January 2023 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-idn-team] Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #65 - 12 January 2023
by Emily Barabas Jan. 12, 2023

Jan. 12, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 12 January 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Leadership team to develop draft language and recommendations in response to Charter Questions E3a and E4 based on EPDP Team discussion on today’s call. Notes Notes – IDN EPDP – 12 January 2023 Welcome and Chair Updates * The expectation is that we will run to two hours today as noted in the agenda. We also expect to use the full two hours for meetings going forward. * Extended calls will help to keep the EPDP on track for upcoming milestones. * Today we will test the consequences of the hybrid model. Deliberate on Charter Question E4 · Slide 4 – Charter Question E4 and Background * e4) The WG and the SubPro IRT to coordinate to ensure consistency in the implementation of the string contention resolution mechanism for variant label applications of existing and future new gTLDs. · Slide 5 – String Contention Flow Diagram · Slide 6 – Questions for Consideration * Q1: Should a recommendation be developed to explicitly specify that two applied-for strings that are each other’s variant according to the RZ-LGR must be placed in a contention set? (e.g., applicant A applies for 滙豐, and applicant B applies for 汇丰) * Q2: In the contention set, if one of the labels is already allocated, should the contention be resolved in favor of the entity that possesses the already-allocated label? * Q3: Should the entire variant label set (including all allocatable and blocked variants) be processed in the contention set, as opposed to the only applied-for strings? · Comment: If a string is outright a variant of another, it has to be considered a contention set based on the RZ-LGR. · Comment: Agreement regarding Q1 that two or more entities can’t have “rights” over the same variant set. · Clarification: Q1 is included for completeness -- should the AGB explicitly state that two applied-for strings that are each other’s variant according to the RZ-LGR must be placed in a contention set? It seems that the answer is yes to ensure that there is clarity in the implementation phase. · Clarification regarding question 2: We may see existing IDN gTLD operators applying for their variants. Do they have existing gTLD status that we can apply to the variants as well? · Comment: Due to the same entity principle it can’t be allocated to the other entity. · Comment: If those labels are on “withheld to same entity” status they are ineligible for allocation to another entity. · Question: Strings can go into contention because they are variants of each other or because they are similar to each other. In a contention set, if one of the strings is a variant of an already delegated TLD, what is the source of the contention in Q2? · Clarification: When the hybrid model was proposed, the assumption was that the entire variant set is used, including some variants that may not be applied for. If applicant A applies for string A, and existing RO B applies for variant of B called B variant, and A and B variant are confusingly similar, should we assume that A is rejected? · These questions identifies places where there could be some confusion in the process. When we are developing recommendations, we want to make sure we are clear about the implications of the recommendations to ensure consistency in implementation. · Comment: Q2 and Q3 appear to be related. If we say that the answer to Q2 is yes, then it makes sense that the answer to Q3 is also yes, so that in the future, there is predictability. · Summary: Some agreement expressed that a label that is confusingly similar to an existing gTLD or any of the existing gTLD’s variant labels cannot be delegated. Deliberate on Charter Question E3a * Slide 8 – Charter Question E3a and Context * e3a) After a requested variant string is rejected as a result of a string similarity review, should the other variant strings in the same variant set remain allocatable? Should individual labels be allowed to have different outcomes/actions (e.g., some labels be blocked and some be allowed to continue with an application process)? * Slide 9 -- When the Variant Set is Considered in String Similarity Review. . . If one label in the variant set is found confusingly similar, what should be the consequence for that label and the other labels in the variant set? (Variant Set = Primary String + All Allocatable Variants + All Blocked Variants * Thought 1: The variant set should be treated as one unit and all labels in the set should face the same consequence of String Similarity Review * Thought 2: The labels in the variant set should be treated as individual labels and could face different consequences * Comment: Variants are individual, independent labels only in the technical sense. For language communities, they are identical. * Clarification: We don’t know how the string similarity review will be conducted, but we do know that the work will be conducted manually by a panel. If the string similarity review is done on a string by string basis, there may be an outcome that a blocked variant of one string is confusingly similar to the allocatable variant of another string. Does that warrant putting the two applications into a