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

[Manju]

+1 to the statement. Thank you so much, Farzi!

Best,
Manju

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 18:12 Johan Helsingius <
00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250814/48688273/attachment.htm>