March 2022 - GNSO-Accuracy-ST

Reminder:ICANN Zoom room requirements: Zoom Logins: First & Last Name/ Surname Only
by Nathalie Peregrine March 9, 2022

March 9, 2022

Dear all, To ensure transparency of participation in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, please remember to sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name (e.g. First Name + Last Name/Surname). If you are in a session using the webinar format, you will need to first exit the Zoom room prior to rejoining. Please reach out to your support staff if you have any difficulties joining a Zoom session. To rename in a regular Zoom room: 1. Join the meeting. 2. Tap Participants. 3. Hover over your name on the participants list. 4. Click More. 5. Click Rename. 6. Enter the name you desire then click Rename. 7. Your name has now been changed within the meeting. To rename in a webinar Zoom room: 1. BEFORE entering the meeting, and during the login phase, update your Zoom name here: [cid:image001.png@01D83300.B8213430] 1. If you forget to do so, you can always log out of the webinar Zoom room and edit your name upon re-entering. Please contact your support staff if you run into any issues. Thank you! Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Combined Response Harald & Steve Response
by Michael Palage March 8, 2022

March 8, 2022

Hello All, This is a joint response to the emails of Harald and Steve which both seem to focus on "purpose." Harald was articulating his view of purpose being "contact ability" and Steve articulating his view of purpose being focused on "parties receiving the data." Respectfully, I believe that defining "accuracy" is a condition precedent before we consider "purpose" based upon the following instructions in our Charter from the GNSO Council: In carrying out its work above, the Scoping Team is expected to take into account the policy recommendations from the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data (EPDP) Team that have been adopted by the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, including the EPDP-identified purposes and the related data processing activities. However, the scoping team is not tasked to review these purposes or suggest changes. If the scoping team finds that further review of these purposes is necessary, especially in the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, it will identify this as an area of further work in its recommendations. Our ability to suggest potential changes to "purpose" outside of those identified in EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #1 is limited to identifying potential changes necessary within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements. To be clear I am not making any determination at this time regarding necessity within the context of implementation and enforcement of existing requirements, although I suspect based on previous discussions where the individuals members will line up on this question. However, I am NOT asking that question at this time. I will be asking our ICANN Org colleagues to send out a Doddle Poll as that makes participation / non-participation easier to track. Best regards, Michael

4 6

ICANN Zoom room requirements: Zoom Logins: First & Last Name/ Surname Only
by Nathalie Peregrine March 8, 2022

March 8, 2022

Dear all, To ensure transparency of participation in ICANN’s multistakeholder model, please remember to sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name (e.g. First Name + Last Name/Surname). If you are in a session using the webinar format, you will need to first exit the Zoom room prior to rejoining. Please reach out to your support staff if you have any difficulties joining a Zoom session. To rename in a regular Zoom room: 1. Join the meeting. 2. Tap Participants. 3. Hover over your name on the participants list. 4. Click More. 5. Click Rename. 6. Enter the name you desire then click Rename. 7. Your name has now been changed within the meeting. To rename in a webinar Zoom room: 1. BEFORE entering the meeting, and during the login phase, update your Zoom name here: [cid:image001.png@01D83300.B8213430] 1. If you forget to do so, you can always log out of the webinar Zoom room and edit your name upon re-entering. Please contact your support staff if you run into any issues. Thank you! Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Level Setting
by Michael Palage March 8, 2022

