<div dir="ltr"><div><a class="gmail_plusreply" id="plusReplyChip-0" href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" tabindex="-1">@farzaneh badii</a> ,<br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><div>Did the webinar take place?</div><div><br></div><div>Can NCSG plan a discussion that can ensure we can flag the risks and trade offs to the GAC?</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial"><p><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0);font-size:13pt"><br>--</span></p></div><p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial">Best Regards,</p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:1.5">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="padding-right:15px;border-right:2px solid rgb(201,168,76);vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;width:70px">
<div style="font-family:Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;font-size:28px;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(26,58,92);letter-spacing:4px;line-height:1.2">EPK</div>
<div style="font-size:9px;color:rgb(26,58,92);letter-spacing:3px;margin-top:3px">KENYANITO</div>
</td>
<td style="padding-left:15px;vertical-align:top">
<div style="font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;margin-bottom:2px">Ephraim Percy Kenyanito</div>
<div style="font-size:11px;color:rgb(102,102,102);margin-bottom:5px">LL.M. (International Trade Law), LL.M. (TMT Law), MBA, PMP, MCIArb, CPM-MTI</div>
<div style="font-size:12.5px;margin-bottom:2px">International Lawyer · Arbitrator · Mediator</div>
<div style="font-size:11px;color:rgb(102,102,102);margin-bottom:2px">International Trade · Technology · Media · Telecommunications · ADR · Commercial Law</div>
<div style="font-size:11px;color:rgb(102,102,102);margin-bottom:6px">Publisher, <a href="https://ekenyanito.com/roundups/" style="color:rgb(26,58,92)" target="_blank"><em>African TMT Law Roundup</em></a> (monthly since Jan 2014 · 148+ editions)</div>
<div style="border-top:1px solid rgb(224,224,224);padding-top:6px;font-size:11px;color:rgb(136,136,136)">
<a href="mailto:hello@ekenyanito.com" style="color:rgb(26,58,92)" target="_blank">hello@ekenyanito.com</a>
|
<a href="https://ekenyanito.com" style="color:rgb(26,58,92)" target="_blank">ekenyanito.com</a>
|
<a href="https://linkedin.com/in/ekenyanito" style="color:rgb(26,58,92)" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 19 May 2026 at 08:23, farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu">00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu</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="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">All,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">In a typical letter to the GNSO council, the governments want accuracy of domain name registrants data. I don't know if you are following this issue, but accuracy of domain name registrants data has led to "identification" requirements for domain name registrants in the bastion of democracy the EU (in some jurisdictions). Accuracy for NCSG means contactibility of domain name registrants . We have more or less managed to keep the definition like that so far. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">In a typical GAC manner, the chair of GAC has sent an email to the GNSO council, saying that this Infermal research that was done (it doesn't matter how much research we do ...) suggested that accurate domains were 70% less abusive. That was a piece of research. GAC should never invoke it solely to back up its requests. But now the Chair is saying they want a) verification of domain name contact information before adding it to DNS b) they want this not through a PDP but through a contractual amendment! </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">In a world that's crumbling left and right I have the least of the expectations from GAC. But we should either write a letter or as your councilors we object to this request.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">I have been criticizing the infermal report through blogs and conversation with others. But it keeps giving! We have a factual concern with the claims in the report:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The infermal study finding (70% decrease in malicious registrations when validation occurs at account creation or before domain purchase) is presented as if it straightforwardly supports a pre-DNS-resolution hold for all registrations. Several questions the letter does not address: (1) What registration contexts did the INFERMAL study examine? Consumer/retail registration patterns are unlikely to reflect enterprise, NGO, government, or critical infrastructure registration behaviour. (2) A 70% reduction in malicious registrations says nothing about the burden imposed on the 100% of legitimate registrants who would face verification delays.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Best regards, </div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>