- Gnso-epdp-team - lists.icann.org

Draft authorization provider building block
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Following the EPDP Meeting on Thursday, 21 November, Support Staff worked with a few volunteers to develop an Authorization Provider Building Block. As a standard disclaimer, the text within this Authorization Provider Building Block is for discussion purposes within the EPDP Team and, accordingly, is NOT final. As you can see, the small team of volunteers did not agree to all of the text within the building block but would like to share the current proposal as a basis for further team discussion. Thank you again to the volunteers, Margie, Alex, Marc. A., Sarah, and Alan W., who attended additional meetings during an already busy week. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

Notes and action items - EPDP Meeting #31 - 26 Nov 2019
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from EPDP Meeting #31. The next EPDP Team meeting will be Wednesday, 4 December at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #31 Proposed Agenda Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14.00 UTC Action Items EPDP Team to review the updated CPH-proposed language on Financial Sustainability by Tuesday, 3 December. Support Staff to update the Response Requirements building block based on the EPDP Team’s discussion by Wednesday, 27 November. Support Staff to distribute the draft Initial Report by Thursday, 28 November. 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Status of building blocks 4 of the yellow building blocks will be discussed during today’s meeting 4. Financial sustainability – second reading continued (20 minutes) a) Review updated building block As agreed during the last call, Janis sent an email to Goran asking ICANN org to provide cost estimates of the centralized model Support Staff has updated the financial sustainability building block to incorporate the proposed feedback from the last call The cost estimate for the SSAD should be built upon more than a guesstimate The team should be mindful of its scope. Guessing the costs is out of scope and back of the envelope guesses are not helpful. The email to Goran was not what SSAC expected, and it will be discussing the email in its next meeting. b) Feedback from EPDP Team With respect to the cost differences – there are costs associated with (1) development of the SSAD overall (the platform), (2) the integration of each CP into the system, and (3) the ongoing system (or the long-term service) Edit that development means incorporation of Rys and Rrs into the system Can someone please provide an estimation of what level of magnitude of costs are we talking about here Team needs to also consider the users of the system and the costs there. If there is a trademark accreditor like WIPO, the Team needs to consider how WIPO would integrate with the system and how users would integrate with WIPO Could the team consider the development, deployment, and operationalization of the system Part of the problem is that the team is still not answering the important question – there are many building blocks but no picture on the box of what the building blocks are supposed to build Discussed the integration into the CP but not into the users of the system. The team is trying to cost out something that is unknown at this point. Either the team adopts a wild guess number or the Team needs to say the building block will not be completed until the system starts running. Suggest getting away from talking about a specific number at this time. Need to discuss components of the system. This is akin to putting out an amorphous RFP and asking someone to fashion a guess based on to be determined details. The Team has agreed to a central gateway, but the Team has not yet agreed to where the disclosure decision will be made. It may not be practical for ICANN to be the authorization provider Proposal to park this conversation for the next meeting so Team can review the CP-proposed language c) Confirm next steps EPDP to review the updated CPH-proposed language by Tuesday, 3 December. 5. Response requirements (building block g) – second reading continued (20 minutes) d) Review building block e) Feedback from EPDP Team Subpoint a Perhaps the Team may not want to bake a MUST in the ability to amend requests – it may be easier to submit a new request? If the requestor made an inadvertent omission, it must have the opportunity to amend the request. It doesn’t make sense to charge the requestor again. Propose changing “amend” to “update and resubmit” Practically speaking, this will likely be a web interface Should specify that there is no cost for a malformed request There is a cost for submitting malformed requests Disagreement regarding the amendment of requests creating additional costs Action: staff to put in brackets the costing issue so that it can be resubmitted The question about having an incomplete entry – the rec in Phase 1 – it is not a qualified entry unless the required information is complete – the requestor has to submit a complete entry or it is not a reasonable request The current formulation of a is in contradiction of Rec. 18 Implementation guidance: most likely the application will be sent through an interface, and the system should reject the request until all required fields are filled out The ambiguity comes when all requested fields are filled in, but the system/recipient wants more information, and the parties end up in a dialogue May need to include a definition of incomplete Subpoint b Subpoint c Concerned with the added timeframes – these are in contradiction with Rec. 18 When discussing Rec. 18, the Team agreed the timelines would be different under Rec. 18 The timeline is in reference to requests that cannot be responded to automatically When requests come in bulk, smaller registrars will have a hard time meeting the proposed timeline, so the timeline needs to include some leeway. Without knowing how the system will operate, it is hard to agree to the proposed timeframes. Concern with including recommendations with “if this, then that” Propose deleting this language completely – “without undue delay” is sufficient Ambiguity like this is not helpful to the implementation team Could urgent requests be limited to public safety organizations? Tough timelines make for sloppy decisions Consider changing “must” to “should” – the target is identified, but no obligation is created European law is filled with unspecific timeframes – “without undue delay” is very common in German law The disclosure response must be returned in a time TBD – asterisk or footnote capturing the divergence in time frames Subpoint d Friendly amendment – footnote should make its way into the text as a clarifying point. ICANN org may want to do more analysis than reasonableness. Proposal to delete d Subpoint e The Team has not decided who the data controller is. There should not be a second bite of the apple baked into this – should not contemplate stating that the requestor should go to the controller Subpoint f Is this redundant of c? Consider putting for accredited public safety authorities Could add – a separate accelerated timeline will be recommended for urgent requests Maybe f can become the footnote for c – in c “unless exceptional circumstances” as well as “urgent” Action: Support Staff to edit point b based on today’s conversation Start next call with continuation of reading f) Confirm next steps Action: Support Staff to edit point b based on today’s conversation Action: Support Staff will distribute the draft Initial Report on Thursday for the Team’s 6. Terms of use – second reading (20 minutes) g) Review building block h) Feedback from EPDP Team i) Confirm next steps 7. Automation – second reading (20 minutes) j) Review building block k) Feedback from EPDP Team l) Confirm next steps 8. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Wednesday 4 December 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 2 | Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/Q4EzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . 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, observers can join via audio cast, listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. 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

