- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Call for Comments - by 19 February: First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process
by Evin Erdogdu Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

Dear All, On behalf of Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, this is a final call for comments from the ALAC and CPWG on the statement for First Consultation on a 2-Year Planning Process<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Fir…>. Please see the attached PDF of the ALAC statement, and send comments to staff or Maureen Hilyard by 19 February. The ALAC statement will then be finalized and submitted to public comment. Kind Regards, Evin Ashley Erdoğdu Policy Development Sr. Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement? Alan From: Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com> To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

7 8

EDPB Work Program 2019-2020
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

FWIW, the EDPB has issued its work program for the next two years. You could extract a few topics of broad interest that intersect the ICANN agenda: - The interplay between GDPR and the ePrivacy - Guidance on the use of contractual necessity as a legal basis for processing - Guidance on individual rights pertaining access, erasure, restrictions, objections and the limitations on these rights - Further clarifications on the concepts of [data] processor and controller With all this in the air for the authoritative framework, the ePDPD outcomes may just be hoisted with its own petard. See it here: https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb-2019-02-12plen-2.1… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

ALAC Statement to accompany EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 17, 2019

Feb. 17, 2019

As discussed today the statement has been modified to address the issues raised on the CPWG teleconference. The SSAC has also issue a statement (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html) and I took the opportunity to add a few comments prompted by their document. A redline and clean version is attached. Alan

7 8

Comments from other EPDP participants
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Feb. 16, 2019

Feb. 16, 2019

Hello all, as Alan pointed out, the SSAC statement is on: * Consensus calls, SSAC - Bundle 3 <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001682.html> Comments from other EPDP participants make for interesting reading: * RySG feedback on 11 Feb Draft of phase 1 report <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001684.html> * NCSG comments on the final report <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001686.html> Happy reading, Olivier

3 3

Fw: Meeting Invitation: GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi Feb. 16, 2019

Feb. 16, 2019

For those interested in following the meeting Hadia ________________________________ From: Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team <ntfy-gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon(a)icann.org> Sent: 11 February 2019 19:59 To: ntfy-gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Ntfy-gnso-epdp-team] Meeting Invitation: GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours **There are calls for both 19 & 20 February. I am sending both invitations now to get them on your calendars.** Dear all, The forty-seventh meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP Team is scheduled on Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 3 hours. 06:00 PST, 09:00 EST, 15:00 Paris CET, 19:00 Karachi PKT, 23:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 01:00 Melbourne AEDT For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4bzjqkv Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/FoU2Bg Please ensure you read the below information: CONFERENCE CALL INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS Adobe Connect room: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-team If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest…> Please allow yourself additional time before start of meeting to log into Adobe Connect. **Important**- Please log into Adobe Connect with your FIRST and LAST NAME-AFFILIATION/INDIVIDUAL Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar. ALTERNATES will be assigned by Members in case of Member absence for a determined period of time and will therefore replace the aforementioned Member on the mailing list and on conference calls. In case of absence, members must assign an appointed Alternate via the Alternate Assignment form [goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_xtfYf9mWF…>. MEETING AUDIO CAST AND VIEW ONLY ADOBE CONNECT (FOR ALTERNATES AND OBSERVERS) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> To join via Verizon Bridge, see dial in numbers and participant passcode below. Kind regards, Andrea ___________________________________________________________ To join the audio bridge, call in using the appropriate phone number below and provide the Participant Passcode verbally to the operator. Participant passcode: EPDP Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus calls, SSAC - Bundle 3
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Feb. 16, 2019

