Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Mailbox Transport; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:12 -0700 Received: from PMBX112-E1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.26) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:11 -0700 Received: from PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.27) by PMBX112-E1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:09 -0700 Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (192.0.46.77) by PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:09 -0700 Authentication-Results: ppa1.lax.icann.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org; dmarc=pass header.from=icann.org Received: from pps.reinject (ppa4.dc.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with ESMTPS id x3GHw8d0002028 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:08 GMT Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x3GHrP64031600; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:08 GMT Received: from pechora2.lax.icann.org (pechora2.icann.org [192.0.33.72]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org with ESMTP id x3GHw6KO002010 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:07 +0000 Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora2.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AB641E0855; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (mm.icann.org [192.0.32.100]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B0D2E0C36; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm.icann.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70094EE0173; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@mm.icann.org Delivered-To: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@mm.icann.org Received: from pechora6.dc.icann.org (pechora6.icann.org [192.0.46.72]) by mm.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F258BEE0173 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out.west.pexch112.icann.org (out.west.pexch112.icann.org [64.78.40.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora6.dc.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2ED281E06CD for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:04 +0000 (UTC) X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org (64.78.40.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:02 -0700 Received: from PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org ([64.78.40.21]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([64.78.40.21]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:58:02 -0700 From: Ariel Liang To: "gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org" Thread-Topic: Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 15 April 13:00 UTC Thread-Index: AQHU9H3vLrLra++l5UKHuEjK8kIQOQ== Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:58:01 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.17.0.190309 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: PMBX112-W1-CA-1.pexch112.icann.org Subject: [GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT] Actions & Notes: GNSO PDP 3.0 Small Team Meeting 15 April 13:00 UTC X-BeenThere: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt@icann.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Public discussion list of GNSO Council PDP3.0 drafting team members. Private list request ntfy-gnso-pdp3dot0-dt is on another ticket." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org Sender: GNSO-PDP3Dot0-DT X-CLX-Shades: MLX X-CLX-Response: 1TFkXGB8ZEQpMehcYHhIRCllEF2ViH19bTWljcEgZEQpYWBdkfUFca0cfQ15 5fBEKeE4XYHxCQnJIQ0tiAR4RCnlMF2hLYH9bcm1zUFBGEQp5QxdvZl5BfhNjHmNHAREKWU0XZ2 ZyEQpZSRcacRoQGncGGBkZcR4YGBAadwYYGgYaEQpZXhdobnkRCklGF0NJS0REdVpYRU5fSV5DR UQHXEcRCkNOF21aSEV/GWxoUntsHh1sY0d6ZERjemtrZ09OHwdmeEx7EQpYXBcfBBoEGx0bBxIc TxJPTBxMBRsaBBsbGgQeEgQSHxAbHhofGhEKXlkXfhwdUmERCk1cFxgcGhEKTFoXaG1NTVIRCkx GF01raxEKQk8XYkBpYAFpWkBFX0YRCkNaFxsTGAQaBBkZBBIbEQpCXhcbEQpEWBcbGBEKRF4XGB EKQkYXY3xoHUtBE39YH0ERCkJHF29mHl9mQhkYRn8fEQpCXBcaEQpCRRdhfWlrbWd5ZllnWxEKQ k4XYHxCQnJIQ0tiAR4RCkJMF2R9QVxrRx9DXnl8EQpCbBdlHk9NYmtCQRhEZREKQkAXblxHRUQZ GmtyX0gRCk1eFxsRClpYFxgRCnBoF2dtARpZb2N7f0liEBkaEQpwaBdib25lTlsfcH9cTxAZGhE KcGgXaEV6b3lJZ19jfmIQGRoRCnBoF2toTgVQQnlnbmwBEBkaEQpwaBd6Wlpbf3NPUn4BaxAZGh EKcH8XYkVaH1N8U3NbUHkQGxgbEQpwXxdoG0RLR2YFbExpWBAZGhEKcH0XbW5EEmNJfl1HZ20QG RoRCnBsF2RGYG9ZXkcSeWBDEBkaEQpwQxdof0V+QWhFT38SbRAbGR0RCm1+FxsRClhNF0sRIA== X-Proofpoint-SPF-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-SPF-Record: v=spf1 ip4:192.0.32.0/20 ip4:199.91.192.0/21 ip4:64.78.40.0/27 ip4:162.216.194.0/27 ip6:2620:0:2d0::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2830::0/48 ip6:2620:0:2ed0::0/48 include:salesforce.icann.org -all X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-04-16_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-DMARC-Result: