RDRS SC Colleagues: During review, I've flagged one item which previously had not drawn my attention, and which I lack agreement/consensus with: Rec5, EPDP Rec9: Automation Disagree with some text w/in 'rationale': "The SC suggests considering the scaling back of this recommendation. The pilot indicated that human review is still needed for each request, and introducing automation would add significant cost and complexity. The SC concluded that full automation is currently infeasible due to the need for nuanced human judgment in balancing privacy and disclosure rights" I count myself amongst those who think automation remains feasible if/when request fact patterns match decisions made in advance of a request. To my recollection: some in the SC has asked for clarity as to what aspects of a disclosure decision cannot be considered in advance, but have been advised that RrSG participants were not experts in making those disclosure decisions, and therefore such information was not made available. I'd like to see such provided before concluding that automation is infeasible. From: Sebastien--- via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 12:38 PM To: Feodora Hamza via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Consensus Call RDRS Standing Committee 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/f...>, 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/f...> 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@01DC0DFD.45173CB0] +49 172 690 8418 Germany sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy>