March 8, 2022

Hello All, I am looking forward to a productive ICANN73 public session tomorrow. I spent the past several days trying to digest all of the exchanges that took place last Thursday. While I think we are close to wrapping up our work on Assignments 1 & 2, I think it would be constructive to quickly level set and make sure we are all on the same page to minimize potential future confusion. Part of my level setting involved going back to the original GNSO Council’s charge to the Scoping Team which asked is there “an agreed definition of registration data accuracy and, if not, consider what working definitions should be used in the context of the Scoping Team's deliberations.” See https://community.icann.org/display/AST/2.+Council+Instructions+to+Scoping+… This task at first blush seems simple enough, but as we have learned there have been several concerns raised in connection with the use of the term “definition” and the meaning of “accuracy.” Therefore, instead of using the term “definition” as proposed by the GNSO Council I propose that we use the phrase “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct.” I believe this should meet the concerns of the RrSG that have repeatedly raised concerns about “providing a definition” and the concerns of the GAC and others about how a definition might bias future discussions. Is there any objection to us using the phrase “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct?” If so please explain your objection and proposed alternative suggestion. Next we need to tackle what I have deemed the accuracy conundrum. The intervention by Stephanie this past week reminded me of some previous research that I was doing which I decided to revisit. I think Stephanie hit the nail on the head when she talked about how “accuracy” to most people conveys a binary choice, e.g. the data is accurate or is the data inaccurate. It is a black or white answer with no room for grey. In fact this seemed to align closely with the RrSG proposed “current contractual requirements and enforcement construct.” If the data collected meets syntactical validation and either the email or phone number was operationally verified, then the data provided by the Registrant was “accurate” per their interpretation of the 2013 RAA. So I decided to spend a couple of hours researching the definition and origins of the word “accuracy” online and with an old school trip to the local library. I believe this definition of the word “accuracy” best describes the conundrum that we as a group find ourselves. noun, plural 1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness. 2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def. 6). 3. Mathematics. the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def. 5). Source Dictionary.com Now the first definition “being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect” is a rather high bar, particularly if you are applying this bar to all registration data elements processed like some working group members have advocated. However, that bar is substantially lower if free from defect simply means that the data collected by the Registrar was syntactically correct and a Registrar at a point in time got an affirmative response from either telephone number or an email. Alternatively, the third definition of a “degree of correctness” suggests something other than a binary accurate or inaccurate response. Therefore to help steer our future discussions I would like everyone to answer the following question: Question #1 For purposes of our Working Group the term accuracy should be defined as: [ ] true, correct and free from error; or [ ] degree of correctness; (PICK ONE) I think once we get clarity and/or agreement on these points, we should have a more clearly defined path forward for our post ICANN73 call. Best regards, Michael

7 11

FYI - Latest Developing Board Guidance on RDS Accuracy
by Brian Gutterman March 7, 2022

March 7, 2022

Hi all, FYI As Becky has referenced during our session today, the below was sent to the GAC leadership from Goran yesterday re. some of the latest thinking and discussions of the Board re. registration data accuracy. Best, Brian RE: For GAC Leadership Information – ICANN73 Prep – Latest Board Feedback Planned on Accuracy of Registration Data Dear Manal and GAC Vice-Chairs, As you know, the Board had some productive workshop discussions this weekend regarding continued ICANN org efforts to ensure the accuracy of registration data. As a result of the discussions, further Board guidance has been developed for how to address these issues going forward. The language set forth below has been developed as a guide for further oral discussions the Board may have with community groups during ICANN73. It is likely to be shared Monday during discussions with the GNSO and later in the week during the GAC’s meeting with the ICANN Board. “The ICANN Board first of all would like to highlight its support for continued efforts to ensure the accuracy of registration data. ICANN org continues to advocate for greater clarity from the competent European authorities on several outstanding questions and issues regarding the application of the GDPR to registration data when opportunities arise. The issue of data accuracy is one of the areas that would benefit from greater clarity. In relation to data accuracy, the ICANN Board has requested ICANN org to prepare a number of specific scenarios for which it will consult the EDPB on whether or not ICANN org has a legitimate purpose that is proportionate, i.e., not outweighed by the privacy rights of the individual data subject(s) to request Contracted Parties to provide access to individual records as well as bulk access to registration data in order to review the accuracy of registration data. The ICANN Board is of the view that this clarification will further inform discussions on this topic and will be helpful to address the issue of accuracy, as ICANN org could take further steps like restart the WHOIS ARS. The EC has committed to facilitate ongoing dialogue with the EDPB and European DPAs. We hope the EC will help bring this question to the level of the EDPB. We highlight that the CPs have a responsibility for the accuracy of the data. A Registrant has to provide accurate data to a Contracted Party who has the obligation to confirm that existing accuracy requirements are being met. If a Registrant is found not to meet the obligation to provide accurate data, the registration will be suspended. Furthermore, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy, including at CPs own initiative, in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, Registrar must take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. But here is the problem, Registration Data is no longer publicly available which makes it difficult if not impossible to see if the Registrant listed is Mickey Mouse. Even for ICANN org.” Please let me know if I can provide further preparation information for the GAC meeting with the Board later this week. Best, Göran #. #. #

