Dear RDRS SC, Please see below the notes and action items from the last meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for 12 May at 17:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora and Caitlin 2025-04-28 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #30<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/236912642/2...> Action Item: ICANN Org to draft a proposed structure for Chapter 4. Include a comparative table analyzing each SSAD recommendation against RDRS implementation. 1. Welcome · SC Chair opened the meeting. The intent was to ensure the Standing Committee was aligned on its purpose and direction, particularly regarding Assignments 3 and 4. 1. Continue discussion on Chapter 4 · ICANN Org - Presentation · ICANN Org provided a presentation and recap on Assignment Scope for Assignment 3 and 4 based on Charter.<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/draft/draft-rdrs-stan...> · In addition, ICANN Org presented procedural scenarios based on the Assignment 4 scope. · The slides of the presentation can be found here. <https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BvcyoJk_N8UfUm5KWtSFHmYBeY5uZ2vS/edi...> · Discussion Summary · Some SC members noted preference for keeping RDRS voluntary; SSAD should not be built. · Against selective adoption without policy development, as choosing parts of SSAD implies policy work. · SC members toted the group would find it relatively easy to recommend which RDRS features to continue. · SC members also noted difficulties for the Standing Committee to settle what SSAD parts to change, given historical difficulty during EPDP Phase 2. · Some SC members disagreed with the immediate dismissal of SSAD without evaluating all recommendations. Suggested the committee to walk through Assignment 4 carefully. · SC members suggested it is premature to declare SSAD dead without conducting the policy evaluation work mandated in Assignment 4. · Suggested a practical approach: · Review all 18 recommendations. · Determine consensus areas: which could be endorsed, which required further work, and which should be discarded. · Allow the Council to determine next steps, including whether a new EPDP is required. · Clarified that while this is not developing new policy, it is evaluative work to inform the Council and Board. · Proposed that public comment could happen while the evaluation is ongoing. · SC members suggested a more flexible, diplomatic wording of Scenario 4. · Suggested restructuring options to make them more consensus-friendly. * SC Chair observed agreement that the group should: * Evaluate each recommendation against RDRS experience. * Provide informed, but non-binding, guidance to Council without making policy recommendations themselves. * Emphasized the deliverable should be scoping advice, not direct policy. * The group should gather as much informational context as possible. * Commented that the final output should help the Council understand the size and nature of any future policy work. 1. AOB * Next Meeting: May 12, 2025 (due to May 5 conflict with CP Summit)