Page History

Notes/ Action Items

AI: SC members to review and provide necessary information (SC ownership, further details for tech team, etc.) in impressions document for subsequent meetings.

1. Welcome
   • The SC Chair welcomed all participants and acknowledged recent challenges in updating the letter to the GNSO council.
2. Impressions Document Review & Prioritization
   • SC Chair emphasized the focus on reviewing the new Impressions Document, transitioning from a Google Doc to a Google spreadsheet format.
   • SC Chair noted previous discussions in Kigali and the need to revisit and update the document's progress and pending tasks.
   • SC Chair Highlighted specific locked columns (LoE, Notes on LoE,  SC agreed Priority Ranking, SC consensus, Status ) for controlled updates, ensuring collaborative changes only when in full agreement with SC.
   • LoE, Notes on LoE and Status columns will be determined and managed by the ICANN support staff.
   • The other mentioned columns will be edited by ICANN support staff but agreed on during the SC meetings, where the group has the chance to discuss and agree on the way forward on each change request.
   • ICANN Org confirmed column access details, clarifying permissions for different sections of the document.
   • SC members directed attention to the reporting of jurisdiction and location data, particularly for law enforcement requests.
   • ICANN Org raised the technical team's need for specifics on data parsing and reporting requirements.
   • Steve queried registrars' handling of jurisdiction data in requests; Sarah provided insights on registrar practices.
   • SC Chair refined the question regarding jurisdictional information queried by registrars, highlighting complexity with multiple jurisdictions.
   •   ICANN Org clarified the registrar form's request for information about countries/territories where data will be processed.
   •  SC members asked about multiple answers to country selection for jurisdiction; ICANN Org confirmed requestors can select multiple countries where the data may be processed.
   • ICANN Org suggested to prioritize  this request against the other requests already prioritized in the document.
   • Discussion on ccTLD inclusion in data access processes highlighted logistical challenges.
   • SC Members proposed evaluating the effort required to include ccTLDs in the data access process.
   • SC members suggested the discussion about ccTLD is not in the remit of SC. 
   • ICANN Org indicated the Standing Committee should reference Lisa’s mailing list response to Gabe on 21 June for ICANN’s specific feedback on what it would take to include ccTLD in RDRS.
   • SC members recalled discussions on individual vs. entity accounts from the SSAD recommendations, noting the RDAP pilot streamlined to individual requester accounts.
   • SC members proposed a streamlined process for handling multiple requests, suggesting the feasibility of a bulk upload feature or API integration.
   • SC members asked for more information on what LoE is based on.
   • ICANN Org to provide a formal evaluation on the effort required for potential ccTLD inclusion in data access processes.

AI: SC members to review and provide necessary information in impressions document for subsequent meetings.

• SC members raised concerns regarding data visibility and sorting challenges in the registrar tab, requesting assistance in sorting by priority.

     3.Preview of updated Metric 10 & Metric 8 were not previewed as time ran out, but ICANN org indicated that Metric 10 had been updated in the RDRS Metric Usage Report published on 15 July.

     4.AOB