Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes for 15 October Meeting #23
Hello LD PDP WG, Aa a reminder, we will not be having a session next Wednesday due to travel for ICANN84, so we will see all of you in person or virtually for our Dublin meetings. Also, please focus your current energy on sending edge cases to stress test our recommendations to the mailing list by Friday 17 October at the latest. Below are the meeting #23 outcomes, action items, and notes: [OUTCOMES] * PR #35 and #36 determination made that that an entity other than the one holding the remaining IDN gTLD in the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set for at least 10 years following the removal * Consensus on language of PR #39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 as written in slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 17 and 18 * Consensus to delete IG #41.2 as it does not apply to the Latin script case [ACTION ITEMS] * WG members to share edge cases on list by 17 October to discuss during ICANN84. * Leadership and Staff to include the term second level in PR#39.1 and 39.2 * Leadership and Staff to reword IG #41.1 to accurately convey its meaning [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #22 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> with majority in favor of option 2 for PR 35-38 with updated text in the slides * PR 35 Agreement still needed on how many years we would like to block this following removal * Discussion between 2 years and 10 years (like IDN ccTLDs) and given that application rounds take approximately 2 years from application to delegation. * Consensus reached at 10 years 1. Action Item for ICANN84 * The goal of the ICANN sessions is to deliberate any remaining recommendations on the preliminary report, then work through stress tests. * Examples of stress tests in the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg>. Please propose additional examples by 17 October 3. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgduN...> * Graphic created for understanding ASCII/LD Set for second level and compared LD PDP or EPDP-IDNs in the slides. Either way, both need to belong to the same entity even if they are not variants of each other * PR 39 not requiring something, just defining what we mean with a LD domain set as we will need the definition for later recommendation for the required same entity principle in later recommendations * 39.1 a second level label and all its variants and 39.2 all other TLDs * Implied here is that any variants of the TLDs will have the same considerations because of existing policies. A TLD and all its variants and LD TLD and any of its variants will have similar second-level rules. In stress test examples we want to look into how this works at the second level. * PR# 40 should there be an LD domain set which includes the ASCII/LD and their variants at the top level. * Variants go into stress test example. If you have a LD/ASCII TLD set no variant exists with current LGR. This could change in the future, but we can’t have any variants of that TLD set. If there were to be variants, we might need rules for that, but that is not needed at the moment. * IG #41 wording is slightly wrong as we do not want to restrict the set itself, just the number of domains within the set that can be allocated. The set is already defined by the LGR and variant rules, no need to change the size of the set. * What we want to do here is set a maximum number of domains within the set that are allocatable at the same time. With IDNs there could be lots of domains within it, the registry should not allow the activation of tons of domains within a set and we want a similar rule here * Sarmad: 41.2 question for IDN-EPDP the scope was much broader than Latin Scripts. Given this is limited in scope, whether this is something that is needed or desire to do this, or how this is motivated. * This is likely not needed in the Latin script community. But the initial background in IDN was coming from the Han script community. Discussion of removing 41.2 because automatic activations are not a topic for Latin it can be removed. * PR#42 slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 18 we need to have a new recommendation which is not covered by IDN-EPDP that this extends to all domains within the LD/ASCII domain set as they are not variants. This must be extended to both domain sets * No issues with wording presently what was called grandfathering and now called exempted. The wording here is a bit stronger not speaking about exempted and is flagged. * It is a transient thing, even in the IDN-EPDP there was no timeframe, they can keep their domains for however long they want to. This could also be forever as there is no force in making one remove or change. Stayed close to IDN wording, but with changes as it is not variants. * PR #43 agree not to increase the number of exempted domains. The only direction is to remove exempted cases and there should not be the possibility to increase them. * PR #44 this discussed harmonized ASCII/LD gTLD set and there were no objections to the language 4. Next Steps 5. AOB All the best, 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>
Thank you so much for the edge cases, Anil. This is duly noted and will be prepared for ICANN84, as appropriate. Much appreciated, Saewon From: anil Jain via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> Reply-To: anil Jain <asdj1990@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 at 10:48 AM To: John Emery <john.emery@icann.org> Cc: "GNSO-Latin-diacritics@icann.org" <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-latin-diacritics] Re: Outcomes, Action Items, and Notes for 15 October Meeting #23 Dear John/Saewon/Michael, Please consider following edge cases for ICANN 84 sessions: Edge cases: 1. If LD of Brand ASCII in not allocated/delegated, but somebody else ( Other than present Brand TLD owner) apply LD of brand TLD with Permission from Brand TLD owner can it be considered? 