Dear RDRS SC, please find below the high-level notes and action items from yesterday’s meeting. We look forward to seeing you in Dublin. Safe travels, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team 2025-10-13 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #42<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/508526629/2...> Action Items: Next steps for SC members: · Review all 11 comments in full. · Flag any mischaracterizations in the overview/review tool.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17iQS2v3Wbb35ApO3CVrnPey4BekwODqpfSut...> · If suggested edits are minor and editorial in nature, focus on whether you can live with them. · If suggested edits are substantive, focus on what new information or insights that have been provided by the commenter. · If concerns, information, or perspectives have already been considered in the development of the recommendations, consider how the report can strengthen the rationale by showing how these have been addressed and why the SC took the approach it did. Review Tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17iQS2v3Wbb35ApO3CVrnPey4BekwODqpfSut... ICANN84 Sessions: · Prep-Week Session: 14 October 19:30 UTC · Working Session 1: 25 October 14:00 UTC · Working Session 2: 25 October 15:30 UTC · Working Session 3: 26 October 16:30 UTC · Working Session 4: 29 October 16:30 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Update ICANN Board * Board signalled intent to adopt a resolution at ICANN84 to continue RDRS beyond the pilot period and to publish a policy gap analysis for public comment focused on the gaps the Board previously indicated, including mandatory registrar participation, privacy/proxy access via RDRS, addition of APIs, and authentication for law enforcement. * Consultation with the GNSO Council on SSAD recommendations will be deferred until after the gap-analysis comment period closes. * Tentative timeline: Intention to publish gap analysis on 30 Oct with the comment period open through year-end (exact close date to be confirmed and shared with SC when available). High level discussion points: · SC members asked whether the gap analysis could include transparency of registrar decision criteria and cross-registrar consistency. · Board’s request focuses on the items mentioned above, but commenters are encouraged to raise additional gaps. · Concern about premature push for mandatory opt-in, privacy/proxy inclusion, and APIs without explicit rights-balancing and accountability safeguards. · Human rights and data protection have been considered across prior work. · Some members noted RDRS is a request system, not a mandated disclosure system; registrars decide disclosures under applicable law. · Board open to transparency improvements, while noting ICANN’s limited mission and existing RAA obligation to provide accurate, up-to-date data in accordance with law. · Some SC members raised concerns that if use is too expensive, some stakeholders might not use it. · The original self-funding concept raises questions. ICANN Board seeking clarity on realistic models and ICANN’s potential cost-sharing. · ICANN Board is open to voluntary ccTLD participation but acknowledges complexities. · Primary focus is on registrar-affiliated privacy/proxy providersSome members noted requests for privacy/proxy data may require additional requester information compared to standard cases. · ICANN Board believes registrar participation should be mandatory; the gap analysis will inform what policy is needed to achieve that. 1. Update on Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-request...> * 11 public comments received on the Standing Committee’s Findings Report. * Review Tool structure: · A master tab linking to all submissions. · One tab per recommendation, each split into three groupings: Support as written, Support intent, Concerns / Not supported. · Recommendation 5 has two tabs (the recommendation itself + a comparison table from the report). · An “Other comments” tab captures feedback not tied to a specific recommendation. · Working document to aid deliberations; does not replace members’ obligation to read all input. · Next steps for SC members: · Review all 11 comments in full. · Flag any mischaracterizations in the overview/review tool.<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17iQS2v3Wbb35ApO3CVrnPey4BekwODqpfSut...> · If suggested edits are minor and editorial in nature, focus on whether you can live with them. · If suggested edits are substantive, focus on what new information or insights that have been provided by the commenter. · If concerns, information, or perspectives have already been considered in the development of the recommendations, consider how the report can strengthen the rationale by showing how these have been addressed and why the SC took the approach it did. · Planned sessions: · Prep-Week Session: 14 October 19:30 UTC · Working Session 1: 25 October 14:00 UTC · Working Session 2: 25 October 15:30 UTC · Working Session 3: 26 October 16:30 UTC · Working Session 4: 29 October 16:30 UTC · Rationale: in-person time has proven most effective for complex discussion; however, sessions can be cancelled if work is completed earlier. · Concerns raised: Avoid overcrowding the schedule; note a conflict with the NCSG Accuracy session on the last slot: suggestion to aim for three sessions if feasible. 1. AOB