Dear LD PDP WG Members,

Please see below the readout to today’s meeting:

Notes, Outcomes, and Action Items from LD PDP WG Meeting #3 on Wednesday, 9 April 2025.

[OUTCOMES]

1. Agreement this WG shall consider all TLDs existing as well as applied for (not delegated) and for new gTLDs (yet to be applied for).
2. WG along with Leadership and Staff assessment, found little direct relevance from the ccTLD Fast Track process to this WG, but we must cover all since it is in the Charter as Question #2.
3. Remaining questions that are unresolved from looking at ccTLD Fast Track process will be covered in future discussion of EPDP-IDNs recommendations, if the WG uses its policies or recommendations.
4. Mark shared his ASCII/Unicode analysis report (including the list of characters within scope as a result of the WG’s agreement) with the WG, available to download here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/ld-pdp-ascii-unicode-diacritics-analysis-report-08apr25-en.pdf?api=v2

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. Leadership Team to discuss whether the base ASCII is a requirement with two possible solutions: 1) Submit a scope change request to the  GNSO Council, or 2) include this in recommendations for future work on this topic, or 3) do nothing outside of current scope.
2. Staff and Leadership Team to develop some examples of edge cases to stress test our work and draw out examples for clarity of process.
3. Post Mark’s ASCII/Unicode Analysis Report to WG wiki page. [COMPLETED]

[NOTES]

1. Welcome and SOIs
2. Recap of Meeting #2

• Outlined key agreements from Meeting #2 in the slides.
• Mark emailed a scoping document written in python (list of characters per Unicode) for this WG. It is not an authoritative document, but helpful for us in consideration. The PDF is available for download here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062465/ld-pdp-ascii-unicode-diacritics-analysis-report-08apr25-en.pdf?api=v2

3. Charter Question 1

• Discussion of existing and applied for gTLDs and concluded that the WG is not limiting the scope as that all versions of diacritics are within scope. The WG will consider all TLDs, existing as well as applied for (not delegated) and for new gTLDs (yet to be applied for).
• Discussion of similar cases applied for by different entities will not be considered in this PDP as it is solved through the contention set process prior to our LD PDP policy coming into effect.
• Agreement that how the String Similarity panel is conducted is out of scope. 

4. Charter Question 2

• Relevant documents of the ccTLD Fast Track process, IDNC WG Final Report and ccNSO PDP4 were shared by Staff:
  • ccTLD fast track process https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-28mar19-en.pdf
  • IDNC WG Final Report: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_11060/idnc-wg-board-proposal-25jun08.pdf
  • ccNSO PDP4 FR: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccpdp4-final-report-23feb24-en.pdf#page=51
• Agreement Leadership and Staff found little relevance from the ccTLD Fast Track process and it is helpful to cover all the bases since it is in the Charter
• AI: Future sessions at IDN EPDP and those outcomes to see which of those would be applicable for us and then come back to ccTLD if there was anything missing that could be used for our PDP from the ccTLD
• Most questions are covered in EPDP-IDNs - once the WG reviews those recommendations, the WG can consider whether the ccTLD work should be revisited.
• AI: STRESS TEST: Develop some examples could be more helpful to draw out to see how this would work out in our PDP and see if any edge cases arrive

5. Next Steps

• Meeting on 16 April canceled due to Easter holiday
• Meeting on 7 May canceled due to CP summit
• Early Input from SO/AC/SG/Cs to close on 24 April 2025 - Extension possibility to be discussed in Leadership Team and announced via mailing list.

6. AOB

• Discussion of .Test, .Tést. and .Tèst case on Slide 23 concerning whether or not the ASCII version is necessary - Conclusion is that within the scope of the Charter, ASCII appears to be necessary, but the WG appeared to move toward it not being a requirement to apply for the ASCII if two or more diacritic gTLDs are applied for.
• Options for next steps: 1) go back to Council to request an expansion of scope, a process which will extend the PDP. 2) maintain the narrow scope and resolve this issue in recommendations for future research like the ø issue identified earlier. 
• AI: Discuss with LT about the case of base ASCII requirement and whether it is in scope or not and how to handle this going forward.

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