2. If there are changes in LD due to changes adopted in language by a country/ region, what will happen to already delegated LD TLDs ? Similarly is registry of a brand LD TLD lose Brand legally, should we transfer/ Reserve LD TLD to new owner? Anil Sent from my iPad On 15 Oct 2025, at 3:34 PM, John Emery via Gnso-latin-diacritics <gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote: Hello LD PDP WG, Aa a reminder, we will not be having a session next Wednesday due to travel for ICANN84, so we will see all of you in person or virtually for our Dublin meetings. Also, please focus your current energy on sending edge cases to stress test our recommendations to the mailing list by Friday 17 October at the latest. Below are the meeting #23 outcomes, action items, and notes: [OUTCOMES] 1. PR #35 and #36 determination made that that an entity other than the one holding the remaining IDN gTLD in the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set for at least 10 years following the removal 2. Consensus on language of PR #39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 as written in slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADg...> number 17 and 18 3. Consensus to delete IG #41.2 as it does not apply to the Latin script case [ACTION ITEMS] 1. WG members to share edge cases on list by 17 October to discuss during ICANN84. 2. Leadership and Staff to include the term second level in PR#39.1 and 39.2 3. Leadership and Staff to reword IG #41.1 to accurately convey its meaning [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Meeting #22 1. Key Outcomes and Action Items 1. Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADg...> with majority in favor of option 2 for PR 35-38 with updated text in the slides 2. PR 35 Agreement still needed on how many years we would like to block this following removal 3. Discussion between 2 years and 10 years (like IDN ccTLDs) and given that application rounds take approximately 2 years from application to delegation. 4. Consensus reached at 10 years 1. Action Item for ICANN84 1. The goal of the ICANN sessions is to deliberate any remaining recommendations on the preliminary report, then work through stress tests. 2. Examples of stress tests in the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADg...>. Please propose additional examples by 17 October 1. Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q...> 1. Graphic created for understanding ASCII/LD Set for second level and compared LD PDP or EPDP-IDNs in the slides. Either way, both need to belong to the same entity even if they are not variants of each other 2. PR 39 not requiring something, just defining what we mean with a LD domain set as we will need the definition for later recommendation for the required same entity principle in later recommendations 3. 39.1 a second level label and all its variants and 39.2 all other TLDs 4. Implied here is that any variants of the TLDs will have the same considerations because of existing policies. A TLD and all its variants and LD TLD and any of its variants will have similar second-level rules. In stress test examples we want to look into how this works at the second level. 5. PR# 40 should there be an LD domain set which includes the ASCII/LD and their variants at the top level. 6. Variants go into stress test example. If you have a LD/ASCII TLD set no variant exists with current LGR. This could change in the future, but we can’t have any variants of that TLD set. If there were to be variants, we might need rules for that, but that is not needed at the moment. 7. IG #41 wording is slightly wrong as we do not want to restrict the set itself, just the number of domains within the set that can be allocated. The set is already defined by the LGR and variant rules, no need to change the size of the set. 8. What we want to do here is set a maximum number of domains within the set that are allocatable at the same time. With IDNs there could be lots of domains within it, the registry should not allow the activation of tons of domains within a set and we want a similar rule here 9. Sarmad: 41.2 question for IDN-EPDP the scope was much broader than Latin Scripts. Given this is limited in scope, whether this is something that is needed or desire to do this, or how this is motivated. 10. This is likely not needed in the Latin script community. But the initial background in IDN was coming from the Han script community. Discussion of removing 41.2 because automatic activations are not a topic for Latin it can be removed. 11. PR#42 slide [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADg...> number 18 we need to have a new recommendation which is not covered by IDN-EPDP that this extends to all domains within the LD/ASCII domain set as they are not variants. This must be extended to both domain sets 12. No issues with wording presently what was called grandfathering and now called exempted. The wording here is a bit stronger not speaking about exempted and is flagged. 13. It is a transient thing, even in the IDN-EPDP there was no timeframe, they can keep their domains for however long they want to. This could also be forever as there is no force in making one remove or change. Stayed close to IDN wording, but with changes as it is not variants. 14. PR #43 agree not to increase the number of exempted domains. The only direction is to remove exempted cases and there should not be the possibility to increase them. 15. PR #44 this discussed harmonized ASCII/LD gTLD set and there were no objections to the language 1. Next Steps 1. AOB All the best, 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> _______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org
Dear John/Saewon/Michael, Anil Thank you for the kind reminder. I'm very happy to meet with the team in person at ICANN84. Warm Regards from El Salvador. Sandra Rodriguez. El mié, 15 de oct de 2025, 8:48 a. m., anil Jain via Gnso-latin-diacritics < gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> escribió:
Dear John/Saewon/Michael, Please consider following edge cases for ICANN 84 sessions:
Edge cases:
1. If LD of Brand ASCII in not allocated/delegated, but somebody else ( Other than present Brand TLD owner) apply LD of brand TLD with Permission from Brand TLD owner can it be considered? 2. If there are changes in LD due to changes adopted in language by a country/ region, what will happen to already delegated LD TLDs ?
