[Ncsg-discuss] GAC Again ... Accuracy Again

[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]

@farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> ,

Did the webinar take place?

Can NCSG plan a discussion that can ensure we can flag the risks and trade
offs to the GAC?


--

Best Regards,
EPK
KENYANITO
Ephraim Percy Kenyanito
LL.M. (International Trade Law), LL.M. (TMT Law), MBA, PMP, MCIArb, CPM-MTI
International Lawyer · Arbitrator · Mediator
International Trade · Technology · Media · Telecommunications · ADR ·
Commercial Law
Publisher, *African TMT Law Roundup* <https://ekenyanito.com/roundups/>
(monthly since Jan 2014 · 148+ editions)
hello at ekenyanito.com  |  ekenyanito.com  |  LinkedIn
<https://linkedin.com/in/ekenyanito>


On Tue, 19 May 2026 at 08:23, farzaneh badii <
00001deb507b73c5-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> All,
>
> In a typical letter to the GNSO council, the governments want accuracy of
> domain name registrants data. I don't know if you are following this issue,
> but accuracy of domain name registrants data has led to "identification"
> requirements for domain name registrants in the bastion of democracy the EU
> (in some jurisdictions). Accuracy for NCSG means contactibility of domain
> name registrants . We have more or less managed to keep the definition like
> that so far.
>
> In a typical GAC manner, the chair of GAC has sent an email to the GNSO
> council, saying that this Infermal research that was done (it doesn't
> matter how much research we do ...) suggested that accurate domains were
> 70% less abusive. That was a piece of research. GAC should never invoke it
> solely to back up its requests. But now the Chair is saying they want a)
> verification of domain name contact information before adding it to DNS b)
> they want this not through a PDP but through a contractual amendment!
>
> In a world that's crumbling left and right I have the least of the
> expectations from GAC. But we should either write a letter or as your
> councilors we object to this request.
>
> I have been criticizing the infermal report through blogs and conversation
> with others. But it keeps giving! We have a factual concern with the claims
> in the report:
>
> The infermal study finding (70% decrease in malicious registrations when
> validation occurs at account creation or before domain purchase) is
> presented as if it straightforwardly supports a pre-DNS-resolution hold for
> all registrations. Several questions the letter does not address: (1) What
> registration contexts did the INFERMAL study examine? Consumer/retail
> registration patterns are unlikely to reflect enterprise, NGO, government,
> or critical infrastructure registration behaviour. (2)  A 70% reduction in
> malicious registrations says nothing about the burden imposed on the 100%
> of legitimate registrants who would face verification delays.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260522/47044488/attachment-0001.htm>