pass X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=248 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=253 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=2 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904160114 Return-Path: gnso-pdp3dot0-dt-bounces@icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Network-Message-Id: 638e993f-d7ab-496b-a4b2-08d6c295161b X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AVStamp-Enterprise: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthSource: PFE112-CA-2.pexch112.icann.org X-MS-Exchange-Organization-AuthAs: Anonymous Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="B_3638795896_1797838411" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3638795896_1797838411 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3638795896_1264704888" --B_3638795896_1264704888 Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear All,=20 =20 Please find below the action items and notes captured during the small team= call on Monday, 15 April at 13:00 UTC.=20 =20 Staff has post to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note t= hat these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the re= cording and chat room records, which are posted on the wiki at: https://comm= unity.icann.org/x/UgB1Bg. =20 =20 Best Regards, Ariel =20 Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist=20 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)=20 =20 =3D=3D =20 ACTION ITEMS=20 For the Small Team:=20 Small Team to check the target dates of the items that are at risk or faili= ng behind and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. After accepting the modification to the Improvement #1 document, Small Team= to reach out to ongoing PDP working groups (including Kurt for the EPDP) f= or input.=20 Small Team to review the WG charter template and see whether/what modificat= ion is needed in order to effectively integrate the data gathering checklist= (Improvement #14).=20 Small Team to circle back to Improvement #13 after discussion on Improvemen= t #6 has been completed.=20 Small Team to follow up on the homework for the following items via SLACK c= hannels:=20 #11. (Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces): Adapt fact sheet that= is being used for EPDP Team to template so it can also be used for other e= fforts (staff is exploring possible integration with CRM / PM tools). Commen= ts or suggestions on the draft?=20 #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 and clarification of section = 3.7 (Appeal Process) (Standard Methodology for decision making): Develop br= iefing document as well as slides to explain concept of =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D in t= he PDP. Discussion on the draft. Further changes needed before turning into = a slide deck?=20 #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model: Prepare a comparison table for = the proposed Working Group models, which could include several factors: mem= bership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicating de= cision-making, urgency/timing (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating pros= /cons as well. (Action item coming out of Council SPS 2019). Discussion on d= raft. =20 For Staff:=20 Staff to make an explicit reference to action items related to the implemen= tation steps in the work plan. [ONGOING] Staff to investigate origins of the implementation recommendation #14, maki= ng sure the underlying purpose is well understood. =20 NOTES 1. Welcome and roll call =20 2. Review of work plan=20 a. Understanding the format=20 b. Determining if changes should be made (e.g., to make it more achievable)= =20 =20 - The Work Plan has visual cues that indicate when things are falling behin= d/at risk, so give readers a sense what needs to be worked on. Green =3D time,= red =3D behind, yellow =3D at risk.=20 - Actions are grouped together based on the specific implementation and fur= ther, by the category of improvements.=20 - Original schedule was built in early 2019 so needs a reality check / adju= stment. There are probably dependencies that can be built into the schedule.= =20 - Need to check the items with the default target completion date of July a= nd see whether a new target date is needed=20 =20 ACTION ITEM: Small Team to check the target dates of the items that are at = risk or failing behind and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. =20 =20 3. Review of topics from last meeting and agreement on next steps=20 a. #1 (Terms of participation for WG members): Review EPDP Statement of Par= ticipation and consult with EPDP Team / leadership what impact, if any, the = statement of participation has had. Is this complete? =20 - There is a need to consult with the EPDP Leadership Team on the implement= ation, after the changes to the revised document have been agreed by the Sma= ll Team.