August 2025 - Gnso-rdrs-sc - lists.icann.org

Re: Links to Public Comment - RDRS SC Findings Report
by Lisa Carter Aug. 20, 2025

Aug. 20, 2025

SC members, I second the congratulations to all on this major milestone! Thanks for all of your hard work. Best, Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Feodora Hamza via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 at 12:53 PM To: "gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Links to Public Comment - RDRS SC Findings Report Dear RDRS SC members, Congratulations on finalizing the RDRS SC Findings report. Please find below for your convenience: Link to Proceeding: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-reques… Link to Announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-generic-names-supporti… Kind regards, Feodora

1 0

Links to Public Comment - RDRS SC Findings Report
by Feodora Hamza Aug. 20, 2025

Aug. 20, 2025

Dear RDRS SC members, Congratulations on finalizing the RDRS SC Findings report. Please find below for your convenience: * Link to Proceeding: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-reques… * Link to Announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-generic-names-supporti… Kind regards, Feodora

1 0

Consensus Call RDRS SC
by Sebastien＠registry.godaddy Aug. 18, 2025

Aug. 18, 2025

Dear RDRS SC Members, This message is to notify you of the closing of the Consensus Call process on the RDRS SC Findings Report. * Please find attached the updated Consensus Designation based on the comments received by SC members during the Consensus Call. We have received three objections to RDRS SC recommendation #5 and leadership has updated the Consensus Designation for that recommendation only. The comments received have been uploaded to the Wiki<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/poli…> and are linked in the RDRS Findings Report accordingly with the Consensus Designations for all recommendations. * Leadership has also accepted the minor wording change for the recommendation #1 rationale, which doesn’t impact the substance of the recommendations. Please find the Final Report attached. This is a huge milestone that involved many months of volunteer work, dozens of calls, and a lot of creative thinking and compromising for all involved. Congratulations to all of you on achieving a major milestone and thank you again for all your hard work! Kindly, Sebastien Ducos RDRS SC Chair Sebastien Ducos +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien(a)registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>

2 1

Consensus Call RDRS Standing Committee
by Sebastien＠registry.godaddy Aug. 16, 2025

Aug. 16, 2025

Dear RDRS Standing Committee, As discussed during our meeting today this message is to notify you of the opening of the Consensus Call process on the RDRS SC Assignment 4 recommendations to GNSO Council. The RDRS SC leadership team has proposed a consensus designation for every recommendation that the SC has finalized. These consensus designations are contained in the attached document entitled, “RDRS SC Consensus Call - Leadership Proposed Consensus Designations.” This Consensus Call process opens today, 11 August and closes on 15 August at 23:59 UTC. In accordance with the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>, SC members are required to indicate via reply to this message whether they accept, or do not accept, the leadership team’s proposed consensus designations. If no objection is raised by any member, the consensus designation is considered accepted by that SC member. If you do not respond before 15 August at 23:59 UTC, the leadership team will take this as acceptance of the consensus designations. If any objection is raised for any specific recommendation, the leadership team is expected to reevaluate the consensus designation of such recommendation and publish an updated designation to be reviewed by the working group. In the event there is no disagreement by the SC with the proposed consensus designations, Support Staff will incorporate the designations into the RDRS SC Report to GNSO Council. As set out in the RDRS SC Charter, only Members appointed by their representative groups are expected to participate in the Consensus Call process. Participants and observers will not be able to participate. For reference, please also see the attached document entitled “RDRS SC Recommendations to GNSO Council” that contains the 6 recommendations included in the Report. For more information about the Consensus Call, you may review the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…> or the RDRS SC Charter (Section VI: Decision Making Methodologies). Kindly, Sebastien Ducos RDRS SC Chair Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [cid:image001.png@01D81E10.09821660] +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien(a)registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>

4 4

Re: The July RDRS Usage Metrics Report is Published
by Lisa Carter Aug. 14, 2025

Aug. 14, 2025

Hello Standing Committee Members, ICANN has published the July RDRS Usage Metrics Report: August 2025 (Reporting period: 1 July – 31 July 2025) [PDF] [CSV] [CSV 18] [CSV 19] Best, Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN

1 0

Notes and action items - RDRS Standing Committee meeting - 11 August 2025
by Caitlin Tubergen Aug. 11, 2025

