ICANN 84 brief

[farzaneh badii]

Hi all,

I am one of your reps on the GNSO council.
Here is my write up of ICANN 84 which includes some of the council work (I
work on DNS abuse, RDRS, Accuracy and generally trying to keep the
integrity of the multistakeholder  process):

*NCSG Brief: Updates from ICANN 84* *1. DNS Abuse Policy Development
Process (PDP)*

At ICANN 84, NCSG published a *position paper on DNS Abuse
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1464RRMshB152tzLmzst53Y3OIM0ioNcl12p1woIDPe0/edit?tab=t.0>*,
articulating the principles that should guide any future PDP in this area.
Our paper emphasizes the need for clear definitions, proportional
responses, and respect for human rights—particularly due process,
transparency, and accountability when addressing abuse at the DNS layer.
The paper was shared widely and is now informing discussions in the GNSO
Council as it prepares for a formal PDP initiation. We also joined the GNSO
DNS abuse consultation and emphasized the importance of not rushing to
solutions that have an  impact on domain name registrant  and Internet end
user access and human rights.
*2. Domain Name Accuracy and Identification of Registrants Session*

NCSG hosted a well-attended session on domain name registrant
identification and data accuracy, which generated significant engagement
across stakeholder groups. During this session, we walked participants
through our detailed position paper outlining why accuracy efforts must not
equate to forced identification, and why “accuracy” must be balanced
against privacy and data protection obligations. Accuracy at ICANN means
contacibility.
*access our paper:*
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tj11vtNTBPKaZ1gAJmN4CVfJiFWUldA-/view
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tj11vtNTBPKaZ1gAJmN4CVfJiFWUldA-/view>

watch the session:
https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QOe/gnso-accuracy-can-we-have-anonymity-and-a-secure-internet
*3. Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) and Dialogue with the GAC*

Our sustained work conducting Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIAs) on
GAC Communiqués has led to meaningful engagement with governments. During
ICANN 84, we achieved a major milestone: a *one-hour joint session with the
GAC*, covering our HRIA findings, our position on DNS Abuse, and our
analysis of the “Review of Reviews.”
*Read the HRIAs:* Human Rights Impact Assessments (HRIA)
<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsononcomstake/pages/495550503/Human+Rights+Impact+Assessment+HRIA>
*Watch the GAC–NCSG joint session:* ICANN 84 GAC–NCSG Meeting
<https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QMW/joint-meeting-gac-and-ncsg>
*4. HRIA on RDRS (Registration Data Request Service)*

We also held a session titled “DNS Security Without Sacrificing Rights:
HRIA on RDRS,” focusing on the human rights implications of the triage
system used to process disclosure requests for private registrant data. The
discussion highlighted risks of data misuse and proposed stronger
safeguards for due process and transparency. It was overall a good attempt
but we should work on doing an HRIA of RDRS and make the session more
focused.
*Session recording:* RDRS HRIA Session – ICANN 84
<https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QGf/gnso-dns-security-without-sacrificing-rights-hria-on-rdrs>
*5. Key Ongoing Issues at the GNSO Council*

Several important items remain under discussion:

   -

   IGO/INGO Protections: NCSG maintains that no new policy should be
   created by the IRT, staff, or Board. The existing framework already
   provides sufficient protection mechanisms for IGOs and INGOs.
   -

   Next Steps for RDRS: The ICANN Board has requested a gap analysis and is
   considering adding privacy/proxy requests within RDRS, with a long-term
   goal of making it mandatory. NCSG’s position is clear: we support mandatory
   use only if registrant safeguards as recommended by EPDP are
   firmly integrated in RDRS. We also emphasize that the periodic reports on
   RDRS has to continue to be published as it brings more transparency.
   -

   Law Enforcement Authentication: The IRT on Law Enforcement
   Authentication has issued a call for public comment. NCSG can submit a
   response emphasizing that any authentication system for law enforcement
   must go through a formal policy development process, not be developed
   unilaterally by staff or via implementation shortcuts.
   -

   Priorities of the council: we emphasized "transfer dispute" as one of
   the priorities of the council



Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251109/621f2b39/attachment-0001.htm>