Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements
Hi All, As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March: Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page of icann.org for better user experience RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives
Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive user experience, and I think that registrars would be open to improvements re indicating the outcome to the requestors, but we all need more info first. Here are the questions that arise for me: * If a registrar selects 'denied' and then selects a reason from the menu, what is shown to the requestor? o How is it shown, does the requestor get an email or must they look at it in the RDRS interface? * How does the RDRS functionality for indicating outcomes compare to what requestors expect? o Should any difference be addressed by modifying what the registrar does in RDRS, or by educating the requestor on RDRS functionality? * I know there is an optional box for further explanation, but I would generally expect that the provided menu of options should be enough info, do we need to revisit those and consider enhancements? Thanks, *Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E* Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-03-11 6:15 p.m., Lisa Carter wrote:
Hi All,
As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below.
System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March:
* Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) * Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) * The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page <https://www.icann.org/rdrs-en> of icann.org for better user experience * RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu)
Thanks
Lisa Carter
Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Lisa, In addition, and in line with my comments on the call, I have the following question and comments from the requestor-side: 1. What is the purpose of the Request Category? * More importantly does it make a difference to the Registrars’ decision-making. 1. I don’t understand the purpose of asking the question: Are you asserting a legal basis under which you would process the requested data pursuant to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation or other applicable law? * Put differently, when should a Requestor answer yes and when should they answer no? Does it make a difference? One Registrar in San Juan remarked that it does. Moreover, if the answer is other applicable law, shouldn’t the Requestor disclose that so that the Registrar can apply the applicable law? In terms of what the responses that a requestor gets, they look like this (cut and pasted from the RDRS): 2024-02-15 Request status change to Denied · Contracted party cannot disclose the data due to applicable law · Other corrective action is required before request can be processed There is an “Explanation” provided, but it does not answer (A) what applicable law prevents the Registrar from disclosing, or (B) under the unknown applicable law why the request was deficient; and (C) what other corrective action is required. Thanks, John From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 8:59 AM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive user experience, and I think that registrars would be open to improvements re indicating the outcome to the requestors, but we all need more info first. Here are the questions that arise for me: * If a registrar selects 'denied' and then selects a reason from the menu, what is shown to the requestor? * How is it shown, does the requestor get an email or must they look at it in the RDRS interface? * How does the RDRS functionality for indicating outcomes compare to what requestors expect? * Should any difference be addressed by modifying what the registrar does in RDRS, or by educating the requestor on RDRS functionality? * I know there is an optional box for further explanation, but I would generally expect that the provided menu of options should be enough info, do we need to revisit those and consider enhancements? Thanks, Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com> On 2024-03-11 6:15 p.m., Lisa Carter wrote: Hi All, As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March: 1. Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) 2. Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) 3. The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/rdrs-en__;!!LBFcHN3WCgnqDQ!...> of icann.org for better user experience 4. RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc__;!!LBFcHN3WCgnqDQ!hmsSwRvoIpQB6Sb4HzuBKegr1Xqz6YwjlfYvSqPcTs1FPIGgZIvqNcF3dsD-YuI_eCka0lVCp-rY0uN-E_0-C3Y$> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!LBFcHN3WCgnqDQ!hmsSwRvoIpQB6Sb4HzuBKegr1Xqz6YwjlfYvSqPcTs1FPIGgZIvqNcF3dsD-YuI_eCka0lVCp-rY0uN-fl5hcF0$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!LBFcHN3WCgnqDQ!hmsSwRvoIpQB6Sb4HzuBKegr1Xqz6YwjlfYvSqPcTs1FPIGgZIvqNcF3dsD-YuI_eCka0lVCp-rY0uN-69PrjqA$>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Hi John, I’ll add these to the list for internal discussion as well, so we can clarify your questions/comments as well. Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:22 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Lisa, In addition, and in line with my comments on the call, I have the following question and comments from the requestor-side: What is the purpose of the Request Category? More importantly does it make a difference to the Registrars’ decision-making. I don’t understand the purpose of asking the question: Are you asserting a legal basis under which you would process the requested data pursuant to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation or other applicable law? Put differently, when should a Requestor answer yes and when should they answer no? Does it make a difference? One Registrar in San Juan remarked that it does. Moreover, if the answer is other applicable law, shouldn’t the Requestor disclose that so that the Registrar can apply the applicable law? In terms of what the responses that a requestor gets, they look like this (cut and pasted from the RDRS): 2024-02-15Request status change to Denied· Contracted party cannot disclose the data due to applicable law· Other corrective action is required before request can be processed There is an “Explanation” provided, but it does not answer (A) what applicable law prevents the Registrar from disclosing, or (B) under the unknown applicable law why the request was deficient; and (C) what other corrective action is required. Thanks, John From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 8:59 AM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive user experience, and I think that registrars would be open to improvements re indicating the outcome to the requestors, but we all need more info first. Here are the questions that arise for me: If a registrar selects 'denied' and then selects a reason from the menu, what is shown to the requestor? How is it shown, does the requestor get an email or must they look at it in the RDRS interface? How does the RDRS functionality for indicating outcomes compare to what requestors expect? Should any difference be addressed by modifying what the registrar does in RDRS, or by educating the requestor on RDRS functionality? I know there is an optional box for further explanation, but I would generally expect that the provided menu of options should be enough info, do we need to revisit those and consider enhancements? Thanks, Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-03-11 6:15 p.m., Lisa Carter wrote: Hi All, As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March: Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page of icann.org for better user experience RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Hi All, As a follow-up to my 11 March email on the system enhancements approved by the Standing Committee, the ICANN technical team has agreed that the enhancements listed below can be implemented by mid-April. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors agreed to by the Standing Committee Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page of icann.org for better user experience RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Also, I will provide the denial reasons, a screenshot of an email the requestors receive for denials, and a screenshots of the requestor system view of a denial reason to the group early next week. Best, Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lisa Carter <lisa.carter@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:43 AM To: John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com>, Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Hi John, I’ll add these to the list for internal discussion as well, so we can clarify your questions/comments as well. Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 7:22 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Lisa, In addition, and in line with my comments on the call, I have the following question and comments from the requestor-side: What is the purpose of the Request Category? More importantly does it make a difference to the Registrars’ decision-making. I don’t understand the purpose of asking the question: Are you asserting a legal basis under which you would process the requested data pursuant to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation or other applicable law? Put differently, when should a Requestor answer yes and when should they answer no? Does it make a difference? One Registrar in San Juan remarked that it does. Moreover, if the answer is other applicable law, shouldn’t the Requestor disclose that so that the Registrar can apply the applicable law? In terms of what the responses that a requestor gets, they look like this (cut and pasted from the RDRS): 2024-02-15Request status change to Denied· Contracted party cannot disclose the data due to applicable law· Other corrective action is required before request can be processed There is an “Explanation” provided, but it does not answer (A) what applicable law prevents the Registrar from disclosing, or (B) under the unknown applicable law why the request was deficient; and (C) what other corrective action is required. Thanks, John From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Sarah Wyld Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 8:59 AM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive user experience, and I think that registrars would be open to improvements re indicating the outcome to the requestors, but we all need more info first. Here are the questions that arise for me: If a registrar selects 'denied' and then selects a reason from the menu, what is shown to the requestor? How is it shown, does the requestor get an email or must they look at it in the RDRS interface? How does the RDRS functionality for indicating outcomes compare to what requestors expect? Should any difference be addressed by modifying what the registrar does in RDRS, or by educating the requestor on RDRS functionality? I know there is an optional box for further explanation, but I would generally expect that the provided menu of options should be enough info, do we need to revisit those and consider enhancements? Thanks, Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-03-11 6:15 p.m., Lisa Carter wrote: Hi All, As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March: Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page of icann.org for better user experience RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Hi Sarah, Thanks. These are all good comments/questions you pose regarding denial reasons and definitely something we can/should discuss on our next system enhancements call. I will be chatting with our technical team about the functionality question so we can provide the screenshots (and some explanation of system behavior) as we discussed on our call Monday. Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com> Organization: Tucows Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 5:59 AM To: "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow-up on 11 March Standing Committee for System Enhancements Thanks Lisa! As discussed at the meeting, I understand that requestors are not always clear on the outcomes for their requests, it sounds like the denial reasons are not always readily evident. This seems like a significant barrier to a positive user experience, and I think that registrars would be open to improvements re indicating the outcome to the requestors, but we all need more info first. Here are the questions that arise for me: If a registrar selects 'denied' and then selects a reason from the menu, what is shown to the requestor? How is it shown, does the requestor get an email or must they look at it in the RDRS interface? How does the RDRS functionality for indicating outcomes compare to what requestors expect? Should any difference be addressed by modifying what the registrar does in RDRS, or by educating the requestor on RDRS functionality? I know there is an optional box for further explanation, but I would generally expect that the provided menu of options should be enough info, do we need to revisit those and consider enhancements? Thanks, Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com On 2024-03-11 6:15 p.m., Lisa Carter wrote: Hi All, As promised, here is the list of enhancements I reviewed on our call today. I’m hoping to get back to you toward the end of the week with details on timing for implementation for the items below. System Enhancements for RDRS Requestors discussed on 11 March: Improved error messaging to address concerns surfaced at the EURALO roundtable (e.g. ccTLDs, non-participating registrars, unsupported TLDs) Language added to system interface to indicate which TLDs are not supported in RDRS (e.g. ccTLDs, mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) The “Help” link on the RDRS requestor home page will be anchored to the “RDRS Resources” section of the RDRS page of icann.org for better user experience RDRS FAQs for Requestors will be updated to include additional explanations on unsupported TLDs (e.g. .mil, .int, .arpa, .gov, .edu) Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives _______________________________________________ Gnso-rdrs-sc mailing list Gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rdrs-sc _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
John McElwaine -
Lisa Carter -
Sarah Wyld