February 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

FW: Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Donna＠registry.godaddy Feb. 8, 2022

Feb. 8, 2022

I don't think my reply to Dennis made it to the list, so I'm resending. From: Donna Austin Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:30 AM To: Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com>; emily.barabas(a)icann.org Cc: gsnos-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes Thanks for the update Dennis. Seems we should try to have consistency with the ccNSO PDP work where we can, and explain an distinctions or differences relating to gTLDs. Donna From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Gnso-epdp-idn-team Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:17 AM To: emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>; gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Hi all -From our previous meeting I had the action item to follow up and report to this wg on the status of the ccNSO PDP4 related to the TLD label states topic (e.g. allocated, blocked, etc.). The ccPDP4 wg is proposing to include the definitions of states in a glossary. Not much discussion has occurred as far as possible transition from one state to another, at least not to the extent of this working group has. The following "states" are being considered: * Delegated * Withheld-same-entity: Withheld-same-entity: A Withheld label is set aside for possible allocation only to the same entity of the other labels in the variant set. * Blocked * Allocated * Rejected: A Rejected string is set aside on administrative grounds outside the ordinary LGR procedures. Other terms used "Not Approved" and "Will Not Proceed". Strings that cannot be allocated on visual confusability grounds, based on the string similarity review step in the TLD application process, are also Rejected. There are additional considerations when it comes to the lifecycle of ccTLD strings, namely revocation or retirement of the ccTLD string. The principle is that the "bundle" or "set" behaves as one, such that if one variant is retired or revoked, then all of the variant labels are retired and revoked as well. Note that there are special circumstances in which a ccTLD string may be eligible for revocation or retirement e.g., change of name of the territory, new territory is created, etc; these circumstances do not necessarily apply to gTLDs. I anticipate the ccPDP4 wg will revisit this topic in the near future as it cleans up the draft document. I will keep this working group informed as the work progresses. Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 8:19 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-idn-team@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #23 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Deliberations on Topic B<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog…> and Topic D<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog…> (75 minutes) a. Charter question B3 b. Charter question D1, D1a, D1b c. Charter questions B4 4. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis Feb. 8, 2022

Feb. 8, 2022

Hi all —From our previous meeting I had the action item to follow up and report to this wg on the status of the ccNSO PDP4 related to the TLD label states topic (e.g. allocated, blocked, etc.). The ccPDP4 wg is proposing to include the definitions of states in a glossary. Not much discussion has occurred as far as possible transition from one state to another, at least not to the extent of this working group has. The following “states” are being considered: * Delegated * Withheld-same-entity: Withheld-same-entity: A Withheld label is set aside for possible allocation only to the same entity of the other labels in the variant set. * Blocked * Allocated * Rejected: A Rejected string is set aside on administrative grounds outside the ordinary LGR procedures. Other terms used “Not Approved” and “Will Not Proceed”. Strings that cannot be allocated on visual confusability grounds, based on the string similarity review step in the TLD application process, are also Rejected. There are additional considerations when it comes to the lifecycle of ccTLD strings, namely revocation or retirement of the ccTLD string. The principle is that the “bundle” or “set” behaves as one, such that if one variant is retired or revoked, then all of the variant labels are retired and revoked as well. Note that there are special circumstances in which a ccTLD string may be eligible for revocation or retirement e.g., change of name of the territory, new territory is created, etc; these circumstances do not necessarily apply to gTLDs. I anticipate the ccPDP4 wg will revisit this topic in the near future as it cleans up the draft document. I will keep this working group informed as the work progresses. Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 8:19 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #23 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Deliberations on Topic B<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlorzuwJlZ1jUZTw9Frwy-wJkTdQ559p0R2ogGR…> and Topic D<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h34xShdFFjRoZo9TKkHq1v9IRAiif18066a79uJ…> (75 minutes) a. Charter question B3 b. Charter question D1, D1a, D1b c. Charter questions B4 4. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #23 - 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas Feb. 8, 2022