Aug. 11, 2025

Dear RDRS Standing Committee members, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s meeting. Congratulations to all on the hard work it took to get to this point. Best regards, Caitlin on behalf of the RDRS SC Support Team -- RDRS Standing Committee Meeting 11 August 2025 Action Items 1. SC Leadership to open consensus call on six recommendations today, 11 August 2025. [COMPLETE] 2. SC to review the consensus call and note objections (if any) by the deadline of Friday, 15 August 2025 by 23:59 UTC. 3. Support staff to update the draft report based on today’s discussion. 4. SC members may still make non-substantive edits to the Draft Report until Friday, 15 August 2025. 5. Support Staff to open public comment proceeding on Tuesday, 19 August. Agenda 1. Welcome (5 min) · This will be the last call prior to publication of our draft report for public comment 1. Review pending comments and action items (105 min) o Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcu…> · As an outcome from the last meeting, Support Staff made some updates to the recommendations. · The main pending discussion item relates to Rec. 14 (financial considerations) - specifically the table. · Gabe proposes to change the action from “keep” to “modify” · 14.5.1 should be modified: · 14.5. In relation to the accreditation framework: · 14.5.1. Accreditation applicants MUST be charged a to-be-determined non-refundable fee proportional to the cost of validating an application, except under certain circumstances these fees may be waived or zero for certain types or categories of applicants which SHOULD be further defined during the implementation phase. · Want to avoid a situation where Interpol, FBI, or other public safety agencies are required to charge fees if they accredit their constituent groups when they may not want to. · Open to accreditation-related fees being modified. · If that is what we are proposing, would like to see that made very clear in the report. · Proposed text: The Standing Committee notes that the considerations in Recommendation 14.5 relating to the accreditation framework may need to be adjusted depending on specifics determined by the accreditation provider. · Could add “for example, public safety agencies acting for their constituent members.” · “Specifically, the Standing Committee notes that the considerations in Recommendation 14.5 relating to the accreditation framework may need to be adjusted depending on specifics determined by the accreditation provider. For example, public safety agencies may choose to waive fees for their constituent members.” · This discussion about fee waiver is re: 14.5 only. · This group has discussed Rec. 14 at length. The group discussed they would leave it alone, with the exception of 14.5. The articulated disagreements to parts of Rec. 14 are included in the Lessons Learned section of the report. · On previous calls, we discussed a possible enhancement for a link in RDRS with non-participating Rrs with their own request system. It would be a good enhancement to add this. Even if there isn’t agreement to include that in recommendations, recommend adding this to lessons learned. · Support staff can include this in assignment 2 for a future enhancement. Would the SC like to add this to a recommendation? If so, the enhancements may need to be reranked? · Recommend putting this as an enhancement and not adding as a recommendation this late in the day. · Thought that in RDRS if the Rr for the desired domain name is not participating, the RDRS would say - sorry, can’t use RDRS, but here is the info that they passed along for your reference - phone number, email, link to form, as applicable. · Right now, if there is a non-participating registrar, that is as far as you can go. Without a significant amount of effort, we can do better. Registrars are required to provide information and mechanisms for requesting access to non-public data. · The text highlighted on the left re: prima facie review, this text may be too prescriptive in terms of telling registrars exactly what they have to do and how they have to do it. Some of these steps may be unnecessary. That said, all of this may be pointless if this text was suggested for removal anyway. · The text in this paragraph is not a lesson learned or suggested enhancement. There could be something better done with communication about decisions, but the copy/paste of the recommendation makes it unclear. The Standing Committee cannot change the requirements. · One lesson learned is that we don’t know how registrars come to their decision to make the disclosure or not. NCSG believes that fundamental rights balancing should happen. If the Rr does not want to do fundamental rights balancing, it should be documented why. · This text is part of Assignment 3, part of lessons learned, so SC is free to note disagreement here. · Re: the table - comments on p. 19 re: clarification on new text. · Disclosure must occur if a lawful basis exists, provided the human rights must be taken into account. The words “if applicable” don’t make sense here - when is human rights not applicable? · Human rights may not be impacted if it doesn’t lead to unfair arrest or chilling right of expression. · Suggest rephrasing “potential violation of human rights must be taken into account.” Do not want to imply that there are people who do not have human rights. · Follow-on question - there are entities that have tried to obtain Rr status before but espouse views in which they highly value privacy above all other rights. Does this suggest that as long as a Rr can suggest that, they could always deny every request for disclosure? · This paragraph is just meant to make it transparent why a request is denied, and it should be documented. If a registrar feels they are given carte blanche to deny every request, it is possible that a registrar could reject based on its fundamental rights balancing. If a registrar does this repeatedly, we will know. · Fear that if there is a MUST for a registrar to call out that the human rights assessment, you may be putting registrars in a risky situation with authoritarian regimes. Allowing registrars the option to do this and have flexibility to not be targets to authoritarian regimes. · We are not prescribing how the documentation should take place. · Either the requestor and Rr both subscribe to the human rights convention, or they do not. Consensus Call · While the consensus call will be opened today on the recommendations, other text and clarifications if non-substantial can be considered throughout the week. · Do not object to text submitted by Farzaneh, but would like to confirm the text matches what it is in the ODA. · Following this call, Sebastien will send the consensus call via email – 11 August. The consensus call applies to the recommendations only. Per Marc’s request last week, the recommendations have been reordered. · Leadership has designated all recs as full consensus. · The consensus call will close at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 15 August. · If you agree with what is on screen/later in email, no action is needed. If you disagree, please indicate your disagreement by the deadline (Friday, 15 August). · Only members of the SC are to participate in this consensus call. · Support Staff will provide a PDF of just the recommendation text so that it is clear what the group is being asked to review. · Understand that this is the consensus of this team, not the constituent groups. o Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU…> 1. AOB (10 min)

