<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Yes Tomslin, I think on balance it does. I hate to say it,
because we are super overloaded and we should really do these
things sequentially....i.e. wait till we finish epdp 2a, and get
further in the implementation. But maybe we ought to support the
idea....it is certainly a good item to discuss with our colleagues
in the contracted party house. They might prefer to negotiate on
abuse in their private contractual arrangements....remember that
over the past several years, the sessions on abuse which they held
with public safety wg were often closed to us. And they are the
ones feeling the sharp end of the stick on enforcement action from
GDD. However, there are so many issues to resolve on abuse, not
the least of which are the sponginess of the definitions, and the
scope creep, that a pdp might be the best idea all round.</p>
<p>cheers Steph<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-02-06 6:47 p.m., Tomslin
Samme-Nlar wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAM8DdeXWXwJkKceUtDgq1oMf1UB60mDdNO0Se3ZGK__MX_h9bw@mail.gmail.com">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: sans-serif; color:
white; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; padding: .2em;">
<strong><span style="color: #c75000;">EXTERNAL EMAIL:</span></strong></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Stephanie,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the additional points. <br>
</div>
<div>Your 4th point on SubPro and voluntary commitments on
DNS abuse caught my attention. Doesn't SubPro's final
report statement in Recommendation 9.15, that "this PDP
Working Group is not making any recommendations with
respect to mitigating domain name abuse other than stating
that any such future effort must apply to both existing
and new gTLDs (and potentially ccTLDs)", mean in other
words, go make policy on DNS abuse in other fora and
groups?
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think you articulated the concern of actions on DNS
abuse being taken in fora where we have no influence over
very well. Does that leave us in support for the SSR2
Recommendation 15 for a EPDP on anti-abuse policy? I think
it does.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>cheers</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
Tomslin
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at
07:42, Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Thanks very much for this Bruna, and my apologies for
missing this meeting. As I spammed the list lately,
somehow I am missing a lot of ICANN-related emails,
and it is impossible to predict when they are being
caught in spam control as many still get through.</p>
<p>if I might add the following points to the excellent
discussion which I gleaned from the recording and
chat:</p>
<ul>
<li>we do need to agree on definitions and mechanisms
for policy development amongst NCSG. I do not think
this will be difficult, we seem to agree on a
narrow, technical scope</li>
<li>Abuse has been raised forever, along with its twin
policy bugbear "accuracy" of RDS data. This has
become significantly worse since the 2018 amendments
to the 2013 RAA and subsequent removal of personal
data from the "WHOIS". we have been playing
whack-a-mole on this issue, with 3 separate high
interest sessions on it at the last meeting (which
we were unable to stop)</li>
<li>There is a significant risk that actions will be
taken to deal with the issue in fora where we as
NCSG have no input. Note that the contracted
parties are currently working on two different types
of contractual arrangements with ICANN....the new
Registrars Accreditation Agreement, where we have no
input but they may throw a bone to their adversaries
by including abuse remedies, and the joint
controller/processor agreements with ICANN wherein
they figure out who is responsible for what in the
processing of personal information. In both of
these we have no input. There is a proposal on the
table to deal with abuse in a PDP, with the same
representation as we have on the EPDP....I am
suspicious of this move as I am with all such moves,
and I sure don't need another committee to work on
as I am overloaded with Council, EPDP, legal cttee
on EPDP, and the IRT.....but it might be a safer, MS
environment to deal with issues like accuracy,
abuse, and the "public interest".</li>
<li>In terms of Subpro, doubtless there are voluntary
commitments being made WRT abuse and abuse
mitigations as we move forward with new TLDs. We
have expressed our concerns about these "voluntary"
commitments in the past, and we need to discuss with
our members who were on that group, to find out what
was going on there, and to what extent policy is
being written through these commitments in a de
facto manner<br>
</li>
<li>this is a rather small point, but I dislike using
the term "task force"....it seems to imply action on
our part, a commitment to achieve a task. We don't
actually run the DNS, register names, or deal with
access requests, and we need to keep that in mind.
As NCSG, we participate in policy development....so
I would suggest we call this the NCSG Abuse policy
discussion forum.</li>
</ul>
<p>I am looking forward to the next meeting!</p>
<p>Cheers Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div>On 2021-02-04 12:24 p.m., Bruna Martins dos Santos
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-size:10pt;font-family:sans-serif;color:white;font-style:normal;font-weight:bold;padding:0.2em"><b><span style="color:rgb(199,80,0)">EXTERNAL EMAIL:</span></b></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Dear All,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you so much for joining this initial
call. I am just sharing with you our action
points and a few documents: <br>
<br>
1. Action points </div>
<div>- Confirm call with the CPH Working Group on
DNS abuse - tentatively next thursday, at 15h00
utc </div>
<div>- Map other positions and working definitions
of DNS abuse across the ICANN community; and </div>
<div>- Start drafting a Position Paper: NCSGs DNS
abuse working definition, concerns and process; </div>
<div> -- <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CFa-qkgr6xAB5Lu-jkVTWGfR7-jjVPGSD-H8eNt212Y/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
Draft place-holder</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. Documents </div>
<div>- <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Decision+Radar?preview=/150178775/155190556/GNSO_Council_Program_ADR_20210121.pdf" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
Council Action Decision Radar</a> </div>
<div>- <a href="https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CPH-Definition-of-DNS-Abuse.pdf" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
CPH Definition of DNS Abuse </a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, </div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><b><i>Bruna Martins dos
Santos </i></b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Skype ID:
bruna.martinsantos<br>
</div>
<div>@boomartins<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>