Dear LD PDP WG Members,

Please see below the readout of today’s meeting #4:

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #4 on Wednesday, 23 April 2025

[OUTCOMES]

1. 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. This list is not an authoritative source, it is a helpful tool that we provide for convenience. The Unicode table as a combination of base ASCII and diacritic is the LD PDP official scope.
2. Allowing for multiple TLD versions for base ASCII requirement: Stay within current scope with base ASCII as the requirement but recommend scenarios for future potential work. 
3. Sarmad Hussain presented slides on the String Similarity Review Process.
4. Charter Question 3 deferred to the next meeting.

[ACTION ITEMS]

1. Later in the process capture cases that were determined to be out of scope but can be recommended for future potential work.

[NOTES]

1. Welcome and SOIs
2. Recap of Meeting #3

• Outlined key agreements from Meeting #3 in the slides.
• GNSO did not object to the Project Plan so LD PDP is cleared to continue.
• Mark presented a scoping document written in python (list of characters per Unicode) for this WG. The PDF is available and accessible on the wiki background documents page.
• Three possibilities as outlined on slide 9 allowing for multiple TLD versions. Concluded to stay within current scope, but acknowledge that diacritic-only gTLDs could be considered for potential future work. While this is essential to consider, we want to have a narrowly scoped and quick PDP
• Steve Chan shared a procedural way that option 2 could work on pg.6-7 of PDP manual, would be the mechanism for issues that come up that are not currently within the scope. 

• Currently, there is nothing from the ccTLD fast track process that is relevant for our work

3. String Similarity Review Process

• Sarmad Hussain presented slides on the String Similarity Review Process
• Michael noted that the current versions of categorizations are going out to public comment very soon. You can look through all the data and comment, whenever you think the Chosen category is not suitable
• Panel decision for string similarity will always err on the conservative side to decide what to include in contention and what to omit. 
• Question concerning the appeals process for the panel. There will be challenge mechanism for the string similarity review 
• Ariel Liang shared the challenge mechanism for string similarity review, you may see the draft Applicant Guidebook text here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/112200175/EXT_Topic%2032_Evaluation%20Challenges_2024-10-29.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1730196481000&cacheVersion=1&api=v2

4. Charter Question 3 deferred to next meeting

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