August 2022 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Tan Tanaka, Dennis Aug. 17, 2022

Aug. 17, 2022

Hi, I have a last minute conflict during the first 30 min. I will join at 1400 UTC. Thanks, Dennis From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Devan Reed <devan.reed(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC 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, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC for 90 minutes. Please click link to join the webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/j/94276275950?pwd=dG5hanFzMlpsYmh0NnFjTEQwOUV1dz09 <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZmsgU1h5g3Ji30I5_x4EIP1xhlTjeE7hr9PF_Eua_GgWy…> 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://secure-web.cisco.com/17vIkwyjE_CYixQBErO-n6lPesI4vmJGEY04ioQmCjeNOD…> If this is your first time with Zoom, please take a look here: Welcome to Zoom <https://secure-web.cisco.com/1AIUa-UtJe_v5oJ23TKiu3mcn6rcKEsLQPlNd8Fcw1AhtF…> 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://secure-web.cisco.com/1JcXH4wk-aq3p86pDZReQ4Acy1i6TQgMK35j8UihzcC5xX…> * Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/LAYVD<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Ng2Gy_99Ku6JkA4VOb9L5Qe1kbYsQ_EseoGF78pmBqGYH…> * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/323fy6yf [tinyurl.com]<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1MKH9TnAyMTaYORo_XnBD4U17JLSMNnzfQfUVw8UtwFBCR…> 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, 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Aug. 17, 2022

Aug. 17, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 18 August 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/LAYVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/323fy6yf [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/323fy6yf__;!!PtGJab4!6xOBFcu…> 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

Reschedule EPDP Team Meeting #49
by Ariel Liang Aug. 16, 2022

Aug. 16, 2022

Dear EPDP Team, Since the GNSO Council will hold its August meeting on Thursday, 25 August at 13:00-15:00 UTC, it will overlap with the IDN EPDP Team meeting #49; several members and staff will have a conflict. The proposal is to move the IDN EPDP Team meeting 24 hours later, to Friday, 26 August at 13:30-15:00 UTC. If you have any objection to the proposed schedule change, please be so kind to respond on list by EOB Wednesday, 17 August, so that leadership and staff can consider proposing an alternative date/time. Kindly note that the schedule of next week’s meeting #48 stays the same (Thursday, 18 August at 13:30-15:00 UTC). Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

2 1

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #48 - Thursday 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Emily Barabas Aug. 16, 2022

Aug. 16, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Please find attached slides for the meeting. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #48 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call & SOI (2 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair Updates (5 mins) 3. Presentation of small group outputs on objection processes (80 mins) 4. AOB (3 mins)

1 0

Draft Outcome: Group 3 Charter Questions Related to Variants' Impact on New gTLD Program
by Ariel Liang Aug. 15, 2022

Aug. 15, 2022

Dear All Please find the draft outcome language for Group 3 charter questions related to the variants’ impact on the New gTLD Program, which are: · D2 & D3: see pp.5-6 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… · E2 (part 1) & E5 (part 1): see pp.1-4 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RLvsyQvliafNEA9Ja1RCObywpAWfp1kTmte0WZl… Both documents are also posted on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XwyHCg. Following the agreed format, the draft outcome language includes the following components: * Brief answer to the charter question * Recommendations and implementation guidance * Rationale for recommendations and implementation guidance Please note that for charter question E2 (Part 2) is being addressed by the String Similarity Small Group, and E5 (Part 2) is pending EPDP Team’s further deliberation on the strings ineligible for delegation topic. Please provide any input/suggestion for the draft outcome language on the mailing list by EOB Wednesday, 31 August. The EPDP Team is expected to discuss these draft languages during its call on Thursday, 1 September. Thank you for your review! Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0

Confirm Edits: Group 2 Charter Questions Related to "Same Entity" Principle at Top-Level
by Ariel Liang Aug. 12, 2022

