February 2021 - Gnso-epdp-team

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Jamboard instructions AND homework
by Drazek, Keith 17 Feb '21

17 Feb '21

Hi all, I am reinforcing what Caitlin noted below. Please continue to work on the homework assignments following the original schedule. Thanks in advance! Keith From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Caitlin Tubergen Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:49 AM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Jamboard instructions Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear EPDP Team, Please note the Thursday, 18 February plenary meeting has been cancelled to accommodate an additional meeting of the Legal Committee. You all should have received a cancellation notice from Terri. Despite repurposing Thursday's plenary session, please note that your homework assignment is still due per the instructions below. As Keith noted during last week's meeting, it is important that the group continues its deliberations online between meetings. Please take note of the deadlines below; in addition, we would like you to also start providing your group's input on the other pages of the JamBoard. Input on the other pages is due by Monday, 22 February. Thank you. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin From: Caitlin Tubergen <caitlin.tubergen(a)icann.org<mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 at 11:42 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team@icann.org>> Subject: Jamboard instructions Dear EPDP Team, Thank you for your willingness to give Google Jamboard a try. You should now all have editor privileges – if not, please let staff know off-list and we’ll try to fix it as soon as possible. Here are the instructions for this week’s homework assignment: * Please get together with your group and log into the Jamboard (see https://jamboard.google.com/d/1H3CDUTITCfgcS85WMjlvyLV07cb7_V7ksFz8lVjExPg/…) * Review the proposal on the first page (the updated proposal by Laureen) * Use a sticky note (fourth option on the menu on the left-hand side) to formulate your group’s concern together with a proposed solution to address that concern. You can use as many sticky notes as you like, but please make sure to include the initials of your group in case any get misplaced. There is no need to use any of the other functionality at this point in time – please stick to the sticky notes. * For this week, please focus on proposal 1a (page 1) but if you want to go ahead and also review the other proposals and provide your input, please feel free to do so. * Please complete your input by Tuesday 16 February COB at the latest. This will allow everyone to review the input received on Wednesday 17 February. Following your review, you are then requested to use the copy/paste function to move those concerns/proposals that your group supports to the right-hand side of the page (“favorite suggestions”). Please do not move your own proposals; this is for other groups to do. * We’ll review during next week’s call the input received with the aim to determine shared concerns as well as supported solutions that can be used to further update and refine the proposal. * As indicated previously, the focus for now is on best practices that can be recommended to Contracted Parties who choose to distinguish. The question of whether there should be changes to the phase 1 recommendation will be considered at a later stage. If you do not have access to Jamboard as a result of local restrictions, please work with your team members to get your input in. If this is not possible, feel free to reach out to the staff support team to assist. As indicated on the call, this is an attempt to provide a more interactive tool to facilitate input and collaboration between meetings. We’ll review during next week’s meeting whether to continue using this tool or whether reverting back to google docs is the preferred approach. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin

2 1

Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 25 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 16 Feb '21

16 Feb '21

Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 25 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar. 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. 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/k4gmCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/ybgrnlca The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Jamboard instructions
by Caitlin Tubergen 16 Feb '21

16 Feb '21

Dear EPDP Team, Thank you for your willingness to give Google Jamboard a try. You should now all have editor privileges – if not, please let staff know off-list and we’ll try to fix it as soon as possible. Here are the instructions for this week’s homework assignment: * Please get together with your group and log into the Jamboard (see https://jamboard.google.com/d/1H3CDUTITCfgcS85WMjlvyLV07cb7_V7ksFz8lVjExPg/…) * Review the proposal on the first page (the updated proposal by Laureen) * Use a sticky note (fourth option on the menu on the left-hand side) to formulate your group’s concern together with a proposed solution to address that concern. You can use as many sticky notes as you like, but please make sure to include the initials of your group in case any get misplaced. There is no need to use any of the other functionality at this point in time – please stick to the sticky notes. * For this week, please focus on proposal 1a (page 1) but if you want to go ahead and also review the other proposals and provide your input, please feel free to do so. * Please complete your input by Tuesday 16 February COB at the latest. This will allow everyone to review the input received on Wednesday 17 February. Following your review, you are then requested to use the copy/paste function to move those concerns/proposals that your group supports to the right-hand side of the page (“favorite suggestions”). Please do not move your own proposals; this is for other groups to do. * We’ll review during next week’s call the input received with the aim to determine shared concerns as well as supported solutions that can be used to further update and refine the proposal. * As indicated previously, the focus for now is on best practices that can be recommended to Contracted Parties who choose to distinguish. The question of whether there should be changes to the phase 1 recommendation will be considered at a later stage. If you do not have access to Jamboard as a result of local restrictions, please work with your team members to get your input in. If this is not possible, feel free to reach out to the staff support team to assist. As indicated on the call, this is an attempt to provide a more interactive tool to facilitate input and collaboration between meetings. We’ll review during next week’s meeting whether to continue using this tool or whether reverting back to google docs is the preferred approach. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin

1 1

CANCELLED | Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 16 Feb '21

16 Feb '21

Per the EPDP-P2A Leadership team decision and consultation with the Legal Committee, the Thursday, 18 February 2021 Plenary call is cancelled and will be re-purposed to continue the Legal Committee’s work. The next Plenary call will be on Thursday, 25 February at 14:00 UTC (invite will be sent shortly). Please remember to remove 18 February from your calendars. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar. 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. 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/kYgmCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y8dwfr5k [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y8dwfr5k__;!!PtGJab4!sYfoqfF…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Notes and action items: EPDP P2A Meeting #06 - 11 Feb 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen 11 Feb '21

11 Feb '21

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next plenary meeting will be Thursday, 18 Feb at 1400 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin Action Items Please remember to check for action items using the team’s Workplan and Action Items sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #06 Agenda Thursday 11 February 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) a. Membership update: · Welcome Steve Crocker as a new SSAC rep b. Legal committee update on status of questions being considered for external counsel · The legal committee met on Tuesday and is assessing a way to move more quickly through the questions so that more work can be accomplished in between meetings. · Note from Keith: If the group is not able to make progress in plenary meetings b/c legal committee feedback is needed, a plenary session can be repurposed for the legal committee so that work can move forward. This is an option available, if needed. 3. Feasibility of unique contacts a. Definitions / Terminology – as proposed by Legal Committee (15 min) · Update from legal committee (Becky) · The legal committee had a good discussion on the definitions for feasibility of unique contacts. There was consensus that the use of the word anonymous is problematic in the sense that there is always someone who will be able to identify the registrant, and the definition of anonymization means information that cannot be reverse engineered so that even the data controller cannot identify that person. Both proposed mechanisms are pseudonymous; the difference is that one identifier is a one-time pseudonymous email, while the other is a persistent pseudonymous email. The Legal Committee will come back to the plenary team shortly with updated definitions. · EPDP Team input · The different treatment of pseudonymous emails can lead to different registrant behaviors · This a policy question not a legal question · Interesting that there is no such thing as an anonymous email. Effectively, we have a data set, and within that data set there is a domain name. That cannot be made anonymous due to internet functioning. Has the legal team looked at this question from the perspective of a third party, rather than the data controller? · This is an interesting and difficult question under European law and the ECJ has taken different positions in different cases. A technical reading would be: if anyone can identify the individual, including the data controller, it is not anonymous. · Thank you for the distinction and noting this is a policy question the group is faced with. Definitional discussions are unhelpful in answering the policy question. Could the team set aside, based on this legal input, that the word anonymous has implications and may not be correct? Can the team now agree that the issue is the applicability of the identifier to multiple registrations and the utilization of this identifier? · It is important for the legal committee to finalize the terms being used so that the team can have a common understanding of the terms. · Recommend sticking to the GDPR definitions · Obfuscation is a word that would help here b/c pseudonymization is being misused and conflated with anonymization. The team always talks about a registrant not wanting to be identified because they are doing something criminal, but that is not correct. It could be that someone is trying to protect a patent, for example. It is not a simple case of good guys vs. bad guys. · Agree that inclusion of the term obfuscation could be helpful. · Confirm next steps · Legal Committee will share the updated definitions with the plenary shortly. b. Introduction of proposals (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2-rVF2wh-821tct76O50QdWwn4ZcIqS/edit) for options to require unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address across domain name registrations that would not result in being treated as publication of personal data (15 min) · Proponents to introduce proposal o Brian King · The proposal is third parties need an email that actually works. · Seems the concern is contactability. · Keep hearing third parties say that web forms are not a workable option, but have yet to understand why. Is it just the textual limits – what, precisely, is not working? · The web forms at some registrars limit the textual input to an unworkable character limit – for example, one registrar has a character limit of 100 words. Other large registrars only allow third parties to choose b/w a registrar-chosen drop down menu with no freeform field. Insistence on a web form was for IP owners to contact the registrant