- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 22 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yy4ex2pr The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/VZiGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/575653135 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 22 May 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yy4ex2pr The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/VZiGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/575653135 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Fwd: Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version)
by Vanda Scartezini May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Excellent news Alan. I am save this document for our ATRT3 discussion on how Board is dealing with community advice. Kisses Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 11:08 To: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Fwd: Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) I have just done a very brief review of the Board results, but it looks like they took all of our advice into account. Alan From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:55:45 +0900 To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Hi all, please find this regarding the board vote on EPDP phase 1 recommendations. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org > Date: jeu. 16 mai 2019 Ã 13:49 Subject: [council] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) To: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: karklinsj(a)gmail.com <karklinsj(a)gmail.com>, gnso-secs(a)icann.org <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> All, Please see below for the ICANN Boardâ€™s communication to the GNSO Council regarding the Boardâ€™s 15 May action on the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations. The Board approved 27 of the 29 recommendations in full, and did not adopt *parts* of the remaining two recommendations. They deferred adopting Recommendation 1, Purpose 2 to further consideration in EPDP Phase 2, and did not adopt the portion of Recommendation 12 that permitted deletion of registrant/organization field data. Everything else was adopted. There are also some important questions/comments for IRT consideration on nine recommendations highlighted in the attached. In not fully accepting the GNSO recommendations, we now have a bylaws-mandated consultation period in effect. My understanding is there is no deadline for concluding those consultations, but we should take some time to consider next steps during our 16 May Council call and over the coming weeks. All in all, this is very good news and a step forward, but it also highlights the importance of the IRT for Phase 1, the unfinished Phase 2 policy work, and the continuing engagement with the European Commission and relevant data protection authorities. I look forward to speaking with you all in just a few hours. I have copied Janis on this message as the EPDP Team has its next working call shortly after the GNSO Council call. Best, Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org > Date: May 16, 2019 at 12:14:27 AM EDT To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, Chris Disspain < chris.disspain(a)board.icann.org>, " leon.sanchez(a)board.icann.org" < leon.sanchez(a)board.icann.org> Cc: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org>, "karklinsj(a)gmail.com" <karklinsj(a)gmail.com>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, "David Olive" <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org >, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Resending with Chris Disspain and LeÃ³n SÃ¡nchez (EPDP Liaisons from the Board) in copy. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org > Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 9:10 PM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> Cc: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org>, "karklinsj(a)gmail.com" <karklinsj(a)gmail.com>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org >, ICANN Board Ops <board-ops-team(a)icann.org > Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Dear Keith Drazek, Please find the attached letter from Cherine Chalaby regarding the ICANN Board action related to the GNSOâ€™s EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations. Please note the attached letter is the â€œpreview versionâ€; whereas the version which will be published on the ICANN Correspondence page will include URLs for the Board Resolutions once they are published (see highlights on pages 7 & 8 of the attached annexes). We will re-send the final version of the attached letter after the Board Resolutions are published. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit Senior Manager, Board Operations ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council Content-Type: application/pdf; name="2019-15-05 Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek.pdf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="2019-15-05 Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek.pdf" Content-ID: <16abefbca82aa3b39b01> X-Attachment-Id: 16abefbca82aa3b39b01 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

1 0

Fwd: Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version)
by Alan Greenberg May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

