December 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

IDNs EPDP Team meeting
by ICANN Policy Calendar Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Meeting: IDNs EPDP Team meeting Pattern: Weekly on Thursday’s 05 January 2023 – 02 March 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 2 hours Please click the link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH 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, 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the agenda wiki page (05 January): https://community.icann.org/x/X5E-DQ * For other places see (05 January): https://tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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.

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 15 December 2022
by Devan Reed Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 15 December 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/O4YFDQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/uAPpCQ>. Thank you! Kind Regards, Devan

2 1

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 22 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> 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, 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/PYYFDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ct9kn22r ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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, Devan

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #62 - 15 December 2022
by Emily Barabas Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 15 December 2022 Action Items Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to submit apologies if they do not plan to attend next week’s call. Action Item 2: Edmon to come back to the EPDP Team with any areas where the Board Working Group has identified divergence between EPDP and ccPDP4 recommendations. Notes Welcome and Chair Updates * Next Thursday is our final call of the year. EPDP Team members are requested to submit apologies if they do not plan to attend next week’s call. If attendance is expected to be very low, the call will be cancelled. Otherwise it will be held as scheduled. Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to submit apologies if they do not plan to attend next week’s call. Review of Charter Question E7 (Catch-all) Singulars and Plural Versions of a Word * Slide 4 – Jeff’s question -- Did the EPDP Team consider singulars and plurals when deliberating on the String Similarity Review involving variants? * When the small group was deliberating on the hybrid model, they did not discuss singulars and plurals. Jeff asked this question in the context of the EPDP Team review of the small team’s work. * Slide 5-6 – SubPro Context – Recommendation 24.3, Implementation Guidance 24.4, and Recommendation 24.5. * Comment: For Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, this type of pluralization doesn’t work in the same way. * Question: There are many languages that use the Arabic script. How would these recommendations be handled in this context? * Comment: Additional questions raised about whether the concept of singular and plural applies to different scripts. For the sake of completeness, we should cover this in the report. If the SubPro recommendation doesn’t create any issues, is it possible to apply to SubPro recommendations without any issue, and if so, this group can affirm them? Do we just apply these recommendations to the primary or also the variants? It may make the most sense to focus on the primary. * Comment: The SubPro recommendation would seem to apply to all scripts which make morphological changes for singular and plural. English is an example. It adds, for example, an “s” or and “es” in the plural form. In some languages, number is not a morphological phenomenon. It is a more syntactical phenomenon. These recommendations will apply to languages with morphological changes. It will have to be determined in implementation if and how it applies to other languages. * Comment: This may not be as easy as we think it might be. If you apply for a TLD in Latin, you don’t usually state which language group you are targeting. If a script is used for multiple languages, would you need to check for all plural forms for all languages? * Clarification: The applicant identifies the language of application, and that language is used for singular/plural assessment. * Reminder: It is not the task of this group to figure out the implementation of the SubPro recommendations. This will be done by the IRT. * Summary: Some support expressed for affirming the SubPro approach. To be confirmed by the EPDP Team. * SubPro suggested that any applied for label would go through this process, this seems to imply that it could also include variants (one interpretation), but this is something to clarify. * Question: Is a variant potentially a variant of a source label? * Comment: This can be sorted in implementation of SubPro. * Slide 7 – Effect of SubPro recommendations - Expand contention set to include singulars and plurals of the same words. The singulars and plurals may or may not visually resemble each other but nonetheless could create a probability of user confusion. * Slide 8 - Possible Scenarios Involving Singulars/Plurals & Variants * Comment: Why limit this to plurals in a contention set. What about other types of modifications, such as male and female? * Response: Morphologically, words can be modified in different ways. The SubPro WG only shortlisted singular/plural. * Comment: On the forms of plural, the SubPro recommendations suggest to use a dictionary to determine singulars/plural. These discussions would be finalized and interpreted in implementation. There may be different forms that pluralization occurs and dictionaries will be used as a source. * Summary: There does not appear to be a problem for this group making a recommendation to support the SubPro recommendations. The leadership team will confirm with the group in a second conversation. Evaluation Criteria for Requested Variants of Applied-for Strings with Restrictions * Slide 11 – Context - Do restrictions that apply to a TLD (e.g., community TLDs, dot brand TLDs) also apply to its variants? Are these labels equally treated as different versions of the same string, or completely independent strings not bound by the same restrictions? * Slide 12 – Preliminary Recommendation & Rationale - Recommendation 2.8: In future new gTLD application processes, the primary applied-for gTLD and its allocatable variant labels requested by the applicant are to be treated as different versions of the same string and will be bound by the same restrictions. * In the context of considering these issue, do we need to consider the set. The place where this gets complicated is with .brands. * Slide 13 – Question: Should the requested variants meet the same application requirements and evaluation criteria as the primary gTLDs? * Slide 14 -- Examples of Existing gTLDs with “Restrictions” * Reminder: geographical names are a limited set within specific categories. * Comment: There needs to be some identification of the set based on the primary/source label. In thinking about these restrictions, we have to think about it as the primary and its variants. * Comment: The idea that there is one application should apply here. For .kids, there might be different language communities that might use this term for different things in simplified vs. traditional Chinese. A letter of support should apply to the form that is relevant to their language community. It shouldn’t be necessary for supporting organizations to submit multiple letters to support different variants in the set. Suggestion that where support letters are needed, the letter should reference the entire set. * Question: For .brands, should there need to be a trademark attached to the variant? * Comment: this should be optional. The principle is that it is one application, so there should be just one trademark required. * Comment: If it’s a community, the identified community needs to support the set, although it might speak to a specific element of the set. If it’s a geo name such as a capital city name, the support letter needs to be for the set. AOB * Edmon as Board Liaison to the EPDP – If and where EPDP and the ccPDP4 recommendations are expected to diverge, the Board would like to see a section of the recommendations that identifies and explains divergence. * Leadership comment: If the Board Working Group has identified areas of divergence, can they share this with the EPDP Team? Action Item 2: Edmon to come back to the EPDP Team with any areas where the Board Working Group has identified divergence between EPDP and ccPDP4 recommendations. * From the leadership perspective, there are areas that may diverge but that there does not seem to be inconsistency. If the Board disagrees, this should be surfaced so the IDN EPDP and ccPDP4 can discuss and try to resolve before the recommendations of the respective groups are finalized. * Personal view from Edmon: There is general alignment but some nuanced differences. From the Board point of view, these are the things we need to identify, for example about how to accept or not accept and application to continue, in light of differences in the nature of application windows vs. rolling acceptance. * Response: EPDP Team can speak to the differences, to the extent they are known, in the Final Report. * Additional Topic: SubPro ODP – If the Board decides to proceed with Option 2, what are the implications for our work? * Additional information is needed to understand if and how this work is in the way of the next round. It may not be the case that IDN EPDP gets in the way of the next rounds. Under Option 2, within each 12 month period, there would be an application window, but it may not be possible to apply for variants in the first window. Additional information is needed from org. * The EPDP will continue to work towards the target dates included in the PCR and deliver ahead of those timeframes, if possible.