and describe the issue. · The web form came from the Temp Spec and the implementation from Phase 1 – is that a separate but related conversation for the Phase 1 IRT to have re: access and contactability? Is there an opportunity to make some improvements there? · This does not seem to be a proposal for how to make unique contacts work that complies with data protection law. The web form was already a requirement from Phase 1; do not think this proper use of this phase’s time. With respect to attachments, this a big security concern. · The web forms used to be workable solution, if there is gaming to these – this should be fixed rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There can be rethinking of how web forms can work, but they have proven effective in protecting customers from spam and malware. If there are issues re: contactability, these can and should be fixed. · Web forms are not a requirement; it’s an option. In many cases, and including at many large registrars, not able to effectively communicate with registrants. WHOIS used to facilitate with the registrant; yes, this comes with the potential for spam. GDPR is no reason why there cannot be some sort of email address that facilitates communication. o Melina Stroungi, Chris Lewis-Evans · Is it feasible to use obfuscated or pseudonymized emails of registrants? We all agree that certain personal information – the registrar will always have re: the registrant. The question is – is it feasible for a third party perspective if the registrar publishes an obfuscated third party email. · The reason some have email and some have web forms is because of thick and thin registries. This could be taken as a question as to thick and thin because thin registries allow more direct communication with the customer. · The team is not thinking about what happens when someone has an anonymous email address and then the third party makes the same request to the SSAD. This appears to defeat the purpose of the SSAD, and the team should be mindful of the broader implications of this. · Q & A by EPDP Team · Confirm next steps 4. Legal vs. natural (30 minutes) a. Overview of Laureen’s Updated Proposal · Feedback from this group noted that the important distinction is b/w personal and non-personal data rather than legal v. natural. This rewrite keeps this distinction in mind. The process still starts with the question of legal v. natural. The other aspect of this proposal is mindful of resource issues and trying to leverage existing mechanisms rather than creating a lot of new mechanisms. The current process required under registrar agreements to verify accuracy of information could be leveraged as part of the confirmation process. Information should be quarantined before information is published. At the very end, there is a verification process (step 4). Tried to mitigate some of the concerns by baking in new safety valves and tried to include requirements into already existing mechanisms. · Thank you to those who have been doing work intersessionally. b. Jamboard Brainstorming Experiment · Explain Jamboard concept · Google Jamboard is a new tool that we have access to which is intended to facilitate online brainstorming and collaboration. · It is also a new tool for us so please bear with us if we don’t have all the answers, but we thought it might be worth exploring it as a way to promote and facilitate work in between calls. · For those of you have explored the Jamboard that we created, you may have seen that it is basically an online version of a whiteboard with sticky notes and markers. · The idea is that you get together with your group and review the proposals that have been put forward to date. You use a sticky note (click on the fourth symbol on the left-hand side) to write down your group’s concerns in combination with constructive suggestions for how these concerns can be addressed. Make sure to put the sticky note in the row that has been assigned for your group – to avoid confusion, you are also encouraged to add your group’s name to the sticky note. · Prior to the next meeting during which these proposals will be discussed, you are all expected to have reviewed the input provided by other groups and use the copy/paste function to duplicate on the right side of the Jamboard the concerns you share as well as the proposed suggestions for changes you support (you cannot pick your own proposals!). The idea is that this will give the proponents of the proposals further guidance on how to update their proposals until the group gets to a version that everyone feels comfortable with including in the Initial Report as a best practice to be recommended to Contracted Parties. · Important point – do homework intersessionally. We could consider creating small teams to work on proposals. Encourage folks to reach out to one another outside of meeting time, and bring proposals that have been worked through back to the plenary for discussion. · Test run Jamboard on proposal #1 · Input from EPDP Team on this approach · Confirm next steps · Important point – please do homework intersessionally. We could consider creating small teams to work on proposals. Encourage folks to reach out to one another outside of meeting time, and bring proposals that have been worked through back to the plenary for discussion. 5. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Meeting #07 Thursday 18 February at 14.00 UTC. b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Notes and action items: EPDP Phase 2A Meeting #06 - 11 Feb 2021
by Caitlin Tubergen 11 Feb '21

