2025-07-14 RDRS Standing Committee - Meeting #38

The call will take place on Monday, 14 July 2025 at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/yzjkv7ux

·         Members are asked to provide comments to the final draft by 21 July (first deadline).

·         Comment types are categorized into:

·         “Cannot live with” (red table)

·         “Can live with BUT Needs clarification” (orange table)

·         “Editorial/grammatical correction” (blue table)

·         Support Staff will manage comment consolidation and track discussion items via a centralized spreadsheet.

·         SC to comment directly into the draft report or the exercise sheet. SC will go through the comments in the exercise sheet for easier tracking and overview.

·         SC to provide clear rationale on why they “cannot live with” a statement or parts of the document and provide new language they can live with. 

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome

·         The SC Chair opened the meeting.

·         Emphasis was placed on ensuring that Support Staff had everything necessary to finalize the draft report.

·         The goal was to move through open questions efficiently.

·         The goal is for the final document to be made available for public comment in mid-August, pending SC progress.

2. Continue Discussion of documented concerns from Draft Chapter 4

·         Rec. 3.1 (Privacy/Proxy Data)

·         Support Staff reviewed the proposed language regarding further policy work on privacy/proxy services within RDRS.

·         Discussion centered on the vagueness and potential duplicative nature of recommending “further policy work.” There was broad recognition of issues around registrar-affiliated proxy services, their impact on disclosure, and the challenges posed for requesters such as public safety officials.

·         SC members supported the bracketed clarification but expressed strong concern with recommending policy work already being explored elsewhere, or which might contradict other frameworks.

·         Other SC members supported the idea of policy work on consistent disclosure practices for affiliated proxy providers.

·         SC members expressed frustration of requesters when privacy/proxy data is returned in response to lawful requests.

·         SC members proposed revised wording: “The Subcommittee recommends further policy work be considered on the lawful release of privacy/proxy data for privacy/proxy providers affiliated with registrars.”

Action Item: 

·         General agreement emerged to remove mention of the RDRS and focus instead on privacy/proxy disclosure consistency.

·         The concerns raised by some SC members with P/P to be included in lessons learned. Gabe to provide updated language.

·         Rec. 3.2 (Inclusion of RDRS links in RDAP responses)

·         Support Staff referenced a comment regarding the suggestion to include RDRS links in RDAP responses.

·         The group discussed the appropriateness of including RDRS references in RDAP responses.

Action Item:  Marc and Gabe to provide new language to update the recommendation based on SC discussion. 

·         Rec. 4 (Authentication) - updated text, which incorporates feedback from 7 July meeting and Rec. 5 (Financial Sustainability) - updated text, which incorporates feedback from 30 June and 7 July meeting

·         Recommendation 4:

·         New draft introduced to separate partial authentication from broader enhancement recommendations.

·         SC members sought clarity from ICANN Org on how they would interpret and implement the recommendation.

·         Support Staff noted ICANN is working closely with the Public Safety Working Group (PSWG) on short- and long-term authentication solutions.

·         Recommendation 5:

·         Revised language aimed at providing middle ground on financial sustainability.

·         SC members noted that while the initial burden fell on ICANN, the partial authentication model shifts costs to requesters, satisfying much of the original concern.

·         SC members noted that long-term funding should not come solely from ICANN.

·         Rec. 6 (Consideration regarding next steps on EPDP Phase 2/SSAD recs.

·         Support Staff noted that the current draft lacks clear guidance to the GNSO Council on what to do with SSAD recommendations.

·         One SC member noted that the group consensus appears to be:

·         The SSAD recommendations should not be adopted as-is.

·         The SSAD Recommendations should be returned to the GNSO Council for further review and potential modification.

·         SC members supported retaining the SSAD Recommendations Table but preferred a consolidated version rather than two tables in different chapters. 

Action Item:  Mark to propose draft wording clarifying Council action recommendation/what to do with SSAD Recommendations.

3. Next Steps

·         Staff delivery of Draft Findings Report 

·         Staff will distribute the complete draft report (in ICANN template format) by Wednesday.

·         Once distributed, the working document (consolidated version) will be locked (view-only) and all feedback should be directed to the new/official version. (Note: unresolved comments from the consolidated version will be carried over to the accompanying review document for transparency.)

·         Members are asked to provide comments by 21 July (first deadline).

·         Comment types are categorized into:

·         “Cannot live with” (red)

·         “Can live with BUT Needs clarification” (orange)

·         “Editorial/grammatical” (blue)

·         Support Staff will manage comment consolidation and track discussion items via a centralized spreadsheet.

·         SC to provide clear rationale on why they “cannot live with” with a statement or parts of the document and provide new language they can live with. 

Action Item: SC to comment directly into the draft report or the exercise sheet. SC will go through the comments in the exercise sheet for easier tracking and overview. 

4. AOB