Similarly is registry of a brand LD TLD lose Brand legally, should we transfer/ Reserve LD TLD to new owner?
Anil Sent from my iPad
On 15 Oct 2025, at 3:34 PM, John Emery via Gnso-latin-diacritics < gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org> wrote:
Hello LD PDP WG,
Aa a reminder, we will not be having a session next Wednesday due to travel for ICANN84, so we will see all of you in person or virtually for our Dublin meetings. Also, please focus your current energy on sending edge cases to stress test our recommendations to the mailing list by Friday 17 October at the latest.
Below are the meeting #23 outcomes, action items, and notes:
*[OUTCOMES]*
- PR #35 and #36 determination made that that an entity other than the one holding the remaining IDN gTLD in the ASCII/Latin diacritic gTLD set for at least *10 years* following the removal - Consensus on language of PR #39, 40, 42, 43, and 44 as written in slide <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 17 and 18 - Consensus to* delete* IG #41.2 as it does not apply to the Latin script case
*[ACTION ITEMS]*
- WG members to share edge cases on list by 17 October to discuss during ICANN84. - Leadership and Staff to include the term second level in PR#39.1 and 39.2 - Leadership and Staff to reword IG #41.1 to accurately convey its meaning
*[NOTES]*
1. *Welcome and SOIs* 2. *Recap of Meeting #22*
*a. **Key Outcomes and Action Items*
- Reviewed the slides <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> with majority in favor of option 2 for PR 35-38 with updated text in the slides - PR 35 Agreement still needed on how many years we would like to block this following removal - Discussion between 2 years and 10 years (like IDN ccTLDs) and given that application rounds take approximately 2 years from application to delegation. - Consensus reached at 10 years
2. *Action Item for ICANN84*
- The goal of the ICANN sessions is to deliberate any remaining recommendations on the preliminary report, then work through stress tests. - Examples of stress tests in the slides <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg>. Please propose additional examples by 17 October
*3. **Review of Preliminary Draft Recommendations <https://docs.google.com/document/d/10PiKG0grWcN2Q2UKKjz0WpuElJ3gLb9tY4JYgduNkrg/edit?usp=sharing>*
- Graphic created for understanding ASCII/LD Set for second level and compared LD PDP or EPDP-IDNs in the slides. Either way, both need to belong to the same entity even if they are not variants of each other - PR 39 not requiring something, just defining what we mean with a LD domain set as we will need the definition for later recommendation for the required same entity principle in later recommendations - 39.1 a second level label and all its variants and 39.2 all other TLDs - Implied here is that any variants of the TLDs will have the same considerations because of existing policies. A TLD and all its variants and LD TLD and any of its variants will have similar second-level rules. In stress test examples we want to look into how this works at the second level. - PR# 40 should there be an LD domain set which includes the ASCII/LD and their variants at the top level. - Variants go into stress test example. If you have a LD/ASCII TLD set no variant exists with current LGR. This could change in the future, but we can’t have any variants of that TLD set. If there were to be variants, we might need rules for that, but that is not needed at the moment. - IG #41 wording is slightly wrong as we do not want to restrict the set itself, just the number of domains within the set that can be allocated. The set is already defined by the LGR and variant rules, no need to change the size of the set. - What we want to do here is set a maximum number of domains within the set that are allocatable at the same time. With IDNs there could be lots of domains within it, the registry should not allow the activation of tons of domains within a set and we want a similar rule here - Sarmad: 41.2 question for IDN-EPDP the scope was much broader than Latin Scripts. Given this is limited in scope, whether this is something that is needed or desire to do this, or how this is motivated. - This is likely not needed in the Latin script community. But the initial background in IDN was coming from the Han script community. Discussion of removing 41.2 because automatic activations are not a topic for Latin it can be removed. - PR#42 slide <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/UADgGg> number 18 we need to have a new recommendation which is not covered by IDN-EPDP that this extends to all domains within the LD/ASCII domain set as they are not variants. This must be extended to both domain sets - No issues with wording presently what was called grandfathering and now called exempted. The wording here is a bit stronger not speaking about exempted and is flagged. - It is a transient thing, even in the IDN-EPDP there was no timeframe, they can keep their domains for however long they want to. This could also be forever as there is no force in making one remove or change. Stayed close to IDN wording, but with changes as it is not variants. - PR #43 agree not to increase the number of exempted domains. The only direction is to remove exempted cases and there should not be the possibility to increase them. - PR #44 this discussed harmonized ASCII/LD gTLD set and there were no objections to the language
*4. **Next Steps*
*5. **AOB*
All the best,
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-latin-diacritics mailing list -- gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-latin-diacritics-leave@icann.org
participants (4)
-
anil Jain -
John Emery -
Saewon Lee -
Sandra Rodriguez