February 2019 - Gnso-epdp-team

Please share with your groups / ICANN64 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Terri Agnew Feb. 27, 2019

Feb. 27, 2019

Dear all, GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN64 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_gnsobriefi…> If you prefer to download individual sections, you can do so by visiting this page [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_policybrie…>. The policy briefing is intended to facilitate your preparation for ICANN64. Please feel free to share the link with your respective groups and anyone else that may be interested: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO/status/1100428245936291841 Happy reading! Best Regards, Terri

1 0

Kobe Planning
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 26, 2019

Feb. 26, 2019

Hi Everyone: With our activities in somewhat of a state of flux, we are writing to let you know that we plan to maintain most of the Kobe meeting schedule. During a call with GNSO Council leadership, we agreed to use the opportunity for planning and prep work for Phase 2, while waiting for any additional GNSO Council instructions. We will use the Saturday meeting slot for Phase 2 planning, and a discussion on how to manage the coincident Implementation and Phase 2 efforts. We will plan to start Saturday at 11AM and spend 60-90 minutes reviewing GNSO Council decisions and guidance, take some early input from each group and set meeting objectives. We’ll break for lunch and continue through the afternoon until 18:30. We are hoping to provide some recreative refreshments around 1700 or so. We currently have meeting slots reserved at Sunday 1700-1830; Wednesday 1030-1200; Thursday 0830-1015. It is likely that we will meet the Technical Study Group either Sunday or Wednesday depending on their availability. Thursday, we will meet to review discussions during the GNSO Council meeting and other GDPR-related discussions from earlier in the week. We are using these weeks before the meeting for leadership / support team coordination and to touch base with the GNSO Council leadership to make sure we have adequate planning going into the next phase of our work. See you in Kobe and best regards, Kurt & Rafik

1 0

ICANN64: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings' team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN64 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you've added all your chosen meetings to "My Schedule" go to Export. * Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. * Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg>) will provide audio streaming only, Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for "ICANN64" in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Kobe to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

Resignation Redux
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Hi Everyone: I am sorry that you learned about me resigning my position as EPDP Chair by being copied on the resignation notice. It’s not good form but I thought it better to let my boss know first so that he doesn’t hear it from someone else. I am glad to have worked with you - getting to know some of you for the first time and some of you better than I did before this. I will continue to lead and aid the transition of leadership however it is required. I am also happy to chat informally about any topic. During the last several months, many of you provided signs of support - small and large, inadvertent and intentional. They were always appreciated and important to me, and never went unnoticed. I also appreciated the criticism that was offered, as it was always constructive. To the Support Team, you’ll hear more from me later. I’ll see you on the next call or in Kobe. Best regards, Kurt

10 9

Update from Council meeting
by Rafik Dammak Feb. 22, 2019

Feb. 22, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, I wanted to provide you with an update of yesterday GNSO Council discussion on the EPDP Team Final Report. After a lengthy exchange of views, the GNSO Chair decided to grant a request received from the BC and IPC for a deferral of the vote on the Final Report to allow those groups additional time to consult with their respective constituencies. As a result, the consideration by GNSO Council of the Final Report is now scheduled for Monday 4 March. For those interested in listening to the recording of the meeting, please see https://participate.icann.org/p8agqudejx6/. I would like to confirm that there are no EPDP Team meetings scheduled until that date (4th March). Further details in relation to Kobe meeting will be shared shortly but that that is still under discussion as a result of the uncertainty in relation to commencement of phase 2 (pending GNSO council instructions) as well as new chair search. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

Resignation from EPDP
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 22, 2019

Feb. 22, 2019

Dear Keith: For a set of personal and professional reasons, I am writing to resign my post as Chair of the EPDP for Registration Data. I was honored to be selected by the GNSO Council leadership for the post and attempted to live up to the position expectations and requirements at every moment since I began in July. I will stay on for as long as it takes to find a replacement Chair and smoothly transition the responsibilities. I have several thoughts about the follow-on work that I can share for Council and EPDP Team consideration. I wish to thank the Support Team for their incredibly hard, incredibly excellent work, and the EPDP Team members for their tireless, constructive participation and willingness to compromise. I will remain available to you, the Council Leadership and the EPDP Team as necessary and at your convenience. Thanks for your and the Council Leadership’s support. Sincerely, Kurt Pritz

3 2

For your review - Final EPDP Report
by Marika Konings Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 2019

