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

Update on SSAD cost estimate
by Eleeza Agopian April 23, 2020

April 23, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, I am sending the below message on behalf of SVP and CFO Xavier Calvez. Thank you, Eleeza ------------ Dear EPDP team members, I am writing to provide you with an update on ICANN org’s efforts to provide a cost estimate for the SSAD. We welcome the opportunity to support the work of the EPDP team by offering cost estimates for the proposed model. We entirely agree this work can provide helpful insights to the team and bring further clarity on the model proposed in the final report. We therefore hope that the information we provide proves useful for the EPDP. We are nearly complete with the work, but need a couple more weeks to finalize the estimations and provide a description of the assumptions that we made based on the proposed model, the methodology that we applied, and the resulting costs estimates. To that end, I would like to share with you what this analysis will include: * A high-level quantification of costs for: * the set-up and development costs of the relevant systems, * the costs for ongoing operations on an annual basis. * A structure of the systems that would support the SSAD model. * This includes a breakdown of development/startup costs for the accreditation authority, identity providers, and central gateway, and how the org would provide or outsource each of these. * It would also cover the costs required to operate the systems, such as customer support and quality control, including audits. * A set of assumptions that underlie the cost estimate. * These include the assumptions the team provided to us, as well as some other assumptions we had to make regarding how to operationalize some of the policy recommendations, such as regarding identity verification. * Similarly, we will list the areas of difficulty we encountered, including items that were difficult to evaluate and why. We believe those items are opportunities for potential further design of the model which the EPDP team may want to consider. For example, verifying signed assertions cannot be estimated, as costs may vary by jurisdiction and by the type of assertion. * In some areas we list alternative approaches for some of the services, such as the use of Certificate Authorities. We are looking forward to discussing this work with the EPDP team and would like to request the opportunity to present the above analysis once it will have been provided to you, and answer questions during one of your meetings. We hope this presentation will be helpful and result in a fruitful discussion. Thank you, Xavier Calvez Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

3 3

For your review: documents for next EPDP meeting
by Caitlin Tubergen April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

All: Please find attached the two additional discussion issue documents for Recommendation 6 and Recommendation 11. As a reminder, the Staff Support Team reviewed the comments and responses to the Discussion Tables and distilled the attached questions for discussion during tomorrow’s meeting. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin

1 0

The Consensus Playbook
by Julie Bisland April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

Dear all, Please see the completed Consensus Playbook and background information below. Best Regards, GNSO Team == Consensus Playbook Published Originated from GNSO’s Policy Development Process (PDP) 3.0 initiative and a subsequent Additional Budget Request (ABR), the Consensus Playbook has been completed for the ICANN community to reference and use. The Consensus Playbook can be downloaded here: http://go.icann.org/consensus This playbook was developed by an external vendor (Consensus Building Institute - CBI.org<https://www.cbi.org/>) via an Additional Budget Request<https://go.icann.org/3bkd5Oz> (ABR) for FY20 submitted by the GNSO Council, based on PDP 3.0 improvements<http://go.icann.org/pdp3dot0>. The ICANN Board approved<https://community.icann.org/x/Wxq8BQ> the ABR contingent upon the playbook being developed with broad applicability across the community, and not just limited to GNSO PDPs. Hence, this Consensus Playbook aims to provide community volunteers with practical tools and best practices for building consensus, bridging differences, and breaking deadlocks within ICANN processes beyond just GNSO working groups. In developing the playbook, CBI interviewed fourteen (14) ICANN community leaders across ICANN’s SOs and ACs, who shared their extensive consensus building experience in leading and participating in working groups and community groups. The playbook stresses that consensus building should be considered as a journey and it does not just take place at the end of a group’s deliberations. To that end, we’d like to draw your attention to Appendix A, which serves as a reference guide to help inform you which of the fifteen (15) “plays” are applicable to the various phases of the community’s work. It is important to note that this playbook does not seek to change the definition of consensus or the methods of decision making as prescribed in each community group’s rules and procedure; it does not seek to introduce any new requirements either. It is designed for the ICANN community and is only permitted to be used by the ICANN community in support of ICANN related work. The playbook shall not be used for any non-ICANN related purposes. All ICANN community volunteers are strongly encouraged to review the playbook. We anticipate additional opportunities for the ICANN community to discuss the contents and practical utility of the playbook.

