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 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