Dear Councilors, As Rafik is traveling and in the interest of time, we are hereby sending you the EPDP Team’s Final Report. Per a request from last week’s Council meeting, we are attaching two versions of the report: (1) a clean version and (2) a red-lined version, which highlights the changes from the draft final report that was sent last week. As you review the Final Report, we would like to highlight the main updates made since the last version: 1. The chair has included the consensus designations in the body of the Report. You may also review the table of consensus designations in Annex E of the Final Report. 2. The following recommendations have been edited for clarification: * Recommendation 6 - registrars may allow registered name holders to consent to publish redacted data elements * Recommendation 7 – the first table has been deleted in order to clarify which data elements are optional for registries to transfer to registrars * Recommendation 9 – the language was been edited slightly to note that Contractual Compliance may request registration data elements under the Purpose 5 table, but the requests will be narrowly-tailored and fit for purpose * Recommendation 11 – the Team notes it is expecting additional legal guidance with respect to the city field, and, accordingly, this recommendation may be revisited in Phase 2 of the Team’s work * Recommendation 12 – the text has been altered to note that publication of the Organization field is a requirement for registrars, not registries. Additionally, registrars must phase into this treatment of the Org field by no later than 29 February 2019. * Recommendation 14 – a note was added to that PPSAI is currently in implementation and it will be important to understand the interplay b/w this recommendation and the PPSAI IRT’s work. Further work may be considered in Phase 2. * Recommendation 15 – the data retention period has been changed to 15 months * Recommendation 17 – text edited for clarity * Recommendation 18 – the text has been clarified to note that registrars and registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure and reasonable requests for disclosure must be responded to within 30 days 3. Group statements, the Minority Statement and responses to Consensus calls were submitted during the week prior to the close of deliberations. Issues raised in those submissions regarding Final Report inconsistencies, errors, and vagueness (as well as several substantive amendments) were discussed following receipt of the reports and amendments were made where the group agreed with those requested edits. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

3 2

BC and IPC Statement on EPDP Phase 1 Final Report
by Mark Svancarek (CELA) Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 2019

Dear Colleagues- Based on outcome of meetings this week, the BC and IPC members are able to share our revised response to the consensus call following today's updates as reflected in the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefens…> that is to be voted on shortly by the GNSO Council. The attached response is less than one page long, and reflects the exceptional collaboration of the EPDP team this week. Only a single blocking item remains. We are grateful for your support and look forward to working with you on Phase 2. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP

2 2

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Wednesday, 20 February 2019
by Julie Bisland Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FoU2Bg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-20feb19… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8l3knhesg9/<https://participate.icann.org/p8l3knhesg9/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=9c9b742509a1b3f0…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Final EPDP Report
by Matt Serlin Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

I’d like to echo Marc’s sentiments below and especially thank the ICANN staff and all support staff who assisted us in this effort along the way under very condensed timeframes and additional pressure not normally associated with these sorts of things. To those traveling to Kobe, safe travels and look forward to seeing you there. Matt From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Anderson, Marc" <mcanderson(a)verisign.com> Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 2:10 PM To: "marika.konings(a)icann.org" <marika.konings(a)icann.org>, "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Final EPDP Report Congratulations to staff, fellow working group members, Kurt and the leadership team on reaching this milestone. From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:57 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-epdp-team] For your review - Final EPDP Report Dear Councilors, As Rafik is traveling and in the interest of time, we are hereby sending you the EPDP Team’s Final Report. Per a request from last week’s Council meeting, we are attaching two versions of the report: (1) a clean version and (2) a red-lined version, which highlights the changes from the draft final report that was sent last week. As you review the Final Report, we would like to highlight the main updates made since the last version: 1. The chair has included the consensus designations in the body of the Report. You may also review the table of consensus designations in Annex E of the Final Report. 2. The following recommendations have been edited for clarification: * Recommendation 6 - registrars may allow registered name holders to consent to publish redacted data elements * Recommendation 7 – the first table has been deleted in order to clarify which data elements are optional for registries to transfer to registrars * Recommendation 9 – the language was been edited slightly to note that Contractual Compliance may request registration data elements under the Purpose 5 table, but the requests will be narrowly-tailored and fit for purpose * Recommendation 11 – the Team notes it is expecting additional legal guidance with respect to the city field, and, accordingly, this recommendation may be revisited in Phase 2 of the Team’s work * Recommendation 12 – the text has been altered to note that publication of the Organization field is a requirement for registrars, not registries. Additionally, registrars must phase into this treatment of the Org field by no later than 29 February 2019. * Recommendation 14 – a note was added to that PPSAI is currently in implementation and it will be important to understand the interplay b/w this recommendation and the PPSAI IRT’s work. Further work may be considered in Phase 2. * Recommendation 15 – the data retention period has been changed to 15 months * Recommendation 17 – text edited for clarity * Recommendation 18 – the text has been clarified to note that registrars and registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure and reasonable requests for disclosure must be responded to within 30 days 3. Group statements, the Minority Statement and responses to Consensus calls were submitted during the week prior to the close of deliberations. Issues raised in those submissions regarding Final Report inconsistencies, errors, and vagueness (as well as several substantive amendments) were discussed following receipt of the reports and amendments were made where the group agreed with those requested edits. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