1 0

**Reminder** Meeting Invitation / Observers / GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP-P2 call / Thursday, 23 April 2020
by Julie Bisland April 22, 2020

April 22, 2020

**See April webinar zoom URL link below. 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 2 is scheduled on Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 14:00 UTC for 2 hours. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/wt8selq [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tinyurl.com_wt8selq&d=…> Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/1CqJBw 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…> **Updated information** April observer zoom webinar room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/731687691 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_j_731687…> Going forward, observers will now join via zoom webinar room vs audio cast. 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. One tap mobile US: +16699006833,,731687691# or +13462487799,,731687691# Webinar ID: 731 687 691 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acwzlz1QoY [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.zoom.us_u_acwzlz…> Kind Regards, Terri

1 0

Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #54 - 23 April 2020
by policy＠bacinblack.com April 21, 2020

April 21, 2020

Hi All, Please be advised that the Financial Sustainability review of comments and cost model has been removed from the agenda for this week’s call. It will be rescheduled in the coming week or two. A communication about this change and status update will be provided in under separate cover. Our apologies for the confusion. Thank you. B Berry Cobb @berrycobb GNSO Policy Consultant From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of policy(a)bacinblack.com Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 17:25 To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #54 - 23 April 2020 Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting on Thursday, 23 April at 14:00 UTC. Also, please see the following open action items: Action Items 1. EPDP Support Staff to update recommendation 1, 3, and 5 based on today’s discussion. 2. GAC reps to review the Consolidated Rec. 1-2 document and provide input and updated text based on the clarification questions by Thursday, 23 April. 3. EPDP Support Staff to send updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8. (COMPLETE) 4. EPDP Team to review: a. Review Recommendation 6 (CP Authorization) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1te3bU4fG5OTABvM_82Vq30f6pIFz0YhQp-8aV_w…> by Tuesday, 21 April b. Review Recommendation 11 (Disclosure Requirement) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16h-RNP9KzbsyzXJo8Gze47qIiaz6fZMW5QlI31h…> by Tuesday, 21 April c. Review Recommendation 15 (Financial Sustainability) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2kdKDoLH04OqNfZLJMd1qbDM07an2tZFs9rJOP…> by Tuesday, 21 April d. Review the Updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8 (once received) in advance of Thursday, 23 April Best regards, Caitlin , Marika, and Berry ------ EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #54 Proposed Agenda Thursday 23 April 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (10 minutes) a. Draft recommendation process update (homework is the priority) and new wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw> 4. Recommendation #8 – Response Requirements (40 minutes) a. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #8 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rU_tMAUjKzpbDid4KIDHU0gbzxe0pACZmRTE4fB…> (see Rec#8 attachment) b. Confirm next steps 5. Recommendation #11 – Disclosure Requirements (20 minutes) a. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #11 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16h-RNP9KzbsyzXJo8Gze47qIiaz6fZMW5QlI31h…> b. Confirm next steps 6. Recommendation #6 – CP Authorization (20 minutes) a. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #6 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1te3bU4fG5OTABvM_82Vq30f6pIFz0YhQp-8aV_w…> b. Confirm next steps 7. Recommendation #2 – Accreditation of Government Entities (10 minutes, if time allows) 8. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Thursday 30 April at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: Authorization automated, Automation, Recommendations not considered by EPDP b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

2 1

Proposed agenda - EPDP Team Meeting #54 - 23 April 2020
by policy＠bacinblack.com April 20, 2020

