<div dir="auto"><div><div>Also support thr letter, and Ken's suggestion of reiterating NCSG proactivess in this issue.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cordially,</div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2"><b>Pedro de Perdigão Lana</b><br></font></span><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2"><a href="https://www.nic.br/" target="_blank">Advogado - OAB/PR 90.600</a>, </font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="2">Pesquisador (<a href="https://www.gedai.com.br/" target="_blank">GEDAI/UFPR</a>)</font></span></font></span></font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">Doutorando em Direito (UFPR), Mestre em Direito Empresarial (UCoimbra), </font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">Coordenação/Diretoria/EC @ <a href="https://www.isoc.org.br/" target="_blank">ISOC Brasil</a>,</font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="1"><font size="2"> </font></font><font size="2"><a href="https://www.ncuc.org/" target="_blank">NCUC</a> & <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home" target="_blank">NCSG </a>(ICANN), </font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="1"><font size="2"><a href="https://br.creativecommons.net/" target="_blank">CC Brasil</a></font></font></span><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font size="2">.</font></span></div><div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"></span></div><span style="font-family:garamond,times new roman,serif"><font size="1">Essa mensagem é restrita ao remetente e destinatário(s). Se recebida por engano, favor responder informando o erro.</font></span></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Em seg., 24 de nov. de 2025, 12:36, Glenn Ricart <<a href="mailto:00001c88309eff14-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu">00001c88309eff14-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu</a>> escreveu:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Letter looks good to me. Glenn</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 8:22 AM carlos dionisio aguirre <<a href="mailto:carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com</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 dir="auto"><div>Fully agree with your letter Farzaneh. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.<br><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">El 24 nov 2025 06:34, Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>> escribió:<br type="attribution"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">I support the letter - thank you, Farzaneh!
<br>
<br>
Julf
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 24/11/2025 2:03 am, farzaneh badii wrote:
<br>
> Hi all,
<br>
>
<br>
> I have drafted the letter about the Board resolution: https://
<br>
> <a href="http://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHj3zPZtjNQrgEWJsx70F4e2K6kskYNaUbmmclzhnuM/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">docs.google.com/document/d/1oHj3zPZtjNQrgEWJsx70F4e2K6kskYNaUbmmclzhnuM/</a>
<br>
> edit?usp=sharing <<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://bra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C00f43c223515426a2a1808de2b3d02c9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638995738236038713%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xi4MPBf%2B4oyJnBLJHOsyD3bIF55MUjVumKbfwczpYVc%3D&reserved=0</a>
<br>
> d/1oHj3zPZtjNQrgEWJsx70F4e2K6kskYNaUbmmclzhnuM/edit?usp=sharing>
<br>
>
<br>
> Please comment.
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> Farzaneh
<br>
>
<br>
>
<br>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 12:03 PM farzaneh badii
<br>
> <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:
<br>
>
<br>
> Dear all,
<br>
>
<br>
> I want to provide an update on where things currently stand
<br>
> regarding law-enforcement (LEA) authentication, the work of the
<br>
> practitioner group, and the implications of the ICANN Board’s
<br>
> October 2025 resolution.
<br>
>
<br>
> Given recent developments, I believe NCSG should consider a
<br>
> coordinated response. Several months ago, when PSWG(public Safety
<br>
> Working Group) Gabriel briefed us on their intention to work with
<br>
> ICANN Org to validate LEA domain names, NCSG agreed that LEA could
<br>
> submit domain namesof Law Enforcement Agencies to the RDRS, but only
<br>
> if specific safeguards and conditions were met.
<br>
>
<br>
> We conveyed these conditions clearly at the time, yet we have not
<br>
> received any indication that these concerns are being incorporated
<br>
> intoPSWG's planning. To remind everyone of what NCSG agreed to:1) a
<br>
> verified LEA domain can serve only as a supplementary signal and not
<br>
> as a standalone authentication mechanism. 2) Disclosure decisions
<br>
> must still be grounded in rights-balancing, necessity, and a clear
<br>
> legal basis. 3) We stressed that domain validation does not prove
<br>
> identity; spoofing remains a serious risk, and both registrars and
<br>
> ICANN must be equipped to handle that. 4) We also emphasized that
<br>
> any “verified LEA domain list” must include renewal, periodic
<br>
> review, and removal processes to prevent stale or misused entries—
<br>
> especially for agencies that operate multiple domains. In addition,
<br>
> we were explicit that domain-based checks can only be a temporary
<br>
> measure while a more robust, accountable authentication system is
<br>
> being developed.5) We recommended a six-month review period to
<br>
> evaluate registrar confidence, safeguard effectiveness, and progress
<br>
> toward a long-term solution.
<br>
>
<br>
> Importantly, we made clear that any authentication mechanism must
<br>
> incorporate safeguards, transparency, oversight, and avenues for
<br>
> redress for registrants whose data may be accessed.
<br>
>
<br>
> The Board’s October 2025 resolution intersects <https://
<br>
> <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://bra01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fen%2Fboard-activities-and-meetings%2Fmaterials%2Fapproved-&data=05%7C02%7C%7C00f43c223515426a2a1808de2b3d02c9%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638995738236059001%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dRGSjdUcFHBVxozUB8Ne4gcPA22scO7%2BbIc7kWXart4%3D&reserved=0</a>
<br>
> resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-30-10-2025-en> with
<br>
> this work by encouraging expanded LEA authentication efforts and
<br>
> urging alignment of SSAD-related policies with disclosure
<br>
> mechanisms. However, the Board’s rationale focuses almost
<br>
> exclusively on RDRS continuity, registrar/requestor satisfaction,
<br>
> voluntary participation, and ICANN’s operational resources. What is
<br>
> missing is any acknowledgment of the safeguards, accountability
<br>
> requirements, or user-impact considerations that NCSG has raised
<br>
> repeatedly in meetings, letters, and contributions to the RDRS
<br>
> Standing Committee report. Registrants and end users—who are
<br>
> directly affected—are absent from the Board’s “community impact”
<br>
> framing.
<br>
>
<br>
> Given this gap between what NCSG has consistently recommended and
<br>
> what the Board has recognized, I suggest that NCSG take two steps.
<br>
>
<br>
> First, send a short letter to the ICANN Board reaffirming that we
<br>
> support LEA authentication only if safeguards, transparency,
<br>
> oversight, and renewal mechanisms are integral to the system, and
<br>
> noting that the resolution omits the impact on registrants and end
<br>
> users.
<br>
>
<br>
> Second, develop a concise Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of
<br>
> the Board resolution and the related RDRS/SSAD work, mapping risks
<br>
> to privacy, due process, non-discrimination, and access to remedy,
<br>
> particularly around cross-border LEA requests.
<br>
>
<br>
> I can prepare a first draft of the Board letter and a short HRIA
<br>
> scoping note for review.
<br>
>
<br>
> Best regards,
<br>
>
<br>
> Farzaneh
<br>
>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>