Dear RDRS SC, Please find below the high-level notes and Action Items from our last call. * Action Item: Any additional CANNOT LIVE WITH items needs to be flagged as soon as possible for discussion during upcoming (last RDRS SC) meeting on Monday, 11 August. * Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuM...> * Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU4...> * Action Item: Support Staff to update the Draft Report based on the agreements during today’s meeting. Note: o Recommendations have been reordered and introductory text has been added before Recommendation 3, explaining that ICANN org will not be adding proposed enhancements to the RDRS during the period of GNSO Council and Board dialogue. o Recommendation 5 on financial sustainability has been removed due to lack of agreement, and Support Staff has added draft text to p. 38 (beginning at line 684) to highlight the concern of some members with a strict interpretation of Rec. 14. o SC members to note ( based on the added language on p.38) if the Rationale and Proposed treatment (page 22) of Recommendation should be “keep” or “modify”. * Action Item: Steve Crocker to determine prior to next meeting if Rec. 4.1 on P/P data (see p. 8 of Draft Report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuMDe6OgIjLgmsrpdZZ1Eb/edit?us...>) needs to be revised in light of email to RDRS SC, or if this should be addressed via the PPSAI IRT. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, 11 August at 17:30 for 120min. Kind regards, Feodora on behalf of the Support Team RDRS Standing Committee Meeting 4 August 2025 Action Items * Action Item: Any additional CANNOT LIVE WITH items needs to be flagged as soon as possible for discussion during upcoming (last RDRS SC) meeting on Monday, 11 August. * Action Item: Support Staff to update the Draft Report based on the agreements during today’s meeting. Note: o Recommendations have been reordered and introductory text has been added before Recommendation 3, explaining that ICANN org will not be adding proposed enhancements to the RDRS during the period of GNSO Council and Board dialogue. o Recommendation 5 on financial sustainability has been removed due to lack of agreement, and Support Staff has added draft text to p. 38 (beginning at line 684) to highlight the concern of some members with a strict interpretation of Rec. 14. o SC members to note ( based on the added language on p.38) if the Rationale and Proposed treatment (page 22) of Recommendation should be “keep” or “modify”. * Action Item: Steve Crocker to determine prior to next meeting if Rec. 4.1 on P/P data (see p. 8 of Draft Report<https://docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuMDe6OgIjLgmsrpdZZ1Eb/edit?us...>) needs to be revised in light of email to RDRS SC, or if this should be addressed via the PPSAI IRT. Agenda 1. Welcome (5 min) · This is the RDRS SC’s second to last meeting prior to publishing the report for public comment. · The enhancements from Chapter 2 will be delivered to the Council and Board to consider. · ICANN org will not be adding enhancements to RDRS while Board and Council discussions are ongoing. · During the post-pilot RDRS, the mindset is to continue this without enhancements, except for ongoing LEA authentication discussions. The decision future policy work probably has a few pieces to it: · Set broad direction (build original SSAD, make changes) - once outline of that is set, two things merge into one another: · First - eventual design · Second - what are the pathways from where we are to how to get there. What is the transition process? · May be helpful to subdivide these. · The amount of time involved will be related to these decisions. · We generally show paths from left to right - there are rarely feedback and loops built in. We should consider building a feedback loop into this process. · Re: link to non-participating registrars - this should be in the report if it is not already. · A reader of this report should have the same understanding that the SC has - what work is and is not being done; re: work being done, what the process would be to initiate work. 2. Review pending comments and action items (110min) o Draft Report [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/11RPDqWgI0lcuM...> o Review Document<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1cZnyjmibAysU4...> o Support Staff has updated the recommendation text based on last week’s discussion. o Financial sustainability recommendation § No text for Rec. 5 is preferable to text with disagreement § Gabe added language to help capture some concerns and ensure that text that did not represent consensus was clarified. § Phase 2 EPDP spent a lot of time discussing this, and this group shouldn’t relitigate this. Registrars prefer to remove this text entirely. § Re: Rec 14 in the table - there is one piece of Rec. 14 that needs to be modified and not kept. § There should be a discussion of the pros and cons in this report, particularly since this topic was discussed at length. § Rec. 14 - a portion of current rec. 14.5.1 - accreditation applicants must pay fee - at minimum, fees for accreditation must be considered for modification based on the current discussions. § Future policy work may not revisit the policy language from SSAD recommendations, but since a lot of time has passed, should be clear that a recommendation of “keep” is not a recommendation that it may not be touched or modified by future policy work. § GAC may have further comments on Rec. 6. (If not received in a timely fashion, can be submitted during public comment.) § Re: Steve Crocker’s email on PPSAI, is there any part of the current rec that is problematic? § Action: Steve Crocker to review Rec. 3.2 and confirm if there is any “cannot live with” text. § Following a concern from Farzaneh, John added clarity to Rec. 8 re: acceptance/denial so that requesters can have a better understanding of why a particular request has been accepted or rejected. Farzaneh noted that the request should include a human rights assessment. John updated language, and Farzaneh agreed to the updated language. § Is this a recommendation from the RDRS SC re: human rights assessment? § This is a small “r” recommendation for the eventual policy group to consider. § In terms of flow, analysis of human rights could be done preemptively § Added a suggestion that if there is a human rights assessment, that is documented. § This will be part of lessons learned - if there are disagreements, the additional concerns can be noted. § All “cannot live with” comments have now been addressed. § Action: Gabe to review Sarah’s comments re: PPSAI and handle offline. o There are some comments that need further clarification - these can be handled off list. o Next week is the last SC meeting. Accordingly, all substantial comments need to be provided (including proposed language to address the comments) as soon as possible o On p. 5 of the report - Rec. 2 is re: key system enhancements - as we heard at the top of the call, this is additional work on RDRS that ICANN is not planning to undertake but would undertake at the direction of the ICANN Board. It may be helpful to have explanatory text at the top of Rec. 2. In further context, Current Rec. 4 re: partial authentication - what we heard is that this is work underway. With that, it might make sense to move this recommendation ahead of Rec. 2. Current Rec. 5 is going away. Current Rec. 6 would become Rec. 5. Rec. 7 is to maintain the SC. Suggest slight change in ordering and adding additional explanation for Rec. 2 (or Rec. 3 after reordering). o Suggest modification of Gabe’s original text re: expedited requests. 3. AOB (5min)