April 20, 2020

Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting on Thursday, 23 April at 14:00 UTC. Also, please see the following open action items: Action Items 1. EPDP Support Staff to update recommendation 1, 3, and 5 based on today’s discussion. 2. GAC reps to review the Consolidated Rec. 1-2 document and provide input and updated text based on the clarification questions by Thursday, 23 April. 3. EPDP Support Staff to send updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8. (COMPLETE) 4. EPDP Team to review: a. Review Recommendation 6 (CP Authorization) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1te3bU4fG5OTABvM_82Vq30f6pIFz0YhQp-8aV_w…> by Tuesday, 21 April b. Review Recommendation 11 (Disclosure Requirement) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16h-RNP9KzbsyzXJo8Gze47qIiaz6fZMW5QlI31h…> by Tuesday, 21 April c. Review Recommendation 15 (Financial Sustainability) PCRT and populate Discussion Table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2kdKDoLH04OqNfZLJMd1qbDM07an2tZFs9rJOP…> by Tuesday, 21 April d. Review the Updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8 (once received) in advance of Thursday, 23 April Best regards, Caitlin , Marika, and Berry ------ EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #54 Proposed Agenda Thursday 23 April 2020 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. Draft recommendation process update (homework is the priority) and new wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/K4LsBw> 4. Recommendation #15 – Financial Sustainability (45 minutes) a. Status of draft SSAD cost model (Xavier Calvez, Becky Nash as guests) b. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #15 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e2kdKDoLH04OqNfZLJMd1qbDM07an2tZFs9rJOP…> c. Confirm next steps 5. Recommendation #8 – Response Requirements (20 minutes) a. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #8 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rU_tMAUjKzpbDid4KIDHU0gbzxe0pACZmRTE4fB…> (see Rec#8 attachment) b. Confirm next steps 6. Recommendation #11 – Disclosure Requirements (20 minutes) a. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #11 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/16h-RNP9KzbsyzXJo8Gze47qIiaz6fZMW5QlI31h…> b. Confirm next steps 7. Recommendation #6 – CP Authorization (20 minutes) c. Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #6 discussion table <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1te3bU4fG5OTABvM_82Vq30f6pIFz0YhQp-8aV_w…> d. Confirm next steps 8. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): a. Thursday 30 April at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: Authorization automated, Automation, Recommendations not considered by EPDP b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