For your review: purposes and user groups
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Under the Team’s current review schedule, no time has been set aside to further discuss purposes and user groups. To that end, we wanted to test a proposed approach to these building blocks as outlined in the list of issues that was shared prior to ICANN66. User groups: Consider whether or not a set of user groups needs to be developed – is this already addressed through the accreditation recommendations? If this is considered addressed as a result of the accreditation recommendations, consider the following text: “The EPDP Team expects that the question of user groups will be addressed through the accreditation policy; specifically, all requestors will need to be accredited, and accreditation will include identity verification, which may include user category/categories.” Purposes: Consider purpose 2 and the previous agreement: “The EPDP Team agreed to consider at a later stage in the process whether an ICANN purpose for disclosure is necessary and/or desirable”. Has a later stage arrived, or is further time needed? Is this a question to be raised as part of the public comment period on the Initial Report? Consider also whether a set of pre-determined purposes needs to be developed that third-party requestors can provide. If this is not deemed necessary at this stage, consider the following text: “As identified in building block a) criteria and content of requests, each request must include information about the legal rights of the requestor specific to the request and/or specific rationale and/or justification for the request, e.g. What is the basis or reason for the request; Why is it necessary for the requestor to ask for this data? The EPDP Team expects that over time, the entity responsible for receiving requests will be able to identify certain patterns that could result in the development of a preset list of rationales and/or justifications that a requestor can select from, while always maintaining the option for the requestor to provide this information in free form”. Based on your feedback, the leadership team will determine when to discuss this further or whether the proposed approach has sufficient support to be incorporated in the draft Initial Report. Please provide feedback by Thursday, 28 November. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

2 1

Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Wednesday, 04 December 2019
by Terri Agnew Nov. 26, 2019

Nov. 26, 2019

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 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 2 is scheduled on Wednesday, 04 December 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes. (calls will be scheduled for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes) For other times: https://tinyurl.com/vzz8of4 Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/UYEzBw The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Kind Regards, Terri If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **New join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=D…> Enter passcode on telephone: 7349

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Tuesday, 26 November 2019
by Julie Bisland Nov. 25, 2019

Nov. 25, 2019

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 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 2 is scheduled on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes. (calls will be scheduled for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes) For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y6j7gw2j [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_y6j7gw2j&d…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Q4EzBw The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Kind Regards, Terri If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **New join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=D…> Enter passcode on telephone: 7349

1 0

Proposed agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #31
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 24, 2019