2 1

Consensus Designations
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Everyone: Attached is the consensus designation table that will be included as an Annex in the Final Report. Please let me know of questions or corrections. Thx & regards, Kurt

1 0

Notes and action items from EPDP Team Meeting #47
by Caitlin Tubergen Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

EPDP Meeting #47 20 February 2019 High-level Notes/Actions The Support Team will send a clean and red-lined version of the Final Report to the Team and the GNSO Council shortly. Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ. 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates · Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect · Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. · Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion: · If there is not broad support for a change, we will move on to the next item. · There seemed to be rough consensus around 30 days for disclosure requests for rec. 18. · 30 days may be acceptable, but a substantially shorter timeline will apply for urgent disclosure requests · It doesn't make sense to have a contractual requirement without knowing the volume of requests that will come in. · There could be a scheme that is developed later about how to deal with this. To attach a number at this stage in the game is premature because the number we pick is likely wrong. · Addressing this later does not address the bad actors. · There needs to be a way to block unreasonable requests. · The language that registrars must respond reasonably helps solve the concern with bad actors. The language proposed by Thomas would be acceptable. e. Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes) · Add "if needed" to the recommendation and note the current language in the contracts addresses this already. · This change may not fully address the RySG comments. · From a Ry perspective, the group looked at the Charter question, specifically e1. The contract language is fine as is and does not require any changes. · The footnote for Rec. 9 notes the request must be narrowly-tailored to meet the request. · It may be important to keep the data set provided by Compliance in the recommendation. Why is OK to eliminate this? · The existing contracts do not have this enumerated, so why is this enumerated in the report? The data elements are out of place here. · If this is a full list, why does it need to be delineated? · Is it OK with everyone to delete the table, retain the footnote and note what Alan G. just said? · Concerning registration data elements - ry and rrs are required to transmit to ICANN org any WHOIS elements that are requested for Purpose 5. · Add a note, "it doesn't preclude CC from getting other data that are in the compliance processing activities doc" f. Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes) · Clarification offered by Rrs/Rys to show the org phase-in approach is a registrar obligation, and for registries to publish is optional. · Will registries publish the org field once the phase-in period is complete? · Getting consent requires flags for getting consent and flags for withdrawal of consent. This seems complicated for registries to know if the requisite consent was given. · Transfer of consent is not a simple issue. It's a technical challenge as well as a GDPR challenge. · Registry has to decide or not whether it wants the data, and this is based on risk. · There is not thin or thick at this point; rather, an aggregate minimum data set. Having it and using it for a justified purpose is different than publishing it. · Consent is not mentioned in the implementation advice. · Once we figure out who to transfer consent, then info will get transmitted to the registries · Who is the authoritative source, the registry or the registrar? · It might be best to say the registrar is the authoritative source here. · When we say something is only available at the registrar, once we figure out how to transfer consent, it should apply to all of those fields. · Proposed updated language: This is a Registrar obligation. For a Registry to publish is optional, until such time a way has been found that allows for the transfer of consent from Registrar to Registry. · A future date certain is not certain, so clarity is needed. · The only language regarding implementation appears in Rec. 28 - Feb. 29, 2020. · This is more difficult that some make it seem. · For the period b/w the adoption of the EPDP Policy and the conclusion of the implementation effort set for on or before 29 February 2020. g. Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes) · Ry/Rr proposed modification - the language in the parentheses is the previous language. · The updated language from Ry/Rr is meant to clarify the recommendation. · The SSAC proposal seems the opposite of what the group came to, so the disagreement will be noted. · SSAC would like to see a resolution to this = recommending as a possible path forward, in the deliberations in Phase 2. As we deliberate on this, there should be a balance on the cost to the ecosystem, not just the financial burden on contracted parties. · Consider adding a bullet that says: considers the potential benefits. · Add bullet on impact on the Internet/DNS ecosystem of not making the distinction. · It is not just about legal vs natural persons - even with legal persons, there could be personal information of natural persons. · Phase 2 is not a second bite at the apple. · IP/BC change to third bullet makes the language more committal - instead of "will discuss", it is changed to "determine and resolve". It also deletes the second sentence of the recommendation. · No objections were noted to these changes. · For rec. 18, can 30 business days be changed to 30 calendar days? · Change 30 business days to 30 days. h. NEW – Recommendation #14 – Privacy / Proxy Registrations – consider clarification and possible implementation guidance proposed (30 minutes) · One proposed change is to add "affiliated and accredited provider is used" instead of just affiliated. · Accredited is added so that when the policy goes into effect, this language will future-proof the policy. · The second bullet asks for the implementation to be completed within 90 days after the adoption of the EPDP policy recommendations by the board. · It seems tough for this Team to put an implementation date certain on another IRT. · The expansion of accredited is inappropriate at this late stage. · If there is some way to convey to the Council that this work should be done in an expedited manner, that would be preferred. · Isn't the onus on the P/P provider to provide the data, and not the registrar? · Not sure we're in a position to guarantee an implementation date. · Our job is not to future proof - we are looking at the status of things as they are now. We should defer to the competence of the other WGs/IRTs for the future work. · Support staff to put a note that PPSAI is an approved policy that is currently going through implementation. It will be important to understand the interplay between the display of information of affiliated vs. accredited privacy / proxy providers. Based on feedback received on this topic from the PPSAI IRT, the EPDP Team may consider this further in phase 2. Data Retention - Rec. 15 · Add 15 months to account for complaints filed on the 365th date to ensure data is not deleted on Day 366 Recommendation 7 · Small group looked through the workbooks · In the latest version of transfer of data from the registrar to the registry. There are two versions of this - there is one for TLDs where URS applies and where URS does not apply. This was put in the annex due to a previously-raised concern. · The current language of Rec. 7 is problematic b/c it creates an obligation that is not necessary and conflates the URS with the transfer of data from the registrar to the registry unnecessarily. · Proposed solution: requires transfer of registrant fields from a registrar to a registry with URS. Transfer of those fields should be optional based on registry policy (O-CPH). The table of required elements should be changed. URS does not create an obligation to transfer data. Remove the first table and leave the second table. And remove the reference to URS. · URS contemplates the data comes from the registries. Accordingly, there should be a recommendation that the data should come from the registrar. · The URS is not a consensus policy, it is a contractual obligation since the 2012 round. There is not distinction of whether a provider should contact the registry or registrar. As part of the Temp Spec implementation from Annex D, there are specific additional requirements for the Registry Operator and for the registrar. Because data elements would be redacted, in some cases, the provider would contact the registry to retrieve the RNH data. The rationale for doing that is that in today's URS environment, providers contact the registry and not the registrar. · The workbooks are not binding, they are illustrative. 3. NEW - Confirm groups for any recommendations that are designated as having ‘strong support, significant opposition’ as this information is to be included in the Final Report. (15 minutes) (see latest version of Consensus Designations document) · The consensus designations in red are the ones that have changed. · For the org field, we can call that consensus. · What is important to the leadership team - identify the groups that are not supporting the consensus recommendations. · Generally speaking, there are notations within the report that recommendations have consensus/full consensus unless designated differently. The groups who disagree will be noted in the report. We could consider adding this table as an annex. · Action item is that the groups who do not support recommendations are denoted correctly so that everything is accurately documents. For consensus designations, there is no requirement to designate opposition. · When we refer to BC and IPC, but it should be clarified parenthetically that it is 2/3 of one stakeholder group. (2/3 of CSG) · We have a consistency problem with divergence and SS/SO for Rec. 2 and Rec. 16 – these should be the same designation. · Is ISPCP opposed to Rec. 2? The ISPCP has not objected to any recommendations but has recorded some concerns. · For 16 – opposition – IPC, BC, ALAC, SSAC · Council rules apply when voting, but within a WG, we are not viewed within our stakeholder group. · The chart does not reflect the comment about the BC/IPC that they are not able to support the report without the requested changes. This dissent should be captured in a footnote on this chart. · On Rec. 5 – there should be a note about divergence with the tech contact being optional. · Does contact information include tech contact? If it does not, then ALAC would oppose the recommendation. · This is how the consent rec currently reads: "The EPDP Team recommends that, as soon as commercially reasonable, Registrar must provide the opportunity for the Registered Name Holder to provide its Consent to publish redacted contact information, as well as the email address, in the RDS for the sponsoring registrar" · Should contact be removed to address the problem? · ACs should be treated the same as SGs to respect the participation of the groups. · BC/IPC would like to include their statement as an annex/minority statement to the report. 4. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 20 February 2019Final Report Submit Final Report or confirm that version submitted on 11 February should be considered finalStaff Support Team / Council Liaison 21 February 2019Consider Final Report for adoptionGNSO Council 4 March 2019Consider Final Report for adoption (if needed)GNSO Council

