April 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #32 - 21 April 2022
by Emily Barabas April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item 1: Leadership team and staff to consider next steps on data collection regarding variants of reserved names, including blocked variants. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 21 April 2022 Welcome and Chair Updates * The last two weeks have focused on unwrapping the string similarity review as it relates to variants. The leadership team recognizes that there are different perspectives on this topic. * Staff sent an email to the mailing list asking members to provide a written response to the three questions provided. We will likely discuss this input on 28 April and try to reach agreement on the preferred levels. * Once these discussions are complete, we will transition to discussing other elements of the evaluation process. * The draft letter to CJK Generation Panels is ready for final review by the Working Group. This will be sent to the group for sign off before it is distributed. ccPDP4 Update * ccPDP4 launched in January 2020. The main areas of focus is to evolve the fast track process for IDN ccTLD strings. ccPDP4’s focus areas are: selection of IDN ccTLDs, management of variants, and the review process for string similarity. * The fast track process has an extended process similarity review panel. This is a second tier of string similarity review and has been used a few times. The WG is looking at that extended process. * The variant management work within the ccPDP4 is of particular interest to the EPDP. * The direction of the two groups is not identical in some respects. These areas will be highlighted in this presentation. * Topic 1: Requirements for a string and its variants – The ccPDP4 adopted RZ-LGR as authoritative source, as did the EPDP. * For IDN ccTLD strings, there are two tiers of requirements: * Tier 1 requirements (overarching) for IDN ccTLD strings: 1. The string has to be a meaningful representation of the country or territory (this is not present in gTLDs) 2. The string must be in a designated language from that country or territory – it does not dictate the languages (this is not present in gTLDs). * Tier 2 requires the string must pass RFCs, stability panel, etc. The RZ-LGR is used as a proxy for demonstrating compliance with IDNA2008 and security and stability concerns incorporated by the RZ-LGR. * When variants need to be calculated for IDN ccTLD strings they are likely subject to the same Tier 1 requirements. * Question: Will the level of divergence between the two groups be a concern when the recommendations reach the Board? * The Board is not prescribing that the policies are identical. In terms of the specifics on these items, looking through the lens of geo, communities, brands, etc. there are commonalities. There are more requirements for these strings. We have not yet converged on the details of the requirements for these special types of strings. If we apply different rules for the label vs. its variants, then it might not be consistent with the ccPDP recommendations. * Topic 2: The number of variants and whether there should be a limit -- both groups seem to be converging on not setting an arbitrary ceiling of the number of variants that can be allocated. * Topic 3: Likely changes to the RZ-LGR that would make a delegated string not in conformance with the RZ-LGR. The ccPDP is leaning towards grandfathering all existing TLDs, with one exception: If the only way to address a potential security threat is to not grandfather. The WG has not yet gotten into what could be the nature of the security threat. * The approach of the two groups appears to be fairly consistent. * Question: On the grandfathering piece, we have extensively discussed whether there would be exceptions to grandfathering and if so, what they would be. Are the liaisons relaying the discussion in this group to the ccPDP? * Response: They have not gotten into these deeper conversations. The discussions have been fluid. * Because of the Bylaws, the ccNSO policy making seeks not to dictate how operators manage their second level domains. Some ccNSO representatives do not feel that the ccPDP should look at the second level and the recommendations coming out of the Staff Paper on the second level. The variant sub-group is looking at the second level only from a technical perspective – what are the considerations the ccNSO might want to explore and how might that challenge ccNSO policies? For example, harmonization of IDN tables. * There are some nuanced differences between scope of policy development between the two groups. The goal is harmonization to the extent possible, acknowledging that it there may be challenges in some cases. Reserved Names * Overview of Charter Question E5 – slide 7 * Background on the 2012 round -- Reserved Names vs. Strings Ineligible for Delegation – slide 8 * Recent developments – recommendations from SubPro & Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP and impact on the next version of the AGB – slide 9 * Question: There are three additional categories of reserved names: numeric, single and two character ASCII, single character IDN strings. How is this covered? * Response: There is a list of reserved names and there are strings ineligible for delegation. The categories mentioned in the question are covered elsewhere in the AGB. Staff will investigate and share details. * Question: Regarding IGO/INGO identifiers – today the status is that they are not available for registration at the second level, but in subsequent rounds they will also be ineligible for delegation at the