1 0

Notes and action items: EPDP Team Call #53 - 16 April 2020
by Caitlin Tubergen April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Dear EPDP Team: Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. The next EPDP Team meeting will be Thursday, 23 April at 14:00 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Marika, Berry, and Caitlin -- Action Items EPDP Support Staff to update recommendation 1, 3, and 5 based on today’s discussion. GAC reps to review the Consolidated Rec. 1-2 document and provide input and updated text based on the clarification questions by Thursday, 23 April. EPDP Support Staff to send updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8. EPDP Team to review: Review Recommendation 6 (CP Authorization) PCRT and populate Discussion Table by Tuesday, 21 April Review Recommendation 11 (Disclosure Requirement) PCRT and populate Discussion Table by Tuesday, 21 April Review Recommendation 15 (Financial Sustainability) PCRT and populate Discussion Table by Tuesday, 21 April Review the Updated Discussion Issues for Recommendation 8 (once received) in advance of Thursday, 23 April EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #53 Proposed Agenda Thursday 16 April 2020 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Confirmation of agenda (Chair) 3. Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes) Update on public comment proceeding – RySG input has been received. Staff has been updating the PCRTs. There was also a submission from 58 organizations submitted by Franck Journoud. Where appropriate, the discussion tables will also be updated to reflect this additional input. Groups that have not been submitted yet, please also share a full copy of the comments with the staff support team as that will facilitate integrating the comments. Update on work plan / GAC letter – note that letter was withdrawn for now. Janis met with GNSO Chair and GAC leadership to discuss concerns expressed. Agreed to follow three elements: The Team will continue working in steady manner according to plan and will introduce corrections as needed. One meeting per week of 2 hours but with insistence on homework. Staff will help GAC to streamline Rec2 on accreditation of public authorities; GNSO Council informally will discuss next steps to continue progress on issues that are important but not essential for completing work on the SSAD (legal/natural, accuracy, privacy/proxy) with the goal of setting forth a clear and definite path to resolve these key issues. The Team will submit formal request as soon as informal options are identified (in order to avoid placing the Council in a difficult position); and Small group(s) will continue working on most difficult issues (including automated use cases and consensus on the contours of an evolutionary mechanism) to prepare ground for conversation in the Plenary. Hope that those that voiced similar concerns to those of the GAC will also appreciate these three elements and feel more comfortable in going forward. Legal advice on accuracy has been received from Bird & Bird. As requested by Council, responses will be shared with GNSO Council, but legal committee will review to see if there are follow up questions that could further help inform further Council consideration of this topic. 4. Recommendation #1 - Accreditation (15 minutes) Remaining concerns flagged in EPDP Team review of recommendation #1 discussion table – discussion items 12-16 EPDP Team to consider remaining discussion items Confirm next steps Questions 12-14 related to definition of abuse in the context of revocation and accredited entity requirements Consider delineating between code conduct (abuse once requestor has the data) and abuse of SSAD so that is clear. Rec #1 should not cover system abuse, that is addressed somewhere else (e.g. query policy). Question 15 Confirm understanding that if function is outsourced, org would need to supervise entity to which it is outsourced. If ICANN Org performs the function, audit would be the mechanism to ensure oversight. Likelihood of abuse by the Accreditation Authority may be low, but there might still be potential scenarios in which abuse might take place (e.g. not following policy requirements, favoritism). Question 16: Identity Validation Procedures may be clearer than using authentication as it might be confusing. Some suggested that any suspension should be maintained during the appeals process. Consider instead modeling it on the registrar process – there is no suspension during investigation, only if issue is not remedied is suspension invoked. Once a registrar is found in breach, the registrar is suspended. Note, this is about suspension of identity providers, not accredited users. What is the impact of suspension of an identity providers on the users that were accredited using that identity provider. Need to consider the impact – should not result in automatically de-accrediting all related users. This is an implementation issue that should be considered if ICANN org decides to use identity providers. Could consider keeping credentials in place until re-validation has taken place of those users whose identity was confirmed by the suspended identity provider. Is this is a similar scenario as when an SSL authority is revoked? Need to look at the overall context and not rehash old issues – note that further details are already in other parts of the recommendation which address some of the concerns expressed. Need to keep in mind the protection of the data subject, this is not about protecting requestors. Implementation guidance: No further clarification needed – agreement with staff assumption. 5. Recommendation #2 – Accreditation of Governmental entities (20 minutes) Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #2 discussion table Confirm next steps Note that the staff support team has reorganized rec #1 and Rec#2 to avoid duplication and ensure consistency. The color coding at the beginning of the consolidated document explains how to read the different updates to the document. Note that the GAC team has not had an opportunity to review this document yet – clarifying questions identified from the discussion table have been included where appropriate. Following the GAC’s feedback, further updates may be required so EPDP Team review should take place once all updates have been made. The GAC team is still in the process of reviewing the input and issues raised. GAC team requested to provide high level overview followed by specific changes to language for EPDP Team to review: Important to have broad enough definition of governmental entities. Would resist unduly limiting what a governmental entity may be as there are governmental entities at many levels with different mandates. Valid point about mixing up private entities in this grouping – should only focus on governmental entities. Entities that are working at the direction of governments should be dealt with separately not to conflate how governmental entities are accredited. No unreasonable hurdles of accreditation for governmental entities vs. non-governmental entities. There should be clear rules and proper procedures. How to deal with governments not represented in the GAC? Each country will need to have some latitude on how it organizes itself, as it will be impacted by jurisdiction. Countries will need to be able to act in accordance with their own legal system and local jurisdiction. Should there be a delegation instrument under law that would allow passing on authority to private sector? Without the necessary trust instruments this could be problematic. GAC team to consider what is the best way to organize – staff proposal combined the two recommendations, but if the GAC team is of the view that it is better to separate out, that could work as well. Important to put proposal forward so that the EPDP Team can review. Important to explain what is different in relation to accreditation of governmental entities. If accreditation authority is delegated to national entity, it needs to be further clarified, may have gotten lost in the combination. Objective is to avoid redundancy, but differences need to be highlighted. Consider deleting ‘non-public’ from requestor definition as public data may also be provided. Need to avoid that any groups are left out unintentionally. Consider using section headers from recommendation #2 as these were very clear. 6. Recommendation # Recommendation #3 - Request Criteria & Content (20 minutes) Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #3 discussion table Confirm next steps Question 1. No concerns expressed about the takeaways identified Re. permissible purposes – have requested Bird & Bird about this. Maybe await the response before getting into the weeds. Needs to be able to evolve – caution against creating something unnecessarily restrictive. Also note that in rec #4 a number of purposes are listed, but also made clear that these are not exhaustive. Need to be careful to balance standardization of request format (e.g. checkboxes, dropdowns) against the ability of requestors to simply select what they think will be most expedient rather than what is true. Initially there might be a number of justifications listed as well as free form, over time, certain patterns might be identified, and new rationales might be added. But potentially permissible purpose will still depend on the specific case at hand. There will always need to be an opportunity for free form input. Pre-defined terms that are well defined gives more specificity, free form may be more difficult to interpret or parse. But need to avoid that boxes are ticked that do not align with the request that is made. A requestor should be encouraged to explain their purpose in their own words. Question 2. All elements are required, where these are not essential, those are already labelled as ‘as applicable’ – so no need to add ‘as applicable’ to the heading. 7. Recommendation #5 – Acknowledgement of Receipt (20 minutes) Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #5 discussion table Confirm next steps Question 1. Request shouldn’t be submitted if it is not complete. Once form is submitted, would SSAD do any further completeness checks or is it just basic form validation? Is there any back and forth foreseen between Central Gateway and requestor? If so, SLA would need to foresee this. Should be clear about how the system would work. Should it be impossible to submit a request if not all fields are filled out? If there is an automated query, should have way to indicate that response is not complete. Clarify that request cannot be submitted if not all fields are filled out. If there is automated submission, request is not accepted until all information is provided. 8. Recommendation #8 – Response Requirements (20 minutes) Review discussion items gleaned from input provided on recommendation #8 discussion table Confirm next steps Initial list of discussion items shared with the EPDP Team but not all input has been included yet. EPDP Team encouraged to review the issues identified and come prepared during the next meeting to discuss these. Staff support team will further update the discussion items list and share with the EPDP Team ahead of next week’s meeting. Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes): Thursday 23 April at 14.00 UTC. Topic to be addressed: CP Authorization, Disclosure Requirements, Financial Sustainability Confirm action items Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any

