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:
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]
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
Documents:
Agenda:
·
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.
·
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
·
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.
Action Item:
SC to reply to ICANN Org Email regarding Meeting Cadence.
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
Website: www.icann.org