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

[Pedro de Perdigão Lana]

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/20260930/4980fc39/attachment-0001.htm>