March 2020 - Gnso-newgtld-wg

With Correction: Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 April at 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 02 April at 2000 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 31 Mar '20

31 Mar '20

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 03 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression, page 60 * 2.8.1 Objections [All Sub-Sections Except GAC Early Warning and GAC Advice - Not Yet Completed], page 66 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post Call / New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/aSOJBw> (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 can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Michelle

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 30 March 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 30 March at 1500 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-30+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation – See:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt… Recommendation xx: ACTION ITEM: Change text to “Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation that the commitment will be made in a mandatory PIC if two strings could be singulars and plurals but the intent is different, and also make it applicable if the TLD is transferred; also ask GDD to comment. Also update the section where we say there are no mandatory PICs. ACTION ITEM: Add an action item of an affirmation on visual similarity. Section d Dependencies: ACTION ITEM: Add Accountability Mechanisms to section d on dependencies. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation – See:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt… page 61 “Recommendation xx: The Working Group recommends updating the standards of both (a) confusing similarity to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name, and (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention, to address singular and plural versions of the same word, noting that this was an area where there was insufficient clarity in the 2012 round. Specifically, the Working Group recommends:” etc. Re: “Using a dictionary to determine the singular and plural version of the string for the specific language or script.” Discussion: -- If we use a clarifying question to determine the intended use of a name, but is the enforcement if someone isn’t truthful. We should be noting that in a recommendation. -- Proposal for clarification: (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention -> (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention between current top-level domain applications. -- We don’t really mean that an existing TLD would be put into a contention set. It should say “applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” -- Could have a situation where it doesn’t matter what the intention was for an open TLD. -- Not sure the single character difference has enough clarity. Trying to point out that we are looking at the intent. -- Intention of the registry is only meaningful if supported (enforced) via restrictions (e.g. brand or community application). Open strings will be marketed by registrars - and they do not care about the "intentions" of the registry. -- Something might not be considered plural if it is a .brand because they have strict controls on how that would be used. Seem to have lost that in this example of .spring and .springs. -- We are building in that kind of control -- a PIC or another way -- if the two applications want to exist. -- Enforcement will be the key. -- One open domain and one restricted (community or PIC), is a WORST case scenario. The open one can be used to masquerade as the restricted/closed one.  -- Could add a recommendation for enforcement. -- Must be a mechanism to ensure that the intent is transferred if ownership of the TLD is transferred. -- If the TLD is sold, would new owner have the ability to change the "intent" and associated PIC? if yes - Is that an existing process or would something have to be developed? We've seen examples for .brand being sold to new operators who repurpose it for other means. -- The UDRP is allowed to look at content in making a decision, but not sure ICANN Compliance can enforce on content. -- We will put in a recommendation for a mandatory PIC that they will commit to not using it as a plural or singular of the other. If a registry is making a commitment then ICANN can enforce the commitment. -- Re: “Using a dictionary to determine the singular and plural version of the string for the specific language or script.” See comment from ICANN Org: “Regarding the suggestion to use a dictionary to determine the singular/plural form of a word, it should be noted that a word may be identical in many languages, but generate different plural forms in each of the languages. For example, ‘kitab’ is ‘book’ in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, and many other languages, but the plural form of the word is different in each of the languages. It should also be noted that in many languages, reduplication is used as a means to make words plural where the word is repeated to make its plural form instead of adding a suffix like ‘s’. Additionally, some of these plural forming reduplications also make morpho-phonological changes, which means that the surface form is not just the word repeated by itself but slightly different. Even if the assessment of plural is limited to non-reduplication, it should be noted that pluralization is not limited to just suffixation, but can also include infixes (e.g., in Arabic, KiTaB (sg.) à KuTB (pl.).” ACTION ITEM: Change text to “Applications will not automatically be placed in the same contention set because of a single letter difference with another application.” ACTION ITEM: Add a recommendation that the commitment will be made in a mandatory PIC if two strings could be singulars and plurals but the intent is different, and also make it applicable if the TLD is transferred; also ask GDD to comment. Also update the section where we say there are no mandatory PICs. ACTION ITEM: Add an action item of an affirmation on visual similarity. Re: “The Working Group considered a proposal put forward in public comment that homonyms should be included in the String Similarity review. From one perspective, homonyms may cause user confusion, for example in the 2012 round an application for .thai phonetically clashed with existing . ไทย (Thai IDN ccTLD).” Discussion: -- Talked about this extensively. -- Didn’t get enough support in the WG to get a recommendation on it. -- Seems like homonyms would be in the same contention set since they are the same visually and sound the same, but have different meanings. -- Definition of homonym From Dictionary.com: 0" a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air". -- Question: Why do we care about homonyms? Answer: There were comments that were filed so we want to make sure we address them. -- Seems like we are getting into a quagmire that will be impossible to enforce uniformly. -- Question: What was the rule in 2012 on homonyms? Answer: They were not considered visually similar so they did not fail the string similarity evaluation. One could have filed a string confusion objection and then a panel could have determined if they were confusingly similar, but don’t think we had an example of that. This came up in the comments because we were talking about plurals and singulars. -- Seems like there isn’t the willingness to go into homonyms. Comparison of the way similarity was implemented for ccTLDs and for gTLDs: -- Similarities in the way this was carried out. -- Differed in that the CCs have a secondary review: If a TLD is found to be visually similar it would automatically general a panel that would look at it more closely via several factors. In the gTLD process there isn’t a secondary review, but we are building in an appeals process. -- Giovanni Seppia: I would suggest this group looks carefully at the scientific studies developed for assessing string similarity in a professional and sound way within the IDN ccTLD Fast Track. Again, it would be beneficial if the IDN ccTLD Fast Track lessons learnt in this area could be taken into account to ensure a consistent string similarity assessment throughout the TLD environment. String similarity panels must be made of true linguist experts that know how people's brain functions when looking at strings. This is one of the key lessons we learnt during the ten years of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track.  -- Could a gTLD appeals process look like the ccTLD secondary review? Seems like it might be cost-prohibitive to go through a second review or every gTLD. Incorporate the standards if an applicant wanted to appeal. -- Consider referencing the ccLTD standards in a footnote and cross-reference to the appeals section. ACTION ITEM: Add Accountability Mechanisms to Section d on dependencies.

