Hello All,

Please find attached:

Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from Meeting #19 on Wednesday, 17 September 2025

[OUTCOMES]

• Determined positions on multiple issues raised in the comments

[ACTION ITEMS]

• All to look in-depth at recommendation 7 to determine the correct wording
• Leadership and Staff to rewrite IG 11 based on group discussion
• Ariel to check-in on Rec 13 and the term discount for implementation issues with EPDP-IDNs
• Rec 14: Staff to add footnote clarifying the term “established institution” from EPDP-IDNs
• Staff and leadership to resolve comments and grammar issues
• All to share edge cases on the mailing list for subsequent discussion

[NOTES]

1. Welcome and SOIs
2. Recap of Meeting #18

• Reviewed the slides

3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations

• Aimed to stay consistent with language of EPDP-IDNs even if suggested improvements of language, unless it is important to change, it is better to align with IDNs.
• Footnotes copied from the existing document
• Preliminary Recommendations X and Y to keep numbering from IDN-EPDP those are new just for our LD PDP case to stand apart from others
• Michael discussed which suggestions were accepted or rejected and the rationale for it
• ALAC policy working group was presented by Satish and Bill for the early look and it is going along well
• Query raised about decomposable diacritics per the unicode table.
• Need to establish a definition talking about composable is a strict rule that can be applied. But certain letters there are just a character to create a definition of what is decomposable and that is why we are going this way
• Discussion of Unicode table and decomposition of diacritics
• Mark added an appendix of those that look like a diacritic but are not, linked here in our unicode table, agreement amongst group to include this appendix in the table
• Rec 3 idea of application rounds, possible to include nuance in rationale to note that the diacritics group considered future possibility of round, if/when that happens. 
• Rec 4 discussion of multiple applied-for gTLDs perhaps remove this caveat and add to existing gTLDs and Rec 5 talks about a completely new set without an existing one. 
• Rec 6 always applies to a “set” just as an application or ASCII/LD set. Torn between the two phrasings. Concern that we should not unnecessarily make the recommendation longer.
• Suggestion to add an explanatory footnote as a compromise
• We have granted an exception for a .Brand TLD, why only that and not the other two?
• .Brand single label TLD and there is some contention you have the possibility to change the label, that is an existing exceptions process, and it makes sense to include in our rules too. Nothing in addition, just reiterating.
• Rec 7: Staff and Leadership offered different wording to make it less complicated. Same principle in clearer language 
• Existing gTLD the mission and purpose may need to be explained. It could be that the mission has somehow changed and the mission/purpose of the set and not just the the new TLDs. 
• Rec 7 to be discussed next week
• IG 8: query about an appeals process, there is not an appeal process per se, but there is an extended evaluation process that allows the applicant to contest the decision taken. Suggested adding a footnote of this
• IG 11: Discussion would be for later or post-implementation; this could be a public comment opportunity. Operationally, the SPIRT process may need to be involved.
• Sarmad: if this is already being asked for IDN-EPDP and LD PDP, the technical setup would be the same. Then we may not need a separate report than 3.9.4 from IDNs. Rewrite in a way that is similar to the IDN-EPDP report may also be utilized here
• Variance should also be adjusted to include our cases as opposed to a new report
• Is it a static dependency on IDN-EPDP if they change, we are dependent on their changes and would need appropriate changes to LD as well
• Does make sense to combine them as long as we state it should be combined. There is no need for a second report since the technical handling will likely be the same
• Rec 13: rationale to make this a bit clearer but prefer to have the rec as written as it is unclear what discount will be applied here. Not possible to describe it here
• Discount is a commercial decision, always based on the cost recovery analysis. Word choice 
• Implementation EPDP-Phase 1 did raise some concerns on org side and Ariel will check in to see the discussion or conclusion and the interpretation of the word discount 
• Rec 14 Anil’s comment for additional context. Consistent, but footnote or rationale for definition of established institution. The EPDP Team affirmed that this term originated from the 2012 Applicant Guidebook and was reaffirmed by the SubPro PDP Final Report. And there is a footnote in the EPDP-IDNs on the meaning of /reference to the “established institution.”
• Rec 15 awaiting additional input from legal, they are still confirming and will discuss next week. There is a preference from legal to keep things broader and avoid committing to a single RA. Awaiting a formal response will be confirmed next week. 

4. Next Steps

5. 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)

www.icann.org