[NCSG-PC] [ncsg-dns-abuse-wg] GNSO Council DNS abuse small team Questions

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Tomslin

Thanks for this. I think generally it's good but asking for a definition
might open doors to other problems.

Here is DNSAI response to the council small team letter:
https://dnsabuseinstitute.org/dnsai-response-gnso-small-team-dns-abuse/

Basically Graeme is suggesting micro narrowly focused pdps on issues
related to ICANN mandate. But I find it a curious suggestion. Does he mean
they should have PDPs on each kind of DNS abuse that are in ICANN's
registrar agreement?


Farzaneh


On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 7:35 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via ncsg-dns-abuse-wg <
ncsg-dns-abuse-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As you must have read from the update Wisdom shared a while back, some
> questions were asked during an outreach by the small team and though our
> community didn't provide any feedback to Wisdom's email, I think it will be
> a good idea for us to provide some sort of official response to those
> questions back to the small team.
> N.B: I went to observe the small teams meeting last week and realised that
> all other SGs have or are planning to provide responses to those questions.
>
> I have taken the liberty to draft
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hg468obYDwylFQ6q-3AX6m7UxZvNY1EXGpBFJ-WVd_0/edit?usp=sharing>
> a few responses, which I hope you all can make changes to it as well to
> better reflect our position on DNS abuse. The Google doc is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hg468obYDwylFQ6q-3AX6m7UxZvNY1EXGpBFJ-WVd_0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> The Questions again are:
>
> What specific problem(s) would policy development in particular be
> expected to address and why do you believe that policy development is the
> right mechanism to solve those problems?
>
> Proposed Response: The NCSG does not believe there are any problems
> discussed in the community that require policy development effort.
> Moreover, a common definition of DNS abuse which is in alignment with
> ICANN’s bylaws and technical remit first needs to be adopted by the
> community.
>
> What do you believe are the expected outcomes if policy development would
> be undertaken, taking into account the remit of ICANN and more specifically
> GNSO policy development in this context?
>
> Proposed Response: None, since we do not see any problem requiring policy
> development.
>
> Do you (or your community group) have any expectations with regards to
> possible next steps the GNSO Council could or should undertake in the
> context of policy development?
>
> Proposed Response: Our expectation of next steps is for a common
> community definition of DNS abuse which is in alignment with ICANN’s bylaws
> and technical remit.
>
> Tomslin
>
> _______________________________________________
> ncsg-dns-abuse-wg mailing list
> ncsg-dns-abuse-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-dns-abuse-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20220412/125755f0/attachment.htm>