=20 - Should the Small Team consolidate all the outreach items, or deal with ou= treach per individual improvement?=20 - Besides the EPDP Leadership Team, the Small Team should solicit input fro= m the leadership of other PDP WGs. =20 - When the statement of participation needs to be completed by WG members? = This may impact the WG member sign up process when SalesForce is used.=20 - Suggested edits are intended to make the language more standard to be app= lied to all PDP working groups.=20 - After the Small Team accepts the modification, the ongoing PDP chairs nee= d to be consulted on the document. Their input may help make the decision on= whether the statement of participation can be used for every PDP working g= roup effort.=20 =20 ACTION ITEM: After accepting the modification to the Improvement #1 documen= t, Small Team to reach out to ongoing PDP working groups (including Kurt for= the EPDP) for input.=20 =20 b. #14 (flexibility of PDP): Develop draft set of criteria to evaluate requ= est for data gathering and document this as a checklist to be used by a PDP = WG. Is this complete? =20 - If the check list is approved, it would likely require an update to the W= G charter template.=20 - If a consensus cannot be achieved, it seems that we have long past the po= int for collecting data to effectively facilitate the PDP effort. Need clari= fication on when the checklist can be used and how it can be used.=20 - The purpose for this improvement is to =E2=80=9Cunstick=E2=80=9D a PDP when consensus= cannot be achieved. There are other implementations that are related to thi= s purpose. - Need to think about what implementation steps are intended. In the workin= g group charter there should be an item about data gathering, and the Counci= l should contemplate on the potential budget required for data gathering.=20 =20 ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the WG charter template and see whether/w= hat modification is needed in order to effectively integrate the data gather= ing checklist.=20 =20 ACTION ITEM: Staff to make an explicit reference to action items related to= the implementation steps in the work plan. [ONGOING] =20 ACTION ITEM: Staff to investigate origins of the implementation recommendat= ion #14, making sure the underlying purpose is well understood. =20 c. #13. (Review of Working Group Leadership): Continue work of the SPS sub-= group to make specific PDP 3.0 implementation recommendations. Discussion on= next steps. =20 - During the SPS, there was a document developed regarding leveraging the e= xisting PDP assessment form and surveying how the PDP leadership are perform= ing. The document did not get much traction.=20 - Feedback on survey is that it is not helpful, but it can be part of the e= valuation mechanism/toolkit. It is not clear what the evaluation mechanism w= ould be.=20 - Shouldn=E2=80=99t criteria be developed to hold the working group chairs accoun= table? A simple review form can be developed against the criteria.=20 - Question is who should conduct the review of WG leadership and how. This = question may be dealt later.=20 - It may be helpful to tackle #13 and #6 together, as #6 identifies items t= hat WG leaders should do.=20 =20 ACTION ITEM: Small Team to circle back to #13 after discussion on #6 has be= en completed.=20 =20 4. Begin review of next topics:=20 =20 - The Small Team did not get to this part of the agenda; hence the followin= g items have been assigned as homework for the Small Team to follow up on vi= a SLACK channels.=20 - #11. (Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces): Adapt fact sheet th= at is being used for EPDP Team to template so it can also be used for other = efforts (staff is exploring possible integration with CRM / PM tools). Comm= ents or suggestions on the draft?=20 - #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 and clarification of sectio= n 3.7 (Appeal Process) (Standard Methodology for decision making): Develop b= riefing document as well as slides to explain concept of =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D in= the PDP. Discussion on the draft. Further changes needed before turning int= o a slide deck?=20 - #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model: Prepare a comparison table fo= r the proposed Working Group models, which could include several factors: me= mbership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicating = decision-making, urgency/timing (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating pr= os/cons as well. (Action item coming out of Council SPS 2019). Discussion on= draft. =20 5. AOB =20 --B_3638795896_1264704888 Content-type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All, <= /o:p>

