INTA does not support continued operation of the RDRS in its current form. As documented in early reports from INTA members, the RDRS has significant structural flaws that impede its performance and undermine its utility for registration data requests and access. This includes a confusing and cumbersome requestor interface decipherable only by requestors intimately familiar with ICANN consensus policy and data privacy law, the voluntary nature of registrar and registry participation, and a lack of clarity and predictability in instances when requests are refused. These deficits have been well-documented through community input for nearly 2 years. INTA has hosted ICANN staff to INTA’s public meetings, held workshops, and provided practice tips to INTA members, all in the spirit of promoting use of the RDRS. A year ago, we hosted a session for 20 corporate members to learn about their RDRS experience. Their feedback was gathered under Chatham rules, and we discovered that most of the corporate members either gave up on RDRS after a few requests or never completed submissions due to the dense and confusing requestor interface. In open INTA and ICANN meetings, we learned that registrars are confronted with similar challenges when working with requestors. The requests are not complete or fail to contain legally required information to perform balancing tests regarding the release of data. Frustration from both sides of the request equation points to the poor design of the system and we cannot support the continuance of such a flawed model.

Echoing the position of the Intellectual Property Constituency, INTA supports the development and implementation of a disclosure system, as distinct from a mere ticketing or communication system, that mandates participation by all contracted parties, incorporates practical authentication mechanisms, implements clear evaluation standards based on the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Phase 2 Framework and subsequent updates to applicable data privacy laws, and provides meaningful oversight and accountability measures.

INTA notes that the Standing Committee has recommended that the eighteen EPDP Phase 2 Recommendations either be implemented or rejected as a package. As such, the current RDRS process does not allow sufficient changes to be made that enable effective use. We support the development of an alternative system that meets the requirements and is much more user-friendly for requestors and the contracted parties.

We support the intention of ICANN to find an economical, efficient system to process registration data requests. The RDRS is not that system. Suspension of the system should not be interpreted as defeat. There are lessons learned about usability and efficiency that should be incorporated into a new system.

This attachment is in addition to completing the Public Comment Proceeding form as it addresses the report recommendation by recommendation. Thank you for your consideration.

INTA does not support continued operation of the RDRS. Frustration from both sides of the request equation points to the poor design of the system. Echoing the position of the IPC, INTA supports the development and implementation of a disclosure system, as distinct from a mere ticketing or communication system, that mandates participation by all contracted parties, incorporates practical authentication mechanisms, implements clear evaluation standards based on the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Phase 2 Framework and subsequent updates to applicable data privacy laws, and provides meaningful oversight and accountability measures. We support the intention to find an economical, efficient system to process registration data requests. The RDRS is not that system. Suspension of the system should not be interpreted as defeat. There are lessons learned about usability and efficiency that should be incorporated into a new system. We do not support limiting authentication to governmental law enforcement agencies. Authentication should include those who are investigating civil law complaints, governmental consumer protection agencies, cybersecurity researchers, and child safety organizations at a minimum. We recommend that any further policy work focus on a realistic disclosure system to replace RDRS. INTA notes the Standing Committee's recommendation regarding the EPDP Phase 2/SSAD policy recommendations, but INTA recommends that any referral back to the GNSO Council should be contingent upon specific conditions that must be met to avoid repeating the policy development failures that have characterized more than a decade of work in this area. INTA does not support continued operation of the RDRS for the reasons described throughout this submission. We recommend that the standing committee be repurposed to address an economical, efficient registration data access solution that that addresses the ongoing concerns of requestors and contracted parties.