2025-07-09 Latin Script Diacritics - Meeting #12

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome and SOIs

2. Recap of Meeting #11

3. Charter Question 3 [gnso.icann.org]

• Review of EPDP-IDNs P2 Outputs (Worksheet [docs.google.com] to Leverage Outputs)

4. Next Steps

5. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Slides:

PARTICIPATION

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

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

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

[OUTCOMES]

1. Consensus from Slides [icann-community.atlassian.net] page 7 & 8. Example 1.1 and 1.2 the same entity principle applies. Example 1.3 there will be nothing done in this PDP, registries are free to have their own rules.

2. Filled in Spreadsheet [docs.google.com]of relevant recommendations and wrote the consensus in the decision tab

[ACTION ITEMS]

• AI: staff and leadership to redo the slide 7 for the 1.2 example for a new Latin example and non-Latin examples

[NOTES]

1. Welcome and SOIs

• Anil Jain noted his updated SOI

2. Recap of Meeting #11

• Reviewed Slides [icann-community.atlassian.net]

• Discussed examples from last week for second-level management from slides 6, 7, and 8

• Discussion of same entity principle for case 1.1 test.example and test.éxample

• Query about what cc’s use on the same entity principle rule for comparison

• Case 1 and 1.1 should be the same entity principle? Debate amongst the group

• Sarmad: IDNs have been registered at 2nd level for some time now. For PDP work, there has been a Board resolution in 2019 that basically asked GNSO and ccNSO to consider variant TLD recommendations. There were different ways this has been done before but post-2019 it should be considered. This has been done by both GNSO and ccNSO. Suggests that variants at the top level and second level (strings considered “the same” by end users), therefore the recommendations since these are the same strings they should go to the same registrants. Variants at the second level also mean that those are the same strings or code points for the end users. Variants by definitions are the same strings and therefore should go to the same registrant.

• Sarmad: There are separate clauses prior to 2019 that IDN-EPDP where different registrants can remain, but new registrations should be to the same registrant

• Suggestion same entity principle must be for 1.1 as well as 1, a bit of an impasse 

• Rough consensus emerged that case 1.1 test.example and test.éxample should be same entity principle

• 1.3 ASCII and diacritic version only for the top level required, now considering an extra layer on the second level

• Debate about having some kind of case-by-case basis or doing it across the board

• Taling about tLDS that get an exemption process from being rejected for TLDs 

• Sarmad: 9 cases: {same, variant, similar/diacritic}.{same, variant, similar/diacritic}: 3 possibilities at the top level and 3 at the second level. Some of those cases are already clear policy for EPDP-IDNs and SubPro. Some additional cases discussing here. Suggested that in discussing the different cases we clearly use one of the packets and then have the rules and not mix those.

• Summary: discussions majority seems to say we don’t want rules for 1.3 case, registries are free to handle those ASCII/diacritics if they want to make them as variants or same entity, it is up to them. 1.1 majority consensus there is same entity principle. 1.2 We can't make any rules because of the already existing EPDP-IDN rules because they are already variants. Cases where it is already decided that the 2nd level are variants of each other tesst.example vs. tesst.éxample and teßt.example and test.éxample.

• Consensus 1.1 and 1.2 should be the same entity with an objection from Tapani

• AI: redo the slide 7 for the 1.2 example for Latin example and non-Latin examples

3. Charter Question 3 

3. EPDP-IDNs P2 looks at the second level variant management

i.Filled in worksheet [docs.google.com]

• Final Recommendation 8: does not only refer to 2nd level variant set, it also says a given gTLD and its delegated gTLD variant labels. In addition it is also the diacritized versions and not necessarily the gTLD delegated variables. Must change wording to make it applicable for LD PDP

• Final Recommendation 9: similar argument as 8, this is only the context of variants, if it is beyond variants then the language will need to be updated to extend it to Latin diacritized versions. This applies to most recommendations here in the final language.

• Applicability for the whole lifecycle and not just in the creation process. Agreement that the meaning is applicable and the wording is fit for purpose.

• Recommendation 10: another case of language harmonization for same entity principle

• Recommendations 10-12 are bundled to change wording, but applicable to LD PDP

• Recommendation 12: In theory it is possible to have different trademarks for the same word with and without diacritics. There could be legal enforcement higher than ICANN rules for the exemption process. But this is likely an exceptional case. URS is differing because URS is on suspension model and does not break the same entity rule and there is no domain transfer.

4. Next Steps

5. AOB