1 0

Community Applications - Independent Research by panelist standards
by Aikman-Scalese, Anne 30 Mar '20

30 Mar '20

Dear WG, In light of the short time frame, I am proposing language re the standard for Community Evaluation panelist relying on independent research (proposed limitation from 2012 by Kristine Dorrain and Paul McGrady) as follows: "deemed necessary to verify the community status of the applicant, provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose such independent research to the applicant and the applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond to such research before the evaluation decision is rendered." Just trying to get the ball rolling on this proposed compromise - noting that a lack of consensus results in a fallback to 2012 implementation. In addition, I think I have missed the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines for scoring. Jeff, was this sent around again? Thank you, Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman(a)lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D60668.20F83070] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D60668.20F83070] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 30 March at 1500 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 27 Mar '20

27 Mar '20

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 30 March 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics: 2.7.4 String Similarity Evaluation – See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… page 61 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 26 March 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 26 Mar '20

26 Mar '20

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting on 26 March at 0300 UTC. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-26+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pr…. Kind regards, Julie Notes and Action Items: Actions: 2.5.4 Applicant Support Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets. ACTION ITEM: Confirm the timing of the Communication Period and create a flow chart diagram for communications and outreach. Recommendation xx (rationale 3): ACTION ITEM: For review by the WG on the list: Leadership & staff to change from a recommendation to a question for public comment, but removing the bracketed text, and develop a question for WG review to ask whether ongoing registry level fees should be included in financial assistance. Re: Whether there should be any changes to the 2012 approach of establishing priority between applications if there are more qualified applicants than funds available. ACTION ITEM: Add this as an Implementation Guideline for the IRT to consider. Work Plan: ACTION ITEM: Leadership Team to consider how to address the additional drafting proposed for community applications and panels doing outside research and the redlines in GAC Consensus Advice; add these items back on the calendar and consider whether they make sense to add to the 6 April meeting. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics a. 2.5.4 Applicant Support – see attached PDF for clean version and redline at:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5s… Recommendation xx (rationale 3): The Working Group recommends expanding the scope of financial support provided to Applicant Support Program beneficiaries beyond the application fee to also cover costs such as application writing fees, attorney fees related to the application process, and [ongoing <https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve…> ICANN registry-level fees]. Discussion: -- Not supported by the RySG: RySG comment about support beyond financial: “The RySG believes that ICANN's support should be limited to financial support for the application fee. Further involvement in the operational, technical and business aspects of a registry/registrar will only serve to unnecessarily involve ICANN in the operations of a registry/registrar and will serve as a de facto endorsement of certain registries/registrars and set a negative precedent for future entities that want to enter the registry/registrar business.” -- Look at level of support and opposition to this question from the public comments. -- Not sure how this ended up as a recommendation. -- Having financially dependent registries puts registrants at risk. -- The text is bracketed to indicate that it is for WG discussion/consideration. -- We did discuss this in the Work Track – a lot of community interaction on this topic. Originally we carefully noted that the applicant support itself wasn’t a problem but the sustainability was something that should be considered. -- The language in the Initial Report was: 2.5.4.c.7: Additionally, financial support should go beyond the application fee, such as including application writing fees, related attorney fees, and ICANN registry-level fees. [emphasis added] -- This support also gives such a registry a warranted, better chance in succeeding. -- Just because a registry is getting pro-bono assistance doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable and secure. -- Re: Paul’s comment that