Good question, Julf. 

What occurs to me has to do with the verification that a variant means what the applicant say's it means. 

Emmanuel, it's difficult for me to determine from the chart where in the process a proposed variant is validated by people who know what the string means. 

While there are multistakeholder bodies to encode the characters, my understanding is that the actual variants will be up to each gTLD applicant to propose. Since language is often tied to culture, I suppose there is the risk that certain applicants may wish to suppress or enhance a particular meaning behind a string depending on the applicant's objective. Is there a place where that verification happens? It looks like it may happen during a comment period, but I cannot tell for sure.

Thanks.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EPDP IDNs update and consolidated recommendations for Phase 1 Report

Thank you Emmanuel! Are there any specific points that are especially relevant for us noncommercials?

	Julf


On 20/03/2023 11:07, Emmanuel Vitus wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Thank you for joining the IDNs EPDP sessions during ICAN76. It was 
> unfortunate that time did not allow us to present during the NCSG 
> session. Below is a summary of what is going on so far.
> 
> For those who are not familiar with this EPDP, the GNSO Council 
> initiated this EPDP on IDNs in 2021 to address additional issues 
> related to IDNs not discussed in the SubPro report, including how to 
> securely and stably define and manage variant gTLDs and how to update 
> IDN guidelines in the future.
> 
> The scope of this work is defined in the EPDP charter for those who 
> are familiar with it or interested in knowing more.
> 
> The EPDP Working Group plans to publish two final reports. The first 
> report will include top–level domain recommendations and the second 
> report will include the second-level domain recommendations.
> 
> The two-phase approach will allow the EPDP Working Group to deliver 
> the first set of recommendations to the GNSO Council and then the 
> ICANN Board while the work on recommendations for the second-level 
> domains continues.
> 
> The EPDP Working Group also shared the initial report with ICANN org 
> requesting initial input, which was received in November 2022.
> 
> So far, the EPDP team has worked on deliberations on the String 
> Similarity Review Hybrid Model for the first phase report.
> 
> Input was requested from us, and we replied to these requests.  We 
> made contributions regarding  recommendations on String Similarity 
> Basis for Comparison for gTLD labels and corresponding variant labels.
> 
> We continued the deliberations in Cancun  last week. The team is 
> working toward publishing the Phase 1 Initial Report focusing on 
> top-level IDN gTLD definition and variant management. The phase 1 
> report of this EPDP will be published on Monday 24 April 2023.
> 
> Once the phase 1 report is published  next month; I encourage you to 
> read it and participate actively in the public comment.
> 
> You will see attached to this email a draft table that provides a 
> consolidated view of the draft Phase 1 recommendations the EPDP Team 
> has developed so far.
> 
> Thank you for your support and I look forward to hearing your views.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Emmanuel
>   -------------
> 
> *Mr. Emmanuel Agbenonwossi*
> 
> *Tech Policy Researcher* - Working for a Free, Open & Inclusive
> Internet| Ex Coms & Research Lead @ParadigmHQ
> <https://twitter.com/ParadigmHQ> | Ex @Google 
> <https://twitter.com/Google>Policy | Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/emmavitus> | Linkedin 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmavitus/>| Mobile: +33 7 63102234My 
> WiFi connects automatically in France, Ghana & Togo
>