contention set? Should this be different compared to a situation where the primary string(s) are the ones that are confusingly similar? Should there be an opportunity to assess the level of risk associated with the two strings that are confusingly similar? * Comment: In the processing of the string similarity review, we should err to the conservative side in the policy, which is Thought 1. If there is an appeal, Thought 2 would be tested in the appeals process. These are corner cases. In corner cases, the appeals process could kick in and offer a more nuanced review. The objections process can have a similar role of providing a more nuanced second look. It is not for the policy to select between Thought 1 and Thought 2. * Comment: If there is a possibility of an appeal, this could be something the EPDP Team could provide implementation guidance on. * Comment: It would be helpful for the panel to be able to make determinations on a case by case basis based on risk. * Slide 10 – Example Strings * Slide 11 -- If Thought 1 is supported…Consequence of Scenario 1 * An applied-for string or its variant label is found confusingly similar to an existing TLD or its variant label • the entire set of the applied-for string cannot proceed in the application process. * Comment: This model may go too far. There should be a mechanism, perhaps an appeal mechanism, in case there actually isn’t confusing similarity. * Response: The same entity principle creates a right for existing TLD operators, and this diagram tries to show the consequences. Thought 1 is the default but that it is possible to reverse this if they are successful in the challenge. * Comment: Perhaps the applicant can still apply for these strings but use the challenge/appeal mechanism if they feel that a review of the decision is appropriate. * Comment: We are talking about the different mechanisms that can determine whether two strings are similar. It might be productive to isolate the conversation to focus on the consequences if two strings are found to be similar. * Summary: The default consequence is that the set is eligible to proceed (Thought 1), but that there are opportunities to challenge, which could be acknowledged in the rationale. * Slide 16 -- If Thought 1 is supported…Consequence of Scenario 2 * Scenario 2: An applied-for string or its variant label is found confusingly similar to another applied-for string or its variant label • The entire sets of the applied-for strings end up in a contention set. The prevailing applicant can proceed to the next stage of the application process and the non-prevailing applicant is ineligible to proceed. This means that the entire set of the non-prevailing applicant is ineligible to proceed. * Comment: Before the contention resolution, there should be a challenge/objection allowed. * Comment: In this scenario, at least one set (1 or 3) should be delegated. We should define a clear set of rules for contention so that there is no further litigation from the party that loses contention. * Summary: The group appears to be converging on thought 1 for these scenarios, as default. Challenge/appeals mechanisms can be noted, but recommendations are already included in SubPro. * Comment: We may need to develop implementation guidance on the appeal as it applies to variants. * Comment: The text on thought 2 could potentially be leveraged for implementation guidance on the review panel. The panel may take a legal or technical position based on the approach, which may be beyond what this group should provide guidance on. Return to Charter Question E4 * Q3: Should the entire variant label set (including all allocatable and blocked variants) be processed in the contention set, as opposed to the only applied-for strings? * Based on the above discussion, it appears that the answer is yes. * Q2: In the contention set, if one of the labels is already allocated, should the contention be resolved in favor of the entity that possesses the already-allocated label? * Based on the discussion, it appears that the answer is yes here, as well. Action Item 1: Leadership team to develop draft language and recommendations in response to Charter Questions E3a and E4 based on EPDP Team discussion on today’s call. Additional Question for Discussion * Question: If the same applicant applies for two different labels and they are considered similar to each other, would the two labels from the same applicant go into a contention set? If yes, how would the contention be resolved? * Comment: In the 2012 round, an applicant applied for two strings that they knew would possibility be considered similar. The applicant, based on the outcome of the evaluation process, decided to drop one and keep the other. * Comment: The AGB should explain what the consequence should be, but if the applicant makes that decision that is their choice. * Response: There is a possibility where the applicant actually wants to use both strings. * Comment: The applicant could object to the decision creating the contention set or make a choice themselves with which string they want to proceed. * Comment: If there is a technical issue, both strings should not be allowed. If it’s a legal issue, there should be an opportunity to challenge. This is a concept not specific to IDNs. * Summary: If the question is not specific to IDNs, it may not be subject to recommendations from this group.