1 0

Proposed Agenda - Accuracy Scoping Team ICANN73 Session on Monday 7 March at 16.30 UTC
by Marika Konings March 4, 2022

March 4, 2022

Dear All, In line with yesterday’s discussion, please find hereby the proposed agenda for the Accuracy Scoping Team’s ICANN73 session: Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to work of the Accuracy Scoping Team & current status 3. Review Gap Analysis Data Collection Proposals (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit) * Walk through of proposals * Scoping Team to consider upside, downside and possible next steps for each proposal * Confirm next steps 4. Confirm homework assignment for accuracy current status definition<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGdNLjOjhmJnj-iDaGvcVnv1gZ5tQu5C/edit> 5. Opportunity for community questions and input 6. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Thursday 17 March at 14.00 UTC) As a reminder the meeting being held during ICANN73 will take place on Monday, 07 March 2022 at 12:30 local time (16:30 UTC). ICANN73 wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/xAEiCw. Please be sure you are registered for ICANN73! Zoom participation links will be published 24 hours before the ICANN73 sessions start. For more information on how to participate, visit: https://73.schedule.icann.org/attend. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika

1 0

Notes and action items - RDA Scoping Team Meeting #20 - 3 March 2022
by Caitlin Tubergen March 3, 2022

March 3, 2022

Dear RDA Scoping Team Members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. As a reminder, the next meeting will be on Monday, 7 March at 16:30 UTC. Please remember to registrar for ICANN73 in order to access the details for this session. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items 1. In advance of the ICANN73 RDA Scoping Team Session on Monday at 16:30 UTC, RDA Scoping Team Members to review the Gap Analysis Proposal Review. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit) Note: this document was compiled by Support Staff in an effort to distill the proposals made by Scoping Team Members, including upsides and downsides noted by either the proposer or other team members in subsequent discussions. The document is not meant to restrict the group into choosing one proposal, but rather, the group should review all proposals and see which proposals provide a viable path to forward progress. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Meeting #20 Thursday 3 March at 14.00 UTC 1. Welcome & Chair Updates (10 minutes) * ICANN73 Working Session proposed agenda: • Brief overview of background and current status • Continue deliberations (e.g., accuracy working definition, review of existing data sources) * Will go over table of pros, cons, etc. * Marc A. suggested this idea during the last meeting – to look through the input received by different groups regarding how data could be obtained. Support Staff went through the input and distilled a number of specific proposals. In some cases, similar proposals are grouped together. When upsides and downsides were identified either in the proposal or in subsequent discussions, these have been included. Staff has also proposed next steps in some instances. * Note: the document isn’t designed as a “choose one” – multiple proposals could be chosen; the team is now asked to look at which proposal(s) could be viable * Action item: RDA Scoping Team to review the document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sScP8MwgDCg4yvFNAYwQVql7DQob60vX/edit) in advance of Monday’s ICANN73 session. * This document is a good way of getting into the gap analysis. • Q & A session 1. Measurement of accuracy (10 minutes) * Review remaining input received on google doc [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11msexuoqWSUs…>, see page 25 - How and by whom can it be measured whether current goal(s) of existing accuracy requirements are met? * ISPCP – * RAA spells out accuracy requirements – build on this * Build on third party reports on inaccurate data * Could also collect and compare different data points with other registrars’ data points * Some of this work is harmed by the lack of DPAs – ICANN will not be able to see the actual data, but the methodology can be agreed upon and ICANN audits could confirm if the registrar is applying the correct methodology * There is likely a joint controller situation b/w ICANN and CPs, and JCA could spell our roles and responsibilities with respect to accuracy * When it comes to rectifying data, registrars have the largest pool of data to assist with this * Role of resellers: probably have been one of the overlooked and unaccounted links in the domain name ecosystem * Re: red herring – a lot can be done by drafting additional data processing agreements, but what are we trying to achieve? During Phase 1 of EPDP, there is a recommendation for ICANN and CPs to come up with draft protection arrangements. For a DPA, you can allocate functional responsibilities for the joint controllers. * Confirm next steps 1. Accuracy working definition / construct (30 minutes) * Review input received (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JGdNLjOjhmJnj-iDaGvcVnv1gZ5tQu5C/edit[d…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1JGdNLjOjhmJn…>) * For clarity, the 2013 RAA also includes all consensus policies * ICANN Compliance did respond to the draft construct; the response did not change the requirements, but rather, explains when the requirements are tested * Based upon the requirements set forth in 2013 RAA, what are potential changes or enhancements for the group to consider? * Thought team was asked to comment on the definition proposed by the RrSG – seems that now we are discussing how the 2013 RAA is currently implemented. These are different things, and members may have responded differently based on what they thought the assignment was. * There is an inherent confusion in the highlighted assignment: there is a difference b/w what is currently required contractually and what is or what should be a working definition as a task of this accuracy scoping team * Should consider using the term data quality instead of data accuracy – accuracy has a binary quality – what this group is talking about is whether it is formatted correctly, updated in a reasonable timeframe, etc. This implies a role for ICANN that has yet to be defined in a DPA through the parties. ICANN has made progress in how it sees itself, but the details of that are still muddy since the 2013 RAA was hatched without any regard to data protection law. Some issues are on the other side of the picket fence. If this were a negotiated policy, ICANN could argue that it is not a controller. * The problem is when we talk about accuracy and requirements, these are not the same thing. To be accurate to contactability – when Whois was started, the goal was contactability, so accuracy seems to be can someone be contacted. The requirements that have been put in place to achieve the accuracy are not accuracy in and of themselves. Are these contacts contactable? Think what this question was intended to mean: Are there additional requirements that the RrSG did not include that ICANN org included in their comments? * Thought working definition meant what the current definition is, not necessarily what it should be. Once current definition is established, the team can review if changes are needed * The group has struggled with the use of working definition. Important to take note that reference to a working definition is part of the first assignment – this gets to the understanding of the current situation – this allows the group to move to the second assignment – how is this currently measured? There needs to be agreement on what the current requirements of enforcement are. Rrs came forward with current requirements; ICANN responded. Having looked at the proposals here, some are jumping ahead to what they would like the definition to be, but this is about what is currently required and enforced so that we can use that as the benchmark over whether current requirements are being met. * To facilitate and avoid confusion – refer to it as a current description of obligations * When this group started, the RrSG put forward a definition based upon interpretations of 2013 RAA requirements. Yesterday, in a message, started with a presumption that this is a binary process. One definition of accuracy is binary – it is either accurate or inaccurate. Syntactical and operational accuracy of one element. Feedback from Compliance regarding its standard operation procedures – this was not just limited to syntactical and operational accuracy. In response to Mickey Mouse, the term “patently false” was used. What this group needs to be focusing on – what is the grey area here? That is part of the gap analysis. This analysis will help guide the group through assignments 3 and 4. The group is not excluding here; instead, taking the analysis and gathering what the current state is, see if there is a gap, and provide a path forward. * Current RAA has not been revised to look at whether requirements comply with the GDPR – when will that be done and how? Is that within the scope of this team? Do not think so. * For example, identity accuracy is a difficult term, it is not a requirement for registering a domain name. Do not need identity accuracy to register a domain name. * Main requirement for CPs is to accurately process data as it is inputted by the registrants. * There is no absolute bar against certainty about the identity of a registrant – that is a current decision that has been made, and it’s a perfectly rational decision, but it’s also a perfectly rational position to make requirements regarding who, in fact, the registrant is. Trying to draw a very firm line that precludes stricter requirements is a policy discussion. * This scoping team was not looking at what GDPR requires – what we have today is currently above GDPR * There appears to be a global platform that permits anyone to be anyone else without any preventative measures taken – it’s as if a blind eye is turned to domain registration. Why should accuracy not include truth? * Accuracy, in and of itself, is a registrant obligation. Registrars have to act upon inaccurate information when there is evidence of this. No one is saying the information is accurate other than the registrant. * The purpose is contactability; now others are suggesting it’s contactability and identity. Accuracy today is geared toward contactability. * The comment that ID accuracy would promote crime is incorrect – as recognized in early documents in 2000 and 2005 clearly dealt with identity validation – not sure where this got lost along the way. The fact is that everything has evolved since 2013 – criminals and cyber-squatters have evolved – there is a need for this policy to evolve to create preventive aspect from filing fraudulent registration data. * These comments should be discussed later and not here – some have noted that questions would have been answered differently if they understood the assignment better. * As the group goes forward, would be helpful if groups can update what their answer should have been. * RDA Scoping Team Members to update their answers based on the updated question: Based on the feedback from ICANN org, what updates, if any, should be made to the RrSG proposed “current state” definition so that it accurately describes the current requirements and enforcements of these requirements. (Note: question was updated to clarify the original assignment.) * Confirm next steps 1. Review of existing data sources (30 minutes) * See compilation<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/173703498/Gap%20analysis%2…> developed by Staff Support Team as well as overview of ARS Cycle 6 findings<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/173703498/From%20the%20Pha…> * Team to consider these existing data sources and role in assessing existing current situation & identifying possible gaps * Confirm next steps 1. Additional questions for ICANN Compliance (10 minutes) (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1LuurmDdd-PZP184_AdFm/edit?p… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1arlKdQkbRkE1…>) * Introduce questions (Alan, Michael) * EPDP Team input * Confirm next steps 1. Confirm action items & next meeting (ICANN73 - Monday 7 March at 16.30 UTC)

