<div dir="ltr">Thank you, Caitlin, for listing homework items.<div><br></div><div>I would like to reiterate, that it would be very useful if Team members could suggest what functions the suggested "body/entity" (committee, unit...) could perform ensuring thoughtful evolution of the model from fully decentralized disclosure decision making (hybrid model) to more automated disclosure decision making (centralized model). Should this "body/entity" be supervised and by whom?</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you and safe travels</div><div>JK</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:04 AM Caitlin Tubergen <<a href="mailto:caitlin.tubergen@icann.org">caitlin.tubergen@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_120082413513278559WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Dear EPDP Team,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Please find below the notes and action items from today’s EPDP Team Meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">For all those attending: safe travels to the F2F meeting, and see you soon!<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Marika, Berry, and Caitlin<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black">--<u></u><u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Action Items<u></u><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">1. EPDP Support Staff to send Legal Q2, which has been approved by the plenary team, to B&B for its review.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">2. EPDP Team to review the GAC proposal on accreditation of public authorities in advance of the F2F meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">3. EPDP Leadership and Support Staff to consider today's discussion and prepare an agenda for the F2F meeting to be distributed on Sunday, 26 January.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">4. EPDP Team to submit additional feedback on today's discussion and the EPDP Leadership-proposed chameleon model by 14:00 UTC on Sunday, 26 January.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #41</span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Proposed Agenda</span></b><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Thursday, 23 January 2020 at 14.00 UTC<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:67.7pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><span>1.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:67.7pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:67.7pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><span>2.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Confirmation of agenda (Chair)</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:67.7pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:67.7pt;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><span>3.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Welcome and housekeeping issues (Chair) (5 minutes)<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Update from the legal committee<u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="a"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Following this call, a document which includes the rationale for posing each question will be provided. Regarding Reverse Look-ups, the legal committee thought the question was still relevant as the question for reverse look-ups as there was a proposal to prohibit reverse look-ups. <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">The path forward for this – Thomas raised a point of order whether this is in scope, and it is the Chair’s authority to rule on that. Alternatively, the Team could remove the bracketed language.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Legal Committee recommends the legal questions should be sent out.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Re: legal vs. natural questions, NCSG noted the outstanding policy question should be answered before legal questions are pursued. The LC believes that in order for ICANN to carry out the feasibility exercise, the questions would be helpful to inform this exercise. The LC is seeking clarification of the existing legal advice.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Territorial scope – B&B provided legal guidance on the territorial scope of GDPR and the advice and updated EPDB guidance could be relevant here. The LC believes given the Board’s note re: geographic differentiation, the implications of the two events would be helpful.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">WHOIS accuracy – follow-up clarification questions on B&B’s previous advice re: relevant parties – who may be included in this with respect to GDPR roles. LC also agreed it would be helpful to have practical guidance with respect to this.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Re: reverse look-ups, there is no agreement on this particular topic, so it would be wise to indicate that on that particular topic, there is no agreement within the Team, so the Team is seeking community feedback on this point.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Regarding reverse look-ups, the Initial Report or Final Report should remove all references to reverse look-ups. If the Team believes this should be dealt with at some point, it could flag it for a future PDP.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Question utility on putting reverse look-ups out for public comment – agree that this is out of scope, so the Team is not endorsing or prohibiting it<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">May be foolish to NOT get legal advice on this now<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Disagree that just b/c B&B is available means the Team should ask advice<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">There is no objection to Q2. There is no consensus re: reverse look-ups. Therefore, the Team will not send the question regarding reverse look-ups. <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Object to territorial scope and the legal vs. natural question<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Agreement to send Q2. The other questions need further discussion with the Legal Committee.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Accuracy question – NCSG reads this as accuracy is a right of the data subject<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Action: EPDP Support Staff to send Q2 to B&B for its review.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul></ol></ul></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">ICANN follow up on Belgian DPA response to Strawberry letter – see questions suggested by Marc Anderson:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:121.5pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:black"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Is ICANN expecting an additional communication on the Strawberry letter?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:121.5pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Symbol;color:black"><span>·<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Would ICANN org like feedback from the EPDP Team before it meets with the Belgian DPA?<u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="a"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">The EC has been helping ICANN facilitate a meeting with the Belgian DPA – was hoping to have this meeting before the F2F, but this has not happened.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">EC believes it would be useful to have a meeting with the Belgian DPA<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">There is no set date yet for this meeting, but trying to set meeting as early as possible in February<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Synopsis: work is ongoing, and there is no update yet, but hoping for an update in the near future<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul></ol></ul></ol></ol><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0.5in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><span>4.