February 2024 - Gnso-epdp-idn-team

Updated Recommendation Text for IDN Table Harmonization, Domain Name Query & IDN Implementation Guidelines
by Ariel Liang 29 Feb '24

29 Feb '24

Dear All, In preparation for the EPDP-IDNs Team meeting in ICANN79 San Juan, please find the updated recommendation text that will be discussed during the session on Saturday, 2 March at 9:00-10:00 Local time: For updated language related to domain name query and IDN Implementation Guidelines, please see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V… * New Rec 12 & IG 17: pp.33-35 * New Rec 19: p.38, and rationale on p.43 (New Rec 14 and New IG 18 unchanged from last call) For the IDN Table harmonization mechanism topic, please find the leadership suggested recommendation text on pp.2 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncgw2__5NZku-GUj6zAt2UYyZA9FPB… - heading=h.f5zexghzu33o<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DUl7DkbCtncgw2__5NZku-GUj6zAt2UYyZA9FPB…> * Note: page 1 contains previously agreed charter question C5 response and RySG input provided during the last call; rationale will be added after EPDP Team’s agreement on the recommendation text The suggested agenda for the session is the following: 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (3 min) 3. Proposed Draft Recommendations for C5 - IDN Table Harmonization Mechanism (30 min) 4. Close Loop on Updated Preliminary Recommendations on UDRP and IDN Implementation Guidelines (20 min) 5. Next Steps (2 min) 6. AOB (3 min) Safe travels to those who will attend ICANN79 in person, and look forward to seeing others online as well. Best Regards, Ariel

