Re: [Ext] Re: Follow up question on the mandatory country field
Hi Farzaneh and Sebastian, Thanks for this question. I can clarify Farzaneh’s original ask. On page two of the RDRS system form all of the data elements are already required, including jurisdiction (where the data will be processed if provided by the registrar). The only optional field for law enforcement is the confidentiality box. For the enhancements we will release at the end of June, on page one of the RDRS form we will require address and phone number (Priority 1 for Registrars in the Impressions Document) along with an optional field for organization/affiliation as we discussed previously on our Standing Committee call. The full list of enhancements to be released at the end of June is indicated below. I hope this is helpful. Enhancements to be released at the end of June: Registrar enhancements Priorities 1, 4, 5 in Impressions Document Requestor enhancements increase in character limit from 1000 to 2000. better explanation for what “expedited” means in RDRS UI on page 2 Additional enhancement for page two (which currently brings the user into page two below the 1st question - request category) Adding Terms of Service language on page 2 above where the user selects their request category Thanks Lisa Carter Sr. Program Manager, Strategic Initiatives ICANN From: "Sebastien@registry.godaddy" <Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Date: Thursday, June 6, 2024 at 7:29 AM To: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, "gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org" <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>, Gabriel Andrews <gfandrews@fbi.gov>, Lisa Carter <lisa.carter@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow up question on the mandatory country field Hi Farzaneh, Yes, it is also my understanding that the Requestor Country is about to be made mandatory. This is being done as part of changes the Registrar requested under Item 1 of the Registrar table in the Impressions Document. As you mentioned the full requestor contact form is made mandatory. It is also my understanding that while this could serve as a basis for your report on LEA Requestor provenance, there is a specific “Jurisdiction” field in the LEA sub-form. Any data supplied is captured, but it is not currently a mandatory field and is not included in the changed mentioned above. @Gabriel Andrews – We left it on this list on 7 May, that you would go back to the PSWG to confirm they were comfortable adding reports on numbers of Requests per Jurisdiction. I understand you have an informal agreement/non-objection from them.
Are you able to support making the Jurisdiction field also mandatory? Are you able to support starting reporting on what we have so far?
@Lisa Carter – As always I do not have these forms in front of me, and rely here on what you showed me in Paris. Please correct if I got any of this wrong. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy From: farzaneh badii via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Date: Monday, 3 June 2024 at 10:14 PM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Follow up question on the mandatory country field Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Hi SC, Just wanted to check, Sarah mentioned in the chat that the country field was being made mandatory (because address of the requestor is becoming mandatory) Does that apply to the Jurisdiction field for LEA? Best regards Farzaneh
Hi all – Noting the desire to “clean up” the impressions document, I hoped to shift from a margin comment conversation to an email conversation for the specific issue of whether/not RDRS can pass requests to participating registrars regardless of whether/not the domain is a TLD. Below are pasted the original feedback topic, and the subsequent margin comments. I will next respond to my own email (this) to continue the discussion, but wanted to make a clean break before adding anything new. Cheers, G [cid:image001.png@01DAB7FF.519ABD90] [Gabriel Andrews] Gabriel Andrews 11:33 AM May 22 Pinned for further discussion. Existing RDS/WHOIS queries provide this information a non-zero % of time - is this intended to say technical staff can't guarantee to have the info 100% of the time? Clarity sought. [Anonymous] Anonymous 8:38 AM May 30 In other words: what other info does ICANN tech staff think is needed in order to route the request to the registrar as is done in gTLD contexts? [Anonymous] Anonymous 8:39 AM May 30 Additionally: PSWG is hearing from some ccTLD operators their desire to voluntarily participate in RDRS, which may assist in solving any challenges. [Lisa Carter] Lisa Carter 9:03 AM Today Just an FYI that RDDS requirements for ccTLDs are Unstandardized/Unenforceable as there is no contract for ccTLDs with ICANN.
To continue the conversation: @ Lisa: Per your note that “all RDDS requirements for ccTLDs are Unstandardized/Unenforceable”, I think I might be missing your point, and hope to clarify ~ i. Speaking to “Unenforceable”, we seem to be in consensus that all RDRS participation is strictly voluntary, and that any ccTLD participation would also be voluntary. ii. As for “Unstandardized”, is this to suggest that the lack of standardization is preventing ICANN from determining whether/not a ccTLD request is associated with a participating registrar? It was my understanding that the initial lookup done at the start of a RDRS request is always capable to determining the registrar, regardless of whether it’s gTLD or ccTLD. Is that incorrect? iii. What LOE would it be to run the initial domain query as you already are, but only “error out for ccTLD” reasons if the query does not successfully identify a participating registrar? @ all: Having heard from a small # of ccTLD operators a desire to participate in RDRS, i. Would voluntary ccTLD participation in RDRS help provide us lessons that might be factored into consideration of whether/how ccTLD voluntary mechanisms might be employed in a SSAD/ successor systems? /ps - added below an edit to the initial email, w the critical clarification “ccTLD” From: Andrews, Gabriel F. (STB) (FBI) Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 10:51 AM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: Email thread for discussing voluntary inclusion of ccTLDs Hi all – Noting the desire to “clean up” the impressions document, I hoped to shift from a margin comment conversation to an email conversation for the specific issue of whether/not RDRS can pass requests to participating registrars regardless of whether/not the domain is a ccTLD. Below are pasted the original feedback topic, and the subsequent margin comments. I will next respond to my own email (this) to continue the discussion, but wanted to make a clean break before adding anything new. Cheers, G [cid:image001.png@01DAB800.4917FAB0] [Gabriel Andrews] Gabriel Andrews 11:33 AM May 22 Pinned for further discussion. Existing RDS/WHOIS queries provide this information a non-zero % of time - is this intended to say technical staff can't guarantee to have the info 100% of the time? Clarity sought. [Anonymous] Anonymous 8:38 AM May 30 In other words: what other info does ICANN tech staff think is needed in order to route the request to the registrar as is done in gTLD contexts? [Anonymous] Anonymous 8:39 AM May 30 Additionally: PSWG is hearing from some ccTLD operators their desire to voluntarily participate in RDRS, which may assist in solving any challenges. [Lisa Carter] Lisa Carter 9:03 AM Today Just an FYI that RDDS requirements for ccTLDs are Unstandardized/Unenforceable as there is no contract for ccTLDs with ICANN.
participants (2)
-
Gabriel Andrews -
Lisa Carter