[Ncsg-discuss] [ICANN87] Board's questions to NCSG

[Yao Amevi A. Sossou]

Hi Rafik,

I completely agree with Pedro's suggestion regarding the fellowship
initiative. Supporting this project and exploring options for its long-term
sustainability would be a valuable proposal to bring forward to the Board.

Best regards,

-----------------------------------------------------------------

*Yao Amevi A. Sossou*

Digital Transformation Advocate | Human-Centered Design | Computational
Social Science | AI Generalist | Internet Governance | Digital Policy
Advocate

--------------------------------------------------------------------

📧 soyames at gmail.com
<https://www.google.com/search?q=mailto%3Asoyames%40gmail.com> | 🌐
soyames.com 📅 *Book an Appointment
<https://calendar.app.google/6N1u81VEuCVKeYg37>*

*Connect:* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameviy/> | Twitter
<https://twitter.com/_amevY2> | Happenstance
<https://happenstance.ai/u/yao-sossou> | Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/ameviy/>

🌱 *Please consider the environment before printing this email.*



On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 5:29 PM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
00001ebb4caf3a2f-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> @Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, to be very concrete, the
> fellowship idea supported by PIR was exactly one of the projects intended
> to mitigate part of this problem. I think the experience has a lot of room
> for improvement (including the PC proactivity in using this resource more
> effectively), but the basic idea was interesting and worked. Asking about
> the possibilities of providing sustainability for this project, or working
> with NCSG to develop a better but similar initiative (maybe even sharing
> similar and successful initiatives of other parts of the community), may be
> useful.
>
> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
> Researcher
> PhD (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> ISOC Brazil <https://www.isoc.org.br/> Vice-President. NCUC
> <https://www.ncuc.org/> EC (ICANN). IODA Executive Secretary.
> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
> mistake, please reply informing it.
>
>
> Em qua., 30 de set. de 2026 às 11:27, Carlos Vera <
> 000022318a8e4197-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> escreveu:
>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>>
>> Recent events have again highlighted the interaction between national
>> sanctions and the operation of the global DNS. In at least one recent case,
>> a sanctions designation involving a gTLD registrant was followed by a
>> registry-level serverHold, with the consequence that the domain ceased
>> to resolve globally.
>>
>> ICANN’s Work Stream 2 addressed OFAC sanctions primarily in relation to
>> the impact of sanctions on ICANN’s own ability to enter into and support
>> transactions involving registries, registrars and other Internet resources.
>> Recommendation 4.1.4 specifically called on ICANN to study and pursue OFAC
>> general licenses to reduce such friction. It did not, however, specifically
>> address situations in which sanctions compliance by a Registry Operator or
>> Registry Service Provider results in the suspension of DNS resolution for
>> an existing registrant and potentially affects third-party users.
>>
>> Against that background, what role does the ICANN Board believe ICANN
>> should have when a Registry Operator or its Registry Service Provider
>> applies national sanctions or similar legal requirements in a way that
>> results in a registry-level suspension of DNS resolution?
>>
>> More specifically, should ICANN consider whether the existing framework
>> provides sufficient transparency regarding the legal basis, decision-making
>> authority, notice, review and redress mechanisms associated with such
>> actions, while recognizing that contracted parties must comply with
>> applicable law and that ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value operates within the
>> limits of ICANN’s Mission?
>>
>> Finally, what is the current status of Work Stream 2 Recommendation 4.1.4
>> on OFAC general licenses, which ICANN’s implementation page still lists as
>> “In progress” with a targeted completion date of Q2 2026, and does the
>> Board believe that the existing WS2 framework remains adequate for
>> situations of this kind?
>>
>>
>> Best Carlos
>>
>>
>> El sept 30, 2026, a la(s) 03:41, Rafik Dammak <
>> 00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> escribió:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As usual during the ICANN meeting,  we will have interaction with the
>> ICANN board during a joint meeting in ICANN87. The board sent us this
>> question below:
>>
>> *The NCSG has cited challenges with capacity for supporting policy
>> development and has expressed concerns about the amount of concurrent work.
>> What are the NCSG’s most significant challenges in monitoring and deciding
>> how to support  policy development work? How can the Board assist the NCSG
>> to plan and position itself better to ensure it is actively engaged on its
>> priority policy topics for the future? *
>>
>> The board is also asking us if we have any questions for them to be
>> addressed during the meeting and we should submit by 9th October.
>>
>> Please share your ideas and comments, and we will summarize/consolidate
>> them.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20261007/2d66cc4c/attachment-0001.htm>