WG to review upcoming TBD items in the worksheet 

Ariel Liang to get information on recommendations 7.4 and 7.5 from GDS colleagues

Not necessary to give an interim update to SO/ACs on progress. Most people are reporting back to their groups

Main goal is to avoid rejection and using the LD PDP exceptions process. In contrast, the goal of EPDP-IDNs was IDN promotion. Goal of this PDP is not IDN promotion. 

Reviewed three facts on cost recovery

Slide #8 summarized discussion for the three main solutions to pricing including advantages and disadvantages for each solution

Rationale for evaluation fee estimation based on EPDP IDNs and the cost subsidy involved 

Discussion on application fees: some support for options 3, 2

Number 2 would make sense in fairness. But, applying for free could assume that we are not in a position to set the price. GNSO will not set the prices. We should not create an obstacle to preventing the PDP from working. If we want this to succeed, if feasible, what are the real cost of the evaluation? Need to bundle, but if we go the free way, it could prevent the next round

If we were to go for #2 there would have to be limits set. 

To help provide some insight into what the evaluation fees covers, I would recommend reading Section 2.3.1 of the AGB: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/policy-development/new-gtld-program-next-round-draft-applicant-guidebook-for-public-comment-30-05-2025-en.pdf#page=61 

There is a set of FAQ related to fees for program (to be updated with new info), but this is the current info: https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/resources/gtld-evaluation-fee-faqs 

Background: for variants it is the scripts that have allocatable variants (7 scripts) all scripts had a low allocatable (up to 4 for IDNs). Based on this understanding the estimation was made. It will be hard to make a limited estimation for Latin. Cannot make this estimation for Latin diacritic cases, 1000 latin TLDs and could have multiple diacritic versions. How many applications could come in would be much higher

Potential to add diacritics to existing Latin are exponentially more than IDNs

Current discussion shows it is difficult to apply IDNs it is a technical issue. Not the same a Latin diacritics. In Latin it is a social need, not a technical question. Applying some rules here could lead to the world being possible. Same TLD in 7 ways potential for confusion would be higher. 

Agreement with Amadeu, it would be nice for more IDNs. This is a narrow exception process, not a goal to make this an encouragement. If it is free, why not? Goal is a narrow exceptions process. Avoid people willing to pay full price to get an application rejected because of current rules. Due to this problem we are making an exception that avoids this. This is not meant to be free or encouraged

It could give a slight advantage if it is based on cost recovery, if you combine the labels you don’t have to evaluate the applicant twice, there is likely to be some cost reduction to make it more attractive, but not doing something to encourage massive amounts of diacritics

Not comfortable with unlimited TLDs free from the Board perspective. Number 3 would make more sense in pricing. 

Vote: Option 1 – 0; Option 2 – 2; Option 3 – 8 Consensus to move toward number 3

3.12 Not applicable for LD PDP based on previous decision

3.13 Makes sense to offer a discount fee and allow ICANN org to decide the discount

3.14 Not applicable based on previous decision

8.1 Upper limit of Latin diacritics that can be bundled together with one TLD? There may be valid reasons for variations for different languages. Should be a linguistic reason for more than one diacritic. Similar recommendation 3.5 addresses this must be a justification 

This should apply to multiple diacritics. There will be requirements for justification for diacritics

7.4 and 7.5 are still pending status at the Board deliberation level, they have not yet been adopted. Consider whether these have an impact.