11 Feb '21

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s call. The next plenary meeting will be Thursday, 18 Feb at 1400 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin Action Items Please remember to check for action items using the team’s Workplan and Action Items sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qLMYb3HC7qGYPQveXbUq5ZSzvedrQ3t8Ad…. EPDP Phase 2A - Meeting #06 Agenda Thursday 11 February 2021 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (5 minutes) * Membership update: * Welcome Steve Crocker as a new SSAC rep * Legal committee update on status of questions being considered for external counsel * The legal committee met on Tuesday and is assessing a way to move more quickly through the questions so that more work can be accomplished in between meetings. * Note from Keith: If the group is not able to make progress in plenary meetings b/c legal committee feedback is needed, a plenary session can be repurposed for the legal committee so that work can move forward. This is an option available, if needed. 3. Feasibility of unique contacts a. Definitions / Terminology – as proposed by Legal Committee (15 min) * Update from legal committee (Becky) * The legal committee had a good discussion on the definitions for feasibility of unique contacts. There was consensus that the use of the word anonymous is problematic in the sense that there is always someone who will be able to identify the registrant, and the definition of anonymization means information that cannot be reverse engineered so that even the data controller cannot identify that person. Both proposed mechanisms are pseudonymous; the difference is that one identifier is a one-time pseudonymous email, while the other is a persistent pseudonymous email. The Legal Committee will come back to the plenary team shortly with updated definitions. * EPDP Team input * The different treatment of pseudonymous emails can lead to different registrant behaviors * This a policy question not a legal question * Interesting that there is no such thing as an anonymous email. Effectively, we have a data set, and within that data set there is a domain name. That cannot be made anonymous due to internet functioning. Has the legal team looked at this question from the perspective of a third party, rather than the data controller? * This is an interesting and difficult question under European law and the ECJ has taken different positions in different cases. A technical reading would be: if anyone can identify the individual, including the data controller, it is not anonymous. * Thank you for the distinction and noting this is a policy question the group is faced with. Definitional discussions are unhelpful in answering the policy question. Could the team set aside, based on this legal input, that the word anonymous has implications and may not be correct? Can the team now agree that the issue is the applicability of the identifier to multiple registrations and the utilization of this identifier? * It is important for the legal committee to finalize the terms being used so that the team can have a common understanding of the terms. * Recommend sticking to the GDPR definitions * Obfuscation is a word that would help here b/c pseudonymization is being misused and conflated with anonymization. The team always talks about a registrant not wanting to be identified because they are doing something criminal, but that is not correct. It could be that someone is trying to protect a patent, for example. It is not a simple case of good guys vs. bad guys. * Agree that inclusion of the term obfuscation could be helpful. * Confirm next steps * Legal Committee will share the updated definitions with the plenary shortly. b. Introduction of proposals (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2-rVF2wh-821tct76O50QdWwn4ZcIqS/edit) for options to require unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email address across domain name registrations that would not result in being treated as publication of personal data (15 min) · Proponents to introduce proposal * Brian King * The proposal is third parties need an email that actually works. * Seems the concern is contactability. * Keep hearing third parties say that web forms are not a workable option, but have yet to understand why. Is it just the textual limits – what, precisely, is not working? * The web forms at some registrars limit the textual input to an unworkable character limit – for example, one registrar has a character limit of 100 words. Other large registrars only allow third parties to choose b/w a registrar-chosen drop down menu with no freeform field. Insistence on a web form was for IP owners to contact the registrant and describe the issue. * The web form came from the Temp Spec and the implementation from Phase 1 – is that a separate but related conversation for the Phase 1 IRT to have re: access and contactability? Is there an opportunity to make some improvements there? * This does not seem to be a proposal for how to make unique contacts work that complies with data protection law. The web form was already a requirement from Phase 1; do not think this proper use of this phase’s time. With respect to attachments, this a big security concern. * The web forms used to be workable solution, if there is gaming to these – this should be fixed rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There can be rethinking of how web forms can work, but they have proven effective in protecting customers from spam and malware. If there are issues re: contactability, these can and should be fixed. * Web forms are not a requirement; it’s an option. In many cases, and including at many large registrars, not able to effectively communicate with registrants. WHOIS used to facilitate with the registrant; yes, this comes with the potential for spam. GDPR is no reason why there cannot be some sort of email address that facilitates communication. * Melina Stroungi, Chris Lewis-Evans * Is it feasible to use obfuscated or pseudonymized emails of registrants? We all agree that certain personal information – the registrar will always have re: the registrant. The question is – is it feasible for a third party perspective if the registrar publishes an obfuscated third party email. * The reason some have email and some have web forms is because of thick and thin registries. This could be taken as a question as to thick and thin because thin registries allow more direct communication with the customer. * The team is not thinking about what happens when someone has an anonymous email address and then the third party makes the same request to the SSAD. This appears to defeat the purpose of the SSAD, and the team should be mindful of the broader implications of this. · Q & A by EPDP Team · Confirm next steps 4. Legal vs. natural (30 minutes) a. Overview of Laureen’s Updated Proposal * Feedback from this group noted that the important distinction is b/w personal and non-personal data rather than legal v. natural. This rewrite keeps this distinction in mind. The process still starts with the question of legal v. natural. The other aspect of this proposal is mindful of resource issues and trying to leverage existing mechanisms rather than creating a lot of new mechanisms. The current process required under registrar agreements to verify accuracy of information could be leveraged as part of the confirmation process. Information should be quarantined before information is published. At the very end, there is a verification process (step 4). Tried to mitigate some of the concerns by baking in new safety valves and tried to include requirements into already existing mechanisms. * Thank you to those who have been doing work intersessionally. b. Jamboard Brainstorming Experiment * Explain Jamboard concept * Google Jamboard is a new tool that we have access to which is intended to facilitate online brainstorming and collaboration. * It is also a new tool for us so please bear with us if we don’t have all the answers, but we thought it might be worth exploring it as a way to promote and facilitate work in between calls. * For those of you have explored the Jamboard that we created, you may have seen that it is basically an online version of a whiteboard with sticky notes and markers. * The idea is that you get together with your group and review the proposals that have been put forward to date. You use a sticky note (click on the fourth symbol on the left-hand side) to write down your group’s concerns in combination with constructive suggestions for how these concerns can be addressed. Make sure to put the sticky note in the row that has been assigned for your group – to avoid confusion, you are also encouraged to add your group’s name to the sticky note. * Prior to the next meeting during which these proposals will be discussed, you are all expected to have reviewed the input provided by other groups and use the copy/paste function to duplicate on the right side of the Jamboard the concerns you share as well as the proposed suggestions for changes you support (you cannot pick your own proposals!). The idea is that this will give the proponents of the proposals further guidance on how to update their proposals until the group gets to a version that everyone feels comfortable with including in the Initial Report as a best practice to be recommended to Contracted Parties. * Important point – do homework intersessionally. We could consider creating small teams to work on proposals. Encourage folks to reach out to one another outside of meeting time, and bring proposals that have been worked through back to the plenary for discussion. * Test run Jamboard on proposal #1 * Input from EPDP Team on this approach * Confirm next steps * Important point – please do homework intersessionally. We could consider creating small teams to work on proposals. Encourage folks to reach out to one another outside of meeting time, and bring proposals that have been worked through back to the plenary for discussion. 5. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Meeting #07 Thursday 18 February at 14.00 UTC. b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A | Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 11 Feb '21

