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]

Welcome and SOIs
Recap of Meeting #25

a. Key Outcomes and Action Items

The WG went through the slides 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 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 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 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)