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

[Rafik Dammak]

Thanks Farzaneh for the framing.
I will also add your question, trying to phrase it "NCSG would like to
request a conversation regarding remedy for domain name registrant in the
context of DNS abuse". putting this as a placeholder.

Rafik




Le ven. 9 oct. 2026 à 22:05, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> Hi Rafik
>
> I would frame the sanctions related q like this:
> The issue of sanctions has been hampering people’s access to domain names
> around the world for many years. ICANN workstream on accountability advised
> ICANN to take some measures. That was 8 years ago. That study result which
> doesn’t look like it has been published appears in the operational tracking
> and seems like it mentions that because of legal impossibility of obtaining
> a general license, ICANN won’t pursue it. Could you please tell us about
> this study, when it’s going to be published and what the next steps are for
> ICANN to undertake its role indiscriminately as a global coordinator of
> DNS? We expected the study to start in consultation with the community.
>
>
>
>
> And can we tell the board we want to have a convo about remedy for domain
> name registrant? I don’t know why they keep wanting us to question them
> lets have a convo!!!
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 7:03 AM Rafik Dammak <
> 00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> hi all,
>>
>> trying to summarize quickly the proposals we have till now, editing is
>> welcome:
>> - Pedro and Kathy shared suggestions to respond to board question to
>> NCSG: sustainability of NCSG fellowship or similar initiative and
>> requesting independent data and research studies, we can develop more as we
>> will answer them during the meeting.
>> - for questions  we are proposing (with some editing for concision)
>>
>> * Regarding sanctions:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>> 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?
>> 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?
>>
>> * Regarding DNS abuse
>>
>> 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.
>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> regarding the last questions/topics, I would like those in the working
>> group to chime in and share their thoughts
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le ven. 9 oct. 2026 à 17:16, Shiva Upadhyay <shiva.upadhyay at yahoo.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> 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 Glandon*
>>> Policy Operations Specialist
>>> Internet 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/f29ab1d2/attachment-0001.htm>