I’m happy to do more frequent calls if others are, but we all know that with only a month or so under our belts, there isn’t enough data to draw any stable conclusions.  I’ll leave it to the IPC folks who are on this team to add any impressions they may have from the requestor community, but if pressed to do so today my impression would be “could be more user friendly (and we addressed some ideas how on our last call); too early to tell much else.”

Maybe we gather 2-3 months of data and see what we see.  If we are having trouble digesting all that data in 1 hour a month, maybe bump up the frequency then?

Best,

Paul

From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:23 AM
To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - First Report questions

You don't often get email from swyld@tucows.com. Learn why this is important

Hi all,

I have also been wondering if/how/when we will discuss the registrar feedback to the RDRS. That said, I am also interested in feedback from other groups, and I notice that the top section of the Impressions doc remains empty. Will anyone from the requestor community be adding input as to their RDRS experiences?

Thanks,

Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld@tucows.com

On 2024-02-06 4:38 p.m., Gabriel Andrews wrote:

Question for the Standing Committee –

Given that multiple standing committee members and their constituencies have been compiling feedback on the RDRS tool and the reporting derived from its use, and given that the current calls are scheduled (unless I’m mistaken) monthly for 1 hour, is there appetite to have a more frequent call cadence for the express purpose of providing / considering / implementing feedback, and maintaining awareness of whether/not it is resulting in changes to RDRS & RDRS reporting?

Such calls could naturally decline in frequency or halt altogether once the initial flow of feedback is reviewed, but at the outset of the RDRS trial there may be more to discuss than there will be in later months.

Thoughts?

Gabriel

From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 6:18 AM
To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] First Report questions

Hello all,

I've watched the meeting recording and reviewed the report, and have a couple questions.

Metric 10 was discussed during the meeting; the understanding I came away with was that although it shows that 80% of lookups were for domains registered with non-participating registrars, the actual distribution of lookup between participating and non-participating was about 50/50. It seemed that a large portion of the lookups for domains with participating registrars do not proceed to the request stage, so only 19% of those lookups turn into requests, leaving us with the impression that most lookups are for non-participating when that is actually not the case. If that understanding is correct (and I think it is, but it sure is convoluted upon re-reading it) can this be made more clear somehow in the report? At this point the Metric 10 is comparing the lookup rate for domains with non-participating registrars against the actual request rate for domains with participating registrars, which is not an 'apples to apples' comparison.

There was also some discussion about request type vs requestor type. Metric 8 is titled "Disclosure Requests by Requestor Type" but the chart itself has a column "Request Category". This may seem like a distinction without difference but I do think we should be consistent; are we categorizing the request itself, or the requestor? I think it's the request, since in RDRS the user selects a "request category". Maybe this metric should simply be renamed to "Disclosure Requests by Category"?

Thanks very much,

--

Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E

Policy & Privacy Manager
Pronouns: she/they

swyld@tucows.com

This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.