/
2025-04-07 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #28

2025-04-07 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #28

Owned by Terri Agnew
Last updated: Apr 08, 2025 by Devan Reed
3 min read

The call will take place on Monday, 07 April 2025 at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/356m43ef

PROPOSED AGENDA

  1. Welcome

  2. Review Chapter 3 (flagged issues)

  3. Discuss Meeting Cadence

  4. Update to GNSO Council

  5. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Draft Chapter 3 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c2Nm5s1Q-4jrAqWvsurH-k6BhpyanGIW/edit#heading=h.fd0gq8bu59vm 

 

PARTICIPATION

Apologies:  Marc Anderson, John McElwaine

Attendance

 

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

 

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items: 

  1. SC is kindly asked to review the prioritization in Chapter 2. [docs.google.com] If no further comments are received, report will move with the proposed ranking. 

  2. ICANN Org to update Chapter 3 [docs.google.com] with discussed comments and amendments (based on SC discussion).

  3. SC to review Chapter 3 [docs.google.com] and provide any comments for further discussion by 16 April.

  4. SC to reply to ICANN Org Email (sent on 7 April and see below) regarding Meeting Cadence by 16 April.

 

As discussed, the meeting cadence may need to be changed up from bi-weekly, 1-hour meetings to either weekly 1-hour meetings or bi-weekly 1.5-hour meetings.

 

Please complete the doodle to help determine the path forward.

Doodle: https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/aO6g4RLe [doodle.com]

 

  • If weekly 1-hour meetings, select 14 April, 21 April, and 28 April all at 17:30 UTC for 1-hour

  • If bi-weekly 1.5-hour meeting, select 21 April either 17:00 or 17:30 UTC for 1.5 hour

 

Reminder, this is not only for April meetings but to adjust the meeting cadence going forward.

 

Kind regards,

Feodora

 

 

 

2025-04-07 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #28 [icann-community.atlassian.net]

Documents: 

 

Agenda:

  1. Welcome

·         SC Chair welcomed attendees and introduced the agenda.

·         SC Chair noted that Chapter 2 item prioritization remains pending; Chair added tentative priorities in the interim (1–10 for high relevance; >10 for lower urgency; 20 for least priority, e.g., request to redevelop tool outside of Salesforce).

Action Item: SC is kindly asked to review the prioritization in Chapter 2. If no further comments are received, we will move with the proposed ranking. 

 

  1. Review Chapter 3 (flagged issues)

·         ICANN Org presented the outline of Chapter 3.

·         Steve DelBianco raised a concern about conflating SSAD (staff implementation concept with $100M estimate) with EPDP Phase 2 recommendations.

·         Sarah Wyld confirmed “SSAD” is referenced in the Phase 2 report (definitions, page 18), but agreed discussion should focus on actual recommendations.

·         ICANN Org clarified the comparison and reference in Chapter and report is with EPDP Phase 2 policy recommendations.

·         Flagged items for discussion:

·         Staff presented the flagged items in Slides. HERE [docs.google.com]

·         General Comments

·         Sarah Wyld retracted the first comment, acknowledging the language was acceptable.

·         Registrar Participation & Data Limitation: Sarah Wyld and Alan Greenberg noted that direct disclosure paths to registrars would be similar in SSAD, so describing this as a limitation in RDRS is incorrect. Conclusion:Paragraph should be revised or removed.

·         Specific Recommendation Discussions

·         Rec 5 (Response Recommendations): Sarah proposed clarifying the text by explicitly referencing Rec. 5. Conclusion: Changes accepted.

·         Rec 7 (Requester Purpose): Sarah Wyld noted a mismatch between purposes listed in RDRS vs. the Phase 2 policy. Conclusion: Differences should be documented for potential future policy review.

·         Lessons Learned

·         Developing RDRS- PGP Encrypted Email: 30% of RDRS resources were spent developing functionality not used by registrars. Seen as a cautionary example of overinvesting in features without confirming utility. Conclusion: This experience should be factored into future development planning.

·         Lack of Response Interaction / Ticketing: SC Chair asked whether a back-and-forth feature is necessary within RDRS. Sarah Wyld located confirmation in the implementation guidance of Recommendation 5 that should support back-and-forth communication between requesters and registrars.

·         Cost Analysis Discussion: Sarah Wyld calculated ~$1,000/request (including development costs), but the report used ~$354/request (operational cost only). Conclusion: Resolved that both figures are useful, but clarity is needed in how costs are represented.

Action Items: a) ICANN Org to update Chapter 3 with discussed comments and amendments.b) SC to review Chapter 3 and provide any comments for further discussion. 

 

  1. Discuss Meeting Cadence

  • Two proposals:

  • Maintain bi-weekly meetings but extend to 90 minutes 

  • Move to weekly 60-minute meetings

  • Decision deferred to mailing list discussion for consensus.

Action Item: SC to reply to ICANN Org Email regarding Meeting Cadence.

 

  1. Update to GNSO Council

    • SC Chair to present to the Council on:

  1. Progress on the report

  2. Request for guidance: Should the report go out for public comment?

  • SC Chair will present the options to Council, clarifying the scope and nature of this team`s work and discuss public comment.

  1. AOB

 

 

Related content