The call will take place on Monday, 08 April 2024 at 17:30 UTC for 60 minutes.

For other places see: http://tinyurl.com/24n534nn

PROPOSED AGENDA


  1. Welcome
  2. Enhancements
    • Status of current enhancements with ICANN engineering team & supporting materials (FAQ and User Guides)
    • Registrar Prioritized List of Enhancements (Impressions Document)
      • Priorities: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 & ICANN Notes
      • Impression Document Registrar Feedback Item 3 discussion
    • Requestor Enhancements:
      • Proposed increase in character limit from 1000 to 2000
      • Proposed language to better explain what “expedited” means in RDRS UI
  3.  AOB
    • Reporting Abusive Requestors
    • Jurisdiction and LEA Requests

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS



PARTICIPATION

RECORDINGS


Audio Recording

Zoom Recording


GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items


Action Items and main discussion point


  1. Welcome
  2. Enhancements
  • Status of current enhancements with ICANN engineering team & supporting materials (FAQ and User Guides)
    • Adding language to system as discussed during last meeting
    • Update to Help link as discussed during last meeting
    • Update FAQ and user guide and indicate new info for the system
    • Updates will be released mid April
    • Supported TLDs will be based of the gTLD report:https://www.icann.org/resources/registries/gtlds/v2/gtlds.json All TLDs that are listed here are supported by system. If not listed here is not supported.


o   Priorities: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 & ICANN Notes

  • SC asked if Org can add difficulty and complexity level of priorities in impressions document. Org indicated difficulty and complexity is already provided in the registrar section and waiting for SC to prioritize the requestor section.
  • Org informed that priority 1 can be implemented fairly quickly. Item 18 will be added here as well.
  • Org informed priority 2 is more complex also linked to item 17. SC would need to provide further details on how they would like the system to function for these updates to be made. SC will discuss further so Impression document can be updated.
  • Are Rrs willing to make updates on status of requests in relation to priority 2? Can SC discuss and make a decision on this? This would allow Org to decide on implementation. This would have to be considered post June due to large LOE
  • Org informed priority 3 is also a more complex effort unless Rr decides to use PGP key.
  • Org informed that priority 4 can be implemented quickly, prior to June.
  • Org informed that priority 5 can be implemented fairly easily. Org needs a screenshot for further clarity, which will be provided by Sarah.

o   Impression Document Registrar Feedback Item 3 discussion

  • Examples discussed will be added in the user guide as well as FAQs to explain the P/P situation.
  • How can the requester distinguish between data that is actually available and data that is not actually available in the case of P/P? Sarah provided an explanation from registrar’s perspective.
  • Requestor Enhancements:

o   Proposed increase in character limit from 1000 to 2000

o   Org informed that it can be implemented fairly easily in an upcoming enhancement cycle.

o   SC asked if there are security concerns regarding this update? Org informed that there might be a legal concern reg amount of data but no security concern.

o   Proposed language to better explain what “expedited” means in RDRS UI

o   Org informed that “expedited” at the determination of the requestor.

o   Org will add language to indicate that in an upcoming enhancement cycle.


3.AOB

  • Reporting abusive requestors

o   How should Rrs report abuse of RDRS when requestors claim to be a certain type of requestor (like LEA) but they are not?

o   RDRS pilot does not include an abuse investigator.

o   Disabling the requester account could be a possible solution? Problem not likely to go away by disabling account, but SC indicates it’s important to address the abuse

o   Is this a common problem? RDRS request or impostors? No data on this as there is no way to track.  Within Tucows requests 20% of all RDRS requests are miscategorized. 24% of RDRS requests labeled as LEA are miscategorized

o   Org could provide more information in a future version of the FAQ to clarify LEA requests and submission from those claiming to be LE who are not

o   SC suggested a report function on RDRS.

  • Jurisdiction and LEA requests

o   SC suggested adding a report on jurisdiction where LEA requests are coming from?

o   Org could make address mandatory (see impressions document Priority 1) in the request form which could provide that information?

o   Request to be added to “wishlist” Impressions document by SC.


  • No labels