Feb. 8, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #23 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Deliberations on Topic B<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlorzuwJlZ1jUZTw9Frwy-wJkTdQ559p0R2ogGR…> and Topic D<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h34xShdFFjRoZo9TKkHq1v9IRAiif18066a79uJ…> (75 minutes) * Charter question B3 * Charter question D1, D1a, D1b * Charter questions B4 4. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 03 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 03 February 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/n4H3Cg> (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 #22 - 3 February 2022
by Emily Barabas Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes from today’s meeting on Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item #1: Staff to draft a document overlaying definitions with label states in the New gTLD process. Action Item #2: Dennis to respond on the mailing list about the status/outcome of the ccPDP discussion related to charter questions A9 and A10. Action Item #3: Leadership team to develop text for charter questions B1 and B2 in support of extending SubPro and Staff Paper recommendations to existing TLDs. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 3 February 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates * There have been no objections to the proposed updates to the sequence of charter questions, so the EPDP Team will go forward with that plan. * The leadership team is revising language for charter questions A5, A6, and A7 and plans to send text to the mailing list by Monday 7 February, giving the group two weeks for input. If there are substantive comments, the EPDP Team will review the input. Otherwise, the draft will be considered stable. Charter question A9 * Slide 3 – Background for charter question A9. * Slide 4 – Proposed definition details in staff paper: Blocked, Withheld-same-entity, Rejected, Allocated, Delegated. * Slide 5 – State of deliberations and proposals/suggestions discussed so far. * Question: What does withheld-same-entity (rejected) mean? * Response: Within withheld-same-entity there are different states that might be helpful differentiate. There are strings that are withheld-same-entity that are then requested to be activated. The request may be rejected. * Response: Rejected means that a TLD label has an allocatable variant label, the applicant wants to activate it, but this label can’t be allocated because it doesn’t pass the evaluation process. It is then rejected. * Question: Is a label allocated before or after execution of the contract? * Response: Allocated relates to an administrative step and delegated relates to a technical step. From the perspective of ccTLDs, the administrative step occurs at successful evaluation. There is a formal announcement. For gTLDs, allocated would likely be when the string is formally administratively assigned to the applicant. It may be the signing of the contract, but staff can confirm if this is helpful. * Comment: We may need consistency of definitions across gTLDs and ccTLDs. This may need to be taken into consideration. * Questions: Do we also want to include in the definitions cases where a script is not attached to the RZ-LGR? * There may be a circumstance where an application is rejected based on the outcome of application processes but then circumstances change. What if a label was in a contention set during an application process, but the label is later no longer in the root zone? There is no longer a reason for the string to be ineligible and could go through in the future. We may need to think more about the rejection not as a permanent status but something that might be able to change based on circumstances. * We may be getting into A10 – the label states. We are talking about definitions for multiple processes – the New gTLD application process, the Fast Track process, and RZ-LGR process itself. Are there distinctions between the three processes that are creating difficulty? Maybe we should check the definitions against the three processes, or perhaps just the new g and RZ-LGR processes. Charter question A10 * Comment: The process was intended to show a TLD string as it goes through multiple states. When a TLD is accepted and it has variants, some variants would be blocked from an application process based on the disposition given to them, some will be allocatable (withheld-same-entity). The applicant can apply for these withheld-same-entity, and then these labels become allocated (if they are not rejected). Then they are delegated. * Question: If a domain is removed from the DNS, why would you still want to have it allocated (step 5)? * Response: If it is taken out of the root it remains a possibility that it can be used by someone else in the future that applies for it. It is essentially going back into the pool. * Response: Some TLDs got terminated but allocation means that only the same entity will be able to do something with it. If it’s still attached to some legal entity, it will likely only be available to them. * Response: There is also an EBERO process in which the TLD’s state changes. Step 5 may require additional discussion, but EBERO is one topic to consider. * Comment: EBERO may not be something changing the state of the TLD. It is a change of the owner or operator. * Comment: Further explanation might be needed around step 5. It’s important to make sure we are clear for what processes we are defining label states and transitions. * Hypothetical situation relating to allocated and delegated state transition: There is a string and three variants that are withheld-same-entity and they are allocated. There is a process to get all four delegated, but the entity decides it doesn’t need one. That one is still allocated. It is just not delegated. * Additional flow chart suggested for consideration (see attachment 1). * Comment: This flow chart covers the most common case, but there could be additional things that could happen between LGR calculation and withheld-same-entity. * Question: Where is the RA in this additional diagram? * Response: Right after LGR calculation. An additional circle could be added for contention resolution to make it clearer. * Comment: In relation to activation request – this status is important and we didn’t have it in our original diagram. * Question: Is a variant of a reserved string reserved or blocked? Example: International Red Cross designation in Chinese. Additional examples: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en * Response: We haven’t decided whether to make a definition for blocked. * Response: It is not clear if variants of reserved names have been identified and if they will be identified going forward. * On the diagram: This represents new gTLD application for a main string. There should also be an option in the diagram to apply for a variant where the original is already delegated. This process may be slightly different. It may be helpful to add another circle in the diagram representing the step of allocated, which would be followed by delegated. * Comment: Allocated is a process of application processing. Before the contract is executed it cannot be delegated. The delegation occurs only after contract is executed. * Summary: We need to apply the label states practically to the New gTLD process and fill in any gaps. We need to add where the contracting part fits in. This might be easier to reach agreement on for group. * Updated flow chart suggested for consideration (see attachment 2). * Comment: The diagram on slide 7 of today’s deck should include contract execution as an explicit step. It’s important to show where the contract fits in. * Comment: We may need to map this new diagram to the label states in addition to adding in when contract is executed and when it may be terminated. Transitioning from delegated back to allocated may have a few possibilities that may need to fleshed out further. * Question: Does a blocked variant come into consideration in any contention resolution? * Different perspectives were expressed about whether this should be the case. * Org Response: This is a policy consideration that this group should decide. For example, whether blocked strings should be part of the string similarity review. * Comment: We need to map this process to the ccTLD process. Instead of blocked, we should use the term reserved. * It is important to understand the purpose of the definitions. Once you start applying definitions to a process that has similar words that don’t mean the same things, it becomes more confusing. The definitions we are trying to nail down are associated with the New gTLD process. We also need to be mindful that there is consistency with the ccTLD fast track process. There might be some differences in what happens after delegations with gTLDs and ccTLDs because the processes are different. Action Item #1: Staff to draft a document overlaying definitions with label states in the New gTLD process. Action Item #2: Dennis to respond on the mailing list about the status/outcome of the ccPDP discussion related to charter questions A9 and A10. Charter questions B1 & B2 * Slide 10 – overview of charter questions B1 & B2 * Slide 11 – SubPro recommendation 25.5 * Slide 12 – Staff Paper recommendation 2 & 7 * Comment: Panels should understand that there could be a court case against them if they update the RZ-LGR in a way that is not backwards compatible. Currently the TLD contracts do not account for this. * Question: What is the rationale for recommending “same entity” requirements? * Response: B1 consists of two questions. First, is it reasonable to have the same entity to manage variant labels, where the variant is one in the same? Second, who is the same entity? In the gTLD world, we use the term “Registry Operator” for the entity that manages the TLD. * In the framework for managing variant labels, variants are strings that are deemed to be the same. The goal is to protect against denial of service and misconnection. Denial of service means that you do not get to the resource at all. Misconnection means that you think you are going to website A but you go to website B instead. With variants, there is an expectation of the same behavior and the same experience, and therefore the there is the idea variants should be managed by the same entity. * We talked with the SSAC about the fact that there is not technical solution for synchronization. It is the registrant that sets up website, services, and other elements that set up this behavior. At the top-level, the RO is far away from that experience. If the labels are delegated to the same entity, the RO still cannot guarantee the same experience because it is so far removed from the end user. * Comment: What if we used the term TLD manager as defined in the IANA database rather than Registry Operator. This is the same in gTLDs and ccTLDs. * Comment: IANA uses “Sponsoring Organization.” * Question: Why weren’t the SubPro recommendations expanded to existing TLDs previously? * Comment: This is the first opportunity to address this question. It hasn’t been considered previously in a PDP. * Summary: Support expressed for extending SubPro and Staff Paper recommendations to existing TLDs. Action Item #3: Leadership team to develop text for charter questions B1 and B2 in support of extending SubPro and Staff Paper recommendations to existing TLDs.