1 0

ON NOW | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 12, 2023

Jan. 12, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/YZE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/42bk5fek <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/42bk5fek__;!!PtGJab4!4YMuSeP…> 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, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 12, 2023

Jan. 12, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/YZE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/42bk5fek <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/42bk5fek__;!!PtGJab4!4YMuSeP…> 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, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 11, 2023

Jan. 11, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/YZE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/42bk5fek <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/42bk5fek__;!!PtGJab4!4YMuSeP…> ONLY for Members and Participants * Please join via the above Main Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select Everyone, when posting to the chat in order for everyone to see and to be captured afterwards. Only for Observers: * Observers will have ability to view member chat and information shared in the zoom webinar room. * Observers will not be able to use chat or raise hands. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #65 - Thursday 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 10, 2023

Jan. 10, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC. Please note that the agenda anticipates a 90 minute call, but the leadership team would like to conclude discussion of this topic on Thursday’s call. Therefore, the leadership team may request to extend the call by 30 minutes if the discussion runs long. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #65 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 mins) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Deliberate on Charter Question E4 (40 mins) 4. Deliberate on Charter Question E3a (40 mins) 5. AOB (3 mins)

1 0

Notes and action items - IDNs EPDP Meeting #64 - 5 January 2023
by Emily Barabas Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting on Thursday, 5 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily Notes and Action Items - IDNs EPDP Call – 5 January 2023 Action Items Action Item 1: Leadership Team to develop draft recommendation and response to Charter Question E3 based on today’s discussion. Notes Notes – IDN EPDP – 5 January 2023 Welcome and Chair Updates * Today’s discussion will be a continuation of the topic from our last call, the risk assessment model as applied to String Similarity Review. * As a reminder, the risk assessment is not an exact science. It is a subjective exercise. There is no right or wrong answer. This is a tool to see whether the added complexity and cost of the hybrid model is actually necessary. * As a reminder, ICANN org provided some additional analysis to demonstrate that complexity. Continuation of Risk Assessment - String Similarity Review * Slide 5 – Risk Assessment Overview * Purpose: Assess the inherent risk level of the two failure modes involving domains, understand whether the mitigation measures are commensurate with the risks, and assess the residual risk level after factoring in the mitigation measures * Inherent Risk: The level of natural level of risk without doing anything to reduce the likelihood or mitigate the severity * Residual Risk: The amount of risk remaining after the inherent risks have been reduced by mitigation measures * The specific risks being assessed are: * Risk 1: Denial of Service / No-Connection * Risk 2: Misconnection * Assess the Control Effectiveness, which reflects the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures being considered include two options: * Option 1: String Similarity Review Hybrid Model * Option 2: String Similarity Review Level 2 + String Confusion Objection Using the Hybrid Model * Slide 6 – How to Apply to the Risk Assessment Model * Slide 7 – Step 1: Describe Risks and Consequences * Slide 8 – Step 2a: Assess Likelihood * Staff example from personal experience: assigns a score of 2 for no-connection and 3 for misconnection. * Comment: The staff example draws on personal experience as a web user. But how do we think about the universe of users we are talking about? Are we talking about all users of the Internet? For example, no-connection is quite common on the Internet globally for a variety of reasons, but it might be less common when looking at specific users or use cases. * Response: For this exercise, we can only draw on our personal views as an EPDP Team in the context of the work we have done so far. * Comment: It is difficult to make an assessment based on the current Internet experience in which variants are not available at the top-level. It is difficult to use this experience to make an assessment of the future state of the Internet. Each individual may also have a different experience with respect to the likelihood of the risks. * Comment: The assessment is really focused on the relative values. If everyone agreed that likelihood is 5, that may point to a different result than if everyone felt that it was a 1. * Question: Are we assessing the situation as it is now (with no variants at the the top level) or the potential likelihood if variants do exist at the top level in the future? * Response: The focus is likely to be more on the future state, in the context of what we know about how the String Similarity Review will be conducted. This supports an assessment of whether we need the String Similarity Review to cover blocked variants because the potential severity and likelihood is high. * Comment: The overall likelihoods of these two