Hello Stephanie, I volunteer as an alternate. regards, On Mon, 13 Nov 2023, 6:44 pm Stephanie E Perrin, < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > As discussed in our policy team meetings, the RDRS small team that advised > on the creation of the new SSAD, otherwise known now as the Registration > Data Request Service or RDRS, is now transitioning out (or ceasing to > exist) and is being replaced by a Standing Committee. I have agreed to > stay on as a Standing Committee member, and this has been approved by the > Policy Committee, but we still need folks to volunteer to shadow or perform > as alternates in case I have to miss a meeting. This is a great > opportunity to learn about how the WHOIS has transitioned into this new > service, and I would be happy to mentor/help anyone who cares to volunteer. > > I don't expect the workload to be too heavy, although I do have my fingers > crossed as I say this. Nothing about the WHOIS transition to data > protection compliance has been as easy as it should have been...... > > Relevant documentation is below.... > > Kind regards, > > Stephanie Perrin > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: REMINDER| ACTION NEEDED | Call for volunteers - > RDRS Standing Committee | Response needed by 10 November 2023 > Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:45:21 +0000 > From: Terri Agnew <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > To: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]> > CC: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Caitlitra n Tubergen > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, > [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Andrea > Glandon <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Marika > Konings <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Chan > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > > Hi Stephanie, > > > > Very good news, we have you noted and additional information will be sent > shortly. > > > > Kindest regards, > > > > Terri > > > > > > *From: *Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]> > *Date: *Friday, November 10, 2023 at 12:49 PM > *To: *Terri Agnew <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > *Cc: *Tomslin Samme-Nlar <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, > "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]>, Caitlin Tubergen <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]>, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Andrea Glandon > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Marika Konings > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>, Steve Chan > <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> > *Subject: *[Ext] Re: REMINDER| ACTION NEEDED | Call for volunteers - RDRS > Standing Committee | Response needed by 10 November 2023 > > > > Hi Terri, > > NCSG agrees that I should stay on this team. We are still looking for > alternates in case I can't make a meeting. > > Kind regards, Steph Perrin > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Nov 7, 2023, at 09:22, Terri Agnew <[log in to unmask]> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > **REMINDER - Response needed by 10 November 2023 > > > > Dear EPDP Phase 2 small team member, > > > > As you are aware, the GNSO Council recently approved the charter > [gnso.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/draft/draft-rdrs-standing-committee-08sep23-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!_lc2hf8TT-LKJp0av5q_y3QWgPI1nzmy7Xrs8tgPRGtZ6rL-tBcnOm85X7vWkpDcZu58V3UP6O5BVhm-LtRM5JwE6A$> > for the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committee, which > will help inform the next steps on the SSAD policy recommendations. Once > the RDRS goes live, currently foreseen for late November 2023, this small > team will cease to exist, and any remaining activities will be taken over > by the Standing Committee. > > > > While many of you have already indicated your willingness to continue, > please formally confirm your interest to continue as a member of the > Standing Committee *by responding to this message by 10 November at the > latest*. Per the charter, you / your appointing group may also identify > an alternate to take your place in case of absence. Such alternates are > expected to have been part of the Standing Committee as observers to ensure > that they are up to speed on the discussions. > > > > The charter also foresees that “On the suggestion of the Standing > Committee, the Chair may invite external participants with specific > expertise or knowledge to contribute to Standing Committee deliberations”. > If there are any external participants that you want to recommend inviting, > please share these recommendations, and they will be passed on to the Chair > once selected. > > > > As a reminder, you will find hereunder the Standing Committee’s scope of > work and expected deliverables. > > > > With best regards, > > > > GNSO Secretariat > > > > <image001.png> > > > > > > > > *Scope * > > > > The Standing Committee is tasked to review the data that will be produced > by ICANN org on a monthly basis following the launch of the RDRS (see data > points outlined here). The Scoping Team is expected to analyze the data and > consider: > > > > Assignment #1. Trends that can be identified over a > month-by-month period; > > Assignment #2. Possible technical updates* that should be > considered to RDRS and/or related messaging and promotion (recognizing that > the RDRS will only be running for a two-year period and limited > resources may be available to implement such updates); > > Assignment #3. Specific lessons learned that should be factored > into the consideration of how to proceed with the SSAD recommendations; > > Assignment #4. Suggestions to the Council for a proposed > recommendation(s) to the ICANN Board in relation to the consideration of > the SSAD recommendations**. > > > > Although the monthly data reports are expected to be made available to the > Council, it is not the expectation that the Standing Committee will provide > a monthly analysis of this data to the Council as it may be necessary to > review the data over a longer time period before certain conclusions can be > drawn. As noted in the small team’s addendum: “Any conclusions and/or > recommendations stemming from this review, would be provided to the GNSO > Council for a decision on further steps. Although the reports are expected > to be provided on a monthly basis, in line with the preliminary report, the > small team anticipates that any conclusions and/or recommendations in > relation to the SSAD recommendations would only be developed after 6-month > intervals, up to a maximum of two years, at which point a decision has to > be taken on how to proceed (if a decision has not been made before that > time). To be clear, although further enhancements may be considered by > ICANN org based on the actual experience with the Whois Disclosure System > once it is operational, it is not the intent or objective of the 6-month > intervals to focus on technical enhancements for the Whois Disclosure > System". > > > > *Any requests to ICANN org for substantial updates requiring significant > resources need to be reviewed and approved by the GNSO Council. If there is > disagreement between the Standing Committee and ICANN org in relation to > the technical updates requested, the Council liaison is expected to > mediate, and escalate to the GNSO Council as deemed necessary. > > > > ** As noted in the small team’s preliminary report: “As part of the > checkpoint review, it would also be discussed what happens with the SSAD > proof of concept once the 2-year period ends. The small team noted that it > would not be prudent to decide this at the outset as it will depend on the > take up and use of the SSAD proof of concept. However, while decisions are > taken and/or until a replacement solution is agreed, the small team can > envision maintaining the proof of concept tool online, in existing or > modified format, if it is proven useful enough, noting that there will be > cost implications associated with such a decision. The small team does > expect that before the 2-year period ends clarity is provided on the > expected next steps in relation to the EPDP Phase 2 SSAD Recommendations > which could include: 1) Approval of EPDP Phase 2 SSAD recommendations (in > current or modified format) which would replace the SSAD proof of concept; > 2) Determination that adoption of EPDP Phase 2 SSAD recommendations is not > in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN and termination of > SSAD proof of concept; 3) Modification of EPDP Phase 2 SSAD recommendations > by GNSO Council informed by SSAD proof of concept findings; 4) A variation > and/or combination of the above scenarios.” > > > > *Deliverables* > > > > The Standing Committee shall establish its expected meeting cadence > following its first meeting and shall consider how and how often it expects > to communicate to the Council in relation to assignments #1 and #2 before > it ultimately shares its expected reporting cadence with the Council. In > relation to assignments #3 and #4, the Standing Committee may communicate > findings and recommendations to the Council on an ongoing basis, but the > expectation is that towards the end of the two-year period for which the > RDRS will run, the Standing Committee will compile its findings and > recommendations in relation to assignments #3 and #4 in the form of a > report. The Standing Committee should consult with the GNSO Council on > whether this report should be published for public comment. The Chair is > expected to provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on the status of > work and timeline for implementation. This can be done in writing or > through updates during Council meetings. > > > > > > > >