[NCSG-PC] [GNSO-SG-C-Leadership] Request for Early Input | GNSO Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process Working Group

Fri May 2 10:38:12 EEST 2025

Hi Rafik,

I don't think a late early input would be all that useful at this time. Better save the effort to public comment, when the request comes.

The WG's call yesterday reviewed early inputs that had come in time, there were only two and one of them (ispcp) was simply "No specific/additional input other than those suggested by ISPCP members during LD PDP".

The one fro RrSG was more substantial, one I disagree with there is

"Measures should be considered which would ensure that matching domains are only offered to the same owner, e.g. best.quebec and best.québec cannot be owned by two different parties, in order to reduce potential for confusion."

While that makes sense for cases like .québec where the strings clearly refer to the same thing, it's not different in cases where the strings are of different origin. E.g., jon.sjöberg and jon.sjóberg could well be different sites without much confusion (lots of similar cases exist as 2nd and 3rd level domains right now).

Tapani

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 09:06:12PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The deadline for submitting input passed few days ago but I am wondering if
> we should send something anyway based on what Tapani shared. @Tapani
> Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>  the WG is able to accommodate a
> late submission if any?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025, 23:52 Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Following up here, as I posted on the discuss list the LD PDP WG met
> > again today and discussed another to me arbitrary-looking limitation
> > of the charter, namely whether the PDP scope includes cases where
> > someone applies for diacritic versions of a string only and not the
> > base ASCII version.
> >
> > It was pretty much agreed that there's no technical or other apparent
> > reason to exclude them except that the language of the charter
> > explicitly talks about base ASCII version being present. It was
> > suggested this may have been an oversight on the part of the council,
> > someone said that it had not even occurred to them that there might be
> > several different diacritic versions of the same character but since
> > it's been agreed that the WG will consider such, it makes no sense to
> > exclude applications for diacritic versions only.
> >
> > It was suggested but not decided that the WG might go back to
> > the council to ask for clarification or extension of the charter
> > to include such cases that could naturally be dealt with at
> > the same time.
> >
> > When the council considers the project plan of the WG (tomorrow
> > unless I'm mistaken) some of our councillors might want to alert
> > the council about the issue.
> >
> > In any case I'm planning to write up all such cases that the PDP
> > charter excludes for no good reason other than that they did not occur
> > to the council at the time the PDP was created. I will then suggest we
> > put them in our response to the early input request.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 04:32:39PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (
> > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Rafik.
> > >
> > > I took the liberty of adding myself back to the PC list (it's been
> > > customary for former Chairs to be there, but I removed myself from
> > > there some years ago).
> > >
> > > Anyway, following up today's PC call, the Latin Diacritics WG
> > > project plan is here:
> > >
> > >
> > https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/project-plan-latin-script-diacritics-26mar25-en.pdf
> > >
> > > Timeline can be found there even if not in the most readable form.
> > >
> > > I'll add a quote from the slides presented in WG meeting:
> > >
> > > "When the Next Round similarity process finds ASCII/diacritic gTLDs to
> > > be similar, this WG will provide rules for diacritics."
> > >
> > > So the intent is to affect the Next Round.
> > >
> > > (Slide 9 in WG meeting two, the whole slide deck can be found under
> > > backround documents here:
> > >
> > https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsolsdpdp/pages/176029697/2025-04-02+Latin+Script+Diacritics+-+Meeting+02
> > )
> > >
> > > And as I said I find it odd that the rules will be defined for, e.g.,
> > > German/Swedish/Finnish/Estonian/Icelandic ö (o with two dots) but not
> > > for Norwegian/Danish/Faroese ø (o with stroke).
> > >
> > > I can imagine a Dane called Sjøberg being annoyed if a Swede gets
> > > .sjöberg and an Icelander gets .sjóberg while .sjøberg is being
> > > denied because of a technicality.
> > >
> > > There are other similar cases. I would have preferred including all
> > > confusingly similar-looking non-ASCII additions to the Latin script
> > > rather than using the technical Unicode definition that users should
> > > really not be expected to care of know about.
> > >
> > > Tapani
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 10:02:01AM +0900, Rafik Dammak (
> > rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hi all,
> > > >
> > > > a reminder about this request for input. added Tapani in cc as he is an
> > > > active participant of this WG.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Rafik
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le ven. 21 mars 2025 à 09:48, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
> > > > écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > we got this request for input as part of the newly established WG on
> > latin
> > > > > scripts diacritics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafik
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear SG/C Leaders,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We are writing to you on behalf of the GNSO Latin Script Diacritics
> > (LD)
> > > > > Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG). This WG is
> > tasked with
> > > > > providing the GNSO Council policy recommendations on: The limited
> > > > > circumstances in which a base ASCII gTLD and the Latin script
> > diacritic
> > > > > version of the gTLD can be simultaneously delegated. The WG held its
> > first
> > > > > meeting
> > > > > <
> > https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpYP/gnso-latin-script-diacritics-pdp-working-group
> > >
> > > > > on 08 March, 2025.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In accordance with GNSO’s PDP requirements, we are seeking early
> > written
> > > > > input on the topic from each Supporting Organization, Advisory
> > Committee,
> > > > > and GNSO’s Stakeholder Group / Constituency. Each group has been
> > invited to
> > > > > participate in the PDP. Kindly note that the written input is
> > completely
> > > > > voluntary.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to ensure that the WG receives your input in a timely
> > manner and
> > > > > that your input is incorporated into a summary document for the WG’s
> > > > > consideration, we are requesting a response *no later than 24 April
> > 2025*
> > > > > *.* Input received after this date may be introduced into the
> > discussion
> > > > > separately by your representatives, by ICANN support staff, or by me
> > as the
> > > > > relevant topic is discussed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The WG’s scope of work is defined through a series of questions
> > presented
> > > > > in the WG’s Charter. The list of questions and key issues to consider
> > > > > soliciting community input are attached for your convenience. To the
> > extent
> > > > > possible, you are requested to write your responses to the individual
> > > > > questions in the attached document and return via email to the GNSO
> > > > > Secretariat *gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>*. It is not
> > > > > necessary to answer every question, and you are also welcome to
> > provide any
> > > > > other input and/or background information that you deem helpful to
> > the
> > > > > deliberations.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As with all GNSO PDPs, there will be additional opportunities for
> > > > > community input as the work progresses.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you very much and we look forward to receiving your input.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On behalf of the LD PDP WG,
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Bauland (LD PDP WG Chair)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> >

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen