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

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks Rafik.

as to Shiva's first question on accuracy, we believe accuracy is very
important for the registrant to avoid losing access to their domain name.
However, accuracy is about contactibility. But some stakeholders and
advisories come up with ideas such as KYC or other human rights violating
measures that could impact the domain name registrant access because they
didn't update their information or didn't show their ID. We don't want to
give the Board the impression that we are going with the rest of "accuracy"
cheering crowd, especially GAC, that believes accuracy of WHOIS data is the
key to mitigating DNS abuse.

As to the second question, I think it's great. Lets ask it in this general
way: How can we integrate transparency reporting into each PDP to align
with transparency standards in tech?

You can also start the session with criticizing the format they have these
sessions. What is the point of having these sessions when there are no
follow ups, when the board doesn't even discuss our concerns in their
respective committees? how can we make these sessions more useful? maybe
they say they discuss our concerns!

Farzaneh


On Fri, Oct 9, 2026 at 10:00 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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/ad84d644/attachment-0001.htm>