3 3

Notes and Action Items from IDN EPDP Meeting #107
by Daniel Gluck 28 Feb '24

28 Feb '24

Hi All, Please find below the notes and action items from last Thursday’s (22 Feb 2024) IDN EPDP Meeting #107.<https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg> Thanks! Ariel, Steve, Saewon, and Dan ACTION ITEMS * IDN Table Harmonization: Leadership will discuss this draft text and work through a potential way forward to incorporate the Registries Small Team work into the P2 report, but also other feedback around potential changes to the third point in the text and also how everything interacts with question C5. * Updated Preliminary Recommendations: Staff and Leadership will draft an updated PR12 and IG 17 to best reflect the desires of the team by keeping the guidance generic but allowing a path forward. NOTES * Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) * Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) * The Chair welcomed the team to the call * IDN Table Harmonization Update (40 min) * The small team from the RySG presented their findings on IDN Table Harmonization * A draft of the text was circulated to the email list https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-idn-team/2024-February/001279.html * This was communicated over the call and clarified with additional observations * The original draft had conversations about IDN Tables. This was consciously moved away from by the small team * Through conversations with ICANN org, there was a discussion that while IDN Tables are a solution, they're not the only solution * This is a placeholder for future IDN Guidelines work groups to discuss and then implement * A member of the EPDP Team asked why IDN tables were removed and commented that the recommendation does not clarify how harmonization is completed and; * There are two parts of the harmonization process. * The process of how the table should be harmonized * The data that is used * The new text does not specify which data should be used for harmonization. * RZ-LGR is a representation of the script community and end users. It contains scripts and additional code points. It was the fallback baseline recommendation when the text was originally being discussed. * What was recently discussed was that the registries team was the RZ-LGR could work at the top level, but not for the second level. * A second data set was recommended * Also recommended if a dataset could not be defined, then a follow-up action / IG could be created to get to this data. * The current language is fine but does not provide a path to the data. * It was asked if the circulated text above should supplement or replace the current text? * Unclear at this point, but it's possible to pull out the second point in the email and turn it into a recommendation, per the Chair, along the lines of harmonization at the second level is at the discretion of the registrar / registry / registrants, with a provision that future implementation guidelines would address this issue. * Point 1 is a statement of fact. Point 2 could be used to draft a recommendation around and would replace what is in C5. The Chair does not want to lose what is currently in C5. Point 3 could be viewed as a starting point for the IDN Implementation Guideline Working Group. * An author of the circulated text said it could be used to tease out a response for question C5 and not replace the current response. The text could also be used as implementation guidance. * There is a “clear demarcation” for the 1st point in the text per a team member * At the second level, it is up to the registries to implement harmonization. * The rules from the root zone do not need to be applied directly to the second level and is why the registries small team clarified this in the circulated text. * It was asked if there would be any willingness from the Registries small team to augment the second point in the text to incorporate details from the team member earlier around a path for data. * The third point in the text was where there was room identified to incorporate this point, but there was a concerted effort to not specifically mention any process and constrain the text, per an author of the circulated text. If the text is a bit too high level, the registries small team would be amenable to updating the third bullet over the second. The second point for the registries is a sticking point at this time. * With the principles and need to interpret them correctly, there may be a need to update the 2nd and 3rd points to describe the mechanism to make it more clear. Also potential to collapse into C4, but aiming for C5. * [ACTION ITEM] Leadership will discuss this draft text and work through a potential way forward to incorporate the Registries Small Team work into the P2 report, but also other feedback around potential changes to the third point in the text and also how everything interacts with question C5. * As a summary, there is a recommendation that tables have to be harmonized. It was agreed that the team wouldn’t suggest “how”. The registries have not suggested the “how” but these are principles on how ICANN org and other stakeholders could work on this. There could be an IG to suggest this. A recommendation that says the implementation guideline working group could work on this shouldn't hold up the IRT or hold up the next round as a dependency. * Close Loop on Draft Recommendations (70min) * Updated Preliminary Recommendations 12 and 14 * PR12 * Text was proposed by a team member to elevate the recommendation to not focus on the protocol but to discuss the services rendered and how the behavior should be shaped. * Registration data services returns information on registered / existing domain names / objects. Unallocated variants being introduced to this system would not be a great use case for RDAP. * Since RDAP is the replacement protocol for WHOIS, it was included in the D8 response when the text was drafted. It was suggested to replace RDAP with RDDS in a comment on the text. The intent from this comment is to differentiate between the protocol (WHOIS and RDAP) and the service (RDDS). * RDDS may be safer to use in case the protocol is replaced in the future. It refers to both current protocols. It is up to the requester which service to use (RDAP vs WHOIS) * It may be difficult to find a one size fits all answer for PR12. RDAP may not have to be replaced by RDDS in all cases. * The team must be very clear with their terminology. RDDS is in registry contracts and refers to both RDAP and WHOIS. It was suggested that using RDAP could make registry jobs more complicated. * It was asked what the authoritative source for an end user to determine the complete data set? * The authoritative source would be the registry. The registry determines the set. The list of potential variants could be registered, unregistered, delegated, undelegated, etc. * Clarity for what information is being asked for here could be important. * RDDS will not solve all of the problems here, but it is an improvement to RDAP. * Text was submitted as a consideration to replace PR12. * In the case of a variant, it should be possible for a registrant to look up the full variant set. The query should overcome the potential confusion on if a name is part of a variant set. Some registrars have a way to display that information, but the team discussions are working on ways to overcome similar issues. * The intent is clear but the terminology is to be determined. * Proposed initial draft from staff would mention that the user must be able to see allocated and source domains to calculate the variants with additional text that would not specify the protocol or service (keep it generic) and this was preliminarily welcomed by the team. * There was caution to use “should” instead of “must” when drafting that idea. * [ACTION ITEM] Staff and Leadership will draft an updated PR12 and IG 17 to best reflect the desires of the team by keeping the guidance generic but allowing a path forward. § PR14 · Proposed text was drafted for new PR14 and IG 18 to reflect recent discussions with ccPDP4. o Implementation Guidance 18 being separated from the recommendation allows for flexibility in how this is carried out in terms of the level of detail of a charter. The elements / level of detail of the CSC Charter vs PDP charters was discussed as an example. Allowing the flexibility for the IDN Implementation Guidelines Working Group is the goal of this. o The ccNSO discussion was very fruitful and one issue of concern was the charter being in the recommendation and it is why it was split off into implementation guidance. · The process described to establish the work group was discussed. · There were comments submitted about if the approval / documentation process is a one-time event or recurring. What is a triggering event to constitute the IDN Implementation Guidelines Working Group? · There was some desire to leave the text as is from some team members. · No substantive changes to the PR or IG are needed, a sentence was deleted during this call within the rationale. o Glossary: Variant § Staff walked the team through some of the updates made to glossary entries, specifically for “Variant”. Context and notes were provided for the new definition to ensure the understanding that “variant” is not used on its own. § There were no comments from the team. * AOB (3 min) * Due to discussions today, there will likely be a meeting at ICANN79 in San Juan (Saturday, 2 March at 9:00 am local time)

