April 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #31 - Thursday 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas April 13, 2022

April 13, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC. As a reminder, working documents for Topic E are available here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=176622687>. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #31 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. Continued Discussion of Charter Question E1, E3, and E3a (new gTLD aspects only) (75 minutes) 4. AOB (5 minutes)

1 0

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Please note: This meeting was previously rescheduled for Friday, 15 April. Because this is a public holiday in some countries the IDNs EPDP team decided during the last call to reschedule to Thursday, 14 April at 11:30 UTC. Please ensure your calendars only reflect the attached .ics Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 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/aQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/325ymryh 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 April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Meeting: IDNs EPDP Team meeting Date/time: Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC for 90 minutes 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/awB1Cw * For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/325ymryh 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

IDNs EPDP Team meeting
by ICANN Policy Calendar April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Meeting: IDNs EPDP Team meeting Date/time: Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC for 90 minutes 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/awB1Cw * For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/325ymryh 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

Survey: ICANN74 Participation Method
by Ariel Liang April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Dear EPDP Team members, As you may be aware, ICANN74 Policy Forum will be held from 13-16 June 2022 and will take place in The Hague, Netherland as a hybrid event to accommodate both in-person and virtual participation. The dedicated website<https://74.schedule.icann.org/> for ICANN74 is now live and registration<https://events.icann.org/icann74/registration> is now open. ICANN is committed to ensuring an inclusive Policy Forum that provides equal opportunities for all to engage on important policy matters. Since there is plan for the EPDP Team to meet during ICANN74, leadership team and staff develop this short survey to gain a better understanding of the potential participation method of team members at ICANN74, whether in-person or remote. We would appreciate your kind response by EOB Friday, 15 April: https://forms.gle/zs9bpsU6FviVZr819 If you have any question or concern, please feel free to reach out to staff directly. Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #30 - 7 April 2022
by Emily Barabas April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item 1: Leadership team to come back with ideas about how to break down the problem set. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 7 April 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates (3 minutes) * The time of next week’s call will conflict with the GNSO Council call. Usually when there is a conflict we move the call 24 hours later, but Friday next week is a holiday in some parts of the world. Suggestion is to move the meeting to Thursday 14 April at 11:30 UTC. Support expressed for this proposal. * Work for Topic E will require the EPDP Team to make some assumptions about process because the SubPro IRT is not yet underway. Introduction to Charter Question E3 and E1 (part 1) (new gTLD aspects only) * Slide 4 – overview of charter questions E3 and E1 (Part 1). Reminder: The scope of discussion is limited to the future new gTLD aspect only, not to amend the structure or framework of processes established by SubPro. * Slide 5 – Application process flow in 2012 round - provided to give context on the String Similarity Review step in the process. * Slide 6 & 7 – Overview of the String Similarity Review in the 2012 round * Slide 8 – Summary of Staff Paper proposal * Comment: We have to do a matrix of the different inputs and outcomes. If we are just talking about new applications going forward, when an entity applies for a primary string, they should also indicate whether they are also interested in applying for variants at that time. They should only evaluate for strings that the applicant has indicated that they want. The review should look at if the primary string is similar to the items listed on slide 8. If the first, third or fourth bullet applies, the application is rejected. If the second, it goes into contention. If the primary string passes, the variants are evaluated. If the first, third, or fourth bullet applies, the applicant should have an opportunity to withdraw the request for the variant. If the variant would create a contention set, there should be an opportunity to withdraw or go forward with contention resolution. In the future, if the applicant would like to use a variant that it didn’t previously apply for, it needs to undergo a new string similarity analysis. If confusingly similar to other applied for TLDs, string contention should apply. Not every possible variant should be considered if the applicant doesn’t include every variant in the application. This would reduce associated costs. * Comment: If it's a "Primary” the applicant might also be given the chance to "switch" to one of the applied for variants (if they are not blocked to string similarity) * Slide 9 – Staff Paper proposal regarding contention sets * Question for org: Why does the Staff Paper think that the evaluation should be all encompassing as opposed to constrained as proposed earlier in this discussion? * Question for org: What is the probability of blocked label becoming unblocked? * Response: It is not going to be frequent, but if a GP updates a proposal it can change a blocked label to allocatable. * Comment: For allocatable variants, we should run it through. They are considered equivalent to the applied-for string. By not evaluating string similarity, you might have downstream issues for the users for that TLD. We also need to think about third or fourth rounds in the future. Does the entire set need to be evaluated against entire other full sets of variants, including then existing blocked variants? * From Staff Paper: The analysis can be done at 3 levels: 1. Applied for strings (including