Aug. 12, 2022

Dear All, During its meeting on 28 July<https://community.icann.org/x/JgYVD>, the EPDP Team discussed the input (mainly from RySG) for the outcome language of Group 2 charter questions. Members had preliminary agreement on the suggested edits discussed during the call. Since some members were not be able to make it to the 28 July call, staff are circulating the suggested edits for your review / confirmation. If no objection to the edits by EOB Friday, 19 August, we will regard these outcome languages stable. * Charter Question B2, Recommendation 2.3 and Rationale (p.2): https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3… * Charter Question D1b (Part 2), Rationale for Recommendation 2.5 and 2.6 (p.3): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… Thank you for your review! Best Regards, Ariel From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis" <dtantanaka(a)verisign.com> Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 at 4:30 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Reminder: Draft Outcome: Group 2 Charter Questions Related to "Same Entity" Principle at Top-Level Ariel, et al On behalf the RySG members of the EPDP I would like to submit the following observations to the draft outcomes. * Summary of the redline: Adding clarifying language to reflect that allocation alone of a TLD to a same entity cannot guarantee avoiding denial of service failure mode. * Proposed language: Rationale for Recommendation 2.1: To support its consideration of charter question B1, the EPDP Team reviewed the SubPro PDP recommendation 25.5 and Staff Paper recommendation 2, as well as their rationale. The EPDP Team agreed that abiding by the “same entity” principle and having the same registry operator for all allocatable variant labels of an existing gTLD will help minimize, but not guarantee, the security risk associated with the “failure modes” – including denial of service and misconnection – when dealing with variant labels. Therefore, the EPDP Team affirms to extend the SubPro PDP and the Staff Paper recommendations to existing gTLDs. * Why the redline? Recommendation 2.1 is applied at the top level, not at the domain name level. Making a TLD label allocatable to a single entity (or withheld) does not directly avoid the failure mode of denial of service. Even if the gTLD variant is activated into the root, an actual domain name (second level.variantTLD) needs to be registered and operated, in all variant TLDs. So, while it can help to minimize denial of service problem, it cannot guarantee it due to downstream actions (by other entities different than the registry operator) that need to be implemented. Therefore, the inclusion of a caveat. Related to this. For special purpose TLDs (brand, geo, community based) if the variant set is held to the same requirements, then it is possible that allocatable variants do not meet the same eligibility requirements as the primary label (for example, a trademark record). Avoiding denial of service due to an inactive TLD variant (in this case) is not only improbable, but impossible. * Summary of the redline: a registry operator should not be expected to ensure consistent user experience because it does not host or manage content (e.g. website, email services). * Rationale for Recommendation 2.6: As IDN gTLDs and variant labels that are considered a set are yet to be delegated and operated at the root zone level, there is uncertainty about how the set will be managed and operated by the registry operator from a technical and user perspective. Therefore, it will be important that applicants are able to explain their need for a set of IDN variant label(s) as well as demonstrate their technical capability to operate and manage the set. Therefore, the applicant will be required to respond to additional application questions to address why they seek to activate those variant label(s) in addition to the primary new gTLD (i.e., necessity and expected usage of the variant labels), as well as how it plans to manage the set operationally, with a view to ensuring a secure, stable, and consistent user experience. The applicant’s response to these questions is expected to be a critical component in the evaluation process. Evaluators with requisite expertise are expected to assess these responses. * Why the redline? While the language is in the rationale and not the draft recommendation, it may be misconstrued in an implementation guideline. We are far away from discussing operational requirements, but the suggestion that a registry operator should be expected to “manage” and “ensure” a “consistent user experience”, we think it may be misleading. We suggest removing that sentence from the rationale which does not affect the overall intent. * Summary of the redline: Minor change for consistency in terminology. * Recommendation 2.3: If the registry operator operating a variant gTLD label changes its back-end registry service provider, all the variant gTLD label(s) in the set must also switch transition to the same new back-end registry service provider. * Why the redline? Harmonizing language with MSA change process [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/17PTWZSoYgDuVsWnubB…>, which uses the term “transition”. One additional note. On draft recommendation 2.8 (B5: special purpose TLDs) I have shared the draft outcome with our colleagues in the Brand Registry Group and GeoTLD Group. I’m working with them to get their insights, so I’d like to ask for your patience while I compile their input. Thank you, Dennis, on behalf the RySG IDN EPDP members From: Gnso-epdp-idn-team <gnso-epdp-idn-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:04 PM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Reminder: Draft Outcome: Group 2 Charter Questions Related to "Same Entity" Principle at Top-Level 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, This is the final reminder for reviewing the draft outcome language for Group 2 charter questions by EOB Friday, 15 July (initial deadline extended by one week). Please see details below. FYI - the ALAC Team informed staff that they agree with the draft language for those questions. Best Regards, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, June 24, 2022 at 11:43 AM To: "gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-idn-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Draft Outcome: Group 2 Charter Questions Related to "Same Entity" Principle at Top-Level Dear All Please find the draft outcome language for Group 2 charter questions related to “same entity” principle at the top-level, which are: · B1, B2, B3, B5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_VfcVVZ6E97qbo42GPziP6x089bR3… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/15YGISgNQYL_V…> · D1a, D1b (Part 2): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN4Is0mehuRgc1GqjKmbbhT14KbvU… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1C6xKX87w2LtN…> Both documents are also posted on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/XwyHCg [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1cLkZefuhXu_uH3vPKV…>. Following the agreed format, the draft outcome language includes the following components: · Brief answer to the charter question · Recommendations and implementation guidance · Rationale for recommendations and implementation guidance Please note that for charter question D1b Part 1 (related to the process by which an existing TLD registry operator seeks to activate variants) has not be addressed; it depends on the survey responses from the Arabic/Chinese TLD ROs. Please provide any input/suggestion for the draft outcome language on the mailing list by Friday, 8 July. Best Regards, Steve, Emily, Ariel

