Important: Accuracy headways

[Yao Amevi A. Sossou]

Dear Farzaneh,

Thank you very much for providing this important update regarding the
Council working group on accuracy. I certainly agree with the point that we
must firmly push back against any implication that validating registrant
data necessitates the revelation of an individual's identity. The crucial
aspect is ensuring contactability, not necessarily knowing the specific
identity of the registrant.

Best regards,
.............................................................
Yao Amevi A. Sossou

UX/UI| IT Support | Project manager| Human centered Entrepreneurship| SDG
Advocate | Internet Governance | Youth IGF

Email: soyames at gmail.com

Twitter: *https://twitter.com/_amevY2 <https://twitter.com/_amevY2>*

LinkedIn: Yao Amevi A. sossou | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameviy/>

.............................................................

*We need your support for the West African Design Forum*:
https://www.westafricandesignforum.africa/

*Donate today: *https://buy.stripe.com/dR6aIl0ZZg3SfFm8wH

.............................................................

To promote respect for the environment, thank you to only print this email
only when necessary


On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 6:57 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> *Dear NCSG,*
>
> Sorry to send you so many important emails! As you may know, a small *GNSO
> Council working group on accuracy* has recently been launched.
>
> In our first meeting, we discussed a data point from the informal report
> which stated:
> *“Earlier validation of registrant data can lead to a possible 70%
> reduction in maliciousness.”*
>
> It’s important to recognize that registrants are already required to
> validate their data or risk domain suspension by their registrar. At the
> same time, we want to make clear that *accuracy should not be equated
> with identification*, and we should push back against any assumption that
> validation necessarily involves revealing the registrant’s identity.
>
> We discussed some potential approaches to improve validation while
> preserving *contactability*:
>
>    -
>
>    One idea was *standardizing validation timelines*, such as reducing
>    the 14-day window to 7 days. Personally, I feel a bit uneasy about
>    increasing pressure on registrants through shorter deadlines, so I believe
>    it’s important to explore *complementary measures*.
>    -
>
>    A stronger focus on *registrant education* could help. Rather than
>    relying on generic outreach like webinars, I think *clear, timely
>    forewarnings* and explanations of the reasons behind
>    validation—communicated directly through the registration process—may be
>    more effective and user-friendly.
>
> Let me know what you think—we’re keen to hear your ideas. Apologies for
> the short notice, but any feedback would be very welcome and helpful!
> Best regards,
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20250528/58f0fbf7/attachment.htm>