selected variants) against other applied for and delegated strings and reserved strings 2. All applied for strings and allocatable variants get compared to other applied for strings and allocatable variants, delegated strings and reserved strings 3. Blocked variants are also compared. * Staff paper proposes that whenever a string is applied for, it gets compared to all other strings, including allocatable and blocked variants. The intention was caution. At the time, there was very little knowledge of how variants will operate. This is an approach of maximal conservatism. If a label is blocked, the community doesn’t want it as a TLD. If a similar string is delegated, it is essentially a workaround. * Comment: We discussed with the SSAC that when a registry wants to have a string allocated, it would need to demonstrate that it could handle that and would be evaluated on that. Applying the same logic, it doesn’t make sense to look at the full set in string similarity because the registry hasn’t requested those labels. If it later wants to apply for those allocatable variants, it could go through another string similarity review just as it would be evaluated to determine if it could handle managing those additional variants. Evaluating all possible variants is overly restrictive and conservative. * Comment: The String Similarity evaluation should be done just before delegation. We don’t know when a blocked variant will become allocatable and then delegated. * Comment: If we focus on reserved strings, we will still have to compare the full set because reserved string could become unreserved in the future, otherwise we would have disadvantaged someone who wanted a particular reserved string down the road. * Comment: Understanding the conservative approach, let’s intersect that approach with discussions about fees associated with the application process. It is reasonable to think that applicants will limit themselves to a primary and perhaps one or two variants? If an allocatable and not applied-for variant is found to be in contention, what will we do with that information? * Comment: If and when a registry wants an allocatable string to be delegated, it would need to apply for it. If by the time they decide that they want it delegated, circumstances have changed with respect to potential string contention, this will need to be taken into account in the evaluation process. * Clarification: We have an applied for string X which is compared to an existing or another applied for string Y. X has its own allocatable and blocked variants and Y has its own allocatable and blocked variants. We are not comparing the full variant set of X and full variant set of Y. We are a just comparing X to Y and its variant set. If a variant of X is in contention it won’t block X. * Comment: Just because someone has a TLD, it shouldn’t have a right of first refusal on every variant it has. * Question: Most of the scripts have constraints in terms of variants, so the scope of the problem is relatively limited. Does this inform the discussion? * Response: Each variant set for each label includes 1. The applied for string 2. Allocatable variants 3. Blocked variants. Allocatable variants could be 10s of labels. Blocked variants can be very large for not only Arabic but also scripts like Latin – thousands of labels. * Comment: If we are speaking about two sets of strings X and Y, and one set X has strings that are variants of one another and in Y strings are variants of one another then the strings in the two sets are variants of one another. * Comment: We are also talking about confusingly similar, which is somewhat different than being variants. Strings could be variants but not visually confusing. * Next Steps: EPDP Team to review materials presented in this meeting and revisit this topic. Staff will consider if there is a way to organize the topic to support further discussion. * Org comment: For the comparison, the Team needs to recommend which elements of each set are compared to which elements of the other set: [X] [Alloc-X] [Block-X] compared with [Y] [Alloc-Y] [Block-Y] * Comment: If the community didn’t want the blocked string, shouldn’t it have also blocked the string that is confusingly similar to the blocked string. If they didn’t block it, maybe they are ok with it being delegated. * Example: A Latin string is blocked, is it possible for someone to apply for a string that is exactly the same or similar in Cyrillic. If the string is similar to the Latin string should it be allowed through. * Comment: If it’s confusing similar it should be blocked. If it’s a variant of something confusingly similar, but is not confusingly similar itself, it should be allowed. * Comment: If the label is the same or almost the same as a blocked label it should have been considered a variant and have been blocked itself. * Comment: A variant of a blocked string should only be prevented IF it is confusingly similar. * Comment: Conservative approach could be costly, EPDP to think about how to add parameters around it to make the process easier and less costly. Action Item 1: Leadership team to come back with ideas about how to break down the problem set. Introduction to Charter Question E3a (new gTLD aspects only) * Slide 11 – Overview of charter question E3a and context. * Comment: The only thing that is rejected is the variant that is found to be confusingly similar. If the other variants are not found to be confusingly similar, they should not be rejected. * Comment: We may treat every variant as separate and not as block for confusing similarity decision. * Comment: We need to think through the idea of atomicity (the idea that a set is inseparable) of the variant set. If we treat an applicant set as an atomic whole, we should treat the evaluation that way. Once we try to split it up, we run into a potential issue about how we conceptualize these variants. * Comment: Understanding where the previous comment come from, string similarity is a visual test. How can you justify rejecting a string if it’s not visually confusingly similar to another string? Where the applied for string is rejected, the other allocatable variants are still eligible unless they are also confusingly similar. AOB Reminders: * Second reading is underway for A5 & A6 – please provide input on revisions by tomorrow (8 April). * Leadership will review input and suggest next steps. We will not likely bring that back to a call for discussion. * Provide input on proposal for outreach to CJK GPs – deadline: 8 April. * Provide input on moving next week’s meeting Thursday 14 April at 11:30 UTC -- deadline: 8 April