top level? * Response: Confirmed. * Discussion questions – slide 10 * For discussion regarding reserved names: Is there a need to update the reserved names to include any possible variant labels? * Question: The status of IDN test strings – are they still in use? * Response: They are not currently delegated but they remain reserved: https://www.iana.org/domains/reserved. The 2012 AGB noted that there would be translations of example and text. Staff is researching to make sure the list ended up being limited to the 11 IDN “test strings”. * Question: Is there a reason to make those IDN test strings available? * Response: That is not the question for this group. This group may consider whether any variants of those strings should also be protected in addition to the strings already on the reserved list. * Comment: For the reserved names, we should block variants once the reserved names are checked for string similarity. * Comment: All the strings in the reserved names list in English/Latin Script. If the script doesn’t have allocatable variants, what are the consequences of the previous suggestion? * Clarification: The variants might come into play in string similarity. This may come back to the questions about whether string similarity review should include blocked variants. * While there are zero allocatable variants, there is still be a possibility for blocked variants. They should have been covered by the string similarity check, but they should also be included as a clear definable set of labels that are included with the reserved names. * Question: With the list of reserved names we have, has there been any calculation of what the variants are and how many reserved names that would create? * Response: This calculation has not been run but for the Latin script, the blocked list could be generated. The list could be in the thousands or tens of thousands. Usually if the label has certain vowels and about 5-6 characters it can generate a large number of blocked variants. * Comment: The number of reserved names and blocked names shouldn’t be the only criteria we should think about. If they are blocked, no one would want that. That is not hurting the market. Consider the concept of atomicity of variants. If we can preserve the atomicity without hurting the gTLD market, we should lean towards a more conservative approach. * Comment: We are potentially doing this for the long run, not just the first round but also future rounds. More strings may be added to the list and we need to consider this as well. It may not hurt to be conservative until another PDP decides to loosen the reigns. * Comment: The number of variants is of no concern. If we state that all variants are blocked, you just run the LGR tool to check if there is a variant relation. The LGR tool does not care whether the number of variants is 2 or 20,000. * Staff observation: We are exhausting the ability of the group to have a discussion on the principle level and might need data. If there is going to be a large number of variants of reserved names, how will security and stability benefits weigh against the complexity of implementing. Action Item 1: Leadership team and staff to consider next steps on data collection regarding variants of reserved names, including blocked variants. * For discussion regarding strings ineligible for delegation – Would extending preventative protections for variants * Circumvent the careful work of the IGOs PDP? * Extend rights beyond those that are expressly identified in relevant treaties? * In other words, are variants for these strings in scope for the IDN-EPDP? * Comment: We are using the term “reserved” for different things – we may need to find a way to distinguish between reservation at the top level and the second level. * Additional clarifications regarding strings ineligible for delegation: Going forward, there will be an exception procedure that would allow a party to apply for their own strings. In addition, as a clarification, these strings ineligible for delegation would not be included in the string similarity process. It is protection for the precise terms on the list and only preventing delegation of those precise strings. * Comment: It is important to make the distinction between reserved names and strings ineligible for delegation and consider that different treatment may be appropriate for the two groups. Strings ineligible for delegation are limited to exact match, so we may not be in a position to extend these rights. * Question: What needs to be considered and what does not need to be considered in looking at these questions? * Comment: On reserved names, the principle of atomicity may be a consideration, but it’s unlikely that these blocked variants are stings that people want to apply for. One consideration is the scope of the problem, but it’s not the only consideration. It is important to distinguish between the details of a reserved names vs. strings ineligible for delegation. * Comment: We could potentially look at the ineligible for delegations through a different lens. Given the sensitivities around this topic and the finite nature of this list, is there an argument/rationale for protecting variants? If not, the team may have an answer. * Question: What happens if an IGO applies for its string? Are there variants that they could potentially apply for? * Comment: If we don’t protect variants and the IGOs apply for their names, the first-come first-serve rule may not create a fair situation and the IGOs potentially won’t be able to access their variants. * Comment: If we want to reserve/block those labels for those entities, we will have to block the variants, too.