Feb. 16, 2019

For those of you who are not subscribed to the EPDP mailing list, here are some Interesting points made by the SSAC. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Consensus calls, SSAC - Bundle 3 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 23:41:45 +0000 From: Ben Butler <bbutler(a)godaddy.com> To: Kurt Pritz <kurt(a)kjpritz.com> CC: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Hi Kurt, As requested, and after deliberating with SSAC members, here are the consensus call positions from SSAC for Bundle 3/3B. I have grouped the recommendations based on our position. We have provided comments on a few for inclusion/consideration in the report to GNSO Council. SSAC will likely provide additional comments next week as well based on the extended deadline referred to in your last correspondence. *_Supported Recommendations:_* * * *Recommendation #5*(old #4) - Data elements to be collected by Registrars – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation with the understanding that Registrars must support / process Tech Contact data if it is provided by the RNH* *_ _* *_Explanation:_* There is some confusion whether Recommendation 5 requires registrars to offer the Tech Contact fields to their Registered Name Holders or not. This is because Recommendation 5's table marks the Tech Contact fields as mandatory to collect, but Recommendation 5 also says "if the Registrar provides this option". SSAC understands that there are legal requirements for collecting and transferring the Tech Contact data which will need to be discussed in the implementation phase. SSAC believes that the ePDP Team's discussion was: Registrars MUST offer the Registered Name Holder the opportunity to provide Technical Contact data. Technical Contact data should be optional for the Registered Name Holder to provide. If Technical Contact data is provided to the registrar, the data must be provisioned to the registry. If that is what Recommendation 5 delivers, SSAC can endorse Recommendation 5. If Recommendation 5 does not deliver that, SSAC cannot endorse Recommendation 5. *Recommendation #7*(old #5)– Data elements to be transferred from Registrars to Registries – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #9*(old #7) – Contractual Compliance – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #10*(old #8) – Data Redaction – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #12*(old #9) – Organization field – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #13*(old #10) – Email communication – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #14* – Privacy/Proxy Registrations – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #19*(old #13) - Controller Agreement – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #20*(old #14) - Responsible Parties – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #27*(old #22) – Impact on other policies – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #29*– Admin Contact Transition – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #2*–Additional Purposes – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *_Dissentions:_* * * *Recommendation #16*– Geographic Basis – *SSAC cannot support the recommendation as written (See Below)* *Recommendation #17*– Natural vs. legal – *SSAC cannot support the recommendation as written (See Below)* *_Reasoning:_* Recommendations 16 and 17 have a negative effect on security and legitimate contactability. Recommendation 16 allows significant over-redaction of data not required by GDPR (or other laws currently in place), and enables a race to the bottom, allowing venue-shopping without respect to the actual location of registrars or registrants. Recommendation 17 enables ongoing redaction of information about legal persons that do not have the rights of natural persons. These outcomes are not balanced, and are neither necessary nor desirable. We believe that better, more balanced solutions are both legally and technically possible and should be discussed. It is the SSAC's position that: * Recommendation 16: Registrars and Registry Operators must be obligated to differentiate between registrants on a geographic -- i.e. legal jurisdiction basis, after a suitable implementation period. * Recommendation 17: Registrars and Registry Operators must be obligated to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, after a suitable implementation period. Regarding Recommendation 17: * The EPDP Team will discuss the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2, and SSAC looks forward to participating in that discussion. Should Recommendation 17 be adopted by Council, SSAC notes that the study criteria in section #2 are unbalanced and must be updated. They assume that the main decision-making criteria are the costs and risks to contracted parties. The list is missing consideration of how policy affects third parties with legitimate interests, and how the law imposes new responsibilities(and therefore costs) on the Contracted Parties . As SAC104 notes: "The GDPR imposes certain new obligations and therefore risk and costs on registrars and registry operators. It has also imposed risk and costs on the parties who rely upon domain registration data for the wide array of legitimate purposes. The GDPR calls for balancing and the accommodation of legitimate security interests, explicitly called out in Recital 49. ICANN policy should also provide balanced solutions. In some cases the Initial [and now the Final] Report asks what costs will be borne by the Contracted Parties, but does not also evaluate the costs on all other parties, or the cost of not putting a balanced solution into place. Cost or risk to registrars or registry operators alone is not a persuasive argument against balanced solutions." *_Supporting Documentation:_* SAC104: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-104-en.pdf SAC101v2: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-101-v2-en.pdf As SSAC stated in SAC104: "The GDPR states clearly that it 'does not cover processing of personal data which concerns legal persons.' We recommend that registrars be required to deploy mechanisms that ensure a reliable declaration or determination of natural or legal person status for new registrations going forward, and to eventually obtain those declarations or determinations for existing registrations and their registrants. "Contact data associated with natural persons should be published in RDS where such is not prohibited by local law. In SAC101, SSAC stated: 'The new policy [The Temporary Specification] allows RDDS operators complete freedom to choose when to redact domain contact data from publication, whether or not a domain contact is protected by GDPR or by any other local privacy law. The result has been blanket redactions, hiding more data than is legally called for. A more balanced and justified approach is needed.. access should not be less timely, more restricted, and less public than law requires.... We also note that as of this writing, most ccTLD operators in the European Union continue to publish some (and sometimes all) contact data fields for domains registered by legal persons. Some continue to publish some personal data for natural person registrants in public WHOIS output.' "SAC101 also highlights RIPE-NCC's solution, which allows for the publication of data about natural persons contained in the contact data for legal persons. This process provides mechanisms that RIPE-NCC says were specifically designed to comply with GDPR. The RIPE-NCC solution seems to be balanced in that it provides contactability and does not overapply the law. SSAC believes that RIPE's model deserves a full examination and neutral legal evaluation.... We also recommend the following: 1. Introduction of a policy requiring registrants to make a legal or natural person declaration. 2. Obtaining declaration would be mandatory for registrars to implement within a reasonable time. 3. A declaration would only be required during registration events, i.e. when a new domain is registered, or when an existing domain is renewed or transferred (by gaining registrar). This would eventually "fill in" status data about existing/historical registrations. 4. Registrar may make declaration on behalf of registrant if the registrar has reasonable knowledge of registrant's status and the registrant has not made a declaration of its own. This would be applicable to registrars with specific business models, for instance when they only process registrations on behalf of organizations where it is clear that the registrant falls into a particular category based on their relationship with the registrar. 5. Registrant may change its declaration at any time. 6. The absence of a declaration results in assumption that the registrant is a natural person; i.e. a default redaction of data. 7. Inaccurate declarations will be subject to a revised WHOIS inaccuracy complaint process." *_Cluster #3B_* * * *Recommendation #11*City Field – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #15*(new #11) - Data retention – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #18*(old #12) – Reasonable access – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* *Recommendation #28*- Implementation Transition Period – *SSAC concurs with the recommendation as written* As always, please reach out if we can provide any additional context or clarification. -Ben