1 0

revisiting singular/plural confusion
by Michael Bauland Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Hi all, I hope you don't mind, that I get back to the topic of singular/plural from today's call. I don't think that these forms should automatically be put into a contention set. Sure, you could confuse the following two * hotel * hotels And possibly also * child * children But there are many more forms that are based on the same word and could be confused, e.g. the existing * vermögensberatung * vermögensberater When someone looks at a domain myname.vermögensberatung and remembers that and later gets sees the domain myname.vermögensberater they most likely would be confused and not realise it's a different domain (I would be confused). I don't see why singular/plural should get a special handling from other changes to words. Either we set a general rule like "if words belong to the same word stem, they *may* be put into a contention set, if they are determined to be confusing" or we completely omit the singular/plural rule. To me this is a half-hearted approach which is very English-centered, where (almost) the only change to a noun is adding the plural S. In other languages, there are much more very common changes that can happen to a word. Take the Finnish word "talo" (meaning: house), you can have talon, talot, taloa, taloon, talona, ... All of these are different conjugated forms of the same word ... but just "talot" is (nominative) plural and should be put into contention with "talo", while all others are fine? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Finally, one reason against taking singular/plural into consideration is the required effort to look up the plural forms of a word in all languages. In Latin script alone there are hundreds of languages to consider. Best regards, Michael -- ____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 44227 Dortmund Germany Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0 Fax: +49 231 9703-200 Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland(a)knipp.de Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland(a)knipp.de Register Court: Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728 Chief Executive Officers: Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp

1 0

15 MINUTES REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Dec. 15, 2022

Dec. 15, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> 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, 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/O4YFDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/23ywamdw <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/23ywamdw__;!!PtGJab4!5_TdnhR…> ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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, Devan

2 1

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Dec. 14, 2022

Dec. 14, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFz…> Passcode: !!0tV0Wh&K For Audio only: One tap mobile : US: +13017158592,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# or +13126266799,,94276275950#,,,,*5259149775# Webinar ID: 942 7627 5950 Passcode: 5259149775 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/adP1jJ0gRH__;!!PtGJab4!v…> 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, 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 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/O4YFDQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/23ywamdw [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/23ywamdw__;!!PtGJab4!5_TdnhR…> ONLY for Members and Participants * 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. 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, Devan

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #62 - Thursday 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Emily Barabas Dec. 14, 2022

Dec. 14, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 15 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #62 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 mins) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Review of Charter Question E7 (75 mins) - Singular/plural version of word - String Similarity Review - Evaluation criteria for TLDs with restrictions (e.g., geo names, brands, etc.) 4. AOB (3 mins)

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 08 December 2022
by Devan Reed Dec. 8, 2022

Dec. 8, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 08 December 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/OYYFDQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> These include: * Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom chat archive * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) * Transcript For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/uAPpCQ>. Thank you! Kind Regards, Devan

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #61 - 8 December 2022
by Emily Barabas Dec. 8, 2022