1 0

Modified GAC Statement
by Heineman, Ashley Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hello all. My sincerest apologies for any potential confusion, but please find a mildly revised version of the GAC Statement to the Final Phase 1 Report. This attempts to clarify some confusion around our concerns pertaining to the organization field as well as to update where we stand on Recommendation 18 in light of today's call. EPDP support staff, please kindly use this version for including in the report and apologies again for sending in a revised version.

1 0

Consensus Designations
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Everyone: We spent a lot of today looking at past PDPs and levels of Consensus designations. I also considered your emails regarding consensus designations and appreciate the experience you have had as Chair or members of previous PDPs. We particularly examined the Curative Rights PDP, IGO/NGO PDP and the Registration Abuse Policies WG (and others). In those we found examples of designations of consensus where 4 of 15 members disagreed or representatives of three different GNSO groups disagreed. I have thought to take a conservative approach to consensus designations because I do not want to inflate the perceptions around our levels of agreement. To me a label of “Stong Agreement / Significant Opposition” should be an indication to the Council that such a recommendation should be favorably considered for adoption. However, past precedent indicates a broader definition of “Consensus” is appropriate. Therefore, I have adjusted some of the designations in accordance with the Alan's, Thomas’ and other emails. I chose not to conflate the number of groups with the voting scheme of the GNSO Council. I think that is the province of the Council, i.e., discussion at the Council level and the voting scheme will come into play there as items with “Strong Support" are considered. The report will necessarily list those in opposition to t certain recommendation. Please check the attached to determine support (or the opposite) is accurately reflected. During the call tomorrow, we will check to see if any levels of support have changed based on the discussion and email exchanges. Please write back with questions. Kurt

4 3

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] [Ext] Re: Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Milton, please note that the reference here to ‘group’ was not intended to refer to stakeholder group but to ‘group’ as used in the EPDP Team Charter, more specifically the table on page 12-13. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton(a)gatech.edu> Date: Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 22:11 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis Marika and Caitlin Another reminder that the relevant groups from the GNSO are Stakeholder Groups, not constituencies. IPC and BC are two thirds of the Commercial Stakeholder Group, they are not each of them the equivalent of RySG, RrSG or NCSG, ALAC, GAC or SSAC. The correct way for you to list the groups not supporting Rec 16 would be: ALAC SSAC 2/3 of CSG (IPC and BC) Please correct this mistake going forward. Milton L Mueller Professor, School of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology On Feb 19, 2019, at 12:26, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Dear EPDP Team, Per today’s meeting, the staff support team has currently noted the following groups as not supporting recommendation #16 (“The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.”): * ALAC * SSAC * IPC * BC If your group is missing, or your group’s position has changed as a result of today’s discussion, please let us know as soon as possible so this can be accurately documented in the Final Report in relation to this recommendation, as well as factored into the consensus designation process. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

3 2

Fw: [council] Vote deferral requested
by Ayden Férdeline Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

For information purposes, please be aware of this email that was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list. If the Council Chair responds, I will forward his correspondence along. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 2:08 PM, Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo(a)aim.be> wrote: > Dear Keith, > > On behalf of the BC, we would like to request that the Council vote on the Phase 1 EPDP Report be postponed until Monday 4th March so as to permit the continuation of the very practical ongoing discussion within the EPDP Team on the unresolved policy recommendations. > > Thanks in advance, > > Scott & Marie > > Marie Pattullo > > Senior Trade Marks and Brand Protection Manager > > [cid:image001.png@01D48358.C5A0D6C0] > > European Brands Association > > Avenue des Gaulois 9 · 1040 [Brussels](https://www.google.com/maps?q=9+avenue+des+Gaulois+%0D%0AB-1040++… · Belgium > > T: +32 2 736 03 05 > > M: +32 496 610 395 > > E: marie.pattullo(a)aim.be > > W: [www.aim.be](http://www.aim.be/) > > EU Transparency Register: [1074382679-01](http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=1074382679-01) > > [LinkedIn icon](https://www.linkedin.com/company/aim---european-brands-association/) [Twitter icon](https://twitter.com/AIMbrands)

