Dear RDRS Standing Committee, Please find below the main discussion points and action items from yesterday`s meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 15 July at 17:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora and Caitlin 2024-07-01 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #11<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=347373582> AI: SC Chair to remove word “policy” from letter to GNSO Council. AI: SC to discuss and agree what additional metrics to be added. AI: SC members that proposed new change requests during the call (and any other change requests) to add them in the impressions document.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFK-RCT5Nv-KcNgX4eQunkUKgSI35Yc_nUZ6...> AI: ICANN will have tech team provide an updated LOE one the impressions document is updated with the new details from Gabriel. AI: ICANN Org and SC to consider Gabriels request. AI: Gabriel to include change request into the impressions document.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFK-RCT5Nv-KcNgX4eQunkUKgSI35Yc_nUZ6...> 1. Welcome * SC discussed the letter from RDRS SC Chair to GNSO Council from 25 June 2024. * SC Chair emphasized that the letter's aim is to remove aspects that are not purely managing the RDRS pilot and clarify with the GNSO council. * The overall aim is to see what recommendation the SC can make to the GNSO Council in 18 months time. AI: SC Chair to remove word “policy” from letter to GNSO Council. · SC members asked about the reasoning of the letter and what is the best case scenario outcome that is intended? · SC Chair explained that at this stage there was no additional policy work needed. However, the letter to GNSO Council should encourage Council to invite all SG to expand and continue discussion on RDRS and its implications in different fora beyond the SC. · SC discussed how to measure the success of RDRS? How to assess if the product is working? · SC members said that current RDRS does not bring added value to the requestor community. · SC chair emphasized that the SC does not have time to cover these “political” aspects of RDRS and this is out of scope for SC and the letter aims to encourage the creation of channels outside the SC for that discussion. · The idea is to create another – bigger – group to discuss the “political” dimensions of RDRS and any potential successor system. · SC Chair pointed out that this system, this simple system was fairly easy to design, just as a ticketing system as a transporter of information from requester to responders. But we're finding ourselves now, not being able to assess the efficiency of it closely enough beyond the fact that it just passes, passes the parcel, passes the question from one to the next. · SC members suggested that RDRS is not providing any added value than the situation that existed after GDPR but before the RDRS system. · SC members from LEA explained that their agency uses centralops.net for whois queries and their usage number indicates 15000 queries in 90 days. The system provides similar services as RDRS does but has more user awareness. RDRS, however, is lacking user awareness beyond the community. 2. RDRS Usage Metrics Report · Standing Committee feedback/questions on recent Metrics Usage Report<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdrs-usage-metrics-17jun24-en.pd...> · Metric 5 number of requests is down from 255 in March to 156 in May. · Metric 6.1, 6.2 seems to be increasing slightly for non participating Rrs, but on decreasing for participating. · Law enforcement and IP holders continue to be the top request categories. · Metric 10 - Domain not supported is the the highest metric. · Metric 8 enhancement request won't be included in the next report, but it will come probably the report after. · ccTlds account for about 8% of overall lookups. Right now we have about 1,087 ccTld queries out of 12,985 lookups since launch. AI: SC to discuss and agree what additional metrics to be added. · The Cctld addition to Metric 10 won't be in the July report. AI: SC members that proposed new change requests during the call (and any other change requests) to add them in the impressions document.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFK-RCT5Nv-KcNgX4eQunkUKgSI35Yc_nUZ6...> · Discuss and agree on the additional metrics to add to the monthly reports 3. Impressions Document Management 4. AOB · Second round of RDRS enhancements released on 25 June · Requestor Survey · Improving response rate · Additional questions on user experience after submit page in RDRS * Gabriel informed SC that their constituency is working on an API for RDRS as the change request proposed to ICANN Org was considered a high level of effort. AI: ICANN will have tech team provide an updated LOE one the impressions document is updated with the new details from Gabriel. * Gabriel asked the SC/ICANN Org for two things: * 1. a test domain that they can query to make sure that the connection is actually connecting successfully without tainting the data. * 2. an email address/ contact that they can use to send the occasional technical question to. AI: ICANN Org and SC to consider Gabriels request. AI: Gabriel to include change request into the impressions document.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XFK-RCT5Nv-KcNgX4eQunkUKgSI35Yc_nUZ6...> Feodora Hamza Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +32 496 30 24 15 Email: feodora.hamza@icann.org<mailto:feodora.hamza@icann.org> Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>