Nov. 24, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the proposed agenda for EPDP Team Meeting #31 on Tuesday, 26 November at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #31 Proposed Agenda Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Status of building blocks 4. Financial sustainability – second reading continued (20 minutes) a) Review updated building block b) Feedback from EPDP Team c) Confirm next steps 5. Response requirements (building block g) – second reading continued (20 minutes) d) Review building block e) Feedback from EPDP Team f) Confirm next steps 6. Terms of use – second reading (20 minutes) g) Review building block h) Feedback from EPDP Team i) Confirm next steps 7. Automation – second reading (20 minutes) j) Review building block k) Feedback from EPDP Team l) Confirm next steps 8. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a) Wednesday 4 December at 14.00 UTC b) Confirm action items c) Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Notes and action items: EPDP Team Meeting #30 - 21 November 2019
by Caitlin Tubergen Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team meeting. As a reminder, the next meeting will be Tuesday, 26 November at 14:00 UTC. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items Support Staff to assist in working with the volunteers for the new Authorization Provider Building Block. Volunteers are Sarah, Marc A., Margie, and Alex. Janis to send chair-proposed questions to ICANN org regarding a cost-benefit analysis of the SSAD. Support Staff to update the Financial Sustainability Building Block in light of the discussion during the meeting. (complete) EPDP Team to review the updated Financial Sustainability Building Block before the next meeting on Tuesday, 26 November. EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #30 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) a) Update from the legal committee The Legal Committee met on Tuesday The LC has worked through the majority of Priority 1 questions, and is in the process of reviewing the updated guidance on territorial scope from the EDPB The LC has begun reviewing the Priority 2 questions The LC is almost finished with the summaries of the Phase 2 legal memos and these will be forwarded to the plenary team as soon as available b) Status of building blocks While there are still a few blocks to work through, still hopeful to complete these by mid-December Please continue working to complete all homework assignments in a timely manner 4. Responses received from ICANN Org and ICANN Board (20 minutes) a) High level overview (ICANN org & ICANN Board liaisons) ICANN org Response ICANN org received the questions shortly before the Strawberry Paper was published The paper goes into greater detail for those interested The model in the paper is focused on two goals: centralize the decision-making power and promote a more consistent user experience With respect to fielding requests for non-public data, this would be delegated to other parties. With respect to Question 4 and the responsibility for the decision, there are various decision points outlined in the paper. The gateway is a conduit among the different actors. Board Response The Board has heard that having a predictable and reliable experience in terms of requesting and receiving responses for those with legitimate interests is critical. That means that decision making with respect to responding to requests needs to be centralized. The Strawberry Paper assumes the responsibility for the decision making would be made by the centralized model, rather than the contracted parties The Board has not reached final conclusions on this but wants the community and the EPDP to understand that the Board would like the model to centralize the decision and inoculate CPs of liability as much as possible b) Feedback from EPDP Team With respect to the letter from ICANN org, there is an idea that the disclosure decision will be made by community-developed policy. The Team, thus far, is not clear who will make the disclosure decision. What part of the work the Team has done would determine the disclosure decision? There is no building block on this. With respect to both letters, the feedback is interesting but is unlikely to move the ball forward. The Team really needs feedback for the EDPB – either the Team waits for answers, or the Team decides and agrees to a model with the information it has today, which may be flawed. With respect to the proposed model, there is a reference to authorization providers as the entities that make the decision. If the EDPB says no one can make the decision except CPs, then the CPs are the authorization providers, but the model could still be centralized. The question comes down to can ICANN be the authorization provider for some decisions. It is implied that if ICANN can be the authorization provider, it is willing to assume the liability. Disturbed at the extent at which the UAM is used as the touchstone for the decision. Many of the team members objected to the TSG and the potential for preempting policy decisions. Caution the Team against jumping to a conclusion that because ICANN is willing to be a centralized decider to make it the centralized decider. With respect to the EDPB advice, it’s like asking a court for a decision before a specific case is in front of it. Ask Janis to respond to Goran and the Board and thank them for their input. Based on these replies, there is a missing building block for authorization providers and answer who gets access to what data under what circumstances. Understand that this is not so much about shifting liability but recognizing that ICANN has liability as a likely controller it can assume liability from the CPs. There is unlikely to be a scenario where the CPs have no liability. With respect to the suggestion that we are missing a building block on the authorization provider, could there be a rough outline for this or organize a call with interested members to discuss this with support staff c) Confirm next steps Sarah, Alex, Marc, and Margie to work together on a new building block for authorization providers. 