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Introduction of Proposal for an SSAD Hybrid able to evolve to a Centralized and Automated Model (“The Chameleon”)<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Staff overview<u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="a"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Attempt from Leadership and Staff to review the CPH proposal and reactions to it and the small team’s input and come forward with a proposal<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Attempt to add flexibility and meaningful SLAs<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Took the recommendations in the draft Initial Report and adding additional specificity <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">The basics of the model – the requestor submits a disclosure request to the central gateway (performed or overseen by ICANN org) – the central gateway would determine if the request meets the criteria for an automated response or if it needs to go to the CP for review<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">There is an assumption that at the outset bucket 4 would be substantially larger than what is in bucket 5, but through experience gained or additional legal guidance, more requests may shift to bucket 5<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Another new concept introduced in the hybrid-hybrid model is the steering committee – the underlying idea is should there be a mechanism that allows for the evolution over time without requiring a new PDP each time– maybe there is not, but this is an initial proposal for discussion. <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">This is similar to the CSC to IANA-PTI to follow SLAs and the performance of PTI and enhance these over time – this is more used as a concept – is this necessary or is there a way that the evolutionary model could be captured?<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Went through preliminary recommendations in the latest version of the Initial Report – the comments raised have been removed for ease of reading, but those comments will be dealt with via the issues list<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">There are now two preliminary recommendations about automated disclosure requests to accommodate the two branches in the previous diagram<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">SLAs have been included – is there a way to help predict what will come in<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Some of the other changes deal with who would be dealing with what<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">In reference to the steering committee, this is an initial proposal – this is not intended to circumvent policy rules – it is trying to find a compromise solution from the various proposals.<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul></ol></ul></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">EPDP Team reactions<u></u><u></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="a"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Having a roadmap around how to allow future automation will be helpful. Maybe a function or a group can evolve this as more legal certainty is gained.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Strongly support the model – getting something close to what the different group could support. The document references shifting liability – we should not be talking about shifting liability. Strongly support the work of standing committee, but it should not be making policy decisions. There should not be a jointly-appointed rep for NCSG/ALAC.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Under current model, the only way to create contractual obligations on CPs is through a PDP. This group would not be wading into policy waters, only on implementation automation – this group cannot self-determine what is a policy question – that needs to go somewhere else like the GNSO Council. Looking at the broader view from groups are critical of the ICANN model, this seems to show that the PDP is not fit for purpose. This is the wrong approach – the right approach would be to fix the PDP. If the proposal is for a group outside of the PDP that could impact the contract, that is too big of a loophole/wildcard/variable for contracted parties to accept. Critics of the MSM will pounce on this as evidence that the MSM is not working.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Standing PDP could be an alternative to a standing committee<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Do not support an external group that is designed to exclude non-commercial users from decision-making. The CSC is not an appropriate precedent. Question the need for evolution – the EPDP Team can come up with an automated model for certain disclosures – there can be evolution of procedures and technologies, and there can be oversight of that through the GNSO Council.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Would need a Privacy Impact Committee to assess the impact of this<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">New draft is closer to what can be published for initial comment – there are problematic elements but can discuss these at the F2F<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Need to call out automation where legally permissible and technically feasible.<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">There could be standing IRT-like group to assist in the evolution<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Modeling a steering committee after the CSC is very good – the membership will be different b/c the customers and functions are very different<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Will the committee have the responsibility where the decision making for the disclosure request can be done through automated means? <u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Have to discuss the safest way to get legal certainty is to get this approved as a code of conduct under the GDPR<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Action: EPDP Team to review the GAC proposal on accreditation of public authorities<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Action: Leadership and Staff will consider today’s discussion and prepare the F2F meeting in the best possible way<u></u><u></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black"><span style="font-size:11pt">Action: EPDP Team can prepare additional feedback to assist Leadership in developing next week’s F2F agenda<u></u><u></u></span></li></ul></ol></ul></ol></ol><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>c)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Confirm next steps<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:68.1pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>5.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Plans for F2F meeting in Los Angeles <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Leadership Priorities<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">EPDP Team input<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>c)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Confirmation of expected homework / preparations by EPDP Team for the LA F2F meeting<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>d)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Confirm next steps<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:68.1pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>6.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Continue review of issues list (those items not dependent on item #4), if time allows<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">See highlighted items on the issue list<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:112.5pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">EPDP Team input<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt"><span>c)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt">Confirm next steps<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="gmail-m_120082413513278559MsoListParagraph" style="margin-right:0in;margin-left:0.95in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><span>7.<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black">Wrap and confirm next EPDP Team meeting (5 minutes):</span><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>a)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Monday 27 January 2020 at 9.00 local time at the ICANN office<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>b)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Confirm action items<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in"><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black"><span>c)<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11pt;color:black">Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote></div>