1 0

Post call | RDRS Standing Committee | Monday, 11 August 2025
by Devan Reed Aug. 11, 2025

Aug. 11, 2025

Dear all, The recordings for the RDRS Standing Committee call held on Monday, 11 August 2025 can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EQAgFw> and the GNSO Master Calendar<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2025>. These include: * Attendance (please let us know if your name has been left off the attendance list) * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat archive) * Presentation displayed during the meeting (if applicable) * Agenda and Notes/Action Items (if applicable) For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/gnso-rdr…> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/HgH8E>. Thank you! Kind regards, Devan Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

REMINDER | Meeting Invitation | RDRS Standing Committee | Monday, 11 August 2025
by Terri Agnew Aug. 8, 2025

Aug. 8, 2025

Dear all, The next RDRS Standing Committee call is scheduled for Monday, 11 August 2025 at 17:30 UTC for 120 minutes. To join - Zoom Information: Main Zoom Webinar link: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5EY1d3bUxLV2s3UStPS2MxZz09 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/92181477886?pwd=TlJHTU5E…> Passcode: Z@S07?t=v5 Audio only option: Webinar ID: 921 8147 7886 Passcode: 3121016458 International numbers available: https://icann.zoom.us/u/acS1yc2A1 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/acS1yc2A1__;!!PtGJab4!9A…> Members, alternates, and observers all have different access and participation directions, please read below! ALL: Before joining the call * Please send apologies to gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> only * Please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-s…> and the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/community-anti-harassment-policy-2017…> * Wiki agenda page 2025: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/NjTlBg * Check your time zone: https://tinyurl.com/yf4mc7ya ONLY for Members & Alternates * Please join via the above Zoom Webinar link and staff will promote you to panelist. * Please select “ Everyone” when posting to the chat for everyone to see your chat and so it’s captured in the recording. Only for Observers: * 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. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Proposed Agenda RDRS SC call 11 August 17:30 UTC
by Feodora Hamza Aug. 8, 2025

Aug. 8, 2025

Dear RDRS SC, Please find below the proposed agenda for our next call on 11 August taking place from 17:30 UTC for 120min. Proposed Agenda RDRS SC 11 August: 1. Welcome (5min) 2. Review pending comments and action items (105min) * Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcu…> * Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU…> 1. AOB (10min) Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team

1 0

Notes and Action Items: RDRS Standing Committee Meeting 4 August 2025
by Feodora Hamza Aug. 6, 2025

