[Ncsg-discuss] A few council issues for your consideration

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks Manju.

I have to say rushing it like this is worrisome. Not only are they
suggesting to prioritize a PDP on an issue we withdrew our support from,
they have also come up with the charters already (and usually the council
has to come up with a charter if I am not mistaken) This is why I am
thinking of deferring it or requesting amendments.
One problem is that this motion arrived in our inbox right on the day they
released the final issue report. The final issue report has not considered
many of the issues we raised and that makes it even more problematic
because that lack of consideration has bled into the charter (and both PDPs
have their charters ready!). The reliance of the issue report on sparse
research documents is very worrisome. We mentioned this both during the
small team at the council and in our comment. But they still did not look
any further than Netbeacon and Infermal report and this is dangerous. It
sets a terrible precedent. The UDRP report done by WIPO and ICA
which recommends a UDRP review and is truly not balanced is going to also
be used as a justification for a UDRP review scope in the future.
And the motion includes both charters so we have to approve both at the
same time so we can't make changes at a later time.

I have now looked at the Associated Domain Check draft charter and I have
so many comments but I cannot make them since this is a pdf. But from a
cursory review: there are no questions on how do we create appeals
mechanisms in case of mistakes, what are the transparency reporting
requirements (to the public not just to ICANN compliance), how do you
remedy mistaken mass domain takedown as a result of domain association
check?
There is certainly good language there but HRIA is not enough.

So I am thinking we have one of these two ways: 1) defer the vote. It's
gonna be Christmas holidays half the people are gone nothing is gonna
happen until our Jan Council meeting. Until then, either work on the
charters and give comments on the charters, plus try and say we want to
work on the API first because we don't want to rush the associated domain
check. 2) ask the leadership clarifying questions and tell them our
concerns and see if there are solutions. For example, we can say we don't
want to accept the charter and want the council to review both of them.
Another is to ask for a rationale why they chose associated domain check
and ask to change it to API.

Best regards,




Farzaneh


On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 5:22 AM Manju <manju4icann at gmail.com> wrote:

> On issue 2 re. DNS Abuse, sorry to add more work for our councilors, but
> maybe we can consider a statement while voting yes?
>
> I just browsed through the WG charter part of the Final Issue Report real
> quick. Seems like there won't be a scoping team for this PDP since the
> charter questions were already included (also you'll already be voting to
> approve the Charter in the motion). It says the WG will be representation +
> open model, but didn't specify the representation per SO/AC/SG/Cs. Maybe
> ask staff to clarify that before voting.
>
> Best,
> Manju
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 5:57 PM Johan Helsingius <
> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 02/12/2025 10:44 am, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding point one, I also agree w/ the suggested approach.
>>
>> Likewise.
>>
>> > I'm fully aware that our priority was the API access, and that NCSGs
>> > position was not necessarily "approach it at the appropriate time". I
>> > was then wondering if we should oppose this motion - based on the lack
>> > of proper council discussions directed towards prioritization and -
>> > given the short timeline - suggest that we have an
>> extraordinary council
>> > meeting to address this issue ?
>>
>> I am sure I am not the only one taken aback by the speed at which they
>> are pushing this through. This is where on-line meetings fail - it
>> would be really useful to have some corridor discussions with the
>> key people.
>>
>>         Julf
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251203/462b8ada/attachment.htm>