risks would increase once variants are implemented at the top level. * ICANN org Comment: Some scripts are much more confusable than others. Our assessment of likelihood of a risk could vary based on the pair of scripts being considered. In some scripts where the risk is higher, it might make sense to take a deeper look compared to others. A single scale may not be appropriate across the board. Maybe there is a middle ground that would apply the hybrid model in some cases. In other cases, the level 2 model could be used. The review panel could, for example, design a system to determine when to use a hybrid approach. * Comment: It would be helpful if ICANN org could break down what it views as the complexity of applying the hybrid model. * Comment: It would be helpful if this group could think in terms of a framework for implementation rather than a set of hard rules. It’s possible to envision a situation where the approach for different scripts is different. It would be helpful to get guidance on the scripts, or criteria for determining which scripts, might introduce more or fewer risks? * ICANN org Response: This would need a study. * Comment: Additional research could potentially be done in the implementation phase on this topic. * Comment: This differences in scripts may indicate that a higher-level recommendation could be appropriate that would create flexibility to design an evaluation process that fits the circumstances. In addition to differences between scripts, it may be that the needs for the evaluation change over time if risk level changes. In implementation, the evaluation panel could adjust the evaluation based on the script. * Staff comment: This conversation may indicate that Level 2 is the minimum, but that use of the hybrid model is possible based on the assessment of the panel. The EPDP Team could provide implementation guidance about when the hybrid model may be appropriate if it chooses to do so. * Leadership comment: This risk assessment exercise has been helpful because it has drawn out some novel ways we can think about the String Similarity Review. This group can provide implementation guidance about how the String Similarity Review can be done. In earlier discussions, we were leaning towards the hybrid model. On the principle of conservatism and taking into account that the introduction of variants is new, the EPDP Team still appears to think that conservatism is appropriate, but it also acknowledges that there may be a more nuanced implementation that takes into account variability of risks. * Leadership question: There are other charter questions we put aside pending discussion on this topic. Will the proposed framing enable us to complete our work on the outstanding charter questions? * Staff response: The EPDP Team can now return to the following topics and questions: * Consequence of the String Similarity Review – treatment of a string that is rejected as a result of String Similarity Review and whether variants must also be rejected. * Whether string contention resolution needs to be adjusted -- the EPDP team needs to consider whether the entire set of variants needs to be put in the contention set. * String Confusion Objections – Does the EPDP Team still recommend the hybrid model? Action Item 1: Leadership Team to develop draft recommendation and response to Charter Question E3 based on today’s discussion. AOB * ICANN76 update: The leadership team requested two sessions for the EPDP Team to meet at ICANN76 and is tentatively scheduled to hold both sessions on day 1 of the meeting (Saturday, 11 March). * The target for publication of the Initial Report is April 2023. The leadership team hopes to be in the final stages of reviewing the Initial Report content by ICANN76.

1 0

Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 12 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/YZE-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/42bk5fek 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

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 05 January 2023
by Devan Reed Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 05 January 2023 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/X5E-DQ> (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

ON NOW | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/X5E-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk__;!!PtGJab4!6cfG9di…> 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, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 5, 2023

Jan. 5, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/X5E-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk__;!!PtGJab4!6cfG9di…> 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, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Devan Reed Jan. 4, 2023

Jan. 4, 2023

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 05 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 120 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/X5E-DQ * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/ywt5yekk__;!!PtGJab4!6cfG9di…> 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 #64 - Thursday 5 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by Emily Barabas Jan. 4, 2023

Jan. 4, 2023

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for our meeting on Thursday 5 January 2023 at 13:00 UTC. Kind regards, Ariel, Steve, and Emily IDN EPDP Meeting #64 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 mins) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. Continuation of Risk Assessment - String Similarity Review (80 mins) - Review risk model and apply against denial of service/no-connection and misconnection risks - Consider whether hybrid model is appropriate given level of agreed upon risk 4. AOB (3 mins)

1 0