there is a huge conceptual difference between applicant support and new proposed category of registry support. Can we discuss this? -- Part of the conceptual leap is that the initial idea behind this would be to open the door to applicants who can’t raise the very high application fee, and you need to hire lawyers, etc. To help people who have innovative ideas to open a brand new registry. But now we are talking about what happens after delegation and whether there should be an ongoing subsidy for registries that aren’t financially viable. That seems to be something we don’t agree on. That’s why we do a financial background check to make sure that registries can operate and be viable after delegation. -- How is it different to offer these non-financial pro-bono services in subsidizing these registry fees? If it’s third parties and not ICANN that is terrific and that drives down the cost of running a registry. No problem with third parties doing good, but that is not the same thing as saying that ICANN should subsidize registries that don’t have a viable business model. -- ICANN should have an interest in registry succeeding beyond the application process. -- The registries have had conversations with ICANN in the past to request some of the excess fees being applied to a fee reduction. ICANN has consistently pushed back that it isn’t their job to prop up a registry that is failing. Don’t agree with the argument that this is ICANN’s responsibility. -- Agree that financial sustainability is not something that ICANN should be contributing to. -- In favor of other support, such as in-kind support, joining the RySG, etc. Applicant support should be a one-shot process and shouldn’t be registry support. -- But ASP registries should be an exceptional group. I understand the concerns against. In a spirit of compromise would folks in opposition find the suggestion of limiting this support to a SPECIFIED period amenable? -- Needs to be a minimum sustainable financial model. -- Applicant support should end at contracting. -- ICANN is in the business of providing opportunity not guaranteeing success. -- If you go back to 2012 there were a lot of unknowns – this time around we would hope that applicants would be more attuned and inform their decisions. -- Propose: Because this language was in the Initial Report: 1) remove the bracketed language and ask a very specific question on this, yes/no should ongoing registry level fees be included; 2) keep the language bracketed and ask the same question. At a minimum we should ask a question about this, but WG should decide whether to keep the text in brackets or remove it. -- We are hearing more voices than just the RySG reps that don’t support this. Seems like it wouldn’t support a consensus call. -- We should disclose the fact that we’ve taken it out and ask a question about it. It was only one group that had an issue with it. We still should ask a question. -- It does make sense to respect the comments on the Initial Report and the Work Track. -- Looking at the comments – other than the RySG who opposed it and Council of Europe who endorsed it, the rest of the comments don’t seem to specifically support or oppose. ACTION ITEM: For review by the WG on the list: Leadership & staff to change from a recommendation to a question for public comment, but removing the bracketed text, and develop a question for WG review to ask whether ongoing registry level fees should be included in financial assistance. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): Outreach and awareness-raising activities should be delivered well in advance of the application window opening, as longer lead times help to promote more widespread knowledge about the program. [Such Outreach and education should commence no later than the start of the Communication Period.] Discussion: -- Not sure why we bracketed the language, but perhaps to agree on the time period. -- Communication Period is at least 4 months, or as commensurate with the requirements of the program. -- Support for the bracketed language. ACTION ITEM: Remove the brackets. ACTION ITEM: Confirm the timing of the Communication Period and create a flow chart diagram for communications and outreach. Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 4): Outreach efforts should not only target the Global South, but also “middle applicants,” which are located in struggling regions that are further along in their development compared to underserved or underdeveloped regions. In addition, the evaluation criteria for Applicant Support must treat “middle applicants” similar to those currently set forth in Criteria #1, Section 4 (Operation in a developing economy) of the Financial Assistance Handbook. Discussion: -- It’s not just outreach to target “middle applicants” but in 2012 it gave extra points/prioritized those that were in developing regions so we wanted to make sure that because we are changing that to “middle applicants” we should be consistent in our evaluation criteria. -- Seemed to be supported in the ICANN67 discussion. Recommendation xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org