2025-04-28 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #30

PROPOSED AGENDA

1. Welcome 

2. Continue discussion on Chapter 4

3. AOB

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

PARTICIPATION

Apologies: Steve DelBianco, Gabriel Andrews, Steve Crocker, Thomas Rickert

Attendance

RECORDINGS

Audio Recording

Zoom Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

Action Item: ICANN Org to draft a proposed structure for Chapter 4. Include a comparative table analyzing each SSAD recommendation against RDRS implementation.

1. Welcome 

·         SC Chair opened the meeting. The intent was to ensure the Standing Committee was aligned on its purpose and direction, particularly regarding Assignments 3 and 4.

2. Continue discussion on Chapter 4

·         ICANN Org - Presentation

·         ICANN Org provided a presentation and recap on Assignment Scope for Assignment 3 and 4 based on Charter. [gnso.icann.org]

·         In addition, ICANN Org presented procedural scenarios based on the Assignment 4 scope. 

·         The slides of the presentation can be found here.  [docs.google.com]

·         Discussion Summary

·         Some SC members noted preference for keeping RDRS voluntary; SSAD should not be built. 

·         Against selective adoption without policy development, as choosing parts of SSAD implies policy work.

·         SC members toted the group would find it relatively easy to recommend which RDRS features to continue.

·         SC members also noted difficulties for the Standing Committee to settle what SSAD parts to change, given historical difficulty during EPDP Phase 2.

·         Some SC members disagreed with the immediate dismissal of SSAD without evaluating all recommendations. Suggested the committee to walk through Assignment 4 carefully.

·         SC members suggested it is premature to declare SSAD dead without conducting the policy evaluation work mandated in Assignment 4.

·         Suggested a practical approach:

·         Review all 18 recommendations.

·         Determine consensus areas: which could be endorsed, which required further work, and which should be discarded.

·         Allow the Council to determine next steps, including whether a new EPDP is required.

·         Clarified that while this is not developing new policy, it is evaluative work to inform the Council and Board.

·         Proposed that public comment could happen while the evaluation is ongoing.

·         SC members suggested a more flexible, diplomatic wording of Scenario 4.

·         Suggested restructuring options to make them more consensus-friendly.

• SC Chair observed agreement that the group should:

• Evaluate each recommendation against RDRS experience.

• Provide informed, but non-binding, guidance to Council without making policy recommendations themselves.

• Emphasized the deliverable should be scoping advice, not direct policy.

• The group should gather as much informational context as possible.

• Commented that the final output should help the Council understand the size and nature of any future policy work.

3. AOB

• Next Meeting: May 12, 2025 (due to May 5 conflict with CP Summit)