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 07 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 07 April 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/aQB1Cw> (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

Reschedule Next Meeting to Thu, 14 April at 11:30-13:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Dear All, Per discussion during today’s meeting, staff would like to confirm rescheduling next week’s meeting to Thursday, 14 April at 11:30-13:00 UTC. In absence of objection by EOB tomorrow (Friday, 8 April), staff will send the calendar invite accordingly. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

15 MINUTES **REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 07 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 7, 2022

April 7, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 07 April 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/aQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/48vbnvxs [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/48vbnvxs__;!!PtGJab4!rWqSK9H…> 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, 07 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 6, 2022

April 6, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 07 April 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/aQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/48vbnvxs [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/48vbnvxs__;!!PtGJab4!rWqSK9H…> 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 Consultation with Generation Panels on Single-Character TLDs
by Ariel Liang April 4, 2022

April 4, 2022

Dear All, During last week’s meeting, staff presented<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/192217191/EPDP%20Team%20Me…> a revised proposal for a consultation with Chinese/Japanese/Korean Generation Panels on Charter Question A7 Part 2, which is regarding “the mechanism or criteria to identify a specific list of allowable characters which can be used as a single-character TLD” within the Han script. Since not all members attended the last call, staff is circulating the proposal on list to seek your input. So far, there has been general support from the EPDP Team (except for reservation from one member) to conduct such an outreach, and there is a suggestion for not making the request to GPs too prescriptive. During last week’s call, there was a brief discussion regarding setting expectations for the work outcome from the GPs, should they agree to reconvene and conduct such work. As such, staff is proposing the following content to be included in the outreach letter. Pending EPDP Team’s further input and agreement, staff plans to draft the outreach letter accordingly. In the interest of time and per action item, we hope to hear your input on list by EOB Friday, 8 April. Thank you, Ariel == Proposal for Consultation with Chinese/Japanese/Korean Generation Panels 1. Background and context of the outreach: * EPDP-IDN background and charter question A7 * SAC052<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-052-en.pdf> suggests that if a script is allowed for single character TLDs, a distinct and explicit specification of which subset of the script is available for single-character TLDs should be required prior to the acceptance of a single-character TLD application. * SubPro PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-rep…> recommends that single character gTLDs may be allowed for limited script/language combinations where a character is an ideograph (or ideogram) and do not introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities. SubPro PDP also welcomes the identification of potentially a specific list of allowable single-character gTLDs to increase the predictability of the evaluation process. 1. Proposed questions for CJK GPs’ consideration: * What is the definition of ideograph / ideogram? Based on this definition, are all Han characters ideograph / ideogram? If not, does the definition clearly provide a way to identify which Han characters are ideograph / ideogram. * Is it possible for the GPs to coordinate and develop criteria for the evaluation of future single-Character gTLD applications in Han script, particularly in the context of string confusion, to ensure they are introduced to the root-zone in a conservative manner? * Is it possible for the GPs to coordinate and develop criteria by which to identify a subset of the Han script allowed for single-character TLDs that present no risk of user confusion? Alternatively, is it possible to develop criteria by which to identify a list of Han characters that may introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities and should NOT be allowed for single-character TLDs? What is the estimated level of effort required to conduct such work? 1. Setting expectations for work outcome: * Should the GPs agree to reconvene to develop criteria and/or a specific list of allowable characters, the outcomes should become an input to the EPDP Team’s deliberation. * Pending EPDP Team’s review of the outcomes, there should be a recommendation from the EPDP Team regarding how to incorporate the outcomes in the RZ-LGR (e.g., encoded in the RZ-LGR by tagging the code points for consistent analysis, published as a document for reference).

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #30 - Thursday 7 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas April 4, 2022

April 4, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 7 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. As a reminder, working documents for Topic E are available here<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=176622687>. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #30 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (3 minutes) 3. Introduction to Charter Question E3 (new gTLD aspects only) (40 minutes) 4. Introduction to Charter Question E1 (new gTLD aspects only) (20 minutes) 5. Introduction to Charter Question E3a (new gTLD aspects only) (20 minutes) 6. AOB (5 minutes)

1 0

Second Reading: A5 & A6
by Ariel Liang April 1, 2022

April 1, 2022

Dear All, Following up on an action item, staff is circulating the redline edits, proposed by the leadership team, for the outcome language of A5 and A6 (pp.6-12): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bt0LT45UaLynFNverh1nJhyvq6q6NxgSFAOnOp2… These redline edits have incorporated the input received on list and during the call on 24 Mach. Please provide your feedback, if any, no later than Friday, 8 March. After this second round of review and incorporating further edits (if deemed appropriate), the draft will be regarded as stable. Thank you for your contribution to the deliberation! Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 1