I have just done a very brief review of the Board results, but it looks like they took all of our advice into account. Alan From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:55:45 +0900 To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Fwd: [council] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Hi all, please find this regarding the board vote on EPDP phase 1 recommendations. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Drazek, Keith via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Date: jeu. 16 mai 2019 � 13:49 Subject: [council] Fwd: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> > Cc: karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com> <karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>, gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> All, Please see below for the ICANN Board’s communication to the GNSO Council regarding the Board’s 15 May action on the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations. The Board approved 27 of the 29 recommendations in full, and did not adopt *parts* of the remaining two recommendations. They deferred adopting Recommendation 1, Purpose 2 to further consideration in EPDP Phase 2, and did not adopt the portion of Recommendation 12 that permitted deletion of registrant/organization field data. Everything else was adopted. There are also some important questions/comments for IRT consideration on nine recommendations highlighted in the attached. In not fully accepting the GNSO recommendations, we now have a bylaws-mandated consultation period in effect. My understanding is there is no deadline for concluding those consultations, but we should take some time to consider next steps during our 16 May Council call and over the coming weeks. All in all, this is very good news and a step forward, but it also highlights the importance of the IRT for Phase 1, the unfinished Phase 2 policy work, and the continuing engagement with the European Commission and relevant data protection authorities. I look forward to speaking with you all in just a few hours. I have copied Janis on this message as the EPDP Team has its next working call shortly after the GNSO Council call. Best, Keith Begin forwarded message: From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org<mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org> > Date: May 16, 2019 at 12:14:27 AM EDT To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Chris Disspain < chris.disspain(a)board.icann.org<mailto:chris.disspain@board.icann.org>>, " leon.sanchez(a)board.icann.org<mailto:leon.sanchez@board.icann.org>" < leon.sanchez(a)board.icann.org<mailto:leon.sanchez@board.icann.org>> Cc: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby@board.icann.org>>, "karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>" <karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "David Olive" <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org<mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org<mailto:Correspondence@icann.org> >, Board Ops Team <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Resending with Chris Disspain and León Sánchez (EPDP Liaisons from the Board) in copy. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit(a)icann.org<mailto:wendy.profit@icann.org> > Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 9:10 PM To: Keith Drazek <kdrazek(a)verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> Cc: Cherine Chalaby < cherine.chalaby(a)board.icann.org<mailto:cherine.chalaby@board.icann.org>>, "karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>" <karklinsj(a)gmail.com<mailto:karklinsj@gmail.com>>, "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>>, Secretary <secretary(a)icann.org<mailto:secretary@icann.org>>, Correspondence <Correspondence(a)icann.org<mailto:Correspondence@icann.org> >, ICANN Board Ops <board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org> > Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek EPDP Phase I Board Action (preview version) Dear Keith Drazek, Please find the attached letter from Cherine Chalaby regarding the ICANN Board action related to the GNSO’s EPDP on the Temp Spec for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations. Please note the attached letter is the “preview version”; whereas the version which will be published on the ICANN Correspondence page will include URLs for the Board Resolutions once they are published (see highlights on pages 7 & 8 of the attached annexes). We will re-send the final version of the attached letter after the Board Resolutions are published. Thank you and best regards, Wendy Profit Senior Manager, Board Operations ICANN _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council Content-Type: application/pdf; name="2019-15-05 Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek.pdf" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="2019-15-05 Cherine Chalaby to Keith Drazek.pdf" Content-ID: <16abefbca82aa3b39b01> X-Attachment-Id: 16abefbca82aa3b39b01 _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 15 May 2019 at 19:00 UTC
by Claudia Ruiz May 15, 2019

May 15, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y45qnn9n The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/4pGGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/472454279 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 1

Schedule Conflict for Today
by Greg Shatan May 15, 2019

May 15, 2019

Regrettably I am triple-booked at the start time for today’s CPWG call. The “day job” needs to prevail. I will join as soon as I can, if I can. Thankfully, Marita had already volunteered to facilitate the Enhancing Multistakeholder public comment discussion today! Greg -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*

1 0

Current HIT topics for Marrakech
by Maureen Hilyard May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

GNSO really don't like EPDP Phase 2 and UAM - they want to leave those for Montreal - what say you , if we went to 3 sessions which GNSO are now asking, as are others? *DNS over HTTPS (DoH) (HIT)* Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO 1/3 *Propose Tuesday, Block 4* *Future of the Multistakeholder Model of Governance (HIT)* Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO 2/3 *Propose Tuesday, Block 5* Preference for Tuesday (ccNSO) *EPDP Phase 2 (HIT); Unified Access Model: complying with GDPR while meeting the needs of those with legitimate interests (CCT) (include Combatting domain abuse suggested by ALAC)*Consolidated session proposed by GAC Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, IPC EPDP/UAM noted as untimely - defer to Montreal by GNSO *Propose Thursday, Block 4* *Policy around Universal Acceptance and steps to be taken by TLD operators/registrars, software developers and hosting companies (CCT)* Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO 2/3 *Propose Thursday, Block 5* *Enhance effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations and their implementation (HIT)* Support: ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO 2/3 *Propose: Wednesday, Block 5?* *Impact of GDPR and EPDP Phase 1 recommendations on existing policies and procedures (CCT) *Consolidated session (proposed by GNSO) : Across Field Address Validation - WHOIS Accuracy (RAA); ICANN - Combatting domain abuse with GDPR; Privacy and Proxy Implementation Support: GNSO 2/3, multiple votes for Combatting Domain Abuse may be covered in consolidated session above *Abuse Mitigation* Consolidated Session (proposed by GAC): DNS over HTTPS (DoH) (HIT); ICANN - Combatting Domain Abuse with GDPR DoH to be scheduled separately Combatting Domain Abuse w/ GDPR included in consolidated session above (Impact of GDPR . . ) Community Engagement Session with the Second Security, Stability, & Resiliency Review Team (SSR2) Pre-Meeting Webinar Community Engagement Session with the Third Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) Pre-Meeting Webinar NomCom Review Implementation Working Group Pre-Meeting Webinar

9 8

Fwd: [ICANN65-PC] FYI - topic suggestions - ICANN65 - GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact
by Maureen Hilyard May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

