<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">Hi Julf,</span></div><p>Thanks for flagging this. As an individual member of the NCUC, I completely share your concerns. Specifically inserting the term "DNS Abuse" into the GNSO Continuous Improvement Program framework is a major red flag that we definitely need to push back against during the upcoming call on Wednesday, 1 July 2026.</p><p>From our constituency’s perspective, <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">my understanding is that </span>there are two distinct "cans of worms" this proposal opens up:</p><ul><li><p><b>Mission Creep and Content Regulation:</b> Broadening the text to explicitly name "DNS Abuse" risks shifting the GNSO's focus from core technical layer infrastructure toward content regulation. <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">What I understood is that t</span>he <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"></span>NCUC has a long-standing commitment to fiercely protecting freedom of expression and digital rights. If the indicators explicitly target "DNS Abuse" rather than strictly defined security threats, it invites outside pressure on the GNSO to police website content<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">, </span>a precedent that directly undermines our core mission and human rights principles.</p></li><li><p><b>Disproportionality and Human Rights Impacts:</b> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"></span>I<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"> also understood that
<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">NCUC </span></span>has consistently advocated that any policy intervention addressing domain security must be narrow, proportionate, and strictly scoped. Tying the evaluation of the GNSO's performance to broad and subjective perceptions of "DNS Abuse" (especially via a survey indicator) creates an incentive to pass sweeping, reactive policies. This places innocent registrants at risk of collective or automated domain suspensions without adequate due process or Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs).</p></li></ul><p>The original text<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">, </span>focusing strictly on "mitigating domain name security threats," keeps the evaluation grounded within the GNSO's technical and contractual scope. The proposed revision unnecessarily complicates it and opens the door to over-policing at the registry/registrar level.</p><p>I fully support our leadership taking a strong stance against this text on Wednesday. Please let me know if you need any assistance with drafting a formal statement or if there are specific points you want supported during the call.</p><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px 0px 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;border-collapse:collapse"><font size="2" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-weight:800"></span></font></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"></p><div><div><font size="2" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Warm Regards,</font></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><table style="color:rgb(25,28,43);font-family:Mulish,sans-serif;font-size:16px;direction:ltr;border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr><td><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;font-family:Arial;line-height:1.15;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="padding:0.01px 0.01px 0.01px 0px;vertical-align:top"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr><td style="line-height:1.2;padding:0.01px 0.01px 12px"><span style="font-family:Arial;text-transform:initial;font-weight:bold"><span style="color:rgb(100,100,100);font-size:15.6px">Abbas Sibai</span></span><br><span style="font-size:13.2px;letter-spacing:0px;font-family:Arial;text-transform:initial;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(100,100,100)">Policy & Advocacy Specialist</span></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:0.01px;line-height:0"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0.01px"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr><td style="line-height:0px;padding:0.01px 0.01px 6px"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;line-height:14px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Arial;padding:0.01px"><a href="tel:+9613824725" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);text-decoration:unset" target="_blank"><span style="line-height:1.2;color:rgb(33,33,33);white-space:nowrap">+9613824725</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td style="line-height:0px;padding:0.01px 0.01px 6px"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse;line-height:14px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0px 6px"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:rgb(33,33,33);vertical-align:2px">|</span></td><td style="font-family:Arial;padding:0.01px"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/abbas-sibai/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);text-decoration:unset" target="_blank"><span style="line-height:1.2;color:rgb(33,33,33);white-space:nowrap">https://www.linkedin.com/in/abbas-sibai/</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:16px;font-family:Arial;line-height:1.25;padding-bottom:10px"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;padding-right:20px"></td><td valign="top"><br></td></tr></tbody></table></div><p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 12:28 PM Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request@listserv.syr.edu">00001963cc94b85a-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">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I am the NCSG representative to the Standing Committee on Continuous<br>
Improvement (SCCI) that is formulating the Continuous Improvement<br>
Program framework. The SCCI is chaired by Manju, another NCSG:er, but<br>
as chair she has to remain neutral.<br>
<br>
The work until now has been developing the Criteria and Indicators<br>
that will be used to judge how well the GNSO processes are working.<br>
<br>
We have made good progress under the very capable leadership of Manju,<br>
and most issues haven't been very controversial, but I want to flag<br>
the current issue where we probably want to speak up against the current<br>
proposal.<br>
<br>
The issue is Criteria 4, "The GNSO actively combats domain name<br>
security threats", where there is a proposal to change the draft<br>
text from:<br>
<br>
Indicator 1: The GNSO has demonstrated meaningful activity towards<br>
mitigating domain name security threats.<br>
<br>
Indicator 2: 66% of surveyed respondents agree that the GNSO<br>
combats domain name security threats.<br>
<br>
to:<br>
<br>
Indicator 1: The GNSO has demonstrated meaningful activity towards<br>
mitigating DNS Abuse and security threats relating to<br>
domain names that are in scope for the GNSO.<br>
<br>
<br>
Indicator 2: 66% of surveyed respondents agree that the GNSO has<br>
demonstrated meaningful activity towards mitigating<br>
DNS Abuse and security threats relating to domain<br>
names that are in scope for the GNSO.<br>
<br>
While we probably are OK with mitigating domain name security threats,<br>
specifically mentioning DNS Abuse opens up some cans of worms.<br>
<br>
We will have a chance to present our views at the next SCCI call on<br>
Wednesday, 1 July 2026, so I welcome your comments/opinions.<br>
<br>
Julf<br>
</blockquote></div>