Aug. 6, 2025

Dear RDRS SC, Please find below the high-level notes and Action Items from our last call. * Action Item: Any additional CANNOT LIVE WITH items needs to be flagged as soon as possible for discussion during upcoming (last RDRS SC) meeting on Monday, 11 August. * Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcu…> * Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU…> * Action Item: Support Staff to update the Draft Report based on the agreements during today’s meeting. Note: o Recommendations have been reordered and introductory text has been added before Recommendation 3, explaining that ICANN org will not be adding proposed enhancements to the RDRS during the period of GNSO Council and Board dialogue. o Recommendation 5 on financial sustainability has been removed due to lack of agreement, and Support Staff has added draft text to p. 38 (beginning at line 684) to highlight the concern of some members with a strict interpretation of Rec. 14. o SC members to note ( based on the added language on p.38) if the Rationale and Proposed treatment (page 22) of Recommendation should be “keep” or “modify”. * Action Item: Steve Crocker to determine prior to next meeting if Rec. 4.1 on P/P data (see p. 8 of Draft Report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuMDe6OgIjLgmsrpdZZ1Eb/edit?u…>) needs to be revised in light of email to RDRS SC, or if this should be addressed via the PPSAI IRT. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 11 August at 17:30 for 120min. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team RDRS Standing Committee Meeting 4 August 2025 Action Items * Action Item: Any additional CANNOT LIVE WITH items needs to be flagged as soon as possible for discussion during upcoming (last RDRS SC) meeting on Monday, 11 August. * Action Item: Support Staff to update the Draft Report based on the agreements during today’s meeting. Note: o Recommendations have been reordered and introductory text has been added before Recommendation 3, explaining that ICANN org will not be adding proposed enhancements to the RDRS during the period of GNSO Council and Board dialogue. o Recommendation 5 on financial sustainability has been removed due to lack of agreement, and Support Staff has added draft text to p. 38 (beginning at line 684) to highlight the concern of some members with a strict interpretation of Rec. 14. o SC members to note ( based on the added language on p.38) if the Rationale and Proposed treatment (page 22) of Recommendation should be “keep” or “modify”. * Action Item: Steve Crocker to determine prior to next meeting if Rec. 4.1 on P/P data (see p. 8 of Draft Report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuMDe6OgIjLgmsrpdZZ1Eb/edit?u…>) needs to be revised in light of email to RDRS SC, or if this should be addressed via the PPSAI IRT. Agenda 1. Welcome (5 min) · This is the RDRS SC’s second to last meeting prior to publishing the report for public comment. · The enhancements from Chapter 2 will be delivered to the Council and Board to consider. · ICANN org will not be adding enhancements to RDRS while Board and Council discussions are ongoing. · During the post-pilot RDRS, the mindset is to continue this without enhancements, except for ongoing LEA authentication discussions. The decision future policy work probably has a few pieces to it: · Set broad direction (build original SSAD, make changes) - once outline of that is set, two things merge into one another: · First - eventual design · Second - what are the pathways from where we are to how to get there. What is the transition process? · May be helpful to subdivide these. · The amount of time involved will be related to these decisions. · We generally show paths from left to right - there are rarely feedback and loops built in. We should consider building a feedback loop into this process. · Re: link to non-participating registrars - this should be in the report if it is not already. · A reader of this report should have the same understanding that the SC has - what work is and is not being done; re: work being done, what the process would be to initiate work. 2. Review pending comments and action items (110min) o Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcu…> o Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU…> o Support Staff has updated the recommendation text based on last week’s discussion. o Financial sustainability recommendation § No text for Rec. 5 is preferable to text with disagreement § Gabe added language to help capture some concerns and ensure that text that did not represent consensus was clarified. § Phase 2 EPDP spent a lot of time discussing this, and this group shouldn’t relitigate this. Registrars prefer to remove this text entirely. § Re: Rec 14 in the table - there is one piece of Rec. 14 that needs to be modified and not kept. § There should be a discussion of the pros and cons in this report, particularly since this topic was discussed at length. § Rec. 14 - a portion of current rec. 14.5.1 - accreditation applicants must pay fee - at minimum, fees for accreditation must be considered for modification based on the current discussions. § Future policy work may not revisit the policy language from SSAD recommendations, but since a lot of time has passed, should be clear that a recommendation of “keep” is not a recommendation that it may not be touched or modified by future policy work. § GAC may have further comments on Rec. 6. (If not received in a timely fashion, can be submitted during public comment.) § Re: Steve Crocker’s email on PPSAI, is there any part of the current rec that is problematic? § Action: Steve Crocker to review Rec. 3.2 and confirm if there is any “cannot live with” text. § Following a concern from Farzaneh, John added clarity to Rec. 8 re: acceptance/denial so that requesters can have a better understanding of why a particular request has been accepted or rejected. Farzaneh noted that the request should include a human rights assessment. John updated language, and Farzaneh agreed to the updated language. § Is this a recommendation from the RDRS SC re: human rights assessment? § This is a small “r” recommendation for the eventual policy group to consider. § In terms of flow, analysis of human rights could be done preemptively § Added a suggestion that if there is a human rights assessment, that is documented. § This will be part of lessons learned - if there are disagreements, the additional concerns can be noted. § All “cannot live with” comments have now been addressed. § Action: Gabe to review Sarah’s comments re: PPSAI and handle offline. o There are some comments that need further clarification - these can be handled off list. o Next week is the last SC meeting. Accordingly, all substantial comments need to be provided (including proposed language to address the comments) as soon as possible o On p. 5 of the report - Rec. 2 is re: key system enhancements - as we heard at the top of the call, this is additional work on RDRS that ICANN is not planning to undertake but would undertake at the direction of the ICANN Board. It may be helpful to have explanatory text at the top of Rec. 2. In further context, Current Rec. 4 re: partial authentication - what we heard is that this is work underway. With that, it might make sense to move this recommendation ahead of Rec. 2. Current Rec. 5 is going away. Current Rec. 6 would become Rec. 5. Rec. 7 is to maintain the SC. Suggest slight change in ordering and adding additional explanation for Rec. 2 (or Rec. 3 after reordering). o Suggest modification of Gabe’s original text re: expedited requests. 3. AOB (5min)

1 0