must develop a plan for funding the Applicant Support Program, as proposed in the Implementation Guidelines below. Implementation Guideline xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org should evaluate whether it can provide funds (as they did in 2012) or whether additional funding is needed for the Applicant Support Program in subsequent rounds. Implementation Guideline xx (rationale 6): ICANN Org should seek funding partners to help financially support the Applicant Support Program, as appropriate. Discussion: -- During ICANN67 there was discussion to add a reference – that if we had a fee floor established because the costs were below that floor that one of the purposes for the excess fees would be that they would go to applicant support – added a footnote. -- Question: Does that encourage inflated application fees? Answer: ICANN dictates the fees, but from a cost-recovery basis if the fees are below what we would consider a floor then one of the purposes of the excess could be to go to the applicant support program. -- Question: Could this open up to ICANN saying that the application fee will be x-plus, meaning the fee would be higher than it would otherwise be to take into account that some of the excess fees will go to the application support program? Answer: ICANN would probably consider the fees as part of the cost in the cost-recovery to run the gTLD program. We have specific criteria as to how a floor should be set. Rationale for the fee will also be published. Re: Whether there should be any changes to the 2012 approach of establishing priority between applications if there are more qualified applicants than funds available. -- On the issue of thinking about a mechanism to handle "over demand" on ASP funds, even if we do not come up with a recommendation, could we suggest that IRT consider this somehow? ACTION ITEM: Add this as an Implementation Guideline for the IRT to consider. 3. AOB: Future Scheduling and the Work Plan -- Because we have covered sections more quickly than we expected we are able to move topics up in the Work Plan. WG members should review the Work Plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96k… -- Looking much more likely that we can get the report out before ICANN68. -- Sections of the Report will look very much like the material the WG has been reviewing. -- We will use the time after discussing the sections to come up with questions for public comment. -- We will have a couple longer meetings in April and May – extending two calls in each month for an additional half hour for more focused conversations on topics that will take longer. April 6 and 16, and May 4 and 14. -- Consensus calls will not occur until we analyze public comments on the draft Final Report. -- Would like to get the Final Report to the Council before the ICANN69 meeting. -- Staff will update the rest of the Work Plan now that topics have been moved up. -- Question: What happened to the topics where additional drafting was proposed, such as community applications and what constitutes the “necessary” when a panels is doing outside research; and the discussion on GAC Consensus Advice and redlines from Paul McGrady? We need to jump on those things. How can we expedite those drafting proposals? Answer: Leadership Team will discuss and get back to the WG. ACTION ITEM: Leadership Team to consider how to address the additional drafting proposed for community applications and panels doing outside research and the redlines in GAC Consensus Advice; add these items back on the calendar and consider whether they make sense to add to the 6 April meeting.

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call / Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 03:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland 26 Mar '20

26 Mar '20

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ZiOJBw> (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 can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Thursday, 26 March at 0300 UTC
by Julie Hedlund 24 Mar '20

24 Mar '20

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Thursday, 26 March 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes: Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda/Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Discussion of Final Report Topics * 2.5.4 Applicant Support – see attached PDF for clean version and redline at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7O… * 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om5… 3. AOB If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Post call | New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 23 March 2020 at 20:00 UTC
by Andrea Glandon 23 Mar '20

23 Mar '20

Dear all, All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 23 March 2020 at 20:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/ZCOJBw> (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 can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member. For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw>. Thank you. Kind regards Andrea

1 0