Dear RDRS Standing Committee, Please find below the main discussion points and action items from yesterday`s meeting. The next meeting will take place during ICANN80 on Monday, 10 June; 08:45 – 10:15 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora and Caitlin AI: ICANN Org to discuss internally if stats regarding number of clicks to submit RDRS requests can be generated. AI: SC to go through impression document and identify the owner of each enhancement suggestion made by other members of their constituency. 1. Welcome 2. ICANN 80 Sessions a.RDRS Standing Committee Work Session [icann80.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann80.sched.com/event/1dr4c/gnso-rdrs-s...> – Monday, 10 June; 08:45 – 10:15 UTC b. CSG Membership Work Session [icann80.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann80.sched.com/event/1dr2u/gnso-csg-me...> – Monday, 10 June; 11:45 – 13:00 UTC c. Registrars and ICANN: Good RDRS Requests [icann80.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann80.sched.com/event/1dr3I/gnso-regist...> – Tuesday, 11 June; 08:45 – 10:15 UTC 3. RDRS Usage Metrics Report Follow-up a. April Summary of Data update to correct Metric 15 b. March Summary of Data update to correct Metric 15 i. Data of Metric 15 was transposed and ICANN org went back to correct it. ii. ICANN Org will be publishing a correction of the two reports impacted. iii. ICANN Org will take down the old reports and replace them with the new/corrected versions. iv. The CSV files will also be updated with the corrected numbers for Metric 15. v. Each updated Usage Metrics Report will include language within the document to indicate that Metric 15 has been updated to correct the data. 4. System Enhancements a. Adding Terms of Service language on page 2 reference – June i. There seems to be users who self-identify as Law enforcement even though they are not. ICANN Org used language from the Requestor’s User Guide to notify users that providing misleading information in RDRS or claiming to be law enforcement when they are not is a violation of the Terms of Service. b. Update to the Requestor Type Picklist – release date TBD i. ICANN Org will updaterequestor type picklist to remove “Cybersecurity Incident Response Team” from the list and replace it with “CyberSecurity Team” as it is a request type than an incident response Team. In addition ICANN org will add notation in the Metrics document to indicate the update to the picklist and why “Cybersecurity Incident Response Team” will no longer be tracked. The Metrics will still report on the old data. ii. SC suggested to add a footnote to changed/grouped requestor type explainging “previously part of (inser group type)” to allow for back tracking. iii. SC asked if there has been an attempt to gather user feedback from other user groups like LE, incident response, etc.? ICANN Org responded that no additional outreach to LE was initiated and that the the WHOIS design paper was used in creating the picklist. iv. Chair suggested that due to low numbers of survey response, SC could increase the outreach effort on RDRS. v. SC pointed out that It's been reported that it takes more than 30 clicks to submit a request. SC asked if ICANN Org can you measure? Can you add some instrumentation that measures the number of clicks for each? Submission and accumulate those statistics internally. vi. SC members asked what do we learn, or what would we do with clicks information gathered? AI: ICANN Org to discuss internally if stats regarding number of clicks to submit RDRS requests can be generated. c. Reminder on the Impressions document purpose and handling d. Impressions Document Modification Request i. SC members raised the point of the successor system and where bigger advancements/suggestion would be included to be considered in the future? Decision from SC is still pending on this ii. Chair reminded SC to own suggestions made in the impressions documents even if the suggestions come from other members of each constituency. iii. Chair raised the desire to discuss the impressions documents and prioritization of the suggestions in person at ICANN80. iv. SC asked what is the intention of the document: a. To gather impressions of the system b. Or to provide enhancement suggestions for the system v. SC suggested to add separate column to captureLevel of Effort from ICANN org, a column to provide prioritization number, a column for notes and discussion, and a column to state the status of the suggested enhancement. AI: SC to go through impression document and identify the owner of each enhancement suggestion made by other members of their constituency. e. Sankey re: Gabriel Andrews’ 21-22 email i. There was also a request from SC to update Metric 10 by including actual numbers and percentages for each lookup status for the month and cumulatively since launch. Several members agreed this was a good improvement to implement. 5. AOB Feodora Hamza Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +32 496 30 24 15 Email: feodora.hamza@icann.org<mailto:feodora.hamza@icann.org> Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>