Dear RDRS SC, Please see below the notes and action items from the last meeting. The next meeting is currently scheduled for 21 April at 17:30 UTC. Action Items: 1. SC is kindly asked to review the prioritization in Chapter 2.<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqXdMgsGltToV_JxDtubedfymvrmvoAH43kssxOT...> If no further comments are received, report will move with the proposed ranking. 2. ICANN Org to update Chapter 3<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2Nm5s1Q-4jrAqWvsurH-k6BhpyanGIW/edit> with discussed comments and amendments (based on SC discussion). 3. SC to review Chapter 3<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2Nm5s1Q-4jrAqWvsurH-k6BhpyanGIW/edit> and provide any comments for further discussion by 16 April. 4. SC to reply to ICANN Org Email (sent on 7 April and see below) regarding Meeting Cadence by 16 April. As discussed, the meeting cadence may need to be changed up from bi-weekly, 1-hour meetings to either weekly 1-hour meetings or bi-weekly 1.5-hour meetings. Please complete the doodle to help determine the path forward. Doodle: https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/aO6g4RLe [doodle.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/aO6g4RL...> * If weekly 1-hour meetings, select 14 April, 21 April, and 28 April all at 17:30 UTC for 1-hour * If bi-weekly 1.5-hour meeting, select 21 April either 17:00 or 17:30 UTC for 1.5 hour Reminder, this is not only for April meetings but to adjust the meeting cadence going forward. Kind regards, Feodora 2025-04-07 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #28<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/115684757/2...> Documents: * Draft Chapter 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2Nm5s1Q-4jrAqWvsurH-k6BhpyanGIW/edit * Slides for RDRS Call 7 April: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yNQN87iELueDffYDhIdq5rDJlsbXlI8P/edi... * Draft Chapter 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqXdMgsGltToV_JxDtubedfymvrmvoAH43kssxOT... Agenda: 1. Welcome · SC Chair welcomed attendees and introduced the agenda. · SC Chair noted that Chapter 2 item prioritization remains pending; Chair added tentative priorities in the interim (1–10 for high relevance; >10 for lower urgency; 20 for least priority, e.g., request to redevelop tool outside of Salesforce). Action Item: SC is kindly asked to review the prioritization in Chapter 2. If no further comments are received, we will move with the proposed ranking. 1. Review Chapter 3 (flagged issues) · ICANN Org presented the outline of Chapter 3. · Steve DelBianco raised a concern about conflating SSAD (staff implementation concept with $100M estimate) with EPDP Phase 2 recommendations. · Sarah Wyld confirmed “SSAD” is referenced in the Phase 2 report (definitions, page 18), but agreed discussion should focus on actual recommendations. · ICANN Org clarified the comparison and reference in Chapter and report is with EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations. · Flagged items for discussion: · Staff presented the flagged items in Slides. HERE<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1yNQN87iELueDffYDhIdq5rDJlsbXlI8P/edi...> · General Comments · Sarah Wyld retracted the first comment, acknowledging the language was acceptable. · Registrar Participation & Data Limitation: Sarah Wyld and Alan Greenberg noted that direct disclosure paths to registrars would be similar in SSAD, so describing this as a limitation in RDRS is incorrect. Conclusion: Paragraph should be revised or removed. · Specific Recommendation Discussions · Rec 5 (Response Recommendations): Sarah proposed clarifying the text by explicitly referencing Rec. 5. Conclusion: Changes accepted. · Rec 7 (Requester Purpose): Sarah Wyld noted a mismatch between purposes listed in RDRS vs. the Phase 2 policy. Conclusion: Differences should be documented for potential future policy review. · Lessons Learned · Developing RDRS- PGP Encrypted Email: 30% of RDRS resources were spent developing functionality not used by registrars. Seen as a cautionary example of overinvesting in features without confirming utility. Conclusion: This experience should be factored into future development planning. · Lack of Response Interaction / Ticketing: SC Chair asked whether a back-and-forth feature is necessary within RDRS. Sarah Wyld located confirmation in the implementation guidance of Recommendation 5 that should support back-and-forth communication between requesters and registrars. · Cost Analysis Discussion: Sarah Wyld calculated ~$1,000/request (including development costs), but the report used ~$354/request (operational cost only). Conclusion: Resolved that both figures are useful, but clarity is needed in how costs are represented. Action Items: a) ICANN Org to update Chapter 3 with discussed comments and amendments. b) SC to review Chapter 3 and provide any comments for further discussion. 1. Discuss Meeting Cadence * Two proposals: * Maintain bi-weekly meetings but extend to 90 minutes * Move to weekly 60-minute meetings * Decision deferred to mailing list discussion for consensus. Action Item: SC to reply to ICANN Org Email regarding Meeting Cadence. 1. Update to GNSO Council * SC Chair to present to the Council on: * Progress on the report * Request for guidance: Should the report go out for public comment? * SC Chair will present the options to Council, clarifying the scope and nature of this team`s work and discuss public comment. 1. 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>