Dear Standing Committee Members, Thank you for all for your active participation during the ICANN82 session. As you have likely seen, there be no meeting on Monday, 24 March. HOMEWORK: Please use the additional time to finish your review of Chapter 2<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqXdMgsGltToV_JxDtubedfymvrmvoAH43kssxOT...>. As a reminder, SC Members are kindly requested to: 1. evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented enhancements in the final column of table 1. (Did the enhancement have the intended effect?); 2. provide justification (goal/rationale) and identify risks/dependencies for each proposed enhancement in table 3 of Chapter 2; and 3. provide a priority ranking from 1 to 10 for each proposal. (1 being high priority and 10 being lowest priority.) MEETING CADENCE: Leadership met with Staff Support, and we discussed increasing the meeting length or cadence as we continue making progress on our report to the Council. We have the option of meeting every Monday for 60 minutes, or every other Monday for 90 minutes. We will discuss the options during our upcoming meeting, but if you are welcome to share thoughts on the list. ICANN82 SESSION NOTES: Please find the notes from our ICANN82 meeting below. Support Staff has made some updates to Chapter 1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBAHz7G2AmjOt7C68Rn_hFl5c9F83lz9/edit?us...> based on the discussions during the session. Thank you. Best regards, Feodora and Caitlin -- 2025-03-12 RDRS Standing Committee Work Session - ICANN82<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/115684608/2...> Agenda: 1. Welcome (2min) * SC Chair took the floor, welcoming attendees and providing a brief introduction into the pilot. * Link to RDRS Annual Report: here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdrs-annual-report-24feb25-en.pd...> 2. Update on the progress of the final findings report (5min) * During ICANN81 in Istanbul, the RDRS SC concluded that enough data has been received and decided to start drafting their final findings report. * SC Chair provided an update on the RDRS Council report. · Standing Committee discussions and observations, including areas of disagreement, will be noted in the report, where relevant. · There will not be a formal consensus call and the report will not include policy recommendations as described in the ICANN Bylaws, but the RDRS SC will make recommendations to inform the GNSO Council as it prepares its dialogue with the ICANN Board on how to proceed with SSAD recommendations/RDRS. · The recommendations from chapter 1 will be moved to Chapter 3 or 4 for clarity and can be reviewed again when we discuss those chapters. The conclusions can be reviewed again during the chapter 3 and 4 discussions. 3. Working Session (45 min) * The SC discussed the flagged items from draft chapter 1. Flagged items for further discussion (Chapter1) · Volume of Requests: Some concerns were raised that the RDRS’s request volume is too low compared to historical WHOIS query levels. While the volume is not comparable to WHOIS, the pilot still provides valuable data. Proposal: Neutral presentation of statistics is recommended in reporting. · Mandatory Participation: Some SC members consider mandatory participation in RDRS as a means to enhance system usage. Other SC members noted that this is not supported by all SGs due to various factors. SC members also noted the recommendations from the EPDP phase 2 for the SSAD envisioned a mandatory centralized system. · Clarity and Accessibility of Requests: There were concerns about whether RDRS forms and processes are clear to users. Proposal: Establish a stakeholder review group (including requesters, registrars, and registrants) to refine the request language for clarity. · Timelines for Request Processing: RDRS does not currently enforce response timeframes. SLA (Service Level Agreements) were included in EPDP Phase 2 recommendations but not implemented in RDRS. Some requests may take longer due to delays from either registrars or requesters. Proposal: Response timeframes should not be strictly defined within RDRS until a final system is decided upon. · Technical & Operational Considerations: Some registrars found the system difficult to integrate into their workflows. The requirement to log into ICANN’s secure portal to access requests was seen as a barrier. Proposal: Develop better automation and integration with registrars’ ticketing systems. Further review needed, particularly in reference to EPDP Phase 2 recommendations. · Expanding RDRS to Include ccTLDs: Some discussion on whether country-code TLDs (ccTLDs) should be included in the system. Many ccTLDs do not use RDAP, making integration difficult. Operational aspects – Would requests go to ccTLD registrars or registries? 4. Next Steps (5min) * SC members to review Chapter Two<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1oqXdMgsGltToV...>. SC Members are kindly requested to evaluate the effectiveness of the implemented enhancements in the final column of table 1. (Did the enhancement have the intended effect?) SC members are kindly requests to provide justification (goal/rationale) and identify risks/dependencies for each proposed enhancement in table 3 of the document. SC Members kindly asked to provide a priority ranking from 1 to 10 for each proposal. 1 being high priority and 10 being lowest priority. 5. AOB (3min) * Next meeting is scheduled for: 7 April 2025 17:30 UTC