1 0

IMPORTANT - Session change ICANN73: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase
by Julie Bisland March 3, 2022

March 3, 2022

Dear all, ⚠️ Due to scheduling conflicts the ICANN73 session New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase will take place at a different time and date. ⚠️ Previously scheduled for Wednesday 9 March 2022 at 09:00 am local time (13:00 UTC), it will now take place on Monday 7 March 2022 at 12:30 local time (16:30 UTC). To update your calendars please follow the below steps: 1. Remove the entry for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase on Wednesday 9 March 2022 09:00 am local time. 2. If you had already selected the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures: Operational Design Phase entry in your “My Agenda” on the ICANN73 website, you will not need to re-select it. You will however need to export that session once again to your own calendar. 3. Please refer to the attached “How to Get Organised” email to refresh your memories on how to download sessions! Please reach out to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you have any questions. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 3, 2022

March 3, 2022

As a reminder the meeting being held during ICANN73 will take place on Monday, 07 March 2022 at 12:30 local time (16:30 UTC). * ICANN73 wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/xAEiCw * Please be sure you are registered for ICANN73! * Zoom participation links will be published 24 hours before the ICANN73 sessions start. For more information on how to participate, visit: https://73.schedule.icann.org/attend [73.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/73.schedule.icann.org/attend__;!!PtGJab4…> Find below the meeting details for the call taking place after ICANN73. ************************************************************* Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZE…> Passcode: Vc#0B7$pu8 For Audio only: Or One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# or +13126266799,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# Webinar ID: 945 0468 6990 Passcode: 4631547480 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd__;!!PtGJab4!pY…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, alternates and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/6RQiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/3sse849u ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/GZqMAi4kKDaVP5o66__;!!PtGJab4!…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment –wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/-wC7Cg>. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

**Starting in 15 minutes | Meeting invitation | Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team | Thursday, 03 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew March 3, 2022

March 3, 2022

**Starting in 15 minutes Dear all, The Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 03 March 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZENk9yN0RqOUUzaGx2eGV0QT09<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94504686990?pwd=MWc2eXZE…> Passcode: Vc#0B7$pu8 For Audio only: Or One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# or +13126266799,,94504686990#,,,,*4631547480# Webinar ID: 945 0468 6990 Passcode: 4631547480 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/akRu7JTFd__;!!PtGJab4!pY…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> Members, participants, alternates and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send dial out requests to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/nxIiCw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/2p8mvfh8 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2p8mvfh8__;!!PtGJab4!v4Ln_GB…> ONLY for Members and Alternates * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. * Alternate replacement confirmations – In order to keep track of alternate replacements, use the google form <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/forms.gle/GZqMAi4kKDaVP5o66__;!!PtGJab4!…> to communicate who the alternate is replacing and for which period. This information will be publicly posted so that the Team is aware at any time who is active. Alternate Assignment –wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/-wC7Cg>. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0