1 0

Point of clarification Re: Purpose 2
by Ben Butler Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Kurt, Marika, and team. In reviewing the recent concern designations that were sent to the team, I noticed that SSAC’s position was listed as opposed to Purpose 2. In reviewing the deliberations within SSAC, this should instead be “support with comments”. Our concerns with Purpose 2 were concerning vagueness in the language, but overall, we are supporting purpose 2 and look forward to the work on this area in Phase 2. Just wanted to clarify that so as to make the consensus designation efforts clearer. Thank You. -Ben

1 0

For review - updated language recommendations #11 and #18
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, As discussed during today’s meeting, please find attached the updates discussed and agreed to for recommendation #11 (city field) and #18 (reasonable access). Please share with the list as soon as possible if in your view these changes do not align with the agreements reached today. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

4 5

GAC statement to phase 1 final report
by Heineman, Ashley Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear Kurt, Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final report from the GAC small group. FWIW - this does NOT represent an objection to the consensus calls or the report itself. Thanks kindly, Ashley Heineman Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

3 3

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP / Tuesday, 19 February 2019
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC chat attached to this email, and the MP3 and AC recording below from the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call held on Tuesday, 19 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC. These have also been posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/EYU2Bg MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-19feb19… AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3sgzxt3fww/ ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP : https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea Glandon

1 0

Confirming objections to recommendation #16 - geographic basis
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Per today’s meeting, the staff support team has currently noted the following groups as not supporting recommendation #16 (“The EPDP Team recommends that Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis, but are not obligated to do so.”): * ALAC * SSAC * IPC * BC If your group is missing, or your group’s position has changed as a result of today’s discussion, please let us know as soon as possible so this can be accurately documented in the Final Report in relation to this recommendation, as well as factored into the consensus designation process. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

2 1

Proposed agenda - EPDP Team meeting #47
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the updated agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting, which is scheduled for Wednesday 20 February at 14.00 UTC. Please take note of one additional item that was inadvertently left off in the previous version in relation to recommendation #14 (Privacy / Proxy). Crossed out items were covered during today’s meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika =========== EPDP Meeting #47 Agenda Wednesday 20 February 2019 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (15 minutes) a. Recap of GNSO Council briefing on 14 Feb b. Quiet period recap of input received and proposed next steps c. Discussion of proposed way forward as described in email and document 3. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion: * Recommendation 18 – Reasonable Access / Lawful Disclosure (30 minutes) * Recommendation 11 – City field (30 minutes) i. consider legal guidance ii. considered proposed consensus approach for Phase 2 * Recommendation 16 – Geographic considerations – consider proposed approach given anticipated legal advice during Phase 2 (30 minutes) * Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars (30 minutes), consider: i. Tech contact issue ii. legal guidance received regarding notice and consent requirements iii. possible Phase 2 discussion * Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes) * Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes) * Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes) * NEW – Recommendation #14 – Privacy / Proxy Registrations – consider clarification and possible implementation guidance proposed (30 minutes) 4. NEW - Confirm groups for any recommendations that are designated as having ‘strong support, significant opposition’ as this information is to be included in the Final Report. (15 minutes) (see latest version of Consensus Designations document) 5. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 19 February 2019 EPDP Team Meeting (if necessary) * Consider issues flagged as a result of the quiet period review and consider how these should be addressed EPDP Team 20 February 2019 EPDP Team Meeting (if necessary) * Consider issues flagged as a result of the quiet period review and consider how these should be addressed EPDP Team 20 February 2019 Final Report Submit Final Report or confirm that version submitted on 11 February should be considered final Staff Support Team / Council Liaison 21 February 2019 Consider Final Report for adoption GNSO Council 4 March 2019 Consider Final Report for adoption (if needed) GNSO Council 6. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Kurt's email down
by Kurt Pritz Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Hi Everyone: My email address: kurt(a)kjpritz.com is currently not receiving emails. If you wish to reach me individually for any reason, please sent the email to kp(a)art.art. I am receiving emails sent to the epdp list. I am working on resolving the issue. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience Kurt

