FCC Establishes Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD)

FCC 21-122 established the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) under guidance from the Federal Communications Commission, creating a public, auditable certification repository where voice service providers must disclose their authentication status or document their robocall mitigation strategies. The Wireline Competition Bureau announced the immediate opening of the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) and provided step‑by‑step filing instructions with a hard deadline of June 30, 2021. Providers are required to certify whether they have implemented STIR/SHAKEN or, if full authentication is not yet deployed, to outline the “reasonable steps” they are taking to prevent the origination and propagation of illegal traffic.

The database introduced a new level of operational transparency by converting mitigation commitments into enforceable, peer-visible declarations. Public guidance and filing deadlines signaled that failure to certify or maintain compliant mitigation documentation could result in reputational risk, enforcement action, or network-level disconnection by upstream or downstream partners.

At its core, the RMD represents the industry’s move toward identity governance as a compliance obligation. Providers must be able to explain how their network activity is controlled, monitored, and validated, an expectation that is difficult to satisfy without foundational Know Your Customer–style evidence supporting customer legitimacy.

‍

KYC Relevance

Mitigation credibility is directly tied to knowledge of customer identity and behavior. Claims about preventing illegal traffic cannot be sustained without continuous verification, monitoring, and risk-aware customer lifecycle governance.

‍

Numeracle’s Perspective

The RMD should be treated as a formal program declaration rather than a static filing exercise. Organizations should ensure that the identity proofing, risk scoring, and monitoring artifacts underlying their KYC processes are fully aligned with the commitments represented in their certification disclosures.

KYC practices should be designed to be rigorous, operationally implementable, and traceable across the customer and traffic lifecycle. Providers are strongly cautioned against adopting “bare minimum” identity policies that satisfy filing language but fail to produce defensible audit evidence or meaningful risk reduction in practice. Identity governance should be treated as a control framework rather than a checkbox exercise, ensuring that verification, monitoring, and enforcement mechanisms can be demonstrated and sustained over time.