[NCSG-PC] Council Small Team on DNS Abuse Recommendations

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Tomslin

I agree on the first part that malicious registration definition has to be
strictly technical.

On the second recommendation, I think we should go against convening such a
pdp. As you mention  this is going to end up with registration monitoring
and blocking which .EU and others have done and I disagree that it is an
optimal solution. An appeals mechanism is not a sufficient response. So Id
go against the pdp altogether.


On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 4:14 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi team,
>
> [I have limited the audience to only the DNS abuse task force and PC]
>
> I would like to know your thoughts on the Council small team
> recommendations (attached), particularly on the following areas:
>
>    - *The idea of GNSO focusing only on malicious registrations as an
>    attempt to stay within ICANN's remit?*
>
> *My comment: While I think it is a good idea to focus only on malicious
> registrations, we'll have to make sure that the definition of malicious
> registrations included in the issue report is only limited to bots, spam,
> phishing, pharming and malware.*
>
>    - *A tightly scoped PDP to explore whether it is possible to identify
>    indicators of malicious registrations that would trigger actions from
>    Contracted Parties either at the time of registration or shortly after.*
>
> *My comment: I fear this might make proactive monitoring more acceptable.
> If this were to proceed, we'd have to make sure that strong appeal
> mechanisms are included in the process.*
>
> Would love to hear your thoughts.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
> @LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomslin/
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20221016/794c7518/attachment.htm>