All,
Thank you to Caitlin and Marika for pulling this together. I never envy the task you have of pulling together all the feedback, comments and input from a group like this and distilling it into a single coherent document, but as always you’ve done an excellent job.
A couple feedback items from me ahead of Monday’s call.
I like the single bullet capturing the overarching success criteria:
Has the experience with the RDRS sufficiently informed the GNSO Council and ICANN Board to make a decision with regards to the SSAD recommendations?
I’ve added a suggestion to change the “take a decision” to “make a decision”, which I think works a little better grammatically. I’ve been thinking of the overarching success criteria as being to “inform policy work”. The primary goal though really is to make a decision on what to do about the SSAD recommendations, so I think this wording works well.
For item #5 in the criteria section:
5. Sufficient number of requests are made by requestors from the different requestor groups so that statistically significant data can be obtained;
I’m a little uncomfortable with having a criteria that a sufficient number of requests made. I hope we get a statistically significant number of requests, but I’m not sure that is a necessary criteria. One of the concerns raised in the ODA was requestor demand is unknown. If we get a very low volume of requests, we would have to look into it to better understand why. If it is because we didn’t get the word out sufficiently for potential requestors to know about the system, then that would be a failure, but if volume was low simply because demand was low, then that could still be a success because we’ve obtained better data on potential usage volume.
For item #6 in the criteria section:
6. Registrar and requestor user satisfaction with the service should be measured (note, this should not focus on the outcome of requests but on whether the service made it easier for users to submit requests and for registrars to process those requests).
I like the idea of trying to measure user satisfaction, and further, I agree it should not be related to outcome of requests, but I’m not sure that making it “easier for users to submit requests and for registrars to process those requests”, is the goal, or what we should be measuring. I suppose from the standpoint of having a single entry point to submit requests, rather than having to track down the appropriate registrar and figure out their specific disclosure request process, it could be easier for requestors, but I’m not sure that is really the goal. I’m sure Sarah will correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think registrars expect this system to be any easier, and in particular, those with already existing disclosure request systems in place, this will be additional effort that I wouldn’t think will make things easier for them.
Thank you all, I look forward to discussing on Monday’s call.
Best,
Marc
From: GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam <gnso-epdpp2-smallteam-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 6:00 AM
To: gnso-epdpp2-smallteam@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-EPDPP2-SmallTeam] For your review - proposed RDRS Success Criteria
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
Dear All,
As discussed during Monday’s meeting, the staff support team has taken the input received on the success criteria and attempted to translate these into a single set of criteria that following small team review are intended to be shared with the Council for its consideration. Apart from one suggestion that the team may want to discuss further to determine if/how it fits in (quality of requests & responses), we believe that all of the comments and suggestions are reflected in the suggested criteria and accompanying text.
Please review in advance of Monday’s meeting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aGcf02uYXXLQCll9vVrNbMG6gY5bn37U/edit and add any comments or suggestions in the form of comments to the document. Note that the original input and comments can be found from page 3 onwards.
Best regards,
Caitlin & Marika