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

[Shiva Upadhyay]

Dear Rafik and colleagues,

Ahead of today’s deadline, please consider the following two proposed questions for the NCSG-Board meeting at ICANN87, with brief rationales.

While PDP1 on Associated Domain Checks and PDP2 on safeguards for access to high-volume registration tools have been prioritised, other important gaps identified in the Final Issue Report could face delays due to resource constraints. These questions seek the Board’s views on how alternative mechanisms could advance work on those gaps without requiring a full-fledged PDP.

1. Timely verification of registration data and protection of victims

Question: What mechanisms, other than a full-fledged PDP, could be used to address the contact-verification gaps identified in the Final Issue Report, particularly reducing the 15-day window and ensuring validation and verification before domain activation? 

Rationale: The report identifies proactive and timely contact-verification gaps under Preventative Measures-P2 and P3 and also one one of the recommendation of Accuracy scoping team. Accurate, up-to-date contact details can help registrars promptly reach legitimate holders of compromised domains, support targeted remediation and facilitate lawful action against deliberate abusers. This can protect victims’ privacy, dignity and safety, including where phishing or malware enables image-based abuse involving non-consensual morphed images or extortion. It can also help avoid unnecessary suspension of legitimate websites and email services.

Given the potential delays in further policy work, it would be useful to identify which alternative mechanisms could deliver earlier improvements. Any approach should minimise data collection, provide accessible verification, correction and review mechanisms, and support ongoing accuracy maintenance within ICANN’s remit.

2. Mandatory aggregate reporting of abuse complaints and outcomes

Question: How could the reporting and transparency gaps identified in the Final Issue Report be addressed through mechanisms other than a full-fledged PDP, including establishing mandatory, standardized aggregate reporting to ICANN Contractual Compliance? Such reporting could cover statistics such as complaints received, domains involved, including compromised domains, actions taken, confirmed false positives, complaints closed for insufficient evidence and demonstrably fabricated complaints, without personal data or domain-level identifiers.

Rationale: This proposal principally addresses Contractual Obligations-C1: limited transparency in mitigation actions, while supporting compliance oversight and the report’s Data and Transparency objectives. Exploring alternative mechanisms could help advance this work alongside the two prioritised PDPs.

Consistent reporting would help ICANN Compliance identify patterns warranting examination and prioritise audits or outreach. It would help registrars and registries improve complaint handling, and enable community stakeholders to assess effectiveness and prioritise further action. For example, high numbers of complaints closed for insufficient evidence could indicate a need for clearer reporting guidance; false positives could indicate weaknesses in review safeguards; and compromised-domain figures could inform better notification and remediation arrangements.

Public aggregate summaries would also provide NCSG and the wider community with a shared evidence base, reducing the burden of independently gathering data. Reporting should use common definitions, distinguish complaints from unique domains and protect against identification through small statistical groups. Insufficient evidence should not automatically be classified as a fabricated complaint, nor should complaint volume alone establish non-compliance.

I would welcome colleagues’ views and any refinements needed for consolidation.


Thanks & Regards,Shiva Upadhyay



    On Friday, 9 October 2026 at 05:33:27 am IST, Rafik Dammak <00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:  
 
 Hi all,
reminder that today is the deadline to send the questions to board. It would be helpful to share what to agree with or not as we need to consolidate them in a clear set of questions/topics.
Best,
Rafik

Le mer. 7 oct. 2026 à 13:13, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :

hi all,
a reminder that we should submit the questions by 9th October. Please share your input.
Best,
Rafik

Le ven. 2 oct. 2026 à 23:50, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :

Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. We have one week to finalize our questions and submit them.
Best,
Rafik

On Thu, Oct 1, 2026, 06:27 Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon at icann.org> wrote:

Hello all, 
A small update was sent for the question from the Board.
The NCSG has cited challenges with capacity for supporting policy development in addition to the other community work such as reviews and has expressed concerns about the amount of concurrent work. What are the NCSG’s most significant challenges in monitoring and deciding which work to prioritize and focus resources? 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? 
Thanks!Andrea GlandonPolicy Operations SpecialistInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 at 03:42
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: [Ext] [ICANN87] Board's questions to NCSG


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/20261009/ac815c8c/attachment-0001.htm>