1 0

String Similarity Review Hybrid Model - Input Requested
by Ariel Liang Aug. 12, 2022

Aug. 12, 2022

Dear EPDP Team, During the meeting yesterday, the String Similarity Small Group presented its work on the string similarity review, and put forward a recommendation of the “hybrid model”. In order to facilitate the continued deliberation of this topic, the leadership requests members to consult with their appointing organizations on the proposed hybrid model for string similarity review. The EPDP Team is expected to have a follow-up discussion of the hybrid model during its meeting #49 (in about two weeks), so that members can share any input and feedback gathered from their groups. Resources: * Please find the slide deck from yesterday’s meeting attached. Slides 13-18 explain the hybrid model. * The zoom recording can be found here: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/yBjhi73sWh1yffDrmesASvWRkFoyUm6Pk7CgEC-DczoU… (from 31 min 42 second and onward). * Please feel free to contact me (ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>) if you have additional questions about the hybrid model. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Sr. Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #47 - 11 August 2022
by Emily Barabas Aug. 11, 2022

Aug. 11, 2022

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 11 August 2022 Action Item Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to provide input on whether it is acceptable to move the 25 August EPDP Team meeting 24 hours later to 26 August at 13:30 UTC to avoid a scheduling conflict with the August GNSO Council meeting. Notes Welcome and Chair Updates * Last week the EPDP Team discussed that it would continue to discuss strings ineligible for delegation, but the leadership team determined that it would be helpful to develop examples before discussing further, so the group will come back to this topic when examples are ready. * In terms of the glossary, and regarding the discussion around “primary” TLD, when th EPDP Team talks about primary it is talking about the source label. A source label is needed to calculate variants. There may not be value in being strict in saying that the EPDP Team can’t use the term “primary.” We’ve reached a common understanding that when we talk about primary, we are talking about the source or applied-for label. It might be helpful to move towards “source” or “applied-for label” when we move towards drafting. * What we mean by set is more challenging. We will need to be deliberate when we use this term in being clear what we mean. In the strict sense, it means the source string and all variants, but we may use the term differently in different contexts, as long as we are clear about the intent in context. * The EPDP Team will continue to work on glossary elements and terms as the work progresses. * Admin item: Meeting on 25 August will overlap with the GNSO Council meeting. Can we move the meeting 24 hours later to Friday 26 August at 13:30 UTC? Responses welcome in chat and on the mailing list. Action Item 1: EPDP Team members to provide input on whether it is acceptable to move the 25 August EPDP Team meeting 24 hours later to 26 August at 13:30 UTC to avoid a scheduling conflict with the August GNSO Council meeting. Small group outputs on String Similarity Review * Slide 4 – Background * Slide 5 – Three Levels of Comparison * Slide 6 – Problem Statement * Slide 7 – Small Group Tasks – focus for today is task 1 and task 2 * Slide 8 – Small Group Composition * Slide 9 – Task 1 * Slide 10 – Example Strings * Question: Are all 8 examples standalone strings i.e. no variant relationship, except for row 2? * Response: Confirmed. * Further clarification: Looking at the columns, the strings may not be variants of one another, but there may be risk of confusion when variants of these strings are introduced. * Slide 11 – Task 2 * Slide 12 – Selected Examples for Comparison * Slide 13 – Example 6: Two Applied-For Arabic TLDs * Slide 14 – Example 6: String Similarity Review * Slide 15 – Example 6: String Similarity Review consolidated view * Note: This slide demonstrates what could happen but not necessarily what will happen. The panel will ultimately make the determination of what is confusingly similar. * Question: What is the value of comparing any string to a blocked variant, knowing that those will not be applied for and will not be delegated? * Response: The small group was looking from the point of view of an end user who may not know if a variant is blocked. There is still a misconnection risk even if the blocked variant will never be a TLD. There is still a risk of user confusion. * Follow up to question: Misconnections happen every day when users type a different extension to the second level domain name or type a second level