Thanks Seb.

All, we've all seen this movie before in which we start to extend these long calls into very long calls, meet more often, etc. etc. Respectfully, we have some members who are constantly raising the same high level philosophical issues rather than digging into the text. Regurgitating the same positions to trigger the same discussions have moved from an irritant to being a significant block to us getting this wrapped up. On our next 2-hour long calls, before intervening I think we should all ask ourselves "have we made this argument before"? Unless you are wordsmithing specific sections of the text, chances are you have made the arguments before and probably several times. Let's all show each other some love by showing some restraint and getting this across the finish line. 

Thanks for taking this in the spirit in which it is offered. Let's "git er done."

Best,
Paul

Paul McGrady


Office Direct: +1 (312) 515-4422

paul@elstermcgrady.com

www.elstermcgrady.com

From: Sebastien--- via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 3:01 AM
To: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: 2025-07-21 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39
 
Dear SC,

The last few weeks have shown that there are a number of topics in need of further discussion. We are extending the calls to 2 hours to give plenty of room for it all, which only makes sense if you are able to come prepared, having reviewed others' comments and offered alternative language where you see issues. 

Looking forward to Monday's call!

Kindly,

Sebastien Ducos
GoDaddy Registry / Senior Client Services Manager
+49 172 690 8418 / registry.godaddy

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Feodora Hamza via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:32:56 AM
To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: 2025-07-21 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39
 
Dear RDRS SC, this is a kind reminder on the pending Action Items. Responsible Item Due Support Staff Update draft report based on last RDRS SC discussion outcome 28 July Support Staff Add Recommendation 7 Regarding maintaining current SC with
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd

Dear RDRS SC,

 

this is a kind reminder on the pending Action Items.

 

Responsible

Item

Due

Support Staff

Update draft report based on last RDRS SC discussion outcome

28 July

Support Staff

Add Recommendation 7 Regarding maintaining current SC with narrowed Scope

28 July

All members

Review final draft and submit comments (focus on Assignment 4)

By 28 July

Mark Anderson/ Gabriel Andrews

Propose revised language for Rec 3.2 (display guidance)

21 July

Mark Anderson

Draft updated text for Rec 6 on what to do with SSAD Recs/Council Action

21 July

Gabriel Andrews

Additional Language in Lessons Learned regarding experience w P/P.

21 July

Gabriel Andrews

Review and provide additional Language to Recommendation 4. 

21 July

 

 

Kind regards,

Feodora

 

From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 22 July 2025 at 13:53
To: "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>
Subject: 2025-07-21 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39

 

Dear RDRS SC,

 

Please see below the high-level meeting minutes and Action Items (including pending action items from last week).

 

The next RDRS SC call is scheduled for 28 July at 17:30 UTC.

 

Kind regards,

Feodora and Caitlin

 

 

 

2025-07-21 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39

 

(Pending) Action Items:

 

Responsible

Item

Due

Support Staff

Update draft report based on last RDRS SC discussion outcome

28 July

Support Staff

Add Recommendation 7 Regarding maintaining current SC with narrowed Scope

28 July

All members

Review final draft and submit comments (focus on Assignment 4)

By 28 July

Mark Anderson/ Gabriel Andrews

Propose revised language for Rec 3.2 (display guidance)

21 July

Mark Anderson

Draft updated text for Rec 6 on what to do with SSAD Recs/Council Action

21 July

Gabriel Andrews

Additional Language in Lessons Learned regarding experience w P/P.

21 July

Gabriel Andrews

Review and provide additional Language to Recommendation 4. 

21 July

 

Documents:

  1. Draft Report [docs.google.com] 
  2. Review Document

 

Agenda:

  1. Welcome (5min)
    1. SC Chair opened the meeting and introduced the agenda.
    1. SC Chair noted:
      1. A new consolidated draft document has been shared by staff, combining all previous chapters for final review before public comment.
      1. SC Members are kindly asked to focus only on the new consolidated document.
      1. Staff created two supporting documents:
        1. The final draft of the Findings report.
        2. A Review Document to track and follow SC comments on the draft report. 
      1. When providing comments, SC member(s) must include alternative language to be considered.
      1. Comments without proposals will be discarded or followed up on.
      1. The main document is open for comments only; edits will be made by staff.
      1. Document review continues until the week of August 11.
      1. Consensus calls and final revisions will follow.
      1. Comments can be made in either the report or the feedback table.
      1. Staff will ensure consistency by transferring comments to the table.
      1. Priority will be given to comments on Assignment 4 and formal recommendations.
  1. Reminder/Refresher on Consensus Building Formalities (5min)

·         SC Charter states that for assignment 4 consensus is needed. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_23493/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf 

·         ICANN org reviewed levels of consensus (full consensus, consensus, divergence).

·         The Chair will determine consensus levels; members can object to these determinations.

  1. Discussion updated Draft Report [docs.google.com] (45min)
    1. Discussion on Pending Comments (Review Document)
      1. The report is now in the official template and reordered (starting with Assignment 4).
      1. Line numbering and linkable references have been added for clarity.
      1. Annexes include updated metrics through June 2025.
      1. Staff will continue transferring comments from the main doc into the table for unified tracking.
  • Discussion: Recommendation on Privacy/Proxy Disclosure
    1. SC members suggested improving the language for users to better understand denied requests.
    1. SC members suggested that privacy/proxy should not be excluded from future policy discussions and clarity in language.
    1. General agreement to consider coordinating with the PPSAI IRT.
    1. SC members asked for a concise explanatory document about privacy/proxy systems’ interaction with registrar obligations.

Proposed updated language: 

·         The RDRS SC agrees that there is currently no recommendation or requirement related to the disclosure of P/P data in SSAD/RDRS. The RDRS SC notes that some registrars who participate in RDRS voluntarily disclose this information, but this is not a requirement. The RDRS SC believes the process for and information provided concerning privacy/proxy data in RDRS should be an area the GNSO should consider for further policy development but does not prescribe how this work should occur. While issues of P/P data were out of scope for EPDP Phase 2, the RDRS SC believes this should be in scope for further work on the SSAD. However, the RDRS SC notes that policy implementation work is currently ongoing for the accreditation of privacy and proxy providers, and the RDRS SC notes that any further policy work should not conflict with this work.

  • New Recommendation on Standing Committee Continuation
    1. SC members proposed maintaining a standing committee post-final report to:
      1. Support future system refinements.
      1. Clarify recommendations if needed during discussion on next steps between Board and Council.
    1. Other SC member supported this to ensure continuity and responsiveness.

4.                   AOB (5min)