FYI On 13/05/2019, 11:28, "IDN-WG on behalf of Roberto Gaetano" < idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> wrote: I don’t know if all of us are subscribed to the UA-discuss mailing list. For those who are not, please follow the discussion taking place on this subject because there are some important points about the impact on registrants. The archives for May are at https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/2019-May/thread.html I believe that we should have a discussion in Marrakesh about what we can do in ALAC to bring forward the interests and the needs of IDN Registrants, and raise the attention of the ALAC Leadership on this topic. Cheers, Roberto On 10.05.2019, at 23:30, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> wrote: Hi all. Please find below the email that Jothan Frakes has sent, in his personal capacity, to the UASG mailing list and that I am forwarding you with his permission. I believe that there are some points that should make us think. As Jothan notes, standards do not impact only contracted parties but have an effect also on registrants and users at-large. I believe that we have not done enough so far in identifying those impacts - and maybe this working group is the place where to develop this discussion. I am in Bucharest, where I have attended SEEDIG. This has been a great experience for a number of reasons, a very important one being that most languages in this region have non-ASCII scripts - or have at least diacritical characters that imply the use of IDNs. I have learned that the ccTLDs of this region have different policies for treating variants, and this creates a different user experience in different countries. I was wondering - and I will ask the same question to the UASG - whether we have a report on how variants are managed by different IDN registries. This could be a good starting point to compare the effect upon different registrants and Internet users. Opinions? Cheers, Roberto Begin forwarded message: From: Jothan Frakes <jothan(a)gmail.com<mailto:jothan@gmail.com>> Subject: [UA-discuss] GNSO requested deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 Vote - CPH / Registrants impact Date: 30. April 2019 at 23:27:03 EEST To: "UA-discuss(a)icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss@icann.org>" < UA-discuss(a)icann.org<mailto:UA-discuss@icann.org>> The GNSO just sent a letter to request that the vote on adoption of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 be deferred There is some UA pain that will come from these Guidelines we should be completely aware of. It is important to identify the manner in which standards can impact the contracted parties, such as the Registries and Registrars, but getting even further out the supply chain into registrants and Internet users, there are some impacts to them as well as their audiences. If the new standard causes something that was a separate registration to become a variant of another registration, or invalidates an existing registration, this is a bad outcome for the innovators, developers, and early patrons that supported the internationalization of the namespace. Part of what the objective of UA is, to my reckoning, is to increase engagement and support of coding projects that will require adoption of standards that may not immediately hold levels of RoI to them, and they are looking for reasons not to do them. These new guidelines are good - and needed - they are the result of many people's hard work, time and wisdom, and address many solutions. The approach of pushing these out is problematic. Further, there seems no recourse for those (even if statistically small) who may be impacted adversely, lose their domain, or have it be invalidated (and thus REVERSE their UA experience) There is potential impact to existing TLDs, and most notably to registrants of second level names where there are registrations using former standards that become unsupported or invalidated. A very important challenge we face with the UA effort is inspiring developers to implement IDN and EAI as we help globalize the Internet through our work. IF the approach on standards will be to invalidate some portion of the community of registrations like this, there must be attention to how this impacts existing innovators. Innovators worked to drive the standards and increase awareness - and the invalidation or deprecation of a registration that someone has carried for a number of years (some are 15+ years) is the precise opposite of a reward for early support, and it is going to send a very loud message to developers. I believe that further review is needed by registries on the technical impacts of the changes, but any delay can help ICANN and the community address the disenfranchisement factor. This should be important to UASG - we need developers to embrace the additional effort that they have to invest in their work to consider IDN, EAI and other things. -Jothan Jothan Frakes +1.206-355-0230 tel +1.206-201-6881 fax _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy _______________________________________________ ICANN65-PC mailing list ICANN65-PC(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann65-pc

2 1

Diversity Surveys - Available Results
by Evin Erdogdu May 14, 2019

May 14, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, As per the AI from the 09 May?<https://community.icann.org/x/vImGBg> CPWG meeting, this email is to distribute information related to ICANN diversity surveys: 11 October 2017 Gender Diversity and Participation Survey - Report<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gender-diversity-participation-survey…> 02 April 2019 Age Diversity and Participation Survey - Results TBD<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/take-part-in-icann-s-age-diversity-and-part…>* 24 April 2019 Capacity Development Community Survey - Results<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/capacity-development-community-survey-resul…>? *Please note the recent Age Diversity and Participation Survey closed on 19 April 2019, and I am following up with staff on the results/report. Kind Regards, Evin

1 0

HIT Topics for Marrakech
by Maureen Hilyard May 12, 2019

May 12, 2019

Hi everyone Thank you all for the contributions and discussions that arose out of this request for topics for the HIT/CC sessions in Marrakech. 1. The first issue was the consolidated approach that was proposed by Keith and there were four areas that were suggested and accepted by 8 respondents initially 2. Then after Sebastian suggested DoH there were 15 respondents who agreed to include DoH adding their reasons to Sebastian's "because it is important to end-users and important to keep the Internet open to all". So from the email discussions, the suggestions are: 1. DOH 2. Future of Multistakeholder Model of Governance 3. Effectiveness of Specific Review recommendations 4. UA 5. Combined EPDP2, GDPR, Who is accuracy and Unified Access Model Something to discuss in the CPWG meeting is that if the SO-ACs decide on only 4 sessions, which one would you remove? Also we will need talking points on their final list. Maureen

8 14