domain name that was not the right one. * Additional question: Wouldn't the user quickly establish that the TLD is not what they expected by the content on the site? * Response: The small group was also considering end user expectation in terms of experience of "usage". * Question: What is the next step if the applied for string is found to be confusingly similar to a blocked variant? * Response: Depending on whether the comparison is between two applied for strings or an existing TLD and an applied for string. If it’s two applied for strings, this results in a contention set. If the comparison is between an existing string and an applied for TLD, the applied for TLD can not proceed. * Additional pages -- Example 7 * Slide 17 – Recommendation: Hybrid Model * Slide 18 – Rationale for Hybrid Model * Slide 35 – String Similarity Review Recommendation * Thanks to the members of the small group as well as staff for their work on these tasks. * Comment: The inclusion of the blocked variants in the analysis can significantly increase the complexity of the analysis and the number of strings taken into account. The working group should consider the potential impact in its evaluation of the small group’s recommendations. * Additional clarification sought on the misconnection risk. * Response: Looking at the Arabic example in the deck (slide 13) – Looking at B1 and its variants, assuming someone applies for B1, the blocked variants are considered somehow equivalent to B1. Someone from a given language community who is looking at B1 could consider B3 the same as B1. If you are not comparing block variants in the evaluation, A1 and B1 will proceed to delegation. Someone from the language community that considered B1 and B3 to be the same will look at A1 and think it is B1, because B1 and B3 are the same. The user could be put in harm’s way because they could click on a link that directs them to somewhere other than B1, which is not what they expected. * Question: Who is “somebody”? * Response: This refers to the end user of one or more language community. Whenever two different code points are variants, they are either visually identical or they are considered the same by one of the language communities using the script. * Comment: That risk could already be happening and is not unique to IDN labels. A1 and B3 are visually similar, which could cause confusion, but it is not clear that the situation with IDN labels is unique and needs to be mitigated in a different way. * Misconnections happen, but we don’t know if it’s due to phishing or mistyping or something else. This group can’t address that across all TLDs. But it can do something for the case of IDN variants. The small group took into account both the idea of the consistent user experience and potential risk of harm. * Additional point to highlight – on slide 18 – in practice, language experts on the panel may be able to look at strings in question as part of the String Similarity Review on a case-by-case basis to simplify the problem space. * RySG will review the small group recommendations and come back with feedback. * In reference in example 6, in previous discussions, one member had expressed support for comparing blocked to blocked variants to future proof the evaluation in case a blocked variant became allocatable. * Question – why would the end-user type B3 and end up at A1? Why wouldn’t they type B1? If they type B3, wouldn’t they get a message that it’s an invalid domain? * Response: The example focuses on case where someone sends a link to someone else to click. Someone sends example.a1 that is malicious and people click on it thinking they are going somewhere else. * Summary: EPDP Team will come back to this topic in two weeks. In the meantime, members can send questions to the list or reach out to staff for further explanation of the proposal. * Comment: At some point, we need to shift into mindset of what is implementable. We need to think about what would happen if many IDNs end up in contention. SubPro recommended that for brands there could be an opportunity to change the applied for string in the case of contention. Could this opportunity be extended to those in contention for IDNs?

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 11 August 2022
by Devan Reed Aug. 11, 2022

Aug. 11, 2022

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 11 August 2022 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/KgYVD> (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, 18 August 2022 at 13:30 UTC
by Devan Reed Aug. 11, 2022

Aug. 11, 2022

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 18 August 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/LAYVD * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/323fy6yf 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