[[-- Translated text (en -> es) --]]

*"Variant TLDS (Specification 14) ... scenarios where a TLD string has variant forms — is relevant to any indigenous language LGR work where script variants exist, and to Spanish-language diacritics in TLD strings."*

Para ser más precisos, los TLD variantes son solo aquellos determinados por el Root Reglas de generación de etiquetas de zona (RZ-LGR), que en este momento se limitan a poco menos de 30 guiones incorporados en el RZ-LGR, (por lo tanto, no todos los indígenas) idiomas). Los diacríticos en español en TLD se abordan a través del Escritura latina LGR. Atentamente, Justine El martes 24 de marzo de 2026 a las 06:00, Lance Hinds a través de CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> escribió:

The IDN provisions should be of some interest to this region.

- Variant TLDS (Specification 14) ... scenarios where a TLD string has variant forms — is relevant to any indigenous language LGR work where script variants exist, and to Spanish-language diacritics in TLD strings. - - Reserved Names and IDN (Spec 5): The agreement contemplates that IDN registrations may require language-specific activation policies, giving registry operators the ability to tailor IDN registration rules to linguistic communities. This creates space for community-governed language TLDs.

On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 2:11 PM Carlton Samuels via lac-discuss-en < lac-discuss-en@icann.org> wrote:

...

Maybe a little context from my end user perspective would explain why I thought it necessary to place the 2026 RA before this group. Follow the link to review the 2013 Base Registry Agreement (RA). <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-02jul13-en.d...> Note that it has been incrementally amended over time, culminating in the 2026 RA.

If you spend enough time in the ICANN ecosystem and pay close attention, one thing becomes clear. The contract is what ultimately matters.

Back in the 2012 gTLD round, some of us attempted to advance a view that the contract may, in effect, embody consensus policy. On that basis, we sought to participate more directly in the negotiations. We proposed that At-Large representatives be granted observer status in those negotiations. That proposal was summarily rejected.

The 2026 RA now incorporates a substantial body of consensus policy outcomes, particularly from the SubPro PDP. From my reading, the most material changes include:

- A formal definition of DNS Abuse, with mandatory mitigation obligations across the entire ecosystem—registry, registrar, and registrant - Introduction of the Predictability Framework to manage unforeseen operational and programmatic issues - Strengthened Applicant Support mechanisms, including bid credits in contention resolution - Enhancements to contention resolution, including restrictions on private resolution and the replacement string option (ask Sivas about that and you get a bellyful) - Expansion of Label Generation Rules (LGRs) to cover 27 scripts - Introduction of a uniform renewal pricing rule

The At-Large community played a meaningful role in several of these developments. We advocated consistently and at times relentlessly for Applicant Support. Evan Leibovich is indelibly associated with that effort. The record will reflect it.

We were also deeply engaged in debates on data protection and the handling of personally identifiable information (PII), particularly balancing privacy with the end user’s right to know Who[is} responsible when harm occurs. My friend from Australia, Holly Raiche, shouldered a lot of that burden; co-chaired the At-Large WHOIS WG for years.

The 2026 RA now requires registries and registrars to clearly state the purpose of data processing and obliges the Registry to define the legal basis for processing PII.

We are seeing notable improvements in auditability; stronger obligations to maintain technical and operational records with greater expectation of demonstrable compliance.

The 2026 RA appears to move beyond form to enforceability with definitely clearer compliance exposure tied to Spec 11. The record will show I have long argued that the inclusion of PICs in the 2013 RA was not worth a bucket of warm spit, absent meaningful enforcement. That gap now appears to be closing.

The 2026 RA is evidentiary for policy positions hardening into enforceable contractual obligations.

All good. So far.

Carlton

============================== *Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 at 14:08, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Some interesting readings in the ICANN Board Resolutions passed in the last meeting.

Please have a look at the new Base Registry Agreement <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/base-registry-agreeme...> as presented in the report on the outcomes of the last ICANN Board Meeting.

The Round Contractor Contract extensions should be noted, too.

https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...

CAS

============================== *Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list -- lac-discuss-en@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to lac-discuss-en-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana

This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.