2026-07-01 Latin Script Diacritics - Meeting #39

The call for the Latin Script Diacritics team will take place on Wednesday, 01 July 2026 at 13:15 UTC for 75 minutes.

PROPOSED AGENDA

· Key Outcomes and Action Items

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat)

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

[OUTCOMES]

Agreement of the WG for the updated text of PR39 and PR40
WG Agreement to update language of PR48 aligned with ICANN org Public Comment on “allocated”
Agreement to update PR6 and IG7
WG Agreement to add PR30

[ACTION ITEMS]

LD PDP WG to continuously review the Public Comment Review Tool [docs.google.com] and the proposed draft after each WG Meeting and provide input, if any.
LT and Staff to update Rec X rationale as highlighted by Sarmad also to discuss possible IG for edge case examined in the call.

[NOTES]

a. Key Outcomes and Action Items

Reviewed the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net] and agreement to discard PR18 and PR19, a path forward for PR14, and HRIA
PR39 and IG40 were discussed to attempt to cover all cases in the recommendations and a solution was proposed in slide [icann-community.atlassian.net] 6.
PR39 updated language presented to the WG. IG40 Updated to PR40 to supplement PR39. To summarize all diacritics that are defined in PR1 allowed at the top level. Those should also be included in the set at the 2nd level for consistency between the two. This ensures the same entity requirements. The registry is free to change the disposition value, if the user base uses diacritics interchangeably, they can change blocked into allocatable variants, and can add some at the second level. Registries could make a variant of ae and æ at the second level they could do that even though it is not in our set or drop other characters from the set.
PR39 the use of “variant” as a term could be confusing. They are variants as determined by the second-level LGRs and those are given in PR40 so the two are linked. PR 40 defines those variant relationships and 39.3 defines those by PR40.
Recommendation X language clarified with additional text.
Sarmad suggested in the last sentence that once the conflict is resolved an applicant can proceed and apply for additional LD TLDs. Could be added in the rationale more clearly. Edge cases discussed for transferred gTLDs
Exemption for Rec X to be discussed by LT and Staff

PR48 updated agreement and Public Comments examined in the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net] to address concerns and this was discussed in-depth. Idea that it should be changed to only allocated. WG Agreement to change language for PR48 “all allocated domain names from the ASCII/LD domain set”
IPC comment on PR48 on fees had agreement to not be addressed
IG52, PR53, IG54 outlined in the slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]. Request from ALAC has a good intention, the comment was acknowledged and received. It is a sensible request, but the recommendations we currently have are sufficient as is.
IPC requested IG52 to be discarded. Michael noted that there appears to be a misunderstanding of the recommendation in their PC as it does the opposite of what they are suggesting. WG determined that IG52 is needed
Agreement for glossary changes based on Public Comment
EPDP IDNs Phase 1 Rec 5.5 was deemed not applicable and ICANN org suggested that perhaps it is applicable as outlined on slide [icann-community.atlassian.net] 17 with a request to consider objection outcomes. Proposal was to update PR6 and IG7 to account for this.
Agreement from WG to update PR6 and IG7 as outlined
ICANN org EPDP-IDNs P1 8.2 and 8.3 discussed on slide [icann-community.atlassian.net] 19. Proposal to propose a new recommendation PR30.
Enthusiastic agreement for non-binding guidelines

Reviewed slides [icann-community.atlassian.net] on how the consensus call process works with consensus designations and full consensus/consensus discussed

Reviewed slides [icann-community.atlassian.net] for the timelines and consensus call