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

Thanks Seun. Note that Rec #6 does allow you to specify that your contact information be disdplayed (on the registrar site only!) but no timeline when they must provide this option. If you are in general supporting the issuing of the statement, it would be helpful to put that on the record (no obligation obviously though!). On not accepting the report on the whole, this was debated on the last CPWG call and the consensus (but not unanimous) was that we not do that. Alan At 15/02/2019 04:59 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: Hello Alan, Thanks for sharing this which is good. A few minor editorials and comment: 1. "â€œthat it would be difficult to argue that *that* processing to prevent DNS...." 2 "...Phase 2 will *be* address the deferred issues as..." 3. I am not sure why we say "we do not accept" certain issues yet we seem to end our statement by accepting the report. Since/if we have red-lines then we should clearly not accept the report as a whole. However if we can live with the report as indicated in the last paragraph then I suggest we modify the following: "To be specific, the results which we cannot accept are:...." So it doesn't contradict the acceptance stated in the last paragraph. That said, I agree with Gorge, that the element of choice/consent is being taken away from registrants in terms of what they want to provide and publish. It's election period in my country, my apologies as I won't be present at upcoming cpwg call Regards Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, 01:28 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report. I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns. The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency. Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. WORD and PDF formats are attached. Alan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

3 3

URGENT: DRAFT ALAC Statement on the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

As discussed on the CPWG call yesterday, attached please find the draft statement to be attached to the report. I believe that it addresses all of the issues we discussed and for which there was general concern. As decided, we will support the overall report, but note that some of the particular recommendations do not have our support. Others we will support but nevertheless have concerns. The lack of focus on public interest issues puts into question whether Phase 2 will suitably address access and other issues. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED BY THE END OF FRIDAY. Please make any comments with utmost urgency. Maureen tells me that she will issue a VERY SHORT Consensus Call tomorrow, to complete prior to the submission deadline. WORD and PDF formats are attached. Alan

10 11

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 2019

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Si necesita una llamada a su telefono, por favor póngase en contacto con el personal de At-Large en staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> con su número preferido. Por favor, recuerde que es posible conectar el audio a través de la Adobe Connect, sin necesidad de utilizar su teléfono. Se necesita una conexión a Internet estable. Si desea un recordatorio de cómo conectar por favor que el personal sepa. Por favor note que esta llamada tendra interpretación en ES. Please note this call will have ES interpretation. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yyylfzho The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/Jok2Bg AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ 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