1 0

Post Call | IDNs EPDP Team call | Thursday, 22 February 2024
by Devan Reed 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

Dear all, All recordings for the IDNs EPDP Team call held on Thursday, 22 February 2024 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg> (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 recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) * Transcript * Agenda & Notes/Action Items (if applicable) 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

15 MINUTES REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC
by Devan Reed 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

15 minutes Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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 page: https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg * Check your time zone: http://tinyurl.com/2s99kbdv [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tinyurl.com/2s99kbdv__;!!PtGJab4!7nvGc6Jj…> 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 text for C5 response: Harmonization
by jen＠dot.asia 22 Feb '24

22 Feb '24

Hi All, In preparation for our call later, the Ry IDN small group have come up with some proposed text that can be placed either in implementation guidance (although there is no specific rec coming out of C5) or part of the response: Although there is no specific recommendation coming out of C5, there are high level principles that should be followed during the implementation of this policy recommendation to ensure that the overall process can retain the flexibility that can accommodate for different registry operator technical solutions and business decisions, but can still be implementable in a consistent manner. 1. ICANN is the manager for the root zone, and registry operators are the managers for second (and subsequent) level(s). As such, operational aspects in terms of the implementation of IDNs at the second level, including harmonization mechanisms should remain in the responsibilities and scope of each respective manager. 2. The implementation of IDNs at the second level, including evolving issues such as harmonization and homoglyphs should be undertaken by respective registry operators in an operational process with ICANN org, and must follow the IDNA2008 (including any future versions) and the IDN Implementation Guidelines (including any future versions). 3. Security and stability of the DNS is the baseline criteria. Further details on the procedure, scope and requirements should be developed by registry operators, ICANN org and other relevant stakeholders. Looking forward to our discussion later on the call. Best, Jennifer

2 1

ICANN79 Policy Outlook Report / ICANN79 GNSO Policy Briefing
by Julie Bisland 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report that the GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN79 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/go.icann.org/gnsobriefing__;!!PtGJab4!-Yi…>. In addition, the ICANN79 Policy Outlook Report is available: https://go.icann.org/outlook79 [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/go.icann.org/outlook79__;!!PtGJab4!-Yii5…>. Happy reading! Best Regards, Julie -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> [signature_2510144026]

1 0

Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #107 - Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC
by Daniel Gluck 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

Hello, Sending this as a reminder as it may not have been clear from my email yesterday, but below is the proposed agenda for our meeting tomorrow, Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC. IDNs EPDP Meeting #107 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. IDN Table Harmonization Update (40 min) 4. Close Loop on Draft Recommendations (70min) * Updated Preliminary Recommendations 12 and 14 * Glossary: Variant 5. AOB (3 min) Thanks! Ariel, Steve, Saewon, and Dan

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | IDNs EPDP Team | Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

Dear all, The IDNs EPDP Team meeting is scheduled on Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC for 2 hours. 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 page: https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg * Check your time zone: http://tinyurl.com/2s99kbdv [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tinyurl.com/2s99kbdv__;!!PtGJab4!7nvGc6Jj…> 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