2 1

Interisle Study: At the Crossroads: The State of Domain Registration Data Services
by Margie Milam April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Hi- As mentioned on today’s call, here’s the link to the Interisle Consulting Study<http://www.interisle.net/domainregistrationdata.html> that highlights widespread problems with the current state of WHOIS. The study focused on the unredacted, public elements of today’s WHOIS, following the adoption of the Temporary Specification. The author is Greg Aaron, and he provided a short overview of the main study findings on CircleID here<http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200331-at-the-crossroads-the-state-of-domai…>. All the best, Margie [https://facebook.design/public/images/logo.gif] Margie Milam IP Enforcement & DNS Policy Lead | Facebook Legal NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents.

3 3

Bird@Bird memo on data accuracy legal questions
by Janis Karklins April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Dear Keith, In following up on the Council’s direction to submit the pending data accuracy legal questions to its outside counsel in order to help inform the work of any future scoping team, the EPDP Team’s Legal Committee submitted its agreed-upon questions to Bird & Bird. I am writing to inform you that Bird & Bird has provided the attached memo in response. As the accuracy topic is not on the EPDP Team’s critical path for delivery of its Final Report on the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure, the EPDP Team will not consider the legal guidance at this time. However, the Phase 2 Legal Committee will review the guidance in order to determine if any follow-up questions are warranted that may help inform a possible scoping team to further consider this topic. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards, JK

2 1

Post Call | GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 | Thursday, 16 April 2020 at 14:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew April 16, 2020

April 16, 2020

Dear all, All recordings for the GNSO Temp Spec gTLD RD EPDP – Phase 2 held on Thursday, 16 April 2020 at 14:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/0SqJBw> (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 as 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