Thank you for your message, Harsha, and making valid points for discussion. We have indeed not concluded this discussion, though agreement was gearing towards Option 1 near the end of our last call, and will pick up where we left off tomorrow during Agenda Item #2: Recap of Meeting #25. The slides will be uploaded on our meeting wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYCyJ> soon for your reference. Best, Saewon From: harsha wijayawardhana via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> Reply-To: harsha wijayawardhana <wijayawardhana@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 10:29 AM To: "gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Option 1 vs Option 2 Action Item #2 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