Dear LD PDP WG,

It was great to see many of you in person at ICANN86 and many thanks to those of you who joined remotely. Please see below the attached notes, outcomes, and action items from the ICANN86 LD PDP WG meeting.

[OUTCOMES]

WG agreement on updated language for PR 1
WG agreement on PR40 that the 2nd level must also retain the same entity principle.

[ACTION ITEMS]

LD PDP WG to continuously review the Public Comment Review Tool and the proposed draft after each WG Meeting and provide input, if any.
Staff and Leadership to review PR X to ensure that the language in the rationale accounts for a case where an LD can be applied for if one currently has an existing ASCII would account for this in PR 3.
WG to consider the Board input on PR18 and PR19 to discuss at the next LD PDP WG meeting

[NOTES]

Welcome and SOI Updates
Remembering Alan Barrett, Board Liaison to the LD PDP WG

The WG and the Board paid tribute to the life and legacy of Alan Barrett. A tribute to him and his accomplishments can be found on slide 5

3. Recap of Meeting #37

a. Key Outcomes and Action Items

Reviewed the slides and the ICANN Board raised an issue that Alan discussed to the Board before his untimely passing.
The Board members present Amitabh Singhal and Chris Buckridge gave an update to the LD PDP WG on PR18 and PR19 related to fees. In sum, the Board has concerns about recommendations related to fees, which are at the discretion and in the remit of ICANN org. Furthermore, there was a clear debate and discussion surrounding EPDP-IDN’s Final Recommendations 7.4 and 7.5 that they would be a non-precedent setting recommendation. By following these specific recommendations, it appears to the Board that the LD PDP is following the precedent. There is a distinct difference between EPDP-IDNs, which were intended to incentivize adoption of IDN variants, while LD PDP is meant to be an exceptions process and should take a more conservative approach. Given the untimely passing of Alan, the Board would need additional time for a formal response, but they noted this should not hold up the work of the LD PDP. This informal meeting conveys the essence of the Board’s concerns on this topic.
PRX recommendation discussed and the intended meaning is that it is not possible to have them operated separately and/or applied for separately.
- Bill: concerned that someone might already have an ASCII diacritic they would need to effectively make a new application. We need to get the wording clear that it's allowable
- Saewon: We do have a separate recommendation on applicants submitting a new application for an already existing gTLD but this point can be added to the rationale. Preliminary Recommendation 3: Consistent with Final Recommendation 3.2 of the EPDP-IDNs Phase 1 Final Report, a future gTLD registry operator wishing to apply for a corresponding ASCII gTLD or Latin diacritic gTLD(s) of their existing gTLD must submit an application during an application round.
PR 1 discussed allowing for a more expanded scope beyond the early unicode decomposable table discussed on slide 10. Emphasis placed on the deep deliberations that took place to get this point.
PR 39 updated language noted
Figure 3 updated to make it more user friendly and the same entity principle as outlined in the slides.
Query from Ariel about harmonization of LD and Variant tables. Michael responded that there is this requirement, but this case is still theoretically possible. The LGRs harmonized does not mean they have to be the same. They just have to be consistent.
Edge case examples of Figure 3 outlined in the slides.
PR 40 and case 1.3 discussed as previously this was allowed to be the registry to decide. If at the TLD it has to be the same entity, then at the 2nd level the registry could just decide. This could cause more user confusion. Consequence during last call is that all 2nd level labels must now belong to the same entity as well

4. Review of LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment

Saewon outlined the Human Rights Impact Assessment based on the Public Comment with a summary in the slides but she encouraged all to review the Public Comment Review Tool
She gave an overview and highlighted for the proposed path forward based on the HRIA and GPI Public Comments, strengths were many, but there were a few improvements for the Final Report. This was a lot related to implementation or future work. Much was not relevant to the current working group, it could be detailed further within the final report of the HRIA

5. Review of Proposed Table of Contents for Final Report

6. Consensus Call Process Reminder

7. Work Plan and Next Steps

8. AOB

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)