Dear RDRS SC,

Please find below the high-level notes and Action Items from the two RDRS sessions at ICANN83.

The next meeting is scheduled for 23 June at 17:30 UTC.

Kind regards,

Feodora

RDRS SC ICANN83 Sessions June 9 and 10 June

Action Items:

• Support staff to update draft conclusions based on ICANN83 discussion.
• SC members to review working documents and provide additional comments by June 23.

1. Welcome

1. SC Chair opened the meeting and gave a brief introduction on the work and background of the RDRS SC. The slides can be found here.
1. Working Session on Assignment 4

Discussion Summary: 

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 3: Criteria and Content of Requests

· Proposal: To Recommend reviewing forms by a “focus group” with requesters/responders; perhaps form a Requester Group.

· Some SC members noted to maintain standardized form but improve interface and documentation.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 4: Acknowledgement of Receipt and Relay

· Acknowledged functionality works, but:

· Not a full ticketing system.

· Limited history tracking of request status changes (e.g., expedited to standard).

· Suggestion to improve visibility/history of status changes.

· Draft Conclusion: Functionality adequate but could benefit from enhancements.

• EPDP Phase 2 -Recommendation 5: Response Requirements

· Central Gateway Manager not incorporated into RDRS.

· Limited explanation options (dropdown menu) may be insufficient.

· Law enforcement noted some issues about being redirected away from RDRS.

· Remove “auto-reject” from draft conclusion.

· Explicitly note that some SSAD concepts (gateway manager) were not piloted.

· Suggestion for requester-responder communication feature in RDRS.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 6: Priority Levels

· Current Priority levels don’t “make sense” anymore.

· Suggestion to list technical and policy prerequisites for urgent processing.

· SC members noted for this recommendation to enumerate the features that would be needed to potentially handle urgent request.

· SC member noted for authentication for groups other than law enforcement, LEA authentication should be prioritized, but there should be a lightweight authentication for other requestors.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 9: Automation

· RDRS does not offer automation features.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 12: Disclosure Requirements

· Concerns around registrars disclosing data beyond request scope.

· Need for clarity in final recommendation language.

· SC members noted need to look at the recommendation as a whole.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 17: Reporting Requirements

· SC members noted the current RDRS are very helpful.

· Some SC members noted for further metric improvements, especially around requester accountability.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 7 – Request Purpose Requirement

· Request form requires requesters to identify the issue and purpose using a mandatory field and dropdown.

· Some noted the GDPR-centric language.

· Discussion acknowledged need for training and better user guidance.

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 11 – Terms and Conditions

· No further comment. 

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 13 – Query Policy

· Concerns about assumptions equating high request volume with abuse.

· Review the original Recommendation text as a whole. 

• EPDP Phase 2 - Recommendation 15 – Logging Requirements

· RDRS logs certain data

· No user-level logs currently

· Differentiation of logging purposes (accountability, statistics, debugging, transparency)

• EPDP Phase 2 -  Recommendation 18 - Standing Committee 

· The current RDRS Standing Committee functions well but differs from the SSAD’s envisioned permanent review mechanism.

· Partial alignment; recommendation should be retained with understanding it applies to future governance.

• Other Discussion Points: 

· Participants see potential in RDRS but hesitant to invest further unless it's confirmed as permanent.

· API development highlighted as critical to system usefulness and integration.

· Standardized forms, improved interface, and better user feedback were named as other important system enhancements.

· Discussion on whether RDRS will evolve into a final system or be replaced.

• Timeline and Next Steps

· Notes and updated draft conclusions from both sessions to be compiled.

· July goal: Final review of full report by Standing Committee.

· Strong emphasis placed on completing the report by July to maintain alignment with the 2-year pilot timeframe.

3. AOB