1 0

Notes and action items from EPDP Team Meeting #46
by Marika Konings Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ========== EPDP Team Meeting #46 Tuesday, 19 February 2019 Notes and Action Items High level notes / actions: Action item #1: EPDP Team Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Any updates to be shared with the EPDP Team as soon as possible. (Completed) Action item #2: Staff support team to add following language ("Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure") to recommendation #18. Also add "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.)” (Completed) Action item #3: Staff support team to update recommendation #11 – City field as agreed during meeting and circulate to the team for confirmation that changes align with discussion. (Completed) Action item #4: EPDP Team to confirm which groups cannot live with the inclusion of this recommendation #16 - Geographic basis in the report, recognizing that statements included in the report indicate groups positions on this topic. Action item #5: Staff support team to ensure that accompanying text refers to possibility of study that was considered but no agreement was reached. Questions for ICANN Org: None Notes & Action items These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/ZwPVBQ. Proposed Agenda: 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates * Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect * Remember to mute your microphones when not speaking and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes. * Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team. 2. Welcome and Updates from EPDP Team Chair (15 minutes) a. Recap of GNSO Council briefing on 14 Feb * Update provided to the GNSO Council during its 14 Feb meeting * Presented updated and detailed timeline for delivery of the Final Report * Explained purpose of quiet period * Question was flagged whether delivery date could be extended, but GNSO Chair noted that this is not possible factoring in the public comment period required by the ICANN Board as well as the GAC consideration of possible public policy concerns. * Provided overview of the recommendations contained in the Final Report b. Quiet period recap of input received and proposed next steps * Appreciate all the work that went into review and input provided as a result of quiet period. * What is take away from statements, responses to consensus calls and comments on recommendations? Items selected for the agenda fell into two camps: 1) open issues where no closure has been achieved, 2) clarifications / accuracy changes. Not appropriate to reconsider items that were previously discussed and agreed - dissent can be noted in the report in relation to the different recommendations. * Consensus designations - Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Conservative approach taken to date. Action item #1: EPDP Team Chair to review consensus designations in light of input received and see if any require modifications. Any updates to be shared with the EPDP Team as soon as possible. c. Discussion of proposed way forward as described in email and document Input on recommendation 15 - see ALAC comment in relation to TDRP. 3. Discussion of items for amendment and final discussion: a. Recommendation 18 – Reasonable Access / Lawful Disclosure (30 minutes) * Requests for access are reasonable if appropriate info is provided * When such request is received, there is a certain timeframe in which a response is provided, but content (what data is shared) needs to be assessed for GDPR compliance and as such a one-size-fits-approach may not be feasible. * Edits took away some of the nuance behind the section - original intent was that there would be some reasonableness from CPs side in relation what they do with a request. Some kind of baseline, basic understanding that when the request is reasonable, the expectation that CPs are reasonable in what they do. General understanding that CPs need to act lawfully, but there should be reasonable consideration. Could be as simple as adding a bullet at the top of the section dealing with responses that says something like: "Registrars must reasonably consider and accommodate lawful requests for disclosure". This language is aligned with BC/IPC edits for the first bullet. * Adding timeline to the recommendation is unreasonable at this late stage of the process as there has been no time to consider this fully. Original language had already reference to 'X' days so objective was to add some specificity to that, while at the same time allowing for flexibility. CPs not comfortable with the aggressive timelines proposed - also, quiet period was not intended to put forward such substantive changes. Implementation phase is expected to further define what a reasonable response time is. * Need to cooperate on achieving the mutual goal of reasonable response time to requests, including urgent ones. * Some level of metric should be added so that measurement can be conducted. * Reasonable is used for both the type of request and the timeline. * Asking for specificity to ensure that the whole industry is reasonable - provide a benchmark, not a hard, fast timeline. * Do not have all info needed to set a response time at the moment. * Note that RAA requirements include provisions in relation to response times - is actively enforced without a specific SLA. Reasonable and prompt steps should be sufficient for contracted parties to make this evaluation. * Consider settling on a timeframe of 30 days? Too long for certain groups. May not be sufficient for some and too restrictive for others? * Proposal - go back to original language on the timeframe (to be determined during the implementation phase. * Consider adding a clarification that this discussion is prioritized in the implementation phase. "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.')' Action item #2: Staff support team to add following language ("Registrars and Registries must reasonably consider and accommodate requests for lawful disclosure") to recommendation #18. Also add "(A finalized time frame to be set during implementation. This discussion is to be prioritized during the implementation discussion.')'