11 Feb '21

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A call held on Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/j4gmCQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar [gnso.icann.org]<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 As a reminder only members and alternates can join the call as a panelist, observers can join as an attendee to listen. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/IYEpBQ>. Thank you. With kind regards, Terri

1 0

Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew 11 Feb '21

11 Feb '21

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 18 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar. 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. 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 [icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/kYgmCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y8dwfr5k The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0

Revised GAC Proposal
by Kapin, Laureen 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

Hi folks, Just a quick note to let you know that the GAC has revised its proposal in light of recent discussions and input. Looking forward to further exchanges on tomorrow's call. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Counsel for International Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission (202) 326-3237

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation | Observers | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2A call | Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

**Updated duration from 90 minutes to 60 minutes to accommodate those who would like to attend the SSR2 Webinar. As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, zoom webinar room will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. As a reminder, the zoom recording, audio recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Dear all, The next meeting of the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2A is scheduled on Thursday, 11 February 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar. 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. 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 Expected Standards of Behavior [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> Visit the Wiki agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4gmCQ Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/y97xxrcy [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y97xxrcy__;!!PtGJab4!r3beTTj…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2021 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calen…> If you are joining via audio only: One tap mobile US: +13126266799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# or +13462487799,,92181477886#,,,,,,0#,,3121016458# Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acVxz9PmJI__;!!PtGJab4!p…> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri

1 0