Dear RDRS SC, hope all is well. This is a kind reminder on the pending Action Items from the last meeting. As shared with you yesterday on behalf of the SC Chair, please find below (quote from yesterday`s Email): * (updated) Draft Report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuMDe6OgIjLgmsrpdZZ1Eb/edit?us... * Review Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU4g7rayrHPzISsd_sIDhH/edit<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU4g7rayrHPzISsd_sIDhH/edit__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!qCRILpaMLKmgfefjgsJbdvcuedihO2_zB1y6XXbYKxC_c0TMFSuePEXLNPsROa9bgZBT3AkRmev-e0b_vDagjaZmWcDkfpo$> Please note: To streamline the process and ensure all input is captured consistently, the current working document - the “consolidated version”- is now closed for comments. This is to avoid duplication or fragmentation of feedback. From this point forward, we ask that the SC focuses exclusively on reviewing the updated version. Commenting Procedure Moving Forward * As we approach the finish line, we are also adjusting the comment process. SC members will now have “comment-only” access to the document rather than editing rights. This helps staff better track outstanding issues and prioritise them for SC discussion. * As done in the past with other WGs, we are asking SC members to focus on three types of comments: • Text you cannot live with • Text you can live with but think needs clarification • Any grammatical or formatting errors * To support this, staff has prepared an overview/exercise document to help organise your input. Pending Comments from the previous draft are already included in the review document. That said, we understand this format may not work for everyone, so you’re welcome to either comment directly in the report (as comment) or use the review sheet. Staff will ensure all comments are collected and included. * When providing comments, please include a clear rationale and proposed alternative text. This is crucial to help staff fully understand your concern and to support us in drafting language that accurately reflects SC consensus. * For example, if you cannot live with a particular phrase, please explain why and offer a suggestion for what would be acceptable. This clarity is key for constructive progress. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the support team From: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 15 July 2025 at 21:15 To: "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: 2025-07-14 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39 Dear RDRS SC, Please find below the high-level meeting minutes and Action Items from the last meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for 21 July 2025 at 17:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora and Caitlin 2025-07-14 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #39<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/303562777/2...> Action Items: Responsible Item Due Support Staff Final draft report in ICANN format to be shared with SC By 17 July Support Staff Share comments review sheet with SC with instructions By 17 July All members Review final draft and submit comments (color-coded) By 21 July Mark Anderson/ Gabriel Andrews Propose revised language for Rec 3.2 (display guidance) 21 July Mark Anderson Draft updated text for Rec 6 on what to do with SSAD Recs/Council Action 21 July Support Staff Standardize reporting timeframe across document (use June 2025) Before publication Gabriel Andrews Additional Language in Lessons Learned regarding experience w P/P. 21 July Gabriel Andrews Review and provide additional Language to Recommendation 4. 21 July Support Staff Lock working doc and provide comment-only version of final draft 17 July · Members are asked to provide comments to the final draft by 21 July (first deadline). · Comment types are categorized into: · “Cannot live with” (red table) · “Can live with BUT Needs clarification” (orange table) · “Editorial/grammatical correction” (blue table) · Support Staff will manage comment consolidation and track discussion items via a centralized spreadsheet. · SC to comment directly into the draft report or the exercise sheet. SC will go through the comments in the exercise sheet for easier tracking and overview. · SC to provide clear rationale on why they “cannot live with” a statement or parts of the document and provide new language they can live with. Proposed Agenda 1. Welcome · The SC Chair opened the meeting. · Emphasis was placed on ensuring that Support Staff had everything necessary to finalize the draft report. · The goal was to move through open questions efficiently. · The goal is for the final document to be made available for public comment in mid-August, pending SC progress. 1. Continue Discussion of documented concerns from Draft Chapter 4 · Rec. 3.1 (Privacy/Proxy Data) · Support Staff reviewed the proposed language regarding further policy work on privacy/proxy services within RDRS. · Discussion centered on the vagueness and potential duplicative nature of recommending “further policy work.” There was broad recognition of issues around registrar-affiliated proxy services, their impact on disclosure, and the challenges posed for requesters such as public safety officials. · SC members supported the bracketed clarification but expressed strong concern with recommending policy work already being explored elsewhere, or which might contradict other frameworks. · Other SC members supported the idea of policy work on consistent disclosure practices for affiliated proxy providers. · SC members expressed frustration of requesters when privacy/proxy data is returned in response to lawful requests. · SC members proposed revised wording: “The Subcommittee recommends further policy work be considered on the lawful release of privacy/proxy data for privacy/proxy providers affiliated with registrars.” Action Item: · General agreement emerged to remove mention of the RDRS and focus instead on privacy/proxy disclosure consistency. · The concerns raised by some SC members with P/P to be included in lessons learned. Gabe to provide updated language. · Rec. 3.2 (Inclusion of RDRS links in RDAP responses) · Support Staff referenced a comment regarding the suggestion to include RDRS links in RDAP responses. · The group discussed the appropriateness of including RDRS references in RDAP responses. Action Item: Marc and Gabe to provide new language to update the recommendation based on SC discussion. · Rec. 4 (Authentication) - updated text, which incorporates feedback from 7 July meeting and Rec. 5 (Financial Sustainability) - updated text, which incorporates feedback from 30 June and 7 July meeting · Recommendation 4: · New draft introduced to separate partial authentication from broader enhancement recommendations. · SC members sought clarity from ICANN Org on how they would interpret and implement the recommendation. · Support Staff noted ICANN is working closely with the Public Safety Working Group (PSWG) on short- and long-term authentication solutions. · Recommendation 5: · Revised language aimed at providing middle ground on financial sustainability. · SC members noted that while the initial burden fell on ICANN, the partial authentication model shifts costs to requesters, satisfying much of the original concern. · SC members noted that long-term funding should not come solely from ICANN. · Rec. 6 (Consideration regarding next steps on EPDP Phase 2/SSAD recs. · Support Staff noted that the current draft lacks clear guidance to the GNSO Council on what to do with SSAD recommendations. · One SC member noted that the group consensus appears to be: · The SSAD recommendations should not be adopted as-is. · The SSAD Recommendations should be returned to the GNSO Council for further review and potential modification. · SC members supported retaining the SSAD Recommendations Table but preferred a consolidated version rather than two tables in different chapters. Action Item: Mark to propose draft wording clarifying Council action recommendation/what to do with SSAD Recommendations. 1. Next Steps · Staff delivery of Draft Findings Report · Staff will distribute the complete draft report (in ICANN template format) by Wednesday. · Once distributed, the working document (consolidated version) will be locked (view-only) and all feedback should be directed to the new/official version. (Note: unresolved comments from the consolidated version will be carried over to the accompanying review document for transparency.) · Members are asked to provide comments by 21 July (first deadline). · Comment types are categorized into: · “Cannot live with” (red) · “Can live with BUT Needs clarification” (orange) · “Editorial/grammatical” (blue) · Support Staff will manage comment consolidation and track discussion items via a centralized spreadsheet. · SC to provide clear rationale on why they “cannot live with” with a statement or parts of the document and provide new language they can live with. Action Item: SC to comment directly into the draft report or the exercise sheet. SC will go through the comments in the exercise sheet for easier tracking and overview. 1. AOB