[Important/Question and note] Note on Accreditation and Requestor Validation in the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi Farzi, all,

I hope everyone is well.

You asked: *what should we decide? Should we insist on full accreditation
of non LEAs or should we settle on having some lightweight authentication
and ask ICANN and registrars to report on the requests. *

I think it depends on which problem we are trying to solve.

*Problem: Time it takes for registrars to respond to request*s - Here I
think adequate authentication is required. B3cause even if disclosure is
denied, response of that decision will be quicker. Whether it can be
lightweight, well, I believe will depend on the technical story of how it
will be done.

*Problem: Balancing authentication & disclosure* - Here I think policy
should be clear that *authenticated* doesn't mean auto-disclosure.

Remain blessed,
Tomslin

On Sun, 25 May 2025, 09:58 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> As you know I am your rep on RDRS SC, which is the triage system for
> sending the disclosure of domain name registrants data to the registrar.
> It's a pilot project.
>
> We are providing our report and based on the result of the experiment we
> are providing the recommendations for consideration of SSAD(the disclosure
> policy that was adopted in the past).
>
> For NCSG a few things matter: privacy of the domain name registrants,
> accountability and transparency of the system, the requesters and the
> registrars.
>
> One of the issues that we are discussing is accreditation of non LEAs. See
> the brief below, and my question is: what should we decide? Should we
> insist on full accreditation of non LEAs or should we settle on having some
> lightweight authentication and ask ICANN and registrars to report on the
> requests. I lay out the pros and cons of the approaches below.
>
> *Background:*
> As part of the ongoing evaluation of the Registration Data Request Service
> (RDRS), several concerns have emerged regarding requestor validation and
> accreditation, particularly in relation to non-law enforcement third
> parties.
>
> *EPDP Phase 2 Context:*
> The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report recommended the creation or designation of
> an *Accreditation Authority* as a critical component of any long-term
> solution for lawful disclosure of domain registration data. This
> recommendation has significant implications for the  disclosure system
>
> *Some observations*
>
> *Why LEA authentication is needed:*
>
>    1.
>
>    *Misclassification of Requests:*
>    RDRS experience indicates that a number of data disclosure requests
>    were improperly categorized as originating from law enforcement
>    authorities, raising concerns about the accuracy and integrity of requestor
>    self-identification.
>    2.
>
>    *Lack of Requestor Validation:*
>    The absence of an accreditation or identity validation mechanism may
>    have contributed to delayed responses from registrars, who are unable to
>    confidently assess the requestor’s legal standing and purpose.
>    3.
>
>    *Authentication vs. Disclosure Balancing:*
>    Note that authentication is not inherently difficult. The core
>    challenge lies in balancing a validated requestor’s documented purpose
>    against the registrant’s right to privacy, particularly in borderline or
>    ambiguous cases.
>
> *Non LEAs*
>
>
>    1.
>
>    *Risk of Abuse by Authenticated Non-LEAs:*
>    We have concerns about the *potential for misuse of access* by
>    authenticated third-party requestors, especially those operating in
>    jurisdictions with weak human rights protections. Authentication alone does
>    not safeguard against disproportionate or abusive requests.
>
> *Recommendations for Follow-up System Design:*
>
>    -
>
>    *Initial Focus on Law Enforcement :*
>    I think we should generally agree that future iterations or
>    alternatives to RDRS should prioritize *authentication of law
>    enforcement requestors* as a first step, both to build trust and to
>    test implementation.
>    -
>
>    *Need for Further Policy **refinement: *Discuss how to refine
>    accreditation for third party non LEAs so that we bring transparency and
>    accountability but also not be entangled in a "trusted flagger" system
>    where accreditation could lead to positive answers from the registrars
>    without any balance of fundamental rights and disclosure.
>
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250527/10bd373c/attachment.htm>