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

Wed May 28 01:58:07 EEST 2025

INTERNAL

INTERNAL

Hi Farzi,

Thank you for sharing this update!

One question that I keep coming back to is who/what are we talking about when we say “non-LEAs”? Having a better sense of who these entities are and why they would be requesting this information would be helpful to answer your question.

Regardless, my two cents is that non-LEA accreditation is needed. I think the best-case scenario is that we should have both: full accreditation mechanisms for non-LEAs (+1 to @Emmanuel Vitus<mailto:emmanuelvitus at gmail.com>’s concerns here) and reports by registrars on these requests. That may not be a popular opinion in the RDRS SC, but I think it’s important and something we can reiterate in our session.

Best,

Michaela

Michaela Nakayama Shapiro (she/her/hers)
Programme Officer - Censorship
[Logo.png]<https://www.article19.org>   Defending freedom of expression
and information
www.article19.org<https://www.article19.org>            Subscribe to our Newsletter<https://www.article19.org/ie-sign-up/>      [cid:newsletter_02744340-c607-4374-8a37-11b8b216096d.png] <https://www.article19.org/ie-sign-up>
Follow us
[Bluesky1x.png]<https://bsky.app/profile/article19.bsky.social>         [cid:facebook_2853baa0-f060-42e6-b448-6a8788c1b5dd.png] <https://www.facebook.com/article19org/>                [cid:youtube_ffe95af1-d962-4acd-ab59-4eb4ea07466e.png] <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDB6E_x0xRSfF62b872n9YQ>               [cid:linkedin_199dc89c-14aa-41cd-b2a7-37b8ae8d667d.png] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/article19>            [cid:instagram_05fbcc72-6df2-442b-8c34-146d0e9d8c41.png] <https://www.instagram.com/article19org/>              [cid:x_d21e0607-da5a-44a7-80c7-e2d86bc18a92.png] <https://twitter.com/intent/follow?screen_name=article19org>
[women-journalists-banner.jpeg]<https://www.article19.org/equally-safe/?mtm_campaign=Clicks%20on%20email%20signature%20banner>
From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at GMAIL.COM>
Date: Wednesday, 28 May 2025 at 03:35
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Important/Question and note] Note on Accreditation and Requestor Validation in the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)
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 requests - 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<mailto: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/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo_1c766458-35ee-431a-9a22-e00b47cd2091.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6889 bytes
Desc: logo_1c766458-35ee-431a-9a22-e00b47cd2091.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: newsletter_02744340-c607-4374-8a37-11b8b216096d.png
Type: image/png
Size: 379 bytes
Desc: newsletter_02744340-c607-4374-8a37-11b8b216096d.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bluesky1x_864ef831-9476-4116-88b8-2a3410741630.png
Type: image/png
Size: 788 bytes
Desc: bluesky1x_864ef831-9476-4116-88b8-2a3410741630.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: facebook_2853baa0-f060-42e6-b448-6a8788c1b5dd.png
Type: image/png
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: facebook_2853baa0-f060-42e6-b448-6a8788c1b5dd.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: youtube_ffe95af1-d962-4acd-ab59-4eb4ea07466e.png
Type: image/png
Size: 678 bytes
Desc: youtube_ffe95af1-d962-4acd-ab59-4eb4ea07466e.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: linkedin_199dc89c-14aa-41cd-b2a7-37b8ae8d667d.png
Type: image/png
Size: 720 bytes
Desc: linkedin_199dc89c-14aa-41cd-b2a7-37b8ae8d667d.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: instagram_05fbcc72-6df2-442b-8c34-146d0e9d8c41.png
Type: image/png
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: instagram_05fbcc72-6df2-442b-8c34-146d0e9d8c41.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: x_d21e0607-da5a-44a7-80c7-e2d86bc18a92.png
Type: image/png
Size: 895 bytes
Desc: x_d21e0607-da5a-44a7-80c7-e2d86bc18a92.png
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: women-journalists-banner_b1cece5c-a86d-452f-b9f8-9e72943680f6.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15471 bytes
Desc:  women-journalists-banner_b1cece5c-a86d-452f-b9f8-9e72943680f6.jpeg
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/bf4a05f2/attachment.jpeg>