 

Please find below the a= ction items and notes captured during the small team call on Monday, 15 Apri= l at 13:00 UTC.

 

Staff has post to the w= iki space the action items and notes.  Please note that thes= e are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording and chat room re= cords, which are posted on the wiki at: <= span class=3D"apple-converted-space">https://community.icann.org/x/UgB1Bg.  

 

Best Regards,

Ariel=

 

Ariel Xinyue Liang

GNSO Policy Support Spe= cialist

Internet Corporation fo= r Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

 

=3D=3D

 

ACTION ITEMS =

For the Small Team: =

  • Small Team to check the tar= get dates of the items that are at risk or failing behind and determine if an adjustment= needs to be made.
  • After accepting the mod= ification to the Improvement #1 document, Small Team to reach out to ongoing= PDP working groups (including Kurt for the EPDP) for input.
  • Small Team to review the WG charter templ= ate and see whether/what modification is needed in order to effectively inte= grate the data gathering checklist (Improvement #14).
  • Small Team to circle back to Improvement #13 after discussion o= n Improvement #6 has been completed.&nbs= p;
  • Small Team to follow up on the homework for the following items via SLACK c= hannels: 
    • #11. (Enforce deadlines and en= sure bite size pieces): Adapt fact sheet that is being used for EPDP Team to= template so it can also be used for other efforts (staff is exploring possible integration with CRM / PM tools). = Comments or suggestions on the draft? 
    • #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 and clarification of sec= tion 3.7 (Appeal Process) (Standard Methodology for decision making): Develo= p briefing document as well as slides to explain concept of =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D = in the PDP. Discussion on the draft. Further changes needed before turning into a sl= ide deck? 
    • #2. Consider alternati= ves to open WG model: Prepare a comparison table for the proposed Working Gr= oup models, which could include several factors: membership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicati= ng decision-making, urgency/timing (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating= pros/cons as well. (Action item coming out of Council SPS 2019). Discussion on draft.

 

For Staff:

  • Staff to make an explicit r= eference to action items related to the implementation steps in the work pla= n. [ONGOING]
  • Staff to investigate origins of the impleme= ntation recommendation #14, making sure the underlying purpose is well understood.

 

NOTES

1. Welcome and roll call

 

2. Review of work plan&n= bsp;

a. Understanding the format 

b. Determining if changes should be made (e.g., to make it m= ore achievable) <= o:p>

 

- The Work Plan has visual cues that indicate when things are f= alling behind/at risk, so give readers a sense what needs to be worked on. Green =3D time, red =3D behind, yellow =3D at risk.

- Actions are grouped together based on the specific implementation and further, by the category of im= provements.

- Original schedule was built in early 2019 so need= s a reality check / adjustment. There are probably dependencies that can be built into the sche= dule.

- Need to check the items with the default target completion da= te of July and see whether a new target date is needed 

 

ACTION ITEM: Small Team to check the target dates of the item= s that are at risk or failing behind and determine if an adjustment needs to be= made.

 

 

3. Review of topics from last meeting and agreement on next = steps =

a. #1 (Terms of participation for WG members): Review EPDP S= tatement of Participation and consult with EPDP Team / leadership what impac= t, if any, the statement of participation has had. Is this complete?

 

- There is a need to consult with the EPDP Leadership Team on t= he implementation, after the changes to the revised document have been agree= d by the Small Team.

- Should the Small Team consolidate all the outreach items, or = deal with outreach per individual improvement?

- Besides the EPDP Leadership Team, the Small Team should solic= it input from the leadership of other PDP WGs.  

- When the statement of participation needs to be completed by = WG members? This may impact the WG member sign up process when SalesForce is= used.

- Suggested edits are intended to make the language more standa= rd to be applied to all PDP working groups. 

