain set * Update footnotes 34 & 36 as we were waiting for the outcome of the ICANN Board decision * Leadership and Staff to look at case study 6 to determine the impact of both option1 and option 2 on other recommendations. Gather data on possible changes required to present to WG. * All in WG to review the existing consensus policies and the LT/Staff Analysis<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK…> for CQ4 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Working Sessions at ICANN84 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items – Update on EPDP-IDNs * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> and discussed sessions from ICANN84 * Updated PR revisions which will be discussed in the meeting later today * PR #39 previous wording had some issues and this was reworded with consensus at ICANN84 * PR #45 discussed for how to update and determined options outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> 8 * Sarmad: suggested the wording itself if there is a need to say where the source domain names are different they must come from the same variant set? * Since all domains must be within our ASCII/LD set it would be obvious that the source domain must also come from this set. But if it is not totally obvious it should be footnoted that it must be from within this domain set * Agreement to go with option 2 and the updated footnote language * Updated overall preliminary recommendations with 8 topics and 54 outputs * EPDP-IDNs Recommendations 7.4 and 7.5 adopted by Board at ICANN84 and the relation to LD PDP outlined in slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> 10 3. Stress Test Continued * Reviewed stress tests and case study 5 * Case study 6 discussed and a small consensus emerged around option 2 and all recs must be reviewed in consensus with this with the case of variant TLDs included in this TLD set * However, discussion went on as this option 2 could have a broader impact on a variety of recommendations. This could require more changes and so there was group hesitation to reach consensus there. * Sarmad: Option 1 in the other direction that if the TLD label has variants, why should the be a deterrent to LD sets? Does motivation for LDs go away with variants? Not likely. Is it possible for the diacritized version to have variants as well? * Not possible with current LGR as there are no allocatable variants * Option 1 has clearer implications, but checking recommendations for options 1 and 2 4. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations – Charter Question 4 GPI/HRIA * Discussion of GPI and HRIA from Charter question 4 this is new to all future PDPs and ours is the first * List of existing consensus policies found here<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies> * There are existing consensus policies listed and outlined here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNK…> * Template was created for this particular PDP and all our recommendations on this have been noted to be no or low impact for existing policies 5. Table of Contents for Initial Report 6. Next Steps 7. AOB 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 #24
by Saewon Lee Nov. 11, 2025

Nov. 11, 2025

Dear LD PDP WG, I hope you have all travelled back home safely and back to your daily routines. Please find below the proposed agenda for LD PDP WG Meeting #24 on Wednesday, 12 November 2025, at 13:15 UTC: 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Working Sessions at ICANN84 * Key Outcomes and Action Items * Update on EPDP-IDNs 1. Stress Test * Continue with Unresolved Cases 1. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations * Charter Question 4 * GPI/HR Impact Assessment 1. Table of Contents for Initial Report 2. Next Steps 3. AOB We look forward to seeing you all tomorrow! 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