Thanks Sebastien & Sarah for reminding me of – and linking to - the google feedback document!  I’ve been compiling RDRS feedback from law enforcement / public safety users, and will gladly push such to that document now. 

From: Sebastien@registry.godaddy <Sebastien@registry.godaddy>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 8:30 AM
To: Andrews, Gabriel F. (STB) (FBI) <gfandrews@fbi.gov>; Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - First Report questions

Thank you for your message, Gabriel.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 26 February at 17:30 UTC. During the meeting, we can discuss the cadence for meetings and if additional meetings may be needed to discuss registrar and requestor feedback and experience with the RDRS.

As Sarah notes, we do have an RDRS Impressions document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14b6bG1Odmx-pLkTHrLSNiqAA4JCky2bewidHa5YtCBA/edit?usp=sharing) that we are using to catalog feedback on the RDRS. ICANN org support staff regularly checks this document, and we invite requestors to share impressions and feedback here so both requestor and registrar feedback can be recorded in one easy-to-find, transparent document.

If you have an issue with the Google document or would prefer to submit feedback directly to the list, Support Staff would be happy to enter the feedback on your behalf.

Kindly,

Sebastien Ducos

GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager

+33612284445

France & Australia

sebastien@registry.godaddy

From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Gabriel Andrews via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 6 February 2024 at 10:39 pm
To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - First Report questions

You don't often get email from gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org. Learn why this is important

Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.

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