- After the Small Team accepts the modification, the ongoing PD= P chairs need to be consulted on the document. Their input may help make the= decision on whether the statement of participation can be used for every PDP working group effort. 

 

ACTION ITEM: After accepting the modification to the Improvemen= t #1 document, Small Team to reach out to ongoing PDP working groups (includ= ing Kurt for the EPDP) for input.

 

b. #14 (flexibility of PDP): Develop draft set of criteria t= o evaluate request for data gathering and document this as a checklist to be= used by a PDP WG. Is this complete?

 

- If the check list is approved, it would likely require an upd= ate to the WG charter template.

- If a consensus cannot be achieved, it seems that we have long= past the point for collecting data to effectively facilitate the PDP effort= . Need clarification on when the checklist can be used and how it can = be used.

- The purpose for this improvement is to =E2=80=9Cunstick=E2=80=9D a PDP wh= en consensus cannot be achieved. There are other implementations that are re= lated to this purpose.

- Need to think about what implementation steps are intended. I= n the working group charter there should be an item about data gathering, an= d the Council should contemplate on the potential budget required for data gathering.

 

ACTION ITEM: Small Team to review the WG charter template and s= ee whether/what modification is needed in order to effectively integrate the= data gathering checklist.

 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to make an explicit reference to action it= ems related to the implementation steps in the work plan. [ONGOING]<= /p>

 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to investigate origins of the implementation recommendation #14, making sure the= underlying purpose is well understood.

 

c. #13. (Review of Working Group Leadership): Continue work = of the SPS sub-group to make specific PDP 3.0 implementation recommendations= . Discussion on next steps.

 

- During the SPS, there was a document developed regarding leve= raging the existing PDP assessment form and surveying how the PDP leadership= are performing. The document did not get much traction. 

- Feedback on survey is that it is not helpful, but it can be p= art of the evaluation mechanism/toolkit. It is not clear what the evaluation= mechanism would be.

- Shouldn=E2=80=99t criteria be developed to hold the working group c= hairs accountable? A simple review form can be developed against the criteri= a. 

- Question is who should conduct the review of WG leadership an= d how. This question may be dealt l= ater.

- It may be helpful to tackle #13 and #6 together, as #6 identi= fies items that WG leaders should do.

 

ACTION ITEM: Small Team to circle back to #13 after discussion = on #6 has been completed. 

  

4. Begin review of next topics: 

 

- The Small Team did not get to this part of the agenda; hence = the following items have been assigned as homework for the Small Team to fol= low up on via SLACK channels.

- #11. (Enforce deadlines and ensure bite size pieces): Adapt f= act sheet that is being used for EPDP Team to template so it can also be use= d for other efforts (staff is exploring possible integration with CRM / PM tools). Comments or suggestions on the = draft? 

- #9. Provide further guidance for sections 3.6 and clarificati= on of section 3.7 (Appeal Process) (Standard Methodology for decision making= ): Develop briefing document as well as slides to explain concept of =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D in the PDP. Discussion on the= draft. Further changes needed before turning into a slide deck? 

- #2. Consider alternatives to open WG model: Prepare a compari= son table for the proposed Working Group models, which could include several= factors: membership eligibility, operating procedures, decision-making, communicating decision-making, urgency/timing= (e.g., prioritization). Consider creating pros/cons as well. (Action item c= oming out of Council SPS 2019). Discussion on draft.

 

5. AOB

 

--B_3638795896_1264704888-- --B_3638795896_1797838411 Content-type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"; x-mac-creator="4F50494D" Content-ID: <98970976828AE64B9E6F8B5CC9E64823@pexch112.icann.org> Content-disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt" Content-transfer-encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkdOU08t UERQM0RvdDAtRFQgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpHTlNPLVBEUDNEb3QwLURUQGljYW5uLm9yZw0K aHR0cHM6Ly9tbS5pY2Fubi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9nbnNvLXBkcDNkb3QwLWR0 DQo= --B_3638795896_1797838411--