Dear RDRS SC,

 

Please see below the notes and action items from the last meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for 19 May at 17:30 UTC.

 

Kind regards,

Feodora and Caitlin

 

 

2025-05-12 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #32

 

Action Items:

·         Re-read Chapter 3.

·         Review and comment on the document provided by ICANN Org for assignment 4. (Review EPDP Phase 2 Recs – 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 16)

·         To indicate if they agree with the categorization of the EPDP Phase 2 Rec and if view is divergent, provide rationale. 

·         Review Document for Assignment 4 by Deadline 19 May 2025.

 

Documents:

 

Proposed Agenda:

  1. Welcome 

·         Purpose of meeting: Continue discussion on Chapter 4 of the RDRS SC Final Findings Report.

  1. Continue discussion on Chapter 4

.                     Recap and Context for Chapter 4 (Presented by ICANN Org)

Assignment 4: To provide the GNSO Council with recommendations based on the review of the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations (Recs 1–18) and their incorporation (entire, partial, or none) in the RDRS.

·         The group may (based on Charter):

                                                                                                                     i.Recommend full adoption of all EPDP recommendations,

                                                                                                                   ii.Recommend rejection,

                                                                                                                  iii.Recommend modifications,

                                                                                                                  iv.Or suggest a combination thereof.

·         Emphasized the standing committee’s role as advisory—not policy-making. They may comment and make observations, but changes to policy must follow established GNSO processes. The Council did, however, charge the Standing Committee to perform a close review of the recommendations and provide observations and guidance on how to proceed with the eventual Board/Council dialogue.

·         Explained potential modification paths:

                                                                                                                     i.ICANN Bylaws Annex A Section 9: Path of supplemental recommendations.

                                                                                                                   ii.GNSO Procedures Section 16: Council may modify recommendations before Board consideration.

b.      Chapter 4 Structure Proposal (Presented by ICANN Org)

·         Chapter 4 to consolidate findings (from Chapter 1 to 3) and provide recommendations to GNSO Council.

·         Proposed elements:

Part 1: Overarching recommendations.

Part 2: Updated table from Chapter 3, showing alignment of EPDP Phase 2 Recs with RDRS implementation.

Preliminary classification of recommendations:

                                                                                                                     i.1 fully aligned: Rec 8 (registrars reviewing requests individually).

                                                                                                                   ii.12 partially aligned.

                                                                                                                  iii.5 not included: Recs 1–2 (Accreditation), 10 (Response timing), 14 (Financial sustainability), 16 (Audits).

c.       Summary of SC Discussion (Lead by SC Chair)

·         SC members asked whether broader environmental changes could justify reconsidering recommendations.

·         SC Chair responded: Such work is not within the group’s charter but acknowledged consensus-flagging of outdated items is acceptable.

·         Emphasis on focusing on what was learned from the RDRS rather than conducting full policy re-evaluation.

·         SC members stressed the importance of documenting disagreements or differing views within the report.

·         SC Chair clarified that while Assignments 1–3 permit noting disagreement (which has been documented in the different chapters), Assignment 4 requires consensus per charter.

·         Divergent views may be documented in annexes or supporting material.

·         Some SC members emphasized the need to flag the lack of guidance and consistency in request handling, indicating that Rec#8 might not be considered as fully implemented in RDRS. 

·         SC members objected to implying consensus on “abandoning” accreditation without proper discussion.

·         SC members suggested noting authentication’s value for requester accountability. (Rec #1 and #2)

·         SC members noted they need time to review the EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations and review chapters 1-3 again to be able to contribute meaningfully to assignment 4. 

  1. AOB

·         SC members revisited a pending enhancement request to include law enforcement authentication by checking domain ownership.

·         No registrar feedback yet.

·         Clarification requested by SC members on which platform (e.g., RDRS or another portal) will be used to process such law enforcement requests.