Tomorrow's GNSO council meeting, DNS Abuse Small Team recommendations approval

[Johan Helsingius]

I fully support this.

	Julf


On 14/08/2025 01:18, farzaneh badii wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As we mentioned during the PC meeting, we are planning to vote on 
> approving the small team recommendations on DNS abuse. There were three 
> recommendations that were prioritized, two of which seem to be 
> interesting to investigate. But we (as discussed on this mailing list) 
> had grave concerns about the associated domain check. Here is the small 
> team report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/ 
> draft/dns-abuse-small-team-report-04aug25-en.pdf <https:// 
> gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/dns-abuse-small- 
> team-report-04aug25-en.pdf>
>   So tomorrow I will vote for adoption of small team's DNS abuse 
> recommendation but I am planning to read this statement:
> 
> "NCSG approves the DNS Abuse Small Team Report. However, we wish to 
> formally record our concern regarding the inclusion of /associated 
> domain checks/ as a potential DNS abuse mitigation measure.
> 
> While we support effective and proportionate approaches to combating DNS 
> abuse, we have consistently emphasized the need for due process at both 
> the registration, detection and enforcement stages. Associated domain 
> checks risk enabling overly broad or arbitrary enforcement—particularly 
> if implemented without robust safeguards to ensure registrants are 
> informed, have a meaningful opportunity to respond, and are protected 
> from collateral harm.
> 
> Such measures could lead to disproportionate take-down and suspensions 
> and the targeting of legitimate registrants through bulk association- 
> based criteria, undermining fairness, transparency, and accountability. 
> We are also disappointed that due process and access to remedy have not 
> been prioritized by other stakeholders in this work. Domain name 
> registrants are not inherently criminals, and DNS abuse mitigation 
> measures should reflect that presumption.
> 
> We therefore cannot support the inclusion of associated domain checks 
> unless and until clear, transparent, and consistently applied due 
> process mechanisms are in place."
> 
> 
> 
> Farzaneh