[Ncsg-discuss] Important Law Enforcement Agencies, Authentication, Accountability and Safeguards

[Glenn Ricart]

Letter looks good to me.  Glenn


On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 8:22 AM carlos dionisio aguirre <
carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Fully agree with your letter Farzaneh.
>
>  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.
>
> El 24 nov 2025 06:34, Johan Helsingius <
> 00001963cc94b85a-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> escribió:
>
> I support the letter - thank you, Farzaneh!
>
> Julf
>
>
> On 24/11/2025 2:03 am, farzaneh badii wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have drafted the letter about the Board resolution: https://
> > docs.google.com/document/d/1oHj3zPZtjNQrgEWJsx70F4e2K6kskYNaUbmmclzhnuM/
> > edit?usp=sharing <
> https://docs.google.com/document/
> > d/1oHj3zPZtjNQrgEWJsx70F4e2K6kskYNaUbmmclzhnuM/edit?usp=sharing>
> >
> > Please comment.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Farzaneh
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 12:03 PM farzaneh badii
> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear all,
> >
> >     I want to provide an update on where things currently stand
> >     regarding law-enforcement (LEA) authentication, the work of the
> >     practitioner group, and the implications of the ICANN Board’s
> >     October 2025 resolution.
> >
> >     Given recent developments, I believe NCSG should consider a
> >     coordinated response. Several months ago, when PSWG(public Safety
> >     Working Group) Gabriel briefed us on their intention to work with
> >     ICANN Org to validate LEA domain names, NCSG agreed that LEA could
> >     submit domain namesof Law Enforcement Agencies to the RDRS, but only
> >     if specific safeguards and conditions were met.
> >
> >     We conveyed these conditions clearly at the time, yet we have not
> >     received any indication that these concerns are being incorporated
> >     intoPSWG's planning. To remind everyone of what NCSG agreed to:1) a
> >     verified LEA domain can serve only as a supplementary signal and not
> >     as a standalone authentication mechanism. 2) Disclosure decisions
> >     must still be grounded in rights-balancing, necessity, and a clear
> >     legal basis. 3) We stressed that domain validation does not prove
> >     identity; spoofing remains a serious risk, and both registrars and
> >     ICANN must be equipped to handle that. 4) We also emphasized that
> >     any “verified LEA domain list” must include renewal, periodic
> >     review, and removal processes to prevent stale or misused entries—
> >     especially for agencies that operate multiple domains. In addition,
> >     we were explicit that domain-based checks can only be a temporary
> >     measure while a more robust, accountable authentication system is
> >     being developed.5) We recommended a six-month review period to
> >     evaluate registrar confidence, safeguard effectiveness, and progress
> >     toward a long-term solution.
> >
> >     Importantly, we made clear that any authentication mechanism must
> >     incorporate safeguards, transparency, oversight, and avenues for
> >     redress for registrants whose data may be accessed.
> >
> >     The Board’s October 2025 resolution intersects <https://
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-
> >     resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-30-10-2025-en> with
> >     this work by encouraging expanded LEA authentication efforts and
> >     urging alignment of SSAD-related policies with disclosure
> >     mechanisms. However, the Board’s rationale focuses almost
> >     exclusively on RDRS continuity, registrar/requestor satisfaction,
> >     voluntary participation, and ICANN’s operational resources. What is
> >     missing is any acknowledgment of the safeguards, accountability
> >     requirements, or user-impact considerations that NCSG has raised
> >     repeatedly in meetings, letters, and contributions to the RDRS
> >     Standing Committee report. Registrants and end users—who are
> >     directly affected—are absent from the Board’s “community impact”
> >     framing.
> >
> >     Given this gap between what NCSG has consistently recommended and
> >     what the Board has recognized, I suggest that NCSG take two steps.
> >
> >     First, send a short letter to the ICANN Board reaffirming that we
> >     support LEA authentication only if safeguards, transparency,
> >     oversight, and renewal mechanisms are integral to the system, and
> >     noting that the resolution omits the impact on registrants and end
> >     users.
> >
> >     Second, develop a concise Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) of
> >     the Board resolution and the related RDRS/SSAD work, mapping risks
> >     to privacy, due process, non-discrimination, and access to remedy,
> >     particularly around cross-border LEA requests.
> >
> >     I can prepare a first draft of the Board letter and a short HRIA
> >     scoping note for review.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >
> >     Farzaneh
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20251124/1c1777ad/attachment.htm>