Thank you for opening our eyes to this Farzi!Let's put together a letter to the RDRS working group? Maybe including your arguments, any industry benchmarks, best practices, and examples from other members/regions. This could facilitate Stephanie’s efforts and our tracking of the issue? Maybe we can dive deeper into this during our next PC meeting?Kind regards ,EmmanuelSent from iPhone. Excuse brevity and typos.Dear Farzaneh and Stephanie,I agree with Farzaneh's suggestion to bring the issue of transparency in RDRS to the Standing Committee. I believe it is essential to find a balance between transparency and the need to protect ongoing investigations.One way to achieve this could be to publish the number of requests received from each jurisdiction on an annual or biannual basis. This would provide some level of transparency while still safeguarding the confidentiality of ongoing investigations.I believe this approach would address the concerns of human rights and civil liberties advocates while also ensuring that law enforcement efforts are not impeded.Best regards,Caleb OgundeleHi Farzi,I think your idea of providing examples of what could be considered the "market standard" of how to treat this kind of data would be the best way to approach the RDRS SC. Just to drop a few others, Meta (https://transparency.fb.com/reports/government-data-requests/country/), Google (https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?hl=en) and TikTok (https://www.tiktok.com/transparency/en-us/government-removal-requests-2023-1/) have interesting reports that could deter most arguments against implementing it for security reasons.One could also point out that this isn't interesting just for human rights and civil liberties, but also for other interest groups to identify potentially problematic regions (f. ex., a country where, for some reason, there is a spike of registrations being used for criminal activities commonly identified as such all around the world).Cordially,Pedro de Perdigão LanaLawyer, GEDAI/UFPR ResearcherPhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by mistake, please reply informing it.Dear NCSG,As you know RDRS (the system whereby requestors of domain name registrants personal data submit their request to access the data-it's a triage system) is now in operation. (been for a few months) There is a Standing Committee on RDRS that meets biweekly which discusses the technical issues of the system. In the report that RDRS issues, we usually can see the number of requests on behalf of law enforcement agencies but it does not specify which jurisdictions.It is common practice for different Internet organizations and tech-companies to report at least on the jurisdiction. For example, Apple has been publishing the LEA transparency reports, for example you can see which countries and how many apps were requested to be removed from the App Store: https://www.apple.com/legal/more-resources/docs/2022-App-Store-Transparency-Report.pdfOther Internet organizations also report on which countries requested data, here is for example a RIPE NCC transparency report: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-794/This topic has been of interest for NCSG for a long time because of its implications on human rights and civil liberty.I want to suggest that we bring this issue to RDRS SC and ask to open up the discussion on how we can have some minimal transparency in place. For example which countries the law enforcement agencies submit requests from. We can open up the conversation and also consider what measures to take not to disrupt ongoing investigations and come to a middle ground on this. This is not the only way we can request some minimal transparency but it could be a start.Stephanie is our representative on RDRS SC. Maybe she can bring up this issue in that group?Farzaneh--Caleb OgundeleEmail: [log in to unmask]