Updated Language for Rec 12, Rec 14 & "Variant"
by Ariel Liang 20 Feb '24

20 Feb '24

Hello everyone, Following last week’s call, leadership and staff worked together to update recommendation 12 pertaining to RDAP and recommendation 14 regarding IDN Implementation Guidelines. Please note that there are some substantive changes to the recommendation language, and additional implementation guidance has been developed to complement them. You may focus on the new redlines on pp.32-42 for these recommendations and implementation guidance. In particular, on p.37, we kept the old recommendation 14 for the ease of reference, and included the new recommendation 14 and implementation guidance 18 with blue highlight: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UrrckzbPNL1Z8fUtH5Q5WqUWglxbD-SbihX8o8V… In addition, you may find the new entry of “variant” on the glossary document, pp.16-17: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NaDttdqEdrNeWPxZVWm2JA565zN3beFx7ZGbYlQ… Thank you for the preview. We will plan to close these remaining loops on Thursday, including the IDN Table harmonization discussion. Thank you, Ariel

1 0

Notes and Action Items from IDN EPDP Meeting #106 and Proposed Agenda - IDN EPDP Meeting #107 - Thursday, 22 February 2024 at 12:00 UTC
by Daniel Gluck 20 Feb '24

20 Feb '24

Hi All, Please find below the notes and action items from last Thursday’s (15 Feb 2024) IDN EPDP Meeting #106<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=302350604> as well as a proposed agenda for this Thursday’s (22 Feb 2024) IDN EPDP Meeting #107.<https://community.icann.org/x/DoEFEg> Thanks! Ariel, Steve, Saewon, and Dan IDNs EPDP Meeting #106 ACTION ITEMS * IDN Table Harmonization: The RySG will deliberate this week and staff will request proposed language to be circulated ahead of the next meeting for a more efficient discussion/conclusion * Recommendation 12 (RDAP profile): Leadership to develop language that is an overarching/general recommendation * Recommendation 14: Staff to revise language and rationale (to refer to CSC Charter). Merging 14.2 and 14.3 and then reordering the items was suggested. * Glossary: Staff to draft “variants” in the context of IDN EPDP while Leadership finalizes review * Implementation Guidance 15 (Automatic activation): This was not covered during Team meeting and will be discussed in upcoming meetings or on the email list NOTES * Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) * Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) * The chair welcomed everyone to the call * Timeline Overview & Public Comment Approach (15 min) * The chair then briefed the team on the timeline, including a meeting (#107) next week on 22 February, leading all the way through the public comment break, and all the way until mid-May when meetings pick back up (#108 on 16 May) * Glossary Review (30 min) * Without substantive comments, the glossary entries will be accepted. Staff will make any grammatical or formatting changes that have been recommended. * One comment received was regarding the word “variant” and it was suggested that there could be an entry added to “variant” to clarify that this document always refers to IDN Variants when “variant” is mentioned. * In phase 1, “IDN” was specifically divorced from “variant” to allow for separation to occur but now there are suggestions for phase 2 to bring them back together? * ACTION ITEM: Staff to draft “variants” in the context of IDN EPDP while Leadership finalizes review for the glossary * Close Loop on Draft Recommendations (50 min) * Preliminary Recommendation 12: RDAP Query * The RySG Reported back on their discussions * There was a sense that RDAP might not be the right protocol to be used to identify variants * The volume might be overwhelming, per a team member. * It may be out of scope for the EPDP team to prescribe specific RDAP changes, including potential contractual issues * A different team member disagreed with this evaluation * This should not be a major issue to performance of RDAP as the work already has to be done by the Registry, per that team member. * It was suggested that the actions of the RDDS contract are specified (stemming from the Registration Data Policy EPDP) and this would change that * A team member recommended that the specificity of the PR12 should be changed to a recommendation for registries to review /update RDAP profile documents * Potentially the chair thought that specifics could be added to implementation guidance while the recommendation could stay general like in the suggestion. * Another team member talked about the difference between policy changes and contractual changes. While PDPs may change contracts, the specific language to the contracts are different from the language in the PDPs. If updates to the RDAP lead to megabytes of information included on each query, then there will need to be significant structural changes to RDAP and its