. Circulate to the team for confirmation that changes align with discussion. b. Recommendation 11 – City field (30 minutes) i. consider legal guidance ii. considered proposed consensus approach for Phase 2 * Legal advice requested (see memo provided by Bird & Bird - https://community.icann.org/x/6YMWBg) Indicated that further research may be needed. * Proposed approach: redact city field for now and take anticipated legal advice into account in phase 2. * City field to be redacted, EPDP team expects legal advice to be received and analysed in phase 2 during which a determination is to be made as to whether this recommendation should be modified. Remove footnote that indicated lack of support. Keep it as a separate recommendation to signal different approach. Action item #3: Staff support team to update recommendation #11 – City field as agreed during meeting and circulate to the team for for confirmation that changes align with discussion. c. Recommendation 16 – Geographic considerations – consider proposed approach given anticipated legal advice during Phase 2 (30 minutes) * See input provided and proposed approach * Appears there is no general support for the proposed path forward. * Consider removing the recommendation? Should this work be taken up by someone else? If the group is silent on it, does that have the same impact as what the recommendation currently recommends? Probably, yes. Some were looking for a commitment to look into this for more details. Legal advice will not make this clearer. * How do CPs wade through different privacy regimes? * NCSG would prefer that policy is uniform across parties, but would be willing to accept the existing recommendation pending legal advice. * How to assist CPs to wade through the different privacy regimes? Each CPs will need to determine how to best deal with local law - ICANN Org does not indemnify CPs. CPs need flexibility to implement. * Need a system that is as unified as possible, but with flexibility for CPs. General rule should be that all users should be able to benefit from the same rights. * Other laws may impose different requirements from GDPR, how to deal with that? * What is the negative impact if the recommendation stays as is? * Possible language to be added to the recommendation: "Contingent upon the outcome of pending legal advice, ICANN org (with GNSO oversight) will undertake a measured study with respect to geographic distinctions. The first phase would include feasibility and cost assessments and, if found to be feasible, define, a tailored, economical study." Make not part of the recommendation, but make sure that it is referenced in the accompanying text. Action item #4: EPDP Team to confirm which groups cannot live with the inclusion of this recommendation #16 - Geographic basis in the report, recognizing that statements included in the report indicate groups positions on this topic. Action item #5: Staff support team to ensure that accompanying text refers to possibility of study that was considered but no agreement was reached. d. Recommendation 5 - Data collected by registrars (30 minutes), consider: i. Tech contact issue ii. legal guidance received regarding notice and consent requirements iii. possible Phase 2 discussion * See input provided and proposed actions * See also legal guidance provided - why is consent needed if info is anonymized? Yes, but there is also the issue of processing by CPs of data of a data subject with which no contractual arrangement exists. * No agreement on what optional means, which is reflected in the Final Report: "Noting some of the possible legal and technical challenges involved in collecting data from a third party, some (RySG, RrSG, NCSG) expressed the view that registrars should have the option, but should not be contractually required, to offer the RNH the ability to provide additional contact fields, e.g., technical function. Others (BC, IPC, ALAC, GAC and SSAC) expressed the view that registrars should be required to offer the RNH this ability, as making this optional could ultimately lead to risks to DNS stability, security and resiliency. The stakeholders supporting this view noted this functionality is considered important and desirable for some RNHs. The Team could not come to agreement on this issue and as such no recommendation is included in this Final Report in relation to whether optional also means, optional or required for the registrar to offer. * See clarifying language that RySG provided - this may help further clarify this recommendation ("The EPDP Team recommends that the data elements, representing the Aggregate Minimum Data Set, listed below are required to be collected by registrars, noting that the collection of some data elements is optional. * No further changes needed at this stage – leave Final Report language as is. e. Recommendation 9 – Contractual Compliance – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting f. Recommendation 12 – Organization field – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting g. Recommendation 17 – Natural v Legal distinctions – consider clarification (30 minutes) Deferred to Wednesday’s meeting Action item #6: EPDP Team to review proposed actions for recommendations #9 (Contractual Compliance), #12 (Organization field) and #17 (Natural vs legal) in advance of the meeting and share any feedback with the mailing list. 4. Confirm next Steps (15 minutes) 5. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Alternates & Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP call / Wednesday, 20 February 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon Feb. 19, 2019

Feb. 19, 2019

**There are calls for both 19 & 20 February. I am sending both invitations now to get them on your calendars.** Dear all, Non-members can follow the EPDP call taking place on Tuesdays and Thursdays via the audio cast or view only Adobe Connect room. As requested and discussed on Tuesday's (14 August 2018) meeting, please note that an additional Adobe Connect room has been created for use by interested alternates and observers to be able to view-only the main EPDP Team Adobe Connect room. The view-only room will also broadcast the audio of the EPDP Team AC room, however, those in the view-only room will not be heard. Note that the audio cast stream will also remain available for now for those that prefer to use that option to listen live to the EPDP Team meeting. View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers Meeting Audio Cast (for alternates and observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u [stream.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/FoU2Bg Thank you. Kind Regards, Andrea

1 1