Important: Accuracy headways

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks all. Please keep the feedback coming this is not a consensus advice
but I will relay it to the accuracy team (since there is nothing
controversial about it that needs a conversation) but we need to keep the
convo going.
What i will send to the team:

Some members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) wish to
emphasize the following points in the context of the Council Working Group
on Accuracy:


We appreciate the update on the group’s progress and the discussion around
improving data validation practices. We would like to reaffirm a key
principle that has emerged in our discussions: accuracy should not be
conflated with identification. The core objective is to ensure
contactability of the registrant, not necessarily to uncover or verify
their specific identity.


During the initial meeting, a data point from the infermal report was cited:


“Earlier validation of registrant data can lead to a possible 70% reduction
in maliciousness.”

While this is worth examining further, it’s important to note that
registrants are already obligated to validate their data or risk suspension
by registrars. Therefore, any new measures must avoid imposing additional
burdens or assuming that earlier validation should mean more intrusive
identity checks.


Some members expressed caution about proposals like reducing the validation
window from 14 days to 7. While such pressure may at times be necessary to
deter abuse, it must be paired with effective support mechanisms that make
it easy for registrants to comply and avoid unintended loss of their
domain. This includes clear instructions, timely reminders, and accessible
tools for validation.


A priority for many in the NCSG is registrant education. Instead of relying
solely on generic outreach methods such as webinars, we believe that
embedding clear, timely messages during the registration process—such as
FAQs, in-line explanations, and proactive forewarnings—would be far more
effective and user-friendly.

Some members also support starting with a survey or questionnaire to better
understand registrant needs and experiences.


Volunteers from NCSG are happy to contribute to any efforts focused on
improving registrant education and awareness around data validation
requirements.


Farzaneh


On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 2:22 PM Yao Amevi A. Sossou <soyames at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/e6afd379/attachment.htm>