2024-12-16 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #22

Notes/ Action Items

Action Item: SC Members are kindly requested to continue adding feedback and reviewing other members' observations in the workbook [docs.google.com]for the final report.

1. Welcome (2min)

·         Next meeting: 13 January 2024 – coincides with the eve of the GNSO Council Strategic Priorities Session.

·         Sebastien noted he will be traveling and unable to chair the meeting.

·         John has confirmed he can lead in Sebastien’s absence.

2.Pending AIs from Workbook [docs.google.com] (3min)

·         Open Action Item: Input to the RDRS Standing Committee workbook. SC Members are kindly requested to continue adding feedback and reviewing other members' observations.

• Key Points:
• Feedback should include clear rationale and conclusions based on observed trends.
• Two additional tabs have been added: “Rationale/Background” and “Comments Provided by Others.”
• Next Steps:
• Support staff will start populating the final report template.
• Assignment 1 chapter will be shared ahead of the 13 January 2024 meeting for review.

·         SC Chair inquired about the timeline for pivoting the workbook (spreadsheet format) into a Word document.

·         ICANN Org confirmed that assignment-based chapters will be created and shared as Word documents. Raw data will remain in the workbook for reference.

3.Review SC final report feedback (30min)

1. Discussion on final report observations from Workbook
2. Suggest SC members use test domain, rdrs.test to help inform feedback for final report

• “How to” video: How to use the system [youtu.be]
• “How to” video: How to use the template [youtu.be]

·         Mark Anderson suggested asking ICANN Org for lessons learned in developing the current RDRS system (what worked, challenges, etc.).

·         Steve Crocker highlighted the need to consider the long-term roadmap: Is the current system permanent or temporary? Should a new system be designed from scratch? Proposed analyzing current gaps and future decision processes.

·         SC Chair added that SC does not assume that this system, as is right now plugged into salesforce, is the one to keep for the future. Someone should study the possibility of starting a new development session, possibly externalized. If the SC is under the above assumption, the next steps would be to keep the current RDRS as is and not develop it further but maintain it until a better system is in place?

·         The SC Chair asked to further consider how long would it take to get to a next version to see some of the improvements the SC has been looking for. For example, the API.

·         The SC Chair also asked the SC to consider if the SC assumes/recommends that there will be policy work needed after the RDRS pilot. For instance, to bring back the SSAD recommendations and consider what to propose on those?

·         Gabriel Andrews proposed a compare-and-contrast document between RDRS and the original SSAD policy recommendations. ICANN Org provided the WHOIS disclosure system design paper that includes a table comparing SSAD and RDRS. (Annex4)

·         Steve Crocker asked if the follow up system should focus only on contracted parties? 

·         SC members pointed out that ccTLDs should be encouraged to participate and included in RDRS. 

·         SC Chair noted the need to clarify whether future work would involve scaling back SSAD to fit RDRS or creating a new approach entirely?

Creating test requests using rdrs.test

ICANN Org encouraged SC members to:

·         Use the test domain to experience the RDRS system firsthand.

·         Review the training videos on using the system and templates.

·         Purpose: Provide further recommendations for system improvements.

4.Discuss presentation of metrics reports data for year 2 of RDRS pilot (20min)

·         ICANN Org informed the SC that for the second year of the pilot, ICANN will continue to show each month’s metrics in charts and graphs by changing the orientation of the page to landscape to accommodate additional months. Also, any updates to the data that are a result of registrars indicating decision dates for months past will be reflected in reports. Currently all reports only reflect the data that was originally gathered on the report generation date for any given month. 

·         Feedback:

• Steve Crocker questioned the utility of current data for measuring demand. Suggested it does not reflect “true demand” since existing processes and limitations may constrain usage.
• Alan Greenberg stressed that the data cannot reliably measure demand and proposed focusing efforts on actionable insights.
• ICANN org indicated that the current metrics were requested by the GSNO Small Team.

5.AOB (5min)

1. RDRS Surveys for year 2 of the pilot 

• ICANN Org informed about the low response rates for automated surveys. ICANN Org asked the SC if they see value in continuing the survey or if the one-on-one user experience interviews are sufficient. Both requestor and registrar UIs have a way for users to request interviews with ICANN. Gabriel Andrews supported keeping automated surveys to capture feedback from non-ICANN insiders who may not opt for interviews.