1 0

CORRECTED TIME OF CALL | Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 21 April 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bQB1Cw> (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

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 21 April 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/bQB1Cw> (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

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 28 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/bwB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/4adwefbt 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, 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 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/bQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc6m92v3 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc6m92v3__;!!PtGJab4!rIi3n-t…> 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, 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Julie Bisland April 21, 2022

April 21, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 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/bQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc6m92v3 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/yc6m92v3__;!!PtGJab4!rIi3n-t…> 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

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #32 - Thursday 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes
by Emily Barabas April 20, 2022

April 20, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #32 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 minutes) 3. ccPDP4 (30 minutes) 4. Reserved Names (50 minutes) 5. AOB (3 minutes)

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #31 - 14 April 2022
by Emily Barabas April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Action Items: Action Item 1: Staff to proceed with next steps on distributing questions to ROs that have new gTLDs in Chinese and Arabic scripts. Notes – IDNs EPDP Call – 14 April 2022 Welcome & Chair Updates * Staff sent to the mailing list the draft questions for ROs that have new gTLDs in Chinese and Arabic scripts to understand interest in allocatable variant labels. Leadership teams seeks confirmation that staff can proceed with next steps, absent additional feedback or questions on this call. * No additional comments. Support expressed for sending the questions. Action Item 1: Staff to proceed with next steps on distributing questions to ROs that have new gTLDs in Chinese and Arabic scripts. * The leadership team will let EPDP know when the survey is going out, the platform used, and who will be receiving the communication so that members can assist with encouraging ROs to respond. Continued Discussion of Charter Question E1, E3, and E3a (new gTLD aspects only) * Slide 4 – Review of charter questions E3, E1 (Part 1), and E3A * Slide 5 – Comparison matrix – explanatory notes * Slide 6 – Comparison matrix – Level 1 * Comment: The cons listed on slide 6 may not be cons, but rather factors to consider. An RO has no automatic rights to string. It only has rights to the string that is requested and delegated. It should be acceptable if an applicant doesn’t request an allocatable string and then they are later denied an application because the string they want is at that point in time confusingly similar to another string that has been delegated. * Comment: An additional pro for Level 1 is that some variant labels will never be applied for. If a string that will never be applied for it shouldn’t be taken into account in the string similarity review and potentially found to be confusingly similar to another string. * Comment: A potential con depends on how allocatable variants can be activated. If activation of variant is possible between rounds, a con would be that the string similarity review would have to be done at any point in time. If the RO says they want to activate an allocatable variant, and it can only be activated in the round, the string similarity review will already be part of the process so there is no con in that case. * Question: Is distribution of TLDs purely first come first serve? It might not be so simple when there are multiple rounds if there is overlap in timing of evaluation processes. Are there specific rules that apply across rounds that govern how activation of variants by different ROs is prioritized? This needs to be considered. * Slide 7 – Comparison matrix – Level 2 * Clarification of con regarding “7 scripts” on slide 7: Not all scripts in the RZ-LRG have allocatable variant labels. There are 7 that do. What is important in the string similarity review is visually confusability, not the language/script of the string. If we have 7 scripts with allocatable variants, the pool of strings to evaluate is bigger compared to Level 1. * Comment: When someone applies for a string, they are applying for a license for that string and nothing else. When they get a TLD, they don’t have any rights to the variants of that string. To set a policy that gives a right of first refusal to an existing RO to any variants goes against the notion that the RO doesn’t have ownership rights of those strings. If we go down the path of Level 2 or 3, we might be going against the notion in the base agreement. * Response: We are not suggesting giving IP rights to the applicant. In 2012 round the self-identified variants were incorporated in the string similarity review process. However, the applicant did not have any IP right over those strings. * Comment: By reviewing the strings that have not been requested, you are essentially reserving the right for that RO for the string should they ever want it. You are essentially saying that RO has that right over anyone else who applies for a string that might be confusingly similar. * Response: An applicant is not and RO bound to the registry agreement or the clause being referred to above: “Ownership Rights. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as (a) establishing or granting to Registry Operator any property ownership rights or interests of Registry Operator in the TLD or the letters, words, symbols or other characters making up the TLD string, or (b) affecting any existing intellectual property or ownership rights of Registry Operator.” * Comment: Returning to the question of priority for strings if it is possible to request activation of variants at any time -- do edge cases warrant making the process more complex? This balance is more important than the pure concept of rights. * Response: The previous comment makes an assumption that the policy will allow the RO to request activation of a variant between rounds. The EPDP Team has not agreed on that. If it’s the policy that you can only activate variants during rounds, SubPro addresses how prioritization of applications where there may be overlapping rounds. * Slide 8 -- Comparison matrix – Level 3 * Question: Given that we have access to AI and other technology, would it be possible to automate some or all of this process? * Response: This may be a question for implementation. What is the benefit of automation and what problem would it solve? * Clarification: The maximally conservative approach is the safest but might be too much. If there is some automation, the time and expense could be reduced while still having a complete process. * Response: There was a tool used previously, but it did not perform adequately. Similarity is considered at the perception layer and therefore is not easily done in an automated fashion. * Comment: It may be hard to apply standard thinking about gTLD rights with an IDN TLD that has variants with different statuses. What is the most efficient and effective process to address the unique case of a IDN and its variants? * Comment: When a string is formally requested there is a need to notify the community, provide an opportunity for objections, and complete related processes. SubPro did not favor requesting applications on a rolling basis because it is difficult to make this predictable. If you make this possible, you are going against the principle of predictability that SubPro spent a lot of time working on. * Comment: It would be more predictable if we go with level 3, both for the previous round and subsequent rounds. At every activation point, you would have to depend on what is happening at that time, the predictability would be lower for applicants. It is more predictable to evaluate all variants upfront. * Response: its predictable to give a right of first refusal on every variant to the existing registry operator, but that goes against many other principles. * Question: For level 3, does the applicant have the choice of which variants it applies to activate? * Response: It is not an obligation to apply for all of the variants in the set. It would be discretionary on the applicant. * Question: What is the specific question we are trying to answer with respect to taking blocked strings into consideration? * Response: The scenario we are taking into consideration is one where someone potentially gets a label that is similar to a blocked label. * Comment: We would have to know why it’s blocked to figure out how to address it. * Response: Reserved and blocked are two different items. IGO/INGO are reserved. Blocked means that they are labels that are blocked through the RZ-LGR against a label that is delegated, allocated, or reserved. * Question: Why would the panel choose to block a particular string? Would that same rationale apply to a variant of a blocked string? * Response: There are multiple motivations for blocking a string. The main motivation was that the RZ-LGR procedures suggested that allocatable variants should be minimized and blocked variants should be maximized. The panel may look at it from a usability perspective. If there are two characters that are nearly visually identical and there is no usability argument, then they would make it a blocked variant. If there is a usability argument, they would make it an allocatable variable. * Question: Wouldn’t it depend on the exact reason it was blocked to determine rules regarding confusingly similarity? * Comment: If there is not harm to moving forward except that a string is confusingly similar to a blocked string, it doesn’t make sense for there to be a general rule that they can never move forward. * Slide 9 – Comparison Matrix – Consolidated View * Diversity of views expressed about whether Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 is most appropriate. * Suggestion regarding activation of labels between rounds: What if there was a rule that if an applicant is applying for an IDN TLD, they know what the variant set looks like and they decide what they want to apply for? There is one opportunity to apply for the primary and the variant set you are interested in applying for. If they are still available in the future, there is still an opportunity. Does this simplify the question to answer? * Discussion about whether Level 1 or Level 3 is more consistent with the SSAC conservative principle. From one perspective, Level 3 is a broader evaluation and therefore more conservative. From another perspective, Level 3 creates rights to a wider range of variants, and therefore Level 1 is more conservative because it treats the pool of variants in a more limited way. * The leadership team will propose a path forward on this question. This may be an item where members need to go back to their groups for input. AOB * Reminder: Respond to poll about your participation in ICANN74. Poll is scheduled to close tomorrow (15 April).

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 11:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 14 April 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/awB1Cw> (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

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed April 14, 2022

April 14, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 21 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/bQB1Cw * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yc6m92v3 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