SLAs. * If the result of such changes leads to significant increases in volume for output, than the SLAs should be reviewed * The Chair suggested the creation of a general recommendation that does not prescribe contractual changes but says the RDAP profile needs to account for variants, with specific context in the implementation guidance. * Another team member described the potential need for specific tasks within the policies * Registries should be much more amenable to this situation * ACTION ITEM: Leadership will look at creating a general recommendation with specifics in implementation guidance for PR 12 * There is a need to update RDAP profile in response to a query to see variants and this needs to be clear why the recommendation is being made but then “should” statements like what to display when a query is received could be in the implementation guidance * Implementation Guidance 15: Automatic Activation * This was not covered during Team meeting and will be discussed in upcoming meetings or on the email list * Initial Feedback from ccPDP4 on Preliminary Recommendation 14: IDN Implementation Guidelines * The ccPDP4 team does not have significant concerns about the recommendation. There were some reservations on the specific language, which they allege may be a bit confusing. * “Working group” is mentioned twice but regarding different groups. Could there be modifiers to resolve confusion? * In terms of 14.1, who develops the process and what goes into the process of establishing the working group. This is well defined for the ccNSO processes, but not as clear here. Who is responsible for the actions in this recommendation? * Additional confusion on who would approve the Implementation Guidelines? GNSO? ccNSO? ICANN Board? * Regarding 14.2, there was confusion on the order of establishing the working group and establishing a charter. * The charter must be formalized before the working group is created and text should be updated to clearly define this. * 14.3 may be combined with 14.2 for additional clarity * This was supported by multiple members of the team * ACTION ITEM: Leadership and staff will review PR 14 to revise language and rationale (to refer to CSC Charter) - Merging 14.2 and 14.3 and then reordering the items was suggested. * Other Comments * IDN Table Harmonization Update (15 min) * PR1 received a detailed discussion in the past, but there are still outstanding issues * There is a key component of harmonization not reflected in PR1. In Implementation Guidelines 4.0 there is a prescription to identify additional variant codepoints. Currently IDN variant tables don’t look at cross script codepoints and it would be beneficial to reference these points in the recommendation. * Recommendations from team members included referencing community work from the RZ-LGR. * There have been multiple meetings between the Registries and ICANN Org experts on this topic * Discussions are still ongoing and there is another call between the two on the 20th. * The recommendation language in C4 and C5 is generally okay per a member of the RySG, but the conversations center around how these changes could be implemented. * It was recommended by the chair that additional text should supplement the implementation guidance but not the recommendation language itself. * Draft text will be circulated internally within the RySG members to review before going out to the larger EPDP team * ACTION ITEM: The RySG will deliberate this week and staff will request proposed language to be circulated ahead of the next meeting for a more efficient discussion/conclusion * AOB (3 min) * IG 25.3 of the Sub Pro PDP says applicants can apply for labels in scripts not in RZ-LGR (it will not be delegated if the script is not in the RZ-LGR). The Phase 1 IDN EPDP report says that variants can be applied for if the script is in the RZ-LGR. It could be considered that IG 25.3 could be an overarching recommendation, while the IDNs recommendation could be a subset of the IDN labels and variants. * The chair stated that this EPDP was grounded in the principles of the RZ-LGR. It's possible that someone could apply for a variant that was not involved in the RZ-LGR process, but it may not be an inconsistency. * A team member echoed this latter argument. They can work in conjunction, but it is possible to view them as incongruent. * Staff reminded the team to review the documents that have been circulated for a final review before implementation into the initial report. * Staff also walked through the table of content for the P2 Initial Report. * For the P2 initial report public comment, a guided input form will be used. IDNs EPDP Meeting #107 Proposed Agenda 1. Roll Call and SOI Updates (2 min) 2. Welcome and Chair Updates (5 min) 3. IDN Table Harmonization Update (40 min) 4. Close Loop on Draft Recommendations (70min) * Updated Preliminary Recommendations 12 and 14 * Glossary: Variant 5. AOB (3 min)

1 0