Dear RDRS SC, Please see below the notes and action items from the last meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for 19 May at 17:30 UTC. Kind regards, Feodora and Caitlin 2025-05-12 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #32<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/EOTSFGRD/pages/236912661/2...> Action Items: * ICANN Org to circulate Google Doc with EPDP Phase 2 recs and link each to corresponding sections for context. Deadline 13 May * SC Members to: · Re-read Chapter 3. · Review and comment on the document provided by ICANN Org for assignment 4. (Review EPDP Phase 2 Recs – 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, 16) · To indicate if they agree with the categorization of the EPDP Phase 2 Rec and if view is divergent, provide rationale. · Review Document for Assignment 4<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NOhKGqMMSypLpEF5rucEb-_Z3-iPb5_q/edit?us...> by Deadline 19 May 2025. Documents: * Review Document for Assignment 4<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NOhKGqMMSypLpEF5rucEb-_Z3-iPb5_q/edit?us...> * Slides from 12 May meeting.<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/236912661/sl...> * RDRS SC Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/draft/draft-rdrs-stan...> * Chapter 1-3: * Chapter 1<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBAHz7G2AmjOt7C68Rn_hFl5c9F83lz9/edit> * Chapter 2<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oqXdMgsGltToV_JxDtubedfymvrmvoAH43kssxOT...> * Chapter 3<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2Nm5s1Q-4jrAqWvsurH-k6BhpyanGIW/edit> * EPDP Phase 2 Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2<about:blank> Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome · Purpose of meeting: Continue discussion on Chapter 4 of the RDRS SC Final Findings Report. 1. Continue discussion on Chapter 4 . Recap and Context for Chapter 4 (Presented by ICANN Org) Assignment 4: To provide the GNSO Council with recommendations based on the review of the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations (Recs 1–18) and their incorporation (entire, partial, or none) in the RDRS. · The group may (based on Charter): i.Recommend full adoption of all EPDP recommendations, ii.Recommend rejection, iii.Recommend modifications, iv.Or suggest a combination thereof. · Emphasized the standing committee’s role as advisory—not policy-making. They may comment and make observations, but changes to policy must follow established GNSO processes. The Council did, however, charge the Standing Committee to perform a close review of the recommendations and provide observations and guidance on how to proceed with the eventual Board/Council dialogue. · Explained potential modification paths: i.ICANN Bylaws Annex A Section 9: Path of supplemental recommendations. ii.GNSO Procedures Section 16: Council may modify recommendations before Board consideration. b. Chapter 4 Structure Proposal (Presented by ICANN Org) · Chapter 4 to consolidate findings (from Chapter 1 to 3) and provide recommendations to GNSO Council. · Proposed elements: Part 1: Overarching recommendations. Part 2: Updated table from Chapter 3, showing alignment of EPDP Phase 2 Recs with RDRS implementation. Preliminary classification of recommendations: i.1 fully aligned: Rec 8 (registrars reviewing requests individually). ii.12 partially aligned. iii.5 not included: Recs 1–2 (Accreditation), 10 (Response timing), 14 (Financial sustainability), 16 (Audits). c. Summary of SC Discussion (Lead by SC Chair) · SC members asked whether broader environmental changes could justify reconsidering recommendations. · SC Chair responded: Such work is not within the group’s charter but acknowledged consensus-flagging of outdated items is acceptable. · Emphasis on focusing on what was learned from the RDRS rather than conducting full policy re-evaluation. · SC members stressed the importance of documenting disagreements or differing views within the report. · SC Chair clarified that while Assignments 1–3 permit noting disagreement (which has been documented in the different chapters), Assignment 4 requires consensus per charter. · Divergent views may be documented in annexes or supporting material. · Some SC members emphasized the need to flag the lack of guidance and consistency in request handling, indicating that Rec#8 might not be considered as fully implemented in RDRS. · SC members objected to implying consensus on “abandoning” accreditation without proper discussion. · SC members suggested noting authentication’s value for requester accountability. (Rec #1 and #2) · SC members noted they need time to review the EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations and review chapters 1-3 again to be able to contribute meaningfully to assignment 4. 1. AOB · SC members revisited a pending enhancement request to include law enforcement authentication by checking domain ownership. · No registrar feedback yet. · Clarification requested by SC members on which platform (e.g., RDRS or another portal) will be used to process such law enforcement requests.