Dec. 8, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 8 December 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 8 December 2022 Action Items Action Item 1: Staff to propose on list that beginning in January, calendar invites will be for 13:00 – 15:00 UTC with advance notice if the call needs to be the full 120 minutes. Action Item 2: EPDP Team members to share on list if they have expertise or input that could assist with developing the risk assessment on options for string similarity. Notes Roll Call and SOI Updates Welcome and Chair Updates * Now that the Council has approved the proposed updated timeline, it’s important to meet this timeline. We’ll be going through the critical path today for the Phase 1 Initial Report. * Leadership is asking for a commitment from the group in this final push towards the Phase 1 Initial Report. * String similarity is an important item we need to get through to make progress on several other outstanding issues. Review of critical path to Phase 1 Initial Report * Slide 4 – Critical Path to Phase 1 Initial Report – the goal is to publish the Phase 1A Initial Report by April 21 2023. * The red box indicates charter questions that need to be closed. Some of these depend on the outcome of discussions on string similarity, so coming to a conclusion on string similarity is an important next step. The final items to cover are the “catch all” questions. Once language is drafted, it will need to be reviewed (pink box). * The blue box indicates items that have gone through initial deliberations. Staff and leadership will finalize draft text and send to EPDP Team for review and input. * The orange box indicates that the EPDP Team needs to review org input on specific charter questions. * In March, preliminary recommendations will be consolidated, and Initial Report will be built (orange and yellow boxes). The EPDP Team will have two sessions in Cancun during which the leadership team expects to make progress on bringing together the Initial Report. * Draft Initial Report will be shared on the mailing list in April, providing the EPDP Team an opportunity to identify any final missing items or other issues (purple box). * To get through some of this work in the coming months, calls may need to be longer or more frequent. As a reminder, we will be having a call on 22 December. * The expectation is that members will be consulting on an ongoing basis with their SO/AC/SG/Cs on the work of this group. * Question: Is there a reason for the SO/AC/SG/Cs to review the report prior to the public comment period? * Response: This is a question for the group’s themselves based on how they organize their work. When the draft report is published, groups can submit public comments. * When the leadership team sends draft text to the EPDP Team for review, it will remain conscious of providing enough time, where possible, for groups to consult with their groups on the language. The critical path anticipates four weeks of review for draft language. * There will be a two-week period to review of the whole report. Groups can incorporate feedback from their groups during that period, as well. * To the extent that groups have concerns about the timeline, the leadership team will seek to be responsive to the extent feasible. * The leadership team is available to provide a status update to the GAC if that is helpful. ICANN Org input on the String Similarity Review hybrid model * Slide 6 – Summary – Focus of Analysis, Overview, and Method * Question: Isn’t Level 2 limited to Primary + Requested Allocatable, as opposed to Primary and All Allocatable? * Response: It was Level 1 that includes Primary + Requested Allocatable, but on the slide, for simplicity, the assumption is that only the primary is being applied for. * The number of TLDs selected are approximately in proportion to the those in 2012 round with respect to scripts. * Slide 7 – Calculate the Number of Comparisons * Number of Comparisons: * Level 1: 190 * Level 2: 343 * Hybrid: 13,003 * Level 3: 95,144 * Slide 8 – Results, including Caveats and Takeaways * Takeaways: * The mitigation of confusion risks will likely be enhanced from Level 1 to Level 3, but the cost of operating the String Similarity Review will likely increase from Level 1 to Level 3 * The added costs will likely be passed onto applicants, given the cost recovery principle * Hybrid model is a compromise between Level 2 and Level 3 in reducing computational complexity involving blocked variants * Comment: There are different ways to look at the numbers and the data is indicative only. Based on the numbers, the hybrid model is favorable compared to Level 3 but Level 2 is favorable compared to the hybrid model. * From one perspective, it would be helpful to have examples of the specific comparisons taking place for the specific strings in the summary sheet. * Question: For some strings the difference between the levels is quite significant, but the numbers are smaller for other scripts. Why? * Response: Some scripts and some strings within those scripts will have more blocked variants. If these blocked variants are taken into account in the comparisons, there will be a spike in the overall number of comparisons. * For this analysis, the staff team used a mix of scripts that is in proportion to the 2012 round. The labels themselves were chosen randomly to avoid introducing bias. * Slide 9 – String Similarity Process & Hybrid Mode * Demonstrates where the hybrid model comes into play to help in understanding the operational and cost implications * This flow chart is built on the 2012 process. * As a reminder, the string similarity review is done by a panel, so more string comparisons will take more resources. * Note that the hybrid model may come into play in step 6 (string similarity review) and also step 8 (to the extent that it is used for the string confusion objection). * Excerpt from org comment: “With added complexity, there is a high probability that the cost will also increase, and that those costs will be passed on to applicants given the cost recovery nature of the program.” * Org also notes that increasing complexity of the review is associated with increased costs but also longer periods of time to complete the work. * Given the inputs on today’s call are we comfortable moving forward with the hybrid model? * Potential area for risk assessment – are the risks of failure modes likely/severe enough to justify the additional complexity and costs for applicants? * Comment: It is important to be conscious of this balance noting the risks of increased application costs deterring applicants for IDN labels. A goal of our work is to promote IDNs. * Additional consideration – In the future, the string similarity panel will likely need additional expertise to take into account that allocatable and blocked variants will be part of the review. * One potential approach to the Initial Report is to include Level 2 and hybrid model as alternatives for public comment input. AOB * Reminder to use the email list to continue the deliberations between EPDP Team calls. * Reminder that Donna will be based in Australia beginning in January. Suggestion to start calls 30 mins earlier and potentially keep the end time the same beginning in January. The calendar invites would be for 13:00 – 15:00 UTC, although that additional time would not always be needed. Action Item 1: Staff to propose on list that beginning in January, calendar invites will be for 13:00 – 15:00 UTC with advance notice if the call needs to be the full 120 minutes. Action Item 2: EPDP Team members to share on list if they have expertise or input that could assist with developing the risk assessment on options for string similarity.

1 0