Dear LD PSP WG Member, Please see below the readout of today’s meeting #5: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes from LD PDP WG Meeting #5<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/M4B_Cg> on Wednesday, 30 April 2025 [OUTCOMES] 1. Review of Early Input Responses<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NATV...> and a summary of RrSG input can be found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLqexWc50fc68SKpyHKdcHHqMXsO-GoG5IqQVikg...>. 2. Consensus that LD PDP will use the relevant adopted SubPro and EPDP-IDNs for its foundation to build upon 3. Filled in Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQOU...> of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab 4. No meeting on 7 May due to CP summit in Hanoi [ACTION ITEMS] 1. LT to check final recommendation 7.1 with ICANN legal 2. WG to continue to review outputs from EPDP-IDNs Phase 2 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #4 3. Review of Early Input Responses<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NATV...> * Early Input Request received two responses, which is to be expected give the voluntary nature of it, the open model of this group, and the technical nature of the LD PDP * ISPCP: No specific/additional input other than those suggested by ISPCP members during LD PDP WG weekly meetings. * RrSG summary table of input can be found here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dLqexWc50fc68SKpyHKdcHHqMXsO-GoG5IqQVikg...>. * Tapani noted for the record that he did not agree with the strict requirement to only give domains differing by diacritic to the same registrant 4. Charter Question 3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> based on the Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/sl...> a. Overview of Topic 25 on IDNs and SubPro<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-repo...> * Recommendations on topic 25, 25.5, 25.6, 25.7, and 25.8 * SubPro recommendations have been developed in more detail through the slides * Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQOU...> of leadership and staff recommendations on what is relevant and why, how LD PDP might apply them etc. * Recommendation 7.6 that Amadeu raised wanted to focus on avoiding user confusion and EPDP-IDNs does provide a recommendation for this, which we will be looking into b. Introduction of EPDP-IDNs & Phased Approach Phase 1<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/epdp-i...> and Phase 2<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-idn-epdp-p...> b. Review of EPDP-IDNs Outputs * EPDP-IDNs took and applied SubPro PDP outputs, operationalized it, and identified gaps * Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/sl...> on 19 discussed the phased approach with Phase 1 discussing gTLD and Phase 2 discussing second-level variant management Continued: Charter Question 3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> based on the Meeting #5 slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/176062515/sl...> * Discussion of whether SubPro and EPDP-IDNs think they are a solid foundation. Returned to a discussion of 25.5-25.7 of SubPro * .sjóberg and .sjöberg discussed these are not variants of each other in Unicode, but likely deemed visually confusingly similar from the panel discussion from Sarmad last week. So these are not technically variants * Latin RZ-LGR: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/lgr/rz-lgr-5-latin-script-26may22-... * Alternative would be overly complex if LD PDP was not consistent with SubPro and EPDP-IDNs. * Background: SubPro requires both top level and second level domains require the same entity. * Discussion of Sjöberg it is not obvious that these are the same and can actually be a human rights issue * There has been a lot of discussion on this topic for EPDP, there is no reason to deviate from this. The only consideration is if the language communities do not consider them to be the same, there is an issue if they are identical in their language. This does not deviate from same entity * If TLDs are different labels and different entities, then there is a chance that the SSR team would consider them to be different enough to allow them to operate simultaneously. If that is the case then our PDP does not apply and there is no same entity principle. * There is no particular right to have your name as a TLD, if you have a name that is identical or confusingly similar. The closer you are to a given language, but you may not be able to distinguish them. It is for the generality of the user. * Reaffirmed same entity principle * Notion of the community that would be confused by the strings would be specific? Do we take the overall Internet community. * Language is just one factor, contention exists for various factors and same entity requirement * Go through recommendations 1 by 1 to see if they make sense for our PDP, not applicable, or need to be adjusted in some way * Went through Spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vA4BoEHaGJBpVJ4oJcEgvzJlu5zEhF9cOQOU...> line by line * RZ-LGR is not the right path to follow as we don’t want to change that, it is a given whether it is a variant and work on those cases where it says it is a valid label. When a diacritic version is not considered a variant by the RZ-LGR * 25.5 wanted to apply this for the LD PDP and Tapani voiced objections, but no one else objected. Final recommendations, there is a consensus call, then any of those can be captured in the final report. Tapani might accept for TLDs but not for 2nd level and registrants * 3.8 guidance may need to be updated for diacritics and not variants, rewrite the wording to suit our case * 7.1 discussion of single RA, application in next round where a TLD is a diacritic of one that already exists. New base agreement or it may be the same. Perhaps would need a separate agreement for two TLDs in the same round. The same exists for variants and there may be already existing in this round. This recommendation may not be directly operational. Should check with ICANN legal 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<http://www.icann.org>