5. Financial sustainability – second reading (20 minutes) a) Review draft question developed by Marc and James The idea of this letter came out of the financial building block, where a financial sustainability analysis is requested to be performed by ICANN org. If the Team is recommending this study, it is too late since recommendations are being made in the meantime. It is critically important that the Team understands what the financial model for this system will look like and is critical to get these questions to ICANN org as soon as possible. Is there any objection to sending the questions as written to ICANN org? The letter contains certain assumptions the group has not agreed to, namely, who bears the burden of the costs of the system. The Team has not agreed that the entire burden of the system falls to the users of the system. The beneficiaries of the system are those who want data disclosed to them. It is distortive to make requests free. If the Team can agree that people who make requests should have to pay for the requests, no matter how small, that would be acceptable. Domain name registrants should not have to pay for their own surveillance. Those who request disclosure are not the only beneficiaries – everyone benefits from a consistent and accountable system. Proposal to strike from the letter the sentences/paragraphs that currently are numbered as one and two, but keep the rest, could this letter be sent? Request for more time to read and digest the letter and respond with concrete updates and suggestions. Do not support removing the questions of the letter. Proposals for such a system include operating under these principles – the team is ultimately looking for protection of the registrant. While CPs are making these decisions every day, the additional system that is to be created is an additional cost. How much will ICANN be able to assess the cost of the system? Could the CPs provide some estimates? Either the team is building a system or it’s not – would recommend removing text accordingly Uncomfortable with principle 2 since there is no consensus on that Janis could take full responsibility to ICANN org to make a cost estimate and create a small team to hash out the letter Question to Team: Janis to take responsibility to send the question out Action: Janis to send questions on his own behalf by tomorrow b) Review building block Paragraph 1 No objections Paragraph 2 Do not understand the equal savings concept here. Savings is not a feature of the system, so object to this language. Concern with this language is that it is saying that cost must result in equal savings for each contracted party – this seems to indicate that depending on the size, the policy compliance may differ by CP. It is not possible to know all sizes and different business models – even putting up a website to receive requests would be a different cost for different sized registrars. The basic idea behind the language is correct, but the wording is bad. Equality assumption is unrealistic here – there will never be equality b/w comparing Verisign and a tiny registrar. The key concept here is the cost-benefit ratio – the cost reductions are meant that manual response to requests would be more expensive than responding through the system. May want to throw in a protective clause that any system that imposes unreasonable burdens on smaller operators would be avoided. Support idea of projection of expected number of requests and then compare an SSAD model to responding directly. Based on this discussion, Support Staff to propose language re: proportionality and cost-benefit analysis should be taken into account. Paragraph 3 Someone who has proposed to change language that makes sense with language that does not make sense – do not understand what cost allocation means. Cost allocation is, by definition, arbitrary. Both accreditation system and the subsequent running of SSAD should recover costs incurred. Agree to revert back to original language Paragraph 4 Questioning the value of this addition. Whatever cost structure is imposed must take into account that public authorities have limited resources, and their role and resources need to be taken into account Based on the costs they generate instead of infrequent users – delete the second part after the semi-colon. With respect to the first sentence, could rephrase for the recognition that costs with respect to the use of the system may differ from user to user Paragraph 5 This is far too long and too prescriptive Hoping this paragraph will be overcome with the events of the letter sent. Suggest deleting this paragraph at this point and put in a placeholder for further consideration once ICANN responds to Janis’ letter Important to provide for an oversight and appeal mechanism based on fundamental fairness. Also propose adding sentence that registrants should not bear the cost of third parties having access to their data Paragraph 6 (Accreditation) The subscription model is an interesting concept – that would allow flexibility in terms of costs Concerned with sub-bullet c and the last point Could we say the fee structure should be reviewed as the operationalization of the fees evolve The fees should follow the principles of the policy c) Feedback from EPDP Team d) Confirm next steps 6. Response requirements (building block g) – second reading continued (20 minutes) e) Review building block f) Feedback from EPDP Team g) Confirm next steps 7. Terms of use – second reading (20 minutes) h) Review building block i) Feedback from EPDP Team j) Confirm next steps 8. Automation – second reading (20 minutes) k) Review building block l) Feedback from EPDP Team m) Confirm next steps 9. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes) Initial proposal from Leadership is to have meetings on 26 Nov and 28 Nov, and some team members requested to cancel the meeting on Thanksgiving. Proposal to move meeting on 28 to move to Wednesday, 4 Dec. Last meeting of the team will be 19 December and resume either on 9 January or 16 January. a) Tuesday 26 November 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 2 | Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 21 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/QYEzBw> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> . 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, observers can join via audio cast, listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. 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-P2 call / Tuesday, 26 November 2019
by Terri Agnew Nov. 21, 2019

Nov. 21, 2019

As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 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 2 is scheduled on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 120 minutes. (calls will be scheduled for 120 minutes but aim to keep to 90 minutes) For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y6j7gw2j Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/Q4EzBw The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> Meeting Audio Cast (for observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__stream.icann.org-3A8000…> Kind Regards, Terri If needed, an option to join via telephone has been added for this meeting. **New join information - Conference Bridge: Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 and Toll 213 233 3193 Other telephone numbers found here: http://www.adigo.com/icann Enter passcode on telephone: 7349

1 0