1 0

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 10 February 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/pIH3Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/fwam26t3 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

15 MINUTES **REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 03 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Feb. 3, 2022

Feb. 3, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 03 February 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/n4H3Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/59kez55p [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/59kez55p__;!!PtGJab4!ss6K2cz…> 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

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 03 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland Feb. 2, 2022

Feb. 2, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 03 February 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/n4H3Cg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/59kez55p [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/59kez55p__;!!PtGJab4!ss6K2cz…> 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

IDNs EPDP Team meeting
by ICANN Policy Calendar Feb. 1, 2022

Feb. 1, 2022

Meeting: IDNs EPDP Team meeting Date/time: Every Thursday at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes, beginning 06 January 2021 through 03 March 2021 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: https://community.icann.org/x/h4H3Cg (06 January, see future dates on the left side) * For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/2p88cjd8 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

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #22 - 3 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas Jan. 31, 2022

Jan. 31, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on 3 February 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #22 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Continued Deliberations on Topic A: Consistent Definition and Technical Utilization of RZ-LGR (Topic A working document: live version [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1I9dSd7alSvz9…> in Google Docs, archived versions in MS Word on wiki<https://community.icann.org/display/epdpidn/Working+Documents>) * Charter question A9 (30 minutes) * Charter question A10 (20 minutes) * Charter questions B1 & B2 (30 minutes) 4. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0