Dear LD PDP WG, Please see the attached outcomes, action items, and notes from Meeting #24. Reminder that next week’s meeting will move to 14:00 UTC. [OUTCOMES] * PR #45 decided to update via option 2 [ACTION ITEMS] * Leadership and staff to look at PR #45 add to the footnote that the source domain must be from the domain set * Update footnotes 34 & 36 as we were waiting for the outcome of the ICANN Board decision * Leadership and Staff to look at case study 6 to determine the impact of both option1 and option 2 on other recommendations. Gather data on possible changes required to present to WG. * All in WG to review the existing consensus policies and the LT/Staff Analysis<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNKW...> for CQ4 [NOTES] 1. Welcome and SOIs 2. Recap of Working Sessions at ICANN84 a. Key Outcomes and Action Items – Update on EPDP-IDNs * Reviewed the slides<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> and discussed sessions from ICANN84 * Updated PR revisions which will be discussed in the meeting later today * PR #39 previous wording had some issues and this was reworded with consensus at ICANN84 * PR #45 discussed for how to update and determined options outlined on slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> 8 * Sarmad: suggested the wording itself if there is a need to say where the source domain names are different they must come from the same variant set? * Since all domains must be within our ASCII/LD set it would be obvious that the source domain must also come from this set. But if it is not totally obvious it should be footnoted that it must be from within this domain set * Agreement to go with option 2 and the updated footnote language * Updated overall preliminary recommendations with 8 topics and 54 outputs * EPDP-IDNs Recommendations 7.4 and 7.5 adopted by Board at ICANN84 and the relation to LD PDP outlined in slide<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BwCcHw> 10 3. Stress Test Continued * Reviewed stress tests and case study 5 * Case study 6 discussed and a small consensus emerged around option 2 and all recs must be reviewed in consensus with this with the case of variant TLDs included in this TLD set * However, discussion went on as this option 2 could have a broader impact on a variety of recommendations. This could require more changes and so there was group hesitation to reach consensus there. * Sarmad: Option 1 in the other direction that if the TLD label has variants, why should the be a deterrent to LD sets? Does motivation for LDs go away with variants? Not likely. Is it possible for the diacritized version to have variants as well? * Not possible with current LGR as there are no allocatable variants * Option 1 has clearer implications, but checking recommendations for options 1 and 2 4. Continue with Charter Topic Deliberations – Charter Question 4 GPI/HRIA * Discussion of GPI and HRIA from Charter question 4 this is new to all future PDPs and ours is the first * List of existing consensus policies found here<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/consensus-policies> * There are existing consensus policies listed and outlined here<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQSOi6fL7MpCpgq-WmgpT5XpqIWSK1FUPNKW...> * Template was created for this particular PDP and all our recommendations on this have been noted to be no or low impact for existing policies 5. Table of Contents for Initial Report 6. Next Steps 7. AOB 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>